Re: [TANKS] Re: I'll float this idea again...
Mr. Tyng, Thank you for your inquiry regarding our recent challenge. Unfortunately, as a paid member of the R/C Tank Combat staff you and your immediate family are not eligible for any of our marketing promotions. You are, of course, still eligible for the many sales bonuses available to staff members such as yourself who promote the hobby and bring in new members. As soon as Dave D. completes a vehicle and battles it, as his account manager you will receive an appropriate award. Due to the economic climate, staff will once again be asked to sacrifice for the organization during the coming year. Details will be released by the Board of Directors as soon as they return from their extended planning meeting in the Bahamas. Thank you for your continued service to the organization. Frank Pittelli Director, Marketing and Promotions R/C Tank Combat Entertainment Division Maryland Attack Group, Inc. subsidiary of The Pittelli Group, Ltd. On 9/23/2011 6:27 AM, Steve Tyng wrote: So does this challenge apply to only Dave or can it apply to say me? ;-) -- 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
[TANKS] Re: I'll float this idea again...
Seems to me some of you guys who live in places where there are no fellow hobbyists, and few prospects for battling, could be experimenting with whatever design of tank you like. What about someone coming up with a design that is a new breakthrough in simplicity and cost, so that the number of people who could participate in some version of this hobby could be increased? -- 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
Re: [TANKS] Re: I'll float this idea again...
Frank wrote: "To prove my point once and for all, I throw down the following challenge. Build whatever size tank you want and make it as fast as you want. We'll give it a 40/4 rating regardless of it's actual characteristics for your first two years of battling. Then, come to at least two MAG battles and show us your battlefield domination. If you score more net points than everyone else during those battles, we'll allow you to change whatever rules you want." So does this challenge apply to only Dave or can it apply to say me? ;-) Steve Tyng -- You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group. To post a message, send email to rctankcombat@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat
Re: [TANKS] Re: I'll float this idea again...
Message received... It's time to put my money where my mouth is... I guess I tend to over-think situations, could ya tell? I still stand by my basic premise...BUT I just have to get down to building, have fun making the tank, and go from there. Thanks all for your input. Dave D. - Original Message - From: "Frank Pittelli" To: Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 6:44 PM Subject: Re: [TANKS] Re: I'll float this idea again... It's not about "courage" ... it's about "hard work". Build a working tank, battle it somewhere, and then start re-writing the rules. If you can convince a majority of veteran battlers (i.e., those who have battled more than once) to change the rules, they will be changed. "More work, less whining" is the key to success. Frank P. On 9/22/2011 2:13 PM, Dave D. wrote: I'm sure others are thinking the very same thing, but don't have the courage to come forth. -- You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group. To post a message, send email to rctankcombat@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat -- You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group. To post a message, send email to rctankcombat@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat
RE: [TANKS] Re: I'll float this idea again...
> "More work, less whining" is the key to success. amen to that From: rctankcombat@googlegroups.com [rctankcombat@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Frank Pittelli [frank.pitte...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 8:44 AM To: rctankcombat@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [TANKS] Re: I'll float this idea again... It's not about "courage" ... it's about "hard work". Build a working tank, battle it somewhere, and then start re-writing the rules. If you can convince a majority of veteran battlers (i.e., those who have battled more than once) to change the rules, they will be changed. "More work, less whining" is the key to success. Frank P. On 9/22/2011 2:13 PM, Dave D. wrote: > I'm sure others are thinking the very same thing, but don't have the > courage to come forth. -- You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group. To post a message, send email to rctankcombat@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat -- You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group. To post a message, send email to rctankcombat@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat
[TANKS] Re: I'll float this idea again...
Dave, Build it, bring it and battle it. I'll even take you on with my Comet. John the Elder -- 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
Re: [TANKS] Re: I'll float this idea again...
It's not about "courage" ... it's about "hard work". Build a working tank, battle it somewhere, and then start re-writing the rules. If you can convince a majority of veteran battlers (i.e., those who have battled more than once) to change the rules, they will be changed. "More work, less whining" is the key to success. Frank P. On 9/22/2011 2:13 PM, Dave D. wrote: I'm sure others are thinking the very same thing, but don't have the courage to come forth. -- 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
Re: [TANKS] Re: I'll float this idea again...
I build to the 1/6th scale standard because there are a ton of accessories in 1/6th scale. Since there have been no battles in my area and I've been out of the country, my tanks are mainly for my enjoyment (and showing off my building skills to everyone who thinks I'm just a computer geek). :) Derek On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 2:28 PM, neroc wrote: > Dave D , I think Frank realizes that a large tank is easier to hit > than a small tank . > the point is its not as big a factor as you would think. look at the > following foto. > > http://rctankcombat.com/tanks/T055/14-large.jpg > > T051 is 3 foot long , T055 is 2 foot 2 inchs long. now look at the > stats for both tanks. > the larger tank has a much more impressive set of figures, there must > be much more important issues than size ( ask any lady who Pete > Arundle has had the pleasure ). > i do hope this is true because I`ve just built the largest tank that > is likely to see a battle. > > Moreover I will be changing from a 40/4 tank (To51) to a 40/2 tank > (To78) during the next battle. I remind myself that when killed I give > a maximum of 500 points not 1000 points. wheres the problem ? > > 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 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
[TANKS] Re: I'll float this idea again...
Dave D , I think Frank realizes that a large tank is easier to hit than a small tank . the point is its not as big a factor as you would think. look at the following foto. http://rctankcombat.com/tanks/T055/14-large.jpg T051 is 3 foot long , T055 is 2 foot 2 inchs long. now look at the stats for both tanks. the larger tank has a much more impressive set of figures, there must be much more important issues than size ( ask any lady who Pete Arundle has had the pleasure ). i do hope this is true because I`ve just built the largest tank that is likely to see a battle. Moreover I will be changing from a 40/4 tank (To51) to a 40/2 tank (To78) during the next battle. I remind myself that when killed I give a maximum of 500 points not 1000 points. wheres the problem ? 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
Re: [TANKS] Re: I'll float this idea again...
I have say that I built a Stug because I like the tank and not because I thought it was going to be a real killer out there. I found that after playing the game that it did not matter what tank I was shooting at or what size it was. I could't hit it anyway. Bob It's all about having fun. Sent from my iPhone On Sep 22, 2011, at 3:03 PM, Cobra wrote: > I think the thing to remember is that the reason we build is not have > perfect machine optimized to the max in every area, but rather because > we love TANKS, PAINTBALL, and RC TOYS. Build what you love and you > will be happy.. Build what has the best possible combination of size, > armor, and firepower and you just may never be happy. > > Also, there is nothing saying you cant make a sett of alternate rules > for battles. Just like there is NFL football and Arena Football. Both > are similar, but the rule differ just a bit in some ways. > Make your own regulations and ask if anyone would be interested in > participating in such an event. Call it the "Historic Series" or > something and it will have it's own statistics and points kept > seperate from the "Classic Series" stats. > > Just an idea. > > Aaron F > SCAB - Long live the Alliance > > On Sep 22, 11:13 am, "Dave D." wrote: >> Hey Frank, >> >> I hate to burst your bubble, but 4 tanks does not make a meaningful >> statistical analysis... 400 tanks might. >> And there's virtually nothing that's scientific regarding grown men chasing >> each other around with remote controlled vehicles, LOL... >> You're the big proponent of "common sense", if you can't see the clarity of >> this argument, then you should eat your own words. >> Remember Frank, common sense... >> >> You mention Steve T., and if you reread his recent post about the T-70, he >> comes about as close as he's comfortable with in saying that >> a rule change in this regard may be a good thing. And today, Mike Mangus >> has expressed concerns over this as well. I'm sure others are thinking the >> very same thing, but don't have the courage to come forth. So, I am not the >> only person who is questioning this rule. But hey, like I said, it's your >> baby, who am I to dictate to you folks how to play your game. But as a >> fairly intelligent outsider, this particular aspect of your game looks >> awfully silly. >> >> I just hope that I haven't overstepped any welcome I may have left to come >> down some day with "any" vehicle. Of course I'm not gonna win your >> proposition, you guys are way, way too far ahead of me on