Messages

1396

General Discussions / Re: On the Drawing Board - UPDATED 151003

« on: October 06, 2015, 02:06:04 pm »

That seems to be Rubicon's view as well, Ripley / but they've shown increasing ingenuity when comes to providing options.  If you think about it, this kit would only need one set of tracks, so the options you mention are about equivalent to what they've done with the M10/M36 (which includes 3 different turrets, 4 guns and 2 hull tops).  My concern is that I don't think an SU-100 kit would sell that well, so it's better folded in as an option in an SU-122/SU-85 kit.  I may be wrong, however - the SU-100 did see significant service post-war.

Let's see what they do...

1397

General Discussions / Re: On the Drawing Board - UPDATED 151003

« on: October 05, 2015, 10:10:15 pm »

After seeing the number of variants you've squeezed onto the M10/M36 sprues, I bet you could include the parts for an SU-100 in this kit...

1398

Work In Progress / Re: Jagdpanzer 38 Hetzer - 3D Prototypes 151003

« on: October 04, 2015, 05:20:21 pm »

I have just been looking at Horst Schubert's  book on the Hetzer and G13 (Schiffer Military Volume 27 ISBN 0-88740-238-0) and your excellent 3d renderings. According to the description the Hetzer has twelve and six hole idlers, the four hole idler shown as the late production track unit would appear to be a G13.

The book mentions a G13 at the museum in Munster masquerading as a Hetzer.

That is of course from only one source.

I wondered about this when the photos of the prototypes were first put up.  According the Doyle and Jentz's Osprey title on the Hetzer, the final version of the idler wheel had 4 holes i.e. it did appear on Hezters.

1399

Work In Progress / Re: Allied Stowage Kit 1

« on: October 04, 2015, 05:14:03 pm »

Making bedrolls and tarpaulins from greenstuff is easier than trying to make premade items fit. It also allows you to bed the other items in.

...except for those of us who are too lazy and prefer to modify something from a kit!

I suspect the US infantry back packs are for the M3 rather than the tanks, but would be redundant for me.

And for the forthcoming US truck kit.  But I think it's a case of too much of a good thing...

1400

Work In Progress / Re: Allied Stowage Kit 1

« on: October 04, 2015, 01:34:10 am »

I'm actually fine with the large stack of crates - it's mostly going to end up as truck cargo, or as some kind of terrain.  I'm also fine with the ammo boxes moulded in rows.  I'm less keen on the smaller stack of boxes, as most of the detail is hidden under the tarp.  I agree with Ripley that more spare track would be good - you can never have too much of that!  And Allied tanks in NW Europe carried a lot of spare tracks. 

A few other suggestions:

- I'd suggest that instead of the later British oil cans (the 2 square cans next to the jerrycans) you included more typical British 'flimsies'.  See the comparison photo below.  This shows a 2 gallon can, a 4 gallon tin (non-returnable), aka 'flimsy', a 4 gallon returnable can (the BEF used these as well as flimsies) and a jerrycan for comparison.
- I'm not sure if it's the photo, but the large US infantry pack (the one with 2 pockets) looks too big.  There are also too many of them - they wouldn't normally appear on a tank.  Generally speaking, the smaller 'generic' packs are much more useful.
- by the same token, the arrangement of 2 packs under a blanket roll is a bit big, and will be hard to position on most tanks.
- the 2 bags on the right are of pretty marginal value.  As is the duffel bag (the one with the strap).  Trust me - I've added a lot of stowage to Allied vehicles!  What is missing is some bedrolls - these were very common on US and British tanks, and would be much more useful.
- any chance of some spare T-34 track?  Preferably in fairly short sections.  It's not likely you'll do a Soviet accessory set in a hurry...
- how about a funnel? British crews often carried a large square funnel for refuelling - see the 2nd photo below.
- most importantly, how about a British blanket box?  See the 3rd photo below for the types fitted to Shermans. 

1401

Work In Progress / Re: Allied Stowage Kit 1

« on: October 03, 2015, 09:01:54 pm »

That's a very good selection of gear.  There are few items of soft stowage that are (I think) of dubious value.  Is it too late to make changes?

1402

Work In Progress / Re: SdKfz 250 Light Armoured Halftrack

« on: October 03, 2015, 05:10:20 pm »

The jerry can rack would not be included on the standard 250 release, but will appear on the 250/3 expansion kit.

 

1403

General Discussions / Re: On the Drawing Board - UPDATED 151003

« on: October 03, 2015, 05:07:31 pm »

Photos of SU-122s and SU-85s in WW2 are actually relatively rare.  I agree that none of them appear to show either of these vehicles with smoke cannisters.

Would it be possible for this kit to also include parts to build an SU-100?  It's basically a revised roof and another gun and mantlet.  This would also mean you could include the late model SU-85M.

I found some good photos of SU-85Ms - note that some do indeed have replacement spoked wheels, but the dished wheel is standard.

1404

Work In Progress / Re: SdKfz 250 Light Armoured Halftrack

« on: October 03, 2015, 11:31:38 am »

Here is the kind of jerry can rack I'd like to see included (preferably split into two rows for variety).  This is the PSC 1/72 scale SdKfz 250/9.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/665729.page

1405

Work In Progress / Re: Jagdpanzer 38 Hetzer - 3D Prototypes 151003

« on: October 03, 2015, 11:26:38 am »

This seems to have gone from design to sprue production in almost no time!  And the components look excellent.  I guess some people will feel that the tracks are oversimplified, but I think they're fine.

Incidentally, having built the M8 HMC and M3 halftrack kits, I have to congratulate Rubicon on the high level of precision they've achieved.  Building a Rubicon kit is now a real pleasure.  The M3 in particular almost builds itself.

1406

General Discussions / Re: On the Drawing Board - UPDATED 151003

« on: October 03, 2015, 11:16:27 am »

I'm as happy as Ripley is to see these - especially the SU-122!   

I wasn't aware of the point Ripley makes regarding the wheels (he's a mine of details like this!).  However, the SU-122 shouldn't have the smoke cannisters on the rear.  These started to appear in about mid-1944, by which time the SU-122 was out of production (they shouldn't be included in the early T-34/76 kit either).  They do seem to have appeared on some SU-85s.  It would be good if this kit didn't have slots in the rear engine deck for these cannisters, as it's a bit of a pain to remove them if you're not fitting the cannisters. 

1407

Work In Progress / Re: SdKfz 251/1 Ausf C & Expansion Kits

« on: October 01, 2015, 10:41:54 am »

Pardon me for an amateur joining the conversation, can an Ausf C survived mid-war and then used by a late war crew wearing late war uniform?

Of course (although you won't see many photos of Ausf Cs by mid-1944, such was the attrition rate with SPWs).  But ideally a kit would provide the most appropriate figures, rather than more unusual combinations.

1408

Work In Progress / Re: SdKfz 251/1 Ausf C & Expansion Kits

« on: October 01, 2015, 10:39:21 am »

We are still trying to work on a "standard body prototype" for the studio.  Once selected, we will use that for all future figures.

I think that makes a lot of sense.  It would be great if your crew figures had a consistent 'look' across all of your kits.  Of course, you've already put out a couple of kits with fairly rudimentary figures - presumably these figures might be replaced at some point?

1409

Work In Progress / Re: SdKfz 251/1 Ausf C & Expansion Kits

« on: October 01, 2015, 12:21:23 am »

You seem to be getting the hang of sculpting crew.  The 3D prototypes look very good.

My only comment is to make sure that your final uniforms are appropriate for the variant they're intended for.  I know you're not focused on uniform detail yet, but the Ausf C was essentially a mid-war vehicle, so the crew wouldn't be in late war uniforms.  It'd also be nice if the /3 included an officer in a peaked cap.

1410

Work In Progress / Re: M10/M36 Tank Destroyer

« on: September 30, 2015, 12:41:21 am »

Nice. Looking forward to getting a Wittman killer 

Now, did the Achilles crews have tanker uniforms or regular infantry uniforms?

Tanker uniforms.  They often wore helmets, for obvious reasons - especially in Normandy where snipers were very prevalent.  The crews in two of these photos (the first of which I posted earlier) are wearing berets, however.  The commander in the third photo is wearing a helmet.