T17 Command Post Vehicle

T17 Command Post Vehicle


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

T17 Command Post Vehicle

The T17 Command Post Vehicle (or Tactical Air Control Party Vehicle) was an armoured command vehicle based on the M44 Armoured Personnel Carrier, itself developed from the M18 Hellcat Tank Destroyer.

The M18 was the fastest armoured vehicle to see service with the US Army during the Second World War but by the summer of 1944 its 76mm gun was becoming underpowered and it was about to be replaced by the M36 90mm Gun Motor Carriage. In June 1944 work began on converting the M18 into an armoured utility vehicle, with the designation T41. This entered production in October 1944 and 640 were produced. The T41 was standardized as the M39 Armoured Utility Vehicle. The M18 turret was removed and an extra superstructure added. The fighting compartment was open topped.

The M39 was the basis of the M44 Armoured Personnel Carrier. This had side-hinged hatches over the fighting compartment, and could carry 24 troops, but it was rejected as too large.

The M44 was followed by the M44E1, which had the hull raised by 10 inches. This was then given front-hinged hatches, and became the T17 Command Post Vehicle. The T17 was used by the USAF during the Korean War, where it was called the Tactical Air Control Party Vehicle.


History [ edit | edit source ]

In July 1941, the US Army Ordnance issued specifications for a medium armored car alongside a specification for heavy armored car (which resulted in the T18 Boarhound). Ford Motor Company built a six wheels, all driven (6 x 6) prototype which was designated T17 and Chevrolet a (four wheels, all driven (4 x 4) model designated T17E1. At the same time, the British Purchasing Commission was also looking for medium and heavy armored cars for use in North Africa. Had the U.S. adopted this, it would have been called the M6.


Contents

Observing events in Europe and Asia during World War II, American tank designers realized that the Light Tank M2 was becoming obsolete and set about improving it. The upgraded design, with thicker armor, modified suspension and new gun recoil system was called "Light Tank M3". Production of the vehicle started in March 1941 and continued until October 1943. Like its direct predecessor, the M2A4, the M3 was initially armed with a 37 mm M5 gun and five .30-06 Browning M1919A4 machine guns: coaxial with the gun, on top of the turret in an M20 anti-aircraft mount, in a ball mount in right bow, and in the right and left hull sponsons. Later, the gun was replaced with the slightly longer M6, and the sponson machine guns were removed. For a light tank, the Stuart was fairly heavily armored. It had 38 mm of armor on the upper front hull, 44 mm on the lower front hull, 51 mm on the gun mantlet, 38 mm on the turret sides, 25 mm on the hull sides, and 25 mm on the hull rear. [5]

The M3 and M3A1 variants were powered by an air-cooled radial engine, either a gasoline-fueled 7-cylinder Continental W-670 (8,936 built) or a 9-cylinder Guiberson T-1020 diesel (1,496 built). [6] Both of these powerplants were originally developed as aircraft engines. Internally, the radial engine was at the rear and the transmission at the front of the tank's hull. The propeller shaft connecting the engine and transmission ran through the middle of the fighting compartment. The radial engine's crankshaft was positioned high off the hull bottom and contributed to the tank's relatively tall profile. [7] When a revolving turret floor was introduced in the M3 hybrid and M3A1, the crew had less room. A further 3,427 M3A3 variants were built with modified hull (similar to the M5), new turret and the Continental W-670 gasoline engine. [8] In contrast to the M2A4, all M3/M5 series tanks had a trailing rear idler wheel for increased ground contact.

M5 Stuart Edit

To relieve wartime demand for the radial aero-engines used in the M3, a new version was developed using twin Cadillac V8 automobile engines and twin Hydra-Matic transmissions operating through a transfer case. This version of the tank was quieter, cooler and roomier the automatic transmission also simplified crew training. The new model (initially called M4 but redesignated M5 to avoid confusion with the M4 Sherman [9] ) featured a redesigned hull with a raised rear deck over the engine compartment, sloped glacis plate and driver's hatches moved to the top. Although the main criticism from units using the Stuarts was that it lacked firepower, the improved M5 series kept the same 37 mm gun. The M5 gradually replaced the M3 in production from 1942 and, after the M7 project proved unsatisfactory, was succeeded by the Light Tank M24 in 1944. Total M5 and M5A1 tank production was 8,885 an additional 1,778 M8 75 mm howitzer motor carriages based on the M5 chassis with an open-top turret were produced.

