T-26 Soviet Light Infantry Tank - T-26 Decal Sheet 180818

[elias.tibbs]

Probably just empty. It saves on mould costs.

[tyroflyer]

I was thinking 7TP and Vickers.

These would be a nice addition but Rubicon have done so well this time I think they can be forgiven. Maybe and hopefully later.

Does make me wonder how the new moulds would improve existing products. Probably too late to apply them to unreleased kits in the pipeline.

[ripley]

Wow , very nice . Great work on getting 8 variations of the tank in one kit . Seems a shame to waste that sprue space though  ...  And I can't find those track pieces either , maybe if we get the other side view of the spruces , it wl become clearer . I guess I can use my holiday down time to start finding / saving pictures of T-26 tanks on the net ,and IRC Tank Power ( Wydawnictwo Militaria ) had a book or two on the subject  . found a few others as well

[Pinky]

I can't find the inserts either.  But it seems like a good way of resolving the issue of detailing the treads.  Hopefully on the back and front.

I wonder what the empty sprue section is for?  It's still going to take up space in the box, so there must be a reason for it.

[ripley]

I see the T-26 had a bridge layer version , might be enough room  on half that sprue   there for bridge pieces . Just ordered the WWP book on the T-26 and got the Pzr 38(t) A-D book on sale , $60 for both including ship to Canada

[Rubicon Models]

We have to let you guys know, the OT-130 and OT-134 turrets should be on the right side of the hull as shown on the line drawings by HobbyBoss.

We have decided not to include a separate upper hull just for the flamethrowers because of their rarity on the battlefield.  What is more important is the two new hull pieces (which had to be done by multi-slide moulding) will increase production cost in a big way.  We might release a resin version of the two "correct" pieces just in case some customers wanted a "historically" accurate upper hull.



Enjoy!

[Rubicon Models]

I wonder what the empty sprue section is for?  It's still going to take up space in the box, so there must be a reason for it.

We also wonder...  there must be a reason for it! 

[ultravanillasmurf]

I wonder what the empty sprue section is for?  It's still going to take up space in the box, so there must be a reason for it.

We also wonder...  there must be a reason for it! 

It could be a packing space, parts of the other sprues may intrude into it so it will fit in the two sprue box form.

It could be where all the bits that are no longer needed because of the multi-slide nature of the tool.

Or they could just surprise us.

[EarlyWarGamer]

Interesting nothing ... that empty half sprue!  The T-26 was used as an experimental platform for many different variants.  But most never saw production.  And the flamethrowers (OT-26 which did have the turret on the left, and the OT-130/133/134) account for the majority of those variants (1,224).

So we are left with a very limited number (33) of SU-5s (self-propelled guns). Not sure half a sprue is enough to cover the gun and shield. Or how about the ST-26, which was a bridge-laying engineering tank.  They produced 71 of those. I would bet that half a sprue is enough room for the actual bridge itself (which was 6 meters long) and the necessary support beams.  There was also the Radio Controlled T-26, which might only need a few different antenna.  The T-26-T was an artillery tractor.  It would need a different superstructure, but the rest of the vehicle looked like a T-26.  Half a sprue would easily cover the new superstructure.

Maybe it's not for vehicle options at all.  Tank riders?

[Rubicon Models]

We love you guys! Keep guessing... still far off!
Happy Boxing Day! 

[Rubicon Models]

What do you doing on a lazy Boxing Day? Open one of the media folders and post one pic... One tank body, eight possible variants!



Enjoy!

[tyroflyer]

Looks nice. Although I don't think I would contemplate building OT-130 and OT-134 on the wrong hull.

[Rubicon Models]

Looks nice. Although I don't think I would contemplate building OT-130 and OT-134 on the wrong hull.

It is something of a compromise between reality and cost even though we know might upset some modellers. We will probably make a resin upgrade to please everyone.  Making an educated risk, most people will not care... 

[tyroflyer]

 Making an educated risk, most people will not care... 

I suspect your assessment is correct. Or possibly will assume you've got it right, which is a bit of a worry. Some could be a little disappointed if they find out later. Makes you wonder if it should some how be made clear to the purchaser these 2 variants are a compromise.   

[ultravanillasmurf]

It might be better to come clean, mentioning the compromise.

From the sprue photographs it would appear you are using the plug method used on a number of your tanks to connect the chassis to the upper hull to connect the part with the turret ring(s). It might be worth mentioning that there might be a replacement part for it in the future and not to glue it in place (of course I could be misinterpreting the photographs).