Rubicon Models
Rubicon Models => Wish Lists => Topic started by: neffer38 on December 06, 2019, 06:24:10 am
-
Been think about this all day.
Maybe BT-5/7 kit and later a BT-42 upgrade kit?
I have 17 BT-7s in 15mm love getting them all out for a Barbarossa game. Fast lil guys. The finnish BT-42 makes me chuckle
Cheers
-
Sounds good to me , but only after I get my T-70 tanks
-
Yes, a BT-7 would be very nice. In fact, Rubicon Models would do well if they made...
BT-7
T-70 and SU-76
Soviet ZIS-3 AT-Gun
BA-64 – one of the most produced Soviet armored cars.
Instead, we got an M-26 Pershing. Not that I'm complaining because the M-26 will be a much deserved warm welcome from those gaming the Korean War. However, just like the King Tiger (Tiger II), not sure if I will get one, but given a choice, I would be more interested in the M26 than the King Tiger. Mostly because the M26 is more useful - not just used in late war WW2.
However, the SU-76 was also used in the Korean War, and I know many (including myself) that would buy that plastic model kit in a heart beat if Rubicon Models produced one.
-
I have a king tiger (resin), and i need 3 for a battlegroup sized platoon. Noticed Rubicon were doing a King tiger kit, the the rescent Warlord sale came up and my head went blank hammering the buy button and ordered two italeri plastic king tigers totally for getting the Rubicon anouncment :-\ ....I'll still buy one though, if only to paint and do an interior.
Ive added a Pershing to my basket and removed so many times! The resin kit was 33% off and it got added and removed in favour of the Jackson M36-B1 which i wasn't aware of. I do want a Pershing, I imagine it will happen at next years Telfords model show when I walk past the Rubicon store ;D .
Hmm id have to say BT over T-70....mostly cause i can only really afford to field one horde for that era at 28mm ;D , Even having to get my attik converted to store every thing
-
Why a resin M36 (B1 or otherwise) as our gracious Hosts have suitable kits (with an M10 thrown in if the B1 is a Sherman [hull]).
-
IRC the B1 was the 90mm gun turret on a M4A3 hull
-
IRC the B1 was the 90mm gun turret on a M4A3 hull
Indeed it was. Too many turrets and not enough hulls. Still not the tank that tank destroyer branch wanted though.
-
You know what, I hadn't realized Rubicon did a M36. Some thing to add to the long list.
I would have still picked up the B1 However. I hadn't realized until recently it existed and it makes for a nice piece (and it was in the 33% sale).
I was under the impression that the B1 existed due to high demand for the 90mm gun. Whilst they were producing the M36 in the factories they sent out engineers into the field to retrofit the 90mm turret on the the M4A3 hulls because the demand was that great.
-
The 90mm wasn’t really wanted, hence why the M18 Hellcat was only equipped with a 76mm which was good enough to deal with most issues.
-
IRC the B1 was the 90mm gun turret on a M4A3 hull
Thanks, that is what I thought.
-
Yes I was under the impression the 90mm really wasn't that great or much better than the 76mm. Much like when they tried to replace the 57mm with the 3inch (76.2) and the effectiveness was hardly noticable yet heavyier .
-
Calibre is not always helpful - the best Allied anti-tank gun was 76.2mm.
The six pounder with cutting edge rounds was better than its drilled out equivalent, but did not have the HE weight.
I do not have access to my books, but I remember reading in one of the Osprey books that M10s were dug in on a slope for use as artillery once their tank hunting capacity was exhausted.
For one of the best examples of calibre (not calibres) not being a good measure, the Soviet 122mm gun on the IS series. It did not give a greater penetration advantage than the 85 mm on the T34, but would likely shatter the target - and make a bigger hole in the landscape.
Of course this is rather off topic of Soviet light tanks.
-
The old 3inch AT gun (also 76mm) was king early war...
But then they had a choice between the M3 76mm that was half the weight or the 90mm that was the same weight..
Tankers wanted the 90mm but couldn’t get it on a Sherman (although there was one test M4A3 with a Pershing turret..)and tank destroyers wanted the 76mm but ended up with the design compromise of the Jackson.
