Jump to content

As a result of the close-down of the UK by the British Government last night, we have made all the Buy/Sell areas read-only until we open back up again, so please have a look at the announcement linked here.

This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Corsairfoxfouruncle

British AFV Group Build

Recommended Posts

@DAG058 ... Excuse me im a little confused ? Which tangent are you referring to ? If you think im off on a tangent because you don't like that the Centurion is listed as an MBT im sorry. I consider it an MBT and so do others there for i will keep this as is. Im sorry you disagree but i would still like to see you participate. 

    If you are referring to the aviation themed analogy which you brought up. I remind you that you used it and i responded. Again I would still like to see you participate as i feel no one should be pushed out or walk away just because of simple disagreement. 

      As for any other tank besides the original three. That point is still up for discussion and debate. Im sticking with the Centurion, Chieftain, and Challenger. The other three “C” types are still debatable. Personally i would say no because they were designed, built, & used in numbers before VE Day. Centurion was essentially still a limited production/advanced prototype as of VE Day. 

 

@Plasto ... Thanks for citing those examples. 

 

Sorry for the inconvenience of reading this folks. But like I have said, I believe in healthy discussion and debate as long as we are civil. 

 

Dennis

Edited by Corsairfoxfouruncle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Plasto said:

If you google it’s not just Wikipedia that deems the Centurion to be a MBT.

 

Tanks encyclopedia seems to think it’s an MBT also...

 

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/UK/FV-4200_Centurion

 

as do these folk...

 

https://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=13

 

And these guys at Bovingdon seem to call it a Main Battle Tank as well

 

http://www.tankmuseum.org/museum-online/vehicles/object-e1970-151

 

Here is an interesting explanation of how the Centurion can be considered an MBT..

 

 

Development of the universal tank ceased, and Centurion entered service just as World War II finished, becoming a multi-role vehicle forming the main battle tank force of the British army (and other nations through export). The addition of the 20 pounder gun in 1948 Gave the tank a significant advantage over other tanks of the era.[13] This paved the way for a new tank classification, the main battle tank, and Centurion is considered by many to be the first MBT as designed.

 

Personally given the Centurion saw a lot of actual combat service and is relatively readily available in kit form in a few differing scales which give depth and choice to a GB why not just let it go as is???

 

Thoughts?

 

 

The guys at Bovington also quote the Chieftain as the first true Main Battle Tank

http://www.tankmuseum.org/museum-online/vehicles/object-e1996-2025

 

as does here

http://fighting-vehicles.com/chieftain-tank/

 

and here 

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=dN0bDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=chieftain+britains+first+main+battle+tank&source=bl&ots=1NCk8U29E5&sig=wrt1tVNgKV1ruwxwNfNnOeNGzbk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2xO25v_vXAhXBAcAKHWo-Bas4ChDoAQhIMAI#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

The army doctrine of the 1950/60s was for Centurion to play a medium role with Conqueror in a Heavy role for penetrating more heavily armoured vehicles. Chieftain was designed with sufficient firepower to fight anything that could be encountered at the time. Therefore making it the first true MBT

 

I suppose it just depend on how you interpret it all. Eitherway I don't mind, maybe I'm just too much of a purest! 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I concur,

 

Cheiftain first true MBT by design from the outset. Centurion MBT by circumstance and the introduction of the Term after it entered service.

 

Everyone is a winner....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, DAG058 said:

 

The guys at Bovington also quote the Chieftain as the first true Main Battle Tank

http://www.tankmuseum.org/museum-online/vehicles/object-e1996-2025

 

as does here

http://fighting-vehicles.com/chieftain-tank/

 

and here 

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=dN0bDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=chieftain+britains+first+main+battle+tank&source=bl&ots=1NCk8U29E5&sig=wrt1tVNgKV1ruwxwNfNnOeNGzbk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2xO25v_vXAhXBAcAKHWo-Bas4ChDoAQhIMAI#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

The army doctrine of the 1950/60s was for Centurion to play a medium role with Conqueror in a Heavy role for penetrating more heavily armoured vehicles. Chieftain was designed with sufficient firepower to fight anything that could be encountered at the time. Therefore making it the first true MBT

 

I suppose it just depend on how you interpret it all. Eitherway I don't mind, maybe I'm just too much of a purest! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I also have to agree with that :yes: 

The Chieftain was the start of the MBT concept, it didn’t need any supporting light, medium or heavy tanks, well say for a recovery wagon and a good team of REME to fix it when it went VOR :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like we can agree to some point DAG. So Im hoping we can work together in the future, if this makes it to the voting stage ? 

 

Thanks Plasto for your efforts. 

 

Thanks Dads for your info and positive waves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enzo responded his answer ...

 

“It would be a standard group build.  There is a linking theme but it encompasses multiple types, many of which have no connection.  Churchills and Cromwells spring to mind.

 

We did a similar thing earlier this year with the Mirage GB.”

 

So It looks like it will be a true group build. Even if it stays just the Three Main Battle Tanks. I dont think it will meet single type unless it was reduced to a solo tank. 

Edited by Corsairfoxfouruncle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ok understood. 

 

If if that’s the case you will have to hit a higher threshold for participants and also make it through the voting round. So I’d personally be mindful of that and if it were me (which it’s not) I’d make to scope as wide as possible (within reason) to encompass and interest as many folk as possible.

 

Perhaps that opens up the Post war British Armour concept with that you get MBT and more...

 

Your call....

3 minutes ago, DAG058 said:

 

No it's a MBT 

 

:coat:

 

 

😘. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello fellow members im just going to give a brief display and do a bit of cheerleading here. These are of the three Tanks so far included in this group build. First up is this AFV CLUB Centurion Mk. 5/1 from the RAAC. This particular version saw extensive use in the Vietnam War.

U1gHsUC.jpg

Next we have an example of the Centurions follow on a Chieftain. This is an example from Takom of the Mk.5 .

84PayWh.jpg

Last Up we have a Two Tamiya Challenger’s the 1 Mk.3 which saw service in the later 1980’s & 1990’s including Operation Granby.Jx4r5vy.jpg

the next is a Challenger 2 which has seen use in both Afghanistan and Iraq in recent times.

6FsyNEp.jpg

These are just a touchstone of what is available to build. There are a significant number of marks, variants, and modifications of all three tanks to give you plenty of options. Not to mention other operators of them besides the UK.

     Im hoping this gives you a brief idea as to what is available. If youre interested you can follow the link in the original post to sign up. If you arent sure if a certain version/prototype is allowed please ask me and i will research and give you a definite answer. Please remember that any scale is allowed. Please have a great modeling day. 

 

Dennis

 

* any photographs used are strictly information use. All rights belong to original owners.
Edited by Corsairfoxfouruncle
Additional

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

you might add the Challenger 1 Mk3 that saw service between the Chieftain and the Challenger 2 ... 

 

E

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Etienne ... Actually if you follow the link i do have a Challenger 1 Mk.3 in the opening post. If they are two seperate designs i will correct that ? I had thought Challenger Two was a development of the Challenger 1 ? Shows my lack of scholarly knowledge of the types. Thus my hopes i find a co-host soon.

 

thanks 

Dennis

 

corrected sir

Edited by Corsairfoxfouruncle
Additional

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Corsairfoxfouruncle said:

@Etienne ... Actually if you follow the link i do have a Challenger 1 Mk.3 in the opening post. If they are two seperate designs i will correct that ? I had thought Challenger Two was a development of the Challenger 1 ? Shows my lack of scholarly knowledge of the types. Thus my hopes i find a co-host soon.

 

thanks 

Dennis

 

corrected sir

Exactly, two separate designs ... they share the same hull but most of the components are differents so two different MBT ;) E

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add my 2 centimes worth. First off, this seems to be being fought on two fronts so to speak, both here and on Group Build Chats. In the GB thread, it's already a going concern as a GB for post war British MBT's, which would seem to make this discussion superfluous (yes, I know that I'm late sticking my oar in). Personally, I'm in favour of the stated formula ie. Centurion, Chieftain and Challenger l/ll. I understand peoples arguments about the Centurion, because as far as I'm aware, when it started life on the drawing board during WW2, the A41 was seen as a Cruiser tank, almost the next step from the Comet. But as it developed, it became accepted as the first MBT, even if it didn't start out that way.

As Enzo has pointed out, this can't be an STGB for obvious reasons. I'm already signed up for it and I hope that I gets through, because there are dozens of different models that can be built in this category, thankfully, the majority of them from existing kits. Those with deeper pockets can go further and convert using some of the Accurate Armour sets.

So I'm up for this GB as it stands. I've got  couple of contenders in the stash and just hope that it won't be too far in the future......some of us are a bit long in the tooth!!

 

John (fending off the Grim Reaper).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest with you, if you want to have any sort of chance of getting a GB through the voting phase you have to give it a wide appeal.

 

However STGB are different and I reckon you'd do better to make a Challenger MTB STGB as there are a lot more kit options in various scales available for that than the others, even after Takom's setling efforts in the Chieftain area. STGBs are more likely to take place as it doesn't have to go through the frustrating voting process. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bullbasket I know its a bit redundant but i think advertising here can help traffic in the group build area. I try not to over post here. Yes we did get into a bit of discussion about Centurion, and i think its been settled to some degree. 

 

@Kallisti ... I agree i originally aimed for a STGB. I rethought that unfortunately, as I obviously opened a proverbial can of worms. My reasons were that Chieftain does have 4-6 models. However i thought there would be a lot of overlap with types and camouflage with only that grouping. Maybe i should’ve gone with Centurion instead.

    I’ve said also somewhere here or in the group build thread that i felt bad. I saw that we've had Two German and Two American GB’s. The Russian’s were going slow but will make it eventually. However no one seemed to even suggest a British armor build either single or standard type. If it fails it fails im hoping not. But I will have at least tried. I hope that clarifies some of my thoughts.

 

Dennis 

Edited by Corsairfoxfouruncle
Additional

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/8/2017 at 11:10 PM, Dads203 said:

 

I also have to agree with that :yes: 

The Chieftain was the start of the MBT concept, it didn’t need any supporting light, medium or heavy tanks, well say for a recovery wagon and a good team of REME to fix it when it went VOR :D

Which was quite a often :D:D:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I can add my two pence, as this has become a standard GB and will therefore have to go through voting at the end of 2018, it's important to try and involve as many modellers as possible, as otherwise it may be hard to get enough votes.

In my previous experience as proposer or supporter of group builds, I've seen how even subjects that may sound popular can easily fail to get through, GB proposals that are very limited in scope are always at risk unless they cover very, very popular subjects.

This GB at the moment seems to be limited to 4 tanks, and this may not be a problem... the fact that there are only a few kits available may however be a serious problem ! Tor example I'd likely be building a 1/72 tank as this is my favourite scale, what are my options in this scale ? And I mean true 1/72 scale... Couple of Challengers, a short run Centurion, some resin kits...

Now opening up the GB to all British postwar tanks would allow a couple types to slip through (like the Conqueror), still not much but 50% more than originally planned.

Clearly opening the scope of the GB to include all British postwar AFVs would increase the options considerably and may attract modellers to join the list of interested parties and, most important, to vote for the GB.

Of course another option would be to change this into a British Tanks GB, so letting in modellers interested in WW2 and earlier (let's not forget that for every postwar tanks enthusiast there are several interested mainly in WW2)..

Now I don't want to tell the proposer what he should do, of course this is his idea and he's right in trying to pass this on as close as possible to his original intentions. At the same time I've seen other proposals fail in the past and I'm happy to pass on my experience with these if I can help a new proposal go through

Edited by Giorgio N

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Centurion wasn't designed as an MBT, but it became possibly the finest early example of the type over the course of its service life, much in the same way as the Pz.IV was designed as a heavy tank in 1939, but became a medium by 1945.....It should definitely be included in my opinion.

 

Just my  :2c:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Giorgio N .. I agree with the voting theories and know it will be hard to garner support. That is unless its either broad spectrum or a popular subject. That being said i have looked at the votes cast in response to the earlier post. 

      After 3 weeks i see that 4 have voted for inclusion of all AFV’s used by Britain since 1945. The other option of inclusion of all “C” type tanks seems to have garnered 2 votes. Thats 6 of 13 involved voting just short of 50%. Id like to see more votes, but im inclined to open this up to all AFV’s. That would incorporate every AFV/APC proposed, designed, produced, and operated since January 1st 1945. I shall modify the Opening posts here and in the group build area. 

 

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad that Giorgio raised this because I think he may have a point. Perhaps it should be post WW2 British tanks to include such things as the Conqueror and maybe the Tortoise . What I don't agree with is making it a build to include all British tanks as that just opens it up a bit too wide for my preferences. I say this as I was thinking about another future build (possibly 2020) to cover British cruiser tanks. This would be able to cover everything from the A9/A10 up to the A41 Centurion as I believe that is what it was originally designed as, being a successor to the Comet.

If it is to be post WW2 British tanks, what would be the way of defining whether something qualifies? Anything in service post WW2? Anything designed post WW2, or anything built post WW2, regardless of when it was designed (I'm thing Centurion and Tortoise here)? My personal preference is for the former as this would open it up to Comets and Cromwells that served in Korea, and vehicles based on the Cromwell such as Avenger.

 

John.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bullbasket ... I agree and unfortunately seem to really have a Huge :worms: on my hands. I really was trying to just be fair originally because there were two German and two U.S. builds. There are also two Soviet/Russian builds on the move. I had just wanted to create a British based build, and just really cant seem to find a good balance. I really am just not very familiar with everything in British Armor. I had wanted to stay Cold war, as i really feel WW2 should be able to get its own builds. What with all the Tanks and variants that existed.

      To be honest I’m about to call it quits. I really still want a British build in the group builds. Simply because of all the Iconic Vehicles the British have produced. Im just tired of not being able to find the correct mix of types and era ? If you or anyone else wants to do something im all for it. Including taking over and redesigning this build. I will go to Enzo and ask him to transfer the control over to anyone interested. I would stay involved as a participant of course. 

 

Thoroughly confused and demoralized

 

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chin up Dennis.

 

All of the current Armour GB’s have snuck through under the STGB rules which are less stringent than a regular GB. Your British MBT GB idea is a good one and we seem to have general agreement on what is a British MBT which gives reasonable scope to the GB.

 

Is it enough scope to make it through the GB process?? Time will tell.

 

Changing the scope to Post WW2 British AFV’s or WHY increases the scope but still might not ‘chin the bar’ when it comes to votes in the GB playoffs. 

 

You’re just breaking new ground trying to get a regular Armour GB through and having picked a British 

scope to try and do it with.

 

Someone had to stick their hand up and try. Kudos to you for doing that.

 

TBH you’ll never please everyone that’s impossible.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nil desperandum Dennis. It's still a couple of years away, and if it's thrown out to discussion, then probably in the end there will be a general consensus on which way to go.

 

John.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...