Major Loyal Fairall in After action report, 759th Light Tank Battalion, July 44 thru March 45 [10]

War in North Africa and Europe Edit

British and other Commonwealth armies were the first to use the Light Tank M3, as the "Stuart", in combat. [11] From mid-November 1941 to the end of the year, about 170 Stuarts (in a total force of over 700 tanks) took part in Operation Crusader during the North Africa Campaign, with poor results. This is despite the fact that the M3 was superior or comparable in most regards [ citation needed ] to most of the tanks used by the Axis forces. The most numerous German tank, the Panzer III Ausf G, had nearly identical armor and speed to the M3, [note 1] and both tanks' guns could penetrate the other tank's front armor from beyond 1,000 m (3,300 ft). [12] The most numerous Italian tank (and second most numerous Axis tank overall), the Fiat M13/40, was much slower than the Stuart, had slightly weaker armor all around, and could not penetrate the Stuart's front hull or turret armor at 1,000 meters, whereas the Stuart's gun could penetrate any spot on the M13/40. Although the high losses suffered by Stuart-equipped units during the operation had more to do with the better tactics and training of the Afrika Korps than the apparent superiority of German armored fighting vehicles used in the North African campaign, [13] the operation revealed that the M3 had several technical faults. Mentioned in the British complaints were the 37 mm M5 gun and poor internal layout. The two-man turret crew was a significant weakness, and some British units tried to fight with three-man turret crews. The Stuart also had a limited range, which was a severe problem in the highly mobile desert warfare as units often outpaced their supplies and were stranded when they ran out of fuel. On the positive side, crews liked its relatively high speed and mechanical reliability, especially compared to the Crusader tank, [14] [15] which comprised a large portion of the British tank force in Africa up until 1942. The Crusader had similar armament and armor to the Stuart while being slower, less reliable, and several tons heavier. The Stuart also had the advantage of a gun that could deliver high-explosive shells HE shells were not available for the 40 mm QF 2-pdr gun mounted by most Crusaders, severely limiting their use against emplaced anti-tank guns or infantry. [16] [note 2] The main drawback of the Stuart was its low fuel capacity and range its operational range was only 75 mi (121 km) cross country, [5] roughly half that of the Crusader.

In the summer of 1942, the British usually kept Stuarts out of tank-to-tank combat, using them primarily for reconnaissance. The turret was removed from some examples to save weight and improve speed and range. These became known as "Stuart Recce". Some others were converted to armored personnel carriers known as the "Stuart Kangaroo", and some were converted into command vehicles and known as "Stuart Command". M3s, M3A3s, and M5s continued in British service until the end of the war, but British units had a smaller proportion of these light tanks than U.S. units. [ citation needed ]

Eastern Front Edit

The other major Lend-Lease recipient of the M3, the Soviet Union, was less happy with the tank, considering it under-gunned, under-armored, likely to catch fire, and too sensitive to fuel quality. The M3's radial aircraft engine required high-octane fuel, which complicated Soviet logistics as most of their tanks used diesel or low-octane fuel. High fuel consumption led to a poor range characteristic, especially sensitive for use as a reconnaissance vehicle. Also, compared to Soviet tanks, the M3's narrower tracks resulted in a higher ground pressure, getting them more easily stuck in the Rasputitsa muddy conditions of spring and autumn and winter snow conditions on the Eastern Front. In 1943, the Red Army tried out the M5 and decided that the upgraded design was not much better than the M3. Being less desperate than in 1941, the Soviets turned down an American offer to supply the M5. M3s continued in Red Army service at least until 1944. [ citation needed ]

Italy Edit

One of the more successful uses of the M5 in combat came during the Battle of Anzio when breaking through German forces surrounding the beachhead. The tactics called for an initial breakthrough by a medium tank company to destroy the heavier defenses, followed by an infantry battalion who would attack the German troops who were being left behind the medium tanks. Since many hidden fortifications and positions would have survived the initial medium tank assault, the infantry would then be confronted by any remaining fortified German troops. Behind the infantry came the M5s of a light tank company, who would attack these positions when directed to by the Infantry, usually by the use of green Smoke grenade. [17]


