|
Post by loyalist on Jan 1, 2016 22:04:25 GMT
I've been looking for armoured transports for my BEF scouting force attached to a Canadian army unit. I don't care for the Cardigan model so came up with this scenario:
"The British considered this a relatively low priority assignment for the BEF detachment and Cardigans were scarce, with many still in transit from the UK. The Canadian government was asked if suitable alternative transports could be found. The Canadian army had not adopted the all-mobile British doctrine yet, largely due to lack of equipment, but was planning to and had begun to build a Canadian version of the US Armored Infantry Carrier at the Montreal Locomotive Works. Seeing a good opportunity for a field trial with troops experienced with the all-mobile doctrine, the first half dozen AICs were made available to the BEF scouting force headed for western Ontario.
The Canadian AIC differs from the US version, being based on a lengthened Mk.III chassis. With the Mk III's three main guns removed and the AIC having lighter armour (7) it is faster than the US AIC and can keep up with Mk II and III tanks. It is also longer than the US AIC, being stretched enough for 5 infantry in full kit to sit side by side on either side of the carrier. This required an increase in length of 8', whereas the US version is only 4' longer than a steamer tank chassis and has extra room though not very practical from the looks of it) in a raised superstructure. The Canadian AIC lacks the raised upper deck and it's cupola. Unlike most Canadian armour, which has had the driver's cupola on the steamer tanks removed as per BEF recommendation (i.e. in the 'Tommy Tank") the AIC retains it."
Converting a Steamer tank kit to a Canadian AIC should not be difficult. The tracks sections can be cut in half along the vertical line ahead of the side plate with the door. The track section can be lengthened 1" (~8' in HO scale) with sheet styrene, as can the hull. The only challenge will be making additional track to fill the gap. There are two ways to do this:
1) First see how well I can duplicate the track using 0.5mm thick sheet styrene, making the treads from 1.0 x 1.0mm styrene strips; if that doesn't look good enough, 2) Carefully cut 1" of track off the bottom of the track unit and glue it on top in the gap from the extension; make a 2" long replacement for the underside of the unit. That way the new track will not be very noticeable.
What would a reasonable points cost be for this conversion? The US AIC costs 120 points per unit of 3; it has a speed of 5" and Armor 8. I could use the same stats and reduce speed for the Canadian AIC or keep the same points, increase speed to 6" and reduce the armor to 7.
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Jan 2, 2016 3:50:26 GMT
I'd go with the same points with the speed/armor changes - after all your backstory indicates a faster & less armored vehicle. I just have a (momentary) horror of doing anything to the original AD stuff as replacement of the basic stuff might not be happening this year with all the stuff going on. Perhaps a look at the Old Glory Mk IV or Mk V with the MGs filed off and a few other changes to the model will yield an awesome looking and different carrier. Remember a $50 annual pay out gets you everything at 40% less so those $11 MkVs come in at $6.60 ec, thus $19.20 for a 3 element unit. A real bargin. And to scale to boot. Anyway fun chatting this up.
|
|
|
Post by loyalist on Jan 2, 2016 5:14:23 GMT
I was lucky enough to get all the tanks I needed for my Canadian/BEF force, then managed to get 6 more kits but those were specifically for conversion to AICs so I'm not concerned about modifying them.
Should I need more tanks I'll put a main gun on 3 of the Mk IIt Tows and find something else to haul the Heavy Field Guns. There's a 15mm Holt tractor kit but it looks too small; HO scale Holt tractor kits are very expensive so I'm looking for an ~18mm steam traction engine. There are photos of them hauling British heavy artillery. No luck so far.
Something else I've thought of was using Mk I 'Tumblers' as the tow tanks. The other tanks use the single thick gun from the kit as a 4", except for a few BEF Tommy Tanks with their odd looking gun. The other 3 main guns in the kit look smaller so I'm calling them 3" guns and using them when I want to represent the MK I instead of the Mk IIt. To make the difference more clearly visible the MK IIts/Mk Is use the tallest of the 3 funnels in the kits, have the top plate on backward with the hatch to the front (not glued on), and have the driver's cupola. All of the other tanks use the thicker of the two short funnels, and the cupola has been removed. The roof (hatch?) of the cupola was carefully cut off then glued onto the shaved down rim of the hole for the cupola. It looks like a hatch for the driver, almost flush with the hull roof. It's now easy to tell the Mk Is from the Mk IIs.
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Jan 2, 2016 12:26:35 GMT
Good look at the various pieces this - I always appreciate a keen eye in such matters. Might I make one further suggestion. In Old Glorys 15mm True North selection, the only piece under the Italian tab is a really swell looking tractor (with no blade) for pulling arty. It might suit if you give it a low cost and stats to match. Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by loyalist on Jan 2, 2016 13:10:02 GMT
Thanks Madmorgan. I found the Italian tractor last night while checking out the True North line. Sticking a spare steamer funnel on its hood would give it an older appearance. It might look good based with a Blue Moon howitzer limber (Napoleonic) as a tow. Don't know where I'll find suitable driver figures.
