Icon work (any suggestions?)
 

Hi, as some of you will know I did some icon work in the past on this forum. I was wondering if anyone had any ideas as to what sort of Soviet heavy tanks I could work on.

I already have a whole host of heavies on the German side which need to be countered so any ideas of late war Soviet protoypes (KV tanks etc) would be appreciated. Any idea what the USA was working on, despite that Heavy SPG of theirs?

I have looked around and found some interesting stuff but not one site I have seen has givenme good stats to work with.

Any work I do will be sumbited, for your use, as soon as it is done.

Re: Icon work (any suggestions?)
 

Photos and data on tanks for WinSPMBT are required ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

Re: Icon work (any suggestions?)
 

If you are trying to make new icons and units then yes. Only because I need some inspiration though. As I said if anyone has any ideas then please fire away.

Re: Icon work (any suggestions?)
 

Maybe not exactly a tank, Monty - but it annoys me when I arrange a para drop and my Blackburn Beverleys look too much like C-119s.... If you could oblige, I'd be most grateful!

Re: Icon work (any suggestions?)
 

If you are really into soviet heavy tanks this would be a good start

http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?...44&lang=en

The one who deserves most is the IS-7, it was the most powerful practical heavy tank ever built. It came very close to limited serial production (a batch of 50 or so was planned IIRC) but it was cancelled due to a political snafu (although the weight, considered excessive, was a factor). If you are interested I might manage to find some stats and detailed drawings.

Personally I would like some sort of winter camo for the
T-90.

Re: Icon work (any suggestions?)
 

Thanks for the web page? I will see what I can do.

Which .Shp file is the "Blackburn Beverley" in?

@ Don and the Dev team: What is the tank that look like the T 10, the one next to the new T 10 icon?

The IS7 seems a rather good model. Object 279 and Object 770 also look like they are worth modeling. I will need arial shots of them or plans of them though. I also need weapon and armour stats better than the ones I have found.

Re: Icon work (any suggestions?)
 

Some drawings for the IS-7 can be found here:

http://www.the-blueprints.com/module...w.php?nr=15817

Once you shrink them somewhat the level of definition is quite good.
I will see what I can do for the stats.

Re: Icon work (any suggestions?)
 

I once did a stat workup of the IS-7 for a SPWW2 total conversion mod I did, using stats gathered from tanknet:

420mm Effective Hull Front
150mm Effective Hull Sides
150mm Effective Hull Rear
300mm Effective Turret Front
200mm Effective Turret Sides
200mm Effective Turret Rear

Re: Icon work (any suggestions?)
 

It's a IS-IV. All that info is in the Master Icon list we put in the \Game Data\Design folder.

Don

Re: Icon work (any suggestions?)
 

Monty,

The Blackburn Beverley is Icon No. 532.



Ta. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Icon work (any suggestions?)
 

Thankyou very much. I still need the weapon stats and such but this is a great start indeed.

Re: Icon work (any suggestions?)
 

The Beverley may be found in formations 187, 193, 194, 195, 264, 265 & 266, as Unit No. 515.

It is in no other OOB.

I tried a quick Google this am, but have been unable to find a plan of the a/c.

Re: Icon work (any suggestions?)
 

Here is the JS 7 I have made. I hope you like it. Anyone feels like working on other colour schemes please do. Please make sure I get a look though.

Re: Icon work (any suggestions?)
 

Here is a picture of what the turret and chasis look like together.

Re: Icon work (any suggestions?)
 

Damn you're fast.

Here's the old IS-7 icon set I did several years ago for comparison:

http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/7...alettedkr6.png

Re: Icon work (any suggestions?)
 

Hmm I know!

http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/7748/fv44011to3.jpg

FV44011; a idea on the way to the Chieftain. Basically, a one man vehicle with 2 x 120mm recoilless rifles autoloading.

Link to Schematic of it

Re: Icon work (any suggestions?)
 

@ Mark Sheppard: Not bad. I think your turret is a little bigger though. At least compared to the schematic. I like it though. Would it be possible for you to colourise my icons? If so, a wintry one would be lovely. How did you post the pic up?

What is that thing? Who designed it?

Re: Icon work (any suggestions?)
 

Would it be possible for you to colourise my icons? If so, a wintry one would be lovely.

Coitanly. I shall add it to my list of things to do.

What is that thing? Who designed it?

That thing was a british proposal as part of the design process which led to the Chieftain tank we all know and love.

It was known as PROJECT PRODIGAL.

PRODIGAL 3 was for an air portable vehicle with a range of 500 miles (800km) crew of 1 or 2, weapons being fed by autoloader; armed with a 160mm Low pressure gun firing a 60 lb HESH round at 600 m/sec. Liquid propellant was a possibility, as was a recoil-less mount.

Unfortunately, the book doesn't show any pictures of it.

The one with the two guns is the final specification for FV 4401:

Cost must be 1/4th that of Conqueror
Rolls Royce Series B Engine
2 x 120mm Recoilless Rifles based on the current infantry weapon (BAT)

Each gun was to be fed by rotary magazines, each containing seven rounds.

A Coaxial MG was to be fitted, along with a spotting rifle for rangefinding.

The Weapons could elevate +10 deg, and depress -7 degrees, same as Conqueror.

Apparently three prototypes of some sort were made; under the name "Contentious", and at least one is at the tank museum in Bovington.

Re: Icon work (any suggestions?)
 

From Crowoods Centurion:

The FV3800 series

The 1947 policy on fighting vehicles (see Chapter 2. page 44) included a requirement for a number of Self-Propelled Guns (SPGs) These were unspecified at the time but investigations took place into the use of the Centurion hull as a base for both SPGs and support vehicles. The proposed requirements were:

FV3801 Gun Tractor
FV3802 25-pounder SP Artillery Field Equipment
FV3803 Command Post Vehicle
FV3804 Ammunition Vehicle
FV3805 5.5in SP Guns 1956
FV3806 7.2in SP Gun
FV3807 120mm SPAT Gun
FV3808 SP Mounting, Medium
FV3809 155mm SPAT Gun

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/9897/fv380513vt.jpg
The FV3805. The driver's hatch. located high on the superstructure to the right of the gun (as viewed in the picture) is open. His visibility seems to be limited but apparently it was deemed adequate. The forward-facing exhaust presented no problem.

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/5568/fv380521ur.jpg
A comedy of errors, or a compounded felony? The FV3802 with its 25-pounder gun is fitted with a Monowheel trailer. Note just five road wheels each side instead of the Centurion's six.

Of these, only the FV3805 and FV3802 SPGs reached the prototype stage. The FV3805 was unusual in that it was a reverse-drive vehicle. That is lo say that it was driven in the opposite direction to the gun tank, with the engine at the front. This demanded that the driver be relocated to a position to the left of the gun. The brakes and steering, operated by mechanical linkage in all other versions, were converted to hydraulic operation. Built by Leyland in 1957 from gun tank Mk7 03ZR07, the FV3805 carried a 5.5in howitzer. The first version, with a gun but no superstructure, was built to assess the feasibility of the reverse drive and the location of the exhaust. The second version was a much more complete vehicle with an integral superstructure. Besides the driver the FV3805 carried a commander, a gunner and a loader/radio operator. However the reverse drive, the key to the success of the design, was its Achilles' heel.

Of the two types, the FV3802 was arguably the more interesting vehicle as well as being less successful. Powered by the Meteor 4C engine with shaft-driven fans, it used a modified version of the Centurion's AEC-Rackham suspension, with two full sets of suspension units and a shortened set on each side, providing just five paired road wheels per side. Unlike the FV3805 it was a rear-engine vehicle. The gun was a 25-pounder field gun mounted with its barrel pointed to the rear, so to fire it had to be reversed, but as in the FV3805 the design exposed the softer engine compartment to enemy fire. All Centurion-based SPGs were abandoned in favour of the more compact FV433 105mm Abbott.

----------------

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/3315/conway17wb.jpg
The Conway. Its 120mm gun and rudimentary turret look top heavy on the Centurion hull.

THE FV4004 CONWAY

The requirements outlined in the new policy of 1947 were gradually being refined in the light of requirements and cost. By late 1950. the FV201 was beginning to be regarded as somewhat superfluous, particularly as the Centurion was fulfilling the expectations of the tank regiments. However, the appearance of the first Soviet JS3 at the Berlin Victory Parade in 1945 had caused some interest. With the Cold War placing this tank, with its sloping glacis plate and huge 122mm gun. on the opposing side, that interest became great concern. Here was a tank that packed a big punch and was hard to hit. The main concern was to develop a tank that could knock out the JS3. That would take time although such a vehicle did eventually emerge: the Conqueror. However, something was needed in the interim period and the plan, in late 1950. was to mount a 120mm gun on a Centurion hull. The gun chosen was an American model, the L1A1 which was earmarked for the Conqueror. It would be mounted in a rolled steel turret made by the Auster Light Aircraft Company in Rearsby. Leicestershire, the same company that made the aircraft that were used by the Army's Air Observation Post Squadrons. The new tank would be the FV4004, code-named the Conway.

Development was not straightforward and by the beginning of 1951 problems were already presenting themselves. A wood mock-up produced in October 1951 clearly showed these problems. The gun had to be mounted high to allow for recoil without fouling the turret ring and this added to the weight, already limited to 50 tons, and to the overall dimensions and high centre of gravity which made transport by road and rail difficult. Nor did the turret design allow for an elevation of more than 10 degrees: hardly adequate for the long-range firing envisaged to knock out the JS3 without getting too close. Room was needed in order to store the large ammunition but the Centurion hull, designed originally for 17-pounder rounds, could only hold twenty rounds of 120mm APDS and HESH ammo.

Just one Conway was made, by ROF Barnbow, but by the end of 1952 the design had shown itself to be impractical. The development of the Conqueror was well under way. with the design already signed off in March 1952. The first Conqueror would come off the production line in January 1954 and was unlikely that the Conway would have any useful application with the Conqueror coming into service so soon after. In December 1952 the FV4004 Conway was cancelled. The sole example is preserved at the Tank Museum, Bovington.

-----------

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/6586/fv400511wq.jpg
FV4005 Stage 1, a single experimental vehicle designed solely to prove the stability of the Centurion or FV215 as a firm gun platform.

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/1152/fv400526eq.jpg
FV4005 Stage 2. The fabricated turret embodied two conventional recoil systems.

FV4005

Along with a number of engineer and recovery vehicles, based on the FV200 hull, there would be types of Self-Propelled Guns (SPGs) as yet unspecified (see Chapters 2 and 6). With the Conqueror experiencing difficulties in production and the Conway abandoned, the much needed tank-destroyer role was unfulfilled and in their quest for bigger guns, the design engineers turned to the concept of the SPG. One train of thought, made apparent in November 1951. was that the only orthodox weapon capable of defeating without question 6in (150mm) of armour sloped at 60 degrees (LOS of 300mm) at a range of 2.000yd (1.830m) would be a 180mm gun. firing a squash-head round. The most likely mounting would be a limited traverse SP mounting with reasonably heavy frontal armour. Two versions of this equipment were considered:

1. A limited traverse lightly armoured SP mounting based on the Centurion hull for early production and weighing some 50 tons. This would be known as the FV4005.

2. A longer-term design based on parts of the FV214 and known as FV215.

FV4005 was to be designed in two stages. Stage 1 involved one experimental vehicle designed solely to prove the stability of the vehicle such as a Centurion or FV215 as a firm platform for a gun of this size. A traversing carriage embodied a concentric recoil system in a mounting in a trunnion on an undercarriage.

Stage 2 embodied two conventional recoil systems with a hydro-pneumatic recuperation and an independent run-out control. The undercarriage was similar to that of the Stage 1 design but of fabricated construction.

Weight considerations limited the degree of protection for the crew to no more than splinter protection. Progress was slow: by December 1952, the specification for the FV4005 had changed to a 183mm gun. and as late as July 1955 FV4005, a Stage 2 with the 183mm gun, was fitted with a hydro-pneumatic recoil system and a turret. But by August 1957 the vehicles were dispersed. The mounting on the Stage 1 vehicle was sent to Shoeburyness P&EE for its use and the hull returned to service. Another vehicle was sent to the Royal Military College of Science and others were kept at FVRDE.