the learning >> curve. But, if I built a Jagdpanther that was only a foot long, and five >> inches tall, could you possibly think it wouldn't be the hardest thing to >> hit on the field? But you have a rule to prevent that You created that >> rule to make the playing field more level, so that every participant had a >> fair chance. But these PzKmpfw IIs have turned things upside down, in a >> sense. Yes, you both comply with the size rule, which is good. The >> argument is, is it valid to allow a 20mm gun to perform exactly the same as >> a 75mm, 76mm, 85mm, 88mm, 90mm and other larger guns? The hobby says a hit >> is a hit, regardless of gun size, well okay. Look across your hobby, most >> every participant chose a vehicle that sports at least a 75mm main gun. So >> in a sense, everyone basically put themselves into a fair arrangement, with >> no extreme advantage. But, WOW, you're now going to allow a couple of >> operators to have a vehicle that's abit of an anomaly (tiny profile,but with >> fairly good armor) armed with this "pop" gun 20mm, and allow these tanks to >> fight it out on an even basis against this mostly larger, more heavily >> armored, 75mm and up gun crowd in a fair way? Maybe there's even more than >> just the defensive rating that's involved here. Nonetheless, comical, is >> what I'd call it. I sincerely believe that this aspect of the hobby needs >> to be improved upon. Change ain't always easy, and sometimes it isn't >> always good, but if there was never any change, we'd all still be living in >> caves, swinging sticks... >> >> But Frank, please understand, I don't want this to become a pissing contest. >> It's just an idea that I believe would improve the hobby, my purest >> intentions. I'll leave it at that. But if you do have a change of heart, >> I'll gladly share whatever input I can to help in making this transition. >> &g
[TANKS] Re: I'll float this idea again...
I think the thing to remember is that the reason we build is not have perfect machine optimized to the max in every area, but rather because we love TANKS, PAINTBALL, and RC TOYS. Build what you love and you will be happy.. Build what has the best possible combination of size, armor, and firepower and you just may never be happy. Also, there is nothing saying you cant make a sett of alternate rules for battles. Just like there is NFL football and Arena Football. Both are similar, but the rule differ just a bit in some ways. Make your own regulations and ask if anyone would be interested in participating in such an event. Call it the "Historic Series" or something and it will have it's own statistics and points kept seperate from the "Classic Series" stats. Just an idea. Aaron F SCAB - Long live the Alliance On Sep 22, 11:13 am, "Dave D." wrote: > Hey Frank, > > I hate to burst your bubble, but 4 tanks does not make a meaningful > statistical analysis... 400 tanks might. > And there's virtually nothing that's scientific regarding grown men chasing > each other around with remote controlled vehicles, LOL... > You're the big proponent of "common sense", if you can't see the clarity of > this argument, then you should eat your own words. > Remember Frank, common sense... > > You mention Steve T., and if you reread his recent post about the T-70, he > comes about as close as he's comfortable with in saying that > a rule change in this regard may be a good thing. And today, Mike Mangus > has expressed concerns over this as well. I'm sure others are thinking the > very same thing, but don't have the courage to come forth. So, I am not the > only person who is questioning this rule. But hey, like I said, it's your > baby, who am I to dictate to you folks how to play your game. But as a > fairly intelligent outsider, this particular aspect of your game looks > awfully silly. > > I just hope that I haven't overstepped any welcome I may have left to come > down some day with "any" vehicle. Of course I'm not gonna win your > proposition, you guys are way, way too far ahead of me on the learning > curve. But, if I built a Jagdpanther that was only a foot long, and five > inches tall, could you possibly think it wouldn't be the hardest thing to > hit on the field? But you have a rule to prevent that You created that > rule to make the playing field more level, so that every participant had a > fair chance. But these PzKmpfw IIs have turned things upside down, in a > sense. Yes, you both comply with the size rule, which is good. The > argument is, is it valid to allow a 20mm gun to perform exactly the same as > a 75mm, 76mm, 85mm, 88mm, 90mm and other larger guns? The hobby says a hit > is a hit, regardless of gun size, well okay. Look across your hobby, most > every