|
|
Post by Pz3 on Feb 10, 2016 3:36:04 GMT
Hi,
Although most of the AQMF products are simple to make, I have been content to wait for their release.
Like a few others I have been keen to get a Goliath and we have all been waiting a long time. Now with the unknown facing us, I decided I would build something representational.
Below is a an image for the basic construct. The draft model prints out well and looks imposing. Only have a few things I am not sure on and was hoping that I could get some opinions.
1) The Goliath stats refer to 4 MGs. In the description it says one is co-axial. That leaves 3 MGs but where do they go? And what do look like? So far I can't see any on the sketches, so have assumed that there is one each side of the forward command bridge and one on the front. Any suggestions on placement? As for type, I have gone with ball mounts like the BEF carriers but should they be turrets?
2) Rivets - I still have these to add. But what type should I use ? Should they be subtle like those on the Steamers, which tend to blend in, or should I have them pronounced so that they are more prominent and therefore easier to paint.
3) Turret shape. From the sketches the turret looks modern with sloped armour and I have done one that is similar (see picture). I have also done one that is closer to the Ironclads main turret, ie. slab sided and mostly round in shape. Not sure whether the modern shape is a little out of period. So do I go with sloped armour or vertical?
4) Any other suggestions?
I would appreciate any feedback.
Cheers Grant
|
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Feb 10, 2016 11:31:10 GMT
Aweinspiring image that! I'm always amazed at the talent pool this game has generated. On to you points. 1/ from the picture, I like the placement for the remaining 3 HMGs. A 'ball turret' as shown is really good, as this machine is supposed to represent the next generation, admitively oversized, of tanks for the USA. There will be far more of these producted than the LIC, I'm sure. 2/ I support the cleaner look of the subtle rivets. 3/ Along the same line of thought, the 'rounded' more modern turret is also my favorite. This is a machine that will lend itself to being copied in smaller formats at some point for standard tanks, a MkVI, with autoloading 7" gun with rounded turret with wheels or tracks. The autoloading removes the no move to shot problems of the MIV Monitor, the better shape and armor is a plus and the only question is large wheels or shirted armored tracks. Congrats - we all look forward to your further endeavors on the "??", you should really do a new name for it btw.
|
|
|
|
Post by loyalist on Feb 10, 2016 13:42:33 GMT
I like the HMG placement in ball turrets and the more modern turret. More prominent rivets than on the plastic tanks would be OK.
The big question for me is the size of the vehicle. Although your design is not the Goliath the AD Goliath concept was for a vehicle with a 12" main gun. In one image I saw shortly before the AD website and forum were shut down they had produced two Goliath models of quite different sizes and were considering which to go with.
The deciding factor for the size of your land cruiser would be the gun. I don't know the sizes of US 12" naval guns. Successful British 12" guns varied in barrel length from 35' - 45'. The 45 caliber Mk. X developed in 1906 and used in HMS Dreadnought was 45' long (not counting the breech length), and the 50 caliber gun was longer but not a success. If your vehicle uses an American equivalent to the most successful British 12" gun, it's going to be over 50' long including the breech and the turret will be longer still, not counting the overhang at the back (which could be a counterweight).
That would make the length from the muzzle to rear of the turret overhang at least 60', or 180mm (7.0") in 18mm scale. It would be 6.0" long in 1/100 scale. Using whatever scale you select you can set the vehicle dimensions based on the gun and turret size. Note that the LIC which includes some 18mm figures as crew is presumably also 18mm scale so your vehicle should match it or at least be 1/100 scale imo.
|
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Feb 10, 2016 14:05:46 GMT
Good points loyalist - I'm also swayed by the ease of painting 'large' rivets. Any one with thoughts on a 'rename'?? Rational is that the Goliath proved to be too fickle with the electrics and still prone to explosion, so a new vehicle using the basis was conceived. With updated like ball-turreted HMGs and proven electronics, the "............" was born - the new MkV would be a marvel of human engineering and a huge threat to the Martian invaders!
PS: you could call it the MkVPz3 with some backstory that a German-American born engineer was the guiding master behind the rework.
|
|
|
|
Post by loyalist on Feb 10, 2016 16:01:30 GMT
If you went with the Goliath's biblical name theme you could call it the 'David', as the Confederates named their subs.
