T-Trak Module: Fort Talon, CAV Repair Facility by Kristof65

[kristof65]

3 hours ago, Chaoswolf said:

That looks good so far; this is a pretty cool project. I'm going to enjoy seeing how it turns out.

 

Is it safe tio assume that the folks at the club have provided you some specs for track location/spacing/etc so that your module will be able to connect to theirs?

Thanks.

Yes, sort of.  The club didn't provide me with the standards, they use an international standard called T-Trak - it's been around about 20 years and is now "managed" by an older & larger N-scale modular standard called N-Trak.  I'd link to the standards page, but there is a store there, and I'm not sure if that would violate the commerce rules here. If you want to check it out, just google T-Trak. 

I used a kit base by one of the many companies that makes them. 

[Corsair]

Oh yeah, T Trak has a worldwide standard. Started in Japan. This doesn't have a store link.

http://ttrak.wikidot.com/

[kristof65]

So I have my CAV units all built, and need to start thinking about what color scheme to paint them. Standard US woodland or desert schemes, or something else?

 

My internal head cannon is simply that they're just another US Army combat vehicle in the not too distant future, so one of the two common US Army paint schemes makes the most sense,  but then part of me wants to do something cool like a gray urban camouflage. 

[Corsair]

Tiger stripe? Or maybe a training scheme, bright yellow/orange?

[TGP]

How about this?

The building is the paint shed. The diorama tells a story—these CAVs are bring prepped to ship out. 
 

There is a parked row of CAVs in either solid factory grey or OD green outside of it, in the background. Inside the building there are one or two being repainted, primed, or half/completed. 
 

And there is one in the foreground finished, sporting its new Camo scheme because it’s going to get shipped to a foreign country, right to a combat zone. It is a light blue, medium blue, grey scheme similar to this:

 

The recipient country said, “our Air Force pattern camo will do”. 

[kristof65]

18 hours ago, TGP said:

How about this?

The building is the paint shed. The diorama tells a story—these CAVs are bring prepped to ship out. 
 

There is a parked row of CAVs in either solid factory grey or OD green outside of it, in the background. Inside the building there are one or two being repainted, primed, or half/completed. 

That's an interesting idea that I'll have to consider....for a future module. 

I have already started working up the interior of the building as a repair bay, and ordered some parts/pieces to have a welding rig.  I want to eventually add some flickering LEDs inside the building to represent someone welding. 

[kristof65]

So I went down a rabbit hole researching US vehicle camo information, and came across something puzzling to me.  Apparently, every vehicle has a formal pattern and template, and camo paint jobs MUST fall within specifications. Meaning that every vehicle, such as an M1 tank, has the same paint scheme as every other vehicle of that type. 

The reason I find this puzzling is because my understanding of the purpose of camouflage is to break up the patterns that people (and now machines) use to identify objects. It seems to me that if every tank has the identical pattern, that creates an identifiable pattern of its own. I don't understand that. I can understand that each vehicle has certain features that need to be "broken up" so I get the need for a standard beyond willy nilly spray-painting, but it seems to me that a better way to do that would be to have some allowable variations in the standards. 

Anyone have any insight on it that counters my growing belief that camo schemes have become little more than something bureaucratic brass use to flex their authority? 

I also learned that according to standards, any vehicle type that doesn't have a pattern created for it yet is to be simply painted the base green (or tan for desert use) until such a pattern is designed and templates created. 

That has me considering the idea of simply painting the mechs Vallejo U.S. Forest Green and leaving it at that. 

[ratsmitglied]

22 hours ago, kristof65 said:

So I went down a rabbit hole researching US vehicle camo information, and came across something puzzling to me.  Apparently, every vehicle has a formal pattern and template, and camo paint jobs MUST fall within specifications. Meaning that every vehicle, such as an M1 tank, has the same paint scheme as every other vehicle of that type. 

