Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update
I wonder what Steve wants to build now Nothing new I'm afraid. The T-70's been shelved for at least a year or more. The Cromwell is getting rebuilt, with one major improvement, which will be an updated and highly precise turret rotate. Only other thing I'm working on is my Mogador fastgun destroyer (worked on it last night). I WILL IF IT KILLS ME, battle a freakin warship this year! Steve -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update
Frank, The original intent of the 3' rule and universal 4/40 rating was genius. Like you state, it would have avoided current discussions such as this (which I happen to enjoy from time to time BTW ;-). BUT that Pandora's box of or 1:6 scale WAS opened up and the early bliss that was RCTC in 2000 was shattered by abominations like 1:6 scale Hetzer's, Panzer II's, and Tiger2's! Believe it or not, I'm only trying to restore us to that state of bliss but also accommodate those spawns of 1:6 scale insanity. If you think about it a bit, my current ratings proposal basically throws out the 1:6 scale rule and moves us back to the 3' rule BUT adds additional 2' and 4' rules to accommodate current and future abominations. Steve Why Can't We All Just Get Along 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update
Sure. But your proposal also makes smaller tanks faster than larger tanks which requires speed enforcement (with all the complexities that come with it) and which clearly provides smaller tanks with an advantage that far outweighs the loss of offense/defense ratings. Derek's suggestion to give 40/4 ratings across the board solves a number of problems discussed in this thread, has no apparent disadvantages, is simple to enforce and (probably) has no un-intended consequences. Given that Joe has proposed something similar in the past and that Doug feels it would encourage Armored Car development, it's one of those rare proposals that might gain unanimous consent. Regarding the small number of tanks shorter than 36, you are certainly well aware that smallness of size, in itself, doesn't provide a significant advantage. Anyone who examines the stats compiled for the two identical Panzer IIs will quickly see that size doesn't matter. Moreover, some of the larger tanks take less hits than the smaller ones. Given that most veterans can shoot soldiers in the head from 20-40 feet out also supports the notion that target size is not as important as people want to believe. Getting rid of the 1:6 scale rule really wouldn't change battle outcomes much at all, but it could cause a lot of harm to people who (a) want to use commercial parts and/or vehicles or (b) want to stay in a common scale because they also do scale modeling. First rule of rule making: Do no harm. On 12/19/2013 12:14 PM, TyngTech wrote: If you think about it a bit, my current ratings proposal basically throws out the 1:6 scale rule and moves us back to the 3' rule BUT adds additional 2' and 4' rules to accommodate current and future abominations. -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update
The only other thing I can think of is that if people are concerned about tank/people accidents is have the battlefield marked off. The operators would have to keep outside the battle zone ala 1/16 scale tank type battling. It would make aiming much harder, engagement distances short, safe for the operators, decrease the number of shots fired wildly, and increase tactics. Of course this might benefit the fast tanks more than the slower ones. The engagement boarder could go 360 degrees so you could somewhat follow your tank around the field. Just a thought. Derek On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Jason pilo...@comcast.net wrote: Why not simply stand a safe distance from a tank in motion. Say like 15ft. I say this simply because I don't like seeing every activity getting nerfed and being regulated when using a bit of common sense would be plenty sufficient to bring the same results. Distance combined with a deadman switch on the throttle where it chops throttles to zero on release I would think would add enough of a buffer to maintain safety Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -- *From: * TyngTech steve...@gmail.com *Sender: * rctankcombat@googlegroups.com *Date: *Thu, 19 Dec 2013 11:18:02 -0800 (PST) *To: *rctankcombat@googlegroups.com *ReplyTo: * rctankcombat@googlegroups.com *Subject: *Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update I could really care less about the sub 3' tanks. As you point out, their easy enough to take out as any other tank for an experienced battler. My main thoughts are concerning potential 4'+ vehicles. It's my contention that if someone brings one of these to the field one day, we should throw them a bone for all the effort in construction and transporting such a large paintball target. My second thought is to set speed limits for larger vehicles because as experienced battlers know, a 200 pound beast doing 8MPH in the hands of a new driver is just asking for trouble. I just thought it would be nice to address this before some new guy shows up at some point with his new 250 pound welded steel 1:6 scale Abrams pushing 10MPH. Giving everything 4/40 is OK with me (yawn). This fixes the inequity foisted upon Joe back in the day, put's my future T-70 on par with the Panzer II's, and allows racking up quick an easy points when a 4' monster does show up on the field. Steve I Care Too Much Tyng On Thursday, December 19, 2013 1:46:35 PM UTC-5, Frank Pittelli wrote: Sure. But your proposal also makes smaller tanks faster than larger tanks which requires speed enforcement (with all the complexities that come with it) and which clearly provides smaller tanks with an advantage that far outweighs the loss of offense/defense ratings. Derek's suggestion to give 40/4 ratings across the board solves a number of problems discussed in this thread, has no apparent disadvantages, is simple to enforce and (probably) has no un-intended consequences. Given that Joe has proposed something similar in the past and that Doug feels it would encourage Armored Car development, it's one of those rare proposals that might gain unanimous consent. Regarding the small number of tanks shorter than 36, you are certainly well aware that smallness of size, in itself, doesn't provide a significant advantage. Anyone who examines the stats compiled for the two identical Panzer IIs will quickly see that size doesn't matter. Moreover, some of the larger tanks take less hits than the smaller ones. Given that most veterans can shoot soldiers in the head from 20-40 feet out also supports the notion that target size is not as important as people want to believe. Getting rid of the 1:6 scale rule really wouldn't change battle outcomes much at all, but it could cause a lot of harm to people who (a) want to use commercial parts and/or vehicles or (b) want to stay in a common scale because they also do scale modeling. First rule of rule making: Do no harm. On 12/19/2013 12:14 PM, TyngTech wrote: If you think about it a bit, my current ratings proposal basically throws out the 1:6 scale rule and moves us back to the 3' rule BUT adds additional 2' and 4' rules to accommodate current and future abominations. -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- -- You are currently subscribed to the R/C Tank Combat group. To post a message, send email to rctankcombat@googlegroups.com
Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update
Why not simply stand a safe distance from a tank in motion. Say like 15ft. I say this simply because I don't like seeing every activity getting nerfed and being regulated when using a bit of common sense would be plenty sufficient to bring the same results. Distance combined with a deadman switch on the throttle where it chops throttles to zero on release I would think would add enough of a buffer to maintain safety Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -Original Message- From: TyngTech steve...@gmail.com Sender: rctankcombat@googlegroups.com Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 11:18:02 To: rctankcombat@googlegroups.com Reply-To: rctankcombat@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update I could really care less about the sub 3' tanks. As you point out, their easy enough to take out as any other tank for an experienced battler. My main thoughts are concerning potential 4'+ vehicles. It's my contention that if someone brings one of these to the field one day, we should throw them a bone for all the effort in construction and transporting such a large paintball target. My second thought is to set speed limits for larger vehicles because as experienced battlers know, a 200 pound beast doing 8MPH in the hands of a new driver is just asking for trouble. I just thought it would be nice to address this before some new guy shows up at some point with his new 250 pound welded steel 1:6 scale Abrams pushing 10MPH. Giving everything 4/40 is OK with me (yawn). This fixes the inequity foisted upon Joe back in the day, put's my future T-70 on par with the Panzer II's, and allows racking up quick an easy points when a 4' monster does show up on the field. Steve I Care Too Much Tyng On Thursday, December 19, 2013 1:46:35 PM UTC-5, Frank Pittelli wrote: Sure. But your proposal also makes smaller tanks faster than larger tanks which requires speed enforcement (with all the complexities that come with it) and which clearly provides smaller tanks with an advantage that far outweighs the loss of offense/defense ratings. Derek's suggestion to give 40/4 ratings across the board solves a number of problems discussed in this thread, has no apparent disadvantages, is simple to enforce and (probably) has no un-intended consequences. Given that Joe has proposed something similar in the past and that Doug feels it would encourage Armored Car development, it's one of those rare proposals that might gain unanimous consent. Regarding the small number of tanks shorter than 36, you are certainly well aware that smallness of size, in itself, doesn't provide a significant advantage. Anyone who examines the stats compiled for the two identical Panzer IIs will quickly see that size doesn't matter. Moreover, some of the larger tanks take less hits than the smaller ones. Given that most veterans can shoot soldiers in the head from 20-40 feet out also supports the notion that target size is not as important as people want to believe. Getting rid of the 1:6 scale rule really wouldn't change battle outcomes much at all, but it could cause a lot of harm to people who (a) want to use commercial parts and/or vehicles or (b) want to stay in a common scale because they also do scale modeling. First rule of rule making: Do no harm. On 12/19/2013 12:14 PM, TyngTech wrote: If you think about it a bit, my current ratings proposal basically throws out the 1:6 scale rule and moves us back to the 3' rule BUT adds additional 2' and 4' rules to accommodate current and future abominations. -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update
It's kinda a to battle a warship this year there are only 12 days left. Will -Original Message- From: TyngTech steve...@gmail.com To: rctankcombat rctankcombat@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Dec 19, 2013 11:53 am Subject: Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update I wonder what Steve wants to build now Nothing new I'm afraid. The T-70's been shelved for at least a year or more. The Cromwell is getting rebuilt, with one major improvement, which will be an updated and highly precise turret rotate. Only other thing I'm working on is my Mogador fastgun destroyer (worked on it last night). I WILL IF IT KILLS ME, battle a freakin warship this year! Steve -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update
That's an excellent idea Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -Original Message- From: Derek Engelhaupt tan...@gmail.com Sender: rctankcombat@googlegroups.com Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 13:46:14 To: rctankcombat@googlegroups.com Reply-To: rctankcombat@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update The only other thing I can think of is that if people are concerned about tank/people accidents is have the battlefield marked off. The operators would have to keep outside the battle zone ala 1/16 scale tank type battling. It would make aiming much harder, engagement distances short, safe for the operators, decrease the number of shots fired wildly, and increase tactics. Of course this might benefit the fast tanks more than the slower ones. The engagement boarder could go 360 degrees so you could somewhat follow your tank around the field. Just a thought. Derek On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Jason pilo...@comcast.net wrote: Why not simply stand a safe distance from a tank in motion. Say like 15ft. I say this simply because I don't like seeing every activity getting nerfed and being regulated when using a bit of common sense would be plenty sufficient to bring the same results. Distance combined with a deadman switch on the throttle where it chops throttles to zero on release I would think would add enough of a buffer to maintain safety Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -- *From: * TyngTech steve...@gmail.com *Sender: * rctankcombat@googlegroups.com *Date: *Thu, 19 Dec 2013 11:18:02 -0800 (PST) *To: *rctankcombat@googlegroups.com *ReplyTo: * rctankcombat@googlegroups.com *Subject: *Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update I could really care less about the sub 3' tanks. As you point out, their easy enough to take out as any other tank for an experienced battler. My main thoughts are concerning potential 4'+ vehicles. It's my contention that if someone brings one of these to the field one day, we should throw them a bone for all the effort in construction and transporting such a large paintball target. My second thought is to set speed limits for larger vehicles because as experienced battlers know, a 200 pound beast doing 8MPH in the hands of a new driver is just asking for trouble. I just thought it would be nice to address this before some new guy shows up at some point with his new 250 pound welded steel 1:6 scale Abrams pushing 10MPH. Giving everything 4/40 is OK with me (yawn). This fixes the inequity foisted upon Joe back in the day, put's my future T-70 on par with the Panzer II's, and allows racking up quick an easy points when a 4' monster does show up on the field. Steve I Care Too Much Tyng On Thursday, December 19, 2013 1:46:35 PM UTC-5, Frank Pittelli wrote: Sure. But your proposal also makes smaller tanks faster than larger tanks which requires speed enforcement (with all the complexities that come with it) and which clearly provides smaller tanks with an advantage that far outweighs the loss of offense/defense ratings. Derek's suggestion to give 40/4 ratings across the board solves a number of problems discussed in this thread, has no apparent disadvantages, is simple to enforce and (probably) has no un-intended consequences. Given that Joe has proposed something similar in the past and that Doug feels it would encourage Armored Car development, it's one of those rare proposals that might gain unanimous consent. Regarding the small number of tanks shorter than 36, you are certainly well aware that smallness of size, in itself, doesn't provide a significant advantage. Anyone who examines the stats compiled for the two identical Panzer IIs will quickly see that size doesn't matter. Moreover, some of the larger tanks take less hits than the smaller ones. Given that most veterans can shoot soldiers in the head from 20-40 feet out also supports the notion that target size is not as important as people want to believe. Getting rid of the 1:6 scale rule really wouldn't change battle outcomes much at all, but it could cause a lot of harm to people who (a) want to use commercial parts and/or vehicles or (b) want to stay in a common scale because they also do scale modeling. First rule of rule making: Do no harm. On 12/19/2013 12:14 PM, TyngTech wrote: If you think about it a bit, my current ratings proposal basically throws out the 1:6 scale rule and moves us back to the 3' rule BUT adds additional 2' and 4' rules to accommodate current and future abominations. -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank
Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update
On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 11:02:42 PM UTC-5, RocketMan wrote: frontal exclusion for all I think that treating armored cars the same way as tanks with regard to frontal hits will help bring new members to the hobby. A tank-steered (as opposed to front wheel steered) armored car is probably the simplest mobile, firing, asset to produce. That said, I don't know how many newbies decided not to build an A/C because the rules were against them. I understand Steve's comment about historical accuracy. One of the fundamental principles of the rules has been to field as wide an asset variety as possible without too much regard for the performance of the actual vehicle. Using common tank and A/C rules will help do that. - Doug -- I agree with you Doug. Let the armored cars have frontal exclusion also. And making every vehicle 40/4 works for me also. If someone wishes to build a behemoth making them 50/5 works also. It's all about keeping the game fun. John just woke up from my nap Pittelli -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update
as to marking off the battle field and asking the battlers to stay to the sides is a bit of a problem, as it makes it harder for them to fine too their shots and to navigate obstacles. as to staying 15 feet away from a tank would be even harder as when you get a few tanks within a few yards of one another, now your 15' distance starts to over lap into other's safety zones (or what ever you want to call it). best way to look at this is to draw a circle, have the tank at it's center and the tank driver anywhere along the outer edge. now start a battle with at least 4 tanks, 2 on each side and have them start moving close and see how the circles begin to bump into one another (or at the very least get very close), now increase the number of vehicles and battlers.. the playing field becomes very small, very fast and the 15' spacing (between tank and driver) will start to become no-existent. chris -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update
by giving all tanks a 4/40 rating and by giving armored cars a frontal exclusion, nobody will be able to say that the rules are biased in one way or another. That will reverse one of the mistakes that I made. So we are going with all tanks get 4/40? Boring IMO but I'll go along with it. But why stop there? Fix both mistakes and get rid of the 1:6 rule. Current completed battling vehicles that don't meet the 3' requirement get grandfathered in. ST -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update
