Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/20 15:22:25
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/02/20 15:38:57
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
Freakazoitt wrote: I forgot about hull gun. Yeah, if tank has weapon against both trenches and tanks - it's adequate armament. But if it's a heavy tank with 40mm gun it's just freaky. Mk.VII 75mm gun - just "normal" gun. Not something late war heavy tanks usually had.
What are you on about? The Churchill is lacking as a late war heavy tank in the same way that my Mazda 6 is lacking the key features of a combine harvester. It's technically true, but completely meaningless. The Churchill isn't a late war design. It rolled out in 1941. It was a design at the very start of the mid-war period. It carried on through the war, getting up armoured and upgunned, but it was always limited by its early design elements.
Churchill's concept was too archaic from beginning and supporting it's development was wasting resources. There were much more effictive projects like a Comet, for example. Comet - was a modern tank that could move and maneuver at normal speed, could break through the defenses and without problems destroy both the Panther and the Tiger.
Yeah, the Comet was a superior design that could carry the superior 77mm HV. It was also a 1945 design. You're comparing a modded 1941 design to a brand new 1945 design, and finding the 1945 design to be the superior tank. Funny that.
It did stuck. Despite long tracks it wasn't able to safely climb obstackles as that tracks were falling apart. The Soviet Churchills were known for falling apart suspension on the move, losing wheels, tracks, attachments and springs. And he showed a tendency to get stuck in the mud. And again, the mud break the suspension.
People love using Russian reports as some kind of guide to... something. But according to the Russians the Spitfire was a dud. Of course the Russians got older models, generally with manuals in English or with no manuals at all... but more than that they simply had no idea of the tactics needed to get the best out of the plane.
When you take a bit of gear and drop it in to another war machine with minimal training or co-ordination, gak happens. Of course the Russians wouldn't have liked the Churchill. It was an infantry tank, built to provide rolling support fire to advancing infantry. Russians wanted their tanks to go go go, smash the enemy position open and then drive like mad for deep operations. So given a tank built for a totally different doctrine, the Russians are going to rev those Churchills and break them in all kinds of ways.
But meanwhile, in the role the Churchill was meant for, as an infantry tank providing direct fire support, they were noted as being the most capable tank for crossing difficult ground. There are literal war records of commanders saying 'we crossed this ground in Churchill tanks and no other tank could manage that crossing'. And when the Australian Army looked for the best tank to suit their needs in jugle warfare, the Churchill was deemed the best tank for the region. This is not something that happens with designs with mobility issues. Your claim is simply wrong.
Annoying thing is, it starts to sound like I'm coming off as some kind of Churchill fan boy. I'm not. It's just that when someone keeps making wrong and often just weird complaints, then I end up trying to correct each of them, which means I keep listing good things about the Churchill. But don't get me wrong, it wasn't a great tank. It was an okay tank.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/20 16:25:46
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Future War Cultist wrote: I have a soft spot for the M3 Lee/Grant. Even though it’s a weird compromise of a thing and a dead end in tank design.
I believe the Russian crews who used the Lee/Grant termed it "a coffin for seven comrades."
I am disappointed to see that the claims Russian crews liked the otherwise underwhelming Matilda because it had a built-in kettle for making tea, might well be apocryphal.
Future War Cultist wrote: I have a soft spot for the M3 Lee/Grant. Even though it’s a weird compromise of a thing and a dead end in tank design.
I believe the Russian crews who used the Lee/Grant termed it "a coffin for seven comrades."
I am disappointed to see that the claims Russian crews liked the otherwise underwhelming Matilda because it had a built-in kettle for making tea, might well be apocryphal.
Modern tanks do. That's definitely a feature in post war designs.
No armoured vehicle in British army is considered oporationsal unless the boiling vessel is working and operates.
Our 60 + ton battle tanks are armoured kettles on tracks depending on your priorities. Every tank and APC comes with a built in boiling vessel powered off the engine.
Some land rover versus and trucks get fitted put with them too.
Tea and hot rations are a series business. But a safe way of using local water with tablets and boiling.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
The Centurion was an excellent tank, the best of its era, a real pioneer via the superb combination of gun, good gun sights, mobility, reliability, sloped armour and electric kettle.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Ah, the humble CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT.
