61
Work In Progress / Re: The Panzer IV Digital Library - Decal Design 190331
« on: April 02, 2019, 03:16:59 pm »
...and the Wespe:
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.
62
Work In Progress / Re: King Tiger - Proposed Features 190402
« on: April 02, 2019, 03:14:23 pm »
I like moulded-on Zimmerit because I suck at doing it myself...
I think in the case of Tiger II, it's better without. Zimmerit was discontinued during its production run, and by the time the Henschel turret version was in widespread service most of them didn't have it. On the other hand, it is virtually mandatory for the Porsche turret version.
Rubicon is obviously thinking about making this a premier kit - I had expected an engine to be included as well. It's a fitting subject as a model, but far less useful to wargamers. And it's a rather obvious choice.
Can I suggest a more radical option for a premier kit? How about something from the early post-war period, like a Centurion? I have been wondering if there is a market for the tanks of the 50s and 60s, like the Centurion, T-54/55 and M48, even though the scope for using them for gaming seems limited. These vehicles saw extensive service in several wars, and were upgraded and modified in all sorts of ways. If there is a market for display models in this scale, then it's worth considering branching out into the post-war period. What do people here think?
I think in the case of Tiger II, it's better without. Zimmerit was discontinued during its production run, and by the time the Henschel turret version was in widespread service most of them didn't have it. On the other hand, it is virtually mandatory for the Porsche turret version.
Rubicon is obviously thinking about making this a premier kit - I had expected an engine to be included as well. It's a fitting subject as a model, but far less useful to wargamers. And it's a rather obvious choice.
Can I suggest a more radical option for a premier kit? How about something from the early post-war period, like a Centurion? I have been wondering if there is a market for the tanks of the 50s and 60s, like the Centurion, T-54/55 and M48, even though the scope for using them for gaming seems limited. These vehicles saw extensive service in several wars, and were upgraded and modified in all sorts of ways. If there is a market for display models in this scale, then it's worth considering branching out into the post-war period. What do people here think?
63
Work In Progress / Re: RESIN Project - Various Italian Prototypes Painted 190319
« on: March 20, 2019, 11:48:15 am »Unless you’re planning of hacking them apart to kitbash, why do they need to be plastic?
On that basis, why should Rubicon do any of their kits in plastic?
I'll be waiting for the Warlord plastic kit.
64
Work In Progress / Re: M3A1 Scout Car - TS1 Sprue 190318
« on: March 19, 2019, 05:15:30 pm »
Fantastic - this one is definitely on the list (probably more than one list).
65
Work In Progress / Re: The Panzer IV Digital Library - Resin Tracks 190316
« on: March 17, 2019, 01:24:20 am »
They look very good. I would consider buying these, as long as they didn't require much cleanup.
66
Work In Progress / Re: Bedford QL 3-ton Truck - Final 3D Drawings 190315
« on: March 16, 2019, 03:27:10 pm »I would think there would be more demand (from gamers) for the QLT (which carried troops), rather than the QLD (which was a general service cargo carrier).
I didn't notice that it's not the troop transport (I was too busy rivet-counting on the cab). I think this is a very important point. I agree that the majority of gamers will want the troop transport.
67
Work In Progress / Re: Bedford QL 3-ton Truck - Final 3D Drawings 190315
« on: March 15, 2019, 08:27:36 pm »
Every photo I have found of this vehicle shows a filler cap on top of the radiator. I mentioned this earlier. The 'Bedford' logo plate also seems to be the wrong shape.
68
Work In Progress / Re: Codename: Sherman 2016 - M4A1 LH variants 190311
« on: March 13, 2019, 02:33:06 pm »
The 75mm turret was fitted to some large hatch M4A1s. They are sometimes confused with the M4 Composite hull, but there are several photos that clearly show the large hatch M4A1 hull. As Hoffman said, they were used as DD tanks; in fact nearly all the photos I've seen are the DD version. Here is what the Shadock site says:
The first M4A1s with large hatches were equipped with 75mm guns, and were manufactured by Pressed Steel Car in December 1943. They retained the "dry stowage" of the original design, where the 75mm ammunition bins were mounted in vulnerable positions on the sponsons. In the right side photo above, we've pointed out what we informally label "cast in appliqué." These "bumps" were incorporated into the hull casting in the area of the sponson mounted ammo bins, thus eliminating the need for welding on the one inch armor plates that were mandated to be factory installed or retrofitted on dry stowage Shermans starting in the Summer of 1943. It is thought that only Montreal Locomotive and Pressed Steel Car produced M4A1(75)s with "cast in appliqué" hulls. They appear on the last 75 or so Grizzlies (all small hatch), as well as the last 500 or so PSC built M4A1(75)s (approximately 400 small hatch units and 100 large hatch). Many of the large hatch M4A1(75)s were converted to Duplex Drive Swimming Tanks, and a couple of these DDs are on display in France and Great Britain.
The first M4A1s with large hatches were equipped with 75mm guns, and were manufactured by Pressed Steel Car in December 1943. They retained the "dry stowage" of the original design, where the 75mm ammunition bins were mounted in vulnerable positions on the sponsons. In the right side photo above, we've pointed out what we informally label "cast in appliqué." These "bumps" were incorporated into the hull casting in the area of the sponson mounted ammo bins, thus eliminating the need for welding on the one inch armor plates that were mandated to be factory installed or retrofitted on dry stowage Shermans starting in the Summer of 1943. It is thought that only Montreal Locomotive and Pressed Steel Car produced M4A1(75)s with "cast in appliqué" hulls. They appear on the last 75 or so Grizzlies (all small hatch), as well as the last 500 or so PSC built M4A1(75)s (approximately 400 small hatch units and 100 large hatch). Many of the large hatch M4A1(75)s were converted to Duplex Drive Swimming Tanks, and a couple of these DDs are on display in France and Great Britain.
69
General Discussions / Re: NEW plastic US Infantry by Perry Miniatures
« on: March 11, 2019, 05:23:34 pm »
I don't mind heroic scale. It recognises that exaggerating certain features of a model in that scale give it more character. Realistically proportioned figures can look a little bland. Oversized weapons are also both easier to identify and less fragile.
And I dunno if you can really hold Tamiya up as an example of realistic figures. As a rule, their figures are too slim and idealised in terms of physique, and their uniforms are far too close-fitting. Their Germans, for example, are straight out of a period recruiting poster, and bear little resemblance to what you see in photos.
And I dunno if you can really hold Tamiya up as an example of realistic figures. As a rule, their figures are too slim and idealised in terms of physique, and their uniforms are far too close-fitting. Their Germans, for example, are straight out of a period recruiting poster, and bear little resemblance to what you see in photos.
70
Showcase & Gallery / Re: UVS models
« on: March 10, 2019, 01:24:52 pm »
These photos are all from Hayward’s book on the Firefly:
1 Unit not identified; Germany
2 B Squadron, Fort Garry Horse; Netherlands
3 Unit not identified; Italy
4 Same
1 Unit not identified; Germany
2 B Squadron, Fort Garry Horse; Netherlands
3 Unit not identified; Italy
4 Same
71
Showcase & Gallery / Re: UVS models
« on: March 09, 2019, 01:14:07 pm »
Various IC rear ends - some are Hybrids:
72
Showcase & Gallery / Re: UVS models
« on: March 06, 2019, 10:34:10 pm »
The crank handle was roughly in the centre on the IC Firefly. The track tensioning tool wasn't placed on the rear plate. The hole seems to be standard.
73
Showcase & Gallery / Re: Does anyone have...
« on: March 06, 2019, 05:28:32 pm »
I need exactly the same stuff - I'm quite picky about basing. I've found a tub on ebay, but was hoping someone here could help.
74
Showcase & Gallery / Re: UVS models
« on: March 06, 2019, 05:27:40 pm »Oops, glad you spotted that enormous crevasse, no idea why I had not (though it does sort of explain the jaunty angle between the chassis and the upper hill. Next basing exercise and I will millilitres it.
I assume the strip is the abbreviated mud guard?
I know a bad modeller blames the kit, but I did have issues getting the rear plate to align. Of course that is nothing compared to the sandshields on the Hybrid (though putting the inner mudguards on the wrong way round added to the entertainment).
There are some issues with the rear end of the Rubicon Shermans. I was referring to the strip above the tracks to which the sandshields are supposed to be attached - on the kit this is rudimentary. Now Ripley's pointed out the error with the tools, I need to check what I did with my partially-built M4s.
75
Showcase & Gallery / Does anyone have...
« on: March 06, 2019, 02:45:42 pm »
...a spare tub of the Citadel basing sand? It's the brown type, with lots of rocks in it. I've had the same tub for years, and I used it to partially base some of my infantry. Now I've almost run out, and of course they don't produce it any more. Does anyone have a stash they've be willing to part with?
It's this one:
It's this one: