Re: Introduction [TANKS]

[THOMAS SHIPP SR <stuckinohio-at-sbcglobal.net>]

That is why I went with the SW103C. No turret made it a plus for me.  I found that even without rounded corners, making a card board cut out to scale will save time and money in the long run.  Making adjustments on card board is a lot easier then having to do it in steel.

 

Tom

Peter Arundel <pureteenlard-at-hotmail.com> wrote:

Does it have to be WWII? Well no, it doesn't but post war tanks tend to use
complex, three dimensionally curved armour profiles for maximum protection.
Can you imagine trying to sculpt a buck to mold a Chieftain turret?. OK, the
Challenger uses much blockier shapes due to the way Chobham armour is made
but it's still quite complex around the glacis and the drivers hatch. I
thought I'd start with a WWII design because they tended to be built from
flat plate either bolted to a mild steel frame (Churchill for example) or
were simple, rivetted boxes (Valentine). There were exceptions like the
Matilda II but I dismissed her as being to complex a shape anyway.

I did consider a Scorpion, actually but it would have to be 1/5th scale
because, lets face it, it's really a tracked, armoured MG Midget rather than
a tank.

Pete.


>From: "chris barthelson"
>Reply-To: tanks-at-rctankcombat.com
>To: tanks-at-rctankcombat.com
>Subject: Re: Introduction [TANKS]
>Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 09:41:00 +0930
>
>Does it have to be WWII? Why not build a modern British tank?
>
>Chris. b
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Need FREE FUEL? Become a member of Qualified Opinions
>http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Equalifiedopinions%2Ecom%2Fsurvey%2Ephp%3Fsource%3Dhml%5Ftgl%5F1&_t=757739466&_r=emailtagline_july_harris&_m=EXT
>