Mandorallen turned back toward the insolently sneering baron. 'My Lord,' The great knight said distantly, 'I find thy face apelike and thy form misshapen. Thy beard, moreover, is an offence against decency, resembling more closely the scabrous fur which doth decorate the hinder portion of a mongrel dog than a proper adornment for a human face. Is it possibly that thy mother, seized by some wild lechery, did dally at some time past with a randy goat?' - Mimbrate Knight Protector Mandorallen.
Excerpt from "Seeress of Kell", Book Five of The Malloreon series by David Eddings.
"You need not fear us, unless you are a dark heart, a vile one who preys on the innocent; I promise, you can’t hide forever in the empty darkness, for we will hunt you down like the animals you are, and pull you into the very bowels of hell." Iron - Within Temptation
They did. The Churchill Mk VIII was the howitzer variant, it had a 25pdr gun.
But nobody ever talks about tank, because the AVRE existed. What's the fun in talking about Churchill variants with entirely sensible, effective howitzers, when there was a Churchill with a 40 pound spigot mortar?
KTG17 wrote: I didn't specify nonfictional tanks only!
If fiction is permitted, I put forward the Fire Prism as the sexiest tank:
Only the "modern" version, however, with that extended barrel to mount the focusing crystals. Lovely...
If I hit those panels in the right sequence does a stargate open?
Bender wrote:* Realise that despite the way people talk, this is not a professional sport played by demi gods, but rather a game of toy soldiers played by tired, inebriated human beings.
Frazzled wrote: Has anyone noted the humble Imperium of Man's Rhino, er 113? Best to sit on top in mine country.
Actually Fraz one of my fathers three cousins who never came back was killed riding on top one when it hit a VERY large explosive device and was flipped. I actually don't know much beyond that, but....
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: I am disappointed to see that the claims Russian crews liked the otherwise underwhelming Matilda because it had a built-in kettle for making tea, might well be apocryphal.
The Matilda* was the only British tank to serve from the beginning of the war to the end. That doesn't make it good, of course, it just shows there's more to a tank's role than all that sexy stuff like effective firepower and moving quicker than a fast walk.
*Matilda II technically. But Matilda I was such an absolute disaster the people don't really acknowledge it ever existed, and just refer to the Matilda II as Matilda.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Iron_Captain wrote: If armoured cars are fair game, I nominate the Škoda Želva:
Is that a military vehicle or a driving art deco exhibit Take special note of the little flag the Czechs attached to it...
If we're going to include Armoured Cars as well, honorable mention at least has to go to the Polish Kubus of the 1944 Warsaw Uprising. It didn't exactly have the most glorious or inspiring career but considering the sheer guts it must have taken to build an effective homemade AFV in occupied Warsaw, I can't help but admire the Poles. A bit like a WW2 Polish version of the A-Team, only much more impressive.
it makes sense though, all this gear was about in the time fram when they came up with 40k.
Always thought it was inspired by the quite similar looking FV432 personally, which would make more sense IMO as the latter was the British equivilent.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/02/21 12:05:29
Future War Cultist wrote: I have a soft spot for the M3 Lee/Grant. Even though it’s a weird compromise of a thing and a dead end in tank design.
I believe the Russian crews who used the Lee/Grant termed it "a coffin for seven comrades."
I am disappointed to see that the claims Russian crews liked the otherwise underwhelming Matilda because it had a built-in kettle for making tea, might well be apocryphal.
Modern tanks do. That's definitely a feature in post war designs.
No armoured vehicle in British army is considered oporationsal unless the boiling vessel is working and operates.
Our 60 + ton battle tanks are armoured kettles on tracks depending on your priorities. Every tank and APC comes with a built in boiling vessel powered off the engine.
Some land rover versus and trucks get fitted put with them too.
Tea and hot rations are a series business. But a safe way of using local water with tablets and boiling.
Apparently the British army shipped more tea, by weight, than anything else except rifle bullets during the war. Make sure your priorities are in order.
Future War Cultist wrote: I have a soft spot for the M3 Lee/Grant. Even though it’s a weird compromise of a thing and a dead end in tank design.
I believe the Russian crews who used the Lee/Grant termed it "a coffin for seven comrades."
I am disappointed to see that the claims Russian crews liked the otherwise underwhelming Matilda because it had a built-in kettle for making tea, might well be apocryphal.
Modern tanks do. That's definitely a feature in post war designs.
No armoured vehicle in British army is considered oporationsal unless the boiling vessel is working and operates.
