Jump to content
manoftomorrow010

Full TX-225 Article

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Obvious_Ninja said:

Yeah. I noticed this wasn't posted... hopefully this means its "on way."

I thought the landspeeder and occupier tank came out at the same time? April/May

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/3/2019 at 7:23 AM, Jake the Hutt said:

Its a flatbed. Except for the cabin for the pilot and commander no one gets in it. Troops ride on the flatbed part.  

As an owner of the R1 visual guide I can confirm that it has no interior compartement outside the space of the driver, commanders and gunners seats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find Occupier to be the easiest and follows US tank naming conventions (as well as that of a few other nations).  Few people, if anyone, refers to things as the M4, M1, or M2; usually it's Sherman, Abrams, or Bradley.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Alpha17 said:

I find Occupier to be the easiest and follows US tank naming conventions (as well as that of a few other nations).  Few people, if anyone, refers to things as the M4, M1, or M2; usually it's Sherman, Abrams, or Bradley.  

Sherman tanks are underrated by modern Geekdom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

Sherman tanks are underrated by modern Geekdom.

Indeed they are, while certain other tanks named after large felines tend to be overrated, or at least their many problems ignored. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Alpha17 said:

Indeed they are, while certain other tanks named after large felines tend to be overrated, or at least their many problems ignored. 

Nowadays it's more of the opposite I noticed, German tanks are often Said to break down every 5 minutes, or never arriving to battle, etc. While the Sherman and T-34 are hailed as the ultimate tanks, and their respective mechanical problems are ignored. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Alpha17 said:

Indeed they are, while certain other tanks named after large felines tend to be overrated, or at least their many problems ignored. 

 

7 minutes ago, Vode said:

Nowadays it's more of the opposite I noticed, German tanks are often Said to break down every 5 minutes, or never arriving to battle, etc. While the Sherman and T-34 are hailed as the ultimate tanks, and their respective mechanical problems are ignored. 

I find it's more that people want to make a meaningless comparison about the two tanks in a standup fight against each other. If your tanks are directly fighting other tanks, then mistakes have been made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Alpha17 said:

I find Occupier to be the easiest and follows US tank naming conventions (as well as that of a few other nations).  Few people, if anyone, refers to things as the M4, M1, or M2; usually it's Sherman, Abrams, or Bradley.  

I still like to call it the Gav CAT, but calling it the Occupier makes sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that Sherman, Stuart, Grant/Lee etc. were the British designations originally so if we follow the logic of naming them after Civil War generals we should call it the Dooku.  It's hard to take in a straight up fight but if you flank it, it falls apart. 

 

Just kidding. I'm going to refer to it as a 'badly designed bucket'.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I rather like this vehicle.  Its size means it can both take advantage of cover and you can hide from it unlike the at st.  

I'm not so sure about the passenger rules.  Id rather have had the passengers take suppression as it takea hits and only be wounded when the vehicle becomes damaged or destroyed.

Regardless, I'm looking forward to more vehicles on the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 4/4/2019 at 12:54 PM, Alpha17 said:

I find Occupier to be the easiest and follows US tank naming conventions (as well as that of a few other nations).  Few people, if anyone, refers to things as the M4, M1, or M2; usually it's Sherman, Abrams, or Bradley.  

 

Sherman is an interesting example because it was almost never referred to as "Sherman" at least by US troops in WW2.  It was more commonly called the M4 or just eh Medium as it was the only medium tank in service with the US at the time.  The Soviet name for lend-lease M4's was "Emcha" or just M4.  The name Sherman was originally adopted by the British because Winston Churchill was getting confused by the understandably convoluted alphabet soup that was British naming conventions at the time.  Some US servicemen serving alongside Brits used the term, but it was in the minority among US soldiers at the time.  It wasn't officially codified as the Sherman by the US department of defense until much later in the war (I think Spring '45, but I could be wrong.  I just know it was really late)

giphy.gif

Edited by MasterShake2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, MasterShake2 said:

 

Sherman is an interesting example because it was almost never referred to as "Sherman" at least in WW2.

If the Sherman is  a Tommy Cooker, does the make the Occupier a Bucket Boiler? Passengers and crew are likely to take casualties after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Katarn said:

If the Sherman is  a Tommy Cooker, does the make the Occupier a Bucket Boiler? Passengers and crew are likely to take casualties after all.

 

True story:  a lot of the Sherman's unofficial nicknames (Ronson being a big one) are difficult or impossible to source via contemporary sources.  In other words, looking back at reference materials, these might be nicknames come up with after the fact as opposed to ones that were in common usage at the time (I don't think anyone has found a contemporary source using the term Ronson).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 4/4/2019 at 12:58 PM, TauntaunScout said:

Sherman tanks are underrated by modern Geekdom.