As an American tank a name like the Constitution, or ( borrowing from Jeep) the Liberty or Patriot would work.
|
|
|
|
Post by David N.Tanner 07011959 on Feb 10, 2016 17:13:00 GMT
The posted model looks great. Go with that one.
|
|
|
|
Post by boxholder on Feb 10, 2016 20:24:54 GMT
Barrel length is kind of arbitrary for gaming models. Go with what you think looks good.
For naval guns, barrel length is mainly set by time or distance to fully burn the powder charge, optimally expand the gases and to accelerate the projectile for maximum range. The max range was measured in 10's of miles (or 10's of km). Because the battles in AQMF are at much shorter ranges, basically line-of-sight, you can just declare whatever caliber you want it to be and declare these to be shortened versions of the naval guns. More or less like carbines vs full length rifles.
Re: Wheels vs Tracks - Tracked suspension was pretty new technology at the AQMF time period and the old tanks worried a lot about breaking or losing a track. I would go with the wheels you have on the concept, especially for something this big. Plus, wheeled vehicles are generally faster than their tracked counterparts.
My $0.02 worth
|
|
|
|
Post by Chronos on Feb 11, 2016 3:47:18 GMT
What was the firing arc of the Goliath ? I'm curious as i imagine if it fired to port or starboard it might tip over.
Perhaps a name like Behemoth ?
There's a really cheap and nasty toy Bradley apc that has a turret that reminds me of the goliath's turret ,i will try and find a picture
|
|
|
|
Post by Pz3 on Feb 11, 2016 8:24:02 GMT
Thanks so much for the comments and suggestions. So far this seems to be the consensus- 1) Ball turrets for the MGs. Use the latest tech air-cooled barrels keeping in line with the turret. 2) Rivets – Added 0.5mm/20thou to the height of the subtle rivets, should be a good compromise 3) Leave the turret sloped. I have tidied it up a bit more though, mainly reducing the number of the front armour plates. 4) Name has been bothering me but some good suggestions David was an immediate thought, so was Brutus Synonym for Goliath is - Behemoth and Leviathan As a landship cruiser – names like Constitution, Constellation, Chesapeake come to mind from the original US Navy. Later sailing frigates names could be used, Providence is one that looks good. From the movies, alien invasion of USA – Independence (Day) Battlecruisers were named after famous battles, eg. Lexington and Saratoga, or 20th Century, trends of using US city names. So still open as to a name. Maybe if I get time I’ll cast some up for the community and then, we could have a vote. General notes on sizing. I started with the dimensions noted in one of the sketches, 7”L x 3”W x 4”H. I measured the Ironclad main turret which was basically circular at 1.7/8” / 48mm. Loyalist mentioned he was chasing big wheels at about 42mm. So I took these dimensions and made a start and then adjusted it until it looked right or at least close. Barrel length was to be the same as the Ironclad to tie them together. Size - 6.5”/168mm long (not including barrel), 4”/99mm high and 4”/100mm wide. @ Chronos – thank you for bringing up the port/starboard firing arc. I was just about to squish the model as it is wider than the original 3” width mentioned. You reminded me why I did it like this. Official reasoning is that I can justify the current width as it gives it a more stable firing platform if firing off the centreline.  Again, thanks everyone for the replies. Still welcome to any further comments, suggestions and criticisms. |
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Feb 11, 2016 12:19:18 GMT
With the exception of the USS Langley (CV-1) and HMS Furious (IRL 1917!), I'd think USS carriers and light carriers would work for a series of names for you new MkV(Pz3). I reserve the Langley (CV-1) as an actual AQMF type. Lexington (CV-2), Saratoga (CV-3), Ranger (CV-4), Yorktown (CV-5),Enterprise (CV-6, Wasp (CV-7), Hornet (CV-8), Essex (CV-9) round out the first few. After that it gets a litter confusing as many of the Essex class vessals were renamed to replace lost ships, such as the CV-10 "Yorktown" renamed from the origianl Bon Homme Richard. For our purposes I suggest we keep the original Essex-class names to prevent confusion. So we have Bon Homme Richard (CV-10), Intriped (CV-11), Kearsarge (CV-12), Franklin (CV-13), Ticonderoga (CV-14), Randolph (CV-15), Cabot (CV-16), Bunker Hill (CV-17), Wasp (CV-18), etc.