Interwar Period

During the interwar period, the concept of armoured cars didn't receive attention until 1932. While suggestions on their acquisition and use had been made as early as 1927, the first feelers toward acquisition were made when a Canadian officer in England enquired as to the cost of obtaining a vehicle. With the necessary conversion to left hand drive, the price was considered prohibitive and Major Noble Carr of the Royal Canadian Artillery investigated the possibility of producing armoured cars in Canada, with the desire to follow the British lead in mechanizing the cavalry. Money for two experimental cars was approved in 1934/35 and by the end of Apr 1935, one Ford prototype and one Chevrolet prototype had been completed. The cars were of a 6x4 configuration (ie 6 wheels but only the rear 4 were powered), with a crew of 3 and intended to mount two water cooled Vickers Guns. In 1936, after field trials, DND opted not to proceed with additional vehicles, feeling that armoured car design had not evolved sufficiently to warrant their construction. Armoured car design moved rapidly to 4x4 models. The two prototypes served in Canada, with weapons finally being added in 1937, one car serving with the Royal Canadian Dragoons and the other with Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians) as well as being loaned to Militia units. By Jan 1941 both cars were in possession of the RCD and it is believed they were scrapped once the RCD left for England in May 1941. 1


Contents

"Armored, half-track, and scout cars gun, howitzer, and mortar motor carriages cargo, mortar, personnel, half-track and universal carriers armored amphibian, light, medium, and heavy tanks light, medium, heavy, crane and amphibian/track-type tractors wheeled tractors armored, bomb, heavy-duty and tractor crane trailers tank recovery and tank transporter trailer trucks, with their parts and equipment. Ordnance maintenance bomb service, emergency repair, machine shop and repair trucks, with their parts and equipment. Prime movers, passenger cars, fuel tank trucks, fuel and water tank trailers, and semitrailers trucks, with stake, platform, dump, and special bodies amphibian cargo and personnel trucks motorcycles and side cars." [1]


T17E1

The British allocated the name Staghound to the T17E series. British liaison officers had had contact with Macpherson, the Chevrolet engineer in charge of the project and felt they had influenced him sufficiently to produce something that met all their requirements. Accordingly, in December the British Purchasing Commission "formally requested" production of 300 vehicles the US Army authorized production of 2000 in January 1942. The British order was confirmed in March 1942 when the pilot T17E was delivered to the Aberdeen Proving Ground. Testing showed flaws but these were expected to be correctable and a further 1,500 were contracted for. [3] Production started in October 1942. The US Army convened a board to examine the state of the multitude of armored car projects and recommended in December 1942 the cancellation of the larger designs and standardization on a smaller vehicle. This lighter vehicle would appear as the M8 Greyhound vehicle. However the British applied for T17E1 production to be continued for the United Kingdom under Lend-Lease. Approximately 4,000 Staghounds were produced in total. [4]

The Staghound was an innovative design that incorporated some advanced features. It had two rear-facing 6-cylinder engines with automatic transmissions (with 4 forward and 1 reverse gears) feeding through a transfer case to drive both axles. Either two- or four-wheel drive could be selected. Either engine could be shut down while in motion and taken out of the drive train. Additionally, a power steering pump was incorporated that could be switched on or off manually from the driver's instrument panel depending on steering conditions. Steering and suspension components were directly attached to the hull as the structure was rigid enough to dispense with the need for a separate chassis.


T17E1

The British allocated the name Staghound to the T17E series. British liaison officers had had contact with Macpherson, the Chevrolet engineer in charge of the project and felt they had influenced him sufficiently to produce something that met all their requirements. Accordingly, in December the British Purchasing Commission "formally requested" production of 300 vehicles the US Army authorized production of 2000 in January 1942. The British order was confirmed in March 1942 when the pilot T17E was delivered to the Aberdeen Proving Ground. Testing showed flaws but these were expected to be correctable and a further 1,500 were contracted for. [3] Production started in October 1942. The US Army convened a board to examine the state of the multitude of armored car projects and recommended in December 1942 the cancellation of the larger designs and standardization on a smaller vehicle. This lighter vehicle would appear as the M8 Greyhound vehicle. However the British applied for T17E1 production to be continued for the United Kingdom under Lend-Lease. Approximately 4,000 Staghounds were produced in total. [4]

The Staghound was an innovative design that incorporated some advanced features. It had two rear-facing 6-cylinder engines with automatic transmissions (with 4 forward and 1 reverse gears) feeding through a transfer case to drive both axles. Either two- or four-wheel drive could be selected. Either engine could be shut down while in motion and taken out of the drive train. Additionally, a power steering pump was incorporated that could be switched on or off manually from the driver's instrument panel depending on steering conditions. Steering and suspension components were directly attached to the hull as the structure was rigid enough to dispense with the need for a separate chassis.


