|
Post by ironcladgames on Feb 14, 2017 22:22:17 GMT
Here is a very early WIP of an upcoming Tankette unit. These may be demo charged with an engineering team controlling them, thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by ironcladgames on Feb 14, 2017 22:22:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by easye on Feb 14, 2017 22:53:26 GMT
I love tankettes.
|
|
|
Post by Quendil on Feb 15, 2017 11:58:41 GMT
Do you have a pic of it next to a normal size tank?
|
|
|
Post by loyalist on Feb 15, 2017 15:53:04 GMT
It looks like it was kit bashed from a standard steamer tank with the middle section removed. Not enough track in contact with the ground - a vehicle like that would be unstable and prone to falling forward.
Sorry to say that I don't like it at all.
Any word on the progress of the Holt tractor (which I do like)? I need 8 for towing heavy howitzers and anti-tripod guns.
|
|
|
Post by Quendil on Feb 15, 2017 17:24:56 GMT
It looks like it was kit bashed from a standard steamer tank with the middle section removed. Not enough track in contact with the ground - a vehicle like that would be unstable and prone to falling forward. Sorry to say that I don't like it at all. Any word on the progress of the Holt tractor (which I do like)? I need 8 for towing heavy howitzers and anti-tripod guns. Looking at it again I agree it does look unstable
|
|
|
Post by ironcladgames on Feb 15, 2017 20:50:32 GMT
It looks like it was kit bashed from a standard steamer tank with the middle section removed. Not enough track in contact with the ground - a vehicle like that would be unstable and prone to falling forward. Sorry to say that I don't like it at all. Any word on the progress of the Holt tractor (which I do like)? I need 8 for towing heavy howitzers and anti-tripod guns. Looking at it again I agree it does look unstable It was an original company design that we're adapting to be motorized bombs for taking down walkers. Unsafe design makes sense then. As for the holt, that sculptor has been slow to respond, as soon as I have more info - I'll pass it on.
|
|
|
Post by terrance on Feb 15, 2017 22:15:13 GMT
If this is to be an unmanned disposable vehicle it would make sense to design it as a "fire-less cooker". These were RR steam engines that had no firebox and a steam storage tank instead of a boiler. They were used for switching in industrial situations where there was a great hazard of fire and explosion. Like munition factories. The engine would charge with steam from a remote boiler and then could operate like a steam engine. It would have to return to the charging station before the pressure in the tank got too low.
The logic for the model is: a steam storage tank is much cheaper to build than a boiler. Boilers have flues to conduct the hot gasses from the firebox through the water to the smokebox. A pressure tank is, well, just a tank strong enough to hold the pressure. Nothing fancy. For the model that would mean no smoke stack and no coal bunker. It would need a parent tank to charge up with steam before being sent off and should probably have a limited range. Presumably the crew bails before the bomb reaches a tripod so a detonator or timer would be needed to set it off. But that has more to do with rules than the model.
As for its instability, perhaps it needs a skid on the front to help keep it upright.
|
|
|
Post by hardlec on Feb 17, 2017 18:31:33 GMT
I agree that the model appears a bit to front heavy.
If is to be sent on one-way missions, it would not need a coal crib or a firebox. They did develop torpedoes which used acid, which was mixed with regular water to create steam. (Always add acid, because if you add water to acid it will flare up into a big cloud of caustic steam.) The engine was ruined after a short while. Switching engines, the fireless cookers worked much better but they need a source of steam.
It would seem that tankettes would be towed into position with a troop carrier modified as a sort of mother ship, then released for their one-way journey. The "Mother ship" could also charge the fireless cookers with steam. Using fireless cookers would mean those tankettes that don't go boom can be recovered and used again. Tankettes do have an acid tank for emergency one-time extra range.
Put a big box on the back of the tankette, something to balance the model, replacing the more elaborate but unnecessary steam engine. Sell a bundle of 3-4 tankettes with an infantry carrier. Provide rules for various payloads for the tankette.
It looks like a winner, gentlemen. BULLY!!
|
|
|
Post by hardlec on Feb 18, 2017 5:42:02 GMT
Another thought: Put a tripod clamp on the front like a clamp tank.
|
|
|
Post by farkongnome on Feb 21, 2017 3:05:09 GMT
Why not make something similar to a German Borgward or Goliath that the Germans used in WW2? Why waste huge resources to make a giant ass tank that is just going to blow up (and is easy to hit with a heat ray) and just build something small, hard to hit, and easily produced with minimum materials?
|
|
|
Post by hardlec on Feb 21, 2017 3:23:53 GMT
Good points, but how much explosive do you need to blow up a tripod? Blowing a track off a tank only took a couple kilograms of explosive. Maybe it might be good to make baby clamp tanks.
Of course, a tank with a no-fire steam chamber would be happy for extra heat. Humans are more vulnerable to heat than an empty tank.
|
|
|
Post by morbius on Feb 21, 2017 13:14:44 GMT
It might not be necessary to blow up the whole tripod. Just one leg.
Craig
|
|
|
Post by boxholder on Feb 21, 2017 13:35:05 GMT
A few kilos of dynamite appears consistent with the storyline. Most of the problems for the Martians appears to have been losing legs.
Farkongnome makes a good point. Lots of little tanks may be a good tactic. Swarm attacks are one answer of a technically disadvantaged opponent. "Enough guppies can eat a shark."
Also may be a kind of symmetric threat to the Martian drones.
|
|
|
Post by hardlec on Feb 21, 2017 16:48:52 GMT
Okay: I could remark that there is a considerable difference between the effect of a satchel charge strapped onto a structure and an unfocused explosion in the general vicinity of the target. I might be technically correct, but my information, and hence my argument, would be irrelevant.
Farkongnome's point is excellent. A smaller tankette designed for suicide missions would be more useful than the tankette at its current size. For a mobile bomb, I'd suggest a tankette based on the the image of a Mark IV chassis but about 1/2 inch by 1/2 inch in size.
Which is not to say the tankette as presented is not a great idea.
A socket is added to the front of the Tankette. This socket can accept a clamp similar to the clamp of a clamp tank. It will also accept a skid to make it a bit less front heavy. It will also accept a dozer blade designed to quickly dig trenches. The tankette already has a towing hitch which makes it a valuable combat tractor. With a clamp, it can engage tripods as a less costly option to the clamp tank. With an industrial sized entrenching tool, it can function as an engineering vehicle. It can tow a trailer with "a number" of "land torpedoes" which can engage Tripods or drone swarms.
Along with the holt tractor, the US begins to fortify its logistics tail.
The land torpedo is charged with steam from the tankette and has a tank of acid for emergency power. The tankette has a standard steam engine.
The Holt Tractor can tow a variety of trailers and can become the locomotive of a land train, especially with multiple tractors working together. The Holt Tractor is sufficiently badass that if trouble comes looking for it, it can take care of itself.
The Tankette, on the other hand, was created to go looking for trouble.
|
|