Author Topic: Idea for a perk tank (Read 1337 times)

Jigster · « **Reply #15 on:** April 27, 2001, 12:17:00 PM »

Just model a Churchill AVRE.

290mm Spigot mortar, heavily armored, not much slower and was produced in greater numbers.

British get their tank, and in the future, it can serve in beach landings and road laying.

Sturm · « **Reply #16 on:** April 27, 2001, 12:35:00 PM »

Totally forgot about the AVRE, only down side to it was the range of the mortar

What about the Calliope? Now that would be interesting to have and it is an american tank to boot.

chunder' · « **Reply #17 on:** April 27, 2001, 02:45:00 PM »

Modeling a Sherman would give you a lot of bang for your buck. Just think of the varients that could be produced from the basic welded hull Sherman.... there's the 75 and 76mm versions, the Calliope (rockets), the Jumbo (assault tank), the Crocodile (flamethrower), the Firefly (17pdr), the 105mm howitzer equipped Sherman, the HVSS or "easy eight" Sherman, and if you take the turret off and give it an open top you can do vehicles like the Priest. An added plus for doing the cast hull Sherman would be the possibility of modeling a Duplex Drive version.

Jigster · « **Reply #18 on:** April 27, 2001, 04:06:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sturm:
Totally forgot about the AVRE, only down side to it was the range of the mortar What about the Calliope? Now that would be interesting to have and it is an american tank to boot.

john9001 · « **Reply #19 on:** April 27, 2001, 04:20:00 PM »

need a railroad gun... oh wait ,we have no railroads.......hint hint

LaVa · « **Reply #20 on:** April 29, 2001, 11:13:00 PM »

I feel the chunder!

YES!, bring in the Sherman...great info btw chunder

LaVa

-lynx- · « **Reply #21 on:** April 30, 2001, 06:32:00 AM »

Just curious why people are asking for bigger (=better???) guns. I can't think of anything more boring than drive that stupid monster at 10mph somewhere to fire those 380mm things... And then what? Caboom! Hmmm... OK, very loud CABOOM!!! And?

What happened to the exhilaration of a FIGHT? Surely you know what I'm talking about? That, edge-of-the-seat, sweaty palms, heart pumping action where you outsmart/fly/drive/shoot your opponent?

Sometimes I wonder if people asking for bigger guns are trying to compensate for something...

AG Sachsenberg · « **Reply #22 on:** April 30, 2001, 07:09:00 AM »

Lynx calm down, don't always takes thing we say in here as "what we want". I would prefer to have a Mk Va to be honest. But since Pyro said artillery was going to be introduced why not have the best? And BTW the Sturmtiger will go faster then 10 mph, around 23 would be precise. Right at the speed of our Mark IV. And BTW the reload time for that sucka was quite a bit. It would be a nice weapon to sit off base and shell with.

------------------

[This message has been edited by AG Sachsenberg (edited 04-30-2001).]

-lynx- · « **Reply #23 on:** April 30, 2001, 08:09:00 AM »

Nope, 23 that's on the road. Don't remember many of those in AH

65 ton thing with lousy 700hp doing 23mph off road is a not-happening event

. I also saw a picture of this sucker being loaded with it's crane - c'mon, that's 370-odd kilo round to load, before you lose the second rocket a squadron of Lancs will take-off from a remote field, climb ot 30K and bomb you into dust

AG Sachsenberg · « **Reply #24 on:** April 30, 2001, 08:41:00 AM »

Aye but a Mark Iv off road is not 24 as well

At any rate I guess we always have to have the negative point of views in a discussion. I was not being serious about the Sturmtiger, it just brought out others into what they would like to see. Some day I would like to see a post where no one squeakes or whines.

------------------

[This message has been edited by AG Sachsenberg (edited 04-30-2001).]

Pongo · « **Reply #25 on:** April 30, 2001, 09:27:00 AM »

The sturm tiger would never be used at 10 mph. I would be bobsleaded down hills at 250 mph into the base ack which it is immune to and flatten all hangers at the field as fast as it could traverse.
Good candidite for a very expensive Perk vehicle.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #26 on:** April 30, 2001, 09:28:00 AM »

The exterior crane mounted on the right rear of the superstrucre was used to stow the rounds on-board the Sturmtiger. The actual loading of projectiles into the rocket tube was relativley easy. All the crew had to do was to place the rockets on a central slider with rollers then push it into the breech, close it, then fire. The rockets were stowed on the hull sides within easy reach of the slider and this was done very quickly.

-lynx- · « **Reply #27 on:** April 30, 2001, 10:31:00 AM »

Hmmm.. Thanks for the info Grunherz - I was wondering how they were loading that sucker under fire with a crane

I'm just thinking that somehow un-perked slots should be filled first? And when HT and the crew are bored stiff with nothing else to do they might entertain the masses with rarely seen beasties...

AG Sachsenberg · « **Reply #28 on:** April 30, 2001, 10:39:00 AM »

Lynx which is how I view it as well. but if they were to add a perk vehicle the Sturmtiger would be a candidate, and I mean a candidate. There are very few vehicles I would use if perked. For one thing vehicle's are at way to much of a risk to use in here for perking IMO. think if they do add vehicles you migth as well add more then jsut 1, otherwise the old ones will be seldom used, aka 202, 205.

------------------

[This message has been edited by AG Sachsenberg (edited 04-30-2001).]

DRILL · « **Reply #29 on:** April 30, 2001, 01:37:00 PM »

my god i only got 1 question ???

will it kill c chog ???

------------------
DRILL