Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Military Modelling

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
Technically not a tank, but an armoured reconnaissance vehicle

Valentine, Matilda I & II, Tetrarch etc were tanks that did not begin with a C name, so it depends on the cutoff point for naming tanks
By the British Army nomenclature definition, Challenger 1 & 2 aren't "tanks" either, they're "Fighting Vehicles", as is a CVR(T) Scorpion or Scimitar, both of which have armour, tracks, a turret with a main armament and all other accoutrements to be considered a tank. Just as CVR(W) Fox is obviously an armoured car, CVR(T) Scorpion / Scimitar can safely be considered a tank. An M3 Stuart was a light tank as was a Vickers Mk VI, and indeed as was a Tetrarch...
 
16139935894288632159046665567987.jpg
I must admit I need a bit of help with the fine detailing these days.
 

Smeggers

ADC
Moderator
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
By the British Army nomenclature definition, Challenger 1 & 2 aren't "tanks" either, they're "Fighting Vehicles", as is a CVR(T) Scorpion or Scimitar, both of which have armour, tracks, a turret with a main armament and all other accoutrements to be considered a tank. Just as CVR(W) Fox is obviously an armoured car, CVR(T) Scorpion / Scimitar can safely be considered a tank. An M3 Stuart was a light tank as was a Vickers Mk VI, and indeed as was a Tetrarch...
quite agree, in the real world Scorpion/Scimitar would be light tanks, main armament in a fully rotating turret. But you know us Brits, with our Infantry Tank, Cruiser tanks, Combat Vehicle recon tracks, we had to be different.
 

Daz

LE
quite agree, in the real world Scorpion/Scimitar would be light tanks, main armament in a fully rotating turret. But you know us Brits, with our Infantry Tank, Cruiser tanks, Combat Vehicle recon tracks, we had to be different.
Well, the Yank Cavalry did have Combat Cars if that helps :)
 
By the British Army nomenclature definition, Challenger 1 & 2 aren't "tanks" either, they're "Fighting Vehicles", as is a CVR(T) Scorpion or Scimitar, both of which have armour, tracks, a turret with a main armament and all other accoutrements to be considered a tank. Just as CVR(W) Fox is obviously an armoured car, CVR(T) Scorpion / Scimitar can safely be considered a tank. An M3 Stuart was a light tank as was a Vickers Mk VI, and indeed as was a Tetrarch...
Obviously you work for a tabloid..... it’s green with tracks therefor a Tank! So what that’s make an Abbot?
CVRT.....Tracked Reconnaissance Vehicle it says on the title ! :slow:
 
Obviously you work for a tabloid..... it’s green with tracks therefor a Tank! So what that’s make an Abbot?
CVRT.....Tracked Reconnaissance Vehicle it says on the title ! :slow:
Somewhere in the clutter that is my memory I recall some international agreement that labelled all CVR(T) as tanks. The definition has changed somewhere along the line it seems.
 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
Possibly this "thing"

FV217 Conqueror self-propelled gun proposal​

scroll down to the bottom part of the ink
Interesting that he expresses surprise that it was to be 120mm armed when Conqueror already had a 120mm gun. It did, but it was a US version IIRC. @Listy will know more.
 
Interesting that he expresses surprise that it was to be 120mm armed when Conqueror already had a 120mm gun. It did, but it was a US version IIRC. @Listy will know more.

Yes there's a lot of people getting a lot of confused right now.

I would plug my book at this point, but I feel like I do that far too often.

There are a number of 120mm SP Atk's.
If I'm remembering correctly, first up we had the FV205. Now remember that there is a difference between the FV200 and the Conqueror. I think it was originally to have a 4.5in HV gun.
Later on there came the FV217. Which was to have the same L1a1 120mm weapon off the Conqueror. The name Badger is curious, I know where it came from, a colleague consulting with World of Tanks. He supplied the models and drawings for it to them. However, I have never ever seen a document with the name mentioned, but have always written it as FV217. There again the documents I've seen don't cover the FV217 that much.
I'll ask him right now :D

Later on you had the CTR which is much harder to nail down what project/concept it was exactly designed to support. What it is for is clearly to test out fixed gun laying.
 
I mentioned that a veterans help organisation on facebook used modelling as a therapy and there were some really excellent modellers on there.

They model everything and some of them produce some fantastic dioramas to introduce a sense of context to their work.

This one was finished recently. The model of the land rover just on its own is an excellent piece of work but the quality of the diorama while setting some context to the story being told is also in itself a great piece of work.

