[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
"Stacy Hilton" <stacyj-at-defnet.com>
Re: Maus? [TANKS]
Fri, 5 Oct 2007 01:10:15 -0400
I WOULD like to see a Maus in 1/6 scale. I don't think that I'd even mind
if it killed my BT-7 in two shots. I don't even think that I'd mind if it
took 10 shots for me to kill it. But a 3 foot Maus is another story. I
think this scale "thing" will need to be tightened up in the future. I
understand the reason for having the "either or" option. But as more tanks
are built, it would seem fair to stick to 1/6 scale as a rule. I would
agree that a BT-7 with a 45mm gun and 1/2" of armor would stand little
chance with a Maus with a 128mm gun AND a 75mm gun AND 8'' of armor. But to
go after a monster such as this that has all of the benefits of the original
vehicle and none of the disadvantages (size, speed) ...... well, I hope you
get my point. If someone built a tank the size of a BT-7 (3 feet at 1/6
scale) with 8" of armor, the crew and drive train would have to be on the
outside with the crew and drive train pushing to no avail. I would like to
see the "prototype" thing relaxed just a bit as well. The Polish 10TP would
be a fun tank, as would several others.
Clark, as Frank P. would say, "build it, I'll shoot at it".
Paul "1/6th" Hilton
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clark Ward Jr" <ki4gyt-at-gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 8:28 PM
Subject: Maus? [TANKS]
> Does the Maus count for our purposes? It was in production, and one
> was dispatched to defend Berlin, albeit not making it in time and
> being blown up by the crew to prevent capture...
> M60A1 "the Beast" under construction
> FT-17 "Frenchy" also U/C
> Why do tankers call infantry "Crunchies"??? Because they ARE!!!