But in the end, the 90mm ended up on the Pershing and the 76mm ended up on the hellcat and everyone lived happily ever after.
We could talk about the 17pdr (also a 76mm gun), but it was awful and I always end up upsetting a 17pdr fanboy who like some to post armour penetration tables ;)
But as far as M10s being tank hunters? Bit of a myth. As with all US tank destroyers. They spent most of their time providing indirect artillery support and their role as tank destroyers was defensive and not offensive.
-
Wasn't a lot of the problem ammunition ? IRC the 90mm started out as a AA gun and although fitting it into an open top turret was easy , designing the AP ammo took time .
-
I’ve not heard about s shortage or time to develop an AP round being an issue. More that they believed it just wasn’t needed.
The M26 almost didn’t happen, because why bother? The war is almost over. The US encountered almost no tigers and the 76mm could deal with panthers. Oh wait, look at the soviets, what if they don’t stop, yeah let’s start that M26 programme up again...
Same way the 76mm was good and they thought that it was all that was needed. Then they realised it wasn’t and brought in the HVAP round for it. They had the plans for it, they knew how to make it, they just couldn’t make enough of them.
-
The US encountered almost no tigers and the 76mm could deal with panthers. Oh wait, look at the soviets, what if they don’t stop, yeah let’s start that M26 programme up again...
haha, Never thought about that. Yeah the 17pdr is a good debatebable topic, and the least said teh better ;D
-
Okay, maybe I should have said "tank killing days" being over.
The M10 is very like a Marder with a fully rotating turret.
Was the gun on the Hellcat the same as the one on the 76mm Sherman?
Interesting about your opinion on the 17 pounder, I had always assumed it was in a different class to the 76mm on the Sherman (same as the 75mm on a Panther and a Panzer IV).
-
On paper, the 17pdr is better than the 76mm.. but..
The gun was huge and than made the turret more cramped. The traverse and elevation handles were very awkwardly placed, so quick aiming wasn’t as easy. The round was longer and the breach was rotated 90degrees so it was harder/slower to load. It kicked up so much dust/smoke that it was usually hard to see where the round landed, so trickier to adjust for the second round. And it wasn’t as accurate as people claim, especially the sabot round.
And the reason why I say on paper it’s better, is because at 1000yrds and less, both the 17pdr and 76mm HVAP would go through a tiger. And the average engagement range in Western Europe for tanks was 600-800yrds. So I’d rather take the tank that was quicker to fire and more accurate every time.
And yes, I think the 76mm on the Sherman and hellcat or at least the same lineage/derivative.
Edit;
I should probably add, the 17pdr isn’t a bad gun. It’s just not as good as the fanboys or armchair generals claim ;)
-
It's certainly true the hype surrounding the 17pdr is overblown. Comparing the 17pdr to a 76mm using HVAP (relatively rare sabot ammunition) does however, seem a bit disingenuous.
I feel it's also important to consider context when comparing the two, 17pdr armed Shermans and M10's (with effective ammunition) were available in significant numbers for the D-day landings, I don't think the same can be said for 76mm armed vehicles.
Please don't interpret this as argumentative, in '44 I think I'd choose the 17pdr without much thought, but in '45 the choice is not as clear cut. I will say if my target is a Panther from the front I'll stick to the 17pdr regardless.
Edit-
Regarding the original topic, speaking from a Bolt Action point of view, the BT 7/42 kit and the Zis 3 both seem like good choices. Most every Russian/Soviet player fields one if not more, of the zis 3, and Finnish players (there are quite a few) have basically two effective tank choices the BT-42 or a Stug III, not to mention the meme/cuteness/fastboi appeal of the BT series of tanks.
Buying a resin m36b1 from Warlord, even at 1/3rd off, is likely a mistake. The Rubicon setup works flawlessly and looks fantastic, the resin Achilles (17pdr sp m10) I got from Warlord is literally crooked, and I don't mean warped, or air bubbles, or flash or any of the typical issues with Resin castings, the top deck slopes from left to right. Some Warlord resins are good (though you still roll the dice on if it's a good casting or not) and some are utter rubbish.
I'm happy to see the M26, after building a few M4a3's (one of which converts to an M36B1) I found myself really wanting to build an easy 8 and a Pershing, maybe an m24 to round out the late-war US family, ok add an m18 in there too, but it was really the easy 8 and the Pershing I wanted to build. Plus it gives US players access to a heavy tank (jumbo aside) even if the meta sort of makes heavy tanks inviable.
-
Thanks guys for your thoughts, they make sense.
-
Buying a resin m36b1 from Warlord, even at 1/3rd off, is likely a mistake. The Rubicon setup works flawlessly and looks fantastic, the resin Achilles (17pdr sp m10) I got from Warlord is literally crooked, and I don't mean warped, or air bubbles, or flash or any of the typical issues with Resin castings, the top deck slopes from left to right. Some Warlord resins are good (though you still roll the dice on if it's a good casting or not) and some are utter rubbish.
I've never had a problem with the resin kits, found them to be very nicely detailed, more their plastic kits that I avoid like the plague.
Would the Rubicon M36 turret fit on a M4A3 chassis? Rubicon do a good job at these little details. I know that on the T34/85 kit the 76mm turret doesn't fit the chassis as in reality the they increased the turret ring to fit the new 85mm turret.
-
IRC the T-34 kits were designed a year or so apart . The M4A3 and M-10 / 36 kits were pretty much designed at the same time , hence the M-36 turret fits the M4A3 hull . Not only don't the turrets on the T-34s fit each other's hulls , the rear set of dish wheels ( T-34/76 ) have a different size connection plug than the rear set of the "spider " type wheels on the T-34/85 .
-
Would the Rubicon M36 turret fit on a M4A3 chassis? Rubicon do a good job at these little details. I know that on the T34/85 kit the 76mm turret doesn't fit the chassis as in reality the they increased the turret ring to fit the new 85mm turret.
The T34/76 and T34/85 had different size turret rings in different places so you should not be able to swap turrets, so the models are accurate in that respect.
The M36 uses a Sherman size turret ring insert (the M10 has what is probably a scale diameter turret ring).
Have a look at the instructions here:
http://forum.rubiconmodels.com/index.php?topic=407.0 (http://forum.rubiconmodels.com/index.php?topic=407.0)
-
Actually the 1st version of the "85 used the standard T-34 turret race . They had a two man crew , with the commander / gunner's cupola sitting forward of center . The second version had the larger race thus having room for the extra , third crewman
(https://i.postimg.cc/Bjppr5DC/1943.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/Bjppr5DC)
(https://i.postimg.cc/2bs7Q0RC/Early-Roofs.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/2bs7Q0RC)
(https://i.postimg.cc/jLrhC34X/1944-sping-Zavod-112.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/jLrhC34X)
-
I've never had a problem with the resin kits, found them to be very nicely detailed, more their plastic kits that I avoid like the plague.
Would the Rubicon M36 turret fit on a M4A3 chassis? Rubicon do a good job at these little details. I know that on the T34/85 kit the 76mm turret doesn't fit the chassis as in reality the they increased the turret ring to fit the new 85mm turret.
I have Warlord resins I really like, but I'll exhaust every option or alternative before risking getting another dud like the Achilles that showed up at my door. Their plastics aren't the best, but they're consistent and I do love building them.
The M36 turret fits perfectly in the m4a3 hull, as UVS mentioned the instructions point out this intentional. Using the M36 turret in the m10(aka actual M36) hull requires the use of an insert.
Hopefully these will show what I meant by working flawlessly. All turrets drop in/out, the M36 gun even elevates (without drooping).
(https://i.postimg.cc/BX7MKL1q/20181013-130630.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/BX7MKL1q)
(https://i.postimg.cc/cvKTMxQf/20181013-130654.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/cvKTMxQf)
(https://i.postimg.cc/mcf3YQZG/20181013-130742.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/mcf3YQZG)
-
I've never had a problem with the resin kits, found them to be very nicely detailed, more their plastic kits that I avoid like the plague.
You must have been lucky, I have a small stack of them unloved somewhere.
Witmann's Tiger has some entertaining feed marks that you cannot get near, and you need to take a saw to the top of the track units.
The Hetzer has extremely wiggly tracks - I do occasionally think about using the spare Rubicon ones and fitting a railgun to it.
The Cromwell went together okay, after they sent me a track unit (the kit came with identical track units).
The 251 probably does not count, it was one with the solid base.
The Matilda needed lots of filling.
There are probably more, but thankfully they have slipped my mind.
The plastic kits are a bit variable.
-
Actually the 1st version of the "85 used the standard T-34 turret race . They had a two man crew , with the commander / gunner's cupola sitting forward of center . The second version had the larger race thus having room for the extra , third crewman
Thanks, that must have made it harder work than a Firefly.
-
I've never had a problem with the resin kits, found them to be very nicely detailed, more their plastic kits that I avoid like the plague.
You must have been lucky, I have a small stack of them unloved somewhere.
Witmann's Tiger has some entertaining feed marks that you cannot get near, and you need to take a saw to the top of the track units.
The Hetzer has extremely wiggly tracks - I do occasionally think about using the spare Rubicon ones and fitting a railgun to it.
The Cromwell went together okay, after they sent me a track unit (the kit came with identical track units).
The 251 probably does not count, it was one with the solid base.
The Matilda needed lots of filling.
There are probably more, but thankfully they have slipped my mind.
The plastic kits are a bit variable.
Maybe, Ive not made any of those kits you mentioned. I do have wittmans tiger in a box somewhere that i need to get round to.
Ive made theire. King tiger porche, Jagtiger, 234/1 luch, M4A3E, ISU152, Brumbar. Admitedly now ithink about it the 234/1 hads some nasty molding on the inderside that i covered up with mud.
-
I've never had a problem with the resin kits, found them to be very nicely detailed, more their plastic kits that I avoid like the plague.
Would the Rubicon M36 turret fit on a M4A3 chassis? Rubicon do a good job at these little details. I know that on the T34/85 kit the 76mm turret doesn't fit the chassis as in reality the they increased the turret ring to fit the new 85mm turret.
I have Warlord resins I really like, but I'll exhaust every option or alternative before risking getting another dud like the Achilles that showed up at my door. Their plastics aren't the best, but they're consistent and I do love building them.
The M36 turret fits perfectly in the m4a3 hull, as UVS mentioned the instructions point out this intentional. Using the M36 turret in the m10(aka actual M36) hull requires the use of an insert.
Hopefully these will show what I meant by working flawlessly. All turrets drop in/out, the M36 gun even elevates (without drooping).
(https://i.postimg.cc/BX7MKL1q/20181013-130630.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/BX7MKL1q)
(https://i.postimg.cc/cvKTMxQf/20181013-130654.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/cvKTMxQf)
(https://i.postimg.cc/mcf3YQZG/20181013-130742.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/mcf3YQZG)
They are looking good, Certainly something i'll look into in future, I need more M4A3s any way and rubicon will certainly see my money .....Can you make both the M10 and M36 turrent options with the 1 kit? so you can swap them out as you need?
-
When Rubicon gets their pictures back up , you can check out the instructions for the M-10 kit . Here's a picture of the options you can build , note M4A3 hull not included
(https://i.postimg.cc/k63J9Zz3/m10-m36-tank-destroyer-2.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/k63J9Zz3)
-
Can you make both the M10 and M36 turrent options with the 1 kit? so you can swap them out as you need?
Yes, as I said using the M36 turret requires an insert ring be placed in the tank destroyer (m10/m36) hull, if/when the instructions come back up, it's pretty clear how it works. You can either glue the insert to the M36 turret (in which case the turret will be fixed) or leave it loose to allow the M36 Turret to rotate, though I'm not sure if the pressure of the detents will keep the insert in place when rotating the turret or not.
The M10/M36 kit doesn't come with crew, there are a few options, the best of which (in my opinion, and only for 1 vehicle) would be using the crew from the Warlord/Italeri m10 kit, followed closely by using the multipose plastic tank crew kits from Rubicon ( both US and Commonwealth are available) to fashion crews out of. I strongly recommend against using the Rubicon pewter tank destroyer crew sets, they're multi part metal figures (barf) and yet they're also monopose (wtf), to top it all off the poses are awful (arms at their sides, hands in their laps, as if sitting at a table waiting for a job interview)