Three New Admiral Toys 1:72 Tanks Unveiled

lightning2000 · Post by **lightning2000** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 7:36 pm

Hi,
According to a post by an Admiral Toys representative, three more tanks are expected after the current batch. In the queue are a M41A3 Walker Bulldog (no word on the livery or client nation), a Russian Su-85 tank destroyer, and a Japanese Type Chi-Ha tank (finally, a Japanese vehicle!). Looks like Admiral has an ambitious production schedule in the works...

Lightning2000
www.themotorpool.bigstep.com
www.themotorpool.net

hworth18 · Post by **hworth18** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 7:46 pm

Some additional info from AT:

These are the tanks that we have in the works now:
Panzer III L
Panzer III H
Panzer III M (with skirts)
Crusader
M-10 Tank Destroyer
SU-85
M41A3 Walker Bulldog
Type 97 Japanese Medium Tank
More to be listed soon..

Post by **aferguson** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 4:58 am

what is the fascination with the walker bulldog?

flpickupman · Post by **flpickupman** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 5:00 am

I was curious about that as well.

Tshintl · Post by **Tshintl** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 5:01 am

I don't like that particular one either, but the rest look great.

easy8 · Post by **easy8** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 5:07 am

Yeah, I guess the Walker has a nice look to it IMHO, but from what I've read, the US never even used it in actual combat...I'll probably pass on that one, but as Tshintl posted, the rest look good!

easy8

Ziegler2112 · Post by **Ziegler2112** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:17 am

aferguson wrote:what is the fascination with the walker bulldog?

I ask the same question about the Sherman (Tommy Cooker) tank. That piece of junk was a death trap, yet it's very popular among collectors. Go figure.

lightning2000 · Post by **lightning2000** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:25 am

Hi,
Didnt they use Bulldogs to portray US tanks taking on the Germans in the film "Battle of the Bulge"? Or were they Chaffees? Havent seen the movie in a few years and cant remember. I know they used M60s to double as German King Tigers. Talk about a film that could use a remake using today's CGI technology and reenactment outifits...

To me, a tank is a tank, and I can see the inherent beauty in any piece of armor, from a lowly WWI lawnmower to an M1. I kind of like it despite what other people have said...

Lightning2000
www.themotorpool.bigstep.com
www.themotorpool.net

digger · Post by **digger** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 am

Ziegler2112 wrote:
aferguson wrote:what is the fascination with the walker bulldog?
I ask the same question about the Sherman (Tommy Cooker) tank. That piece of junk was a death trap, yet it's very popular among collectors. Go figure.

You're right, the Sherman was historically insignificant, saw little combat and was on the losing side of history.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 10:31 am

I am pleased with the planned releases of Admiral. Like I've said before, someone, please produce some tanks that are not available in 1/72 scale, and have the quality of Dragon/CDC. The last Sherman produced in 1/72 was the FOV with rollers, so another Sherman doesn't bother me, esp. if it is 90% metal. You don't have to have a fascination with the Walker Bulldog to produce it. If you don't branch out then you are going to have a Tiger, Tiger II, Panther, Jagdpanther, and Jagdtiger, over and over and. . . . oh, I forgot that's already happened. Admiral Toys, please keep it up and give us fresh new tanks - Japanese, Italian, French, British, etc. I wouldn't mind another Tiger and King Tiger, but please do not make 10 versions of each!

daverose1 · Post by **daverose1** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:16 am

Shermans saw little combat? What tank are we talking about here? M4 and it's decendants? The Sherman first saw service at El Alamein in 1942, served all through North Africa, up through Italy, Normandy across France and into Germany. It also served in smaller numbers in the Pacific. Then went on to serve as the standard tank of the IDF 1956, and served extensively in the Six Day War in 1967 and saw action in the Yom Kippur war in 1973. Let's see the Panther went into service late '43 and by mid '45 was done. One other point, the Shermans problems had less to do with it's design than been counter stupidity in army ordanance. And by the way, British tanks cooked tommies about as well as did M4s.

Oh, forgot something, in all of the above were ever it went, that army won. Also forgot to mention Korea.

Telly and his buddies were driving M24 Chaffee's, had to have something REAL small to make the German "Tigers" look bigger

easy8 · Post by **easy8** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 12:35 pm

daverose1, I think digger was being sarcastic...

But hey, nice job defending "the piece of junk"...as you can tell by my avator and username, I'm a Sherman fan, no matter what!

easy8 (piece of junk with better suspension

)

daverose1 · Post by **daverose1** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 2:01 pm

Thanks eightball! I love the Sherman BECAUSE it's the most overly maligned tank of all time. Heck, the M13/40 gets more props than the Sherman does! It also frustrates me that we can't get cool Shermans in 1/32nd scale. Driftiing off topic......

Read You Later
David

Uh....Sorry Digger!

OzDigger · Post by **OzDigger** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 5:22 pm

I'm really looking forward to more tanks choices as Dragon seem to be stuck in Germany.

Sherman talk.
From memory there were plenty of M48s in 'Patton', but I could be wrong.

As for the Sherman in WWII. Most people recognise it lacked armor and firepower. It was reliable and faster than most allied tanks but the narrow tracks meant it was easily bogged. It also had large turning circle of about 60 feet which meant it was not as manoevable as some people believe.

The high profile also made it more obvious and vulnerable on the battlefield. It earned the name Tommy Cooker (from Germans) and Ronson (from British - lights first time) as the crews tended to store ammo in the sponsons and turret, and these cooked off when penetrated. Later versions had water enclosed ammo storage in the base of the tank and were less likely to explode.

It's main advantages were its stabilised gun and fast turret traverse which meant it could fire on the move and the gun could be brought to bear much faster than the German tanks. Not that it did much harm when it hit them unless from behind or at close range.

The Sherman was basically a victim of the US Army tank doctrine that required US tank destroyers to engage enemy tanks. However the tank destroyers lacked crew protection and were usually only used in shoot and scoot or ambush situations.

Of course the Germans cared little for US doctrine and their tanks etc destroyed Shermans by the thousands - about 50,000 being made. It was a good design in 1942 but few significant modifications were made to it during WWII apart from the 76 mm gun. Therefore it often suffered in battle. Shermans post WWII had significant modifications to armor and armament etc.

In a nut-shell it was a medium tank out classed by the Panther (also a medium tank) and the German heavies. The Russian T34/85 was a much better tank in WWII than the Sherman as most US experts will acknowledge.

Timbo · Post by **Timbo** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 10:20 pm

As OzDigger alluded to, the Sherman's only real advantage on the battlefield was numbers. With a few exceptions, mass production won the war for the Allies not better equipment.

Tshintl · Post by **Tshintl** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 11:52 pm

Getting back on topic about diecast tanks, Admiral announced the other day their first release in on a ship heading our way. For anyone who hasn't seen it yet, below is a picture from their website showing us what to expect. We will also eventually see a Panzer III with side skirts as one picture they have shows a hole on the side of the tank that will connect to the skirts.

Small Scale Military Headquarters

Three New Admiral Toys 1:72 Tanks Unveiled

Three New Admiral Toys 1:72 Tanks Unveiled

Bulldog

Sherman?

Shermans Forever