participant chose a vehicle that sports at least a 75mm main gun. So > in a sense, everyone basically put themselves into a fair arrangement, with > no extreme advantage. But, WOW, you're now going to allow a couple of > operators to have a vehicle that's abit of an anomaly (tiny profile,but with > fairly good armor) armed with this "pop" gun 20mm, and allow these tanks to > fight it out on an even basis against this mostly larger, more heavily > armored, 75mm and up gun crowd in a fair way? Maybe there's even more than > just the defensive rating that's involved here. Nonetheless, comical, is > what I'd call it. I sincerely believe that this aspect of the hobby needs > to be improved upon. Change ain't always easy, and sometimes it isn't > always good, but if there was never any change, we'd all still be living in > caves, swinging sticks... > > But Frank, please understand, I don't want this to become a pissing contest. > It's just an idea that I believe would improve the hobby, my purest > intentions. I'll leave it at that. But if you do have a change of heart, > I'll gladly share whatever input I can to help in making this transition. > > Dave D. > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Frank Pittelli" > To: > Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 10:35 AM > Subject: Re: [TANKS] Re: I'll float this idea again... > > > On 9/21/2011 9:44 PM, Dave D. wrote: > > > It stands to reason that a smaller side profile tank will undoubtedly > > > outperform it's larger adversaries. > > > Most people would agree that Mr. Tyng and I have roughly the same skill > > levels and we have certainly battled enough times so that our records are > > statistically valid. So, consider the Tiger vs. the Cromwell. The > >
Re: [TANKS] Re: I'll float this idea again...
Hey Frank, I hate to burst your bubble, but 4 tanks does not make a meaningful statistical analysis... 400 tanks might. And there's virtually nothing that's scientific regarding grown men chasing each other around with remote controlled vehicles, LOL... You're the big proponent of "common sense", if you can't see the clarity of this argument, then you should eat your own words. Remember Frank, common sense... You mention Steve T., and if you reread his recent post about the T-70, he comes about as close as he's comfortable with in saying that a rule change in this regard may be a good thing. And today, Mike Mangus has expressed concerns over this as well. I'm sure others are thinking the very same thing, but don't have the courage to come forth. So, I am not the only person who is questioning this rule. But hey, like I said, it's your baby, who am I to dictate to you folks how to play your game. But as a fairly intelligent outsider, this particular aspect of your game looks awfully silly. I just hope that I haven't overstepped any welcome I may have left to come down some day with "any" vehicle. Of course I'm not gonna win your proposition, you guys are way, way too far ahead of me on the learning curve. But, if I built a Jagdpanther that was only a foot long, and five inches tall, could you possibly think it wouldn't be the hardest thing to hit on the field? But you have a rule to prevent that You created that rule to make the playing field more level, so that every participant had a fair chance. But these PzKmpfw IIs have turned things upside down, in a sense. Yes, you both comply with the size rule, which is good. The argument is, is it valid to allow a 20mm gun to perform exactly the same as a 75mm, 76mm, 85mm, 88mm, 90mm and other larger guns? The hobby says a hit is a hit, regardless of gun size, well okay. Look across your hobby, most every participant chose a vehicle that sports at least a 75mm main gun. So in a sense, everyone basically put themselves into a fair arrangement, with no extreme advantage. But, WOW, you're now going to allow a couple of operators to have a vehicle that's abit of an anomaly (tiny profile,but with fairly good armor) armed with this "pop" gun 20mm, and allow these tanks to fight it out on an even basis against this mostly larger, more heavily armored, 75mm and up gun crowd in a fair way? Maybe there's even more than just the defensive rating that's involved here. Nonetheless, comical, is what I'd call it. I sincerely believe that this aspect of the hobby needs to be improved upon. Change ain't always easy, and sometimes it isn't always good, but if there was never any change, we'd all still be living in caves, swinging sticks... But Frank, please understand, I don't want this to become a pissing contest. It's just an idea that I believe would improve the hobby, my purest intentions. I'll leave it at that. But if you do have a change of