Shipbucket

Rhade wrote:I see you are close to japs doctrine, in that case you overpower that tank. Japs use there tanks as infantry support, they arm them in low velocity 37mm guns.

Not that close. Cenet uses tanks as infantry support and for operating independantly. Infantry support is conducted primarily by the light tanks, with tank squads consisting of both medium and light tanks in a 3:6 ration of medium to light.

Rhade wrote:And you use a Christie suspension ... how and why ?

Why not use a Christie suspension? It's got more stability and compression. Weight, being the biggest disadvantage, is an irratating but nessecary evil.
I have corrected the fonts on the drawing.

So I hang out on the Whatifmodelers.com forum a lot, and I saw this under construction, and recently the creator, Dizzyfugu, posted the completed creation. I had drawn up a concept for what I thought he may do, which I saved over, lol. Here is the finished project complete with a link to the actual thread showcasing the model.

http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php ... 042.0.html

Great drawing Nighthunter, and the link is very interesting, the concept is very feasible; as an after thought could we see a turboprop version?

*hugs Bill* THANK YOU! *stands back and looks sheepish* Sorry about that, I spent yesterday trying to get inspired to draw something and now you've given it to me. Thanks Bill!

Enjoy!

Very nicely done in a smart scheme. Suits those markings almost as well as the A-4s did back on HMAS Melbourne. She has a very aggressive look with that teardrop canopy and huge engine. May we see some as air racers in future after their careers as combat machines were over?

Oh wow....these are simply outstanding. WHat Turbo Prop is it?

I just used the turboprop from my A-36J

that was what I was thinking thanks

Raxar wrote:Not that close. Cenet uses tanks as infantry support and for operating independently. Infantry support is conducted primarily by the light tanks, with tank squads consisting of both medium and light tanks in a 3:6 ration of medium to light.

Cenet think about Blitz ? Before WWII almost all nations use tanks only as infantry support only those of future aggressors ( Nazi German and Soviet Union ) create fast tank units for attack. If this is tank design before war, you need to think like everybody before war. Not like man who know there will be Blitz, there will be T-34, Panzer V ect: Because for now your tank don't have a sense, he is a 100% attack tank, who you want to invade ?

Raxar wrote:Why not use a Christie suspension? It's got more stability and compression. Weight, being the biggest disadvantage, is an irritating but necessary evil.
I have corrected the fonts on the drawing.

Christie suspension was build only for one thing ... speed. Speed and good roads. Soviet buy that suspension system and build massive numbers of BT tanks with it because that type of tanks would take a great revolution to the shores of Atlantic. BT and T-37 was tanks no to use in Russia but on Poland, Germany, France where there was a good road system. British also use that type of suspension in cruiser tanks, well because they were a cruiser tanks and need to be fast. Again I will ask you what highly development country Cenet want to invade ?

And still you have not answer about that unusual for that time 70mm gun.

Got bored and updated:



F5C-1
Engine: 1 Wright R-1820-40 Cyclone
Armament: 4 .50 cal M2 Machine Guns

F5C-2
Engine: 1 Pratt & Whitney R-1830-90 Twin Wasp
Armament: 4 .50 cal M2 Machine Guns

F5C-3
Engine: 1 Pratt & Whitney R-1830-90 Twin Wasp
Armament: 6 .50 cal M2 Machine Guns

F5C-4
Engine: 1 Pratt & Whitney R-2800-10 Double Wasp
Armament: 6 .50 cal M2 Machine Guns

F5C-5
Engine: 1 Pratt & Whitney R-2800-10W Double Wasp with Supercharger
Armament: 4 .50 cal M2 Machine Guns, 2 20mm AN/M2 cannons

F5C-6
Engine: 1 Pratt & Whitney R-2800-10W Double Wasp with Supercharger
Armament: 2 .50 cal M2 Machine Guns, 4 20mm AN/M2 cannons