Why had all this work been abandoned? The same reasons may be considered as those that caused the demise of the Conqueror, namely that the new 105mm gun under development for the Centurion was far more effective than the Conqueror's in that it could knock out the dreaded JS3. And this gun was fitted to a known, reliable base, the Centurion that was already in service. Common sense had. it seems, prevailed.

Re: Icon work (any suggestions?)
 

Man, armor from what I guess we could call the "pentomic" era is so interesting. I love it because its almost as if it was taken out of a comic book.

Re: Icon work (any suggestions?)
 

Here's a nice what if

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/1591/tbom60a39jr.gif

Basically it's from an alternate history universe, where the T-95 project was picked by the US Military as the next generation tank to replace the M-48 Patton.

Re: Icon work (any suggestions?)
 

http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/7691/t928mf.jpg

I think this one is the T-92 Light Tank. Was cancelled because the soviets had come up with an amphibious tank, the PT-76, and the T-92 could not float, so it was cancelled in favor of what became the M-551 Sheridan.

Re: Icon work (any suggestions?)
 

"FV4005 Stage 1" reminds me of the proposals for the Soviet T95 and the German special weapon in Red Alert 2 (Jagdpanzer thingy). I don't know if anyone here ever played those games but I bet that, and similar weapon systems, is where they got their ideas from.

The more prototypes and and drawingboard ideas I see the more I think, WOW! Some are plain rediculous, but others really seem quite plausible.

The T-92 above has a similar suspension to the Tetrarch by the looks of it. At least that is what it reminds me of.

That M60A3 doesn't look that different. The gun is longer, perhaps a higher calibre? What is this about an alternate timeline?

If you like I could make an icon for the M60A3 and possibly one of the "Conways". Other than that if you like I coud also work on that "FV44011" providing you gave me some idea as to the scale of it.

Has anyone done any work on that four tracked Soviet tank yet? What I need from you if you have is your armour values and so on.

Re: Icon work (any suggestions?)
 

There is not a lot of material around about Object 279.
Unusually wikipedia seems the only source with detailed data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_279

I would say that the thing had about zero chances of being chosen for mass production under any circumstance.

By chance would you be interested in KV tanks?
There were a lot of designs based upon that tank which were put forward just before Barbarossa. I might manage to dig up some of them.

Re: Icon work (any suggestions?)
 

The more prototypes and and drawingboard ideas I see the more I think, WOW! Some are plain rediculous, but others really seem quite plausible.

You haven't seen crazy yet.

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/2...ngtank2fl2.jpg

Swimming Tank proposal from the 50s. The turret is basically a normal angled turret inside, but with a huge outer steel shell built around it to provide flotation buoyancy with the air inside it.

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/3...edarmorlc8.jpg

Slat Armor is not new. The above image is from either the 50s or 60s.

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/6...5turretaf5.jpg

Autoloading 105mm turret from the 1950s.

That M60A3 doesn't look that different. The gun is longer, perhaps a higher calibre? What is this about an alternate timeline?

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I colored in that drawing for a friend of mine who is writing an alternate history story, and technology takes a different bent than it did historically.

Some history first...

The Army decided that an all new tank would be needed for it's future main battle tank in the mid 1950s, to replace the M-46/47/48 Pattons in service, which were all the results of "interim" tanks adapting parts of the previous tank in order to get them into service as fast as possible. You can still see a lot of the original tank, the M-26, in the M-46/47/48.

http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/6630/t95ne5.jpg

The first T-95 prototypes were fitted with a smoothbore 90mm gun.

The later T95E3 prototype had a 105mm gun installed.

Later, a 120mm gun was put into the T95E6; which was never built in prototype form, but you can see an artists rendering of it below.

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/4449/t95e6kg2.jpg

An early precursor of Chobham Armor; known as Silaceous Cored armor, was to be used with the T95 program; and that search light thing on the side of the turret isn't a searchlight. Instead, it's a giant infrared light source used in the fire control system called OPTAR. Basically, a beam of intense IR light is bounced off a target, and the fire control system calculates range by counting the time between the IR light being on and the time it takes for the IR beam to bounce back. Sort of like how laser rangefinding works, but with IR and not affected by smoke apparently.