The reason I find this puzzling is because my understanding of the purpose of camouflage is to break up the patterns that people (and now machines) use to identify objects. It seems to me that if every tank has the identical pattern, that creates an identifiable pattern of its own. I don't understand that. I can understand that each vehicle has certain features that need to be "broken up" so I get the need for a standard beyond willy nilly spray-painting, but it seems to me that a better way to do that would be to have some allowable variations in the standards. 

Anyone have any insight on it that counters my growing belief that camo schemes have become little more than something bureaucratic brass use to flex their authority? 

I also learned that according to standards, any vehicle type that doesn't have a pattern created for it yet is to be simply painted the base green (or tan for desert use) until such a pattern is designed and templates created. 

That has me considering the idea of simply painting the mechs Vallejo U.S. Forest Green and leaving it at that. 

There are a few reasons I've heard as to why they wanted to do it that way, including that by having all vehicles painted the same the enemy couldn't tell which units were in the line at any given time, and in the case of NATO where different countries use the same equipment, standardisation across all nations was to prevent the soviets knowing not just which unit, but which country they were facing

Of course, neither of those takes into account that that sort of information leaks like a sieve!

Nowadays I believe camouflage on vehicles is more like a uniform, so you know who friends are vs who enemies are rather than the original plan

 

[SotF]

On 3/14/2023 at 9:46 PM, kristof65 said:

So I went down a rabbit hole researching US vehicle camo information, and came across something puzzling to me.  Apparently, every vehicle has a formal pattern and template, and camo paint jobs MUST fall within specifications. Meaning that every vehicle, such as an M1 tank, has the same paint scheme as every other vehicle of that type. 

The reason I find this puzzling is because my understanding of the purpose of camouflage is to break up the patterns that people (and now machines) use to identify objects. It seems to me that if every tank has the identical pattern, that creates an identifiable pattern of its own. I don't understand that. I can understand that each vehicle has certain features that need to be "broken up" so I get the need for a standard beyond willy nilly spray-painting, but it seems to me that a better way to do that would be to have some allowable variations in the standards. 

Anyone have any insight on it that counters my growing belief that camo schemes have become little more than something bureaucratic brass use to flex their authority? 

I also learned that according to standards, any vehicle type that doesn't have a pattern created for it yet is to be simply painted the base green (or tan for desert use) until such a pattern is designed and templates created. 

That has me considering the idea of simply painting the mechs Vallejo U.S. Forest Green and leaving it at that. 

You might also consider a non-camo option.

 

There's a lot of colors that are a standard paint job while in storage rather than camo. Things like the army green color, though on a mech something more like airforce or navy blue/grey might be a more fitting look, perhaps even go with a german grey

[kristof65]

19 hours ago, ratsmitglied said:

There are a few reasons I've heard as to why they wanted to do it that way, including that by having all vehicles painted the same the enemy couldn't tell which units were in the line at any given time, and in the case of NATO where different countries use the same equipment, standardisation across all nations was to prevent the soviets knowing not just which unit, but which country they were facing

OK, now that actually sounds like military logic.

And by military logic, I don't necessarily mean common sense. 

 

17 hours ago, SotF said:

Things like the army green color, though on a mech something more like airforce or navy blue/grey might be a more fitting look, perhaps even go with a german grey

You bring up another point of discussion. 

I've been using the assumption that mechs would be primarily the domain of the army as they're just another form of ground fighting vehicle, but perhaps the other services would use them? On one hand, they seem like the sort of thing that Marines would love, but OTOH, I can't see them being used very often for beach assaults because of the ground pressure issues (IE, sinking into the sand and getting stuck). 

And that brings up another topic for discussion - what environments would the US Army use mechs in the most? Urban environments? And if they are used primarily/only in urban environments, would they try to use an urban camo? 

From what I've been reading about on urban camo, it's generally regarded as pretty worthless, despite looking cool. Would mechs for urban combat be an exception to that? 

I think I'll still stick with the US Army, given that I want to use Fort Talon as the base name for my planned collection of modules, but it might be cool to have a mech from another service branch parked on one of them. Of course, that doesn't mean much, given how much even our sailor's working uniforms look like our soldier's these days.  As much as I hated them then, I'm a little nostalgic about dungarees. 