T17 Command Post Vehicle - History

Company of Heroes

Most of the time I don't use the reward units.

Sometime I use the Hellcat over the M10, but I always have the greyhound over a T17, STug over a Guetzwagen, cromwell command tank over a Staghound.

Sometimes I like to use the schimmwagen replacements for the Motorbike and kettenkrad. They have more health, and can go in water. Also they can go reverse, motorbike can't. But they are more expensive.

US: The hellcat can do everything the m10 can PLUS can be ugraded with an mg + can camoflauge, so i think that's a better trade. The only thing the m10 is beter at is in speed. Depending if you play 1v1 or 2v2 and beyond, both the greyhound and T17 have their use. The greyhound has a LOT of hp with armored skirts and increased anti-inf with it's coax mg. The T17, however, has the 'stun vehicle' ability which can mean the difference in taking out an enemy panther or not, thus playing a supportive role.

Wehr: The schimmwagen can go reverse, which can increase its early game survivability greatly over the bike. The silly wagon looking tank, (forget what it's called), that replaces the stug, however, is a downgrade, i feel. It basically works like a PE Marder 3 but needs ammo. Otherwise it's vetting simply adds some minor defensive bonuses + a mg while the Stug gets armored skirts and an mg while being cheaper and more effective in the Wehr doctrines.

Brits: The Kangaroo carrier is REALLY GAY when the brit player puts a couple piat squads in it. It really runs over Axis tanks but this, in turn, makes it focus fired upon as a result. The cost may be there, but the cromwell has a lot better mobility and reliability against a wider variety of units than the kangaroo clown tank. The Staghound is very optionally. I personally love bullying the Axis with a spam of 4-5 of them. They may be the same T17 as the US version, but it has an unfair amount of bulk and an MG upgrade that decimates any infantry. Though not having the stun ability like the US version, the increased bulk and MG upgrade certainly puts it at the front as a bum rush vehicle. Only use the cromwell command tank if you like using fireflies as its vet gives the fireflies special offensive bonuses.

PE: The schwimmwagen operates the same as the kettenkrad, but has different abilities for each of the PE doctrines. The TD and SE abilities are somewhat useless if you want practicality but the Luftwaffe ability, an incindiary mine drop, can grant you a quick early defensive advantage against enemy infantry. Otherwise, most of the kettenkrad's abilities are useful. The Hotchkiss light tank, if you couldnt tell, plays a far more supportive role than the p4 stub tank. The panzer 4 has the armor and offense that can place it near the front in an assault. However, the hotchkiss's slight gun upgrade and nebel upgrade places its role near the back of the army. HOWEVER, this is not a bad thing at all. If you have not chosen SE as a doc, this gives the PE another artillery option, something they sorely lack without SE. Though with only 4 rockets per barrage, (as opposed to the Wehrmackt's 6), they still prove deadly in numbers.


T17 Command Post Vehicle - History

OSWEGO, NY - The annual Fort Ontario Conference on History and Archaeology will be held at the Lake Ontario Event and Conference Center, 26 E. First St., Oswego, Saturday and Sunday, March 30 and 31. The conference explores new perspectives on warfare and human conflict in North America from its first appearance in the archaeological record around 5000 BCE to the Global War on Terror.

This year the conference features a slate of six speakers on Saturday who will deliver illustrated presentations on the French and Indian War, Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Civil War, Fort Ontario, and 18th century waterways. There will also be historical and promotional exhibits, a special exhibit of clothing, uniforms, weapons, and accoutrements of the U.S. Cavalry during the Indian Wars (1866 - 1890) by the Continental Army Collectors Association, authors book signings, and book and memorabilia sales. On Sunday, a guided bus tour will take participants to forts and sites of lesser known military activity along the Oswego-Oneida-Mohawk water route from Oswego to Rome, NY.

The conference opens on Saturday, March 30 at 8:30 a.m. with an illustrated lecture by historian Corey S. King on the "History of the Fort Ontario Post Cemetery." King will discuss his research on previous locations of military cemeteries at Oswego, the history of the existing post cemetery, information on the people buried in it, and the fight to stop their removal after the fort was decommissioned in 1946.