By the way, I found photos of the WWI British tank developed as an infantry carrier on Wikepedia. It was nearly 28' long which scales to about 86mm. My Canadian AIC conversion will be similar in size at 89mm long.
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Jan 2, 2016 13:35:59 GMT
Excellent - I'm not sure what the various CD crews look like as no pic, but they have sitting crews for most forces. You might just put a standing figure next to the tractor (like a spare from the various arty crews with the guns from Old Glory - almost all have 8 figures, but half are without helmets, use one of those).
|
|
|
Post by loyalist on Jan 2, 2016 15:18:42 GMT
I've found some traction engines that might be suitable for gun tractors. There's a 1/87 scale one at Shapeways that looks great but costs $57 Can. (about $36 US) including wheels that are sold separately.
The old Matchbox Y-1 Alchin traction engine is 1/80 scale. Though a 1925 engine it looks the same as earlier ones. I know there are a couple in a bin of Matchbox and Dinky toys in my dad's basement. Will see if I can retrieve them when I visit in 3-4 weeks and see how they are for size; 1/80 scale makes them about 9% too big for HO which may be OK as the heavy field guns are large models. On ebay they sell from $6 dollars to $100, though all look to be in good shape. Of course the ones without boxes are the cheapest. Models with damaged paint can be much cheaper but I didn't find any today.
There are several different types of OO scale (4mm; 1/76) traction engines available, including a Fowler B6 in WWI colors but it has rubber road wheels, not the steel tread ones used on artillery tractors. It's about $30 Can. but is probably too big. If I did the math correctly 1/76 is about 13% larger than 1/87.
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Jan 3, 2016 3:14:33 GMT
Some time ago I posted a scale of models chart based on Walters train catalog, MI. Toy Soldier lists and hardlec notes. I repost it hear for all to see :
Per hardlec (wish he'd find this place): 15mm is exactly 1:110/16.5mm is exactly 1:100/18mm (AQ) is about 1:92
Per Walters: Z scale 1:220 about 3/4"x1/2" N scale 1:160 about 1"x5/8" HO scale 1:87 about 2"x1.5" S scale 1:64 about 2.75"x2" O scale 1:48 about 4"x2.5" G scale 1:22.5 about 8"x5"
Per MI.T.S. 1/72 = 22mm and 1/56 = 28mm (about 1 1/8")
I figure 1:64 is about the scale 32mm used by Dystopian Legion models I've not seen the mentioned OO scale, but sounds about right as you note.
|
|
|
Post by terrance on Jan 3, 2016 3:34:58 GMT
It can also be useful to think in terms of what represents one foot in the scale. In the following scales one foot is: O scale; 1/4" S scale; 3/16" HO scale; 1/8"
My scale ruler does not have N or G scales.
|
|
|
Post by loyalist on Jan 3, 2016 4:37:17 GMT
After spending time in the local model railway shop this afternoon I suspected 18mm must be slightly smaller than HO. Thanks to your post showing 18mm is ~1:92 scale I've concluded only the Shapeways traction engine is a good match in size, but it's too expensive for me. I'll order the True North Italian artillery tractors, stick some steamer funnels on them and use them to tow my coil guns and heavy field guns.
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Jan 3, 2016 13:00:07 GMT
I can't stress enough how great their Old Glory Army deal is. For a $50 investment, you get a full $40% off on all their catalog (including buildings, ships, everything). The tractors are listed at $11 ec I believe - thats $33 for 3 element battery of guns. With discount, those same 3 tractors cost you $19.80. Now, I'm not sure if you have a vendor in the UK and that it honors that Old Glory Army deal - but, the savings is bound to help if you're shipping from the USA to UK and Old Glory has been on of the best US companies for decades. BTW ref your comment in another thread about the OG Zombies for Ragers - I wonder what the license is going to be if indeed AD is gone - Old Glory produced all of the metal figures fo AQMF and if that license isn't picked up, I imagine OG will make those various figures available on the open market. This would be a real boon to those of us trying to game AQ! Let's see how it shakes out - love to by some 'ragers' from OG - but, I'm getting the zombies for now as fill ins (besides they look great!).
|
|
|
Post by loyalist on Jan 3, 2016 14:19:52 GMT
I've just checked out the Ragers images again and revisited the Blue Moon site - all of the Ragers appear to be Blue Moon Zombie figures.
