80's Joe Vehicles in Real World - Page 9


Page 9 of 34 FirstFirst ... 567891011121319 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 337
  1. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Viperman
    Hmm the Fang has always reminded me of a supped up ultralight since most of these things are customs (esspecialy back in the 80s) it is more than likely not possible to find an insperational counterpart.

    The Lynx bears a somewhat striking but not perfect resemblance to the M109 series.

    As to the HiSS all I can think of in terms of similar vehicals (considering the name; High Speed Sentry)are the old TKs like the M18 Hellcat
    You are probably right about the FANG. It may pull styling from other Helos, but it is most likely its own original.

    The Lynx' resemblance to anything is inconsequential. It would be more helpful to figure out the counterpart for the Wolverine, since that is the base vehicle. We know that the cannon is from the AAI RDF-LT, because that's what the entire Mauler is from. We do not know where the turret comes from. As far as I can tell, there is not even a previous GI Joy toy that uses that turret.

    As far as the HISS' name is concerned, it's not even supposed to be deployed to the battlefield. It's supposed to stay near bases and keep guard. Perhaps that was its original role in the Cobra armies, but then expanded as it proved more useful. Or perhaps Destro gave CC a bargain for buying more of them, and so he used them to fulfill other roles that were neglected, such as the role of MBT.

    There seems to be a certain order of significance to this thread in finding suitable matches. The three most important are styling, then function (its role), and then performance. Styling first because it helps to make a visual match quickly. Considering all the GI Joe/Cobra vehicles have modifications to them, the function is somewhat altered, thus making this way of ID-ing the vehicle a bit unreliable. How the vehicle performs can help make distinctions, as well, but since many vehicles share similar performance specs, it should only be use as a supplement with the previous two methods. On the rare occasion a fourth factor can be considered, and that is the name of the toy. The name is the least reliable method, because whenever it is accurate, then the other criteria have already been met - usually. For example, the APC has a name that pretty much gives it away. However, the styling would have told us what it was even if it was named Bob. The amphibious personnel carrier function is still there, regardless of the name, Although it doesn't reveal anything special about its performance (not that there is anything special), the toy does roll on land, and it does float in water. In the case of the HISS, none of the other criteria have been successful in identifying matches. Now the name is somewhat conflicting with its function. A sentry vehicle stands guard or patrols an area, whereas the HISSes have often been used for offensive and invasive missions.

    I'm glad that you brought up these possible finds. Even if they weren't a match, it gave me a chance to further explain things. I hope my explanations don't create more confusion.
    Last edited by Rooster3D; 05-07-2008 at 04:14 PM.
    Scot, aka Rooster3D
    Rooster3D at deviantArt. Dig around for GI Joe in 3D!

  2. Remove Advertisements


  3. #82
    I have to disagree with you on the Lynx there (I was already aware of the reuse of the gun and body frame) as part reuse was and is still quite rampant in the real world as well. Not to mention it would be far from the first time Hasbro cobled together a "frankenstine" vehical out of already made parts that was still intended to resemble a real life item. (They do it all the time with TF) It should be noted that most of the M109 series are such vehicals made from whichever tank frame was in use at the time and matched with a howitzer.

    I should also point out that the Lynx and the Paladin are a match for all three of your primary methods; styling, function (mobile artillery), and performance.

    Edit: You asked for information on the Wolverine, and the closest I could find was MAR-290 with the Centurion body frame. (another RL frankenstine tank) sorry couldn't resist :P
    Last edited by Viperman; 05-05-2008 at 12:02 AM.

  4. #83
    Anyone else wanna have a go at the styling issue here? I just don't see the similarities at all. The way I see it, the M109 has a body designed to go over and between the tracks. The Lynx/Wolverine chassis mostly just sits between the tracks, with any overhang looking like a well-fitting afterthought. Self-propelled howitzers are usually even more massive than a regular MBT. The Lynx and Wolverine, neither of which are even dubbed as self-propelled howitzers, are smaller than even a light tank such as the RDF-LT/Mauler. I'll grant that there are similarities concerning the "frankenstienization" of other vehicles within their respective universes, but other than the cannon of the Lynx matching up with the RDF-LT's cannon, there exists no sufficient evidence to match the two.

