|
|
Post by loyalist on Sept 9, 2016 20:38:27 GMT
I'm using S2G tanks as troop transports and artillery tows for my Canadian force. The premise is that the S2G tanks were an early British version of a petrol powered tank, were superseded by the Imperial/Cardigan chassis and sold to Canada.
They are slightly shorter in length than a US AIC, have tracks of the same width, but the hull is much narrower (14 vs 23mm), so I decided they could only transport 1 element of infantry vs the AIC's 2 elements. I have the Canadian platoons organized like the American's with 3 elements each so each platoon needs 3 S2G transport tanks.
The AIC is not allowed to tow artillery, being an extended MK II chassis that has become too heavy. Because the volume and theoretical weight of the S2G 'light' transport tank would be less than the AIC I propose that if used in AQotMF it can tow artillery or carry 1 element of infantry. I'd still rate it at 40 points, which is what a MK IIt tow tank costs and what an AIC costs (120 pts / unit of 3). Presumably the petrol engine is more efficient and powerful than the steam engine.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Sept 10, 2016 10:55:49 GMT
I can go with all you mention. But, for myself if I were to use that line of thought, I'd do 2 element squads carried by a single transport. The major thought here is the the Canadians organized along British lines, not US. So the standard squad would be 10 man not 15 (2 element). As far as power/towing/timeline this all makes sense. It certainly is a good looking model and whatever you use it for, it will grace the table. I appreciate you thoughts on this - for me, its a superior vehicle and is one of the best of the S2G tanks. Different strokes - I love your consistent approach  |
|
|
|
Post by loyalist on Sept 10, 2016 11:52:36 GMT
The reason for the BEF having 2 x 5-man elements in a unit instead of 3 is the troop carrying capacity of the Cardigan carrier (2 elements). If you look at the British expansion pdf you'll see that all colonial troops and the Home Guard have 3 x 5-man elements, and skirmishing units also have 3 elements but of 4 men each.
The Canadians don't have Cardigan carriers so I organized them like the other 3 element Commonwealth infantry units. If I was to give the S2G transports capacity for 2 squads I might reorganize but then they'd 'count as' AICs and wouldn't be allowed to tow artillery, which was one of the main reasons for buying them. The volume of the hull between the treads is much smaller than an AIC's so I'm going to keep them at 1 element carrying capacity.
The S2G tanks are great models. I'd love to use units of S2G Male and Female tanks as Mk IIb/mg interim steamer equivalents but they would be over-priced and too slow due to their wonky rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by slave2gaming on Sept 10, 2016 21:47:51 GMT
Cool conversation guys, I like the way you guys are thinking. The original thought had been for a 10 man British squad to fit in one transport, my thought had been that you take the 6 gunners out + all the guns and I thought that you should be able to fit 10 guys in there. However, when I started to plan for my British force, I actually found myself wondering if 10 guys with backpacks and equipment might be a bit tighter than I thought... I know that I've hedged my comments to both of your comments  , the one thing that finally decided the transport question for me was I found that one stand per tank looked better on the board. I decided that I wanted that look of lots of tanks and Infantry. I think it can go either way, it really just depends what you want your priority to be with the figures |
|
|
|
Post by loyalist on Sept 11, 2016 1:15:19 GMT
I've read up on the WWI British tanks that were meant to transport troops. I was surprised that it was planned to stuff up to 30 men with their equipment in the Mk IX transport/supply tank, which was the largest transport and based on a lengthened Mk V hull. However there weren't any seats for the passengers and the distance covered was clearly meant to be short. In the AQotMF universe with much of the fighting being on the prairies and involving long distance travel I envisioned the transport tanks having seats and carrying troops for as long as a couple of hours. In that case the passenger capacity would be reduced so I went for 1 element of infantry per S2G transport. If you look at the interior layout of the WWI transport tanks, including the MK IX, the troops would have been jammed in around the machinery like sardines!
If there was an 18mm Mk IX transport it would be a couple of mm higher, 1-2 narrower and 12mm (~1/2") longer than the S2G transport tank. There is a 20mm version of the MK IX available that would be about 11% larger. I could see 10 troops fitting in that with seats for more comfortable longer distance travel. The MK IX had a poor length to breadth ratio which caused it to throw and break tracks when turning. If S2G eventually makes a larger transport tank it should be wide enough to maintain the length/beam ratio of the smaller S2G tanks (based on the WWI Mk IV I believe).
|
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Sept 11, 2016 10:58:32 GMT
Great discussion - for my money the best transport out there atm is the A7V (or G7V under my numbering system). Though its supposed to be a 'gun ship' its size allows for easy loading of 15 men or 3 mg with crew (or other similar crewed infantry weapons like mortars, etc.). I disagree with using the colonial and Home Guard troops as examples for the basis of British in the field. The colonials are not 'British', they're native and though a few are really good (Sikh, Ghurka,Bengal), for the most part they are numerous to make up for lack of fighting and shooting ability. Heck, the pdf didn't even give them any assault ability (no grenades, poor chaps). The Home Guard are at best Territorial units (see my example TO&E), meant for last ditch defense of the homeland should it come to that. They probably are short on any kind of transport despite AD trying to make you buy more models for them (e.i. the cool looking Monos with the flag paint job). And more than likely they'd have hordes of lorries for transport in the emergency of a landing by Martians. They are second line units, both historically and AQ wise. Of coarse, its your army your building and I'm not standing in the way of sales for S2G of coarse. I've made the S2G models 'superior' to almost any units out there and their tactics evolve around superior armor support as well. I look forward to the continued inventive S2G items, particularly in the field of light artillery and other vehicles - I'd love to see a motorcycle with sidecar or trikes be added at some time to the line and of coarse wait for naval or other personnel as they see fit. Game on and Hurray! Canada!
|
|
, the one thing that finally decided the transport question for me was I found that one stand per tank looked better on the board. I decided that I wanted that look of lots of tanks and Infantry.