Nailing Dirtside/Stargrunt Chamber Pots (was Re:[GZG] More re: [OFFICIAL] Salute releases....!)

3 posts ยท Apr 24 2007 to Apr 24 2007

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,