Archaeologist L. Paul Beers will follow with "Fort Pork Barrel, the Battle of Cranberry Creek, 1813," a talk describing his metal detector survey, mapping, and artifacts discovered during his work on the battlefield site. On July 13, 1813, an American raiding party intercepted British schooners transporting materials on the St. Lawrence River. After confiscating the supplies, the British pursued the Americans into Goose Bay, and up Cranberry Creek near Alexandria Bay. A force of 50 Americans prepared and launched a surprise attack on the approximately 250 British soldiers pursuing them, forcing them to retreat after inflicting heavy casualties. There will also be an exhibit of artifacts recovered from the battlefield.

After a break for lunch, 23-year U.S. Army veteran and retired deputy director of Military History at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Richard Barbuto, Ph.D will speak about the American homefront in western New York during the War of 1812. In his talk, "December 1813: the Burning of the Niagara Frontier," Barbuto will discuss the violence brought by raiding British soldiers and their native allies along the 37-mile long Niagara River, and their most destructive military operation in December, 1813. When it was over, every American home along the river was burned except one, and hundreds of Americans were forced to flee into the wintry forests. Five months later the British attacked Oswego, and rumors of native allies accompanying them and the threat of renewed destruction and depredation caused residents of the village and countryside to flee in terror.

In "Bullets and Battlefield Debris: What Battlefield Archaeology has taught us about the Battle of Blue Licks (1782) and the Battle of the Crater (1864), Battlefield Archaeologist Adrian Mandzy Ph.D of Morehead State University at Lexington, Kentucky, will share some of the stories and discoveries relating to his study of two battlefields in the United States. The Battle of Blue Licks took place on Aug. 19, 1782 and is commonly known as the "Last Battle of the American Revolution." Fought in east central Kentucky, the engagement resulted in the deaths of 77 colonists, including Daniel Boone's son Israel and Col. John Todd, the great uncle of Mary Todd Lincoln.

The Battle of the Crater was one of the most important military engagements of the American Civil War. Fought on July 30, 1864, the ambitious Union plan sought to break the Confederate defenses surrounding the City of Peterburg by blowing up a mine and then launching IX Corps through the gap. While much has been written on the failed assault and subsequent slaughter of African-American troops, Mandzy's team was able to demonstrate the extent of the Union advance and bring together a variety of sources to provide the first comprehensive understanding of the engagement.

Richard Weyhing, Ph.D, of the History Department at SUNY Oswego, has prepared an original program, "The Marquis de Montcalm and the `Honors of War' in Europe and North America," for the conference. Although most famous for his ultimately fatal involvement in the North American theater of the Seven Years War, the Marquis de Montcalm (1712 - 1759) had distinguished himself as an officer in the French army during the Wars of Polish and Austrian Succession in Europe (1733-38, 1740-48), prior to accepting command over the King's forces in New France in 1756. During these conflicts Montcalm served in an array of major engagements, sustained multiple wounds, endured captivity as a POW, and was made a knight of the Order of St. Louis. Weyhing will consider how Montcalm's earlier experiences later shaped his conduct as a commander in North America, where he attempted to uphold prevailing European ideals of military "honor" that often clashed with the values of longstanding colonial and Native American cultures of war.

Arthur L. Simmons III, Executive Director of the Rome Historical Society, will present "Fortifying the Oneida Carrying Place, 1755 - 1759," as the final talk of the conference. The Oneida Carry was the passage between the westernmost navigable part of the Mohawk River to the navigable part of Wood Creek that led to Oneida Lake, the Oswego River, and Oswego on Lake Ontario. Simmons will illustrate the numerous fortifications that the British had built on "The Carry" between 1755 and 1759. These forts included Fort Bull, Fort Craven, Fort Williams, Fort Newport, and the first construction of Fort Stanwix. He will also explore more in depth the Battle of Fort Bull, which was attacked and destroyed by the French and their Native Allies on March 27, 1756, as part of a successful French campaign to impede British communications, supply, and troop movements to their forts and fleet at Oswego.

The Sunday bus trip will depart promptly from the Lake Ontario Event and Conference at 8:30 a.m. and return around 5 p.m. Participants are encouraged to dress appropriately as the bus tour is a rain, shine, or snow event. Lunch and snacks will be provided. The number of seats available on the buses is limited to 64.