[TGP]

11 minutes ago, kristof65 said:

And that brings up another topic for discussion - what environments would the US Army use mechs in the most?

If the bipedal mech ever becomes a thing it will:

 

1) be primarily for use on terrains that an M1 Abrams is physically unable to traverse

 

2) it will be a drone; although it will perhaps have the appearance of a cockpit, it will be controlled by pilot-operators from a remote location. The cockpit “glass” is either a very advanced sensor material or there to give the operators a frame of reference. 

 

 

21 minutes ago, kristof65 said:

I think I'll still stick with the US Army, given that I want to use Fort Talon as the base name

Fort Talon could be a Depot Level maintenance facility. 

[kristof65]

21 minutes ago, TGP said:

If the bipedal mech ever becomes a thing it will:

Personally, I don't think it ever will, at least not as portrayed in CAV or Battletech. They look cool, but they're way too complex with too many weak points when compared to a tracked vehicle carrying the same number/type of weapons. 

I could see human, or slightly larger than human sized drones or robots being used, though, to take the place of the infantryman. 
 

24 minutes ago, TGP said:

1) be primarily for use on terrains that an M1 Abrams is physically unable to traverse

I don't think there is much that an M1 can't traverse that a mech could, is there?   One of the only advantages I could think of was in urban use, where an M1 would have to obliterate vehicles or other obstacles in city streets, while a mech could move around them/push them to the side. 

 

28 minutes ago, TGP said:

Fort Talon could be a Depot Level maintenance facility. 

That was already my thought.  A new base for a new type of war machine. 

I'm going to try and keep it's location rather ambiguous in terms of what sorts of trees and other vegetation I put on the modules and scenery I paint onto the back drops.  

[TGP]

1 minute ago, kristof65 said:

 

32 minutes ago, TGP said:

1) be primarily for use on terrains that an M1 Abrams is physically unable to traverse

I don't think there is much that an M1 can't traverse that a mech could, is there? 

Ever seen an M1 or similar slogging it’s way through:

 

—roadless Amazon rainforest?

—a shallow lake?

—swamp or mangrove forest?

—arctic ice pack?

—off-road in the Rocky Mountains or any other mountains?

—a Boulder field with 3ft or larger boulders?

—Antarctica?

 

There are areas where modern military commanders just don’t send vehicles at all. (Infantry supported by helos only.) 

 

A mech would be an attempt to bring vehicle carried, heavy weapons, into such places. 

[kristof65]

11 minutes ago, TGP said:

Ever seen an M1 or similar slogging it’s way through:

 

—roadless Amazon rainforest?

—a shallow lake?

—swamp or mangrove forest?

—arctic ice pack?

—off-road in the Rocky Mountains or any other mountains?

—a Boulder field with 3ft or larger boulders?

—Antarctica?

 

There are areas where modern military commanders just don’t send vehicles at all. (Infantry supported by helos only.) 

 

A mech would be an attempt to bring vehicle carried, heavy weapons, into such places. 

OK, but out of your seven examples, I don't think a mech would fare much better in most of them.  Kilo for kilo, a similarly armed mech has more ground pressure than an M1, meaning any sort of soft or moist ground is going to be just as or even more problematic for them.  They'd get bogged down in the mud at the bottom of a shallow lake or swamp, and are more likely to crack any ice pack or glacier they're walking upon.  Even if you downsize the mech to the same class as say an M1117 or Bradly AFV, the tracked or wheeled vehicle still has the ground pressure advantage.  And in the rain forest, a tall mech is going to have just as many problems as a wide M1. 

The two examples there where the mech might do better are mountain roads and boulder fields. 

But all of that is really just a side discussion here - I'm obviously going with the rule of cool for these modules, despite my personal reservations about the idea of combat mechs. 

My intention here is to make and show off something that gets train show visitors excited, either about trains or CAV, or both, so I'm really just building an interesting "backstory" for the module. The April show I've committed to include my module in is for a boy scout camporee, so I expect to have a lot of kids ask me where the models came from, as well as about the module. 

[kristof65]

Progress is being made.