heart, I'll gladly share whatever input I can to help in making this transition. Dave D. - Original Message - From: "Frank Pittelli" To: Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 10:35 AM Subject: Re: [TANKS] Re: I'll float this idea again... On 9/21/2011 9:44 PM, Dave D. wrote: > It stands to reason that a smaller side profile tank will undoubtedly > outperform it's larger adversaries. Most people would agree that Mr. Tyng and I have roughly the same skill levels and we have certainly battled enough times so that our records are statistically valid. So, consider the Tiger vs. the Cromwell. The Cromwell is not only faster than the Tiger, but also has a lower profile with less target area. Accordingly to your theory, the Cromwell should always outperform the Tiger. However, a quick look at the statistics will show that the Tiger has given up 80,000 points over the last 9 years (8,900 per year), while the Cromwell has given up 72,750 points over the last 7 years (10,392 per year), which are pretty darn close averages. For even more scientific proof, consider the 9 year records of Joe's Hetzer vs. my Tiger. Once again, the Hetzer is smaller and faster than the Tiger, but over the same 9 years period the Hetzer has received almost 35% more hits. So, amongst some of the most experienced battlers in the hobby, the statistics clearly show that size and speed are *not* the main determinants in the outcome of a battle. Rather, battling skill, the reliability of the systems and the nature of the game itself determine the outcome to a far greater extent. To prove my point once and for all, I throw down the following challenge. Build whatever size tank you want and make it as fast as you want. We'll give it a 40/4 rating regardless of it's actual characterist
Re: [TANKS] Re: I'll float this idea again...
Mike, A few years ago I was in MAG territory (from Las Vegas) doing a little spy work and they invited me to participate Damn them It hooked me and made me determined to participate in this hobby Thus the Alliance was born and the mighty Brumm took to the desert to rule unchallenged Yes, it is worth the drive in my opinion... If nothing else, meeting these pioneers is worth the price of admission... Kurt (Long Live the Alliance)G -- 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
Re: [TANKS] Re: I'll float this idea again...
All right! A new Pittelli Prize! :) Mike From: Frank Pittelli To: rctankcombat@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 9:35 AM Subject: Re: [TANKS] Re: I'll float this idea again... On 9/21/2011 9:44 PM, Dave D. wrote: > It stands to reason that a smaller side profile tank will undoubtedly > outperform it's larger adversaries. Most people would agree that Mr. Tyng and I have roughly the same skill levels and we have certainly battled enough times so that our records are statistically valid. So, consider the Tiger vs. the Cromwell. The Cromwell is not only faster than the Tiger, but also has a lower profile with less target area. Accordingly to your theory, the Cromwell should always outperform the Tiger. However, a quick look at the statistics will show that the Tiger has given up 80,000 points over the last 9 years (8,900 per year), while the Cromwell has given up 72,750 points over the last 7 years (10,392 per year), which are pretty darn close averages. For even more scientific proof, consider the 9 year records of Joe's Hetzer vs. my Tiger. Once again, the Hetzer is smaller and faster than the Tiger, but over the same 9 years period the Hetzer has received almost 35% more hits. So, amongst some of the most experienced battlers in the hobby, the statistics clearly show that size and speed are *not* the main determinants in the outcome of a battle. Rather, battling skill, the reliability of the systems and the nature of the game itself determine the outcome to a far greater extent. To prove my point once and for all, I throw down the following challenge. Build whatever size tank you want and make it as fast as you want. We'll give it a 40/4 rating regardless of it's actual characteristics for your first two years of battling. Then, come to at least two MAG battles and show us your battlefield domination. If you score more net points than everyone else during those battles, we'll allow you to change whatever rules you want. Frank P. -- You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group. To post a message, send email to rctankcombat@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat -- You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group. To post a message, send email to rctankcombat@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat
Re: [TANKS] Re: I'll float this idea again...
On 9/21/2011 9:44 PM, Dave D. wrote: > It stands to reason that a smaller side profile tank will undoubtedly > outperform it's larger adversaries. Most people would agree that Mr. Tyng and I have roughly the same skill levels and we have certainly battled enough times so that our records are statistically valid. So, consider the Tiger vs. the Cromwell. The Cromwell is not only faster than the Tiger, but also has a lower profile with less target area. Accordingly to your theory, the Cromwell should always outperform the Tiger. However, a quick look at the statistics will show that the Tiger has given up 80,000 points over the last 9 years (8,900 per year), while the Cromwell has given up 72,750 points over the last 7 years (10,392 per year), which are pretty darn close averages. For even more scientific proof, consider the 9 year records of Joe's Hetzer vs. my Tiger. Once again, the Hetzer is smaller and faster than the Tiger, but over the same 9 years period the Hetzer has received almost 35% more hits. So, amongst some of the most experienced battlers in the hobby, the statistics clearly show that size and speed are *not* the main determinants in the outcome of a battle. Rather, battling skill, the reliability of the systems and the nature of the game itself determine the outcome to a far greater extent. To prove my point once and for all, I throw down the following challenge. Build whatever size tank you want and make it as fast as you want. We'll give it a 40/4 rating regardless of it's actual characteristics for your first two years of battling. Then, come to at least two MAG battles and show us your battlefield domination. If you score more net points than everyone else during those battles, we'll allow you to change whatever rules you want. Frank P. -- 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
Re: [TANKS] Re: I'll float this idea again...
All this talk about smaller tanks has me wondering if I shouldn't scrap the Merkava IV build and restart with something smaller. The Merkava is built to 1/6th scale which makes it 53" long by 28" wide by 18" tall. Compared to something that is only 36" long, the Merkava has 67% more target area. I'm also concerned about the fairly recent clarification of the turret mantlet "impentrable" area. The Merkava has sloaping wing armor on the turret sides which by the rules will count when hit in the forward facing parts. I think that will be a disadvantage when going head-to-head with another tank. That is kinda fixable though ... all I have to do is remove the side pieces to narrow the turret to mantlet width and call the tank a Merkava III. Heh. Not that I really should be talking much ... have yet to participate in a tank battle. Hey, when is there going to be a multiday event to make the 11 hour drive worth it? ;) Mike From: Steve Tyng To: rctankcombat@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 7:31 PM Subject: [TANKS] Re: I'll float this idea again... Dave, If historical accuracy was used to determine hit points everybody would be building modern MBT's. I agree that the current setup is not perfect but it is working for the limited number of battling tanks. This is first and foremost a battling hobby and not a scale hobby. Since the hobby is open to all tanks ever produced (and we want it that way to cater to all tastes), I think it would be more advantageous for the hobby to determine hit points based on a designs performance against its contemporaries. For example, a T-34/76 isn't thought of as a heavy tank today but when it was built nothing could touch it, so it would be classified as a heavy. Likewise, the Panzer II-J, would be classified as a light as it would not have lasted more than a few seconds against a KV (the undisputed heavy in 1940 to 1942). Such a classification scheme would allow WW1 rumboids to battle competivaly against M1's and I think that would be very cool indeed. Go ahead and build the Jagdpanther and build it to the three foot rule. It would be a terror on the battlefield. Steve Tyng -- You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group. To post a message, send email to rctankcombat@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat -- You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group. To post a message, send email to rctankcombat@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat
Re: [TANKS] Re: I'll float this idea again...
