Messages

196

Work In Progress / Re: The all NEW M4A3 Sherman - Decal Templates 170210

« on: February 11, 2017, 10:28:04 am »

I think there is sufficient disagreement about decals representing specific vehicles or more generic ones that can only be resolved by having different decal sheets. Personally I tend towards ripley's point of view that as a wargamer you don't usually want a vehicle identified with a particular battle because it is inappropriate in a different time and place. However I wouldn't want that view to spoil other people's fun.

197

Wish Lists / Re: T26 (vickers 6-ton/7TP)

« on: February 07, 2017, 10:32:32 am »

You certainly have my support. Vehicles available on 1 September 1939 are of great interest to me. The T-26 was built in large numbers and should be widely found on wargaming tables. I think the less powerful tanks found during the early war period potentially enhance games as infantry becomes relatively more important.

198

General Discussions / Re: Colour photos of WW2 armour

« on: February 03, 2017, 04:12:21 pm »

I like the ambush idea Pinky. Still, there may have been a lot of bored soldiers around shortly after the war. I think on balance the accepted wisdom is probably correct, although so far I remain in the 'don't know' camp (probably by myself!)

199

General Discussions / Re: Colour photos of WW2 armour

« on: February 03, 2017, 03:48:28 pm »

At the risk of heresy is it possible the octopus pattern is more representative of the tanks demise at the hands of the allies than it is this particularly ferocious cat? I confess I don't really have a clue but all the photo's appear to be after its demise. 

200

General Discussions / Re: Colour photos of WW2 armour

« on: February 02, 2017, 11:47:40 am »

Thanks ripley. I guess I'd have felt a lot more comfortable if the picture was of the tank in service. You never know who was around with a can of paint.

201

General Discussions / Re: Colour photos of WW2 armour

« on: February 02, 2017, 11:23:44 am »

The thought occurs to me the artwork on this tank could be post war. Or at least after it was abandoned. It just doesn't look right somehow.

202

Work In Progress / Re: Willys MB - The Jeep - TS1 Plastic Crew 170131

« on: February 01, 2017, 10:07:45 am »

I think the figures look good. Maybe it will be possible to file a mil off their backsides to appear as though they are sinking into the seat more. In any event I agree with Pinky it is important the figures are compatible with mainstream figures like Warlord etc.

203

Work In Progress / Re: The Panzer IV Digital Library - Ausf D Turret 170131

« on: January 31, 2017, 04:39:49 pm »

I agree. This looks first class.

I can't help noticing this turret looks very similar to the Ausf C. I think with an alternate gun mantlet and side hatches (I think the vision ports weren't as deep) it could be built in this version as well. An expert will probably point out I'm wrong.

204

Work In Progress / Re: The Panzer IV Digital Library - New 2017 Project

« on: January 31, 2017, 06:10:11 am »

21 Panzer Div appears to have accumulated a lot of old equipment including French vehicles from 1940. When you say it had 21 old unmodified Panzer IV's do you mean Ausf A to E? Is the composition of the 21 known?

205

Work In Progress / Re: The Panzer IV Digital Library - New 2017 Project

« on: January 30, 2017, 01:55:25 pm »

Pinky, I'll forgive Rubicon if they don't include this one in their kits!

Is there any book you know of that includes details of upgraded tanks, ie what was done to them and to how many. In your example my reference simply says 'Later in 1943, several Ausf D were refitted with 7.5cm KwK L/48 for use with training and replacement units.' Potentially several could mean a substantial number (or not).

206

General Discussions / Re: Colour photos of WW2 armour

« on: January 30, 2017, 07:52:59 am »

Can anyone make out where the original Panzer IV picture was taken? Either by reading the road sign (my eyesight can't make it out), or perhaps the architecture. 

207

Work In Progress / Re: Codename: Sherman 2016 - Project Summary 170124

« on: January 24, 2017, 07:00:55 pm »

I must say the collaboration going into getting the Sherman variants right is terrific. There is obviously a treasure trove of knowledge from a number of people here. I think Rubicon are going to be setting the benchmark very high on this one. The Sherman family tree makes the Panzer IV look simple by comparison. At first glance anyway.

208

Work In Progress / Re: M4A2 Sherman

« on: January 23, 2017, 06:42:59 pm »

I am in total agreement with you smurf on your assessment of the objective. Ripley is obviously very talented and gains great pleasure from kit bashing. However most of us probably aren't interested or haven't the time or talent to adopt this approach. One of the attractions of Rubicon's kits are the relatively easy assembly and low parts count. Kit bashing from my perspective runs in the opposite direction from quick and easy towards frustration and time consuming. None of this comment is intended to denigrate what ripley does. On the contrary I think it is terrific what he achieves. Just not sure he is in the majority on this one.

209

Work In Progress / Re: The Panzer IV Digital Library - New 2017 Project

« on: January 23, 2017, 03:16:31 pm »

Thank you Rubicon for your post. I hope you forgive us for attempts to nudge you in the direction we want as individuals. I recognise I don't know the cost of certain decisions and you can't please everyone. Hopefully as time goes on more and more kits will become available and the gaps will be fewer.

210

Work In Progress / Re: The Panzer IV Digital Library - New 2017 Project

« on: January 23, 2017, 07:00:22 am »

There appears to be different camps within the hobby. At one extreme I remember listening to a podcast in which the host was lamenting the fact the plastic guns that came with the game looked like anti-tank guns and were being used as howitzers (or was it the other way around). His guest confessed to not knowing what the difference was and what's more didn't care. They were to him mere gaming tokens.

I think I am at the other end of the spectrum and I'm looking for something near Tamiya accuracy with concessions to parts count for ease of construction and robustness to enable constant handling on the wargames table. Hence my desire for a genuine 1939 Panzer IV.

I suspect I am in the minority but perhaps a large minority. I note there is a thriving small industry in providing quite expensive wargaming terrain. Including very specific items like Pegasus Bridge in Normandy. I can't imagine these companies producing these if the interest is small.

Fortunately Rubicon have a demonstrated interest in producing a high quality product. Their Panzer IV Digital Library is a case in point. I'm sure it would have been easy to continue producing their original Panzer IV but they think they can do better and they are to be congratulated for that. I think if Rubicon produce products near Tamiya quality there is no reason why they can't capture some of the top end of the market with more of their products ending up in dioramas and looking good in display cabinets.