Rubicon Models
Rubicon Models => Work In Progress => Topic started by: Rubicon Models on April 03, 2018, 12:59:06 pm
-
Apart from our April Fool tease, this is going to be a quick and simple kit with minimal options. Our plan is to release a few plastic kits without options or variants to cut down on development time. These vehicles don't have many variants historically in the first place.
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/GAZ%20Truck/BA-6%20eDrawing%20180331-01_zps2wyvde5o.jpg)
](http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/GAZ%20Truck/BA-6%20eDrawing%20180331-02_zpsucb6we7q.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/GAZ%20Truck/BA-6%20eDrawing%20180331-03_zpslkfe6tk4.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/GAZ%20Truck/BA-6%20eDrawing%20180331-04_zpsnry4kcyu.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/GAZ%20Truck/BA-6%20eDrawing%20180331-05_zpsmnynwage.jpg)
Enjoy!
;)
-
It's early war ... so I love it!
-
Nice one.
-
Nice.
One piece hull! Excellent.
-
Happy dance !
-
Nice choice of subject. And the lack of options is fine. Please provide separate hatches and doors though.
Can we have more armoured cars? German 8-wheelers and something British?
-
The tracks would be a nice touch. Maybe as a resin add-on?
-
Soviet BA-6 armored car!!!
SdKfz 222 and now a BA-6... fantastic!!
I can't wait to buy some of these kits!
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8823/16548085294_45dbf0df9e.jpg)
-
Very nice, definitely would get a few of these in plastic. Isn't something that really needs much in the way of options, so that makes sense.
-
After the M8/M20 (US), the 222 (Germany) and BA 6 (USSR) we need a daimler or Humber AC for the UK.
-
The BA-6 will be a welcomed sight.
For armored cars, we only have two 1:56 scale plastic model kits that I know of:
1) M8/M20 combo kit - (RM, WG)
2) SdKfz 234/2 Puma - (WG)
Considering the number of armored cars used in WW2, this is a little surprising.
-
A simple yet complete kit, no fancy options. This is actually a spinoff project from our T-26 kit.
There are still debates within the studio whether we should do this as a complete kit in plastic or resin/plastic combo kit. Will wait and see on more feedback.
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/GAZ%20Truck/BA-6%20Prototype%20180522-01_zpsueufpmfd.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/GAZ%20Truck/BA-6%20Prototype%20180522-02_zpsmm3iha2h.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/GAZ%20Truck/BA-6%20Prototype%20180522-03_zpsrlgtkksg.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/GAZ%20Truck/BA-6%20Prototype%20180522-04_zpsmp6g164a.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/GAZ%20Truck/BA-6%20Prototype%20180522-05_zpsa0xk8gqm.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/GAZ%20Truck/BA-6%20Prototype%20180522-06_zpsz5datdxr.jpg)
Enjoy!
;)
-
This looks great! I have a particular liking for armoured cars, so I'm a bit biased, but I would definitely want this kit in plastic. However, this particular vehicle wasn't built in quantity, unlike the BA-10 (captured examples of which were also used by the Axis). Would a BA-10 be a better bet?
-
However, this particular vehicle wasn't built in quantity, unlike the BA-10 (captured examples of which were also used by the Axis). Would a BA-10 be a better bet?
We have a similar discussion among the studio designers. We do have the intention to do a BA-10, but most components on the T-26 sprues are not usable; therefore doing a BA-10 would mean more new moulds for the new sprues.
-
@Rubicon - Which components would be resin in a combo kit and how do you see the relative pros and cons of each approach?
-
@Rubicon - Which components would be resin in a combo kit and how do you see the relative pros and cons of each approach?
For the "all plastic" approach would mean a new standard injection mould plus a small slide mould. We can reuse one of the T-26 sprues with new wheels and existing turret making this kit a 2 sprue kit.
For a "resin/plastic" combo, basically, everything not on the existing T-26 sprue had to be in resin. Being in resin, we could combine a good number of smaller parts onto the chassis reducing part count to a minimal.
The important thing really depends on how many BA-6 could be sold in the first year of release.
-
The BA-6 served in Spain in large numbers, and in the far east against Japan. They also served in the invasion of Poland, in the war against Finland, and were still in front line service when Germany invaded in June 1941. I would think all of those factors would help sales.
Have you ever thought about conducting a Kickstarter campaign? I understand that if you were to craft any form of Panzer III or IV or Sherman (for example) your sales would justify the mould cost. You KNOW you will sell enough to make a profit. But something like the BA-6 might be a good candidate for a Kickstarter campaign. Determine what it would cost to go all-plastic, and set that as your campaign funding limit. If you reach that in funds raised, you can go all plastic. If not, then you can go with the resin/plastic combo.
-
Definitely plastic by choice.
-
The parts count isn't a huge issue to me. I tend to make choices around the quality/accuracy of the product versus price. If both options are the same price to the customer I would choose the plastic option as the mostly likely to produce the best model. If you think a resin/plastic model would be more like a miniature version of the real thing I'd be interested to know why.
-
If I want only one vehicle / model I'm fine with resin . But , if I want various models of the same vehicle , I want plastic so I can convert / kit bash them to match my research pictures .
-
The BA-6 served in Spain in large numbers, and in the far east against Japan. They also served in the invasion of Poland, in the war against Finland, and were still in front line service when Germany invaded in June 1941. I would think all of those factors would help sales.
Less than 400 BA-6s were built, versus over 3000 BA-10s. The BA-10 also saw service in Manchuria (but not, admittedly, in the Spanish Civil War). It was the most common heavy armoured car during Barbarossa. And it was used for anti-partisan duties by the Axis powers. So it had a bigger role in WW2, which seems more likely to justify a plastic kit. That said, I'd be happy with either of them in plastic!
-
For the "all plastic" approach would mean a new standard injection mould plus a small slide mould. We can reuse one of the T-26 sprues with new wheels and existing turret making this kit a 2 sprue kit.
Since one sprue is the BA-6 and the other from the T-26 I think a new sprue for the BA-10 version would be the smarter choice. The BA-10 turret surely wouldn't take up the whole sprue so other items such as storage, crew or battlefield accessories could be included.
-
Pinky said "Less than 400 BA-6s were built, versus over 3000 BA-10s."
Very true. And if a company were wondering which models to make "first" so their sales keep the doors open and the lights on, then they produce the mid- and late-war tanks because they are sexy. And they will sell.
But I think early war falls into a different category. Vehicles were sometimes clunky looking, covered in rivets. And while I would love to get a BA-10, I would also love to get a BA-6. And they look similar in appearance. Those who are not super-duper into having a specific tank "be" that specific tank are probably happy to substitute a BA-6 for a BA-10 in their games. Or the other way for that matte.
Pinky also said "It was the most common heavy armoured car during Barbarossa."
Very true, but I don't think that matters.
Rubicon have put a LOT of effort into their T-26 series, one kit to rule them all. Counting variants, a pinch over 12,000 were made (but counting only tanks, let's call it 11,000). And by March of 1942 there were a few hundred left.
The BA-6 was only produced in the hundreds, and by March 1942, they were all but gone.
And the BA-10, even though built by the thousands, to quote the Tank Encyclopedia site ... "The BA-10 was also deployed on the Eastern Front during WWII, but was rarely seen after the winter of 1941-1942."
So hundreds made versus thousands made, and they were BOTH pretty much wiped out after the initial invasion, with survivors pulled from front line duty.
Don't get me wrong, I want a BA-10M.
What I see here, though, is Rubicon exploring how to make a separate kit quicker, more cheaply, by reusing components.
The BA-6 used one of the turrets from the T-26. So by placing that turret on a sprue with all the needed gun and shield bits means they have a sprue that can immediately be used for the BA-6. And if they are going to use the remaining open spaces on that last sprue to include 12 tires, all the better. They need a sprue for the body of the vehicle, and could be good to go.
But the BA-10 used a different turret. So Rubicon would need to start from scratch for that kit.
It makes sense to me that Rubicon would at least explore making a BA-6 first (even if only produced in the hundreds) because they can probably get that kit to market many months sooner than a "from scratch" development of the BA-10.
-
Well said EWG . Plus the BA 10 actually had different angles on the body plates than the the BA 6 ( angled plates = less armor / weight but but better protection ) , so to get a exact scale BA 10 would involve a whole new body as well as turret if your going to get picky about it . You can't have it both ways , the best scale model / game piece on one hand and , just give us a BA 10 turret and we'll make do on the other . I don't want to see Rubicon , or any other company going down that path . I think Rubicon is doing the right thing by using the already produced T-26 turret sprue to help them get another great kit into production sooner . And I think maybe a set of resin dual wheels with the tracks on them might be a great add on kit , can be used on the BA 6 and GAZ AAA truck
-
Thanks all for the input. Definitely giving us some more data for studio meeting next week. We will take everything into consideration. ;)
-
I hope you go for a plastic kit! The BA-3 and BA-6 were nearly identical. If you make the hull in resin, you are pretty much set to the one type. In plastic, if you had a few separate, inter-changable pieces, a person could model either kit.
BA-3 had a door and window on the back (rear) panels,
- BA-6 had smooth panels, no openings
BA-3 had a double-hinged access panel on either side of the engine compartment
- BA-6 had a single, large access panel, but same-sized opening in the same spot
BA-3 and BA-6 had different driver vision portals (but in the same location, and almost the same exact size)
But the bulk of the hull, tires, bumpers, steps, fenders, headlights, side doors and turret were identical. Both models could use the track kit that wrapped around the rear tires, greatly improving cross-country performance.
So having those three areas open on the hull, where the modeler could chose between Option A or Option B, would allow us to make either a BA-3 or a BA-6. And while the numbers produced were not impressive (566 total, 180 BA-3, 366 BA-6, and 20 BA-6M), it would be nice to have the ability to make both with the same kit. The bulk of these used the T-26 M33 turret cylindrical turret (the one with two side-by-side rectangular hatches on top). The remaining 20 BA-6M used a different turret.
Just something more to think about!
-
I like your thinking EWG. However if you can persuade Rubicon to provide a BA-3 when they haven't shown much interest in providing the parts for a Polish Campaign Panzer IV I will be amazed.
-
I like your thinking EWG. However if you can persuade Rubicon to provide a BA-3 when they haven't shown much interest in providing the parts for a Polish Campaign Panzer IV I will be amazed.
If as EWG implies the majority of the BA-3 and BA-6 hull is the same and the difference is just the three areas of hatches that differ, that is not quite the same as the early Panzer IV which (if I remember correctly) required new hull and running gear.
-
I am right there with you tyroflyer! Would love to have a proper Pz IV suitable for the invasion of Poland in 1939.
The difference being, with the BA armored cards, they already have the turret for the BA-3 and BA-6. Looks like they could add 12 tires to the T-26 sprue (along with that turret). So they may be one "body" sprue away from having a kit that does double-duty (if they allow for the slight differences in those three locations. One sprue, and they have a kit that serves for two vehicles.
The early Pz IVs are a bit more problematic. The same hull would mostly do for all four early models (Pz IV A thru D). But there are enough differences that they would likely need multiple sprues to cover the turret and superstructure changes:
Pz IV A = Angled front plate for driver and gunner. wider superstructure, two-piece hatches for driver and gunner, circular bullet-splash ring around turret base, rectangular ports on turret front and rear,
Px IV B = Straight front plate, no MG, narrower superstructure, single-piece hatches for driver and gunner, angular bullet splash ring around turret base, rectangular ports on turret rear, circular ports on turret front and rear, cupola changes
Pz IV C = Straight front plate, no MG, narrower superstructure, single-piece hatches for driver and gunner, angular bullet splash ring around turret base, circular ports on turret front and rear,
Pz IV D = angled front plate, with MG, narrower superstructure, single-piece hatches for driver and gunner, angular bullet splash ring around turret base, circular ports on turret front and rear, gun mantlet changes, rear deck side changes
Looks to me like it would take three different turrets (one for A, one for B and C, and a third for D models). Also three different front plates (again, one for A, one for B and C, and a third for D models). Probably two different muffler-area configurations (one for A, one for B, C and D models), three different sets of track guards (one for A, one for B and C, and one for D models).
And as I look back over having typed up all of that (after a close examination of the blueprints and notes I have taken of the first four models), I am struck by the idea that the B and C models were very, very close in appearance. The A has different track guards, a wider superstructure, a different enough turret (hatches, gun ports and cupola) to require its own, and a slightly different muffler area.
So I can easily see making a B/C kit easy. I can even see making a B/C and D kit. But to make an A/B/C/D kit would require a lot of effort, with many sprues to cover all the changed bits that the Model A has all by itself.
I would be super happy to have a B/C kit. Both models served in Poland (as did the A). The D did not, but it served in France (as did the A, B and C models). In terms of numbers made, we are looking at 35 As, 42 Bs, 134 Cs and 232 Ds.
It was the Pz IV Model D that had 48 converted to Tauchpanzers (submersible) versions, for the planned invasion of England. Also, many of these early models (A, B, C and D) were later converted (back-fitted) with improved weaponry, and sent off to places like North Africa. So in terms of optional pieces, I can see the sprues needing different turret weapons thus increasing the usability of the kit.
Buy one and build for Poland, another to paint for France, and a third to serve in North Africa. All from one kit!
-
I don't want to hijack the BA-6 topic so will keep this short. EWG, your list includes many commonalities between the C and D Pz IV variants and Rubicon are going to give us a D. I remain to be convinced the differences can't be overcome with relatively few resin parts. The case for the C revolves around it's importance in the Polish campaign where it can't be substituted for without the use of a time traveller. In the WWII context the BA-3 is not so important as the BA-6 is a legitimate non time travelling alternative.
Nothing against the BA-3 though.
-
Indeed, the C and D are very similar to each other. Other than what appear to be mostly small differences, the main big difference is that front panel. It is straight across on the C, and the driver and radio operator hatches line up on top. There is no MG for the radio operator to use. On the D, the front panel is "crooked" for lack of a better word, with the driver still forward (same spot) but the front plate then angles back a bit before continuing across where the radio operator sits. The two hatches do not line up on top. And on the D model the front MG returns.
Could Rubicon give us a kit that covers C and D models? Without needing many new parts? I think they could. And the B and C models are nearly identical, so really, if they give us a C they might as well give us the B as well. Which would give us a B/C/D combo kit.
It is the A model I don't think we will ever see. Lots of parts are different between the A and the other three models.
-
We're in sync again EWG, as we usually are.
-
Please move the Panzer IV discussion to the appropriate post/topic. Thank you!
We have already copied your Panzer IV related posts to here...
http://forum.rubiconmodels.com/index.php?topic=544.300
Thank you!
;)
-
Well this is really hard to discribe for me. While i use english alot, i lack alot technical terms, aside from those i use in my field of expertise. I took a glance over the postings, but i havent seen if this has been mentioned.
Now i have not hat may sources to confirm, its more an impression i have when i look at pictures and drawings of the BA-6 in comparison to your model. Or better looking at the 3d prototype, i dont really have the same impression when looking at the 3d drawing. The proportion of the turret to the hull seems to be slighly off, i have the impression that the turret can depress the gun any further than shown on the picture (not even reaching 0° of "depression").
Looking at the pictures in ""Zaloga - Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two, page 93", the turret seem to be smaller (or the vehicle seems to be bigger).
The picture here is similar https://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints/tanks/ww2-tanks-soviet-union/15763/view/ba-6/ (https://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints/tanks/ww2-tanks-soviet-union/15763/view/ba-6/) .
Even the Wikipedia article (although i don't really like using Wiki as a reference; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BA-3/6 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BA-3/6)) , make me think your is either to "big" or not placed corretly.
This might be just an issue with the picture as well, but i wanted to share my impression.
(https://s15.postimg.cc/oln5aylp3/Neue_Bitmap.png) (https://postimg.cc/image/oln5aylp3/)
A drawing of the BA-6 and the 3d Prototype for comparison.
-
I think the Rubicon model is fine. In their prototype photos, you are seeing the barrel pointing up slightly. Which is fine. You notice a "u" shaped metal bracket under the barrel, back by the mantlet? That does not move with the barrel up and down. It is fixed to the turret, and there to prevent the barrel from hitting the top of the roof. So the barrel can be depressed down slightly, until it hits that bracket, which stops the barrel.
So I think you can have the barrel at 0 degrees and pointing straight out.
-
The shape of the rear mudguard on the comparison pictures above looks slightly different.
The Rubicon one looks like the photograph on Wikipedia.
-
I think the Rubicon model is fine. In their prototype photos, you are seeing the barrel pointing up slightly. Which is fine. You notice a "u" shaped metal bracket under the barrel, back by the mantlet? That does not move with the barrel up and down. It is fixed to the turret, and there to prevent the barrel from hitting the top of the roof. So the barrel can be depressed down slightly, until it hits that bracket, which stops the barrel.
So I think you can have the barrel at 0 degrees and pointing straight out.
Again, this U-shaped piece looks, at least for me, as if it is to far over the driver's compatment. Looking at drawings (or photography on the wiki page) it ends where the sloping from the driver's compartment is angled down to the metal plate with the turret ring.
But again i wrote, that this impression might be due to the angle of the picture.
The shape of the rear mudguard on the comparison pictures above looks slightly different.
The Rubicon one looks like the photograph on Wikipedia.
Looking at the KV-1 and T-34 history, i assume that the exterior details of the BA-6 were tied to the factory where it was build. Für the larger tanks it was much more obvious with the various turret designs, but still it mig
-
Also notice that the turret isn't set flush to the hull on the 3d picture . I think its just the limitations of cut and paste 3d renders . I can remember one company who put the gun mantle on upside down on the 3d model ::) . I always assume that guys doing the computer modelling are not tank modellers , so I'll just wait until Rubicon actually show us the built up plastic kit . I don't think that after all the tweaking to fix the hulls and stuff in the T-26 kits , they would go all Dragon Black Label on this kit :D
-
Our version of BA-10 after our BA-6 prototyping...
Someone must be very happy! ;)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/GAZ%20Truck/BA-10%20eDrawing%20180612-01_zpsqnqs9qrr.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/GAZ%20Truck/BA-10%20eDrawing%20180612-02_zpsam8zrtkc.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/GAZ%20Truck/BA-10%20eDrawing%20180612-03_zpsuvbm1rzi.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/GAZ%20Truck/BA-10%20eDrawing%20180612-04_zpsdm5a8kuh.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/GAZ%20Truck/BA-10%20eDrawing%20180612-05_zpsscypviri.jpg)
Enjoy!
;)
-
Looking good. Although the poor old thing appears to have lost a wheel.
-
Nice.
Does Tyroflyer win a prize, good spot!
-
Although the poor old thing appears to have lost a wheel.
It was an overlook when we are hiding all the bits and pieces from the drawing... sharp eyes! ;)
Here a side-by-side image of the BA-6 and BA-10 for comparison:
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/GAZ%20Truck/BA-6%20amp%20BA-10%20180613-1_zpsyc1zmglv.jpg)
Enjoy!
;)
-
That certainly shows off the differences.
-
As a vehicle, I prefer the BA-10.
Can they be done as a single kit?
-
Can they be done as a single kit?
Besides the wheels and maybe the lower frame, nothing is the same! :(
-
YES ! While the BA -6 is very cool , the BA -10 is the ultimate Russian armored car . Getting closer to building my favorite eastern froint picture as a diorama
(https://s22.postimg.cc/cc8rx54a5/BA-10_KV_II.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/image/cc8rx54a5/)
-
Love that you already have a BA-10 in the works! The next step in the evolution of the BA double-rear axle series, and basically the final one. The BA-11 was an improvement over the BA-10, but other than a pre-production series of 18 built, mass production was cancelled due to the start of the war with Germany. So the BA-10 was their most produced (3,300+ built) double-rear axle armored car.
I certainly want one!
-
I would be happy with a BA-10 or five.
Looks great!
-
The Soviet BA armoured cars (BA-3/6/10) 3D drawings are finalised! Will send them to the mould making queue. Two products (1) BA-3/6 and (2) BA-10 - both single sprue with a multi-slide mould chassis with optional snow tracks for those cold Russian winters!
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/GAZ%20Truck/BA%20Armoured%20Cars%20180724-1_zpstzcny2zn.jpg)
Enjoy!
;)
-
Very nice indeed. And the snow tracks are a good option.
-
Very nice , and those snow tracks will work on their GAZ AAA truck as well :)
-
The Soviet BA armoured cars (BA-3/6/10) 3D drawings are finalised! Will send them to the mould making queue.
They look great, and what a great addition to the Soviet line of models.
-
I cannot see the back of the final BA3/6 drawings ... are you using the same hull? There were essentially three differences between the BA3 and the BA6. The BA3 had a door at the back, the BA6 did not, it had a solid panel. The BA3 had a two-part hatch on the sides by the engine, the BA6 had a single-part hatch (but in the same place, same size). And the driver's visor was slightly different between the two.
The visor differences could probably be ignored. But I am wondering if the other two differences have been accounted for?
-
The driver's visors look different.
-
If you blow the picture up , the driver's visors on the 3 and 6 do look different , not much , but they are different . The hatch on the side of the engine should be two piece , split in the middle , either one piece folds up , one down , or a double fold to the top . Pictures I looked at aren't that clear . The model renders do'nt show a two part hatch , BUT , there are BA-3 & 6 pictures on the net with a one piece side hatch . Was it a retro fit , different part manufacturer , or was it a GAZ truck part ? If needs be we can always scribe a line ( if Rubicon is wrong ) or ignore it all together . I'm more interested in an accurate looking turret / crew compartment than a side engine hatch . Any thoughts , guys ?
-
Here is a comparison between our version of the BA-3 and BA-6... we did not update some differences because they were minor and were shown in some photos as valid.
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/GAZ%20Truck/BA-3%20amp%20BA-6%20180725-01_zpsks4apr56.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/GAZ%20Truck/BA-3%20amp%20BA-6%20180725-02_zps5bxfnpzl.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/GAZ%20Truck/BA-3%20amp%20BA-6%20180725-03_zps8ziujnhv.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/GAZ%20Truck/BA-3%20amp%20BA-6%20180725-04_zpsi11uexiq.jpg)
Enjoy!
;)
-
Fantastic! I am glad the main difference between the BA-3 and the BA-6 has been accounted for (the back of the hull). Having the slightly different driver visor is also a nice touch.
As Ripley mentioned, if a person really wants to they can scribe their own line and make the side engine access hatches double rather than single. It is a very minor thing, and some BA-3s had the single panel anyway. I suspect they were ones built at the tail end of the BA-3 production cycle, as the specs (and parts) to build the BA-6 were becoming available.
I will probably scribe the line myself, just to give it one more difference between the two. But this is fantastic news, seeing that there is indeed a separate BA-3 to go with the BA-6! My early Soviet forces will be very happy to welcome these new kits!
-
I think the BA-3 will make a nice accurate model. Although the version with double hatches would probably require more than a scribed line to make me happy and therefore I probably wouldn't attempt it, Rubicon have done well and we are lucky to have the BA-3 as an option.
-
What you would need to do is scribe a line ( RED ) . Add a handle ( GREEN ) , and a couple of small pieces of plastic to represent the lower hinges ( BLUE ) .Probably could place a tarp on the fender and hide the missing hinges if you wanted to . I think the most difficult part would be the rivets holding the hinges on if you were that crazy , I probably woldn't bother , either place tiny dots of plastic , scale rivets from various AM companies , or just dot them on in dark paint
(https://s33.postimg.cc/wdfmn52ez/ar46_LI.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/image/wdfmn52ez/)
Or just leave it as BA-3 cars are seen with the one piece hatch
-
It looks as though Rubicon have done their homework on this one (I don't have detailed enough references to verify everything). I'm really pleased that they're doing this unusual and early vehicle, and that its a 'full option' kit.
-
Ripley ... I don't think it will be very difficult to form up a two-panel engine access panel. Normally, each hinge is held on by three bolts per side, so 6 per hinge total, and 12 for the pair. If you check out the concept images, Rubicon are giving us a single bolt on each side, so only two per hinge.
This means that after scribing the line across the mid point, you only need to create four bolt heads, two pairs of two. Then the "hinges" will match.
The handles we get are not "block C" bits of plastic, but a raised line simulation where the handle is. So creating a second one to match the first should not be an issue.
There are no hinges along the bottom. There are two round bumps. I believe on the inside there were clasps that held the panel in place. When you grabbed one of the handles and pulled uyp, the two-panel assembly folded up. You then latched the top handle (which is now facing over the top of the engine) onto a small clamp that was welded onto the engine housing. That would hold the engine access panels up and out of your way.
So ... scribe a line, add 4 bolts to match the top hinges (the hinge was on the inside so no need to model those), and then craft two larger round bumps for the two lower corners.
Here is a detailed blueprint of the engine panels, showing the differences between the BA-3 and the BA-6:
(https://s5.postimg.cc/e5iia4737/BA-3-and-6_Engine_Panels.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/image/e5iia4737/)
Nothing to be done about the fact that the BA-3 hatch is lower on the compartment (and thus, why two-panels were needed to clear the fender). On the BA-6 the panel was raised up a bit, so a single panel would clear the fender. But at a glance, I would like to see the twin-panel versus the single panel, and think the extra 15 minutes of modeling will be worth it.
I will be getting two kits, and doing the mod on one of them. Happy to post piccys after the deed is done.
-
(https://s5.postimg.cc/e5iia4737/BA-3-and-6_Engine_Panels.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/image/e5iia4737/)
The main reason why we did not include the double hinge door option is that of the difference in the position of the doors. We can always create two sets of doors as options, but their positions are different... that's something we cannot resolve. Luckily, we do see pictures of different BA-3s with the single hinge doors (probably from different factories), so we decided not to change the design.
-
That's the view I was trying to find , EWG . Thanks , I'm saving that for future reference . I just made assumptions based on the pictures I could find. Until , the kit is in hand , I'm not sure about weather or not its worth the effort to replace / move the hatch to a lower position . If was a BA kit I would say yes as their plastic is much easier to chisel away , Rubicon's is much tougher and I find you have more chance of gouging the plastic as opposed to shaving layers off . Its good to get all these concerns and ideas out there to mull over , so we can visualize the process well in advance . Measure twice , cut once ::) If Rubicon make the hatches separate , they could be mounted by having the pins on the rear at different positions to fit in the mounting holes on the hull . Probably wouldn't worry about the bracket at the top . I wonder if the rear door on the 3 is in a separate rear panel or is it an add on piece ?
(https://s33.postimg.cc/oshnp6yez/BA-3-and-6_Engine_Panels_LI.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/image/oshnp6yez/)
-
Rubicon ... I totally understand why you didn't fuss with the differences in engine access panels. As you said, if the opening was in the same spot, and it was a matter of having a one-panel or two-panel piece to insert into that space, then fine. But the opening is lower on the BA-3, and that means it gets tricky. As a plastic kit, you would end up with a seam where you don't want one, if you had to make two elongated parts to fit one opening, one with a single-panel hatch on top and a flat panel below, and another with a flat panel on top and a two-panel hatch below.
And there are photos out there supposedly of BA-3s with the single-panel engine access hatch. But unless you can see photos of the front and rear of the same vehicle (so you can see if the back has the door or not), then it is hard to fully believe those odd photos really are true BA-3s. It could just as easily be a BA-6,, but they had some old-style driver visors left kicking around, so they used one instead of the proper new ones. Or it could be that a BA-6 was destroyed (somewhere in the rear), and they had a BA-3 that took damage in the front, and it was easier to use the former BA-6 pieces in the front to make repairs. So those pictures could be of hybrid/repaired damage vehicles cobbled together, and not an "off the assembly line" version of the BA-3.
But hybrid or not, it justifies the decision to go with one type of engine access hatch. I have no complaints.
The main difference between the BA-3 and the BA-6 was the back. There either is or is not a door. Beyond that, you have the slight difference in the driver visor area, and the slight difference in the engine access area. I may change my mind with the kits in hand, but I plan to do the minor tooling necessary to the engine area to give me a close approximation of the engine hatch. I won't lower the opening, that is probably too much effort. But I think it will be quite easy to get a two-panel hatch in place of the single panel. May not be "quite right" as the hatch will be slightly higher than it should be, but it will give the model a third area to differentiate it from the BA-6.
And I won't be worrying about the bracket at the top either. At this scale, it would (at best) be a little bump of plastic not quite like a rivet.
-
First TS plastic for the BA-3/BA-6 just arrived at the studio, hastily assembled and primed it up for a preview!
The kit comes in a single sprue with a multi-slide mould body with optional rear track links for the armoured car in snow and muddy environment!
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/GAZ%20Truck/BA-3-6%20TS1%20190102-01_zpsyzmypzyl.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/GAZ%20Truck/BA-3-6%20TS1%20190102-02_zpsgl2bbuqj.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/GAZ%20Truck/BA-3-6%20TS1%20190102-03_zpsnise99eg.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/GAZ%20Truck/BA-3-6%20TS1%20190102-04_zpsi8pghzzd.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/GAZ%20Truck/BA-3-6%20TS1%20190102-05_zpswbgvabso.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/GAZ%20Truck/BA-3-6%20TS1%20190102-06_zpseqc8wppc.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/GAZ%20Truck/BA-3-6%20TS1%20190102-07_zpstpz33j0q.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/GAZ%20Truck/BA-3-6%20TS1%20190102-08_zps80whzwl1.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/GAZ%20Truck/BA-3-6%20TS1%20190102-09_zpsklthn3bi.jpg)
Enjoy!
;)
-
The kit comes in a single sprue with a multi-slide mould body with optional rear track links for the armoured car in snow and muddy environment!
What a nice optional addition to the model kit. I would have still bought the kit without out it, but it goes to show that you (Rubicon Models) think of adding these little things to your kits to give the gamer and/or modeller options.
I look forward to seeing this kit and the other Soviet armored car kit. These will be great additions to my 28mm (1:56) WW2 Soviet collection! Thanks for sharing.
-
I love it!
If it's resin or plastic or mixed it'll be awesome if the turret and turret ring are full interchangeable with the T-26.
Oops. I must not of reached the last page before my reply
-
Nice looking kit . I like the panel lines on the doors look to be a little more crisp than usual , should make it easier to cut the doors open for diorama purposes , for those of use who like that sort of thing ::)
(https://i.postimg.cc/HctBR3Pk/8837-14-46-armored-car.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/HctBR3Pk)
-
Fantastic looking kit! Super happy it comes with the track kit! Unexpected bonus!
-
Very nice.
-
We have the test assembled TS1 BA-6 painted after the QC report...
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7814/45860266305_47096a1a8b_o.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4917/45860266325_bbfdf0f449_o.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4831/32899578048_bba8c6f864_o.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4826/46050206294_441a7453e6_o.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4831/46050206224_84abe6f185_b.jpg)
Enjoy!
;)
-
Awesome .
(https://i.postimg.cc/gnTcVY8T/OgA2ck7.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/gnTcVY8T)
Now to scratch build and cast some rail road wheels
-
Awesome .
(https://i.postimg.cc/gnTcVY8T/OgA2ck7.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/gnTcVY8T)
Now to scratch build and cast some rail road wheels
Just remember to set the wheels the right distance apart (1,520 mm not four foot eight and a bit like most of the rest of the world).
-
That could be a resin add on kit for Rubicon , the rail road wheels , and the sections of traction tread loaded onto the rear fenders of the BA
(https://i.postimg.cc/4K2SvSYQ/index.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/4K2SvSYQ)
Actually , just the track by itself would be nice as a lot of pictures show it being carried
-
First test shot of the BA-10 is done! Now awaiting QC report...
(https://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/GAZ%20Truck/BA-10%20TS1%20190318-1_zpsmqn6hguw.jpg)
Enjoy!
;)
-
Nice.
-
Soviet BA-10 testshot plastic assembled and painted for in-house review.
Still have to do a lot of refinement to get the sprue perfect for release, but we are getting there!
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/GAZ%20Truck/BA-10%20TS1%20Painted%20190322-1_zpsw6nubmc7.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/GAZ%20Truck/BA-10%20TS1%20Painted%20190322-2_zpszstdlldy.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/GAZ%20Truck/BA-10%20TS1%20Painted%20190322-3_zpsqulhl4wn.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/GAZ%20Truck/BA-10%20TS1%20Painted%20190322-4_zpsmq5kfudy.jpg)
Enjoy!
;)
-
Two planned plastic kits - BA-3/BA-6 and BA-10...
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/GAZ%20Truck/BA%20Armoured%20Cars%20190322-1%20FB_zps0m0rzhnz.jpg)
Enjoy!
;)
-
Looking good.
-
Definitely want a couple of these
-
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/GAZ%20Truck/BA%20Armoured%20Cars%20190322-1%20FB_zps0m0rzhnz.jpg)
Great job RM. Others are surely thinking of this, but I will just come out and say it. If given a choice of only two Soviet ACs to be produced in plastic, the majority that I know would have wished/wanted:
1) BA-10
2) BA-64
That being said, the BA-3/6 is still a welcomed sight! Especially if a gamer is putting together a Finish army because a few captured BA-3/6 ACs were used by the Finnish Army.
Side Note:
An interesting note to make is that later in the war the BA-3/6 and BA-10 ACs were gradually replaced in the Soviet Army by T-60 and T-70 light tanks, but the BA-64 AC continued to soldier on (being manufactured and used) until the end of the war.