I think I'll get the Old Glory Army deal but am still checking out on-line stores in Canada for Blue Moon or True North - nothing yet. Shipping from the US is relatively cheap by regular mail but the 40% exchange rate is horrible. Our dollar was above par just a few years ago! I was lucky to get nearly all my AQotMF stuff in Canada at a discount that gave prices almost identical to AD's during the final 40% off sale.
I'm still looking at a monitor type ship for the BEF. I think the monitor I described before with equivalent armament to the Thunderchild II will be too large. Now I'm looking at the Humber Class and M Class WWI monitors which were 267' and 177' long respectively and at 18mm scale would be 31" and 20.8" long. Both are 'period' looking and have very low freeboard, plus a wide enough beam to take the Peter Pig domed WWI/II fortress turrets (in the Scenery section). I have drawings from Buxton's 'Big Gun Monitors' and they are relatively simple ships to model in styrene.
How about these stats for an M Class monitor? (Note: there were several variants with different caliber guns but M15-18 had the biggest and most effective guns.)
M15-M18 as built: single 9.2" Mk X gun forward, 12 pdr with shield aft, 6 pdr and 2 maxim HMGs on superstructure; main gun 3/4 shield (open at back) 4" armour on front, 1.25" otherwise; no hull armour. Not much use as built other than the gun which could have Range 60" and Power +5. It is essentially unarmoured; suggest using the Ironclad damage table for ships which would be exceptional models. For a ship like this I would recommend only 4-5 critical hits though it's twice as big as a land ironclad (assuming less armour). Speed would be 6" along one table edge; it can leave the table to turn around by exiting one end and returning facing in the opposite direction in 2 turns.
Assume the British improved the M Class to fight the Martians with the BEF: 1) Gave them an armour belt of 1.5" plus asbestos lining, equal to a Mk II tank's Armour 8, on the hull and on vital structures like the bridge; these are small ships so there's little spare displacement for heavy armour - 1.5" armour would lower the freeboard at least a foot aft to about 4' (~1/2"; that puts most of the sharply curving stern underwater and makes the model easier to build!) 2) Install 4 HMGs along the sides of the superstructure (2 per side) using the tank HMG turrets (maybe in sponsons), and 4 HMGs in the open on pedestal mounts on the upper deck. 3) Install 2 x 4" guns in tank turrets/sponsons on each side. 4) Keep the 9.2" gun but in a full turret. (This could be the PP large fortress turret with an appropriately long gun barrel added.) 5) Replace the 9.2" gun with a 2 lb coil gun in a PP domed turret, though it would be weaker than a 9.2" at Power +4. (Could there be a 3 lb coil gun with Range 70" and Power 5?) 6) Replace the 9.2" with a 24" bombard (the PP turret's gun looks like one), also with Range 60" and Power +4.
Any suggestions for points values of the M Class variants?
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Jan 3, 2016 15:44:10 GMT
For points I try to make ships up based on their expected counterpart in the Martian tripod lines, adjusted for number of weapons and power of same. I'd thing that the M class would rate close to Dominator or Overseer. I'd favor the 9.2" as did the British, who actually liked the RF of the smaller gun vs the 12" - they grew into the 12" down the road. I've listed a 3pdr coilgun in one of my many threads on alternate battlewagons I think. Also, my ship notes indicate that due to the movement of the ship, any coilgun equipped vessal would have a small recharger wheel below the waterline for generating power and also a small rod to carry overcharge problems. In other words, a ship borne coilgun is much more effective with less problems. You can either use the standard coilgun table for a problem or simply rule that a '1' rolled results in no fire until next fire phase. So, for your M Class using a turreted main 9.2" gun with the other improvements I'd rate it at least a Dominator style weapon at 350 points. I've got ACW improved monitors with (2) turreted 7" or 6" guns at 250 points. I've done a seperate Ship Damage Table which I think you'll find handy (based on some of both the Tripod and Ironclad tables). Looking forward to pics of your finished M Class - what naming system you planning??
|
|
|
Post by loyalist on Jan 3, 2016 22:50:15 GMT
No naming system yet - none of the M Class were named. I thought I'd seen stats for a 3 lb Coil gun and found them in the BEF supplement; the Wolesley tank has one. I like your ideas for ship borne coil guns.
What ships are your improved ACW monitors based on? The twin turreted Onondaga is a favorite of mine in ACW naval wargaming.
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Jan 4, 2016 1:54:32 GMT
Actually using Thouroughbred minis I use the TS02 and TS34 models. From Old Glory, I've got the single turret and double turreted versions, although hadn't mounted coilguns in those for the Brits - good thinking! A couple of paired 3pdr or 4pdr would be an awesome support. As noted earlier, I use the 6" howitzer and 7" gun in my full scale Old Glory riverine USA monitors. As they're actual size, all ranges are as normal (ei 150" for howitzers and 40" for the guns).
|
|