This post is going to be a bit of a rant. I'm currently working on the VK30.02 Ausf. D, a German design proposal for what would ultimately become the PzKpfw V "Panther." I have the hull done, but I'm waiting for my customer to contact me regarding the turret, since I've found three different turrets that have been put on other people's renderings of this tank, and there is no reason to believe that, if this tank was ever actually built, that it couldn't have had any one of them. However, this is a very mild case, and if my customer doesn't get back to me soon, I may simply make all three turrets and have three different versions of the tank available in my shop.
There is nothing wrong with different component options, especially when it comes to paper tanks ("paper tanks" are tanks that were never actually built, such as the KV-5), though certain combinations are not historically accurate. For instance, there is a KV-1 on display at the Great Patriotic War Museum in Moscow that has a KV-1S turret on it. This was never done during the war. Likewise, when I made my model of the Valentine Bridgelayer, I used photos of the one on display at Kubinka for reference. Here's my model:
However, the customer who ordered this pointed out that those smooth, spun wheels (referring to the technique of metal spinning used to make them) were put only on late variants of the Valentine, such as the Mark IX, which was adapted into the Archer and Bishop self-propelled guns. The bridgelayer, on the other hand, was made from the Mark III, which had the older, six-spoke wheels. Since I'm no expert on British tanks, I didn't know that at the time. We surmise that Kubinka took some wheels from another Valentine in order to restore the bridgelayer in their collection. No big deal, but as with the aforementioned KV-1, it wasn't done historically.
There is also inaccurate information in databases, which drove me crazy when I was trying to make my model of Object 279 the first time round (I did eventually make a second attempt, which proved successful), since the width listed doesn't match any dimension anywhere on the tank. If I adjust my scale to the listed width, then both the height and length are wrong. Likewise, if I adjust my scale to the listed length, then the width is wrong, and nothing that I measure matches it. The outer extent of Object 279 isn't actually its hull, and there are multiple things one could measure to get the width, but the number listed in most databases doesn't match anything. At least I was able to figure out how to make it work, based on dimensions of other components that I already knew, such as the diameter of the road wheels and width of the tracks. I wish I could say the same about the Leman Russ tank, which I'd love to be able to make a mock-up of to compare it to my historical tanks; you know, just for fun. I'm not about to spend the money on a Leman Russ miniature from Games Workshop and measure it with calipers. Why would I? I'm a Necron player.
Returning to the subject of historical tanks, there are not only bad numbers, but also bad drawings. I mentioned it at some point in my five-part SU-100Y walkthrough on BitChute, but there is a drawing out there depicting two round hatches on the vehicle roof. In fact, I saved it to my hard drive, just so I can show you:
This drawing is WRONG, those round hatches on the casemate are not there, and the rear-most hatch on the engine deck is round, not rectangular. This is what the SU-100Y actually looks like:
Unfortunately, that didn't stop people from making small-scale miniatures, large-scale models, and even virtual models based on the incorrect drawing. Luckily for me, I was able to find photographs of the back of the vehicle showing the round engine deck hatch, so I know, beyond a doubt, which drawing is correct. The fact that the SU-100Y is also self-propelled artillery, not a tank destroyer, is also evidence that it doesn't have hatches on its roof: it doesn't need them.
Speaking of incorrect drawings, there are plenty of drawings of the ISU-152 that have incorrect angles on the casemate, and anyone who knows basic geometry can spot them.
The worst, by far, are the outright fakes. The link below mentions quite a few of them:
http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/01/07/its-a-fake-part-2-wargaming-fakes/
However, most of these fakes are believable, and the post doesn't mention the most infamous fake tank of all time: the KV-6 land battleship. The actual KV-6 was a flamethrower tank, and not at all remarkable compared to the fake. With the exceptions of outrageous German land battleships, generally speaking, if a tank seems too ridiculous to be true, then it probably is, which brings me back to Warhammer 40,000 and the problems I have with some of its tanks. If you are interested only in historical tanks, you can stop reading now.
I don't really have a problem with most of the armoured vehicles of the Imperium, and I'm not going to touch on the more ridiculous things (such as titans), but there are little problems with three specific tanks that bug me: the Leman Russ, the Baneblade, and the Astartes Predator. I've already mentioned some issues regarding the dimensions of the Leman Russ tank, but lack of accurate information is only the start of it. Take a look at this:
This is fanart (artist's signature in top right corner), but it's fairly accurate to drawings officially licensed by Games Workshop, and it shows some problems. First, by adjusting my scale to the supposed 4,42-metre height of the tank, each of those crew members is 2 metres tall. While it's not so far-fetched that the average human might be 2 metres tall 38 000 years from now, that is, in fact, too tall for most tanks today. Tankists tend to not be taller than 1,9 metres, and they are, on average, about 1,7 metres tall. Now, here is the other problem: even at that scale, those shells are NOT 120mm, they are 150mm. That doesn't bother me, and it actually makes more sense for 40K for this tank to be armed like a KV-2, but the 120mm label is wrong. Furthermore, why smoothbore? Smoothbore tank guns are dedicated anti-armour weapons, and the lack of rifling further increases muzzle velocity in a long-barrel cannon. However, this development is due to the type of ammunition used, and modern anti-tank ammunition doesn't interact well with muzzle brakes, which is why most modern tanks don't have them. In short, to someone who knows intimate details about tank design through the decades, the main gun on the Leman Russ tank makes no sense. Other than that quibble, I like the Leman Russ tank, and I don't have a problem with its design.
I've already gone into some issues with the Baneblade, though most of those issues aren't a problem for the Imperium. There is one, however, that I forgot to mention, that this tank shares with the Astartes Predator, and the only thing I would change about either: not enough road wheels. Seriously, a 319-tonne tank needs more than seven pairs of road wheels. High track tension might help to evenly distribute the weight, but it increases the likeliness of track failure, and the heavier a tank is, the harder it is to fix thrown or broken tracks (this is one of the big complaints with the M1 Abrams, which also has seven pairs of road wheels, and is less than a quarter the weight of a Baneblade). Therefore, the best solution is to simply add more road wheels, which is the idea behind the German schachtellaufwerk running gear, putting as many road wheels in as little space as possible. It's maintenance-intensive, but that's what the Mechanicus is for. Yeah, yeah, the Brits would NEVER copy the Germans, which is why actual British tanks have never had a torsion bar suspension, but at least put some more wheels on this thing.
I might make this rant into a video (at least the 40K part), but that's a very distant project. I have more important videos that I need to make first, such as parts two and three of the DIY tractor canopy.
Shameless self-promotion:
Shapeways:
https://www.shapeways.com/designer/steampunkkaja
WordPress:
https://kjworldsong.wordpress.com/
BitChute:
https://www.bitchute.com/channel/hyLVDAKeGZC9/
SubscribeStar:
https://www.subscribestar.com/kaja-blackwing