Rubicon Models
Rubicon Models => Work In Progress => Topic started by: Rubicon Models on April 01, 2015, 07:26:54 pm
-
It may be April Fools Day, but we are serious!
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Crusader/FB%20Crusader%2002_zpsxhcadbpw.jpg)
;)
-
Wow, that's very cool. There's a lot of surface detail to replicate - especially with the actual Crusader turret(s).
-
I hope you also plan on making the Crusader Mk1 and Mk2.
-
I hope you also plan on making the Crusader Mk1 and Mk2.
Making vehicles multi-variant is our specialty! Of course we will!
;)
-
Here are the remaining 3D drawings for the Crusader tank design!
Objective is to create a single 3-sprue plastic kit:
- Choice to build either a Crusader Mk I / II / III / AA variant
- Choice of three different side armour skirts
- Removable auxiliary hull turret (field modified)
- Can be build with or without rear fuel container
- Spare road wheels and minor accessories (??)
We are also looking into adding the Crusader Mk Ics / IIcs into the build choice, replacing the main gun with a 3 in howitzer.
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Crusader/FB%20Crusader%20Mk%20I_zpsylclfika.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Crusader/FB%20Crusader%20Mk%20II_zpswibwl6zp.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Crusader/FB%20Crusader%20Mk%20III_zpsdgdpsg6f.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Crusader/FB%20Crusader%2002_zpsxhcadbpw.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Crusader/FB%20Crusader%20Turrets%2001_zpsmjb8owrn.jpg)
Please feel free to comment!
;)
-
The turrets look nice. Will these be second or third quarter releases? I can't wait for them to be released, I'm not fond of either the Blitzkrieg or Warlord offerings available now.
-
The turrets look nice. Will these be second or third quarter releases? I can't wait for them to be released, I'm not fond of either the Blitzkrieg or Warlord offerings available now.
It is quite difficult to say at the moment. Production schedule (particularly on the mould making side) had been lined up until October this year. The Crusader is awaiting 3D prototyping right after the Easter holiday. If everything goes as planned, we will move the project forward to the mould making queue in about a month.
There are some tricky components (for plastic mould injection) on the vehicle, will be happy to see if we can make it out for Q2/15 releases! We currently have five (or six) working projects plus some OEM work on hand.
Wish us luck!! ;)
-
Looks great . Could really us a Crusader AA in my unit .
Just thinking , wouldn't it be better to do a Crusader I - III kit for the early part of the war . And a separate kit of Crusader AA , Gun Tractor and ARV . So you would have one kit for the desert war guys and the other kit for the Normandy invasion guys . I know nothing about molding and parts count etc , but to me that would seem like a logical way to get more use out of the Crusader lower body and wheels / track .
-
Just thinking , wouldn't it be better to do a Crusader I - III kit for the early part of the war . And a separate kit of Crusader AA , Gun Tractor and ARV . So you would have one kit for the desert war guys and the other kit for the Normandy invasion guys . I know nothing about molding and parts count etc , but to me that would seem like a logical way to get more use out of the Crusader lower body and wheels / track .
That will depends on the final parts count and layout of the sprues. On a side note, the Gun Tractor will require a total rework of the hull top, which meant basically a new 3D drawing just for the Gun Tractor, which also required a driver. As for the ARV, only a prototype was build in 1942...
-
Your right about the gun tractor , too many extra parts for the interior , pity as I had a nice diorama idea . And your right about the ARV . Upon further study ( magnifying those tiny pictures on google ) it seems all pictures taken were of the one and only vehicle made . Also found some to be Centaur ARVs with the flat nose plate hidden by loads of crew kit , the wheels look the same :( . I can't tell by your CAD drawing but does the right gun barrel on the AA extend a little further than the left one ? Internal pictures show the guns were mounted offset so the handgrips wouldn't bind . I seem to learn something new everyday weather I want to or not :)
-
Your right about the gun tractor , too many extra parts for the interior , pity as I had a nice diorama idea . And your right about the ARV . Upon further study ( magnifying those tiny pictures on google ) it seems all pictures taken were of the one and only vehicle made . Also found some to be Centaur ARVs with the flat nose plate hidden by loads of crew kit , the wheels look the same :( . I can't tell by your CAD drawing but does the right gun barrel on the AA extend a little further than the left one ? Internal pictures show the guns were mounted offset so the handgrips wouldn't bind . I seem to learn something new everyday weather I want to or not :)
After minor screw ups with previous kits, we are now more vigilant on details through careful research from multiple sources! Think it did payoff with the added expenses! ;D
-
We are still working hard during the Easter holiday! Spending a whole day cleaning up the 3D prototype parts of the Crusader... here are some sneak preview of these parts!
After the extra long weekend, we will start turning these parts into resin duplicates for test assembly, then make minor (or major) changes to problematic areas before sending it off for final production meeting, and then mould making!
The parts are a little bit difficult to see the details because the material used is semi-transparent, but should be able to make it out if you look closely!
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Crusader/Crusader%20-%20Hull%201_zpszhmsyycb.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Crusader/Crusader%20-%20Tracks%201_zpss93o50e9.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Crusader/Crusader%20-%20Turret%201_zps3grqynev.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Crusader/Crusader%20-%20Turret%202_zpsnxjdgckv.jpg)
Enjoy!
;)
-
Everything looks great. The dimensions look right - some of the previous Crusader kits have cocked that up (usually too long). With this one (and the M5A1/M8) you really seem to have taken a leap forward.
-
Everything looks great. The dimensions look right - some of the previous Crusader kits have cocked that up (usually too long). With this one (and the M5A1/M8) you really seem to have taken a leap forward.
We actually use the actual dimension of a real Crusader tank, scaled it down, and then compare it to our line drawings and blueprints. It is a long learning curve, you need to know the limits of the mould maker, and push it hard! Still not perfect, but we are getting there!
;)
-
Looking good . Any chance of an open / closed hatch option for the driver's compartment ? Sorry , never satisfied :).
-
Looking good . Any chance of an open / closed hatch option for the driver's compartment ? Sorry , never satisfied :).
Unfortunately no... considering we have to make SEVEN variants using 3 sprues!
While the driver hatch is fuse-closed, the commander hatch can be assembled in close or open position.
The commander hatch is not a flip open & close assembly, they slide forward and backward; so need 3 parts to model it!
;)
-
Looking good! Excellent to see Early and Mid war stuff get plastic treatment.
I must admit despite the distrust of CAD and other computer model makers when it comes to miniatures (especially for organic things like fantasy monsters), I think it makes so much sense to use CAD for Vehicles with detailed blueprints.
-
This one is looking very good. Will need one (or three) for my Desert Rats, and and AA variant for my Normandy brits.
-
great, I see a crusader aa mk1 turret coming along soon 8)
-
Just before taking a break to Salute 2015 in London, here are some 3D prototypes from our A15 Crusader project:
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Crusader/01%20Crusader%20Mk%20I_zps9f2xvgwz.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Crusader/02%20Crusader%20Mk%20I_zps9j7z2rmn.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Crusader/03%20Crusader%20Mk%20I_zpst5sddf4v.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Crusader/04%20Crusader%20Mk%20I%20CS_zpsijqgrgh4.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Crusader/05%20Crusader%20Mk%20II_zpszt0puudk.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Crusader/06%20Crusader%20Mk%20III_zpseogxsig2.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Crusader/08%20Crusader%20Mk%20III%20AA_zps9syewiq9.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Crusader/09%20Crusader%20Mk%20III%20AA_zpsjxibpn2c.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Crusader/10%20Crusader%20Side%20by%20Side_zpso15mvpgm.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Crusader/11%20Crusader%20Side%20by%20Side_zpsilf56fat.jpg)
Check back for more photos... including a new project announcement during Salute!
Enjoy!
;)
-
Lovely work. Everything looks like it's where it should be. The rivet detail is especially nice. They were graceful looking tanks; it's a shame they were so shit...
Only one minor point - I think the muzzle on the 6pdr was less pronounced and a bit longer. The armoured housing on the co-axial Besa MG should also curve upwards as it meets the glacis.
-
Only one minor point - I think the muzzle on the 6pdr was less pronounced and a bit longer. The armoured housing on the co-axial Besa MG should also curve upwards as it meets the glacis.
Will look into the muzzle, but the barrel length is definitely correct. We had match its length with existing 1/72 and 1/35 models for double confirmation.
As for the armoured housing, any more info on the subject? Had checked with available blueprints and photos, seems correct to us! Thanks, Pinky!
;)
-
Have a look at this photo - you'll see the curve in the Besa housing and the proportions of the muzzle (the barrel length looks fine!).
-
Have a look at this photo - you'll see the curve in the Besa housing and the proportions of the muzzle (the barrel length looks fine!).
Seems like there are two versions of the 6-pdr gun being used on the Crusader III. We have another version done but not shown previously...
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Crusader/07%20Crusader%20Mk%20III_zpsajempofn.jpg)
;)
-
The Crusader III was issued with either a Mark 3 or Mk 5 6pdr gun . The Mk 3 had a thicker , shorter barrel ( 100.95 inches ) usually with a sleeve over the threads for the un used muzzle break ( like some versions of the US 76mm Sherman ) . The Mk 5 was a skinner , longer barrel ( 116.95 inches ) with a short stubby counterweight on the muzzle .
-
The Crusader III was issued with either a Mark 3 or Mk 5 6pdr gun . The Mk 3 had a thicker , shorter barrel ( 100.95 inches ) usually with a sleeve over the threads for the un used muzzle break ( like some versions of the US 76mm Sherman ) . The Mk 5 was a skinner , longer barrel ( 116.95 inches ) with a short stubby counterweight on the muzzle .
Thanks for the clarification. Appreciated!
;)
-
Looks great - good work, good variants :)
-
The muzzle was my only concern (especially given the issues with muzzle brakes on some of the earlier kits). All my photo references show the longer sleeve (thanks for clarifying its purpose, Ripley - obviously they decided the Crusader's 6pdr didn't need a muzzle brake). Presumably both types saw service - does anyone know? It's worth getting this small detail right, given the effort that's obviously gone into achieving such a high level of detail and accuracy.
-
I don't have the numbers , but both types used on Crusader III , as well as Cromwell I & II , Churchill III / IV .
-
We have researched this very carefully. The QF6 is basically a 57mm L/50 and L/43 gun. The muzzle brake size is definitely correct in terms of scale.
-
Look what Warlord have just released. What a coincidence...
I'll take Rubicon's plastic version any day.
-
Look what Warlord have just released. What a coincidence...
I'll take Rubicon's plastic version any day.
Ditto.
Yes, Warlord resins have improved vastly over the last 6 months, but I would take a Rubicon kit over one of them anyday. Especially when it has various other turret options.
-
Even if warlord were doing a plastic one I would still chose rubicons because the tracks are gernaly so much better.
-
Given the similarities with Crusader (same tracks, wheels[though only 4 pairs each side] and turret), will we see the A13 Covenantor any time soon, or am I going to have to convert an A15 for my upcoming Home Guard force?
-
Given the similarities with Crusader (same tracks, wheels [though only 4 pairs each side] and turret), will we see the A13 Covenantor any time soon, or am I going to have to convert an A15 for my upcoming Home Guard force?
This all depends on demand for an A13 plastic kit. We are still working on the moulds for the A15 right now, will see how it goes...
-
We have just received the first test shots of the A15 Crusader Mk I/II/III/AA sprues from the factory. Still have many blemishes that need to be patched up and fixed, but overall assembly is very smooth and satisfactory!
The Sprues A / B / C:
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Crusader/A15%20Crusader%2001_zpstedaymsf.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Crusader/A15%20Crusader%2002_zpszpi3ptzb.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Crusader/A15%20Crusader%2003_zpsvfhmblzb.jpg)
Close Up Views of Selected Parts:
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Crusader/A15%20Crusader%2004_zps9cgmdc4k.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Crusader/A15%20Crusader%2005_zpsmkhg45sl.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Crusader/A15%20Crusader%2006_zpsaqe6bud7.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Crusader/A15%20Crusader%2007_zps3o84lwcw.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Crusader/A15%20Crusader%2008_zpsd4bwaovl.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Crusader/A15%20Crusader%2009_zps2jgjitp3.jpg)
Enjoy!
-
Wow!! That looks excellent!! I can't wait until they are released!!
-
yes that does look good
-
This is our newly designed A15 Crusader decal sheet. Basically 40-man-hour of work! Everything is redrawn based on historical records...
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Waterslide%20Decals/DCUK001-1_zpsadrozf63.jpg)
Any comments welcome!
-
Well that's very impressive. Looks as though everything anyone could need is there. Who won the decal design competition?
You've included the 46th and 51st Infantry Divisions (the tree symbol and the "HD"). Would they have had Crusaders? Crusader AA's were issued to armoured units, not infantry units, so these markings wouldn't be appropriate for them. Just checking. I don't recognise the marking beside 1st Armoured's - is it Polish?
It's rather obscure, but is there any chance of including the 9th Australian Divisional Cavalry? Apparently they used Crusaders as well. It looked like this (although noone seems to be sure if the tanks actually wore it):
-
Well that's very impressive. Looks as though everything anyone could need is there. Who won the decal design competition?
It's rather obscure, but is there any chance of including the Australian 9th Infantry Division? Apparently they used Crusaders as well. It looked like this:
As it turned out, no one actually submited anything except you... YOU WON A CRUSADER!
We had the image of the Aussie 9th Inf Div drawn, but did not included it on the decal. Could pull a less important one out and replace it with your request... you did win the competition!
;)
-
I edited my earlier post - I raised a query about the two infantry division symbols you included.
I was the only one who entered? That's rather disappointing. Still, I'm sure it's no reflection of the popularity of this kit.
I found a cool name, if you're interested - "Skyraker", a Crusader AA. And the only photo of a Crusader with a bridge plate I could find has the number "20".
-
I edited my earlier post - I raised a query about the two infantry division symbols you included.
I was the only one who entered? That's rather disappointing. Still, I'm sure it's no reflection of the popularity of this kit.
I found a cool name, if you're interested - "Skyraker", a Crusader AA. And the only photo of a Crusader with a bridge plate I could find has the number "20".
Our Crusader Mk I & Mk II can be build with a 3 inch howitzer of the 2-pounder as "Combat Support". We know they were used for that role in Africa hence included two infantry divisions. But they can be replaced any time.
The Polish Crusader AA - Skyraker (together with its corresponding markings) is basically on every decal sheet that we came across... we will pass!
Pretty sure the desert version of the Crusader has a bridge number of 19 and the AA version is 21.
-
Our Crusader Mk I & Mk II can be build with a 3 inch howitzer of the 2-pounder as "Combat Support". We know they were used for that role in Africa hence included two infantry divisions. But they can be replaced any time.
The 3-inch howitzer-armed Crusaders were part of the armoured units - for example, they might be attached to squadron headquarters. They weren't fielded as separate support weapons in infantry divisions.
The Polish Crusader AA - Skyraker (together with its corresponding markings) is basically on every decal sheet that we came across... we will pass!
"Skyraker" was from 22nd Armoured Brigade, but fair enough.
Pretty sure the desert version of the Crusader has a bridge number of 19 and the AA version is 21.
Tamiya's Crusader AA has an 18. Osprey's Crusader book has paintings of a Crusader III and an AA, both with a 20. The restored Crusader III at Bovington has a 19. It looks as though Tamiya are right about the AA (see the photo of "Skyraker" below).
-
I've often wondered if the Allies decided to mark AFVs in American tons ( 2000 lbs ) instead of British tons ( 2,240 lbs ) just to avoid confusion make it simple for loading ships and landing craft ? Example M4 Sherman 66,500 lbs : US tons -33.25 tons , Brit tons - 29.60 . The difference could cause problems on light / small bridges etc . It might explain why some vehicles are marked differently . Any thoughts ? Oh , and the Canadians also had some Crusader AA tanks in service as well , so if your looking to add to the decal sheet ...... ;D
-
Ripley - from what I could find, the British used American tons (kind of crazy that there'd be 2 different kinds of ton!). What I was wondering is if there were different ways of designating the weight - either the vehicle's actual weight, or a weight class (based on the vehicle's weight, rounded up) that corresponded with a bridge classification. That would explain apparent discrepancies in the numbers on bridge plates.
-
IRC from my Army days , vehicle weight was the total of a combat load of ammo , fuel , other supplies , crew kit etc plus the crew . And it seems the bridge class number varied on most AFVs , to a higher number . Maybe it was because of all the track shoes used as extra armour added in Normandy . Some pictures show almost as much track ( Churchill & Panther ) welded to the hull and turret of Canadian Shermans than the tank had on its road wheels . In fact most units were told not to weld track on the turret as the turret motor couldn't handle the extra weight and burned out !( And the different ton thing is strange , but goes back years ( maybe like 1776 ) , the UK gallon is also larger than the US , I remember that from school , because ours was the same as the UKs here in Canada. ) And looking through my Concord Brit Sherman book , of about 200 pictures , I can only find a hand full of Bridge discs . Either they are covered by dirt , the paint has washed / chipped off , or they didn't paint it on to start with . So I guess it really doesn't matter . lol The book does say Brit Shermans were rated at 30 tons ( UK tons ) in North Africa , so maybe when the US joined the war and units were in combined operations it was best to have one weight class ( 34 US tons ) ? Also trucks and gun tractors had a double bridge disc - weight of gun tractor / truck by itself , weight with field gun and ammo / cargo .
-
From what I can tell, by 1944 the British graded bridges according to a series of numbers, representing the highest weight they could carry: 5, 7, 9, 12, 16, 18, 20, 24, 30, 35, 40, 50, 60, and 70. A vehicle's bridge plate would show the vehicle's bridge class by reference the closest number above its weight. On this basis, the Crusader AA being "18" and the basic Crusader being "20" seems to make sense. Where it gets confusing is where you see other numbers that are probably the vehicle's actual weight (like "19", assuming this is based on an actual vehicle). When I was checking the M5A1/M8's bridge plate, I found bridge plates which didn't fit into this series, and I think that's because the US Army's showed the actual weight. Or there's some other reason - it's an obscure topic. I agree that these symbols didn't appear very often on tanks (British or American). I guess you just assumed that a tank needed a pretty strong bridge!
-
Bridge Plates... interesting topic! From our research, we come across several forum post over the internet, and here is a summary...
In 1909 it seemed to be the responsibility of a general staff officer at the approach to a bridge to give instructions to commanders of units about the suitability of the crossing. By 1911 the responsibility of giving the bridge a load classification passed to the engineers in the unit constructing the bridge. They were required to indicate at each end of the bridge the greatest permissible load. The examples below take little account of motor transport:
“Bridge to carry infantry in fours”
“Bridge to carry infantry in file”
“Bridge to carry guns not heavier than 18-pr”
“Not for animals”
“Bridge for all arms. No road engines”
By 1924 a simpler classification was in use:
“Foot-bridges”- Infantry in single file.
“Pack-bridges” - Infantry in single file, cavalry in single file, pack animal transport.
“Medium bridges” - Infantry in fours, cavalry in half-sections, horsed transport, cars, armoured cars, light & med
artillery, 3-ton lorries & all ordinary MT up to 5½-ton axle load.
“Heavy bridges” – Heavy artillery, tractors & MT up to 16-ton axle load, tanks up to 18 tons.
“Super-heavy bridges” – Axle loads & tanks in excess of above loads.
By 1935 the classification in use was refined further:
“Assault”- Infantry in single file.
“Pack” - Infantry in single file, cavalry in single file, pack animal transport.
“Light” - Infantry in fours, cavalry in half-sections, vehicles & weapons with forward units,
horsed transport, horse & field artillery, cars, ambulances, lorries & AFVs max 4½-ton weight.
“Medium”-All loads normally with a division, 4-whld MT up to axle load of 5.7 tons, 6-whld vehicles max
axle load 3.6 tons or a rear bogie of 7.2 tons.
“Heavy” - All loads normally with an army in the field. All 4-whld MT, 6-whld MT up to axle load of 8.25 tons or
bogie load of 16.5 tons, tracked vehicles with sprung tracks up to 19.25 tons, provided track bearing length is not less than 13 feet.
“Super-heavy”- Vehicles whose weights exceed “Heavy”
By 1939 all bridges where classed according to the maximum weight of a vehicle in tons giving the following Classes 5, 9, 12, 18 or 24. It should be noted that bridges classes apply not just to fixed bridges but to pontoons bridges as well.
Notes on M.T. Administration W.O. Code No.11060 issued in November 1954 suspended Bridge Classification Signs in the U.K. In overseas theatres this sign could still be used at the discretion of the C-in-C and G.O.C-in-C. where considered necessary. In fact such classification was only ordered in Bridge Classification Signs (Overseas Only) W.O.Code No.8229. Although vehicles at that time were classed in multiples of 1 ton, it was not just the laden weight. They were calculated from data which included the load capacity, tyre sizes etc. Bridges classes were extended as follows:
5, 9, 12, 18, 24, 48, 50, 60, 70.
Bridge Load Classification (STANAG 2021) Introduced 1960-63
The bridge load classification was said to originally have represented by the rounded up weight of the vehicle in tons. "The new system relates to the characteristics of the vehicle which includes overall weight, number of axles, distance between axles, axle load (unladen & laden), tyre size, ground clearance etc and bears no direct relationship to the former system."
It must be remembered that is a STANAG, which is a NATO Standard applicable to many countries. The UK had already taken some account of factors other than weight. What changed in the U.K. was that the mechanism for calculating a figure was more comprehensive and now standardised with other NATO countries.
The classification of bridges was also changed to take account of the effects that particular vehicles would have on the bridge. However the application of the system is the same as before, in that only a vehicle load class less or equal to the bridge load class number may cross the bridge. The load class number is based on vehicles travelling at normal convoy speeds at a spacing of 100 feet. The classification also relates to ferries, and takes into account an assessment of the state of the approaches to the crossing to produce an overall classification.
There was no point in UK based vehicles having a Bridge Class displayed, as the Joint Service Road Transport Regulations JSP 341 states that: The UK will not prepare classification signs for civilian bridges and ferries in UK territory in peacetime.
-
Well, we've now descended into ridiculous levels of obscurity :)
The problem is (apart from some conflicting information) is that none of this clarifies what actually appeared on tanks in service. I guess you could just include 18, 19, 20 and 21, and cover every option.
-
Not much room to include all bridge plates. Will probably going to create some additional decal sheets to cover general markings AFTER getting over the aftereffects of the waterslide decal sickness!
Here is the updated and hopefully the final version of the Crusader decal:
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Waterslide%20Decals/DCUK001-2_zps5cmlfknd.jpg)
;)
-
...Will probably going to create some additional decal sheets to cover general markings AFTER getting over the aftereffects of the waterslide decal sickness!
Yeah, it's easy for us to debate the contents, but you're the ones who have to change the actual decals!
I still think the bridge plate numbers are incorrect (if only because of the photo of "Skyraker" above) but there's not a lot to go on. Great to see the Aussie markings :)
-
Do you really need two of each bridge plate, I thought they were only worn 1 per vehicle. If I'm right, you could replace one of each with an (18) and (20) and not need any extra space on the sheet.
-
bull-nut, already done that. Didn't update it on the post!
;)
-
Even when we are pressing for an on-time early September release, we are still pushing hard to make this Crusader a perfect product! Did some more work on the hull details - more bolts and more accurate rendering of the real vehicle!!!
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Crusader/Crusader%20Test%20Shot%20150806-1_zps9xp5l3j1.jpg)
Enjoy!!
-
I'm getting the impression that the Crusader might be one of Rubicon's personal favourite tanks ;)
That looks really good. The level of moulded detail on this kit is really impressive. For anyone who's not familiar with the complex pattern of bolts and other details on the Crusader, here are some photos of a real one. Looks as though Rubicon have nailed it!
-
I'm getting the impression that the Crusader might be one of Rubicon's personal favourite tanks ;)
That looks really good. The level of moulded detail on this kit is really impressive. For anyone who's not familiar with the complex pattern of bolts and other details on the Crusader, here are some photos of a real one. Looks as though Rubicon have nailed it!
The Crusader might not be our most favourite tank! But it is THE one that took us the longest time to complete as a project (not counting the SdKfz 251 because of the various number of expansions)!
Would like to take a break away from BOLTS & NUTS for a little while...
-
Here is some of our painted test shot #2 images of the A15 Crusader tank:
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Crusader/FB01-A15-Mk%20I_zpsq4a5mzjz.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Crusader/FB02-A15-Mk%20I%20Open%20Hatch_zpssdnru8y3.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Crusader/FB03-A15-Mk%20ICS_zpspzncjkpl.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Crusader/FB04-A15-Mk%20II_zpsesfgtyfc.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Crusader/FB05-A15-Mk%20IICS_zpswrr33rpd.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Crusader/FB06-A15-Mk%20III_zpskyyokx3v.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Crusader/FB07-A15-AA_zpspipfunj4.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Crusader/FB08-A15-Mk%20I%20amp%20AA_zps6bazmuk0.jpg)
Enjoy!
-
Everything looks great - my only query is whether the 2-pdr and 6-pdr barrels are too long. The 6-pdr in particular doesn't seem to have protruded over the nose that far on the real tank. But I appreciate that it might be a result of the photo distorting the dimensions.
-
If my info is correct ( and I will have to check) both the mk111 and mkV 6pdr guns were fitted to crusader. The mkV had a longer barrel IIRC.
-
Both Mk 3 & 5 used on Crusader III . The Mk 5 was 16 inches longer than the Mk 3 . If it looks too long in the flesh , you can all ways cut it down to length . All photos I have on hand ( not many as Brit tanks are not my favs ) show the Crusaders at an angle off the front so its really hard to judge the over hang of the gun . Found one side view , the Mk 3 barrel ends at the front edge of the hull .
-
Ripley - we had a discussion about the barrel before, and you clarified that there were 2 different types fitted. This is obviously the M5 barrel. I'm not saying it's wrong, just querying whether it's a bit too long. As you say, it's hard to find a profile photo of a Crusader III, but none of the photos seem to show the barrel overhanging the nose this much. However, some of the drawings I've found online (like the Tamiya kit's instructions) do show a similar overhang. I dunno - maybe it is just these photos.
-
Maybe the barrel isn't fitted tight in the model ? Seems to be the only " problem " I see with the kit , really an easy fix if you want a Crusader III .Just troll yahoo / google for pictures. I'm looking to get 2 AA tanks , one for my Canadian troops and one to go with my Polish 10th Mtn Div Cromwell . Really don't need the Crusader tank turrets , think one of the guys a the LHS can probably use them , we tend to pass around spare / extra parts as they are hard to find in this scale :) OFF TOPIC Know where I can find vehicle seats , want to kitbash a Berge panther -the kind with the open drivers compartment ,been working on the transmission for weeks , can't seem to get the shape right ....... :o
-
Let's see what Rubicon says. I think the 2-pdr barrel looks a bit long too...
I was going to just build a Crusader AA, but I like the look of this kit so much I was wondering about building a couple of Tunisian Crusader IIIs.
For Panther seats, how about the front seats from an SdKfz 251? They look pretty similar. I have some spare if you want them.
-
We have BOTH gun barrels - QF6 Mk III 43L and QF6 Mk V 50L - as assembly options on the Mk III turret.
All barrel length on the Crusader variants are carefully measured and then compared with available line drawings to make sure they are correct. Most of these barrels have length specifications, so scaling it down to 1/56 is not a big issue for us!
We know you guys will bring this up... haha!
;)
-
OFF TOPIC Know where I can find vehicle seats , want to kitbash a Berge panther -the kind with the open drivers compartment ,been working on the transmission for weeks , can't seem to get the shape right ....... :o
S&S models do a conversion kit, not sure if it contains seats though