Messages

1

Work In Progress / Re: Soviet BA-6 Heavy Armoured Car - 3D Prototype 180524

« on: June 06, 2018, 05:36:32 pm »

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

2

Work In Progress / Re: Soviet BA-6 Heavy Armoured Car - 3D Prototype 180524

« on: June 04, 2018, 09:06:10 pm »

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/ .
Even the Wikipedia article (although i don't really like using Wiki as a reference; 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.


A drawing of the BA-6 and the 3d Prototype for comparison.

3

Work In Progress / Re: M8 Greyhound / M20 Armoured Utility Car - Updated with Test Shot #1

« on: August 07, 2015, 06:09:20 am »

Looks promising, the pictures are not that good though, lighting & focus make it hard to see the details.

4

Work In Progress / Re: Opel Blitz - Updated 150729 - Sample Painted

« on: July 31, 2015, 04:27:37 am »

The model looks very nice, although the doors seem to be very thick.
Time to save some clear plastic card to add some windows...

5

Work In Progress / Re: M5A1 Stuart / M8 Scott - Updated with Painted Plastic

« on: July 31, 2015, 04:24:25 am »

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.

6

Work In Progress / Re: SdKfz 251/1 Ausf D - Expansion Kit 3D Prototypes!

« on: July 28, 2015, 04:45:25 pm »

Its not only quality for me, sometimes kits are sort of a 3d puzzle, although this is not exclusive to warlord-italeri kits (warlord metals are much worse).
I really dont like looking at instructions and guessing the position of bits of a kit (resulting in searching my book or the web for reference data).

7

Work In Progress / Re: SdKfz 251/1 Ausf D - Expansion Kit 3D Prototypes!

« on: July 23, 2015, 05:45:30 am »

Warlord's early kits don't compare well to Rubicon's.  But I have to say that the Italeri-designed kits are generally pretty good (they don't assemble quite as precisely as Rubicon's later kits though).  And (sorry Rubicon!) the forthcoming Panzer III looks like it's much more accurate that Rubicon's.  Maybe it's time that one got a makeover?

With warlord kits i was thinking more ofc warlord italeri to be more specific. Competition is a good thing, at least for the consumer. It forces companies to improve to compete - looking at rubicon pz iv... we have come a long way.

8

Work In Progress / Re: German Armoured Vehicle - RESERVED...

« on: July 23, 2015, 05:41:30 am »

The Hetzer shared very little with the Pzr 38T, and the only variant (apart from the flamethrower version) was the Bergepanzerwagen 38.

While the differences between the pz38(t) and the hetzer are true, there were more variants that were build of the later.
15cm sIG 33/2 auf jagdpanzer 38 - 30 built or converted very late in the war
Aufklärungspanzer 38 - different armament ( 7,5cm K-51 & 2cm Flak 38) were "in testing" at the end of the war, though some might have been in frontline use.

Im looking foreward to the 251 kits, even though its not a real surprise with the prototypes alreadyshown (for the "D"). Well this year is going to be expensive. *sigh*

9

Work In Progress / Re: SdKfz 251/1 Ausf D - Expansion Kit 3D Prototypes!

« on: July 22, 2015, 12:39:10 am »

As you know, we never rush our releases!  Everything must get pass QC before going into production.  We rather be late than releasing an inferior product!

In contrast to some of the warlord kits, to be fair i like most of them, there are even some things i prefer(Schürzen).
But kits like the 251 are inferior to your work.

10

Work In Progress / Re: German Armoured Vehicle - RESERVED...

« on: July 22, 2015, 12:30:05 am »

I love the hetzer, but whatever it is i might buy it anyway, as long as it is mid to late war. Im addicted to plastic kits....(and i hate working with resin).
I'm not quite sure how a 38(t) would sell, but marders (+grille) should be quite popular. Same for the hetzer, but this would be another kit. there are some kits that could use the hetzers hull, but those were not produced en masse. (stummel, etc.)

11

Work In Progress / Re: German Armoured Vehicle - RESERVED...

« on: July 20, 2015, 09:11:22 pm »

I would second the hetzer or something on the pz 38(t). we saw some parts of te underside of the hull a while back.

12

Work In Progress / Re: Opel Blitz - Updated 150718

« on: July 19, 2015, 02:04:21 am »

Nice to see, that crew figures are included

13

Work In Progress / Re: Proposed Project: SdKfz 250 Alte or Neu ??

« on: July 06, 2015, 04:48:39 pm »

With the Prototypes of the Upgrades for the 251 in mind, are there any of those that might fit on the 250?
(like the mortar & the stummel - at least for the late version)

Edit
and if not maybe the might be combinded for both if few changes are needed (as in extra parts)

14

Work In Progress / Re: SdKfz 251/1 Ausf D - Expansion Kit 3D Prototypes!

« on: July 06, 2015, 04:28:56 pm »

could you post a side by side shot (in different angles) of the /22 based on the normal hull with the "extra" part on top and the "new" hull?

The current images are somewhat hard to compare.

15

Work In Progress / Re: SdKfz 251/1 Ausf. D - updated with more info!

« on: June 21, 2015, 08:34:41 pm »

Modeling pov:

Regarding the 251/22
1. Do a version d only kit. Its a late war model and if there were /22 c versions those were most likely field conversions.
2. while thed "new" upper hull looks better you might print (let print) test pieces and decide then. Even a sinlgle hull piece takes up a lot space on the sprue. So the gained detail might not be worth the lost space.

regarding the 251/9 d & c
The version you did should be the late version, so its version d only. The c version and early d version both used a gun next to the driver. (see pinky)

gamer pov:

BUT regarding the vast amount of field coversions the wehrmacht had you might go the route with the minimum of changes parts for both. So the extra part on the mg mount and it should work with both versions. Im pretty sure they would have mounted the gun of an irrepairable d on a c if they had one ...
Let the people choose if they want to use version c or d in the end IF they care about (absolute) historical accuracy its up to them.
More flexibility should equal more sales...