Pre-registration and payment is required for Saturday and Sunday activities. Registration for Saturday is $35 and is the same for Sunday's bus tour. Registration for both days is $60. The student rate is $25 for Saturday, and $35 for Sunday. Payment may be made on the Friends of Fort Ontario website. For more information, to request a complete conference schedule, or arrange for registration and payment by check or credit card, call (315) 343-4711, or email [email protected] or [email protected] Updates on the conference will be posted on the Friends of Fort Ontario Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/FortOntario/. For more Oswego County history and events, go to visitoswegocounty.com or call 1-800-248-4FUN (4386). State Parks generate $1.9 billion in economic activity annually and supports 20,000 jobs. For more information on any of these recreation areas call (315) 474-0456, or visit www.nysparks.com, connect on Facebook, or follow on Twitter.

Photograph of a reconstructed French and Indian War bateau on the Oswego River. The lecture by Arthur Simmons III will describe the forts and features of the Oneida Carry at Rome NY, through which all bateaux carrying supplies, ordnance, and troops had to pass to get to Oswego. (Photo from collection of Fort Ontario State Historic Site.)

Image of Major-General Louis Joseph de Montcalm-Gozon, Marquis de Montcalm de Saint Veran. Richard Weyhing, Ph.D of the SUNY Oswego History Department, will discuss the Marquis de Montcalm's extensive military career in France, and how it affected his command and performance in the Seven Years War in North America at the annual Fort Ontario Conference on History and Archaeology.

Artifacts recovered from the July 13, 1813 Battle of Cranberry Creek by will be on display and discussed by Archaeologist L. Paul Beers at the conference.


Alternative History Armoured Fighting Vehicles Part 2

How about the the M38 wolfhound armoured car? it could take a chaffee turret, so a AA turret should not pose problems.

and the T17 staghound was available with an 0.50 AA turret

Alspug

Wietze

Alspug

Life In Black

Leander

Alspug

Leander

Cortz#9

Hey guys I've been doing alternate small arms for this thread - https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo. d-weapons-of-the-freedom-party-guards.450965/ I had some guns in the same scale more or less but I also wanted to do some AFV's but without Claymore around to scale things I was hesitant but I went ahead and used some old pics of amoured cars I had made for Smitty (which he felt weren't right for his TL, no biggie) that were in scale and posted them there.
This got me thinking about Confederate AFV development in TL-191, Ramscoop Raider had once told me, he didn't think the Confederates had the industry to make heavy tanks, at least not in large numbers. He compared the Confederates of TL-191 to OTL wartime Italy.

So I thought if that were the case, then the Rebs might focus more on armoured cars than say light tanks and that they would probably end up developing something close to the German Sd.Kfz-234 Puma. So I made one but I had to eye ball it and it came out fair at best.

Its an M8 Greyhound armoured car with a 57 mm gun I took from a pic of an M3 half-track/TD. A while afterwards I started to feel a little guilty that I didn't put more effort into the pic, especially because the more I looked at it, the more it diddn't look right, I was sure the gun was too big, so I started over. I went thru a whole mess of pics that Claymore had done in the past for me and other folks who frequent this thread and request pics from him and I found just what I needed, a pic of of a light tank with a 6 Pdr gun, which is just Brit for 57 mm and another pic of a light tank with a 3.7 gun same as the gun on the M8.

So I was able to make a new pic with both the gun and M8 in the same scale and to my surprise, it appeared that there was enough room to put the 6 Pdr inside the turret of the M8 instead of mocking up an open turret onto the OTL turret.
And here it is.

It looks a lot better than my original pic because I only had to shrink it down a little bit, while before I shrunk it down to about half its original size. The car, gun and turret look a lot better, the gun on the old pic looks like a 75 mm now.
The fact that its a British gun makes sense too since the Brits and Confederates were allies in TL-191.

I'm still going to ask Claymore to check my scaling on this one because he told me once that while he tries to make all his pics in the same scale sometimes things go funny and some pics come out slightly different in size than others.


Watch the video: MCP Missile Command Post u0026 IMCP Improved Mission Command Post


Comments:

  1. Jaecar

    It is falsehood.

  2. Ruhdugeard

    Well done, what words ..., the wonderful idea

  3. Florence

    I apologise, but, in my opinion, you are mistaken. Let's discuss.

  4. Jayme

    wonderfully, it's the piece of value



Write a message