Churchill Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 (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: ... 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- Sea, or Air 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 October 28, 2019 by Churchill List update 5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 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! 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrimReaper09 Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 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! 3 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hewy Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 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, 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Churchill Posted March 3, 2019 Author Share Posted March 3, 2019 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrimReaper09 Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 @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! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsairfoxfouruncle Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 (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 March 4, 2019 by Corsairfoxfouruncle 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Churchill Posted March 4, 2019 Author Share Posted March 4, 2019 (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 March 4, 2019 by Churchill Added last sentence 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Churchill Posted March 4, 2019 Author Share Posted March 4, 2019 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'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsairfoxfouruncle Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 (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 March 4, 2019 by Corsairfoxfouruncle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Churchill Posted March 4, 2019 Author Share Posted March 4, 2019 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsairfoxfouruncle Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vppelt68 Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Churchill Posted March 4, 2019 Author Share Posted March 4, 2019 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hewy Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 Came across the delightfully dangerous looking hafner rotobuggy, an easy ish looking scratch build, plus a Jeep kit 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Churchill Posted March 4, 2019 Author Share Posted March 4, 2019 40 minutes ago, Hewy said: Came across the delightfully dangerous looking hafner rotobuggy, an easy ish looking scratch build, plus a Jeep kit I'm speechless. But I really want to see it built. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mig Eater Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Churchill Posted March 4, 2019 Author Share Posted March 4, 2019 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 An excellent choice, Mr @Mig Eater, I've thought exactly the same ever since I first saw that wonderful bit of New Zealand ingenuity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Churchill Posted March 4, 2019 Author Share Posted March 4, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabba Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 (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 March 4, 2019 by Jabba Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mig Eater Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 That would be better suited for the Tornado GB. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Churchill Posted March 4, 2019 Author Share Posted March 4, 2019 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? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrimReaper09 Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 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! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Churchill Posted March 4, 2019 Author Share Posted March 4, 2019 @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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrimReaper09 Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now