The USS Langley (CV-1)IRL 1920 should be reserved as its was actually converted the USS Jupiter (AC-3) and could be used in AQMF (based on my artifical rule of no weapons beyond IRL 1925 or so.) The other two battlecrusiers you mentioned Lexington (CV-2) and Saratoga (CV-3) were actually converted from battlecrusiers due to the Washington Naval Treaty (IRL 1922) restricting their construction. On the British side, the HMS Furious (IRL 1917 Courageous class BC converted IRL 1925) and HMS Glorious (converted in 1924 from Courageous BC of IRL 1916). I hope to introduce these three ships to my listing for AQMS & will relish the concept of offshore planes launched in support of Marine and other operations. Stay tuned! Same mad time, same mad channel....
|
|
|
|
Post by loyalist on Feb 11, 2016 15:39:41 GMT
FYI Furious was the third of Lord Fisher's 'large light cruisers' for his Baltic invasion project, the first two being the sisterships Courageous and Glorious. Furious was to have had 2 x single 18" gun turrets vs 2 x twin 15" turrets in the first two, and Furious had a slightly different hull form with wider anti-torpedo bulges. (I've done fiberglass 1/144 scale hull molds for Furious and Courageous/Glorious; hulls now sold by Strike Models in the US.) All were converted to carriers, first HMS Furrious during WWI, the others in the 1920s when Furous was again rebuit to a slightly different carrier deesign. All served in WWI and WWII with only Furious surviving.
|
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Feb 11, 2016 16:15:43 GMT
Gads, I did fail to mention the Courageous didn't I! Yes, those 18" guns were furiously (lol) ahead for their time eh! TY for the location of some hulls, the site will be my next stop. I'll probably have to redo my Ships Range Table to include a "150" line (ei about 1/2 the 1:300 line). Love the scale 1/144 btw, so many nice things available in it (just did a look at Pegasus line of prepainted plastic WW2 minis in 1/144! - houses, trees, all sorts of stuff!). The Wiki writeup on the Furious has both stat lines for the crusier with the 18" guns and the carrier. I look forward to stating out the carriers with one on duty in the USA and the USA Langley off the coast of New Orleans. BTW for those others not familiar with the history of this ship, its actually named after Samuel Pierpoint Langley, a top US scientist in a number of fields including aircraft engineering.
|
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Feb 11, 2016 16:40:48 GMT
OmGs! Those RC controlled ships are both awesome and expensive. I particularly like the ships flags (Bling lol) with the explantion of the red pirate flag vs the usual black. As well the ship plans section offers not only 1/144 by 1/96 very close to our 1/92 AQMf scale! Using the plans along you could carve out a ship from styrofoam or balsa wood. Of coarse the other attraction was all the gun turrets. I could see getting regular modeling plastic or metal tubing to make the guns for those turrets. TY again for that wonderful site. If I had more money than sense and some small amount of modeling skill, I could so get into RC ship combat!
|
|
|
|
Post by loyalist on Feb 12, 2016 19:16:11 GMT
Pz3 you obviously have very good design skills. If you produce this 'non-Goliath' I'll buy a couple.
Something else we really need for AQotMF is a turret for the non-Monitor version of the Mk IV tank. Although the standard Mk IV is listed in the rulebook, no model with that turret was ever available on the retail market. At a pinch a "Patton"-type Mk IV turret could be used but those Mk IV tanks were only available through the Kickstarter and are almost impossible to obtain.
If you can produce a turret of similar style to that described for the standard Mk IV tank I'd buy half a dozen. I need 3 as alternative turrets for my Mk IV Monitors, 2 for a British M29 Class naval monitor, and at least one for a turreted heavy gun emplacement.
I won't need the housings for 4" guns or HMGs on top of the turrets if I use them on ships, so it would be helpful if the turret is designed so those features could easily be cut and filed off.
|
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Feb 13, 2016 1:39:01 GMT
loyalist, does any of the Strike Model turrets work in this context??
|
|
