Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - tyroflyer

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 16
31
I think the BA-3 will make a nice accurate model. Although the version with double hatches would probably require more than a scribed line to make me happy and therefore I probably wouldn't attempt it, Rubicon have done well and we are lucky to have the BA-3 as an option.

32
I agree, Ausf 'E' is early enough. Although a Panzer III with eight road wheels does have a certain novelty/amusement value.



33
Rubicon's approach to the T-26 is evidence of it being the gold standard in 1/56 scale vehicle models.

34
Wonderful contribution EWG. I will be referencing what you've had to say here when building mine.

35
Nice job EWG. If you have some info on conventional T-26's you want to share with Rubicon you might want to be quick. I suspect they must be close to finalising this one.

36
The following is not definitive but what I can deduce from looking at different websites.

OT-130 - 401 built 1936/39.  Hull looks like centre tank on the first Rubicon picture. However turret looks like older straight sided version on the model pictured to the right of it.

OT-133 - 269 built 1939/40.  Again hull looks like centre tank on first Rubicon picture and correct turret for this version is on top of it.

OT- 131, 132, & 134 prototypes and although the latter may have been used in Finland, with it's hull mounted flame thrower, can probably be ignored.

Feel free to correct me. There may have been upgrades and the like that make this incorrect.

I note Rubicon appear to have had this right on their post of 3 Jan 18. The pictures have subsequently confused things.

37
Sadly I think UVS is right & further investigation is appropriate. The Tank Encyclopedia website has some info on T-26 'chemical tanks' which indicates these vehicles are a complex subject.

The website might prompt further investigation/verification to make sure you have this right. It could be you already have the components to make more of these 'chemical tank' variants than we are currently looking at. Certainly the website supports UVS's contention the '134' is wrong. Although possibly close or closer to one of the earlier variants.

38
EWG, if Rubicon plan on uniforms compatible with the early period, although valid later, we shouldn't divert them. This is a good thing isn't it.

39
Looking good. Although the poor old thing appears to have lost a wheel.

40
Let's not forget Poland! Pz III E onwards please.

I think these posts are about to get moved if this doesn't stop!

41
My Chamberlain and Doyle reference says the 'C' variant remained active until 1943. I remember Pinky posting pictures of 'B's in Normandy 1944. Obviously in very small numbers by then but historically correct on the wargame table for a long time.

Anyway RM have indicated their intention to do something about the C. With EWG pointing out the difference between the C and B being tiny perhaps that could be included as well.

42
Nothing wrong with your point of view Tracks.

For me more important than the 211/452 comparison is 'C' equals Poland onwards, 'D' equals France onwards.

I certainly wouldn't object to anyone using a substitute in a game I was playing in or lose any sleep over it.

I should add the 'D' is coming. No one is trying to take it away.

43
Thank you sir!

44
EWG I found your info on Ausf B particularly interesting. I think I read something similar on a website but can't remember what it was. Can you share your source?

Being a perverse so and so I quite like the idea of including a B among the C's.

Only one small correction. My info suggests the last C was built immediately before the war in August.


45
As Rubicon have plans for a C I will be waiting. I'm sure they will provide something far better than I can with my skill level.

Plenty of other models to make while I'm waiting.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 16