So the problem isnt tanks are too fast; its that people could lose control of tanks that are too fast? Why not start with a simple no running rule and follow up by requiring the throttle switch on the controller has to return to neutral if its released (as opposed to using a ratcheting throttle lever)? Even if we were to use 555s to limit firing speed, how would we agree on rate of fire, and how would we enforce it? On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 7:16 AM, TyngTech steve...@gmail.com wrote: by giving all tanks a 4/40 rating and by giving armored cars a frontal exclusion, nobody will be able to say that the rules are biased in one way or another. That will reverse one of the mistakes that I made. So we are going with all tanks get 4/40? Boring IMO but I'll go along with it. But why stop there? Fix both mistakes and get rid of the 1:6 rule. Current completed battling vehicles that don't meet the 3' requirement get grandfathered in. ST -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Isaac Goldman 5142334423 This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update
I will start a separate thread on this topic. On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 10:30:17 PM UTC-5, RocketMan wrote: ... One rule I wish we had but is probably unenforceable is a rate of fire limit. It's ludicrous to let tanks fire a few times per second. ... -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update
Steve, for the benefit of those of us with little or no experience, could you expound on this please? On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 1:48:37 AM UTC-5, TyngTech wrote: ... We need the frontal exclusion. Without it the game is unplayable. ... -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update
Apologies if I'm rehashing an old discussion ... HEAT rounds changed the game so that heavy armor plating wasn't very effective, and led to the development of reactive armor. Has consideration ever been given to equalizing modern tanks like Merkavas with older thick-skinned tanks? Steve's proposal would make this point moot. On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 5:29:38 PM UTC-5, True North Armouries wrote: ... Effective armour should absolutely be in the horizontal plane; hence why armour is sloped in tank design... -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update
No equalization required. Modern MBT's are classified as 4/40 tanks under the current ratings (it's assumed the armor is well over 70mm on these tanks). Built to 1:6 scale, I'd categorize them as 5/50 heavy's in the context of my proposal since most would be longer than 4' at this scale. ST On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 11:46:16 AM UTC-5, Mike Lyons wrote: Apologies if I'm rehashing an old discussion ... HEAT rounds changed the game so that heavy armor plating wasn't very effective, and led to the development of reactive armor. Has consideration ever been given to equalizing modern tanks like Merkavas with older thick-skinned tanks? Steve's proposal would make this point moot. On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 5:29:38 PM UTC-5, True North Armouries wrote: ... Effective armour should absolutely be in the horizontal plane; hence why armour is sloped in tank design... -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update
regarding the speed limits subject... the concept of these tanks being too fast and the operator losing control of it seem kinda funny to me, especially since they really aren't capable of fast speeds. I say this coming from an RC background that includes a variety of off road gas powered trucks, racing gas touring cars on prepared tracks, as well as flying RC planes. my gas touring car was capable of about 65mph in a straight ling and had handling abilities that allowed amazingly quick turns at speed. ever while racing with 8-10 other cars on the track did people lose control more that a rare freak event. more often that not crashes were due to contact with other cars. I definitely agree with a throttle return, or deadman setup where the throttle is reduced to idle/stop though should something happen like loss of signal, this is easily achieved these days with the digital receivers as well as fail safe devices that are readily available and reliable, Ive crash tested a couple in my planes over the years and they've proven pretty durable despite some pretty nasty crashes. keep in mind I do not have an operational tank but I have been working on design in solidworks, so my oppinion is only my 2 cents as an outsider looking in. - Original Message - From: isaac goldman panthergol...@gmail.com To: rctankcombat@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 7:02:16 AM Subject: Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update So the problem isnt tanks are too fast; its that people could lose control of tanks that are too fast? Why not start with a simple no running rule and follow up by requiring the throttle switch on the controller has to return to neutral if its released (as opposed to using a ratcheting throttle lever)? Even if we were to use 555s to limit firing speed, how would we agree on rate of fire, and how would we enforce it? On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 7:16 AM, TyngTech steve...@gmail.com wrote: blockquote by giving all tanks a 4/40 rating and by giving armored cars a frontal exclusion, nobody will be able to say that the rules are biased in one way or another. That will reverse one of the mistakes that I made. So we are going with all tanks get 4/40? Boring IMO but I'll go along with it. But why stop there? Fix both mistakes and get rid of the 1:6 rule. Current completed battling vehicles that don't meet the 3' requirement get grandfathered in. ST -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out . /blockquote -- Isaac Goldman 5142334423 This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out . -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update
There's a big difference between R/C race cars on a track and R/C tanks on a battlefield ... the tanks weigh up to 150 pounds and they are designed to run into and over things without stopping. Throw in the fact that the operators are within a few yards of them at all times, with paint balls flying in all directions and you now see the safety issue. So yes, they don't go 60 mph, but 150 pounds at 10 mph is not something you want smacking into your ankle or shin. In close quarter battling, a wrong jog of the joystick can easily send the tank the wrong way and cause problems. The risk increases as the speed increases and every operator has an upper limit to their skills. Mind you, we have many skilled members, some of whom have been operating R/C vehicles for over 25 years (longer than some of our mailing list members have been alive), but they will be the first to agree that above a certain point, the risk overtakes the fun. We rely on personal responsibility to prevent such problems and that has worked well for 10+ years. When personal responsibility can no longer be relied upon, no set of rules will be able to maintain the same level of fun, competition and safety. Battlers are expected to protect their fellow battlers, regardless of the rules. We've never been shy about swiftly correcting mistakes when they happen, such as shooting down-range when people are un-masked or refilling a CO2 bottle improperly. Safety comes from vigilance, both as individuals and as a group. BTW: You say that most race car crashes were due to contact with other cars, but not because the operators lose control. Does that mean that the operators were usually in total control when they ran their car into the other one? On 12/18/2013 12:52 PM, pilo...@comcast.net wrote: regarding the speed limits subject... the concept of these tanks being too fast and the operator losing control of it seem kinda funny to me, especially since they really aren't capable of fast speeds. I say this coming from an RC background that includes a variety of off road gas powered trucks, racing gas touring cars on prepared tracks, as well as flying RC planes. my gas touring car was capable of about 65mph in a straight ling and had handling abilities that allowed amazingly quick turns at speed. ever while racing with 8-10 other cars on the track did people lose control more that a rare freak event. more often that not crashes were due to contact with other cars. -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update
