So after decades of building by the book, I finally snapped today after thinking about a concept (T2K) that showed up in the campaign forum.... a "what if?" dio.
My victim became the Old Skool Tamiya M-247 I picked up about 2 years ago. I first built this kit back in the mid-80s and figured I'd come back to it someday. Apparenlty that new journey started this morning.
Anyway, this is a the base Tamiya kit with some details from the Tamiya M1A2 and resin EAAK armor from AEF Designs.
I've pretty much made this up as I've gone along, let me know if it looks like I'm heading down the right path. CIP panels are just held on with wax at this point.
I plan on painting the vehicle in a tri-color scheme and adding a Verlinden crew member in NBC gear. The vignette will take place at the Battle of Houghton, Mich.
The real test will be finishing this thing, something I have a hard time doing with AFVs!
Armor/AFV: What If?
For those who like to build hypothetical or alternate history versions of armor/AFVs.
For those who like to build hypothetical or alternate history versions of armor/AFVs.
Hosted by Darren Baker
USMC M-247A3 Sgt York w/ EAAK
PorkChop
Wisconsin, United States
Joined: September 11, 2002
KitMaker: 3,179 posts
Armorama: 1 posts
Joined: September 11, 2002
KitMaker: 3,179 posts
Armorama: 1 posts
Posted: Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 06:52 PM UTC
straightedge
Ohio, United States
Joined: January 18, 2004
KitMaker: 1,352 posts
Armorama: 629 posts
Joined: January 18, 2004
KitMaker: 1,352 posts
Armorama: 629 posts
Posted: Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 07:39 PM UTC
Is that a good place to find sponge mushrooms in the springtime, cause that's the only thing I heard of them fighting over in Michigan.
I've always liked the York design, and just thought it was cool looking by itself and it would work great if the enemy just stuck with planes, instead of jets.
Kerry
I've always liked the York design, and just thought it was cool looking by itself and it would work great if the enemy just stuck with planes, instead of jets.
Kerry
HILBERT
Zuid-Holland, Netherlands
Joined: August 07, 2004
KitMaker: 4,808 posts
Armorama: 1,069 posts
Joined: August 07, 2004
KitMaker: 4,808 posts
Armorama: 1,069 posts
Posted: Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 09:25 PM UTC
Nice clean build. But what are those grey things on the turret?? Are those the EAAK's??
And what is an EAAK??
Is this the tamiya kit??
Lots of questions :-)
Thanks for sharing the pics!
Greetz Hilbert
And what is an EAAK??
Is this the tamiya kit??
Lots of questions :-)
Thanks for sharing the pics!
Greetz Hilbert
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 02:51 AM UTC
Looks good. I did the Sgt. York turret on an M1 hull to make a 'what if' M247A1 Sgt. Major York.
I haven't finished it yet, but basically I took the original Tamiya M1 hull and used some of the Eduard PE for the Academy M1A1. I rebuilt the rear grill doors to accurize them and then I did some modifications to the turret to make it look like a more "in service" vehicle. I added a commander's M-60 machine gun, smoke grenade launcher stowage boxes, spare road wheel, track blocks, etc. I also added Barrel Depot aluminum barrels in place of the kit Bofors barrels.
I haven't finished it yet, but basically I took the original Tamiya M1 hull and used some of the Eduard PE for the Academy M1A1. I rebuilt the rear grill doors to accurize them and then I did some modifications to the turret to make it look like a more "in service" vehicle. I added a commander's M-60 machine gun, smoke grenade launcher stowage boxes, spare road wheel, track blocks, etc. I also added Barrel Depot aluminum barrels in place of the kit Bofors barrels.
Posted: Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 03:06 AM UTC
Very cool concept. I love the Sgt York for some reason. I have been collecting anything that I could find that involved the Sgt York program.
I don't know if I like the CIP on the EAAK blocks. Otherwise I think it looks great.
I would follow some of Sabot's ideas and add smoke grenade stowage boxes for the discharges, add a loader or commander MG, etc.
Keep up the great work. I can't wait to see it finished.
I don't know if I like the CIP on the EAAK blocks. Otherwise I think it looks great.
I would follow some of Sabot's ideas and add smoke grenade stowage boxes for the discharges, add a loader or commander MG, etc.
Keep up the great work. I can't wait to see it finished.
Trisaw
California, United States
Joined: December 24, 2002
KitMaker: 4,105 posts
Armorama: 2,492 posts
Joined: December 24, 2002
KitMaker: 4,105 posts
Armorama: 2,492 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 03:17 AM UTC
Wow, that kit looks nice, even for an old Tamiya kit.
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 03:19 AM UTC
Here is one of my initial in progress photos. I need to finish this project. I thought it was pretty cool. I do recall one person bad-mouthing my attempt, only to find out that he was doing something similar but with a German ADA turret.
PorkChop
Wisconsin, United States
Joined: September 11, 2002
KitMaker: 3,179 posts
Armorama: 1 posts
Joined: September 11, 2002
KitMaker: 3,179 posts
Armorama: 1 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 03:24 AM UTC
Thanks guys.
Hilbert:
The base kit is from Tamiya and is built pretty much OOB, the lover hull takes quite a bit of work to fill in the gaps from the old days of motorization....
Yes the gray blocks are EAAK, which is pretty much just a bolt on reactive armor. The set I used is designed for the AAV7.
Rob:
Yeah I followed your build for a while, but lost track of it. I have hadded a 50-cal count for the commander (visibile in the overhead shot). I never thought about the stowage boxes, I may have to be creative in finding space now
Brent:
I'm not sold on CIP placement either. I liked the way they looked when I had them on withouth the EAAK, but not so sure now. Suggestions on alternative placement? Or maybe I'll just leave the side ones off and just stick to the one in the back....
Hilbert:
The base kit is from Tamiya and is built pretty much OOB, the lover hull takes quite a bit of work to fill in the gaps from the old days of motorization....
Yes the gray blocks are EAAK, which is pretty much just a bolt on reactive armor. The set I used is designed for the AAV7.
Rob:
Yeah I followed your build for a while, but lost track of it. I have hadded a 50-cal count for the commander (visibile in the overhead shot). I never thought about the stowage boxes, I may have to be creative in finding space now
Brent:
I'm not sold on CIP placement either. I liked the way they looked when I had them on withouth the EAAK, but not so sure now. Suggestions on alternative placement? Or maybe I'll just leave the side ones off and just stick to the one in the back....
Vodnik
Warszawa, Poland
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 04:51 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Yes the gray blocks are EAAK, which is pretty much just a bolt on reactive armor.
Nathan,
EAAK is not reactive armor. This is passive steel armor. These "boxes" are actually just sheets of bent steel. Take a look at these pictures (from http://www.ferreamole.it website):
Great "what if" York model!
Pawel
salt6
Oklahoma, United States
Joined: February 17, 2002
KitMaker: 796 posts
Armorama: 574 posts
Joined: February 17, 2002
KitMaker: 796 posts
Armorama: 574 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 05:17 AM UTC
Rob,
I remember the conversation as a discussion about using a production turret, Gepard, as opposed to a failed prototype, SGT York. There was no bad mouthing.
SB
I remember the conversation as a discussion about using a production turret, Gepard, as opposed to a failed prototype, SGT York. There was no bad mouthing.
SB
woltersk
Utah, United States
Joined: May 27, 2003
KitMaker: 1,026 posts
Armorama: 654 posts
Joined: May 27, 2003
KitMaker: 1,026 posts
Armorama: 654 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 06:16 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Rob,
I remember the conversation as a discussion about using a production turret, Gepard, as opposed to a failed prototype, SGT York. There was no bad mouthing.
SB
I had done something similar with ROCO 1/87th scale armor. Put a Gepard Turret on a Leo 2 chassis. Not much work involved since the Gepard Turret 'post' fit perfectly into the Leo's chassis 'hole'. The effect was pretty cool...
TreadHead
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 12, 2002
KitMaker: 5,000 posts
Armorama: 2,868 posts
Joined: January 12, 2002
KitMaker: 5,000 posts
Armorama: 2,868 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 06:26 AM UTC
Howdy fellas,
Hey PorkChop, I've never been much of a fan of the Sgt. York (I seem to remember it inheriting the nickname Sgt. 'Dork' for some reason....) But, you've done a splendid job on yours, and have possibly even given it something the real thing lacked (at least as far as the 'looks' department) and that's those EAAK's.
If nothing else it makes the vehicle much more agressive looking!
Keep up the good work.
Tread.
Oh, and Rob, about your version of the Sgt. Major York.....she looks dandy as well. A very interesting idea of using the Abrams lower hull. I just have one bit of critique though......are you sure about that Mauve / Pink Panther camo paint job!?!.......
Hey PorkChop, I've never been much of a fan of the Sgt. York (I seem to remember it inheriting the nickname Sgt. 'Dork' for some reason....) But, you've done a splendid job on yours, and have possibly even given it something the real thing lacked (at least as far as the 'looks' department) and that's those EAAK's.
If nothing else it makes the vehicle much more agressive looking!
Keep up the good work.
Tread.
Oh, and Rob, about your version of the Sgt. Major York.....she looks dandy as well. A very interesting idea of using the Abrams lower hull. I just have one bit of critique though......are you sure about that Mauve / Pink Panther camo paint job!?!.......
Major_Goose
Kikladhes, Greece / Ελλάδα
Joined: September 30, 2003
KitMaker: 6,871 posts
Armorama: 2,071 posts
Joined: September 30, 2003
KitMaker: 6,871 posts
Armorama: 2,071 posts
Posted: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 04:49 PM UTC
well i dont believe that u touched this one !!!!!! Looks like a nice mushroom to pick . Waiting for more progress. So far nice clean and neat .!!! get on it
GunTruck
California, United States
Joined: December 01, 2001
KitMaker: 5,885 posts
Armorama: 3,799 posts
Joined: December 01, 2001
KitMaker: 5,885 posts
Armorama: 3,799 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 06:55 AM UTC
I like both ideas and modeling efforts - they have a home in T2K for sure! I'd love to see 'em all finished!
Gunnie
Gunnie
USArmy2534
Indiana, United States
Joined: January 28, 2004
KitMaker: 2,716 posts
Armorama: 1,864 posts
Joined: January 28, 2004
KitMaker: 2,716 posts
Armorama: 1,864 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 08:00 AM UTC
The wierd thing about this as a "what if" AFV is that it looks rather convincing. Had the Sgt. York actually gone into service and been a good system (that and despite the fact that our air superiority is almost never in doubt), I could see this really existing. As mentioned, the EAAK does look agressive.
I am not sure about the CIP panel on the sides only on the basis that the CIP panels, to my knowledge, have hooks that attach over a metal rod or the like (such as a bustle rack rail on an Abrams). There really is no attachment point for it on the EAAK. But I cannot think of a better place to put them. However, the rear one is perfect.
Very cool idea.
Jeff
I am not sure about the CIP panel on the sides only on the basis that the CIP panels, to my knowledge, have hooks that attach over a metal rod or the like (such as a bustle rack rail on an Abrams). There really is no attachment point for it on the EAAK. But I cannot think of a better place to put them. However, the rear one is perfect.
Very cool idea.
Jeff
Posted: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 08:51 AM UTC
Quoted Text
despite the fact that our air superiority is almost never in doubt
When the York was in design, the problem was that the West really didn't believe they would have superiority. Warpac aircraft numbers were significantly higher than NATO's and their AA defences were everywhere. The US really didn't have anything to counter the air to ground threat except Chapparal and Vulcan, both acknowledged "interim" systems that lacked a lot of sophistication to counter the new aircraft emerging in the 70s and 80s.
Quoted Text
I could see this really existing. As mentioned, the EAAK does look agressive.
True, had the York not been as fond of shooting up General's podiums and hedges as it was, it could very well have looked like this by now.
Quoted Text
Very cool idea.
Indeed.
If you felt up to it (and had access to a lathe or some spare barrels) replacing the Bofors 40mm barrels with something about the same size, but longer would bring a greater amount of realism to the project as short effective range was one of the York's main shortcomings. Perhaps adding an Avenger missile pack to one side could cover that??
I like the EAAK armour. If you have some to spare, you might want to look at covering the corners of the turret and to devise an exterior mantlet for the gun rotor to protect that large area in the middle of the turret.
Just a couple of thoughts, it looks cool just the way it is.
Paul
USArmy2534
Indiana, United States
Joined: January 28, 2004
KitMaker: 2,716 posts
Armorama: 1,864 posts
Joined: January 28, 2004
KitMaker: 2,716 posts
Armorama: 1,864 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 02:07 PM UTC
Quoted Text
(that and despite the fact that our air superiority is almost never in doubt)
To clarify, the remark was meant for the present time, not the time that it was being developed. I should have made it more clearer.
Jeff