Messages

1

Work In Progress / Re: New Project of the Month - 25-pdr Gun - 3D Drawings 200302

« on: March 07, 2020, 11:51:31 pm »

From a wargaming perspective a 2-pdr would be far more useful, but hopefully that's not too far off.

I'm going to have to respectfully, but strongly disagree with you there. You'll see a dozen 25 pdrs on the table before you'll ever see a 2 pdr.  The 2 pdr is really only useful to strictly historical players, and those are a dieing breed in the 28mm world. From a sales perspective it's a no brainer.  Do indirect fire weapons (or primarily indirect in the case of the 25 pdr) belong on the wargaming table? no not really, but that's the way it should be and not the way it is.  I'd also say releasing a 6 pdr before a 2 pdr would make more economic sense.

I wouldn't expect to sell many of these if it comes without crew, or crew figures are unavailable at the time of release. They don't need to be plastic or multipose, but it should have crew.  Not every prospective buyer will be aware of the available Perry crew, or interested in using them.

2

General Discussions / Re: Looking Ahead to 2020... 200101

« on: January 17, 2020, 10:32:02 am »

I just hope I can get anything in 2020.
It's getting harder and harder to get rubicon stuff

I can sympathize, the one and only time I direct ordered nothing ever showed up, and none of my emails were answered, at least not until I eventually cancelled the credit card charges.  The real kicker was my order was just the allied stowage kit, and it was costing me nearly $60 CAD (and had it actually shipped I would have also had to pay duty/brokerage fees on top of that). 

At the moment the best (and essentially only) way for me to get Rubicon kits is ordering from NWS, and having them shipped to a cross-border parcel service and driving nearly two hours (one way) to pick them up.

Rubicon if you're reading this, getting ahold of your kits in Canada is a major PITA.

3

Work In Progress / Re: British Centurion Mk 5 & Mk 5-1 200106

« on: January 13, 2020, 01:46:39 am »

I think Rubicon have their "own" line of figures planned to go with their post war collection (I say "own" as perhaps this is one area where they're planning a collaborative effort)

I just hope they take a different approach than they have with their ww2 figures.

4

Work In Progress / Re: RESIN Project - Fries Kran 16t Strabokran 3D Drawings 200110

« on: January 10, 2020, 10:54:04 pm »

I suspect it won't be long after this kit's release that we see examples of Tiger II engines being removed for service.

5

General Discussions / Re: Looking Ahead to 2020... 200101

« on: January 07, 2020, 09:22:42 am »

They specified "aa autocannon" for the British which, like you, I assume/hope is a bofors (it could be a polsten I suppose, but that seems unlikely) whereas the US entry is listed as an "aa gun".  Seems unlikely we're looking at a split duplicate release like the Jeep kits.

Personally I'm enjoying speculating about the two light tanks (ger/us) and the two armoured transports (soviet/us)  I suspect the transports will be adding to the post war collection.

Edit - There are a  bunch of interesting easter eggs in that 2020 banner as well,   poncho'd infantry, and what appear to be infantry ready-carrying m16 type weapons, possibly an FAL, not sure what the Tpose on the right is all about.  Very fun Rubicon, I often give you guys a hard time, but no one is more engaged/open with their customers, and you're still finding ways to out do yourselves on that front.

6

Wish Lists / Re: plastic 113

« on: January 07, 2020, 06:56:06 am »

It's a good bet for the US armoured transport they have listed in their upcoming projects for 2020.

7

Wish Lists / Re: BT-7

« on: December 20, 2019, 02:20:59 am »

Can you make both the M10 and M36 turrent options with the 1 kit? so you can swap them out as you need?

Yes, as I said using the M36 turret requires an insert ring be placed in the tank destroyer (m10/m36) hull, if/when the instructions come back up, it's pretty clear how it works.  You can either glue the insert to the M36 turret (in which case the turret will be fixed) or leave it loose to allow the M36 Turret to rotate, though I'm not sure if the pressure of the detents will keep the insert in place when rotating the turret or not.

The M10/M36 kit doesn't come with crew, there are a few options, the best of which (in my opinion, and only for 1 vehicle) would be using the crew from the Warlord/Italeri m10 kit, followed closely by using the multipose plastic tank crew kits from Rubicon ( both US and Commonwealth are available) to fashion crews out of.  I strongly recommend against using the Rubicon pewter tank destroyer crew sets, they're multi part metal figures (barf) and yet they're also monopose (wtf), to top it all off the poses are awful (arms at their sides, hands in their laps, as if sitting at a table waiting for a job interview)

8

Wish Lists / Re: BT-7

« on: December 18, 2019, 09:10:06 am »

I've never had a problem with the resin kits, found them to be very nicely detailed, more their plastic kits that I avoid like the plague.

Would the Rubicon M36 turret fit on a M4A3 chassis? Rubicon do a good job at these little details. I know that on the T34/85 kit the 76mm turret doesn't fit the chassis as in reality the they increased the turret ring to fit the new 85mm turret.

I have Warlord resins I really like, but I'll exhaust every option or alternative before risking getting another dud like the Achilles that showed up at my door.  Their plastics aren't the best, but they're consistent and I do love building them.

The M36 turret fits perfectly in the m4a3 hull, as UVS mentioned the instructions point out this intentional.  Using the M36 turret in the m10(aka actual M36) hull requires the use of an insert.

Hopefully these will show what I meant by working flawlessly.  All turrets drop in/out, the M36 gun even elevates (without drooping).

9

Wish Lists / Re: BT-7

« on: December 13, 2019, 07:19:58 am »

It's certainly true the hype surrounding the 17pdr is overblown.  Comparing the 17pdr to a 76mm using HVAP (relatively rare sabot ammunition) does however, seem a bit disingenuous.

 I feel it's also important to consider context when comparing the two, 17pdr armed Shermans and M10's (with effective ammunition) were available in significant numbers for the D-day landings, I don't think the same can be said for 76mm armed vehicles.
 
Please don't interpret this as argumentative, in '44 I think I'd choose the 17pdr without much thought, but in '45 the choice is not as clear cut.  I will say if my target is a Panther from the front I'll stick to the 17pdr regardless.

Edit-

Regarding the original topic, speaking from a Bolt Action point of view,  the BT 7/42 kit and the Zis 3 both seem like good choices.  Most every Russian/Soviet player fields one if not more, of the zis 3, and Finnish players (there are quite a few) have basically two effective tank choices the BT-42 or a Stug III, not to mention the meme/cuteness/fastboi appeal of the BT series of tanks.

Buying a resin m36b1 from Warlord, even at 1/3rd off, is likely a mistake.  The Rubicon setup works flawlessly and looks fantastic, the resin Achilles (17pdr sp m10) I got from Warlord is literally crooked, and I don't mean warped, or air bubbles, or flash or any of the typical issues with Resin castings, the top deck slopes from left to right.  Some Warlord resins are good (though you still roll the dice on if it's a good casting or not) and some are utter rubbish.

I'm happy to see the M26, after building a few M4a3's (one of which converts to an M36B1)  I found myself really wanting to build an easy 8 and a Pershing, maybe an m24 to round out the late-war US family, ok add an m18 in there too, but it was really the easy 8 and the Pershing I wanted to build.  Plus it gives US players access to a heavy tank (jumbo aside) even if the meta sort of makes heavy tanks inviable.

10

Showcase & Gallery / Re: FLAK88

« on: December 05, 2019, 09:53:25 am »

Awesome to see one of the Rubicon artillery offerings.  I don't often see many, let alone examples like yours so well executed, it looks fantastic!

11

Work In Progress / Re: King Tiger - Exploded View 191108

« on: November 09, 2019, 07:05:01 am »

Re: the crew, I do hope the final kit includes a 5 man crew, or that one is available.  This is an absolutely gorgeous kit, and Rubicon have gone to great lengths to capture every detail, inside and out, it would be a shame to be missing the loader and assistant driver/radio operator, especially on a cut away or exploded build.

Unrelated, the photo etch looks fantastic, hopefully we see more of it in future kits, or offered as an extra detail accessory.

12

Work In Progress / Re: New Project of the Month - T17E1 Staghound - 3D Drawings 191031

« on: November 01, 2019, 08:06:33 am »

I wasn't counting the M3, though it is literally a "car" with armour....

Regardless can't wait for that kit, the updated .30cals and HQ potential in the radio car add on kit have me drooling.

13

Work In Progress / Re: New Project of the Month - T17E1 Staghound - 3D Drawings 191031

« on: October 31, 2019, 05:34:52 am »

The Staghound continues to serve into the 1980s (for example, the Arab-Israeli war in 1948 and the Lebanon crisis in 1958) which makes a better choice than the Daimler or the Dingo as our first Allies armoured car.

Not the line of reasoning I would have chosen, but that's why you make the kits and I just buy them.

This makes me fully "that guy" but I can't resist pointing out this is actually your second Allied armoured car.
It's an understandable mistake, it's been ages since the last one was released.

14

Work In Progress / Re: New Project of the Month - T17E1 Staghound - 3D Drawings 191031

« on: October 31, 2019, 02:15:58 am »

Exciting news, hopefully the fuel tanks are easily removed (or magnetized) and replaced with empty racks or stowage bins.  Some suggestions for your decal sheet would be the Inns of Court (well, any of the armoured car regiments attached/working with armoured divisions) and the 18th armoured car regiment 12th manitoba dragoons (especially relevant to the mk III)

I'll buy one of these for sure, if it was a Daimler I would have (and still will) bought three.

We are now officially in a race, you try and get this kit on the shelves, and I'll clear my paint que and get to carving up my resin blitzkrieg kit.

15

Work In Progress / Re: US 37mm M3 AT Gun - 3D Prototype 190614

« on: October 26, 2019, 09:41:16 pm »

These figures look good, though as a wargamer I do have to ask are they plastic/multipose? Wondering if more dynamic/combat suitable poses might be possible.

Full disclosure; I will likely never purchase this kit, unless I ever get to my fantasy USMC army in which case I wouldn't be using these figs anyway.