RC Tank Warfare community hobby forum

Phil wrote:http://www.rctankwarfare.co.uk/forums/v ... 22&t=11654

Hey Phil .... by god man ... you are fast

nachtjager wrote:The T34 HL , they had to work around the gear box platform, this works around 6mm spacers/fixings on the chassis. All the HL products work to this, helps to keep costs down and reduces part numbers.
So the T34, the sprocket is high because of this, the ideler is the same because the designe team were thinking of looks so made the ideler system the same.
Lowering the sus arms will reduce ground clearance and that can be seen on here the that is the case, not good for battle tanks on rougth ground, from experience this will compromise the running of the model.
Have a look at turning the the motors at an angle to get the out put shafts lower, then lower the ideler, at the same time and also fit a robust ideler system........
This would be a better long term solution.
As it stands the T34/85 HL could be with the "right battle sytem", not too much "after market metal parts" be very hard battle tank to beat on grass..............

Hello Nachtjager...

What you say does make sense...but after performing the mod that Phil did ... the tanks still works fine... yes you loose a lot of ground clearance from the "stock" HL setting...but the tank performs more realistically
I had the same idea you did...about how HL made the design like that on purpose... to suit the operation of their running gear...actually that is not the case... HL already enlarged the back housing ..it is almost four times wider than the WSN... to suit their gearboxes...so modifying that area... will probably make the tank look more unrealistic...

Before i did the mod to my tank i set it up against the WSN for comparison... the idler is actually in the correct place so is the sprocket...by scrunching the HL down and scrunching the suspension you will find ...what Phil did is really all that needs to be done...

I was also pretty surprised that the lower hull measured from the point it joins with the upper... to the underside of the carriage was also the same measurement as the WSN

The only downside to the Phil's mod that i could think of ..is the excessive strain on the suspension springs.... as spring steel can take only so much before snapping...fortunately the springs are the same configuration that the Tiger and early Panther use


As an added note.... you almost have to do the Mod slowly... take your time... as yes ... you may have problems with the rotation of the tracks... the fault is not the drive system... but the tracks themselves...basically saying how HL spaced the teeth on the tracks wasn't all that perfect... they are better suited for the HIGH CLEARANCE running of the tank
I found this out.. because i rushed.... tried a shortcut... and just switch the suspension arms from the left bank to the right... as it looked like it did the same thing as what Phil did ... but without altering much else on the hull....it dropped the profile a little lower than the WSN.... IT "LOOKED" COOLER THAN HECK ....But yes no sooner the problem with the tracks became apparent....as you might be able to move forward but once engaging any other direction... the tracks would lock up ....adjusting the tension would be the solution at this point... but once again... the way they are designed ... you are limited in options ...
So the real problem is not the drive system itself.. but the gap between the teeth...because instead of only having to take off one link... you have to remove two...in order to replicate the original configuration

Suffice to say... after SLAPPING MYSELF for causing more work.... I switched everything back... then using Phil's solution... went step by step.. till the T34 sat at the exact height as the WSN....amazingly enough.... there were no problems with the engagement of the tracks ...and the tank runs well

It's a good MOD....the other option would be a complete hull change out and using torsion springs

nachtjager wrote:The T34 HL , they had to work around the gear box platform, this works around 6mm spacers/fixings on the chassis. All the HL products work to this, helps to keep costs down and reduces part numbers.
So the T34, the sprocket is high because of this, the ideler is the same because the designe team were thinking of looks so made the ideler system the same.
Lowering the sus arms will reduce ground clearance and that can be seen on here the that is the case, not good for battle tanks on rougth ground, from experience this will compromise the running of the model.
Have a look at turning the the motors at an angle to get the out put shafts lower, then lower the ideler, at the same time and also fit a robust ideler system........
This would be a better long term solution.
As it stands the T34/85 HL could be with the "right battle sytem", not too much "after market metal parts" be very hard battle tank to beat on grass..............

By the way nachtjager... not sure about that conclusion you have there....as I'd put my "no option" Tiger one up against the T34 anytime....with the high suspension the T34 performs like the M41 walker ....and has limited climbing ability....I run my tanks through a pretty decent test area...My Tiger blasts through it like a bat out of hell....(I actually do think it's possessed )....There is one area of my test area that spelled doom for all of my rear drive tanks... it's about a three inch wall.. with a buffer of short vines in front of it...the Tiger traverses it with ease ... hitting almost 45 degrees before slamming down on the flat that follows (i swear that tank is SIck )...the Walker...T34...I didn't even want to try the Pershing...failed... getting only half way up the embankment before loosing traction...even my M4 Sherman barely makes it over

The Tiger is basically stock... slightly modified Nylon gearsets....but gives the word BLITZKRIEG new life... it even came stock with blood red headlights ...I nicknamed it THE DEMON









t

fynsdad wrote:I think what Nigel is talking about is a "battle system" equipt tank in an IR battle, as we do at shows/meets as opposed to how the tank performs against others in a driving situation

Greetings fynsdad ....yes ... I do think you are correct... not to refute anything... but stock .. to the best of my knowledge .. the T34 isn't equipped with IR

With that said though....in a BB battle or IR....open field event.... I live by the old idiom.. "If you can't catch me ... you can't shoot me"...and with the Tiger.. since it can go over just about any terrain..suits the saying perfectly....as it would be easy to loop around before the T34 could respond...running circles around it easily

The tank is freakishly powerful... not even my other basic tanks perform like that one...it is truly scary sometimes

With that said... I don't think I would use my Tiger for an indoor event( I can't even imagine lol ... )...probably opt for my yes T/34 (if it was equipped with IR) or Stug either because of their low profiles ...or my Sherman...just because of it's all around clearances

Good to meet you fynsdad... Cheers

Just for an added note... the T34 stock...with 20gm airsoft BBs is extremely accurate...I'm not sure if HL used a tighter bore barrel... but when i tested it (indoor about eight feet or so)..cans less than 2in in diameter were easy targets ...hitting dead center with clear "ping"

mmmm not so sure??? a stug for ir battling nowhere near enough "gun" agility and if you cant catch us you cant shoot us

nachtjager wrote:I think it best to leave you to it, you seem to know what you are doing........

I wish ...I'm just enjoying the hobby... and need to learn much more

teddyt wrote:mmmm not so sure??? a stug for ir battling nowhere near enough "gun" agility and if you cant catch us you cant shoot us

So true... noticed my mistake after posting....too lazy to edit ...fixed barrels are definitely better for full frontal assaults or defensive measure ...and not for hunting in an urban environment ....reason i didn't say my jagdpanther... it crawls... but has so much difficulty maneuvering in tight conditions

Good catch...Teddy... shot with my flanks exposed... tail on fire

Hi,
This is a Short and quicker Answer rather than looking through the 3 pages on the link........

Add some 3.5 mm square plasticard at the bottom of the slot for the suspension arm. This means that the spring cannot 'push' the suspension arm down as far as it did and so the stock 'resting position' for the wheels is higher on the hull side ...........which LOWERS the tank.

Dietrich wrote:Hi,
This is a Short and quicker Answer rather than looking through the 3 pages on the link........

Add some 3.5 mm square plasticard at the bottom of the slot for the suspension arm. This means that the spring cannot 'push' the suspension arm down as far as it did and so the stock 'resting position' for the wheels is higher on the hull side ...........which LOWERS the tank.

Hello Dietrich... it works... only thing you left out is that Phil used two layers .. I used three to match the height of the WSN...
The best thing about the mod is you have gobs of travel left...at least 3/4 of an inch in the hull cuts

Have a good one chap