Hey Steve, Thanks for your thoughtful analysis. I remember you using a similar explanation in a prior reply... I get what you are saying, and the hobby's objective shouldn't be simply a battle against modern MBTs, but I would have to wonder if a simple tweaking of this one rule would make things just a bit better. Yeah, build whatever you like, but we're not giving away the candy store...
Think for a minute, won't the reverse eventually (at least theoretically) happen, where the only viable tanks for this hobby's format will be tiny little(profile wise) things? I'm not buying Frank's explanation from his response post. Maybe those operators aren't all that "skilled" Frank... It stands to reason that a smaller side profile tank will undoubtedly outperform it's larger adversaries. Smaller TARGET Frank, thought I'd spell it out for you. The penalty for building a bigger tank (bigger presumably meaning better armored in most cases) is that it's armor advantage gets nullified by the combination of the current rules stating that frontal hits don't count (only side and rear hits count, where armor is the weakest), yet it's only the frontal armor that's considered when determining a tank's defensive rating. So who cares how weak your tank is in terms of it's side/rear armor, all side/rear hits count whether your tank has 25mm of side/rear armor or 125mm... Sounds contradictory when it's put that way. On top of that, then factor in the pop gun principle, where almost any size gun can basically hit any sized(and heavily armored) tank equally-by current hobby rules, and you've really got a deck stacked against a big tank build. Where's the common sense in that, Frank?? If the operator's ultimate objective is to win these R/C tank battles, then this trend towards "micro" tanks is the only logical conclusion... I once auditioned for the role of Lt. Commander Spock in a high school play... Just kidding!! I love a good sense of humor!! And I know he wasn't a lieutenant commander-for all you Trekkies out there, but I thought it sounded good, and I'm not a Trekkie, thank goodness!! I applaud the Pittellis' choice for a tank that fits very, very well within the rules as they presently are. A pop gun main armament, very slight armor when classed against any of the heavies, and as you state Steve, against most mediums (like the T-34, definitely a medium tank-weight being the ultimate deciding factor, which is directly related to armor...) Great choice, but almost nonsensical... Unfortunately, the rules seem to make it a mockery to build just about anything else, sadly. I guess when you're the king, you can make the rules... It's pathetic that Long Island doesn't have an R/C tank club... not that I would make it my life's endeavor, but if it was up to me, I would set it up differently. I always said I like to organize things...I was always the kid on my block who my friends turned to when deciding what adventures we'd be doing from day to day... Ahhh, if only adult life could be so simple... Perhaps I need to step up to the plate, so to speak... It is my hope, that logic (or as Frank like's to put it, common sense) will prevail regarding the MAG's ruling on the defensive rating for their hobby's tanks... Dave D. PS... Oh yeah Steve, definitely going for the three foot rule on the Jagdkitty's build, if I do decide to build it... Plus I don't own a truck, so hauling issues come into play. Definitely a rule I'll keep for the Long Island R/C Tanker's Club. Thanks again for your valued input. D. ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Tyng To: rctankcombat@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 8:31 PM Subject: [TANKS] Re: I'll float this idea again... Dave, If historical accuracy was used to determine hit points everybody would be building modern MBT's. I agree that the current setup is not perfect but it is working for the limited number of battling tanks. This is first and foremost a battling hobby and not a scale hobby. Since the hobby is open to all tanks ever produced (and we want it that way to cater to all tastes), I think it would be more advantageous for the hobby to determine hit points based on a designs performance against its contemporaries. For example, a T-34/76 isn't thought of as a heavy tank today but when it was built nothing could touch it, so it would be classified as a heavy. Likewise, the Panzer II-J, would be classified as a light as it would not have lasted more than a few seconds against a KV (the undisputed heavy in 1940 to 1942). Such a classification scheme would allow WW1 rumboids to battle competivaly against M1's and I think that would be very cool indeed. Go ahead and build the Jagdpanther and build it to the three foot rule. It would be a terror on the battlefield. Steve Tyng -- You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group. To post a message, send email to rctankcombat@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat -- You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group. To post a message, send email to rctankcombat@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat
