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 - Pinky

Pages: 1 ... 94 95 [96] 97 98 ... 116
1426
General Discussions / Re: The North African Campaign 1940-43
« on: August 29, 2015, 12:41:22 am »
Some of those descriptions are a bit hard to decipher.  Here are some additions and corrections:

British

There were no M3A1 Grants - they were all based on the M3 (the M3A1 had a cast hull).

The British also used a few M3 Lees.

Plus the armoured cars and scout cars: Marmon Herrington Armoured Car (the most common type before Tunisia), Humber Light Reconnaissance Car (first used in Tunisia), Humber Armoured Car (these began arriving from late 1941), Daimler Armoured Car (present in small numbers from 1942) and Daimler Dingo Scout Car (present throughout).  Armoured cars were a crucial aspect of the North African campaign.

German

Dunno about the "PzJag 38(t)M Marten III 75mm 11t TD" - is this a reference to the SdKfz 138 Marder III Ausf H (Panzerjager 38(t) fur 7.5cm Pak 40/3)?  There is no evidence that any of these found their way to North Africa.

The "PzJag 38(t) 76.2mm 12t TD" is presumably the SdKfz 139 Marder III (Panzerjager 38(t) fur 7.62cm Pak 36(r)) - right?  66 of these went to North Africa in 1942, which actually makes them quite an important Afrika Korps vehicle.

23 15cm s.F.H. 13 (Sfl.) auf Lorraine Schlepper were shipped to North Africa in 1942.

The SdKfz 251/3 was also used.

There were also the armoured cars: SdKfz 221, SdKfz 222, SdKfz 231, SdKfz 232, SdKfz 263 and SdKfz 233.  These were iconic Afrika Korps vehicles.

US Army

The US Army didn't use the M4A2.  It used the M4 and M4A1 (and, later, after the North African campaign, the M4A3).

The US Army used both the M3 and M3A1 light tank.  They look similar, but the M3A1 didn't have a cupola.

The M10A1 wasn't used in North Africa, just the M10.

Other important vehicles used were:

M3 75mm GMC (75mm cannon mounted on M3 halftrack - an early tank destroyer, which proved largely unsuccessful)

T19 105mm HMC (105mm howitzer mounted on M3 halftrack - precursor to the M7)

T28E1 CGMC (anti-aircraft vehicle with 37mm automatic cannon plus a pair of .50 cal heavy machine guns - the most common AA tank, and reasonably effective)

And how about the Italians?

1427
Work In Progress / Re: M10/M36 Tank Destroyer
« on: August 28, 2015, 08:24:37 am »
We have a separate gun barrel (with fume extractor) and the single baffle muzzle brake for the post-war version.  As for the armoured cover on the turret, to save sprue space, would rather had people kit bashing it... not a too difficult task at all.  A few small plasticards will do the job.

That's good - just can't see it in the photos.

You could have included the armoured cover instead of that front armour panel, but it doesn't matter (the armoured cover is kind of ugly anyway).

The M10/M36 variants are very confusing, aren't they. 

1428
Work In Progress / Re: M10/M36 Tank Destroyer
« on: August 27, 2015, 10:25:17 pm »
One more thing (sorry!), but the post-war version of the M36 had the M3A1 90mm gun, which had a fume extractor on the barrel as well as the single baffle muzzle brake (i.e. just like your original prototype).  So you need a whole new barrel for this version.  However, most of these upgraded vehicles also had the armoured cover on the turret.

Regarding nomenclature, the M10 wasn't known as a 'Wolverine' in US service; it was the British name.  It's usual to show the US and British names as alternatives (e.g. "M5A1/Stuart VI").  And the early production M10 had a different counterweight on the turret, so yours isn't the early production version. 

So your versions are:

M10/Wolverine (mid production)
M10/Wolverine (late production)
M10A1 (mid production) - these were all rebuilt as M36s, so there wasn't a late production version; as mentioned previously, the M10A1 didn't see active service so it's not really worth mentioning.
Achilles IIc - I'm assuming the Achilles parts only fit the late production turret, so there's no Achilles Ic.  Also, make sure that the Achilles is shown with an M10 hull, not an M10A1/M36 hull.
M36 (WW2 and postwar) - some sources say that only the M36B2 that was upgraded with the M3A1 90mm gun, but there are photos of South Korean M36s with this upgrade. 
M36B1
M36B2 (WW2 and post-war)

Here's the driver's hatch:

1429
Work In Progress / Re: M10/M36 Tank Destroyer
« on: August 27, 2015, 05:20:04 pm »
That's an incredible number of variants in one kit!  You even managed to squeeze in some good interior details on the turrets.

I see you kept that odd armour panel on the Achilles.  Seems a bit pointless.

One construction point - the hatches on the M10 hull didn't open 'flat'; they opened at an angle, with the interior facing forwards.   

1430
Both vehicles look excellent.  I really like the interior on the M20.

Remember that the machine gun ring mount was standard on the M20 (i.e. it wasn't optional), but was a field improvisation on the M8 (although it was very common).  Many M8s saw service without a .50 cal.  The folding .50 cal pintle mount was a standard feature of late production M8s.  It might be worth mentioning that in the instructions.

1431
Work In Progress / Re: Jagdpanzer 38 Hetzer - 3D Prototypes 150821
« on: August 21, 2015, 02:53:17 pm »
Looks fantastic.  My only suggestion would be to make it clear in the instructions that the Pilzen on the roof should be removed on the early version.  Hopefully you can squeeze in the flame gun as well.

Lovely work!

1432
General Discussions / Re: Q3/2015 New Releases Box Art
« on: August 19, 2015, 10:30:31 pm »
We have done a bit of research about this Crusader scene before work starts.  It depicts a battle around Tunisia in which the British claimed 4 Tiger tanks using the Crusader 17 pdr guns during the Tunisian Campaign.  There are historical photos of at least one Tiger being knocked out that way.  Alan Moorehead's "African Trilogy" mentioned Tigers being knocked out, but does not say how, presumably for reasons of secrecy, the book was being written while the war was still on.

The British were notoriously bad at identifying enemy tanks, and always overstated the number of Tigers they encountered or knocked out.  Tigers which were scuttled in Tunisia were also often claimed as kills.  A couple were taken out by 6-pdrs (including "131", which had its turret jammed by 6-pdr fire from Churchills and was abandoned - it's now in Bovington).  The 17-pdr anti-tank gun was rushed into service in Tunisia (mounted on a 25-pdr carriage) in response to the appearance of the Tiger and presumably accounted for some.  The little 2-pdr on the Crusader II in your artwork would have done nothing to a Tiger - and in any case the Crusader II had been replaced by the time the Tiger appeared in North Africa.  But it's a great piece of artwork, and really sells the kit.

Quote
As for the Opel Blitz, we have made several changes before coming up with this scene.  Is hard work for all these renderings.  The artist need to build all the vehicle models again as the 3D drawings we used are not compatible (animation vs manufacturing design).

Well I think it looks cool - just needs the music from "The Great Escape" playing! I've noticed that your artist likes to do quite detailed backgrounds - the M5A1 and M8 in particular have very evocative scenery behind them.

1433
General Discussions / Re: Q3/2015 New Releases Box Art
« on: August 19, 2015, 08:27:25 am »
The Crusader art is especially nice - and it even seems to have knocked out a Tiger!

The "not-an-Opel" art looks as though it's straight out of a scene from a war movie.

1434
Work In Progress / Re: Studebaker US6 Truck - Updated 150715
« on: August 18, 2015, 11:24:24 pm »
I bet the Polish and Russian modellers are happy to see this kit!

I don't have any decent references on the Katyusha launcher, so nothing useful to add on that except that I like the simplified design.

1435
Work In Progress / Re: Studebaker US6 Truck - Updated 150715
« on: August 18, 2015, 10:11:33 pm »
I don't pretend to know much about Studebakers, but the photos of them in Soviet service seem to show a protruding wheel hub (see the examples below).  One of these photos also shows that the bumper protruded further.  The other seems to show some kind of winch on the front.  See what you think. 

1436
Work In Progress / Re: Studebaker US6 Truck - Updated 150715
« on: August 18, 2015, 11:55:19 am »
Looking good!  It seems to capture the Studebaker's lines very well.  From a quick look at photos of Red Army vehicles, it might be worth checking whether the wheel hubs are completely accurate.  The front bumper also seems to have protruded forwards a bit more.  But these are very minor points.

Any chance of a close-up of the driver?  Will it have a canopy for the cargo bed?

1437
Work In Progress / Re: SdKfz 251/1 Ausf C & Expansion Kits
« on: August 17, 2015, 10:10:58 am »
Thanks for all the input.  Cost sharing is an issue that we need to resolve.  Unlike the Ausf D, the Ausf C is a new kit; other companies had already saturated the market with this variant.  The Ausf C with Expansion Kit bundles will open up that market for us, an important point to consider.  We also have to look at how customers will field their army when playing their games.  Vehicle composition will then become a factor as well.

I guess it'd be worth doing some research on typical BA army lists, to see which SdKfz 251 variants are the most common.  Then maybe ensure that each upgrade sprue includes at least one very popular variant, and focus on this in terms of box art etc.  I thought about that when I suggested the combinations above, but it was all very impressionistic!  I was also thinking about what "pure" modellers might want, although I think all of the variants you're planning have a lot of appeal to modellers.

1438
Work In Progress / Re: M10/M36 Tank Destroyer
« on: August 16, 2015, 06:47:44 pm »
Okay, it was more an issue of how it's presented - the kit itself looks great, and it's cool that you've included the earlier turret as well.  Looking forward to seeing the test build.

1439
Work In Progress / Re: SdKfz 251/1 Ausf C & Expansion Kits
« on: August 16, 2015, 06:41:24 pm »
I think you might be better off selling these upgrades as a complete kit, rather than as separate sprues.  That way, people can build a vehicle straight from the box (I have a feeling that people might be less likely to buy a set that doesn't include the actual vehicle).  Then, when they see all the other cool stuff on the sprues, they'll buy more basic vehicles to build the other variants.  But I don't know if that works from a business perspective. 

If you took this approach, it could work something like this:

- a 3-in-1 set for the Ausf C, which includes the basic vehicle.  This would include the 'Ausf C only' versions (although you'd make it clear on the box that these parts are also suitable for the Ausf D).  Perhaps it could include the /3, the /7 and the /9 "Stummel", since that would probably fill a sprue (especially as it would include an optional upper hull).  I think including the /3 and the "Stummel" will make this a very attractive kit - having either version in the box art would (I think) help sell the kit.

- a second 3-in-1 set for the Ausf D, which might include the /2, the /9 and the /22.  Presumably if this includes the early version of the /9 (again, with an optional upper hull), it would easily fill a sprue.  Maybe market this with the /22 version in the box art, since it's visually striking.   

- sell the /16 as a separate kit, as you have with the Stuka zu Fuss.  Maybe market it as an Ausf C, since Warlord have already put out the Ausf D version (but mention on the box that it's suitable for the Ausf D as well).  As you've mentioned, it could be a popular vehicle with gamers, and yours is going to be better than Warlord's.

Just some suggestions.

1440
Work In Progress / Re: SdKfz 251/1 Ausf C & Expansion Kits
« on: August 16, 2015, 02:22:37 pm »
That's what we think too!  We are also looking into additional plastic crews to man the guns... this will delay the release but think is worthwhile!

Definitely - especially if the crew look as good as the digitally sculpted Russian driver you showed us recently!

Quote
The /2 did not have the rear seats replaced.  The Germans simply put a rack on top.  We have photo and 1/35 models to confirm this.  The /7 additional details will depends on sprue space.  We are trying to use the /7 and /2 as space filler to go with other variants as "2-in-1" or "3-in-1" kit.

Some sources show the right hand side rear seat on the /2 replaced with an ammo rack (not both - sorry, should have checked that).  This is how its done on the Dragon kit.  According to Culver and Feists' book, both of the forward seats were removed and remarked with ammo stowage (which makes sense, as you'd think that the seats would interfere with the mortar), but this may have just been the early version.  I can see it's not worth the extra work - it's going to be pretty easy to convert with the components you're going to provide. 

Quote
We saw historical photos with additional radio equipment on the right hand side front seats.  In most cases, with tables for maps, typewriter, and enigma machine.  Need to discuss with staff on this... as we have already moved onto another project!  This is the same with the /7.

Fair enough.  The /3 and /7 already look good.

Quote
We can't confirm that, at least from our references... the handheld flamer on the Ausf D was there because it was already drawn, so we just left it there for the moment.  We are very proud with the /16 overall design; it is simple enough as an easy built, yet highly detailed and accurate!

There doesn't seem to be any uncertainty, and there are no photos of Ausf Ds with the handheld flamethrower storage.

How are you planning to release the expansion sets?  Will they come out as a set of extra sprues, or as a full kit?

Pages: 1 ... 94 95 [96] 97 98 ... 116