By no means am I advocating a tank capable of the obscene speeds of a racing touring car. But I do disagree with the painful plodding pace of 5-7mph Ive seen tossed around. in racing people were not on the track during racing we all stood on a drivers tower, which Im fully aware is simple not feasible in a tank battle, however standing within a step or 2 of one of these tanks while engaged in combat with it seems foolish to me as well. it puts the user more directly within the field of fire from an opposing tank, even with the mask I dont want get shot(I play paintball too). Personal responsibility of definately a huge part of the game here. and I really do like the talk going on regarding the rate of fire limiters as even that has a safety aspect with markers capable of exceedingly high rates of fire in stock form these days. as for the rc racing crashes, for the most part both drivers were in control of their vehicles when they make contact, its a fact of racing that contact will happen form time to time especially when they are competing for the same piece of track to get around as fast as they can, im not talking about one car t0boning another but rather side to side or from to back rubbing that, combined with driving the car near its limits of traction and suspension combined with the speeds caused cars to crash, it was something we all tried to avoid since a gentle nudge could end your race with a busted car or cost you finishing position. contact in racing happens, its part of the game, whether RC or real cars or even the motorcycles I race, and I sure as hell dont want ot make contact with another bike, but it has happened. the tanks aren't competing for real estate in the same manner - Original Message - From: Frank Pittelli frank.pitte...@gmail.com To: rctankcombat@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 12:23:56 PM Subject: Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update There's a big difference between R/C race cars on a track and R/C tanks on a battlefield ... the tanks weigh up to 150 pounds and they are designed to run into and over things without stopping. Throw in the fact that the operators are within a few yards of them at all times, with paint balls flying in all directions and you now see the safety issue. So yes, they don't go 60 mph, but 150 pounds at 10 mph is not something you want smacking into your ankle or shin. In close quarter battling, a wrong jog of the joystick can easily send the tank the wrong way and cause problems. The risk increases as the speed increases and every operator has an upper limit to their skills. Mind you, we have many skilled members, some of whom have been operating R/C vehicles for over 25 years (longer than some of our mailing list members have been alive), but they will be the first to agree that above a certain point, the risk overtakes the fun. We rely on personal responsibility to prevent such problems and that has worked well for 10+ years. When personal responsibility can no longer be relied upon, no set of rules will be able to maintain the same level of fun, competition and safety. Battlers are expected to protect their fellow battlers, regardless of the rules. We've never been shy about swiftly correcting mistakes when they happen, such as shooting down-range when people are un-masked or refilling a CO2 bottle improperly. Safety comes from vigilance, both as individuals and as a group. BTW: You say that most race car crashes were due to contact with other cars, but not because the operators lose control. Does that mean that the operators were usually in total control when they ran their car into the other one? On 12/18/2013 12:52 PM, pilo...@comcast.net wrote: regarding the speed limits subject... the concept of these tanks being too fast and the operator losing control of it seem kinda funny to me, especially since they really aren't capable of fast speeds. I say this coming from an RC background that includes a variety of off road gas powered trucks, racing gas touring cars on prepared tracks, as well as flying RC planes. my gas touring car was capable of about 65mph in a straight ling and had handling abilities that allowed amazingly quick turns at speed. ever while racing with 8-10 other cars on the track did people lose control more that a rare freak event. more often that not crashes were due to contact with other cars. -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update
Perhaps this is the future of RCTC? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL8y8lTjFSQ On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 2:05:57 PM UTC-5, Jason Kehoe wrote: By no means am I advocating a tank capable of the obscene speeds of a racing touring car. But I do disagree with the painful plodding pace of 5-7mph Ive seen tossed around. ... -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update
As an R/C racer myself since 1987 in both onroad and offroad, indoor and outdoor, 1/10th scale to 1/8th scale, gas and electric, ROAR to IFMAR, USA to Europe and Asia ... most crashes I see are driver error while negotiating the track. Be it cutting a corner a little too tight and clipping the wall, braking a half second too late and overshooting a corner, or just trying to pass a slower car, nearly every crash is some sort of driver error. Even car to car contact can usually be attributed to one driver making a mistake that collects other car(s). Off road racing compounds the issue with bumps, jumps, low/high traction, and a myriad of other rough conditions. Unsurprisingly, our tanks drive offroad also. So what has this to do with tanks? Welp, even if a tank does not go as fast as a 2 lb r/c car, the tank still carries a lot of mass and inertia which can do significant damage to a person and/or property. All it takes is a mistake by a driver playing the game to potentially cause damage. Although a 150 pound tank moving at 5 mph may not seem as dangerous as a 2 pound r/c car moving at 30 mph, remember that the car will stop when it hits someone ... the tank won't stop and will keep plowing on. A little story about tank speeds: Frank was manning the Tiger set up as an artillery piece during a battle. I was driving the 8 mph SV15 as a supply vehicle. On a run out to the Tiger with a fresh load of paint, I gave the Spartan full throttle, raced up to within 5' of Frank and skid braked to a turning halt literally within arms reach. At the time I thought it was well done. Frank on the other hand looked like he was halfway through a heart attack. Sorry Frank! All it would have took was a miscalculation by me to have caused an accident. It wasn't likely (re all of the driving expirience listed in the first paragraph of this email) but still possible because of the environment. The incident was enough to prompt some speed discussions by the tankers that night. Speed limits could mitigate damage in case of an accident, but ultimately it is the driver that has to avoid causing one in the first place. Just like an R/C car race, every tank driver is responsible for staying out of trouble. Mike From: pilo...@comcast.net pilo...@comcast.net To: rctankcombat@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 1:05 PM Subject: Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update By no means am I advocating a tank capable of the obscene speeds of a racing touring car. But I do disagree with the painful plodding pace of 5-7mph Ive seen tossed around. in racing people were not on the track during racing we all stood on a drivers tower, which Im fully aware is simple not feasible in a tank battle, however standing within a step or 2 of one of these tanks while engaged in combat with it seems foolish to me as well. it puts the user more directly within the field of fire from an opposing tank, even with the mask I dont want get shot(I play paintball too). Personal responsibility of definately a huge part of the game here. and I really do like the talk going on regarding the rate of fire limiters as even that has a safety aspect with markers capable of exceedingly high rates of fire in stock form these days. as for the rc racing crashes, for the most part both drivers were in control of their vehicles when they make contact, its a fact of racing that contact will happen form time to time especially when they are competing for the same piece of track to get around as fast as they can, im not talking about one car t0boning another but rather side to side or from to back rubbing that, combined with driving the car near its limits of traction and suspension combined with the speeds caused cars to crash, it was something we all tried to avoid since a gentle nudge could end your race with a busted car or cost you finishing position. contact in racing happens, its part of the game, whether RC or real cars or even the motorcycles I race, and I sure as hell dont want ot make contact with another bike, but it has happened. the tanks aren't competing for real estate in the same manner From: Frank Pittelli frank.pitte...@gmail.com To: rctankcombat@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 12:23:56 PM Subject: Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update There's a big difference between R/C race cars on a track and R/C tanks on a battlefield ... the tanks weigh up to 150 pounds and they are designed to run into and over things without stopping. Throw in the fact that the operators are within a few yards of them at all times, with paint balls flying in all directions and you now see the safety issue. So yes, they don't go 60 mph, but 150 pounds at 10 mph is not something you want smacking into your ankle or shin. In close quarter battling, a wrong jog of the joystick can easily send the tank the wrong
Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update
Hahaha that is absolutely awesome Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -Original Message- From: Mike Lyons mxly...@cox.net Sender: rctankcombat@googlegroups.com Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 11:51:49 To: rctankcombat@googlegroups.com Reply-To: rctankcombat@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update Perhaps this is the future of RCTC? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL8y8lTjFSQ On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 2:05:57 PM UTC-5, Jason Kehoe wrote: By no means am I advocating a tank capable of the obscene speeds of a racing touring car. But I do disagree with the painful plodding pace of 5-7mph Ive seen tossed around. ... -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update
