Alternative History Armoured Fighting Vehicles Part 3

[cortz#9]

Romfell V2.0 Armoured Car Update: (@Petike)

It has been a little while since my last update, but I have not been sitting idle. There have been a couple of troublesome problems that have taken time to resolve but I think we are well on the way now. 'What problems?' I hear you say. Well...

First off, I needed to select and make the decals I would be using - and thanks to Petike for providing the necessary ground forces insignia for the vehicles in his TL and instructions for the relative size. So far so good. Petike also liked the idea of Romanic numerals to identify the specific vehicle - OK. Unfortunately, I had not used enough acrylic varnish when making the decals and when I tried to apply them the colour washed out and, as the final insult, they fell apart! Time to make some more but, of course, I had run out of inkjet decal paper... Needed to order more from Amazon!

Second issue. The model tyres are completely smooth/slick which seems more than a little odd for a vehicle that was supposed to have some off-road capability - although several photos of the original Romfell AC seem to show distinctly smooth treads. Nevertheless, given that the Romfell V2.0 has wider tyres, the lack of treads seemed even more of an issue - what could be done? Trying to etch on something was, IMHO, fraught with possibilities of total disaster and so was not an option. What I settled on was to make a tread decal - oh much easier said than done, I can assure you!! And, as mentioned above, I had run out of decal paper... Several designs and attemps later, I think I have something workable.

Third problemette. What paint to use? I settled on Revel Bronze Green silk acrylic as the closest match to Petike's drawing. The silk finish was good for applying the decals and the oil paint pin washes and looked very reminisant of the Deep Bronze Green finish in use by Britain at the time. It was also at this stage that I realised the positioning of the decals would need to change slightly as the Romanic numbers looked lost sitting in a panel by themselves. The end result (see below) was OK but perhaps a little too dark for Petike's drawing.

View attachment 862146

In the end I have decided to go back to a matt finish which lightens up everything a bit and will allow me to better add a little light weathering. Still have some touch ups to do and said weathering. I have also sent off for a couple of realistic Austro-Hungarian crew members as I just wasn't happy with what I could cobble together from my spares boxes.

View attachment 862147

View attachment 862148

View attachment 862149

Very cool.

Looking outside again, I think it’s a night for hunkering down by the fire with a fine glass of the water of life! 🥃👍

Nice.

 

[Claymore]

A while ago I posted my take on a Panzer 46 Heavy APC (see below) and patted myself on the head for what I thought was a very cool looking design. A couple of days later it turned out that my inspiration had actually come from a design that @cortz#9 had posted a few months earlier - first Doh. Just recently, I have been having a spot of bother with some loon randomly posting some of my stuff (amongst others) across on the Panzer 1946 Facebook site and not crediting where he had found them thus leading everyone to assume they were his. Anyhoo, one of the images he posted was the Cyclops HAPC and some kindly person on the site pointed out that the design was fatally flawed because of the internal layout of the Tiger (P)/Elefant's electric drive - two whacking big electric motors right where I had put the access ramp - second DOH!

So, this got me thinking. Firstly, what could I do to correct the design and what other HAPC's might the Germans have created from repurposed heavy armour once the E-series of panzers entered service. This is what I came up with...

First off, the Minotaur: A simple conversion of the Tiger (P) with the turret removed and an armoured crew compartment fitted not unlike the IDF's Nagmashot conversion of the Centurion.

Second, is the reworked Cyclops in an early and late variant. The Ausf. A has a turret carrying the standard 2cm cannon from the Panzer II Luchs. The Ausf. B replaces the 2cm cannon with a 3cm MK 103 cannon, has two remotely operated swivel mounts at the rear, has additional smoke dischargers and improved engine air intakes. Troop access/egress requires the top and rear hatches to be opened in a manner similar to the later BMP-3.

Lastly, I came up with the Gorgon, a HAPC created from a standard Tiger I. The engine has been moved forward into a mid-mounted position leaving the rear hull free for a large/wide troop compartment and access ramp.

 

[cortz#9]

A while ago I posted my take on a Panzer 46 Heavy APC (see below) and patted myself on the head for what I thought was a very cool looking design. A couple of days later it turned out that my inspiration had actually come from a design that @cortz#9 had posted a few months earlier - first Doh. Just recently, I have been having a spot of bother with some loon randomly posting some of my stuff (amongst others) across on the Panzer 1946 Facebook site and not crediting where he had found them thus leading everyone to assume they were his. Anyhoo, one of the images he posted was the Cyclops HAPC and some kindly person on the site pointed out that the design was fatally flawed because of the internal layout of the Tiger (P)/Elefant's electric drive - two whacking big electric motors right where I had put the access ramp - second DOH!

View attachment 863225

So, this got me thinking. Firstly, what could I do to correct the design and what other HAPC's might the Germans have created from repurposed heavy armour once the E-series of panzers entered service. This is what I came up with...

First off, the Minotaur: A simple conversion of the Tiger (P) with the turret removed and an armoured crew compartment fitted not unlike the IDF's Nagmashot conversion of the Centurion.

View attachment 863217

Second, is the reworked Cyclops in an early and late variant. The Ausf. A has a turret carrying the standard 2cm cannon from the Panzer II Luchs. The Ausf. B replaces the 2cm cannon with a 3cm MK 103 cannon, has two remotely operated swivel mounts at the rear, has additional smoke dischargers and improved engine air intakes. Troop access/egress requires the top and rear hatches to be opened in a manner similar to the later BMP-3.

View attachment 863218

View attachment 863219

Lastly, I came up with the Gorgon, a HAPC created from a standard Tiger I. The engine has been moved forward into a mid-mounted position leaving the rear hull free for a large/wide troop compartment and ramp access.

View attachment 863220

Love these!

As for uncredited pics of our designs on other sites, a while back on Pinterest I came across colored illustrations of my designs and some of yours as well Claymore.
I copied some of them but now can only find one, an alternate CSA medium tank I made for a TL-191 thread.

It's a nice enough pic and the artist even gave it the same number and letter designation I came up with but left off the name "Coyote" and gave me no credit that I know of.
I tried to visit the site but my Norton security warned me it was an unsafe site and it was also in Russian so I wouldn't be able to read anything and since I've been hacked before I just decided to ignore the site but I do wonder what other pics of mine, Claymore and perhaps Uruk and others who have contributed here as well are posted there.

 

[Claymore]

As for uncredited pics of our designs on other sites, a while back on Pinterest I came across colored illustrations of my designs and some of yours as well Claymore.
I copied some of them but now can only find one, an alternate CSA medium tank I made for a TL-191 thread.
View attachment 863243
It's a nice enough pic and the artist even gave it the same number and letter designation I came up with but left off the name "Coyote" and gave me no credit that I know of.
I tried to visit the site but my Norton security warned me it was an unsafe site and it was also in Russian so I wouldn't be able to read anything and since I've been hacked before I just decided to ignore the site but I do wonder what other pics of mine, Claymore and perhaps Uruk and others who have contributed here as well are posted there.

Sadly, without copyrighting our work, there is very little we can do against those who choose to plagiarise. I have even come across one site where someone had posted models of my Griffon HAPC and the Mammoth wheeled APC (same names, same background, smaller scale) and was claiming them as all his own work - wanker! 🤬

Well perhaps the gods of fire and brimstone are watching those that plagiarise. We can only hope… 👹

 

[cortz#9]

Sadly, without copyrighting our work, there is very little we can do against those who choose to plagiarise. I have even come across one site where someone had posted models of my Griffon HAPC and the Mammoth wheeled APC (same names, same background, smaller scale) and was claiming them as all his own work - wanker! 🤬

Well perhaps the gods of fire and brimstone are watching and those that plagiarise. We can only hope… 👹

Truth.

 

[GrahamB]

First off, the Minotaur: A simple conversion of the Tiger (P) with the turret removed and an armoured crew compartment fitted not unlike the IDF's Nagmashot conversion of the Centurion.

For whatever reason, I really like the Minotaur because it genuinely looks like a SPG/TD conversion where they forgot to install the gun.
The least practical by a wide measure, but as a Tiger-based Kangaroo, it's... not terrible. Lots of MG mountings for party bus drive-by action!

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

Sadly, without copyrighting our work, there is very little we can do against those who choose to plagiarise. I have even come across one site where someone had posted models of my Griffon HAPC and the Mammoth wheeled APC (same names, same background, smaller scale) and was claiming them as all his own work - wanker! 🤬

Well perhaps the gods of fire and brimstone are watching those that plagiarise. We can only hope… 👹

Out of curiosity how much would it cost to get all your work copyrighted (I assume too much)?

 

[La Rouge Beret]

I quite like the Minotaur and the Cyclops.

On another note I understand all too well the issues with people misappropriating one's work!

 

[JWilly48519]

Fundamentally, copyright is free in most Western countries. When you create a work, it belongs to you. But, except among well behaved parties, that sort of copyright is hard to prove and hard to enforce.

It does help some to include a Copyright (Date) (Owner) statement in the work. Then anyone trying to pass it off as their work would have to explicitly remove your notice, which at least clarifies their intent.

In USA, if you want to enforce your claim, you may want to register it with the Copyright Office. That requires submitting a form, the required number of copies of the work, and a fee. The fee structure depends on what's being copyrighted...one or multiple related works, all at once or not, for hire or not, and so forth. The fees are defined at https://www.copyright.gov/about/fees.html.

Note that a physical object cannot be copyrighted. Only images and other copy-able, publishable means of communication are subject to copyright. A physical object could be Design Patented, but that's a much more expensive process.

 

[Claymore]

I quite like the Minotaur and the Cyclops.

👍

On another note I understand all too well the issues with people misappropriating one's work!

Yes, I remember your bijou problemette… 😕

 

[Claymore]

Fundamentally, copyright is free in most Western countries. When you create a work, it belongs to you. But, except among well behaved parties, that sort of copyright is hard to prove and hard to enforce.

It does help some to include a Copyright (Date) (Owner) statement in the work. Then anyone trying to pass it off as their work would have to explicitly remove your notice, which at least clarifies their intent.

In USA, if you want to enforce your claim, you may want to register it with the Copyright Office. That requires submitting a form, the required number of copies of the work, and a fee. The fee structure depends on what's being copyrighted...one or multiple related works, all at once or not, for hire or not, and so forth. The fees are defined at https://www.copyright.gov/about/fees.html.

Note that a physical object cannot be copyrighted. Only images and other copy-able, publishable means of communication are subject to copyright. A physical object could be Design Patented, but that's a much more expensive process.

Hmmm… thanks for the info. I may well start adding a date and statement/name to my images/pics as you suggest. 🤔

 

[cortz#9]

Out of curiosity how much would it cost to get all your work copyrighted (I assume too much)?

Claymore can more than likely copyright his completed built scale models of his alternate designs but not any drawings since we make most of our drawings from copyrighted drawings we find on the internet or from a book I believe in Claymore's case.

But a built scale model should be no problem.

 

[JasTysoe]

Sadly, without copyrighting our work, there is very little we can do against those who choose to plagiarise. I have even come across one site where someone had posted models of my Griffon HAPC and the Mammoth wheeled APC (same names, same background, smaller scale) and was claiming them as all his own work - wanker! 🤬

Well perhaps the gods of fire and brimstone are watching those that plagiarise. We can only hope… 👹

Copyright (at least in many countries) comes into existence by itself when you create the work. You don't need to do anything to create copyright, apart from creating a work that is substantially your own. Whether hacking other drawings involves enough creative work to cause copyright to exist is a complicated question, but it's certainly possible to manipulate another's work enough to give yourself copyright to the work you have created.

If you do me some more drawings I won't tell anyone you may have borrowed parts of them.

EDIT - Sorry, JWilly already pointed it out.

 

[JWilly48519]

(...) it's certainly possible to manipulate another's work enough to give yourself copyright to the work you have created.

Well...yes and no. The recent legal topic of "sampling" of music recordings is relevant. In both the USA and UK laws, if your work incorporates a "significant" element of another's work, and you don't have a legal clearance or license for that use...preferably obtained in advance...your work containing that sample infringes the prior creator's copyright. And "significant" has been found by appeals courts to mean, not the quantity of the sampled work used, or whether the sample is even recognizable to the casual reviewer of your work, but whether the sample contains "significant" creativity...on the theory that some parts of a creative work contain more creativity than others, and usually it's the more creative elements that others may find desirable to sample.

In USA, the "fair use" doctrine provides limited exemptions for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. But, each of those must be substantiated rigorously, such as by showing an affiliation with a publisher of such criticism, commentary, or news reports, or an affiliation with a university or other school in regard to teaching, scholarship or research. Some "common law" countries have similar precedents, sometimes called "fair dealings".

But all that said, nobody sensible pursues infringement consisting of a non-commercial drawing, published on the internet, that's based on a prior non-commercial drawing...particularly because that earlier drawing might have been developed from some still-earlier source with its own copyright status. And, one absolute bar to legal action to enforce a copyright claim is that the copyright must be valid, i.e. it didn't arise from copying or sampling itself.

So: if you know with sufficient certainty that a drawing you wish to use as a source was not eligible for copyright because it evolved from some earlier creative work by a different creator, and if the work you're doing is not for commercial gain, then in practice no one is going to come after you for infringing that source drawing by basing further work on it.

