Its an occupier. It is used when you have occupied something. It transports crates and ****. Then if the locals don't like it, it goes pew pew pew.

My logic is undeniable.

4 hours ago, lologrelol said:

Its an occupier. It is used when you have occupied something. It transports crates and ****. Then if the locals don't like it, it goes pew pew pew.

My logic is undeniable.

Preach!

That generic pilot is a cool upgrade for AT-STs too. An AT-ST with only that pilot as an upgrade seems like an interesting alternative to Weiss and all the guns.

18 hours ago, MasterShake2 said:

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)

1

I've seen a reference to them being called Shermans by contemporary GIs, but for the life of me I don't remember what my source is. (My main WWII interest is the British, so its entirely possible I'm getting things mixed up) While the trend started with the Brits, it was by no means exclusive to them; some named vehicles never served with the British, but ended up with a name. (The M36 Jackson and M26 Pershing come to mind there) These names were doubtless in use before the terms became official, but that's hardly an unusual trend for military vehicles. (looking at you, A-10)

Moral of the story, however, is that a name is a whole lot easier to use than the mouthful of its full designation, and Occupier works for both an easy to use handle, and fits its purpose.

18 hours 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).

1

The Ronson one is pretty well discredited. While the claim was that it was based on an advertising slogan, the slogan in question wasn't used until the 50s. A similar slogan was used in the 20s, but it's a dubious connection at best. The "Tommy Cooker" nickname has more ground to stand on, being a term for a jellied alcohol stove from at least the Great War, and still in use by Tommys at the time. Whether or not the Germans were clever enough to make the comparison is a different issue, however.

14 hours ago, joewrightgm said:

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.

Blame the British for the design

1 hour ago, costi said:

Blame the British for the design

Not British design; have the Rogue One visual guide, and the cross section didn’t point out a boiling vessel...

19 hours ago, joewrightgm said:

Not British design; have the Rogue One visual guide, and the cross section didn’t point out a boiling vessel...

But it does have a mug of tea in it

And now I'm wondering if there's a water-cooled repeating blaster that can be used to boil tea.

2 hours ago, Jabby said:

But it does have a mug of tea in it

Stop!! I must check on this!

EDIT: omg it does. That’s... wow.

Tea making facilities are likely obscured by either the commander or the small section of exterior wall next to the cup.