RE: Armored cars / unarmored antitank vehicle rules questions [TANKS]

[jtsumrok-at-comcast.net]

Doug,

Thanks for the input.  The M274 would be challenging to build to scale, I'd have to 
make it a little bigger than 1/6 if I was to go in this direction.  Hiding the CO2 
cylinder and preserving the scale lines would be a challenge; would be a cool 
vehicle though.

For a first build, I think I'm going to work on a boxy APC / armored car type.  
Hopefully I'll have something completed by the summer so I can play!

John


 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Doug Conn" <dwconn404-at-comcast.net>
> 
> The rules are pretty flexible about what qualifies as an armored car:
> 
> Armored Car: Any fully or partially wheeled vehicle
> Armored Car: Single, semi-automatic paintball marker
> Armored Car: 20 paintballs 
> 
> As usual, the rules are geared more toward fun than historical accuracy,
> which I heartily condone.
> 
> I was thinking about an M274 also, but it's just too tiny for me. At 1/6
> scale, I think it comes out to 16" long and 8" wide. I'd love to see a 106mm
> RCL vehicle on that chassis, but it will take someone with a lot more skill
> than me to build it !
> 
>               - Doug
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tanks-admin-at-rctankcombat.com [mailto:tanks-admin-at-rctankcombat.com] On
> Behalf Of jtsumrok-at-comcast.net
> Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 8:41 PM
> To: tanks-at-rctankcombat.com
> Subject: Armored cars / unarmored antitank vehicle rules questions [TANKS]
> 
> Hi, I'm new to the hobby and wanted to introduce myself and ask a few rules
> questions about armored cars unarmored anti-tank vehicles.
> 
> My name is John Sumrok and I live in Pittsburgh, PA. Since I'm not that far
> from Maryland, it's possible that I'll be able to do the occasional road
> trip to Maryland to participate in battles.
> 
> While I'm working on the plans & details of building a tank (Semovente
> 75/18), I first want to build a 1/6 scale 4x4 armored car or anti-tank
> vehicle, as I have an existing 4x4 RC truck chassis that should have enough
> torque, duration and cross-country mobility to be a usable platform for a
> 1/6 scale armored car (provided I keep the weight down).  
> 
> I have a few questions about armored cars and other wheeled combat vehicles:
> 
> ?  What qualifies as an armored car?  Any limitations on the historical
> armor or armament of the subject vehicle?  Do lightly armed APCs / IFVs
> qualify as armored cars, or does the historical subject vehicle need to have
> large antitank armament?
> 
> - From reading the Battle Reports, there doesn't seem to be much precedent
> for the use of armored cars / armed wheeled vehicles in the battles staged
> down there in Maryland.   Most of the wheeled vehicles which have
> participated in the battles seem to have been unarmed support vehicles. 
> 
> - I'm interested in how the following vehicle types would be classified /
> rated by the rules:
> 
> **** Typical 4x4 wheeled APC / IFV ****
> 
> Examples:  Panhard M3, Renault VAB, Soviet BTR / BRDM series
> 
> Typical armament:  MG up to 30 mm
> Typical armor:  10-15 mm
> 
> Rating?  
> 20/2?
> 
> **** Unarmored 4x4 vehicle with anti-tank armament ****
> 
> Examples:  US M274 "Mule" w/106mm recoilless rifle, WW2 British 2-pounder
> portee, Australian Landrover w/106mm recoilless rifle
> 
> Typical armament:  recoilless rifle, light antitank gun, ATG missile system
> Typical armor:  none
> 
> Rating?  
> 20/1 ?
> 
> Sorry for the lengthy message, but I have several potential 1/6 scale
> wheeled vehicles in mind that would work well with the truck chassis I have
> and I want to understand how these types fit within the framework of the
> rules.  
> 
> I understand that the focus of the hobby is on tank vs. tank combat (as it
> should be), and I don't want to upset the equilibrium of things.  Just
> wondering if vehicles of the types described above have a place on the RC
> tank battlefield.  I'd hate to make the trip just to have my toy end up
> towing supplies!
> 
> I'd welcome input & comments from the battle participants, "rules lawyers",
> etc.  Looks like a great hobby!
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> John Sumrok
>