View Full Version : Pershing Icon Set *DELETED*
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.
May 9th, 2007, 09:48 AM
Just curious Joe, What sources are you using for your hull dimensions?
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.
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...
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 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
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.
May 9th, 2007, 12:52 PM
Thank you, I think so too.. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
May 10th, 2007, 08:17 AM
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
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?
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.
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
May 10th, 2007, 12:32 PM
Yeah, I know, I have quite a few of his publications on artillery. Still, I doubt he would put his name on something he didn't believe was accurate?
Either way. A bit frustrating is what it is.
Thanks for the good talk though Don. Its appreciated.
May 10th, 2007, 02:58 PM
After reviewing the three top view drawings I have of this thing and making a few adjustment to the Icon this seems to be closer to the proportions of the M26. The composite at the lower right has a rear hull shadow line
3x normal size
May 10th, 2007, 03:34 PM
So, what are the actual pixel dimensions on your mod here?
May 10th, 2007, 03:41 PM
fender to fender no shadow line 42x23. Here it is 1:1
May 10th, 2007, 03:54 PM
That is what my M-46 is in that comparison. I did the M-46 because that was what I was workin on and they are "basically" identical outside of the different engine deck and small details of course.
Do me a favor and slap that modded Pershing next to one of your latest T-54s and post it would ya? I want to see how those look in comparison to my Patton / T-54 comparison.
Oh, I forgot to add something about your mod that made me chuckle. You modded one of the things that I changed right off...LOL... The turret ring. My turret is too small. LOL. Detail oriented eyes look a like. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
So all these little detail talks gonna lead to some of my stuff making it into the game again?..LOL...
May 10th, 2007, 04:27 PM
T-55 / M26
3x normal size http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/threads/uploads/519889-m26-t55--3X.png
May 10th, 2007, 05:41 PM
Thank you Don.
I know this is gonna be a resource thing probably but, according to my source the T-55 should be at least 2 pixels shorter & about 2 pixels narrower than the Pershing. It looks like it is narrower, but not shorter...kinda my point, looks too small. I don't know. Screw it, we'll run with it. I'll start with what I used to do. I used to look up about three different sources, and go with the common source. I bought my Greenhill Data Book for the "cure all" of that to save time. Oh well, time to double, and triple check it on everything. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif An update will be coming soon.
May 10th, 2007, 10:16 PM
Joe, there are fuel tanks hanging off the end of that vehicle that make it appear longer. And they do indeed extend the length of the Icon beyond the stated "hull length". Any source that gives hull length should NOT be including the fuel tanks ( though it wouldn't surprise me to find one that does ).
When checking 3 view drawings of the tank the width x length ratio for that vehicle from the front mud guards to the rear of the fuel tanks it comes back as 2.134. Check that Icon and it comes back 2.143. One pixel shorter makes it 2.095 and one pixel longer makes it 2.190 so 2.143 is, using the scale we are using, virtually dead on 45x21 which is what that icon is when the fuel tanks are added to the rear of the tank
May 10th, 2007, 10:43 PM
I am not disputing your T-55 dimensions and of course I know those are 55 gallon drums strapped to the back of it to extends it range. LOL.. Give me a bit of credit here Don...LOL...
Also notice, that I said "screw it" I'll go back to my old way of double and triple checking my resources. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif. I am already in the works of down sizing my Pershing Icon Set and M-46 Pattons, which will eventually lead to down sizing all the other Pattons as well. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif But that is down the road. Plan was to only post my M-26s, M-46s, and M-47s. Because they are the only ones using my ancient icons and was thinkin it would take much to repost them with minor updates from my Yahoo ones. Boy, did that ever back fire...LOL...
But it shall be done! Can't release something not to scale, which didn't even know they were, till now...:( Guess @#& happens after all...LOL...
May 11th, 2007, 11:42 AM
Want to hear something funny about this Don?
http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m103heavy.html, look at the last reference. #6.
That is my book I use for everything...LOL...Oh the conflicts of resourses. LOL.
May 11th, 2007, 11:21 PM
OK, but for that vehicle does the dimensions agree with that book or that website?
May 12th, 2007, 12:05 AM
May 21st, 2007, 01:35 PM
To me the T-55 seems pixels shorter than the M-26. Doublecheck the shadows..
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.