Note however that if the work you're doing is commercial, then your lawyer should tell you that you need with certainty to know not just the circumstances of the drawing you utilize as a source, but every preceding version back to the original, no-earlier-source creation...because that original creator has a potential infringement claim against every generation of work that was based on his or her work and still contains any elements of that original work.

 

[JasTysoe]

Well...yes and no. The recent legal topic of "sampling" of music recordings is relevant. In both the USA and UK laws, if your work incorporates a "significant" element of another's work, and you don't have a legal clearance or license for that use...preferably obtained in advance...your work containing that sample infringes the prior creator's copyright. And "significant" has been found by appeals courts to mean, not the quantity of the sampled work used, or whether the sample is even recognizable to the casual reviewer of your work, but whether the sample contains "significant" creativity...on the theory that some parts of a creative work contain more creativity than others, and usually it's the more creative elements that others may find desirable to sample.

In USA, the "fair use" doctrine provides limited exemptions for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. But, each of those must be substantiated rigorously, such as by showing an affiliation with a publisher of such criticism, commentary, or news reports, or an affiliation with a university or other school in regard to teaching, scholarship or research. Some "common law" countries have similar precedents, sometimes called "fair dealings".

But all that said, nobody sensible pursues infringement consisting of a non-commercial drawing, published on the internet, that's based on a prior non-commercial drawing...particularly because that earlier drawing might have been developed from some still-earlier source with its own copyright status. And, one absolute bar to legal action to enforce a copyright claim is that the copyright must be valid, i.e. it didn't arise from copying or sampling itself.

So: if you know with sufficient certainty that a drawing you wish to use as a source was not eligible for copyright because it evolved from some earlier creative work by a different creator, and if the work you're doing is not for commercial gain, then in practice no one is going to come after you for infringing that source drawing by basing further work on it.

Note however that if the work you're doing is commercial, then your lawyer should tell you that you need with certainty to know not just the circumstances of the drawing you utilize as a source, but every preceding version back to the original, no-earlier-source creation...because that original creator has a potential infringement claim against every generation of work that was based on his or her work and still contains any elements of that original work.

Good points; it's not something I've had much to do with since university, and the rise of sampling and other technologies like graphics programmes has changed the situation a significant amount since then.

 

[Bougnas]

If you are into goofy stuff:

Sprut-S proposal based on the 2S3 SPG, with a 125mm smoothbore gun and T-72's autoloader in 1977. On a chassis whose history goes back to the late 40's. Unkillable SU-100P chassis.

Tor SAM carrier as well

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

If possible (it's perfectly okay if not), could someone do a line drawing where a turret from the Soviet 2s9 Nona SPG is put onto the hull of the Romanian TAB-79 (Also known as ABC-79M)?

I think the turret should fit (the TAB-79 is wider than the Nona) but the pictures below make it look like it can't (probably not to scale although the pictures come from the same website).

 

[wietze]

If possible (it's perfectly okay if not), could someone do a line drawing where a turret from the Soviet 2s9 Nona SPG is put onto the hull of the Romanian TAB-79 (Also known as ABC-79M)?

I think the turret should fit (the TAB-79 is wider than the Nona) but the pictures below make it look like it can't (probably not to scale although the pictures come from the same website).

so a 2 wheeled version of this: 2S23 Nona-SVK

2S23 Nona-SVK 120mm Self-Propelled Gun System - Army Technology

2S23 Nona-SVK is a self-propelled gun system designed by Russian firm Perm Machine-Building Plant to protect infantry units against enemy…

www.army-technology.com

and the chinese have a 6-wheeled version

PLL05 120-mm Self-Propelled Mortar System | MilitaryToday.com

The PLL05 120-mm self-propelled mortar system is a recent Chinese development, however it resembles Russian mortar systems.

www.militarytoday.com

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

so a 2 wheeled version of this: 2S23 Nona-SVK

2S23 Nona-SVK 120mm Self-Propelled Gun System - Army Technology

2S23 Nona-SVK is a self-propelled gun system designed by Russian firm Perm Machine-Building Plant to protect infantry units against enemy…

www.army-technology.com

Yes and no. My problem with using the BTR-80 hull is that the armor protection is a good bit worse than that of the TAB-79 (12.7mm protection vs 20mm protection in the front) and that the BTR-80 is too long for what I am looking for (the TAB-79 was built as a reconnaissance vehicle like the BRDM-2, while the BTR-80 was a APC).

 

[JWilly48519]

Does anyone know of open-source solid models of the French planned-for-WWII G1 tank (Renault version), B1 ter tank, S40 tank, ACG2 tank, AM40P armored car and 39L APC?

I'm interested in exploring the next generations.