Da Paul Challenge

[David Reinking]

I am only impressed if it had a whistle. ?

Semper Fi!
Scott

Sorry, Scott. Due to budget constraints, they had to remove the whistle. However, the crew was encouraged to make “choo-choo” sounds.

 

[Paul M. Weir]

Scepter...what about using a hammer they shifted the gear with on early T-34s?

I'd settle for one of those cat toys, a stick with fancy string ending in a feather or tinsel lure for exercising/amusing cats.

 

[Actionjick]

I'd settle for one of those cat toys, a stick with fancy string ending in a feather or tinsel lure for exercising/amusing cats.

The man knows what he wants and how to use it.

 

[von Marwitz]

The man knows what he wants and how to use it.

"That's what she says..."

If Psycho were still around here, I could have bet a hundred bucks that the above would have been his post in reaction...

von Marwitz

 

[FMFCB]

Paul
Is there difference between the Vickers 6 ton tank the Chinese bought and the one the Polish got? There is a difference in the armour factors on the 2 counters.
Thanks
Dave

 

[Paul M. Weir]

Hi Dave. As far as I know the Polish and Chinese Vickers 6 Ton (aka Vickers Mk E) were practically identical. Likely notices/instrument lettering differed, possibly MG calibre, though both the Poles and Chinese used the originally German 7.92x57mm cartridge.

The only significantly different version was the Vickers Mk F which had it's hull layout changed to accommodate a new engine. That was tested and rejected by Belgium. The new hulls with the original engine were shipped to Finland and Thailand. Those might or might not have resulted in slightly different ASL armour stats. I doubt that though.

So the Polish and Chinese 6 Ton should have had the exact same values. I raised that a few years ago, I think around the time HP came out. I think it was Perry that responded and made a "no big thing" comment. Personally, though it offended my OCD nature, I did not regard it to be a real problem, there is always is a little bit of "that tastes right" judgement when armour values are roughly halfway between ASL armour "steps".

The T-26 and 7TP were (licenced) versions of the Vickers Mk E, but don't expect to see identical armour values as they would have had their own small variations in armour thickness and quality.

The Vickers Mk E I regard as one of the trend setting tanks of the late '20s - mid '30s, along with the Christie designs. Both were rejected by their counties of origin yet achieved great export success. The Soviets alone produced 12,000 of their T-26 variant, far more than any other interwar design.

 

[FMFCB]

Thanks Paul. I asked because I find it an interesting tank and time period for tanks. Do you recommend anything on the subject?
Dave

 

[Paul M. Weir]

Unfortunately I don't have many books on interwar tanks, nor much on British tanks of any period either. Most of the information I got from the web. Google and lots of patience persistence is your friend.

The one book that I have that covers interwar tanks is "Czechoslovak Armoured Fighting Vehicles 1918-1948" by Charles K. Kliment & Vladimír Francev, Schiffer Military History, 1997, ISBN 9-780764-301414 (Originally $59.95). I can thoroughly recommend it.

https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/gb/vickers_6-ton-light-tank.php gives a quick outline. I had not realise that only about 153 were built. The Czechs built and exported more equivalent tanks.

 

[asloser]

So the Polish and Chinese 6 Ton should have had the exact same values. I raised that a few years ago, I think around the time HP came out. I think it was Perry that responded and made a "no big thing" comment. Personally, though it offended my OCD nature, I did not regard it to be a real problem, there is always is a little bit of "that tastes right" judgement when armour values are roughly halfway between ASL armour "steps".

There are Bulgarian and Finnish versions of the Vickers 6ton Tank Mk E as well. The Finnish tank was given the same armor values as the Polish one and now we have two each as Chinese and Bulgarian are the same. I was a bit confused by all of this back then but decided to use the Polish one as the pattern for Finnish values, just had to pick one at the time. Bulgarian values come off the Chinese counter so there we are 2-2. The most confusing thing in the depiction of Vickers 6 ton tank/ T-26 family is the target size- Vickers 6 tons, Polish 7TP and T -26 two turret models are small targets, all 45mm armed T-26s are normal. I have not been able to figure out what is goingon there.

As Finns used Vickers and T-26s mixed in same units some 1944 crews are more luckier than others in the ASL battlefield, the Vickers is harder to hit for a T-34/85. Any variation of the armor values is worthless anyway....

 

[Paul M. Weir]

Agreed about the armour differences. Possibly the much longer and more voluminous T-26 m1933+ single turrets with large rear overhang made the difference. The Vickers Mk E height was 2.21m compared to 2.30m for the T-26.

 

[asloser]

Agreed about the armour differences. Possibly the much longer and more voluminous T-26 m1933+ single turrets with large rear overhang made the difference. The Vickers Mk E height was 2.21m compared to 2.30m for the T-26.

That is plausible. Now when thinking of this I recall seeing the height difference mentioned somewhere. I also believe this comparison between this family of tanks was never made until we hit a country using both Vichers and T-26 models, as the design of Russian, Chinese and Polish vehicles were done separately. By which time things were past of the point of no return.

 

[FMFCB]

Unfortunately I don't have many books on interwar tanks, nor much on British tanks of any period either. Most of the information I got from the web. Google and lots of patience persistence is your friend.

The one book that I have that covers interwar tanks is "Czechoslovak Armoured Fighting Vehicles 1918-1948" by Charles K. Kliment & Vladimír Francev, Schiffer Military History, 1997, ISBN 9-780764-301414 (Originally $59.95). I can thoroughly recommend it.

https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/gb/vickers_6-ton-light-tank.php gives a quick outline. I had not realise that only about 153 were built. The Czechs built and exported more equivalent tanks.

Paul
I did manage to pickup a few Osprey/New Vanguard books for $2 CAD at an ASL tourney a couple of years ago. I didn't get one on Vickers 6 ton Tank! I have spent some time looking around on the internet and yes you need patience. All seem to leave lots of gaps and unanswered questions.
Thanks again
Dave

 

[FMFCB]

I see there will be a couple Vickers 6 ton Tanks in the new SK expansion Pack #2. I wonder if they will use the older Chinese type AF or change to the newer Polish numbers?
I think it may be a strait reprint of the AF numbers used in Yanks.
Dave

 

[footsteps]

I think I've found the section on FOBA...

 

[Craig Benn]

Paul,

On a French Indochina war reading frenzy at the moment. The Chinese provided a small number of Czech P27 bazookas to the Viet Minh.

Do you have any information on them/ thoughts on how best represented in ASL?

Cheers

 

[Paul M. Weir]

That's a Czech version of the Soviet RPG-2, itself a cross between a Baz and a PF, more PF than Baz. The Chinese manufactured them as Type 56

Treat as a Baz 50, but TK of 27, no WP. IE a 12-5, 1pp, X11, using Baz 45/50 TH, suffers Backblast.

 

[Craig Benn]

Thanks Paul. Excellent service as always.

Any thoughts on the chemicals in the shaped charge deteriorating in tropic climes as Korean rules do for age?

 

[Paul M. Weir]

To be honest I don't really know. However the main problem the KW Baz rounds had problems were that they were some 6 years old and I suspect storage would not have been as rigorously policed, quality wise. It's not like the US expected a war soon in '45.

The ICWs are a mixed bag. The time between manufacture and use would normally be short, though I bet many areas had month+ long lulls. So after a long lull you could have problems in the initial phase of a resurgence of fighting, but those idle rounds would get used up quickly and replaced by more recently manufactured ones. I've read a few horror stories what heat, humidity and microbes/algae do to kit, but the RPG-2 is a robust fairly soldier proof item.

So my train of thought suggests just possibly but definitely not consistently.

In the end rely upon combat reports to gauge reliability. Anything else is guessing.

 

[Craig Benn]

Well there isnt exactly a wealth of Indochina War English language sources. The main ones I'm aware of are Chaffees at Dien Bien Phu being hit by bazookas multiple times and being damaged/repairable.

However ASL modelling of panzerfausts makes them too powerful- accounts seem to suggest more damages than blazing wrecks.

So open to interpretation really.

But anyway thanks - really useful.

 

[Paul M. Weir]

I can only relate some descriptions of PF kills in Berlin, by Soviet writers. A moderately common thing was a tank with the engine running and a hole barely able to admit a little finger but all the crew dead. In some cases once the dead crew was removed the tank could be driven away. Sure it could have been a catastrophic explosion if the shaped charge jet had passed through ammunition or a fuel tank, but in those cases it was inert fittings and wet flesh. It's still a kill in ASL, even if readily repairable.

PF, PFk, PSK were deliberately overrated in ASL to magnify the terror factor. The PFk should only get a TK of 19 from 140mm of penetration while the PF, PSK and RPG-2 with 200mm of penetration should all get 25. I only added 2 points of "terror" rather than 3 (PFk) or 6 (PF). So if you want a strict TK, use 25 for the RPG-2.

TK numbers reflect maximum line of sight armour penetration. They don't reflect the damage to material and flesh once penetration has occurred. I remember a decade ago reading about a Swedish AT weapon whose selling points included enhanced "after armour" damage compared to rival designs. Can't remember which one, but it does illustrate the limitations of SCW.

In Vietnam (US phase), M113 squads often rode on top, outside. Partly due to the danger from mines on the thinly armoured M113, but also to save the squad from the effects of a RPG within a closed space on humans. If you were unlucky you might loose a dangling foot but often it was just splinters and/or shock wave.