Pershing Icon Set *DELETED*

oragus · #1 May 8th, 2007, 08:46 PM

Thought I would get rid of these, since they aren't correct. Check for Pershing Icons v2.0 for corrected ones.

DRG · #2 May 9th, 2007, 09:48 AM

Just curious Joe, What sources are you using for your hull dimensions?

Don

oragus · #3 May 9th, 2007, 10:36 AM

I believe I used the "M-26 In Action by Squadron Signal" for the dimensions on those icons? It was a new release when I did those icons. I checked when I uploaded them to the Yahoo site. It says July '05. Been a while since I did those.

But I just checked myself with my usual source book, because you asked me what I used, "The Greenhill Armoured Fighting Vehicles Data Book" and my icon may be a tad big.

M26 Medium (Pershing)

Hull length: 22'4" (6.80m)
Width" 11' 6" (3.50m)

That would put the hull at 44.6 round up 45 pixels long by
23 pixels wide. My current icon is 46 x 24. Close but not exact.

Joe

oragus · #4 May 9th, 2007, 10:41 AM

I know my old Pershings in the game now I submitted for MBT years ago are WAY WAY WAY outta scale. That was one of the ones I did prior to knowing about the 1:6 scale. You may or may not remember that. Remember the whole S tank episode. ( I know, I know, one of the many times we went rounds on different topics...LOL...) I submitted it and you asked me why it was so small? I was going off of just how they looked...LOL... Then you actually gave me the scale and dimensions for it and I was like WOW was I WAY off...LOL...No problems since then. MAN that was a while ago now...LOL...

DRG · #5 May 9th, 2007, 12:10 PM

The width for these things seems to be consistantly 11' 6" in all the sources I've checked but the lengths vary. There are the usual problems with "length" given as overall ( including gun overhang ) length but the sources I do find that give the hull length in the range of 6.33m - 6.51m ( 20.76 ft - 21.36 ft ) with another source giving the hull length of 21' 2"

This website http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m26pershing.html breaks things down even further giving a "Length without gun, with sandshields and pintle" of 249.1" ( 632.7cm ) = 20.76 ft. and "Width over sandshields" of 138.3" (351.3cm) = 11.525 ft.

The two line drawings I have when checked as a ratio of width to length is 1.8. Given that we know the width all sources seem to agree on is given to be 11'6" ( 23 pixels ) that would make the hull length for an Icon at this scale to be 42 pixels ( 21 ft ) so the original Icon at 22x39 pixels isn't really any further "off", dimension wise, than the new one at 46 x 24. The new one is prettier though

Don

oragus · #6 May 9th, 2007, 12:51 PM

Well, looks like another documented resource issue...LOL...what can we do...LOL...

The ultimate resource for anything remotely involved with the Patton development would be in "Patton A History of the American Medium Tank, by R.P. Hunnicutt". That guy puts insane amount of detail into his books. You name it its in there. Unfortunately, it comes at a heavy price. A new, if you can find one, is around $90.00, or least it was I was looking around it. I currently don't have the extra funds to drop on a book...

If anyone has this book on here, look up the dimensions at the back of the book for the M26 (T26E3). It will give us any thing we want to know.

oragus · #7 May 9th, 2007, 12:52 PM

Thank you, I think so too..

DRG · #8 May 10th, 2007, 08:17 AM

Quote:

oragus said:
Well, looks like another documented resource issue...LOL...what can we do...LOL...

The ultimate resource for anything remotely involved with the Patton development would be in "Patton A History of the American Medium Tank, by R.P. Hunnicutt". <snip>

The first source quoted on that website I posted was Hunnicutt, R.P. Pershing: A History of the Medium Tank T20 Series. Bellingham, WA: Feist Publications, Inc., 1996. and the last source quoted was Hunnicutt, R.P. Patton: A History of the American Main Battle Tank, volume 1. Navato, CA: Presidio Press, 1984.

IDK why there would be so much variance in regards to length from so many sources for that vehicle unless some measure just the hull and other measure the mud guards etc but that website included them in the overall length ( and width )and that's what we use to build an Icon

Don

oragus · #9 May 10th, 2007, 10:25 AM

Yeah, I saw that those were listed in that sites references after I actually scrolled all the way down to the bottom.

It does make we wonder that too, you would think they would be at least close. Someone must have had the measuring tape wrapped around their leg when they were measuring it...LOL...

Here is the kicker though, I resized a M-46 Patton to that sites specs and now it looks too small. I put it next to my T-54/55 and now the T-54/55 is larger than the M-46? Ah, yeah, okay...LOL... Some where something is off? Either there is just a general error some where with specs or my "The Greenhill Armoured Fighting Vehicles Data Book" is flat out wrong. I have a hard time believing that Ian V. Hogg was involved with something flat out wrong. That guy, to the best of my knowledge, has always produced good quality work? If it is my book, that sucks! I have made a ton of icons based on its info.

Either way, who knows, when there are so many different resources published in book form and noted on the web. Could be a combination of everything? Who knows?

Joe

I attached the resized M-46 next to a T-54 with the original M-46 on the bottom. Just so you see what I am referring too.

DRG · #10 May 10th, 2007, 11:55 AM

Hogg's specialty is guns not dimensions of tanks. I doubt very much if he had anything at all to do with the dimensions of the vehicles listed in that guide

Don