My heart was fine ... but a change of shorts was required :-0 On 12/18/2013 2:57 PM, Mike Mangus wrote: Frank on the other hand looked like he was halfway through a heart attack. Sorry Frank! -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update
If I'm not mistaken, didn't U.S. tanks already participate in a tank biathlon against Russian-made tanks ... an event called Desert Storm! On 12/18/2013 2:51 PM, Mike Lyons wrote: Perhaps this is the future of RCTC? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL8y8lTjFSQ -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update
Yeah, but most of those were really old Russian tanks. Mostly Iraqi built T-72s and maybe a few Chinese Type-69s. Derek On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Frank Pittelli frank.pitte...@gmail.comwrote: If I'm not mistaken, didn't U.S. tanks already participate in a tank biathlon against Russian-made tanks ... an event called Desert Storm! On 12/18/2013 2:51 PM, Mike Lyons wrote: Perhaps this is the future of RCTC? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL8y8lTjFSQ -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update
There are inherent challenges with small vehicles less than 36. How do you fit everything you need in such a small chassis? With the 1/6th rule it allows people to try to fit stuff in a smaller tank like the 21st Century Stuart M5 or my original tank destroyer that I planned on building - the ASU-85. There were technical challenges I just couldn't overcome with that tank having to do with the way the drive line was built on the real tank. I couldn't replicate it so that it would be durable enough for combat. I do like the 36 rule as in I wouldn't mind if all vehicles had to be made to that length. You could build anything to any size you wanted as long as it was 36 long. I mean even a 36 long Mule is possible to build. The scale would be weird, but it's not like there is a standard scale now. As it stands now being that both the 36 rule or 1/6th scale is allowed, it does mean my 21st Century Hummers could compete as supply vehicles. Dropping the 1/6th part would disqualify them. Same goes for my M113. It's slightly less than 36 in 1/6th scale. I like 1/6th so that all of my tanks are the same scale and if I decide to add props or detail, the parts are readily available. So even though I would adhere to a 36 rule, I like that both are an option. There are tons of tanks and APCs that I would have liked to build if the 4/40 rule was available across the board. As it is, there were many designs I passed up due to armor thickness or gun caliber short falls. From playing World of Tanks, I can positively say that forcing a firing delay circuit on the marker would change the game dynamic drastically. I don't think it would be bad though. It tends to make you rethink your tactics. If you don't want to shoot and wait for a better shot, then go for it. If you want to shoot and take the chance on a hit. Go for it. That's just tactics and tactics is what this hobby is about. Just be prepared for you opponent to open fire on you after you take your shot. :) The timing circuit would put more of an equalizer on the faster tanks since they couldn't just strafe by and nail your side with 4 shots in one pass. It would lead to longer engagements, but also more thought as to how you can approach your enemy for the kill. In closing, my proposals are this: 1. 4/40 for all tanks regardless of scale or size 2. frontal exclusion for all 3. standard rate of fire that limits one ball every 1 sec 4. keep the 36 or 1/6th rule Derek On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Derek Engelhaupt tan...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah, but most of those were really old Russian tanks. Mostly Iraqi built T-72s and maybe a few Chinese Type-69s. Derek On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Frank Pittelli frank.pitte...@gmail.comwrote: If I'm not mistaken, didn't U.S. tanks already participate in a tank biathlon against Russian-made tanks ... an event called Desert Storm! On 12/18/2013 2:51 PM, Mike Lyons wrote: Perhaps this is the future of RCTC? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL8y8lTjFSQ -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update
Has anyone been hit by a tank or has been injured? You are in a battle zone where tanks are racing around and paintballs are being shot. You take appropriate precautions and do your best to protect yourself otherwise get out of the hobby. I can sidestep a six mile per hour tank any day of the week but maybe not the paintballs. There is a percieved risk to this hobby. Deal with it. Doug Smith On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 7:19 PM, Derek Engelhaupt tan...@gmail.com wrote: There are inherent challenges with small vehicles less than 36. How do you fit everything you need in such a small chassis? With the 1/6th rule it allows people to try to fit stuff in a smaller tank like the 21st Century Stuart M5 or my original tank destroyer that I planned on building - the ASU-85. There were technical challenges I just couldn't overcome with that tank having to do with the way the drive line was built on the real tank. I couldn't replicate it so that it would be durable enough for combat. I do like the 36 rule as in I wouldn't mind if all vehicles had to be made to that length. You could build anything to any size you wanted as long as it was 36 long. I mean even a 36 long Mule is possible to build. The scale would be weird, but it's not like there is a standard scale now. As it stands now being that both the 36 rule or 1/6th scale is allowed, it does mean my 21st Century Hummers could compete as supply vehicles. Dropping the 1/6th part would disqualify them. Same goes for my M113. It's slightly less than 36 in 1/6th scale. I like 1/6th so that all of my tanks are the same scale and if I decide to add props or detail, the parts are readily available. So even though I would adhere to a 36 rule, I like that both are an option. There are tons of tanks and APCs that I would have liked to build if the 4/40 rule was available across the board. As it is, there were many designs I passed up due to armor thickness or gun caliber short falls. From playing World of Tanks, I can positively say that forcing a firing delay circuit on the marker would change the game dynamic drastically. I don't think it would be bad though. It tends to make you rethink your tactics. If you don't want to shoot and wait for a better shot, then go for it. If you want to shoot and take the chance on a hit. Go for it. That's just tactics and tactics is what this hobby is about. Just be prepared for you opponent to open fire on you after you take your shot. :) The timing circuit would put more of an equalizer on the faster tanks since they couldn't just strafe by and nail your side with 4 shots in one pass. It would lead to longer engagements, but also more thought as to how you can approach your enemy for the kill. In closing, my proposals are this: 1. 4/40 for all tanks regardless of scale or size 2. frontal exclusion for all 3. standard rate of fire that limits one ball every 1 sec 4. keep the 36 or 1/6th rule Derek On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Derek Engelhaupt tan...@gmail.comwrote: Yeah, but most of those were really old Russian tanks. Mostly Iraqi built T-72s and maybe a few Chinese Type-69s. Derek On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Frank Pittelli frank.pitte...@gmail.com wrote: If I'm not mistaken, didn't U.S. tanks already participate in a tank biathlon against Russian-made tanks ... an event called Desert Storm! On 12/18/2013 2:51 PM, Mike Lyons wrote: Perhaps this is the future of RCTC? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL8y8lTjFSQ -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- -- 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 received this message
Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update
I cannot agree with this prediction. Counting frontal hits will encourage teamwork and tactics because players will be forced to use their heads to get into closer positions. I know historical realism is not paramount in our hobby, but come on ! How many historic tank battles came to a stalemate because two opponents squared off nose-to-nose within one tank length of each other but were unable to score a hit on the other ? It happens in our battles all the time and its asinine. Regarding Mike's firing delay circuit: It sounds fine but won't work for me. I can adjust a delay using software, however. A programmable device sounds like overkill to me, but I've never looked into it. I was envisioning a simple NE555 with a pot to adjust the firing window. - Doug - Original Message - From: TyngTech steve...@gmail.com To: rctankcombat@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 12:00:18 PM Subject: Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update Frontal exclusion allows you to close on your opponent to allow medium to short range game play. It encourages tactics and teamwork to try to outmaneuver the other guy. Without it, game play will devolve down to extreme distance gunnery which would be no fun and a waste of paint. ST -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update
On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 7:19:28 PM UTC-5, tan...@gmail.com wrote: . :) The timing circuit would put more of an equalizer on the faster tanks since they couldn't just strafe by and nail your side with 4 shots in one pass. It would lead to longer engagements, but also more thought as to how you can approach your enemy for the kill. In closing, my proposals are this: 1. 4/40 for all tanks regardless of scale or size 2. frontal exclusion for all 3. standard rate of fire that limits one ball every 1 sec 4. keep the 36 or 1/6th rule Derek Derek, I don't know of many tankers that come barreling at you full speed , swivel their turret and try to take you out in one pass. Ooops,there is one, now that you mention this tactic. Wonder who that might be? . Are you trying to cause controversy? LOLOLOLOLLOl. If everyone is made 4/40, will I be allowed to carry 10 rounds in my pocket since my magazine can only handle 30? LOLOLOLOL. Chris, What's with this seniors crap talk ? Them's fighting words where we's comes froms. The gauntlet has been thrown. Meet me at high noon, next to the giant pine in Gettysburg this spring. Mano et mano, the dance of death. LOLOLOLOLOLOL. We'll lend you a vehicle if yours is not ready. Seniors my behind. Mike, You're absolutely right , HEAT rounds did change the game. Even the lowly 20mm cannon had HEAT rounds designed for them. But, metal scarcity dictated that few of these rounds were produced. Neil, Bravo as always to your dedication to our hobby . And keeping it fun.. Don't know much about that cheating comment, unless you're thinking of when it was suggested to a certain British lady that extra ammo could be hidden in an undergarment. That's just gameswomanship. LOL. Time for a nap. Wake me after Christmas. John I wonder what Steve wants to build now Pittelli -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update
frontal exclusion for all I think that treating armored cars the same way as tanks with regard to frontal hits will help bring new members to the hobby. A tank-steered (as opposed to front wheel steered) armored car is probably the simplest mobile, firing, asset to produce. That said, I don't know how many newbies decided not to build an A/C because the rules were against them. I understand Steve's comment about historical accuracy. One of the fundamental principles of the rules has been to field as wide an asset variety as possible without too much regard for the performance of the actual vehicle. Using common tank and A/C rules will help do that. - Doug - Original Message - From: Derek Engelhaupt tan...@gmail.com To: rctankcombat@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 7:19:28 PM Subject: Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update There are inherent challenges with small vehicles less than 36. How do you fit everything you need in such a small chassis? With the 1/6th rule it allows people to try to fit stuff in a smaller tank like the 21st Century Stuart M5 or my original tank destroyer that I planned on building - the ASU-85. There were technical challenges I just couldn't overcome with that tank having to do with the way the drive line was built on the real tank. I couldn't replicate it so that it would be durable enough for combat. I do like the 36 rule as in I wouldn't mind if all vehicles had to be made to that length. You could build anything to any size you wanted as long as it was 36 long. I mean even a 36 long Mule is possible to build. The scale would be weird, but it's not like there is a standard scale now. As it stands now being that both the 36 rule or 1/6th scale is allowed, it does mean my 21st Century Hummers could compete as supply vehicles. Dropping the 1/6th part would disqualify them. Same goes for my M113. It's slightly less than 36 in 1/6th scale. I like 1/6th so that all of my tanks are the same scale and if I decide to add props or detail, the parts are readily available. So even though I would adhere to a 36 rule, I like that both are an option. There are tons of tanks and APCs that I would have liked to build if the 4/40 rule was available across the board. As it is, there were many designs I passed up due to armor thickness or gun caliber short falls. From playing World of Tanks, I can positively say that forcing a firing delay circuit on the marker would change the game dynamic drastically. I don't think it would be bad though. It tends to make you rethink your tactics. If you don't want to shoot and wait for a better shot, then go for it. If you want to shoot and take the chance on a hit. Go for it. That's just tactics and tactics is what this hobby is about. Just be prepared for you opponent to open fire on you after you take your shot. :) The timing circuit would put more of an equalizer on the faster tanks since they couldn't just strafe by and nail your side with 4 shots in one pass. It would lead to longer engagements, but also more thought as to how you can approach your enemy for the kill. In closing, my proposals are this: 1. 4/40 for all tanks regardless of scale or size 2. frontal exclusion for all 3. standard rate of fire that limits one ball every 1 sec 4. keep the 36 or 1/6th rule Derek On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Derek Engelhaupt tan...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah, but most of those were really old Russian tanks. Mostly Iraqi built T-72s and maybe a few Chinese Type-69s. Derek On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Frank Pittelli frank.pitte...@gmail.com wrote: blockquote If I'm not mistaken, didn't U.S. tanks already participate in a tank biathlon against Russian-made tanks ... an event called Desert Storm! On 12/18/2013 2:51 PM, Mike Lyons wrote: blockquote Perhaps this is the future of RCTC? http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=qL8y8lTjFSQ -- -- 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+unsubscribe@ googlegroups.com Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/ group/rctankcombat --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscribe@ googlegroups.com . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/ groups/opt_out . /blockquote /blockquote -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group
Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update
The face to face thing happens in WOT all the time. The one that ends up getting through the armor first wins, but there it's all virtual so I can rub the tank I'm facing off with. There is of course the ramming aspect of WOT which I would not promote for our vehicles. This isn't robot combat afterall. John, No controversy, I know you are kidding. Hey if you want to carry an extra set of balls around in you pants, I say go for it. :) Derek On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 10:02 PM, dwconn...@comcast.net wrote: frontal exclusion for all I think that treating armored cars the same way as tanks with regard to frontal hits will help bring new members to the hobby. A tank-steered (as opposed to front wheel steered) armored car is probably the simplest mobile, firing, asset to produce. That said, I don't know how many newbies decided not to build an A/C because the rules were against them. I understand Steve's comment about historical accuracy. One of the fundamental principles of the rules has been to field as wide an asset variety as possible without too much regard for the performance of the actual vehicle. Using common tank and A/C rules will help do that. - Doug -- *From: *Derek Engelhaupt tan...@gmail.com *To: *rctankcombat@googlegroups.com *Sent: *Wednesday, December 18, 2013 7:19:28 PM *Subject: *Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update There are inherent challenges with small vehicles less than 36. How do you fit everything you need in such a small chassis? With the 1/6th rule it allows people to try to fit stuff in a smaller tank like the 21st Century Stuart M5 or my original tank destroyer that I planned on building - the ASU-85. There were technical challenges I just couldn't overcome with that tank having to do with the way the drive line was built on the real tank. I couldn't replicate it so that it would be durable enough for combat. I do like the 36 rule as in I wouldn't mind if all vehicles had to be made to that length. You could build anything to any size you wanted as long as it was 36 long. I mean even a 36 long Mule is possible to build. The scale would be weird, but it's not like there is a standard scale now. As it stands now being that both the 36 rule or 1/6th scale is allowed, it does mean my 21st Century Hummers could compete as supply vehicles. Dropping the 1/6th part would disqualify them. Same goes for my M113. It's slightly less than 36 in 1/6th scale. I like 1/6th so that all of my tanks are the same scale and if I decide to add props or detail, the parts are readily available. So even though I would adhere to a 36 rule, I like that both are an option. There are tons of tanks and APCs that I would have liked to build if the 4/40 rule was available across the board. As it is, there were many designs I passed up due to armor thickness or gun caliber short falls. From playing World of Tanks, I can positively say that forcing a firing delay circuit on the marker would change the game dynamic drastically. I don't think it would be bad though. It tends to make you rethink your tactics. If you don't want to shoot and wait for a better shot, then go for it. If you want to shoot and take the chance on a hit. Go for it. That's just tactics and tactics is what this hobby is about. Just be prepared for you opponent to open fire on you after you take your shot. :) The timing circuit would put more of an equalizer on the faster tanks since they couldn't just strafe by and nail your side with 4 shots in one pass. It would lead to longer engagements, but also more thought as to how you can approach your enemy for the kill. In closing, my proposals are this: 1. 4/40 for all tanks regardless of scale or size 2. frontal exclusion for all 3. standard rate of fire that limits one ball every 1 sec 4. keep the 36 or 1/6th rule Derek On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Derek Engelhaupt tan...@gmail.comwrote: Yeah, but most of those were really old Russian tanks. Mostly Iraqi built T-72s and maybe a few Chinese Type-69s. Derek On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Frank Pittelli frank.pitte...@gmail.com wrote: If I'm not mistaken, didn't U.S. tanks already participate in a tank biathlon against Russian-made tanks ... an event called Desert Storm! On 12/18/2013 2:51 PM, Mike Lyons wrote: Perhaps this is the future of RCTC? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL8y8lTjFSQ -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr
[TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update
Id like to know if there is anyone who was going to build a tank (of any type/scale) who didnt, directly because of the rules ? When I'd started the T005 T34-85 back in the day, I assumed that armor would be measured in the horizontal plane (to account for sloped armor) but the powers that be (PTB) disagreed. Since the T005 was fast becoming the third operational tank (and the PTB didn't want to lose an asset) it was designated as a heavy under the assumption that there had to be more 70mm of armor somewhere in that big cast turret (a wholly undocumented datum on most tanks BTW). In hindsight, I'd probably had built something else knowing what I know now. That being said, I'd consider building a dual gunned WW1 romboid (US Liberty) but won't under the current ratings. Steve -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update
Id like to unequivocally voice my opposition to speed limits. People who wish to spend more time or money on their drive-train and ESC systems should be allowed to do so without an artificial ceiling. To me regulating the speed is a serious affront to the openness of the sport both to innovation and new techniques. I will admit im in favour of a /5 defensive rating for super-heavy tanks, as they are indeed at a disadvantage under the current rules. Effective armour should absolutely be in the horizontal plane; hence why armour is sloped in tank design... Not taking it into account dramatically reduces the effective armouring on some vehicles, to the point where it can bump them between categories... On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:52 PM, TyngTech steve...@gmail.com wrote: Id like to know if there is anyone who was going to build a tank (of any type/scale) who didnt, directly because of the rules ? When I'd started the T005 T34-85 back in the day, I assumed that armor would be measured in the horizontal plane (to account for sloped armor) but the powers that be (PTB) disagreed. Since the T005 was fast becoming the third operational tank (and the PTB didn't want to lose an asset) it was designated as a heavy under the assumption that there had to be more 70mm of armor somewhere in that big cast turret (a wholly undocumented datum on most tanks BTW). In hindsight, I'd probably had built something else knowing what I know now. That being said, I'd consider building a dual gunned WW1 romboid (US Liberty) but won't under the current ratings. Steve -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Isaac Goldman 5142334423 This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update
the only issue i would have with speed is racing them across the field, and the owner having to run right behind them. if for any reason they were to trip and fall and the tank suddenly steer off course (or just loosing control of the tank) depending on the size/weight/speed it could severely injure someone's ankle/foot/leg and possibly knocking them over causing more of an unwanted incident it's fun until someone takes an eye out - that's why it's mandatory to have face protection to enter the battle field. the same should be said about the overall control (speed) of any vehicle built i do think there should be some sort of limit to a vehicles speed regardless of their built size/scale In a message dated 12/17/2013 5:30:10 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, panthergol...@gmail.com writes: To me regulating the speed is a serious affront to the openness of the sport both to innovation and new techniques. -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update
Isaac , there are very sensible safety reasons why speed limits were set, Steve , your length of asset suggestion make good logic to me . Id like to rephrase my question :- Does anyone have knowledge of anyone who was going to build a tank (of any type/scale) but consequently did not build any tank at all, directly because of the rules? in other words, are there less tanks (on the planet) because of any particular rule ? Neil R -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update
You presented your case for the T-34 and it was awarded a higher rating because of the excellent research data provided and the professional manner in which it was presented. The process worked exactly as expected and the outcome was what you wanted. Why is this an example of how the process prevented you from doing something? On 12/17/2013 4:52 PM, TyngTech wrote: When I'd started the T005 T34-85 back in the day, I assumed that armor would be measured in the horizontal plane (to account for sloped armor) but the powers that be (PTB) disagreed. Since the T005 was fast becoming the third operational tank (and the PTB didn't want to lose an asset) it was designated as a heavy under the assumption that there had to be more 70mm of armor somewhere in that big cast turret (a wholly undocumented datum on most tanks BTW). -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update
The T-34 Wikipedia page has a table showing various configurations throughout WW-II and it shows 20-70mm of armor for the 1943 T-34 version and 20-90mm of armor for the T-34-85. On 12/17/2013 4:52 PM, TyngTech wrote: Since the T005 was fast becoming the third operational tank (and the PTB didn't want to lose an asset) it was designated as a heavy under the assumption that there had to be more 70mm of armor somewhere in that big cast turret (a wholly undocumented datum on most tanks BTW). -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update
I guess the speed limit rule to me would cause me concern. To me, if I can get my 150lb. KV-2 doing 6-7 miles per hour so be it. If you can't get out of the way of a runaway tank doing 6mph on the battlefield, maybe you shouldn't be on the battlefield... :) That's why there are external kill switches. I specifically built my tanks (Sturmtiger and KV-2) for a couple of reasons. They were within my skills to build, I liked both, they both have a 4/40 rating, and both had short barreled guns. I don't like long barrels since they can get in your way maneuvering or by smacking stuff. I know I wouldn't have to simulate the real barrel length to battle, but I am a firm believer in maintaining the integrity of the tank design regardless of how poorly my construction skills are in recreating it. I try to make my tanks as close to the design as possible. I've never been to a battle so take my opinion for what it's worth, but I do have 3 assets that move under their own power even though they aren't battle ready. So there was really on one reason to build my tanks that dictated the build - the 40/4 rating. If either had a lower rating, I would have found a different design. I think as most of us can see by Steve's suggestion for ratings, he is *clearly* trying to take the competitiveness out of the new Pittelli tanks and is threatened by them...lol J/K Steve... Derek On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 9:30 PM, dwconn...@comcast.net wrote: I believe there are very few armored cars in the hobby directly because of the rules. Also, I shied away from building a Bradley AFV because the rules put it at a disadvantage. I agree with either proposed change: make everything 4/40 or base the stats on length. In addition, I think speed limits make sense. Finally, the frontal hit exclusion rule should be abolished (my preference), or applied equally to both tanks and armored cars. One rule I wish we had but is probably unenforceable is a rate of fire limit. It's ludicrous to let tanks fire a few times per second. - Doug -- *From: *neroc1 funkyne...@ntlworld.com *To: *rctankcombat@googlegroups.com *Sent: *Tuesday, December 17, 2013 6:08:31 PM *Subject: *Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update Isaac , there are very sensible safety reasons why speed limits were set, Steve , your length of asset suggestion make good logic to me . Id like to rephrase my question :- Does anyone have knowledge of anyone who was going to build a tank (of any type/scale) but consequently did not build any tank at all, directly because of the rules? in other words, are there less tanks (on the planet) because of any particular rule ? Neil R -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update
don't forget there's a lot of them older seniors and they can't always run as to avoiding a run-away, if it's coming from any direction other than right in front of a battler, how would they be able to tell it's a run-away until it hits them (other than the man down hollering run-away)? as to the kill switch, can you run after a fast tank and be able to bend down at the same time and flip the switch without face-planting? if you want a fast tank, take the idea i was saying about the flag and flexible mast and use the plug to power a relay where the main power must run through, this way rather than trying to flip a switch while running, you just grab the flag and pull, no searching for the switch and you can grab the flag easier In a message dated 12/17/2013 10:53:21 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, tan...@gmail.com writes: I guess the speed limit rule to me would cause me concern. To me, if I can get my 150lb. KV-2 doing 6-7 miles per hour so be it. If you can't get out of the way of a runaway tank doing 6mph on the battlefield, maybe you shouldn't be on the battlefield... :) -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update
I guess the speed limit rule to me would cause me concern. To me, if I can get my 150lb. KV-2 doing 6-7 miles per hour so be it. I can tell you've never been hit by another tank while fixated on yours and the one your shooting at, and through the tunnel vision of a paintball helmet. My suggestions for varying speed limits is to first, for safety, and second, to enhance playability. In regards to safety, the larger a tank is, the slower it should be IMO (particularity if the hobby grows and we start seeing larger number of mobile assets on the field). As for playability, differing size classes with corresponding speed limits would offer interesting playing style options for battlers. Besides, speed limits wouldn't necessarily have to be enforced for all battles. I think as most of us can see by Steve's suggestion for ratings, he is *clearly* trying to take the competitiveness out of the new Pittelli tanks and is threatened by them...lol J/K Steve... It's no secret I consider the current Panzer II's a rule beater, particularly built to 1:6 scale. I also realize that a considerable amount of time and effort went into developing these tanks under the assumption of a 4 point rating so I'm all for grand-fathering them as heavy's if John and Paul so desire. If the ratings proposal is adopted and new battlers show up with new-build 3 point lights, I'd hope John and Paul would consider dropping a point during the battle for the sake of sportsmanship. Steve Derek On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 9:30 PM, dwco...@comcast.net javascript:wrote: I believe there are very few armored cars in the hobby directly because of the rules. Also, I shied away from building a Bradley AFV because the rules put it at a disadvantage. I agree with either proposed change: make everything 4/40 or base the stats on length. In addition, I think speed limits make sense. Finally, the frontal hit exclusion rule should be abolished (my preference), or applied equally to both tanks and armored cars. One rule I wish we had but is probably unenforceable is a rate of fire limit. It's ludicrous to let tanks fire a few times per second. - Doug -- *From: *neroc1 funky...@ntlworld.com javascript: *To: *rctank...@googlegroups.com javascript: *Sent: *Tuesday, December 17, 2013 6:08:31 PM *Subject: *Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update Isaac , there are very sensible safety reasons why speed limits were set, Steve , your length of asset suggestion make good logic to me . Id like to rephrase my question :- Does anyone have knowledge of anyone who was going to build a tank (of any type/scale) but consequently did not build any tank at all, directly because of the rules? in other words, are there less tanks (on the planet) because of any particular rule ? Neil R -- -- You are currently subscribed to the R/C Tank Combat group. To post a message, send email to rctank...@googlegroups.com javascript: To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat...@googlegroups.comjavascript: Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat...@googlegroups.com javascript:. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- -- You are currently subscribed to the R/C Tank Combat group. To post a message, send email to rctank...@googlegroups.com javascript: To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat...@googlegroups.comjavascript: Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat...@googlegroups.com javascript:. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update
In addition, I think speed limits make sense. Finally, the frontal hit exclusion rule should be abolished (my preference), or applied equally to both tanks and armored cars. We need the frontal exclusion. Without it the game is unplayable. I agree that armored cars are a non-option under the current rules but I'm not so sure about the frontal hit exclusion for them. We would be straying far from historical tactics if allowing that. I'd like to see more cars on the field and see them as shoot and scoot vehicles. Maybe under the ratings proposal, cars could have higher speed limits and rates of fire to entice builders? One rule I wish we had but is probably unenforceable is a rate of fire limit. It's ludicrous to let tanks fire a few times per second. All for this one also. Steve -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update
I still don't get your point. You asked for a higher rating for your T34 and you got it because we cared more about having fun than adhering to the exact wording of a simple rule. Where did the process fail? On 12/18/2013 1:07 AM, TyngTech wrote: Sounds impressive but the fact is the T-34 has a hull front plate armor thickness of only 45 to 47mm which doesn't get you four hit points when the slope is ignored. To get around this at the time, we decided to accept turret armor thickness for ratings classification (up to that point it was assumed hull armor thickness was to be used). -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update
Basically, I screwed up twice when I wrote the first set of rules. I originally had only tanks, armored cars, trucks and artillery and all vehicles had to be at least 36 long. Will and I both agreed that simpler was better, because the R/C warship hobby had literally dozens of different ship types and page after page of construction rules. We didn't want those hassles and all the arguing related to such complicated rules. Unfortunately, people said that it wasn't realistic to have small tanks attacking large tanks, so I created two tank classes, giving the smaller class less offensive and defensive ratings. That worked for many years, but eventually people started complaining that we need *more* classes to somehow encourage different tanks to be built. The 1:6 scale rule got added (despite what Will and I knew would happen) because some early mailing list members said it was needed so that scale models and parts could be used. Interestingly, none of those guys actually ever built anything ... making me feel especially stupid for changing the rule. Derek, you are indeed correct, by giving all tanks a 4/40 rating and by giving armored cars a frontal exclusion, nobody will be able to say that the rules are biased in one way or another. That will reverse one of the mistakes that I made. Unfortunately, I will never be able to reverse the 1:6 scale mistake :-( On 12/18/2013 2:00 AM, Derek Engelhaupt wrote: I'll be serious for a moment. Why can't it just be everyone gets 4/40 rating, 36 rule or 1/6th scale, and everyone has a frontal exclusion? No more worrying about size, capacity, or armor ratings. People could then build anything they want and play every piece on level ground. Like I said though, mine were built because I liked the designs with a tertiary consideration of the rules. -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [TANKS] Re: About time to implement discussed rules update
Wikipedia states that the Panzer II had 80mm of armor, so it clearly deserves a defensive rating of 4. The rules were changed a very long time ago to allow 1:6 scale vehicles, so it's clearly a legal size. Why do you consider it a rule beater ... because the Panzer II existed in real life or because John and Paul successfully crammed everything required into a tiny space to make it work well? Will you still consider it a rule beater if we accept Derek's proposal and give all tanks 40/4 ratings? On 12/18/2013 1:35 AM, TyngTech wrote: It's no secret I consider the current Panzer II's a rule beater, particularly built to 1:6 scale. I also realize that a considerable amount of time and effort went into developing these tanks under the assumption of a 4 point rating so I'm all for grand-fathering them as heavy's if John and Paul so desire. If the ratings proposal is adopted and new battlers show up with new-build 3 point lights, I'd hope John and Paul would consider dropping a point during the battle for the sake of sportsmanship. -- -- 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
