"1:56 Panther F Turret released" Topic
8 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please don't make fun of others' membernames.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board Back to the Bolt Action Message Board
Areas of InterestNapoleonic
World War Two on the Land
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article These "puzzle tanks" are good quality for the cost.
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Profile Article The Editor heads for Vicksburg...
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
| deldietch | 10 Mar 2017 9:42 a.m. PST |
Now Available, our Panther F turret with an extra armor plate and IR sight.
www.companyb.biz |
| Merovee63 | 10 Mar 2017 9:43 a.m. PST |
Good evening,
We are writing a rule house and I ask myself some questions about supports.
By studying the napoleonic tactics, we notice that for the mixed order for example,the battalions in column of attack which is on sides allow of protect on-line battalion and to support him.In our rule as in many of the others, we give +1 no support for the battalions which are in side or back support until +3.
Did the battalions in support really bring a fire power or was it more a question of morale to feel steady?
Indeed, I wonder whether all the troops around the fight, in a reasonable distance, could bring a support? |
| dibble | 10 Mar 2017 4:23 p.m. PST |
It seems they brought a scmallturm on a lollypop stick to the affray. |
| Wargamorium | 11 Mar 2017 4:06 p.m. PST |
Merovee63 Such a pity your message was lost as I think this is an interesting query. Maybe if you posted it again? Regards |
 deadhead  | 12 Mar 2017 3:19 a.m. PST |
Totally off Napoleonic, but every time I see that Panther turret it strikes me as a retrograde step. How could they fit in enough crew to serve the gun, aim it and command the tank, with an enormous breech in a tiny turret? Reminds me of those early light tanks where one poor sod had to do the lot. Surely not automatic loading in mid 1940s? |
| Musketier | 12 Mar 2017 10:23 a.m. PST |
"Surely not automatic loading in mid 1940s" Not actually rolled out, but certainly at the concept stage, missing the war by a few months. The French AMX 13, developed from 1946, reputedly took that concept furthe and realised it with its 12-round autoloader. |
| deldietch | 13 Mar 2017 1:51 p.m. PST |
The internal volume of the "F" turret is actually the same as the Panther G. So he crew is not cramped at all. The design changes had more to do with saving weight and ease of manufacture. The design was meant to:
• Remove the shot strap under the Mantle
• Decrease weight
• Increase armor protection
* Decrease Turret size on the front
* Maintain the same turret ring. All in all it seems this was a cost savings redesign, and not specifically because it was "more advanced" |
| 14Bore | 13 Mar 2017 3:03 p.m. PST |
If my Prussians get a Panther my Russians will surely want a T-34 right? |
|
paints a machinegun emplacement, and realizes he needs more...