 

The German military was pretty charitable to Shermans.  If you check their material on how Tigers and Panthers should engage Sherman tanks, the danger areas outlined, even for the earlier 75mm guns, seem pretty generous by modern understanding.  The Germans also seemed to think that 800m was about the limit of the range they could engage Shermans at, but that number just seems low.  It's possible the numbers are encouraging tank crews to be more cautious than not because, in practice, when a Sherman and Panther met, 80% of the time, the tank that shot first won, regardless of which vehicle they were in.

PiercingVapidBison-size_restricted.gif

Edited by MasterShake2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, MasterShake2 said:

 

True story:  a lot of the Sherman's unofficial nicknames (Ronson being a big one) are difficult or impossible to source via contemporary sources.  In other words, looking back at reference materials, these might be nicknames come up with after the fact as opposed to ones that were in common usage at the time (I don't think anyone has found a contemporary source using the term Ronson).

Here's one: https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1945/mar/13/demobilisation-and-re-employment  

HC Deb 13 March 1945 vol 409 cc95-202
It has been in all the newspapers that the German name for "the admirable Shermans," is the "Tommy Cooker."

By that point they should have been safer but our politicians do seem to live several years, sometimes decades, in the past.

 

 

I quite like the idea of bucket boilers in opposing armies.  Finally my airspeeders will have something to shoot at.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Katarn said:

Here's one: https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1945/mar/13/demobilisation-and-re-employment  

HC Deb 13 March 1945 vol 409 cc95-202
It has been in all the newspapers that the German name for "the admirable Shermans," is the "Tommy Cooker."

By that point they should have been safer but our politicians do seem to live several years, sometimes decades, in the past.

 

 

I quite like the idea of bucket boilers in opposing armies.  Finally my airspeeders will have something to shoot at.

 

 

 

That's actually a great example to expand on how a modern understanding of past events can be colored by a misunderstanding at the time.  In that instance, it's not the Germans calling the Sherman a Tommy Cooker, it's the British saying the Germans are calling it a Tommy Cooker.  To move forward with another misunderstanding along the same lines, it was commonly believed at the time by crews of Sherman VC (more commonly known as Firefly) tanks with their longer 17pdr gun that Germans had orders to shoot their tanks first.  They even went so far as to camouflage the end of the gun barrel to make it look more like a 75mm Sherman.  Contemporary British sources will cite this.  No contemporary German source has ever verified it as far as I am aware.  Not a direct order, note, or even just a "hey you" on the matter.  In that light, we are forced to question if this was actually a thing or if the British just thought it was a thing.

Edited by MasterShake2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, MasterShake2 said:

In that instance, it's not the Germans calling the Sherman a Tommy Cooker, it's the British saying the Germans are calling it a Tommy Cooker. 

Worst case, it's the press indirectly calling them Tommy Cookers I suppose.  I mean, 'someone' is using the phrase, even if it's not the military.

I've reconsidered- 'bucket burner' is better than 'bucket boiler.'  TX-225 Bucket Burner- if we get it on the holonet now it will be gospel by the time or Rey+ co.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the model. But at the same time, as a tread head, the design is . . . Deficient.  

 

No turret, but hey, the Swedish S tank doesn’t have a turret, so maybe the empire treats it is more than an assault gun?  

 

But the hull extends too far forward for effective trench crossing, it seems nose heavy.  

 

I think though its cool.  Not AAT cool, but cool.  Because that is a great sci-Di tank design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure GAV in this case stands for "General Armored Vehicle" (following naming convention of earlier designs which are LAV or HAV). Given the AFV the TX-225 prop is based on is also a general purpose model which can be configured into tracked recon vehicle with a turret, an air defense (with SAM launcher) vehicle, ambulance, engineering vehicle, C&C vehicle or what the flatbed version the TX is based on is used for, carrying a minelaying system. Given the borrowed design and the similar sort of designation, I expect the Occupier is a similar system, called a "tank" because audiences can follow that better than AFV (which may have people wondering what home movies have to do with it). The version we see in the box and in R1 is being used as basically an armored truck/people mover for valuable cargo and is better suited to the terrain of Jedha than the bulkier, repulsor based RTT. Considering I'm pretty sure the pintle-mounted commander gun was added by FFG, depending on future release types they could possibly make more variants with cards and mini upgrades.

Or maybe reference variations in the RPG later, like the sweet T-2E Engineering Vehicle which I will only ever see in Fully Operational, despite having art for it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...