What happened was that the Army decided that the T95 program was too ambitious in 1960 and officially cancelled the T95 project; and decided to use the M48A2 rearmed with the 105mm T254E2 and call it the XM-60.

In my friend's story, the Army doesn't cancel the program, and instead produces the T95 as the M-60; and the never-built T95E6 is built as the M-60A3 of that story.

Other than that if you like I coud also work on that "FV4401" providing you gave me some idea as to the scale of it.

The dimensions for it are on this image

Linka

Hull is 13' 10" long and 8'3" Wide.

Overall length with the 120mm rifles forward is 17' 6".

Re: Icon work (any suggestions?)
 

Thanks for all the information. I was wondering if you remembered how to work out armour values for the tanks. Its been a while since I had to convert real world figures into the game so I can't for the life of me remember.

Re: Icon work (any suggestions?)
 

Oh yeah and any info on the KV tanks would also be greatly appreciated. Anything that looks quite ahead of its time would be great.

I would also appreciate it if one of the more experienced members of the community could take a look at my most recent OOB work. Some of it is pure fantasy. What I need is for someone to look at it, suggest improvements and changes. Effectively to mark and grade it. If either Don or Mobhack have time to spare, or are interested, I would love to hear their thoughts too.

If youare interested and have a good knowledge of the game's mechanics, especially Mobhack, then please drop me a line here and I will send you a copy. One other thing, disregard the soundfiles, very few of them are in the original version.

Re: Icon work (any suggestions?)
 

Here is a brief history of the experimental KV designs

http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?...48&lang=en

Here are the detaile blueprints fot the KV-220

http://www.the-blueprints.com/module...ew.php?nr=6572

and here is the KV-5

http://www.the-blueprints.com/module...ew.php?nr=6565

If I have understood correctly both the KV-220/KV-3 and the KV-5 were supposed to be mass produced, the first in large quantities as standard heavy tank, the second in limited numbers to be used in support of fixed defenses. Given that its weight was supposed to be around the 150 tons that was pretty much the only practical use (that and looking good during parades, I guess).

Re: Icon work (any suggestions?)
 

Thanks for the information. I will put it to good use I hope.

Re: Icon work (any suggestions?)
 

Ok, the two KV hulls (KV 220 and KV 5) are done in the basic Soviet colours. The Turrets I am going to work on now.


http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif~Update~ http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

OK, here they are. The KV 220 and the KV 5 are done and I revamped my JS VII with a new winter scheme and a longer gun. They are in the attachment.

Re: Icon work (any suggestions?)
 

You guys have found some incredible stuff. I've been looking for years and haven't seen any of this. My hat is off to you.
Will

Re: Icon work (any suggestions?)
 

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif~ UPDATE ~http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

Here are two T95 icons.

By T95 I don't mean the Soviet MBT. If you look further back in this thread you will see which T95 I mean, just in case there was a mix up.

Re: Icon work (any suggestions?)
 

So let me see now, Thats the T95, JS VII, KV 220 and KV 5 done. Just Object 270 and those two weird looking British vehicles to do. I think.

Re: Icon work (any suggestions?)
 

If anyone wants the unmanned lozenge shaped turret I did one of the as well. It is in a dessert camo scheme but I think it looks ok.

Re: Icon work (any suggestions?)
 

Yes, I want the lozenge turret! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/heart.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

Re: Icon work (any suggestions?)
 

Berlin Brigade Camoe'd Chieftains:

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/885...eftainslg1.jpg

The BAOR tried out an experimental scheme for it's vehicles in what, the 70s-80s for the Berlin Brigade.

http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/5...eftainsft9.gif
200% blown up of the BB Icon + the White+Black Chieftain I had to make for this to work. The Desert and Green Chieftains are (C) SPCAMO.

Re: Icon work (any suggestions?)
 

Hey, I recognize those Chieftans. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif How about an opinion pole? You guys still think those fit into the standard or could use a face lift?

I have actually thought of doing the BB. But never got around to it. LOL...looks good. Only comment I would make is, it should be based on the blue color not white!

Re: Icon work (any suggestions?)
 

Here is the turret.

Re: Icon work (any suggestions?)
 

~~~#BLACKBURN BEVERLEY#~~~

(TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT)