From: John Tailby <john_tailby@x...>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 18:02:13 +1200
Subject: Re: Nailing Dirtside/Stargrunt Chamber Pots (was Re:[GZG] More re: [OFFICIAL] Salute releases....!)
[quoted original message omitted]
From: John Tailby <john_tailby@x...>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 18:02:13 +1200
Subject: Re: Nailing Dirtside/Stargrunt Chamber Pots (was Re:[GZG] More re: [OFFICIAL] Salute releases....!)
[quoted original message omitted]
From: Stephen Bond <daibaka2000@y...>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 08:48:13 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: Nailing Dirtside/Stargrunt Chamber Pots (was Re:[GZG] More re: [OFFICIAL] Salute releases....!)
_______________________________________________ Gzg-l mailing list Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lMy opinion is that you probably only need 2 different designs of vehicle for each tech range; i.e. 2 MBT's, 2 light tanks, 2 APC's for the tracked/wheeled/hover/walker/low tech grav/high tech grav, etc., with possibly one or two "iconic" national designs for each GZGverse nation at some later point. Naturally this means more than doubling the existing range, but I don't see this as a bad thing! And its a lot more achievable than unique vehicles for everything and everybody. Expanding the range of "extra bits" could help with this, as there's an observable trend in modern armoured vehicles of customers buying base vehicles from a manufacturer and then adding on third party turrets and weapons systems (kind of like "Pimp my Tank"). Of course personally I'd like to see some more generic style vehicles first, especially civvy/paramilitary style ones like the new flat bed hover truck, but the heavy metal is where the main interest is at, so I'm prepared to wait. 15mm versions/equivalents of the LIPPC and M44 Coonhound would be nice though... All of which sort of undermines my "2 of each" argument above, but there you go. Steve. ----- Original Message ---- From: john tailby <John_Tailby@xtra.co.nz> To: gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu Sent: Tuesday, 24 April, 2007 7:02:13 AM Subject: Re: Nailing Dirtside/Stargrunt Chamber Pots (was Re:[GZG] More re: [OFFICIAL] Salute releases....!) [quoted original message omitted]
From: Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@t...>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 22:34:45 +0200
Subject: Re: Nailing Dirtside/Stargrunt Chamber Pots (was Re:[GZG] More re: [OFFICIAL] Salute releases....!)
> John Tailby wrote: > However, there's very little point in having a basic "turret" or > sections. From the manufacturing-logistics point of view, that makes My point is that today's applique armours only rarely are simple skirts or spaced-armour plates like those fitted to on WW2 tanks; tnstead they tend to cover most or all of the vehicle with a tight-fitting outer skin. The following images of Israeli M113 variants are rather extreme examples of this, but they were the first I found that aren't password-protected: Basic M113 (in Israeli service): <http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/armored_personnel_carri ers/m-113/M-113_.html> Israeli Zelda 2: <http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/armored_personnel_carri ers/m-113/Zelda2.html> Israeli L-VAS: <http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/armored_personnel_carri ers/m-113/L-Vas.htm> Not much point in a miniatures manufacturer to provide add-on Zelda or L-VAS kits... Regards,