Soviet BA Heavy Armoured Cars - BA-10 TS1 Painted 190322

[Rubicon Models]

@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.

[EarlyWarGamer]

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.

[ultravanillasmurf]

Definitely plastic by choice.

[tyroflyer]

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.

[ripley]

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 . 

[Pinky]

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!

[Jaeger]

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.

[EarlyWarGamer]

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.

[ripley]

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

[Rubicon Models]

Thanks all for the input.  Definitely giving us some more data for studio meeting next week.  We will take everything into consideration. 

[EarlyWarGamer]

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!

[tyroflyer]

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.

[ultravanillasmurf]

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.

[EarlyWarGamer]

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!

[tyroflyer]

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.