Our 60 + ton battle tanks are armoured kettles on tracks depending on your priorities. Every tank and APC comes with a built in boiling vessel powered off the engine.
Some land rover versus and trucks get fitted put with them too.
Tea and hot rations are a series business. But a safe way of using local water with tablets and boiling.
Apparently the British army shipped more tea, by weight, than anything else except rifle bullets during the war. Make sure your priorities are in order.
If true... Well we cannot be expected to go to war without tea... How uncivilised is that! Posetively German lol...
Its true the British army often did and does stop for tea when it can, but it's kinda a morale thing. A hot drink and a sit down goes a along way.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
Wait until it gets 2xAC/20 on those legs from a Demolisher.
Quad mechs remain a lot more stable though than their bipedal counterparts. Not a fan of Demolishers personally, in my own Battletech unit I withdrew them until they could be upgraded to the Gauss rifle armed versions. The stock AC-20 variants carry quite a lot of ammo which has a nasty habit of going up, destroying the tank and taking the crew with it, Gauss-Demolishers have a vastly superior crew survival rate and outside of urban or wooded settings can often pop AC-Demolishers long before the latter can even get in range. Even better as a tank- or mech-destroyer is the Alacorn VI, they're just hideously expensive though.
Quad mechs remain a lot more stable though than their bipedal counterparts. Not a fan of Demolishers personally, in my own Battletech unit I withdrew them until they could be upgraded to the Gauss rifle armed versions. The stock AC-20 variants carry quite a lot of ammo which has a nasty habit of going up, destroying the tank and taking the crew with it, Gauss-Demolishers have a vastly superior crew survival rate and outside of urban or wooded settings can often pop AC-Demolishers long before the latter can even get in range. Even better as a tank- or mech-destroyer is the Alacorn VI, they're just hideously expensive though.
Wait until it gets 2xAC/20 on those legs from a Demolisher.
Alacorn Heavy Tank wants a word with you ..or three
Bender wrote:* Realise that despite the way people talk, this is not a professional sport played by demi gods, but rather a game of toy soldiers played by tired, inebriated human beings.
simonr1978 wrote: Not a fan of Demolishers personally, in my own Battletech unit I withdrew them until they could be upgraded to the Gauss rifle armed versions. The stock AC-20 variants carry quite a lot of ammo which has a nasty habit of going up, destroying the tank and taking the crew with it, Gauss-Demolishers have a vastly superior crew survival rate and outside of urban or wooded settings can often pop AC-Demolishers long before the latter can even get in range.
Vehicles in the latest rules last so little time that stuff like ammo explosions don't really strike me as that much of a problem. Any heavy vehicle, even tracked, is only going to last so many hits before immobilisation forces a withdrawal anyway.
Demolishers with AC-20 work well as ambushing units. Take a couple, hide them somewhere, and watch as your opponent second guesses every single move he makes for the next 10 turns. Sometimes you don't even want them stumbling in to your tank, because they were doing so much better as a distraction
Even better as a tank- or mech-destroyer is the Alacorn VI, they're just hideously expensive though.
C-bills are screwy at the best of times, but with vehicles they're so screwy it's actually pretty fun. We play C-bill games sometimes, with people trying to find the best bargains they can, without being too silly (so don't just spam Savannah Masters).
Anyhow, my best success in those games came from taking four of these beauties, the Main Gauche.
They also happen to be one of my favourite looking battetech units. They're a lot cooler looking than that picture.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/23 01:59:49
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Any heavy vehicle, even tracked, is only going to last so many hits before immobilisation forces a withdrawal anyway.
If that's a problem, try using the vehicle effectiveness rules from Tactical Operations. When you tick all those boxes you get something that makes tanks look like they're just about worth their Battle Value, at least in 3025.
XuQishi wrote: If that's a problem, try using the vehicle effectiveness rules from Tactical Operations. When you tick all those boxes you get something that makes tanks look like they're just about worth their Battle Value, at least in 3025.
We've used them in a couple of more recent games, but we've also played with a bunch of other vehicle rules that have been published over the years, and we've also played with a lot of house rules as well. Not to 'fix' vehicles, though, because weaker vehicles never really felt like a problem in what is a mech game.
Well, I guess its a problem if you want to make BV accurate in a match up involving both mechs and vehicles. Good luck with that.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
3000
4000 
Ultramarines, 3rd Co. and friends, 16k+ 
4k 
Competition Index