Things Id Like to see in 2017
Moderators: dnichols, GHQ, Mk 1
-
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 2:51 pm
-
- E5
- Posts: 196
- Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:16 pm
- Location: San Mateo, CA
My wish list for 2017 includes:
1. Engineer figures for all Nations for which there are infantry figures.
2. C-RAM Air/Artillery/Mortar defense.
3. Updated Micro Armor The Game: Modern rules. (someone is working on this but I'd really like them to finish!)
4. HUMMWV's with LRASS for Recon units
5. French CAESAR Artillery vehicle
More to follow...
1. Engineer figures for all Nations for which there are infantry figures.
2. C-RAM Air/Artillery/Mortar defense.
3. Updated Micro Armor The Game: Modern rules. (someone is working on this but I'd really like them to finish!)
4. HUMMWV's with LRASS for Recon units
5. French CAESAR Artillery vehicle
More to follow...
When in trouble or in doubt,
Run in circles, scream and shout!
Run in circles, scream and shout!
-
- E5
- Posts: 3466
- Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 3:44 am
For those of us clamoring for the British Conqueror heavy tank...
Can someone enlighten me about the heavy tank units? For instance, the US heavy tank battalion in Germany consisted of 72 tanks divided into 4 companies of six platoons, each platoon having three tanks and a jeep. Neither company nor battalion headquarters had any tanks. They were all in the platoons What say for the Brits?
Should GHQ issue Conqueror, I'm not sure I would acquire more than a squadron (US company), since my British establishment isn't that big (1 armored infantry battalion reinforced by 2 Challenger squadrons and a Chieftain squadron, plus some support). Nevertheless, it would be handy to know, and I haven't found anything on line yet.
Thanks in advance.
Can someone enlighten me about the heavy tank units? For instance, the US heavy tank battalion in Germany consisted of 72 tanks divided into 4 companies of six platoons, each platoon having three tanks and a jeep. Neither company nor battalion headquarters had any tanks. They were all in the platoons What say for the Brits?
Should GHQ issue Conqueror, I'm not sure I would acquire more than a squadron (US company), since my British establishment isn't that big (1 armored infantry battalion reinforced by 2 Challenger squadrons and a Chieftain squadron, plus some support). Nevertheless, it would be handy to know, and I haven't found anything on line yet.
Thanks in advance.
All blessings flow from a good mission statement.
Pogo was right. So was Ike.
"A Gentleman is a man who is only rude intentionally." (Churchill)
Give credit. Take responsibility.
Pogo was right. So was Ike.
"A Gentleman is a man who is only rude intentionally." (Churchill)
Give credit. Take responsibility.
-
- E5
- Posts: 3466
- Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 3:44 am
I simply cannot resist putting in another tick for MBT-70. It would certainly add an interesting dimension to the battlefield.
And I would like to see the General Motors version of the M1, as well, with 105 OR 120mm gun.
And I would like to see the General Motors version of the M1, as well, with 105 OR 120mm gun.
All blessings flow from a good mission statement.
Pogo was right. So was Ike.
"A Gentleman is a man who is only rude intentionally." (Churchill)
Give credit. Take responsibility.
Pogo was right. So was Ike.
"A Gentleman is a man who is only rude intentionally." (Churchill)
Give credit. Take responsibility.
-
- E5
- Posts: 3466
- Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 3:44 am
CG2,
Thanks. So was the practice to attach 1 Conqueror troop to each squadron, assuming three squadrons per regiment? It there were 4 squadrons per regiment, I assume the custom was that the fourth was in reserve and didn't get the Conquerors. Did all regiments in the RAC receive Conqueror troops, or just those in BAOR?
Were the Conquerors usually formed in a functioning squadron with a headquarters and support troop, even though the troops would normally be detached?
I'm trying to answer the same questions for the M103s of the US heavy tank battalion. I am assuming the US platoon took up overwatch for the company to which it was attached. That was not the way the M60A2 was employed, however, at least in 3AD(US). The A2 had the potential to assume the same role, given the supposed advantage of the Shillelagh, but in practice, we were employed just like the M60A1.
Thanks. So was the practice to attach 1 Conqueror troop to each squadron, assuming three squadrons per regiment? It there were 4 squadrons per regiment, I assume the custom was that the fourth was in reserve and didn't get the Conquerors. Did all regiments in the RAC receive Conqueror troops, or just those in BAOR?
Were the Conquerors usually formed in a functioning squadron with a headquarters and support troop, even though the troops would normally be detached?
I'm trying to answer the same questions for the M103s of the US heavy tank battalion. I am assuming the US platoon took up overwatch for the company to which it was attached. That was not the way the M60A2 was employed, however, at least in 3AD(US). The A2 had the potential to assume the same role, given the supposed advantage of the Shillelagh, but in practice, we were employed just like the M60A1.
All blessings flow from a good mission statement.
Pogo was right. So was Ike.
"A Gentleman is a man who is only rude intentionally." (Churchill)
Give credit. Take responsibility.
Pogo was right. So was Ike.
"A Gentleman is a man who is only rude intentionally." (Churchill)
Give credit. Take responsibility.
-
- E5
- Posts: 457
- Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 11:38 am
- Location: UK
As far as I can see they pretty much all went to Germany. Actual practice seems limited as they were difficult to maintain, a ** CENSORED ** to operate, had electrical problems and their inability to use many bridges due to their weight severely limited their deployment. Ironically it appears that they had lower ground pressure than the Centurions due to their wide tracks so they were better cross-country when they worked but they appear to have been unloved by their crews in general. Of course they were only in service for around seven years before 105mm Centurions made them obsolete.
Practice during WW2 was to split Challengers or Fireflies up among the Cromwells, giving one 17pdr tank per troop of 75mms, so it is possible that they operated this way but they were formally operated as separate troops within a Centurion squadron in most cases.
See the attached (about half way down) : http://www.britisharmedforces.org/pages ... sskill.htm
Practice during WW2 was to split Challengers or Fireflies up among the Cromwells, giving one 17pdr tank per troop of 75mms, so it is possible that they operated this way but they were formally operated as separate troops within a Centurion squadron in most cases.
See the attached (about half way down) : http://www.britisharmedforces.org/pages ... sskill.htm
CG2
-
- E5
- Posts: 784
- Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 3:11 am
- Location: Boise, ID
- Contact:
-
- E5
- Posts: 3466
- Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 3:44 am
-
- E5
- Posts: 3466
- Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 3:44 am
I am 25 tanks into my 72-tank M103 battalion, after which, depending on GHQ issuing it, I would be interested in 18 Conquerors.
Now, GHQ, let's see if we can also get MBT70 next year. I envision at least two 54-tank battalions. The Gator State engineers are already working on an improved Shillelagh missile, sabot, and heat rounds. They are also considering replacing the 152 launcher with the 120mm gun currently used by the M1A2 for one of the battalions.
I have read that the manufacturer of the M8 armored gun system is looking at mounting a 120mm on it.
Now, GHQ, let's see if we can also get MBT70 next year. I envision at least two 54-tank battalions. The Gator State engineers are already working on an improved Shillelagh missile, sabot, and heat rounds. They are also considering replacing the 152 launcher with the 120mm gun currently used by the M1A2 for one of the battalions.
I have read that the manufacturer of the M8 armored gun system is looking at mounting a 120mm on it.
All blessings flow from a good mission statement.
Pogo was right. So was Ike.
"A Gentleman is a man who is only rude intentionally." (Churchill)
Give credit. Take responsibility.
Pogo was right. So was Ike.
"A Gentleman is a man who is only rude intentionally." (Churchill)
Give credit. Take responsibility.
-
- E5
- Posts: 414
- Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 10:33 pm
- Location: Central TX
-
- E5
- Posts: 3466
- Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 3:44 am
Would like to see civilian vehicles, too, including construction vehicles that could be commandeered, pickups, vans, as well as cars, SUVs, and various trucks.
All blessings flow from a good mission statement.
Pogo was right. So was Ike.
"A Gentleman is a man who is only rude intentionally." (Churchill)
Give credit. Take responsibility.
Pogo was right. So was Ike.
"A Gentleman is a man who is only rude intentionally." (Churchill)
Give credit. Take responsibility.