    The "mobile artillery" of the M109 is not matched by the firepower of the Lynx. Going by the Mauler's fudged and unreliable blueprint specs, that cannon fires shells of 125 mm. The actual RDF-LT fired 75 and 76 mm shells, that were 120 mm in length. My guess is that they meant the Mauler cannon to fire 125 mm long shells. A real-life M1A1 Abrams' cannon only fires a 105 mm caliber shell, and it is a tank roughly 1.35x bigger than most other MBTs today. The M109 Paladin fires a 155mm monster, thus dwarfing the Lynx. The Lynx would likely be used as a small bunker buster or anti-vehicle unit at best, whereas the Paladin would be used to decimate large major target areas.

    The Slugger has a more similar performance and role as the M109, but none of the styling. Compared to the Slugger, then yes, the Lynx looks like a Paladin. But let's put it another way: To say that the Lynx draws influence from a Paladin is like saying that the FANG gets its inspiration from the Apache. There may be some generic design cues derived here and there, but not enough to justify it as a match. The Lynx doesn't meet the styling; it doesn't meet the functionality; and it doesn't meet the performance of a Paladin.

    Thanks for the info on the MAR-290. Again, this is a long shot at best. Considering that the early 1980's toys had very little original design, and that the Wolverine is a pretty well detailed vehicle, I'd say there's a pretty close, yet obscure, match out there somewhere -at least for the chassis.

    I hope this doesn't come across as harsh. I just want to present this info as clearly and accurately as possible for the casual reader's sake, with maybe some humor and other tangents thrown in here and there for interest. The last kind of tangent we need, though, is disinformation.
    Scot, aka Rooster3D
    Rooster3D at deviantArt. Dig around for GI Joe in 3D!

  5. Remove Advertisements


  6. #84

    Thumbs up

    Nothing new from me, as I don't know jack about tank undercarriages, but that MAR-290 was sweeeet, and definitely reminds me of the Wolverine.
    I haven't been around much because Facebook is such a time suck. So join me!

  7. #85
    It's not harsh (although some would see it that way for the same reason you make the argument so strongly) your simply standing up for your point of view; the presumtion that the parts used to comprise the vehical comprise its intended use; which I myself feel is slightly in error. Imagine that Hasbro wants to make a mobile artillery tank like the 109. They have two options (if they want to do it while saving money) they can either take one of their larger tanks and make a much bigger gun for it or they can take the large gun from one of their larger tanks and put it on the bed of one of their smaller tanks to give it the apearance of being larger in scale. You tell me which you would choose from a cost effectiveness point of view.

    And your right about the MAR-290 being a longshot, in fact as pointed out I don't think it is I mearly stated that it was the closest I could find. I should point out though that we shouldn't consider the size of the Wolverien carriage to closely though as it was most probably altered from its insperation to make the vehical smaller. I think our best bet here is to try to identify the rockett system which I know I've seen truck mounted but I don't remember what it's called and all the pics I seem to be able to find are of the MLRS and similar systems. One of the biggest problems here is simply that only a very select few of the missile/rockett tank prototypes ever made it to production which may make info on the combined vehical nearly imposible to find.

  8. #86
    Ok I can admit when I'm wrong

    wiki artical
    fas artical

    Looks like the impetuas for the Wolverine/Lynx may have been a little bigger than either of us expected

  9. #87
    Ooops! I meant to say the MAR-290 looked like the Slaughter's Marauders Armadillo missile tank. Still a great find!


    I haven't been around much because Facebook is such a time suck. So join me!

  10. #88
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    manitoba, canada
    I just saw james bond "for your eyes only" on tv, the underwater dive suit near the end of the movie looks like the cobra SNAKE armor suit, especially with the pincers.

  11. #89
    Updated the PAC/RAT missile thingie. Thanks to AK for the lead on that scoop.
    Scot, aka Rooster3D
    Rooster3D at deviantArt. Dig around for GI Joe in 3D!

  12. #90
    Initial post deleted.
    Scot, aka Rooster3D
    Rooster3D at deviantArt. Dig around for GI Joe in 3D!


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts