Messages

1441

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

« on: August 16, 2015, 01:14:27 pm »

I guess including a driver is a better idea.

Really liking all the extra detail in your expansion kits.  A few minor points/requests:

- the ammo stowage replaced the rear seats in the /2, and in the /7 the rear seats were replaced with engineer equipment.  You seem to have already done some separate rear seats for the /9 version.  Wouldn't it be a good idea to provide an optional set of forward seats as well, so people don't have to chop up the standard seats in order to install the ammo etc?
- I know it's being greedy, but any chance of a bit more radio equipment in the /3?  It would look good if the rest of that right hand seat was covered. 
- Again, it's being greedy (because your /7 already looks great), but any chance of some engineer equipment as well?  It'd just be some boxes etc. stowed on the floor.
- The detail for the /16 is really impressive.  However, the hand-held flamer was not included on the Ausf D version.
- Love the fact that you've done a new hull top for both "Stummel" types!

1442

Work In Progress / Re: M10/M36 Tank Destroyer

« on: August 16, 2015, 12:55:49 pm »

Yep, those drawings look fine.  The point is that the Achilles did not have a special turret; the British used the late M10 turret (with the revised rear and duckbill counterweights), which they fitted with a 17-pdr.  This mean revising the mantlet (by adding an armoured collar and changing the sight) and modifying the internal stowage a bit.  Meanwhile, the US Army used the same late turret on its unmodified late M10s - see the example below.

1443

Work In Progress / Re: M10/M36 Tank Destroyer

« on: August 16, 2015, 01:38:35 am »

I think there is still some confusion about M10 versions (the late M10 and the Achilles had the same enlarged turret and duckbill counterweights), but you seem to have all the pieces, so let's see what the test builds look like.  The casting looks great, although the dark plastic makes it hard to work out what everything is.

1444

Work In Progress / Re: M10/M36 Tank Destroyer

« on: August 15, 2015, 11:52:02 pm »

I've been waiting for this one.  I'm planning to build at least 3 of these kits.

So the variants are the M10 (mid-production), Achilles and M36?  If so, that seems fine - you've already packed a lot onto those sprues...

1445

Work In Progress / Re: M3/M3A1 Half-Track Personnel Carrier

« on: August 15, 2015, 09:46:16 pm »

I suppose you are going to do this one Pinky?

Yes, that's it, although I might Germanise it a bit more.  The Germans captured a lot of half-tracks during the initial fighting around Kasserine Pass (that photo is from a series showing 10th Panzer withdrawing from Kasserine - half their transport consists of captured vehicles).  Some were used entirely unchanged, while others were repainted and re-marked.  With Rubicon's Ausf C in the works, I was thinking of a mixture of M3s and Ausf Cs. 

1446

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

« on: August 15, 2015, 09:38:38 pm »

Kudos for making the doors open! 

I was thinking the same thing - I love the attention to detail on the doors.

I really don't think the bench seats should be included, as I explained, but whatever...otherwise, everything is looking good.  Any chance you can squeeze some stowage onto the sprue?  Like spare jerrycans etc?   

1447

General Discussions / Re: Proposed Q4/15 New Releases...

« on: August 15, 2015, 12:07:18 pm »

Glad to hear armoured cars are somewhere in the pipeline.  Obviously, we'd want you to be able to give them the full Rubicon treatment i.e. minimal parts for things like the chassis, suspension and hull.   

1448

Work In Progress / Re: M3/M3A1 Half-Track Personnel Carrier

« on: August 15, 2015, 12:03:44 pm »

Well that does look good.  The moulded detail is really well done.  The fully armed M3A1 is especially nice - great work on the machine guns and the rear stowage racks.  I think my favourite version is the basic M3, partly because I want one for my Afrika Korps.

I'm not going to re-open the discussion about the radio and stowage boxes.  They still don't look right to me, but they're optional and I doubt anyone's going to mind.  Overall, it looks very superior to Warlord's kit.  Could we have a side view of the wheels and tracks?

1449

Work In Progress / Re: Jagdpanzer 38 Hetzer - 3D Images Uploaded 150813

« on: August 14, 2015, 05:01:23 pm »

I dunno if those two "intermediate" mantlets are really worth including.  The early and late types seem to cover it.  I'd suggest that you include a tow cable instead - it was carried looped around the circular rear access hatch.  And maybe an additional antenna mount for the command version?

Really impressed with the level of research on this one - well done.

1450

General Discussions / Re: Proposed Q4/15 New Releases...

« on: August 14, 2015, 11:00:30 am »

Just read Rubicon's Facebook page, and I noticed there were several requests for an SdKfz 222 and an SdKfz 232.  I wonder which one would be more popular?  I think the 8-wheelers are immensely cool vehicles, but maybe a lot of gamers prefer the smaller (cheaper) 222?

There's strong support for a US and British truck - I suspect they'd sell better than any AFV (especially considering how well-received the Opel Blitz was).  There's also support for more Soviet subjects.

I also noticed that the Hetzer got an extremely positive response - obviously a savvy decision by Rubicon to release that one!

1451

Work In Progress / Re: Jagdpanzer 38 Hetzer - 3D Images Uploaded 150813

« on: August 14, 2015, 09:11:32 am »

The dates I mentioned are from Jentz, and he's normally pretty reliable.  But it's a fair point that sources conflict over things like production changes.  I think Ripley's suggestion is a good one - just provide an "early" version and a "late" version, and people can build their own intermediate version by combining parts.

The Flammpanzer version (again, according to Jentz) didn't see action until Operation "Nordwind", with Panzer-Flamm-Kompanie 352 and 353 (10 vehicles each). 

I don't suppose there's any chance of including a Bergepanzer 38 as well? 

1452

Work In Progress / Re: Jagdpanzer 38 Hetzer - 3D Images Uploaded 150813

« on: August 14, 2015, 12:11:19 am »

Had a look at some references.  Your drawings seem to be quite accurate.  Lots of nice little details, like the revised driver's vision port, changes in the roadwheels (will you actually provide 2 different sets?), additional commander's hatch, and changes in the exhaust design, culminating in the Flamm-Vernichter on the late version.  Nicely done!

I think the only real issue is the dates you've given for the various versions.  For instance, the roadwheels were modified in August 1944, and the changes to the inner mantlet were on different dates to those shown.  The 'smooth' outer mantlet (without the 2 retaining bolts) wasn't introduced until August 1944.  I can't work out what the mantlet on 'Variant B' is meant to be - I can only identify 3 different mantlets.  The vision port was revised in October 1944, so your mid production version should still have the earlier type.     

The Flammpanzer version was built on the late (December 1944) model of the Hetzer, as per your drawing.

1453

General Discussions / Re: Proposed Q4/15 New Releases...

« on: August 13, 2015, 08:47:02 pm »

Yes, I have Fletcher's book too.  He doesn't seem to know why the M4A2 was unsuitable (the British used over 5000 of them, although their numbers were dwindling by 1944), and the unsuitability of the narrow mantlet ruled out earlier versions of all marks.  And it's not clear which Shermans had power traverse, so that doesn't help much.

Mark Hayward's book has some more information, including a quote from a letter which states "Not all 75mm Shermans are capable of mounting the 17-pdr gun", but the letter doesn't say why.  Hayward ends up speculating as well as to why certain marks weren't considered appropriate.   

M4 production didn't end early; it switched to the "hybrid" type (in late 1943) and 105mm version.  The US Army doesn't seem to have used the "hybrid" M4 much (if at all) in NW Europe, but the British did, and the IC Hybrid Firefly seems to have been reasonably common judging from photographic evidence. 

The M4 wasn't fitted with the 76mm gun, and the 105mm version of the M4 also had the revised 47 degree glacis - including that version as an option would be a stretch.

I guess my 'ideal' British Sherman kit would have parts for several different versions of the M4, including an early version as used in North Africa (although maybe not the initial version with the M3-style bogies), the "hybrid" hull, and the Firefly.  But it would probably require too many sprues to be doable. 

1454

Work In Progress / Re: Jagdpanzer 38 Hetzer - 3D Images Uploaded 150813

« on: August 13, 2015, 02:25:52 pm »

I haven't checked any references, but the drawings certainly look good.  I'm sure I'll buy one, it's just (IMO) one of the less interesting German SP guns.

1455

Work In Progress / Re: M8 Greyhound / M20 Armoured Utility Car - Updated with Test Shot #1

« on: August 13, 2015, 02:22:15 pm »

Looking great so far!