However speedily painted, that Conqueror looks braw.

You are dogmeat, Pal !   
Cheers - Phil

Quote from: Techno on 29 August 2015, 10:12:55 AM
dogmeat Pal !   

Prolongs active life - you should be ashamed Mr Lewis...

ianS

I don't get it. I am sorry but I really don't get it.  Where is the market demand for the ill fated FV200 Conqueror that never saw action ?

I remember the last surviving Conquerors fitted with dummy guns and parked on ranges as hard targets.  The tank was unpopular in the British Army and frankly was outperformed by Centurion Mk13. It is a footnote in the historiography of British tank development - on how not to design a heavy MTB, that the FVR&D took on board - when they produced the FV 4201.

Who will game with this model ?  Is there a cabal of 1950s Cold War war gamers in the thousands of illegal immigrants making their way along the Channel Tunnel?

I am old enough to remember the Lynx.  The track design was poor and it did not have great traction. Our Canadian friends lamented losing the nippy wee Ferret.

Now there is a model that would have wide appeal and lots of post war applications. The Ferret - say a 2/2 model  Exported to 38 countries ...and still in use. 

I know what you're saying.

I will buy a troop of Conquerors for my ImagiNation game.

I'd like to see the Ferret and the Fox.

Is this the effect the release of the Lynx was expecting?

Quote from: fsn on 30 August 2015, 01:24:44 PM
I know what you're saying.

I will buy a troop of Conquerors for my ImagiNation game.

I'd like to see the Ferret and the Fox.

Is this the effect the release of the Lynx was expecting?

Now video that takes me back...doesn't do my legs any good.

We need Pendraken to stay premier in 10mm. That means realistic requests that will sell.   The Post War/Modern  market is a minefield.

I have to say that the best indicator of demand is what Peter Pig achieved in 15mm.  In general if the kit has been used in a real shooting war, then there is a demand for it.

I am just surprised that the Conqueror appeared when items like the M551 and M41 which have a Vietnam pedigree and in the case of the  Walker Bulldog, loads of Third World applications still are on the waiting list.   

I know a group keen to wargame Panama 1989  in 10mm.  They will be purchasing Sheridans from somewhere.

Even a humble Toyota pick up with a .50 (a technical) will find more sales than a Conqueror.

If models only sold on actual use, numbers or even real world effectiveness there wouldn't be such a market for Tiger II's & similar Let alone the legions of "what if" E- series German tanks that never made it off the drawing boards...

Quote from: toxicpixie on 30 August 2015, 07:31:24 PM
If models only sold on actual use, numbers or even real world effectiveness there wouldn't be such a market for Tiger II's & similar Let alone the legions of "what if" E- series German tanks that never made it off the drawing boards...

To a point. But you are not comparing like with like  Three points I would quickly make. First, the Tiger II has a certain X factor.  Secondly. it  was a major player in key battles such as the Ardennes (the Bulge) . If you wargame the Eastern Front from late 1944 to Berlin,   either the Konigstiger or the more common Henschel turreted version is a legitimate weapon system to field in small numbers.

Thirdly, the production figures say it all. 180 Conquerors Mk1 and 2, against 1,149 Tiger II, of which 492 survived production - an estimated 657 were lost to Allied bombing of the Henschel and Porsche plants.   (Source, Jentz, 1996, pp.287-288)

So, against the Conqueror the Tiger II wins hands down in terms of ...."actual use...numbers and even real world effectiveness" .Ask any Allied tanker who encountered one.


The 'what if '  MAUS however is another story.- It has as just as much X factor as a Conqueror...

All the above suggests that the Conquerer will sell - it has the same cachet as the King Tiger (which did see action but didn't prove useful, the relative few of which even made it out the assembly line ). Both are big, hefty terrifying beasts whose looks and mystique far outweigh their battlefield utility.

Should have got more useful working tanks in Greater numbers. More Centurions please!

I suspect Conquerer will sell. Like the KT it's "cool factor" is much higher than its number or effectiveness suggest

If I hadn't gone for Pentomic era-ish in 6mm I'd be tempted myself with Cents & Conqs... Assuming there's a good Saracen model about

My Maus model has taken part in several plays of my various Kummersdorf 1945 scenarios. My gaming experience suggests it would have been every bit as much a white elephant as is often suggested serving primarily as a munitions magnet. It tends to get pasted "just in case" even when the scenario specifically says the Maus model represents two inactive vehicles and is basically scenery!

I imagine the Conqueror will sell tolerably well to modellers, Weird War II aficionados and those like me who dabble in "what if" scenarios.

Don't get me started on the Maus & the E series WoT has a lot to answer for!

I've had a Maus model since the days of the Kummersdorf scenario in Steel Panthers, long before World of Tanks!

Cor, I loved Steel Panthers! *nostalgia

Tried to get it running on my newish machine a couple of years ago. It was not happy, sadly.

I'll let you off, Ithoriel - not sure about everyone else I do wonder if WoT is a symptom as opposed to a cause...

Quote from: toxicpixie on 31 August 2015, 10:39:20 AM
Don't get me started on the Maus & the E series WoT has a lot to answer for!

ooops I have one completed  ready to mould the turret

Dave

Quote from: toxicpixie on 31 August 2015, 09:24:49 AM
All the above suggests that the Conquerer will sell - it has the same cachet as the King Tiger (which did see action but didn't prove useful, the relative few of which even made it out the assembly line ). Both are big, hefty terrifying beasts whose looks and mystique far outweigh their battlefield utility.

Should have got more useful working tanks in Greater numbers....AMEN !

If I hadn't gone for Pentomic era-ish in 6mm I'd be tempted myself with Cents & Conqs... Assuming there's a good Saracen model about

Tank warfare analysis shows that the Tiger II was a useful bit of kit in hull down defence with a few pre-prepared positions.  I remember a Tank jockey from the Royal Irish Hussars lecturing us on 'how they had lifted the iDinD (defence in depth)  use of the Chieftain from the Tiger II against the Soviets'.  Like the Tiger II  old Smokey Joe with its Leyland Multi fuel 2 stroke was a give away if it had to move too often.   But if a troop were static with a covering company of infantry, with CGs, 66LAWs and GPMGs there was a confidence that you could cause problems for the hordes of T55s, APCs et al.

At some point with all this Cold War kit and presumably gamers to buy/play with them we will need a few Warsaw Pact infantry circa 1960s.

Quote from: Sunray on 31 August 2015, 01:54:41 PM
Tank warfare analysis shows that the Tiger II was a useful bit of kit in hull down defence with a few pre-prepared positions.  I remember a Tank jockey from the Royal Irish Hussars lecturing us on 'how they had lifted the iDinD (defence in depth)  use of the Chieftain from the Tiger II against the Soviets'.  Like the Tiger II  old Smokey Joe with its Leyland Multi fuel 2 stroke was a give away if it had to move too often.   But if a troop were static with a covering company of infantry, with CGs, 66LAWs and GPMGs there was a confidence that you could cause problems for the hordes of T55s, APCs et al.

At some point with all this Cold War kit and presumably gamers to buy/play with them we will need a few Warsaw Pact infantry circa 1960s.

thats the plan starting from 50's onwards

Dave

The problem with nicking German doctrine is that it didn't work - either against the Russians or the Western Allies... And a primary weapon system that's only useful when on the defensive is also a bit defunct. You could do the same thing cheaper in greater quantities... If it can't manouvre and fight you WILL be either bypassed and rendered pointless or hit with enough to break you no matter the cost to the attacker.

But that's beside the point - my point is that Conquerer will probably sell well, as it's a very shiny & impressive looking price of kit, and such things tend to attract attention from gamers

Quote from: toxicpixie on 31 August 2015, 06:05:41 PM
The problem with nicking German doctrine is that it didn't work - either against the Russians or the Western Allies... And a primary weapon system that's only useful when on the defensive is also a bit defunct. You could do the same thing cheaper in greater quantities... If it can't manouvre and fight you WILL be either bypassed and rendered pointless or hit with enough to break you no matter the cost to the attacker.

We in BAOR had an estimated maximum of three days for clearer heads to prevail - and maintain defence in depth- and its not WW1, being bypassed if you have armour is not a hopeless situation - the WP doctrine was to attack in two combined arms echelons.  We would have  been buttoned up and in NBC mode as Tactical nukes would have already been used. We would have created 'Arras style' confusion but in a grand scale'   ....then the mushroom clouds over was our centres of civilisation would have rendered the politics redundant.......

But that's beside the point - my point is that Conquerer will probably sell well, as it's a very shiny & impressive looking price of kit, and such things tend to attract attention from gamers

Tell you what mate  - lets park the debate for 12 months and see the proof of the pudding.

QuoteWe in BAOR had an estimated maximum of three days for clearer heads to prevail - and maintain defence in depth- and its not WW1, being bypassed if you have armour is not a hopeless situation - the WP doctrine was to attack in two combined arms echelons.  We would have  been buttoned up and in NBC mode as Tactical nukes would have already been used. We would have created 'Arras style' confusion but in a grand scale'   ....then the mushroom clouds over was our centres of civilisation would have rendered the politics redundant.......

That bit being in the middle of my earlier reply confused me greatly

I'm actually not convinced it would have gone to nukes, and despite my reservations about NATOs lack of operational doctrine I'm with the Dutch models from the seventies - I think it's quite possible NATO could have stopped the Soviet advance with conventional weaponry. Tactical doctrine was sound. It's the slightly higher level that I find frightening. NATO seems to have expected something like the 1866 with them as Prussians, and Russian troops and tanks throwing themselves in Stosstaktik style. The Russians rather expected a more 1870 approach with THEM as the Prussians, and potentially superior NATO training and gear being made irrelevant by not fighting the battles that would have been important in. There's always another corps astride your supply lines, cutting you off & overrunning your POL and artillery, whilst you're pinned to the front. Something like the second half of WW2 on the Ost Front (or indeed much of the Western Front, if with less space and higher troop densities and a compressed time period!).

Fortunately we'll never now, or whether anyone would have gone "to save the world, we had to burn the world" and pressed the button 

Conqueror - we'll have to see what the sales figures are like, sor sure. I would expect it to be a leading light but I'm guessing it's got enough "cool factor" that will see a goodly amount sold, and probably generate a lot of interest in early Cold War gaming and other model sales for the period. Definitely more than actually served, I suspect

Sorry about the confusion - I am spoilt by the MHO forum that allows one to dissect a thread in discussion.    Yeah the Cold War is a fading memory.  The Soviets were tactically limited in the main axis of their advance.  Their divisions would have been channelled (a) across the North German Plain and into Belgium and (b) the Fulda Gap.

NATO would have depended on superior equipment and training.   and that vital aspect of initiative.  The Soviets knew this. Conventionally we could have checked them for 3-5 days and cut up their motorised echelons especially if they were spread over a 20-80 km front.

So we had no illusions that the Soviets would have used tactical nuclear weapons in the frontal killing grounds.  Probably as high as 300 + warheads then the advance by five Soviet armies  9,000 + tanks and 9,000 + APCs. (1)  The intention in the 1970s to initiate tactical nukes is confirmed by Kremlin documents.

I am glad the Cold War is over- even if Europe is left without borders.

(1) There is heated debate over the numbers of old tanks and new tanks and the exact era in question.  Simon J Zaligo  in 1989 put the Soviet GSFG  + CGF + NGF as high as 8,025 new and 1,857 old (new was T-64 onwards). Add in the WP and adjacent districts and you have 41,000 odd MTBs . NATO had 14,000 on the ground and 2,000 (M+ 30 days)
Our tactical doctrine was good - but not that good.