Incredibly Terrible! Took the model that made DeEspona [link], the model has errors: tracks, mask gun, the guiding wheel, rollers, lamp, monitoring devices, periscopes! Errors are not corrected. Added their ridiculous errors: hatch on the tower opens upward, handles on the hatches and tower, axle tracks, ringbolt. Incomplete texturing (apparently), without any processing (dirt around the bolts, although the bolts are clean ... and. etc.). Image rendering is horrible! Large tracts in black, dark gray background, even for wip-render image very bad.
I think the author (rOEN911) has little knowledge of tank technique. Also in graphics many errors, likely the author in 3D graphics still only newcomer or just dilettante.
Dude...First of all your attitude,you are rude and nobody asked you opinion and i dont care .
Now i will become rude and I will continue by saying that you are a total retard...
Its simple,you comment in my WIP (work in progress) texturing of the KV-1E were i place a not finished sceme.(daaahh its WIP)
Second I am not using the Crapy DeEspona models ...are shit as hell,also if i would like to use them i am not going to ask your permission...And with my only two months experience with 3D programs i think i could find solution to the errors...But like i said i dont like deEspona models.
The Tank is Freeware for download from ontarget3d [link] and to Foundation 3D you can find the topic that the author made while was building this model.
I am not doing this kind of art Professionally ,i am doing this because i like it...i would like to say that i have no knowledge of tank techniques but dude... My main job before years was to make plastic models for world wide competitions like IPMS and companies like Airbus and Boeing and my speciality was WW2 tanks and dioramas and i won Twice Gold medal to the European competition of IPMS (International Plastic Modellers Society) to the 1/35 scale.
If you could spend 10 seconds to my gallery you will be able to see my finished model here [link] with the complete textures...but I expressed my opinion above for you.
I cant explain this personal attack but you are not welcome to comment again to any of my pictures.
KV-1 was an excellent machine, the only truly practical heavy tank of the war until 1942-1943. When I think about it, as a military historian, only the Soviets really came to develop heavy tanks properly. German and Allied heavy tank designs suffered from a lack of mobility: the German designs tended towards being too heavy for true strategic/operational mobility, and by the end of the war often weighed so much that a bridge was an obstacle for them that needed to be bypassed, and the Allied designs simply weren't very good, usually by virtue of having a poor gun - the Matilda is the best example of this, a vehicle that could have been decisive in the early war years if only it had carried an effective gun in the 3" (75/76mm) range, as KV here did with the 76,2mm cannon. KV, "bratishka nash," as the song goes, was superceded by the IS series of "breakthrough" tanks which were heavy tanks with a specific doctrinal role and were very effective in that regard, brilliant.
I think some of your battle scene work with this KV model would be outstanding; you could do an early war piece where Pak 35/36 is failing to penetrate and is simply crushed by KV, some interesting perspective opportunities present themselves in that concept. Another would be the immobilized KV having a 88mm FlaK dragged up behind it to knock it out, as happened in early 1941 in the border regions, as recorded by the German General Staff: a KV penetrated deeply into a German division, destroying everything it came across until its left track was knocked off by an antitank gun, which was then destroyed in a gun fight with the tank. The Germans knew about the efficacy of 88mm as an antitank weapon, and dragged one up while distracting the KV to knock it out.
You're going to have to explain to me how the "T-54 is another line," because the Comet is simply the British finally realizing the Cruiser concept is invalid and making a heavy enough 'cruiser' to survive contact with anything not mounting the German long 75 or the 88. The T-34 was much the same execution but much sooner than the Comet, and produced in meaningful numbers; the T-34 carrying on the BT-5/BT-7/T-26 lineage. T-54 is the ultimate expression of the T-34 as the continuation of Tukachevskii's "Long Range Tank" concept. In this it really isn't any different from the Comet/Centurion. If we're going to bring it back to WW2 for the beginnings of the MBT concept, I would propose to you that the T-34 prototypes were the first true MBTs - all the more so if you cite Comet/Centurion and the piddly numbers they were produced in back in 1945.
That's not good methodology nor is it demonstrably true. Get back to me when you have a definition of MBT other than "Comet and Centurion." I have enjoyed the conversation up to the point of "Nyah, because I said so." For future reference, when looking at military technological developments - because there is a reciprocity of action between opponents in all things, including design advances such as new tanks - the concept of a "Western Line" and "Eastern Line" is fundamentally invalid.