Jump to content
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. :)

Churchill

The 'Stuff You Wouldn't Want To Go To War In' GB

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Welcome to the SYWWTGTWI GB discussion. This idea was inspired by @Hewy's attempt to get a push-prop powered plywood box on skis past @trickyrich in the The Specialists GB:

 

Aerosan

 

... as well as my own submission, a Boys Anti-Tank rifle equipped universal carrier, which as trickyrich noted, isn't exactly something you want to come across a Tiger in. 

 

So this build is for those vehicles that were:

 

1> obsolete before they entered service, or

2> hopelessly outclassed by the opposition, or

3> insanely dangerous to the user and likely to get them killed without the enemy  actually having to do anything, or

4> otherwise deeply flawed or just misconceived. 

 

All scales acceptable (up to and including 1:1, but I won't be responsible for the consequences) and subjects can be for land-

 

Bob Semple tank.

 

Sea, 

 

Human torpedo

 

or Air

 

V1 plane.

 

 

Or for that matter, there's any misguided combination of the three, such as Mr @Brad's proposed soviet AT40 flying tank, or the duplex drive swimming Shermans of D-Day, a substantial proportion of which failed to reach the shore because they were expected to cross 5000 yards of sea but weren't built to cope with waves. 

 

Obviously the first two categories require the vehicle to have been built, if for the other categories we were to relax the usual rules about there having been at least a prototype constructed we open the floodgates to a tide of martial lunacy. That might or might not be a good thing, I think we'll have to look at what people are proposing to build. For now, if you look at it and think 'I wouldn't want to go to war in that' but you do want to build it, then I want to hear about it. 

 

KBO,

 

Churchill. 

 

Recruiting Officer's report as at seventeen hundred hours April thirteenth:

 

1. Brad

2. Grimreaper 09

3. Hewy

4. Corsairfoxfouruncle 

5. Vppelt68 

6. Mig Eater

7. Giorgio N

8. CliffB

9. Silenoz

10. Sleeperservice

11. Moggy

12. Tony Tiger 66

13. Bonhoff

14. Trickyrich

15. Peter Lloyd 

16. Jabba

17. Foxbat

18. Colin W (via my The Specialists GB build thread) 

19. Botan

20. Jb65rams

21. Mjwomack 

22. Hook

23. Beazer

24. DaveyGair

 

One or two of the above have yet to say what they propose to build. 

 

And a seat is being kept warm for @Enzo Matrix, but not with a Galaxy class starship, not even if it's entirely crewed by nameless away team members in red shirts. 

 

Proposals range from the mad (BV40) to the maddening (snatch Landrover), and some interesting and exciting modelling is in the offing, including vac-form, scratchbuilds, a kit with more PE than plastic, and more. 

 

 

Edited by Churchill
List update

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this idea, it's original and has the potential to be some real fun. As you mentioned, I'm in with my Antonov A 40 Flying Tank. They built and tested the prototype, but had to remove the T-60's gun, ammunition and most of the fuel to get it to fly. Even then the tow aircraft almost crashed!

 

Not something I would have wanted to go to war in!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I propose the Snatch Land Rover in Iraq.

 

Who wouldn’t want to cut about the beautiful and ancient city of Basrah in thinly armoured tin cans whilst the locals take up the fashion of EFP IED production and emplacement! 

 

I certainly wouldn’t.... oh wait! 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great stuff @Churchill, it is a  totally superb idea,, I'm obviously on board, there's so much to choose, the "fairy battle" springs to mind with around a hundred downed in the first week, for the out classed category, and the totally mad "natter" for the luftwaffe, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to have you on board, Messrs @Brad and @Hewy.

 

@GrimReaper09, may I put your name down, sir? Did you have a particular snatch Land Rover kit in mind? I was looking at the one on display at the Imperial War Museum London just a week or two ago, I remember thinking how frail it was compared with the UN armoured car on the same floor. It's not even lightly armoured, it's just a car really. The servicemen out there deserved better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Churchill yes please. I've just found and paid for an Airfix 1/48 Snatch from the HERRICK series. I've never done anything in that scale before and I've also never done a vehicle so this will be a learning curve!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

🙋🏻‍♂️   Ooooh me ... count me in !!! Pretty sure i can find something to build ? 🧐 maybe an Me-163 ? Where the fuel could melt you ?  And/or the tempermental rocket might just go boom, while you were sitting there. 

Edited by Corsairfoxfouruncle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Capital idea, Mr @Corsairfoxfouruncle: you're number four.

 

I am very much looking forward to your Patton tank build next month. I've bought the wrong tank for it, but I'm sure it's nothing a razor saw and some milliput won't solve. 

 

By the way, did you know there are one or two 163's still flying? 

Edited by Churchill
Added last sentence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Churchill said:

 

By the way, did you know there are one or two 163's still flying? 

Or perhaps not. I could have sworn I'd seen recent video of a 163 taking off under rocket power and gliding back to the runway. But the only flying 163 is without a motor, it's towed to altitude and released like a ordinary glider. And it's a replica too. I believe that's what psychologists call  'the Mandela effect'. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Churchill said:

I am very much looking forward to your Patton tank build next month. I've bought the wrong tank for it, but I'm sure it's nothing a razor saw and some milliput won't solve. 

You have my attention Mr.Churchill ? Which tank did you purchase ? If its any sub-variant or spin-off of the M26/46, M47, M48, and M60 including foreign build/modifications ? You should already be good ? Let me know and I can check if you arent sure. 

 

Dennis

 

EDIT : Yes i did i believe theyre gliders now ? 

Edited by Corsairfoxfouruncle

Share this post


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

You have my attention Mr.Churchill ? Which tank did you purchase ? If its any sub-variant or spin-off of the M26/46, M47, M48, and M60 including foreign build/modifications ? You should already be good ? Let me know and I can check if you arent sure. 

Ah, I want to build Lt Belton Cooper's prototype super Pershing, and I bought a production super Pershing as the base kit. In hindsight, I should have started with a standard Pershing, as the production model will need some surgery to the turret to get it to the right shape. Sometimes it's easier to move a kit forward in time than to move it backwards, if you see what I mean. But the base kit and what I want to make from it are both M26 versions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah i see ... i thought you might be trying to retro an israeli magach or something like that back to a standard M60 ? This is still backdating but not as bad as i thought. I did actually photograph a T26e4 last year at the local museum. 

Its about 1/3rd to 1/2 way down the photo’s. Maybe they will help. 

 

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing funny or very little self-destructive potential in them, but with them you were going to war unarmed... I'd like to join with a PR Spitfire or Mosquito, if you good people find them eligible.

V-P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, vppelt68 said:

There's nothing funny or very little self-destructive potential in them, but with them you were going to war unarmed... I'd like to join with a PR Spitfire or Mosquito, if you good people find them eligible.

V-P

What, no guns at all? Flying over sensitive bits of enemy territory? I believe you're good to go, Mr @vppelt68, and very welcome. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Came across the delightfully dangerous  looking hafner rotobuggy, an easy ish  looking scratch  build, plus a Jeep kit 

eHKq0AG.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Hewy said:

Came across the delightfully dangerous  looking hafner rotobuggy, an easy ish  looking scratch  build, plus a Jeep kit 

eHKq0AG.jpg

I'm speechless. But I really want to see it built. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sign me up with a 1/35 Bob Semple tank, I was just looking at diagrams of it a few days ago & thinking it would be a fun scratch build :P  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Mig Eater said:

Sign me up with a 1/35 Bob Semple tank, I was just looking at diagrams of it a few days ago & thinking it would be a fun scratch build :P 

An excellent choice, Mr @Mig Eater, I've thought exactly the same ever since I first saw that wonderful bit of New Zealand ingenuity.

Share this post


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

An excellent choice, Mr @Mig Eater, I've thought exactly the same ever since I first saw that wonderful bit of New Zealand ingenuity.

In fact, the Bob Semple tank came up in the original discussion in the 'The Specialists' GB chat. Wonderful as it is, it qualifies in category 2 for this build. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Although not obsolete, I am thinking of a Tornado GR1 that is fitted with a set of JP233s. Imagine flying down the middle of a runway at about 50ft (I know it is a certain height) and at a certain speed so that the mines can be dispensed correctly, with all the airfields guns pointing and shooting at you.

Edited by Jabba

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be better suited for the Tornado GB.
 

 

Share this post


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

Although not obsolete, I am thinking of a Tornado GR1 that is fitted with a set of JP233s. Imagine flying down the middle of a runway at about 50ft (I know it is a certain height) and at a certain speed so that the mines can be dispensed correctly, with all the airfields guns pointing and shooting at you.

I recall these being in the news during the Gulf War. Deploying them leaves the crew very exposed and arguably they'd fit in category 4. But Mr @Mig Eater might be right that the Tornado GB would be tailor made for the advice and support which is, to me, what a GB is all about?

Share this post


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

I recall these being in the news during the Gulf War. Deploying them leaves the crew very exposed and arguably they'd fit in category 4. But Mr @Mig Eater might be right that the Tornado GB would be tailor made for the advice and support which is, to me, what a GB is all about?

Funnily enough, my father was the Flt Sgt in charge of the JP233 team at RAF Bruggen during the Gulf war. The JP233 was the best runway denial system in the world at the time and of all the Tornados shot down during the conflict, none of them were due to the employment parameters of the JP233 (ZA392/EK crashed after an attack run but it was suspected it hit the ground after a low level turn).

 

so even with my bias (sorry!) I put that it doesn't fit any of the 4 points for this GB

 

1> obsolete before they entered service, or (it wasn't obsolete, in fact it was cutting edge at the time)

2> hopelessly outclassed by the opposition, or (N/A)

3> insanely dangerous to the user and likely to get them killed without the enemy actually having to do anything, or (this one maybe but it was any more dangerous than the delivery of the 1000lb'ers during the conflict?) 

4> otherwise deeply flawed or just misconceived. (possibly but i wouldn't say it was flawed any more than the delivery parameters of the bouncing bomb)

 

just my thoughts! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@GrimReaper09, thank you for those insights. Category 3 would only apply if the JP233 itself was likely to damage the aircraft but that wasn't the case. Category 4 would apply if using the weapon put the aircraft at unacceptably high risk of being shot down. If none of the Tornadoes using it in the Gulf war were lost to enemy action, then the case that the weapon was deeply flawed or misconceived doesn't seem very strong. The JP233 is no longer used, but I understand that was more to do with the legality of the bomblets than because it was thought too risky for the aircrew. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Churchill said:

The JP233 is no longer used, but I understand that was more to do with the legality of the bomblets than because it was thought too risky for the aircrew. 

Sadly, as soon as we signed on to the anti mine proliferation treaty, the mines in the weapon system became illegal. 

 

But I'm enjoying seeing which models hold up to the 4 principles you stated in the first post.  

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...