The guy who did this is a Green Jacket who I knew quite well in the mob and we’re still in contact. What’s interesting to me is that the reality of the model is in what they call the weathering of the appearance of it all. If you could wave a wand and make the model life sized, you would think you were stood next to the real thing because of the weathering work.

Likewise on the diorama. Belfast in the seventies in many places resembled a victorian era industrialised habitat still stuck in the victorian age and the lack of maintenance and investment in the infrastructure across huge swathes of the city is very apparent in the diorama with it’s cracked pavements with grass growing through the edge of the slabs and the large growth of moss and grass on a wall that looks like it’s well overdue for some care and attention.

1
 
Last edited:

load_fin

War Hero
Somewhere in the clutter that is my memory I recall some international agreement that labelled all CVR(T) as tanks. The definition has changed somewhere along the line it seems.
It was a conventional arms limitation treaty between NATO and WARPAC.
Numbers of tanks with main armament greater than 75mm were restricted.
The Sovs expected NATO to reduce the number of Chieftain/Leopard/M60, but NATO blindsided them by calling Scorpion a tank and scrapping it.
@AlienFTM can fill in the details.

Edit for spelling
 

AlienFTM

MIA
Book Reviewer
It was a conventional arms limitation treaty between NATO and WARPAC.
Numbers of tanks with main armament greater than 75mm were restricted.
The Sovs expected NATO to reduce the number of Chieftain/Leopard/M60, but NATO blindsided them by calling Scorpion a tank and scrapping it.
@AlienFTM can fill in the details.

Edit for spelling
That's how it was explained to me
 

Daz

LE
Yes there's a lot of people getting a lot of confused right now.

I would plug my book at this point, but I feel like I do that far too often.

There are a number of 120mm SP Atk's.
If I'm remembering correctly, first up we had the FV205. Now remember that there is a difference between the FV200 and the Conqueror. I think it was originally to have a 4.5in HV gun.
Later on there came the FV217. Which was to have the same L1a1 120mm weapon off the Conqueror. The name Badger is curious, I know where it came from, a colleague consulting with World of Tanks. He supplied the models and drawings for it to them. However, I have never ever seen a document with the name mentioned, but have always written it as FV217. There again the documents I've seen don't cover the FV217 that much.
I'll ask him right now :D

Later on you had the CTR which is much harder to nail down what project/concept it was exactly designed to support. What it is for is clearly to test out fixed gun laying.
The UK's version of the M113 Gavin :)
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
Obviously you work for a tabloid..... it’s green with tracks therefor a Tank! So what that’s make an Abbot?
CVRT.....Tracked Reconnaissance Vehicle it says on the title ! :slow:
Nope, I now work for Transport for London, but for 30 years I was an Armourer / Tiffy Weapons. Scorpion & Scimitar were always light tanks, regardless of what some administrative directive said. Ask 9/12 Lancers, they certainly considered them to be tanks. As did everyone else apart from the daft penis who devised the nomenclature.

Mea culpa on the Abbot, M109, AS90 etc, which are obviously turreted, tracked, armoured, self-propelled artillery, and not tanks. Although some gunners liked to pretend!
 
Nope, I now work for Transport for London, but for 30 years I was an Armourer / Tiffy Weapons. Scorpion & Scimitar were always light tanks, regardless of what some administrative directive said. Ask 9/12 Lancers, they certainly considered them to be tanks. As did everyone else apart from the daft penis who devised the nomenclature.

Mea culpa on the Abbot, M109, AS90 etc, which are obviously turreted, tracked, armoured, self-propelled artillery, and not tanks. Although some gunners liked to pretend!
AAC sigs groundies think their 432 and Sultan CPs are tanks too :rolleyes:
 

AlienFTM

MIA
Book Reviewer
Ask 9/12 Lancers
Whereas 15/19H, who for much of the Cold War were a Recce regiment (including 70s-80s at the same time as 9/12L), the grown-ups (I spent most of my time either in Command Troop or FHQ) referred to 3-car, 4-car and 8-car (close recce) troops of CVR(T) despite having just converted from tanks.
 
Last edited:

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
Whereas 15/19H, who for much or the Cold War were a Recce regiment (including 70s-80s at the same time as 9/12L), the grown-ups (I spent most of my time either in Command Troop or FHQ) referred to 3-car, 4-car and 8-car (close recce) troops of CVR(T) despite having just converted from tanks.
Well what do you expect from Hoozars? They probably thought the track was an anti-theft device for the wheels!
 
Top