Rubicon Models
Rubicon Models => Work In Progress => Topic started by: Rubicon Models on February 04, 2015, 07:56:24 pm
-
Now that our Q1/15 projects are almost finished, we are starting some Q2 projects... As you might already know the M3 Halftracks 3D drawings are already done, and had been moved to 3D prototyping; also 3D drawing done is this M5A1/M8 combo! Features of this M5A1 include:
- Be able to build a M5A1 as a mid or late production model
- Be able to build a M8 75mm HMC
- Be able to build a M5A1 Kangaroo
- Include spare wheels and hedgerow cutter
This is not final yet as we still have to see if everything will fit onto the sprues!
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/M5A1%20Stuart/M5A1TopViewComparison_zps105151bf.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/M5A1%20Stuart/M5A1Mid1_zps2579a4f9.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/M5A1%20Stuart/M5A1Late1_zps4956d937.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/M5A1%20Stuart/M5A1Late2_zpsf393afa3.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/M5A1%20Stuart/M875mmHMC_zps63a0b317.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/M5A1%20Stuart/M5A1Kangaroo_zps28d7f928.jpg)
* Does the M5A1 Kangaroo looks like a 40K Rhino? What a coincident!
C&C welcome!
;)
-
Lovely. My brits want a couple.
-
Shouldn't that be called a Stuart Jalopee rather than a Kangaroo? I seem to remember that the Kangaroos were based on the canadian Ram tank... *confused*
-
They called the turret less Ram , Sherman , Stuart and gun less Priest - Kangaroos . IRC the Depot that converted the first Priests to personal carriers ( in Italy ? ) was code named Kangaroo - so they called the resulting vehicles - Kangaroos . Great looking kit Rubicon !
-
Shouldn't that be called a Stuart Jalopee rather than a Kangaroo? I seem to remember that the Kangaroos were based on the canadian Ram tank... *confused*
In the summer of 1942, the British usually kept Stuarts out of tank-to-tank combat, using them primarily for reconnaissance. The turret was removed from some examples to save weight and improve speed and range. These became known as "Stuart Recce". Some others were converted to armored personnel carriers known as the "Stuart Kangaroo", and some were converted command vehicles and known as "Stuart Command".
Reference Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_Stuart
-
These look great. I'd have preferred an M3A3, as it was much more common in British service, but I can see why you went for the M5A1.
I've never seen Stuart "Jalopies" in any reference book. The other name that seems to have been used was "sawn-off Stuarts". The "Jalopy" name seems to be a creation of FoW, but I stand to be corrected. The "Kangaroo" version seems to have been fairly rare (especially on the M5A1 chassis); I think most turretless Stuarts were the "Recce" version.
-
Here is the real thing!
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Vet5KodZGP4
;)
-
Be careful - that might actually be a T8E1, which was a US conversion that saw very limited service. It was fitted with the raised .50 cal gun ring that you have on your version. The Recce/Kangaroo conversion was more improvised. I can't say for sure that there were no Recce/Kangaroo variants with that gun ring, but it wasn't typical.
-
Be careful - that might actually be a T8E1, which was a US conversion that saw very limited service. It was fitted with the raised .50 cal gun ring that you have on your version. The Recce/Kangaroo conversion was more improvised. I can't say for sure that there were no Recce/Kangaroo variants with that gun ring, but it wasn't typical.
Pinky, you might be correct. We have the same question too! Had been trying to look for more info on the gun ring... not much lucky! Might need to ask around for some solid background check!
-
Maybe just do the more basic additions, like the simple armoured shields and folded canvas tilt?
-
WANT ADVICE!
As discussed with Pinky, we have some design issues with the Kangaroo/Recce regarding the gun ring on top of the turret ring:
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/M5A1%20Stuart/M5A1Kangaroo_zps28d7f928.jpg)
In our drawing, we have this raised gun ring, which we think is only available on the T8E1 and not the M5A1. From very limited historical pictures, the Kangaroo/Recce conversion was more improvised, and mostly field upgraded.
We might just go ahead with the current design if there are no solid feedback, as it do looks good! :D
Any pointers, comments or suggestions?
;)
-
Just posted this over on TMP, this oneis at Duxford Imperial War Museum:
(http://www.surfacezero.com/g503/data/929/medium/imm022_23.jpg)
-
I would prefer without the ring, but it wouldn't prevent me from buying the kit. I would simply leave it off.
But if you can use the space on the sprue for something else I think you should do that instead and loose the ring.
-
Just posted this over on TMP, this oneis at Duxford Imperial War Museum:
That's not necessarily historically accurate, Cat. It could be a T8E1 which a collector is using as a Recce/Kangaroo. This is what it looked like:
-
We might just go ahead with the current design if there are no solid feedback, as it do looks good! :D
Given that (1) the M5A1 wasn't widely used by the Commonwealth forces, and (2) this turret ring doesn't seem to have been a feature of the Recce/Kangaroo, if you produce this version you'll end up with a rather obscure vehicle…
-
Given that (1) the M5A1 wasn't widely used by the Commonwealth forces, and (2) this turret ring doesn't seem to have been a feature of the Recce/Kangaroo, if you produce this version you'll end up with a rather obscure vehicle…
Don't worry, we will give this plenty of thoughts before going into production. We still have to do 3D prototyping... will probably do a few more variations of the gun ring to see how this will turn out!
;)
-
Given that (1) the M5A1 wasn't widely used by the Commonwealth forces, and (2) this turret ring doesn't seem to have been a feature of the Recce/Kangaroo, if you produce this version you'll end up with a rather obscure vehicle…
I have no idea about the frequency of the MG ring — but it's cute!
However, for those of us modelling the Canadian army, info on wwiitanks.co.uk is that Canada used 3,427 Stuart V and 2,075 Stuart VI. So for myself, I wouldn't be fussed about using either the M3 or M5 for variations.
The M5/M8 combo certainly makes the most sense for the basic kit, and given that, I'd be happy to have any recce version that works too.
-
Found a photo of what looks like an M5A1 Recce. Also a couple of photos of what I'd suggest the kit should depict. I think the version with the canvas tilt and camouflage scheme looks particularly nice (although it's a lot neater than most Recces!) It looks as though a large stowage box on the rear would be a good addition.
-
Found a photo of what looks like an M5A1 Recce. Also a couple of photos of what I'd suggest the kit should depict. I think the version with the canvas tilt and camouflage scheme looks particularly nice (although it's a lot neater than most Recces!) It looks as though a large stowage box on the rear would be a good addition.
Thanks Pinky! We also have these photos, but the image resolution is just too low to make out how the gun mount is being field modified. Today we have a long production meeting, will probably do a few variations of the gun mount, then decide how to proceed after doing some 3D prototypes.
We are also facing some production issues as part counts for a M5/M8 combo is over 100 pieces! Need to figure out a solution... but that would be after the 3D prototype phase!
;)
-
It was a simple pintle mount, often fixed to the inside of the turret ring.
-
We are also facing some production issues as part counts for a M5/M8 combo is over 100 pieces! Need to figure out a solution... but that would be after the 3D prototype phase!
I guess I'd be asking how popular an M5/M8 kit really would be…
-
We are also facing some production issues as part counts for a M5/M8 combo is over 100 pieces! Need to figure out a solution... but that would be after the 3D prototype phase!
I guess I'd be asking how popular an M5/M8 kit really would be…
I'd buy at least three... not playing competitive games I think light armour is more fun than heavy stuff. At least one will be used as a recce or kangaroo version.
-
I'ld buy 2 primarily to use as M8's and the cornerstone of building elements of a US Armored Recon Battalion.
It would be great if the various turret options can be swapped out, and then I'ld also use them for recce with the Canadians
-
It would be great if the various turret options can be swapped out, and then I'ld also use them for recce with the Canadians
While both the M5/M8 chassis look the same, it is not be possible with the M5 and M8, both have a different hull layout & design features; and most importantly, the turret ring size is different!
:(
-
Seems to me that the M8 might be more popular than than the M5A1…since you'd need to provide 2 hulls anyway, maybe you could do an M3A3 (which, I'd suggest, is a more important version of the Stuart than the M5A1) and an M8? Doesn't really help your parts count problem, I know...
-
Seems to me that the M8 might be more popular than than the M5A1…since you'd need to provide 2 hulls anyway, maybe you could do an M3A3 (which, I'd suggest, is a more important version of the Stuart than the M5A1) and an M8? Doesn't really help your parts count problem, I know...
We have looked into the M3/M5/M8 before the project, the M5/M8 share a lot more common features than the M3/M8 combo, that's why we did it!
The initial plan was to do a M3/M5/M8... just not possible!
;)
-
According to other forum in the book "British and American Tanks of WWII" by P Chamberlain and C. Ellis has
info on the Stuart Kangaroo--"Late war conversion of redundant vehicles (any mark) by removal of turret and addition of seats for infantry for APC role in infantry units of armoured brigades. 1943-45 and post-war".
Page 91
I cant confirm the amount of information because i dont have this book, maybe someone can look it up.
The elevated ring seems to be the t8e1 though. The information i found on the internet implies that the kangaroo had not just the turret removed but also some part of the upper hull removed, also this might be some mix up with the artillery tractor based on the stuart.
For some pictures
See armchair general "name this tank" p.285 post by republicanguard
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34055&page=285
Sixth army group forum, shots of a model
http://www.sixtharmygroup.com/portal/viewtopic.php?t=21705
Given tne amount of parts for the interior a droping the variant entirely (or adfing the recce version instead) might be worth a thought, especially with the amount of parts you mentioned.
-
elcee: Thanks for the pointer! We have google through most of the information available on the net, including the two links you have included. The elevated ring is indeed for the T8E1, which we had included as an alternative; that particular gun ring might not even made it to the final sprue. During the 3D drawing phase, it is better to prepare all the possible parts than add them later!
Thanks again... really appreciated!
;)
-
Experimenting with more alternatives to the Kangaroo design. Read more books on the subject and come up with two variations (still need refinement):
Design 2: Create two MG holders to "hide" the turret secure notches. Disadvantage is the holders are at 45 degree angle, making it looks a bit odd...
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/M5A1%20Stuart/M5A1Kangaroo2_zpse8936e4d.jpg)
Design 3: Add an irregular shield like ring on top of the gun turret ring. Disadvantage is ring size gets smaller!
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/M5A1%20Stuart/M5A1Kangaroo3_zpscef2b79f.jpg)
Any comments?
;)
-
The second one looks much better, IMO. Can I suggest, however, that you widen the shield so it's level with the outer rim of the turret ring, and have it sitting on a very shallow ring, with a couple of tabs underneath to fit into the 'bayonet' openings in the turret ring. You might also consider a second gun mount, so people can fit the .30 cal as well.
-
I don't know... I'm drawn toward the first one, but I'm no expert. Couldn't you make the gaps straight up front and back so the MG isn't at an angle? I mean, if you then put the tabs at 90 and 270 degrees on the turret you still get the same functionality.
-
Pinky: Can I suggest, however, that you widen the shield so it's level with the outer rim of the turret ring, and have it sitting on a very shallow ring, with a couple of tabs underneath to fit into the 'bayonet' openings in the turret ring. You might also consider a second gun mount, so people can fit the .30 cal as well.
Yes, we will add a second gun mount. This is just a preliminary design that still need refinement.
Laffe: Couldn't you make the gaps straight up front and back so the MG isn't at an angle? I mean, if you then put the tabs at 90 and 270 degrees on the turret you still get the same functionality.
It is a design issue with the 45 degree thing. Also, with the current design, the MG with the mount is a single piece from the original M5A1 turret. This is to save sprue space. We can split the MG and the mount, and that will resolve a lot of issues; but we probably will have 3 or 4 parts instead of a single one!
-
It is is a design issue with the 45 degree thing. Also, with the current design, the MG with the mount is a single piece from the original M5A1 turret. This is to save sprue space. We can split the MG and the mount, and that will resolve a lot of issues; but we probably will have 3 or 4 parts instead of a single one!
That's a tricky one…and you need at least one fairly large piece for the hull interior, as well as a couple of pieces for the M8 turret interior (howitzer breech and ammo). I'm guessing it's also hard to justify more sprues for a small vehicle like this, as it becomes too expensive.
-
I collect and play Dust I cut my main body of my Walker to lower the turret so it just pushes in, it as remained tight despite play could you get a way with no lugs
-
Got the 3D prototype parts back from the factory! Here is the M5 track links with the road wheels... Simply look at the details! Going to be awesome when this is turned into plastic!
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/M5A1%20Stuart/M5%20Drive%20Tracks%2001_zpslmfllzqn.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/M5A1%20Stuart/M5%20Drive%20Tracks%2002_zpsgh3sly8n.jpg)
;)
-
This looks good to me. You seem to have adopted the same approach as you did to the M4A3 - guide teeth on only one side. It's fine, I think - it's barely noticeably on the M4A3, and makes for easy assembly and a nice robust model.
Have you solved the issues with the Recon version and the number of parts?
-
Here is some 3D printed parts for our WIP M5/M8 light tank. The M5 is a small tank, yet highly detailed!
We are still trying to shortlist what to produce (in terms of variants) and what not because we cannot fit all the parts into 2 or even 3 sprues. Possible variants include M5 / M5A1 / M8 / Kangaroo (Reece) in early / mid / late production. We love all of them, but some needed to be sacrified!
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/M5A1%20Stuart/FB%20Parts%2003_zpsgk3ah7si.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/M5A1%20Stuart/FB%20Parts%2004_zpsr8n3r8gx.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/M5A1%20Stuart/FB%20Parts%2001_zps1fcx4tuo.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/M5A1%20Stuart/FB%20Parts%2002_zps3ccjcfx3.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/M5A1%20Stuart/FB%20Parts%2005_zpsnqocimpk.jpg)
;)
-
These prototypes look very nice. Especially the .30 cal, although the details of the cradle don't look quite right yet. Can't quite tell what's going on with the .50 cal ammo box - the underside seems to be cut away. The level of detail of these parts is great.
I really hope you include the Recce/Kangaroo version, even at the expense of (say) the M5. I'd say the M5 is relatively marginal from a wargaming perspective (and even historically) - it was quickly replaced in service. The M5A1 did not actually have much of a combat role, but it's likely to be popular with Bolt Action players because it's cheap in points.
-
This seems to have been what the late M5A1's .30 cal cradle looked like:
-
Some more images on the M5/M8...
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/M5A1%20Stuart/FB%20M5A1-01_zpsfvrbvjoq.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/M5A1%20Stuart/FB%20M5A1-02_zpswmc49j6s.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/M5A1%20Stuart/FB%20M5A1-03_zpsarziz76j.jpg)
Enjoy!
;)
-
These look really nice. The design of the M8 turret is ingenious!
-
With the basic M3/M3A1 Half-Track almost done, focus is now on the M5A1/M8 prototypes...
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/M5A1%20Stuart/M5A1-00_zpscefyjdbf.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/M5A1%20Stuart/M5A1-01_zpsduoucuub.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/M5A1%20Stuart/M5A1-04_zpsximm1iqg.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/M5A1%20Stuart/M5A1-02_zpsp4xmnzph.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/M5A1%20Stuart/M5A1-03_zpsoijdqh1n.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/M5A1%20Stuart/M5A1-08_zpsmtvuqcq1.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/M5A1%20Stuart/M5A1-09_zpsohyxbrxp.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/M5A1%20Stuart/M5A1-05_zpsdzxoluzw.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/M5A1%20Stuart/M5A1-06_zpstjdcbuk4.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/M5A1%20Stuart/M5A1-07_zps4cfkyddj.jpg)
We know there is no way to fit all these into a single product (3 sprues maximum), we are now working hard to sort out how to position the M5A1/M8 into our product range. We probably will split this into 2 product codes...
Please feel free to comment!
;)
-
I haven't looked at them closely, but these prototypes look really good. It'd be great if you could fit all of these variants into one kit! What if you dropped the side skirts to make more room on the sprues? After all, you haven't included the side skirts with your M4A3 kit, and they were often discarded in service. Maybe also have fewer separate hatches?
I love the .50 cal. The .30 cal looks nice too, although the ammo box is a bit odd. Both weapon types seem to be more robust than the machine guns you've provided in earlier kits. Is that right?
-
Looks great .Really love the open hatches . ( must order some Warlord figure sprues , I need more crew figures ) . If there's too many pieces I guess you could put out the M5 / Kangaroo kit , and then release the M8 at a later date . I mean you putting out 3 kits based on the 251 D right now and maybe another version if you decide to make a 75mm armed 251/22 . I guess a combined M5 / M8 kit would probably have a piece count like your Tiger kit and be comparable priced , don't know if many folks would pay that much for a small tank . ( I'ld get one :) )
-
It seems to me that a Stuart kit with just one option (like an M8) would be rather small. However if you include all the options then you end up with a kit which is the same price as the Tiger I, but which still just builds a single small vehicle. As Ripley said, that may not be attractive.
What if the kit contained enough parts to build 2 different vehicles? I think a lot of people would want more than one Stuart variant - light vehicles are popular in Bolt Action. Having enough parts to build 2 vehicles would justify a Tiger-sized box (which would still be cheaper than buying two separate smaller kits). Just a thought.
Again, these prototypes look terrific - especially the M8. I think producing a range of vehicles like this puts Rubicon ahead of Warlord/Italeri.
-
Some Historical Background
A total of 6,810 M5A1 was produced. M5A1 was basically a M5 with a M3A3 turret; this was the major variant in US units by 1943. The M5A1 was used throughout the war in almost all theaters; particularly in the Pacific. It was also used by other countries, including the UK, Russia, France, China and Yugoslavia.
A total of 1,778 M8 was produced from Sep 42 to Jan 44. The M8 was used in the Italian Campaign, the Western Front, and in the Pacific Theater of Operations by the US Army and on the Western Front by the French Army. It was also used by the French Union and State of Vietnam during the First Indochina War. It stayed in French service until the 1960s and saw service in Algeria.
Our Thoughts
- We will not do a "all-in-one" 4 sprue kit as the Tiger I. We do not foresee people spending £23 for a small tank!
- Also there will be a lot of extra bits left behind after building a single variant which we think is not eco-friendly!
- We currently do not have plans to do more variants for the M3/M5 series, so no expansion sprue like the SdKfz 251D series.
- We incline to produce two plastic kits for this M5A1/M8 project; one being a M5A1 & Kangaroo and the other a M5A1 & M8 kit.
- Both will be priced competitively with other Rubicon kits.
Any comments?
;)
-
Did you want comments on the historical background? For instance, the Soviets didn't get any M5A1s.
I guess two kits, each with two options, makes sense. Would it mean you would include a few more parts for each version?
You didn't like my suggestion of providing enough parts in each kit to build two vehicles? I think people would pay the same price as a Tiger I for that. But you'll make more money from separate kits :)
-
Did you want comments on the historical background? For instance, the Soviets didn't get any M5A1s.
You are correct, the Russians had M3, not M5... ;D
I guess two kits, each with two options, makes sense. Would it mean you would include a few more parts for each version?
You didn't like my suggestion of providing enough parts in each kit to build two vehicles? I think people would pay the same price as a Tiger I for that. But you'll make more money from separate kits :)
We have considered different combinations of the four... all with an extra loads of spare parts! The "two vehicles" build was initially planned, but making it work meant an extra sprue... not budgeted! So we are left with "two kits" version!
;)
-
I think the Two Kit versions would be the way to go . Its keeps the price down and doesn't waste a lot of useless plastic left over bits . ( No idea what to do with the extra turret roofs from your Tiger kit , but the tracks are going to grace an Ork tank :) )
-
Doing 2 kits makes sense for those of us who paint all the markings on vehicles. M5/M8 for US, M5/Jalopy for foreigners.
-
Doing 2 kits makes sense for those of us who paint all the markings on vehicles. M5/M8 for US, M5/Jalopy for foreigners.
That's a good point.
Here's what I would suggest for the background for these vehicles (the version above looks like it's straight off Wikipedia):
The M5A1 light tank was essentially an M5 with the larger turret first introduced on the M3A3. Production began in early 1943, and a total of 6,810 M5A1s were produced. By June 1944, the US Army had almost most entirely switched to the M5A1. It was also used by the US Marines. In Northwest Europe, the M5A1 was primarily used for scouting and security duties, although it still had a role as a gun tank in the Pacific. It was also used by Britain, Canada, Poland and France, as well as the Yugoslav partisans and (after WW2) China. In British, Canadian and Polish service, the M5A1 was known as the Stuart VI, and from 1943 onwards the turret was frequently removed, resulting in the Stuart Recce.
The M8 HMC was based on the M5 chassis. It was intended to provide indirect fire support for armoured reconnaissance units. A total of 1,778 M8s were produced from September 1942 to January 1944. The M8 was used by the US Army and Free French in Italy and Northwest Europe, and by the US Army in the Pacific. Eventually replaced by the M4(105mm) and M7 Priest, it saw service after WW2 with the French Expeditionary Force in Vietnam.
-
It just occurred to me - if you're going to have an M5A1/M8 kit and a separate kit with the Recce parts, why not make the separate kit an M3A3/Recce? You'd only need to do a new hull, which would also justify the additional sprue you'd need for the Recce variant (which otherwise just consists of an armoured turret ring and some machine guns). Then (like Cat suggested) you could market the M5A1/M8 as a US vehicle, and the M3A3/Recce as a British/Commonwealth vehicle.
-
We will look into this... probably too late as we had already moved the project into the mould making phase; will discuss with studio staff!
Major changes on the 3D drawing will meant delay on other on-going projects, don't think studio staff will like that, but will definitely bring this up during our next meeting!
???
-
It just occurred to me - if you're going to have an M5A1/M8 kit and a separate kit with the Recce parts, why not make the separate kit an M3A3/Recce? You'd only need to do a new hull, which would also justify the additional sprue you'd need for the Recce variant (which otherwise just consists of an armoured turret ring and some machine guns). Then (like Cat suggested) you could market the M5A1/M8 as a US vehicle, and the M3A3/Recce as a British/Commonwealth vehicle.
That's a good idea!
-
Again, had been quiet on the M5A1/M8 project for a while. Factory & studio had been busy with other OEM projects. Finally had the moulds done!
The following is our first test shots for the M5A1/M8 project:
Sprue A & C - M5A1 Stuart (Mid & Late Production) / M5A1 Reece (Kangaroo)
Sprue A & B - M8 Scott / M5A1 Stuart (Mid Production)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/M5A1%20Stuart/M5%20Test%20Shot%20A%20150702-1_zpsvo5wpida.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/M5A1%20Stuart/M5%20Test%20Shot%20B%20150702-1_zpsrsn2pzst.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/M5A1%20Stuart/M5%20Test%20Shot%20C%20150702-1_zpsgu46twka.jpg)
We have some major shrinkage issues in some area which we think is related to injection pressure and cooling time; plus some loose ends to fix, but overall quality is satisfactory!
;)
-
Well these all look pretty good from here! Lovely work on the design of these kits. You've come a long way since the Panzer IV ;)
-
The Panzer IV is our first plastic kit. The project was started in Nov 2013 and moulds being done by Apr 2014. We had used the Panzer IV as a beta test to see if we are to form Rubicon Models and to continue with our dream. We'd never look back since!
Had learned a lot from mistakes in research, project management, and mould making techniques... One thing we are still no good at is factoring holidays into our production schedule - Chinese New Year, Golden Week, and so forth! Then there are distractions, like OEM businesses. Anyway, had been a very fruitful year since the official first releases in Nov 2014 ...and had to thank you and everyone who had continued to buy our products!!
Upcoming projects will be even more awesome! Stay tuned!!
;D
-
Maybe I'm missing something, but what's the reasoning behind 4 x .50cals and 2 x .30cals?
Is it so you can make all the different turrets, stick them on and not have to worry about swapping the pintle mounts between them? Does that mean this kit has easily swappable turrets between the M5 and the M8 without any plasticard (like the Sherman kit)?
-
Is there a .30 cal for the M5A1 on the M5A1/M8 combination? Maybe I'm missing something, but I can only see a .50 cal on sprue B.
-
There are more on sprue C. Only sprue A is for both boxes. B and C come depending on wether you bought the M5/M8 or the M5/Recce version.
-
There are more on sprue C. Only sprue A is for both boxes. B and C come depending on wether you bought the M5/M8 or the M5/Recce version.
Sure - so that means sprue B should have its own .30 cal for the M5A1 version. I can't see one. Nor does sprue B seem to include the armoured cover for the .30 cal which was a feature of the late M5A1 turret (it's on sprue C along with the appropriate turret half). So presumably it's actually the early M5A1 that comes with the M8.
-
We have made a mistake to quote the wrong configurations on the M5/M8 sprue earlier in this post.
It is supposed to be:
Kit #1 - M5A1 Stuart (Mid & Late Production) with M5A1 Reece (Kangaroo) consisting of Sprue A and C.
Kit #2 - M8 Scott HMC with M5A1 Stuart (Mid Production) consisting of Sprue A and B.
All other social media references are correct except on our own forum... We are sorry for the confusion!
:(
-
That's fine - but does kit #2 include a .30 cal? The early M5A1 had a fairly large pintle mounting on the side of the turret, positioned between the grouser racks. The gun and mounting could be in one piece - C28 on sprue C would almost work.
-
That's fine - but does kit #2 include a .30 cal? The early M5A1 had a fairly large pintle mounting on the side of the turret, positioned between the grouser racks. The gun and mounting could be in one piece - C28 on sprue C would almost work.
There is no .30 cal on the early M5A1, but can easily converted with C28 as you indicated.
-
I guess you ran out of sprue space. I suppose a lot of people will buy both kits, and will therefore have a spare .30 cal. And presumably most people will build the M8 anyway (I can't see anyone buying that kit for the M5A1 version). But it's still a bit unfortunate, as the .30 cal was standard equipment.
-
Here are some images of the painted M5A1/M8 test shot plastic sprues after test-fitting...
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/M5A1%20Stuart/M5A1-T3P-150723-01_zpskeektudn.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/M5A1%20Stuart/M5A1-T3P-150723-02_zpscy0wtziq.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/M5A1%20Stuart/M5A1-T3P-150723-04_zpskh4rj83a.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/M5A1%20Stuart/M5A1-T3P-150723-07_zpsh8qelqii.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/M5A1%20Stuart/M5A1-T3P-150723-11_zpsqv7guu4j.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/M5A1%20Stuart/M5A1-T3P-150723-14_zpshwkms51u.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/M5A1%20Stuart/M5A1-T3P-150723-15_zpsh02fukae.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/M5A1%20Stuart/M5A1-T3P-150723-03_zpsmpwiowzd.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/M5A1%20Stuart/M5A1-T3P-150723-17_zpsadbto4rt.jpg)
For more closeup images, please go and see our M5A1/M8 photo album on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1619424098310952.1073741880.1443080675945296&type=3
Enjoy!
-
Very cool to see these kits painted.
Inevitably, I have a couple of comments (although I know it's rather late to make any changes):
- overall, the level of detail is really good, and it looks very crisp and well moulded. These are obviously quite small vehicles, so they're probably going to look even better in the flesh. The way you've done the M8 turret in relatively few parts is also very impressive.
- I still think omitting the .30 cal from the mid-production M5A1 is unfortunate. The late production M5A1 has the wrong .30 cal cradle, but I doubt anyone will care.
- the mantlet on the M5A1 sits way too low. The upper edge was almost flush with the turret roof. Can you correct that?
- The M8 mantlet sits too far forward. It shouldn't be possible to see the gun tube etc. Is that a construction error?
- Does the M5A1/Recce kit come with British decals? The Recce wasn't used by the US Army.
-
- I still think omitting the .30 cal from the mid-production M5A1 is unfortunate. The late production M5A1 has the wrong .30 cal cradle, but I doubt anyone will care.
Yes, it was unfortunate, but you can easily modify the .30 cal on the late model to fit it onto the mid production one.
- the mantlet on the M5A1 sits way too low. The upper edge was almost flush with the turret roof. Can you correct that?
We are still fine tuning the sprues. There are still some errors that need to be fixed. Will look into this...
- The M8 mantlet sits too far forward. It shouldn't be possible to see the gun tube etc. Is that a construction error?
Yes, you have sharp eyes! The horizontal upper piece should be glued much forward towards the mantlet. It was in the wrong position.
- Does the M5A1/Recce kit doesn't come with British decals? The Recce wasn't used by the US Army.
New decals are in the work!
-
- Does the M5A1/Recce kit come with British decals? The Recce wasn't used by the US Army.
This is the new generic US & Allies decal sheet for the M5A1/M8 kits.
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Waterslide%20Decals/Water%20Decal%20USAampAllies-01s_zpsqeaiu9ag.jpg)
Any comments on its contents are appreciated.
Enjoy!
-
Oh good - you're providing a mixture of US and Allied markings for these kits.
- the star in yellow circle was very rare, as it only featured on (some) vehicles involved in the invasion of Sicily in 1943. I'd query whether it's worth including it. The US flag was also pretty rare after 1943.
- you only need the bridging plates (black number in yellow circle) for the M5A1 and M8 - which seems to have been "15" and "16" respectively. These plates were pretty rare on tanks, so you could drop them.
- if you're including French markings, you also need French-style registration numbers. Maybe drop these to make more space?
- given that the moulded-on grouser stowage on the turrets makes placement of markings difficult, is it actually worth including the British squadron markings?
- I assume you've decided to omit formation signs and numbers for space reasons, but a couple of British formation/arm of service signs would be nice. The Guards Armoured used the M5A1, for instance.
- many US Army M5A1s in Normandy had their length, weight etc stenciled on the angled armour on the right side.
- maybe include more callsigns (the big numbers in yellow)? These seem to have been pretty common.
- the only name you've included ("Hothead") is a USMC vehicle. Some more vehicle names would be nice. Here are some suggestions:
US Army M5A1 (mid production) names included "Sloppy Joe", "Mickey Georgiana", "Cognac", "Carol" and "Destruction"; USMC names included "Nannie" and "Hunter".
US Army M5A1 (late production) names included "Brig", "Dingbat" and "Dagwood".
British Army M5A1 names included "Halcyon" and "The Black Bear"
M8 names included "Laxative" (it also had a large yellow callsign "3-9").
Recce names (including Recces based M3 and M3A3 hulls) included: "The Curse of Scotland", "Havoc" and "Hornblower".
Hope that helps.
-
Pinky, thanks for the suggestions. We tend to make our first "US & Allies" decal more "generic" in a sense that it could be used for multiple kits. We probably will create additional decal sheets (much like what we have done with the German) to fill the void.
We will continue to revise this decal design until we send it to print...
-
If you made an A4 sheet of decals full of allied stars and other U.S. markings I wouldn't think twice before buying several!
-
U.S. vehicle registration numbers were not in yellow or black, they were first painted on in blue drab, and then in 1943-1944 , they were painted on in white. It would be cool if there were a few of the registration numbers with the prefix letter 'w' on the sheet were in blue, for early war vehicles. Also , for early war vehicles, a few yellow vehicle identification stars would be good as well.
-
U.S. vehicle registration numbers were not in yellow or black, they were first painted on in blue drab, and then in 1943-1944 , they were painted on in white. It would be cool if there were a few of the registration numbers with the prefix letter 'w' on the sheet were in blue, for early war vehicles. Also , for early war vehicles, a few yellow vehicle identification stars would be good as well.
Some early war vehicles did have white or yellow serial numbers. Some even seem to have been black. Blue drab was introduced in 1942. Units stationed in Britain prior to D-Day had white serial numbers because they didn't have any blue drab paint, then white seems to have become the most common colour. The "W" prefix was dropped in 1944.
-
Think the colour we saw on some of the earlier US tanks are not black, but blue drab - it was basically a bluish green, but when pitched against an olive drab background colour, it looked darker. Also, complicated by image compression and sometimes RGB/CYMK colour conversions, it just got darker.
We are making changes to the decal sheet just as we speak... we need to send the decal file for sample printing tomorrow morning!
Will post the final version later!
;)
-
Not perfect, but we have replaced the "HOTHEAD" and French flag with the UK Armoured Guards and US Armored Division insignia. Also, we've changed the black coloured tank number to "blue drab" just to see how it will shown up on printed decal.
We figured not a major issue as we will be producing more decals later on... Will need to send this to the printer for sample run before final production. We still can make amendments before final production run!
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Waterslide%20Decals/Water%20Decal%20USAampAllies-02s_zps8ugnf8tl.jpg)
Comments?
-
Since you include the british squad markings and weight discs, it would be useful to also have the regimental markings... you know, the red squares with 50, 51, 52, 53 and 54 on (for armoured divisions). I realise this will be a generic sheet, but seems like they would be necessary. Perhaps delete a few of the weight discs to make room?
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g53/TonyBarton/11th-Armoured-chart.jpg)
(Note, I'm not suggesting including all of the above.)
-
Laffe, the regimental and armoured division markings will be on our next British ONLY decal sheet for the A15 Crusader.
;)
-
It's still a rather eclectic mixture...
- the 1st Armoured symbol wasn't used on tanks - US Army vehicles used a system of codes for divisional, regimental etc. markings.
- maybe get rid of the Free French symbols, and replace them with another large yellow callsign?
- most of those bridging plates are for soft-skins. Will you really be including this set of decals with future soft-skin kits?
I agree with Laffe's suggestion. Another British divisional sign, and a couple of sets of regimental markings would make the decal sheet more useful.
-
I was thinking of just the squares... I know it's a space issue... but since you included the squadron markings. Seems like you only include half what would be necessary, but a lot of surplus double stuff.
Seems like most UK and commonwealth division used the same structure... 50 was the armoured brigade HQ, 51-54 was the different batallions.
Found a picture of the Guards armoured order of battle.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6KXRi75U5bM/UaWWCQHBkNI/AAAAAAAACpY/YPu5m1fxbF4/s1600/Scan0100.JPG)
-
Thanks, Laffe. It was suggested we should started by doing the RED square with 50 to 54 on it, and half of the problem will get solved.
Will do overtime again tonight before the morning production meeting... let's see what can be done!
-
Thanks, Laffe. It was suggested we should started by doing the RED square with 50 to 54 on it, and half of the problem will get solved.
Will do overtime again tonight before the morning production meeting... let's see what can be done!
Yeah, that's exactly what I meant.
-
Pretty much happy with what was done here!
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Waterslide%20Decals/Water%20Decal%20USAampAllies-03s_zpsoya5a8o4.jpg)
Any more changes?
-
Any more changes?
Yes - replace the US Armoured Division symbol, for the reason I mentioned above. I suggest you replace it with another British armoured formation sign (for a formation which served in NW Europe - 7th or 8th Armoured Brigade or 11 Armoured Division - since these might have used M5A1s). And replace the Free French symbol, which is largely useless without all the other French markings. How about the callsign for an M8? "Laxative" (the most frequently photographed M8) is below. Otherwise it seems to be a much more comprehensive set of decals (you sure work fast!).
-
Will look into it... production meetings today!
>:(
-
Had basically redo the whole decal sheet just for the M5A1/M8. Had included:
- All American & Allies Stars for the war period
- Call signs
- Vehicle Names
- American / British / French markings
- Vehicle Specs for late war
- Bridge Plates
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Waterslide%20Decals/Water%20Decal%20USAampAllies-04s_zpsnwpswir4.jpg)
Any comments?
-
Wow, that's quite a makeover. Nice work.
You still have the US Armoured Division sign (the red, blue and yellow triangle). This was a shoulder patch, and didn't appear on vehicles.
The large stars you had were good - they appeared on the glacis and turret roof of both M5A1s and M8s. Oh well...
One of the names seems to be "Corse". Is that correct? Should it be "Carol"?
-
Greyhounds have the US armoured logo on..
http://www.specialforcesus.com/images/m9.jpg
-
That's a restored vehicle - you can't rely on what people do when they restore vehicles.
-
You still have the US Armoured Division sign (the red, blue and yellow triangle). This was a shoulder patch, and didn't appear on vehicles.
Some did appeared on tanks towards the end of the war. We need to include them to test how it will come out from such a small scale. Had plans for more complicated decals later.
The large stars you had were good - they appeared on the glacis and turret roof of both M5A1s and M8s. Oh well...
The large stars won't fit on the glacis and turret roof of the M5A1... we tried. However, these medium size one will!
One of the names seems to be "Corse". Is that correct? Should it be "Carol"?
It was French, in English is Corsica. Corsica is an island in the Mediterranean Sea belonging to France. It is located west of the Italian Peninsula, southeast of the French mainland, and north of the Italian island of Sardinia. Mountains make up two-thirds of the island, forming a single chain.
The name is part of the decal set included for a M5A1 French tank. The size of the decal fitted the remaining space we had. ;)
-
That all sounds fine (oh, so it's a French tank name!). I didn't find any photos of the US Armoured Division sign on tanks at any point in he war, but if you think it's right...
-
Having a decal doesn`t really matter, those who think its not historic can skip the decal, for those who want to use it can do so. Its not that the decal is wrong, it worse if something would be missing.
-
A bit of artistic licence is always a good thing to have.
-
Having a decal doesn`t really matter, those who think its not historic can skip the decal, for those who want to use it can do so. Its not that the decal is wrong, it worse if something would be missing.
I don't agree. In the case of a kit of a historic vehicle, I think the decals supplied should, like the kit, be as accurate as possible. Many people who buy this kit will expect the markings to be accurate, and will be disappointed if they discover that they're not. After all the effort that Rubicon are now making to get their kits as accurate as possible (look at the discussion that's gone into recent projects like the M8, the M10/M36 and the SdKfz 251 variants, for example), it doesn't make sense to skimp on details like decals. In fact, with the amount of reference material now available on WW2 armour, it should be possible to avoid most errors (unlike 25 years ago, when model kits contained all kinds of fundamental mistakes, many of which were based on mistakes by military museums). Modellers can, of course, do what they like with their kit - that's where the artistic license comes in.
Of course, we're now debating the inclusion of a single decal, and it's highly unlikely that anyone would criticise Rubicon for including it even if it never actually appeared on an M5A1 or an M8.
-
Well, it might not be 100% historically accurate but personally I like the armoured division decal and will probably use it just because it looks cool and adds 'character' to the model. Personaly as a gamer and painter first and researcher a far second I don't care too much about historical accuracy as long as it looks right to me. Just my 2 cents though 8)
-
Yeah, I'm with Pinky on this one. Leave the artistic license to those building the kits, try to be as accurate as possible -- within certain financial limits of course.
-
- The M8 mantlet sits too far forward. It shouldn't be possible to see the gun tube etc. Is that a construction error?
Here is the corrected assembly of the M8 turret:
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/M5A1%20Stuart/M5A1-T3P-150723-19_zpswia3x5hv.jpg)
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/M5A1%20Stuart/M5A1-T3P-150723-20_zps9icfhpqj.jpg)
;)
-
Looks okay now. There actually seems to be scope for pushing the mantlet in further - I'll probably do a bit of trimming on mine. Can't wait to build this kit - or the Recce version.