Hey Steve, Thanks for your thoughtful analysis. I remember you using a similar explanation in a prior reply... I get what you are saying, and the hobby's objective shouldn't be simply a battle against modern MBTs, but I would have to wonder if a simple tweaking of this one rule would make things just a bit better. Yeah, build whatever you like, but we're not giving away the candy store... Think for a minute, won't the reverse eventually (at least theoretically) happen, where the only viable tanks for this hobby's format will be tiny little(profile wise) things? I'm not buying Frank's explanation from his response post. Maybe those operators aren't all that "skilled" Frank... It stands to reason that a smaller side profile tank will undoubtedly outperform it's larger adversaries. Smaller TARGET Frank, thought I'd spell it out for you. The penalty for building a bigger tank (bigger presumably meaning better armored in most cases) is that it's armor advantage gets nullified by the combination of the current rules stating that frontal hits don't count (only side and rear hits count, where armor is the weakest), yet it's only the frontal armor that's considered when determining a tank's defensive rating. So who cares how weak your tank is in terms of it's side/rear armor, all side/rear hits count whether your tank has 25mm of side/rear armor or 125mm... Sounds contradictory when it's put that way. On top of that, then factor in the pop gun principle, where almost any size gun can basically hit any sized(and heavily armored) tank equally-by current hobby rules, and you've really got a deck stacked against a big tank build. Where's the common sense in that, Frank?? If the operator's ultimate objective is to win these R/C tank battles, then this trend towards "micro" tanks is the only logical conclusion... I once auditioned for the role of Lt. Commander Spock in a high school play... Just kidding!! I love a good sense of humor!! And I know he wasn't a lieutenant commander-for all you Trekkies out there, but I thought it sounded good, and I'm not a Trekkie, thank goodness!! I applaud the Pittellis' choice for a tank that fits very, very well within the rules as they presently are. A pop gun main armament, very slight armor when classed against any of the heavies, and as you state Steve, against most mediums (like the T-34, definitely a medium tank-weight being the ultimate deciding factor, which is directly related to armor...) Great choice, but almost nonsensical... Unfortunately, the rules seem to make it a mockery to build just about anything else, sadly. I guess when you're the king, you can make the rules... It's pathetic that Long Island doesn't have an R/C tank club... not that I would make it my life's endeavor, but if it was up to me, I would set it up differently. I always said I like to organize things...I was always the kid on my block who my friends turned to when deciding what adventures we'd be doing from day to day... Ahhh, if only adult life could be so simple... Perhaps I need to step up to the plate, so to speak... It is my hope, that logic (or as Frank like's to put it, common sense) will prevail regarding the MAG's ruling on the defensive rating for their hobby's tanks... Dave D. PS... Oh yeah Steve, definitely going for the three foot rule on the Jagdkitty's build, if I do decide to build it... Plus I don't own a truck, so hauling issues come into play. Definitely a rule I'll keep for the Long Island R/C Tanker's Club. Thanks again for your valued input. D. - Original Message - From: Steve Tyng To: rctankcombat@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 8:31 PM Subject: [TANKS] Re: I'll float this idea again... Dave, If historical accuracy was used to determine hit points everybody would be building modern MBT's. I agree that the current setup is not perfect but it is working for the limited number of battling tanks. This is first and foremost a battling hobby and not a scale hobby. Since the hobby is open to all tanks ever produced (and we want it that way to cater to all tastes), I think it would be more advantageous for the hobby to determine hit points based on a designs performance against its contemporaries. For example, a T-34/76 isn't thought of as a heavy tank today but when it was built nothing could touch it, so it would be classified as a heavy. Likewise, the Panzer II-J, would be classified as a light as it would not have lasted more than a few seconds against a KV (the undisputed heavy in 1940 to 1942). Such a classification scheme would allow WW1 rumboids to battle competivaly against M1's and I think that would be very cool indee
[TANKS] Re: I'll float this idea again...
Dave, If historical accuracy was used to determine hit points everybody would be building modern MBT's. I agree that the current setup is not perfect but it is working for the limited number of battling tanks. This is first and foremost a battling hobby and not a scale hobby. Since the hobby is open to all tanks ever produced (and we want it that way to cater to all tastes), I think it would be more advantageous for the hobby to determine hit points based on a designs performance against its contemporaries. For example, a T-34/76 isn't thought of as a heavy tank today but when it was built nothing could touch it, so it would be classified as a heavy. Likewise, the Panzer II-J, would be classified as a light as it would not have lasted more than a few seconds against a KV (the undisputed heavy in 1940 to 1942). Such a classification scheme would allow WW1 rumboids to battle competivaly against M1's and I think that would be very cool indeed. Go ahead and build the Jagdpanther and build it to the three foot rule. It would be a terror on the battlefield. Steve Tyng -- You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group. To post a message, send email to rctankcombat@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat
