Messages

1

General Discussions / White Metal - Very Impressed

« on: January 20, 2022, 06:13:18 pm »

I am currently building a Russian Gaz AAA with quad maxim.

What really has impressed me is the quad maxim.  I have built a lot of white metal wargaming equipment, from many different manufactures and I have become used to having to do plenty of cleanup and to deal with vague and imprecise fitting of parts.

The quad maxim is a bit of a revelation - I have never had a white metal kit before where the parts were so clean and the fit was so precise.

Cheers,

Nigel

2

General Discussions / Re: Anyone in the UK got a spare MG34

« on: April 27, 2020, 04:38:29 pm »

Rubicon sent me this.  May be of interest of others.





As you can see, the kit comes with MG34 and MG42 moulded into the arm which would replace the one on the model.


Cheers,

Nigel

3

General Discussions / Re: Anyone in the UK got a spare MG34

« on: April 26, 2020, 02:21:10 pm »

Many thanks for the suggestions and kind offers.  I think posting from outside the UK is unrealistic because the postage would probably be more than just buying the machine gunner kit.

Point taken about being wargame-friendly.  Yes it will be used for wargaming either as a infantry mover or a PAK 36 tow depending on scenario.  Go I do wonder the survivability of the fine detail - I have some plastic bolt-action german infantry including more MG34s than I need for the squads.  Considering replacing the Rubicon ones with those, or just one because as you say, I am leaning towards just having the front one modelled.

Out of interest, in real life, did the rear one actually come with the vehicle or was it same one used by the dismounted infantry squad?

Cheers,

Nigel

4

General Discussions / Anyone in the UK got a spare MG34

« on: April 25, 2020, 11:59:21 pm »

Making an early war Sdkfz 251/1.  As it was really nice sunny weather, nice and calm, decided to sit outside and put it together.

A unexpected gust of wind caught the two MG34s that I had just removed from the sprue and deposited them on the patio.  I found one, missing the other.

Two immediate options are

1) build with just the front MG34.
2) Use an MG34 from a bolt action sprue, have some spare but they look a little chunk against the lovely Rubicon ones.

Would really have liked to build it with both - so if anyone has one going spare (like they used the MG42s) I appreciate one.

Note: doesn't have to be from a 251/1 kit, any MG34 will do.

QUESTION: Does the 251/1 gunner kit come with an MG34 and MG42?

Many thanks,

Nigel

5

General Discussions / Re: Product Updates

« on: January 31, 2020, 07:32:00 pm »

Hmmmmmmm......which would be better? If  Rubicon's put their time and resources into planning,developing and releasing new products, or diverting that time to a forum page which hasn't been updated in a while? 

Bit of both really, it is okay developing new products but if you don’t let the customer base know about them then you aren’t going to sell any.

Okay, Rubicon has it loyal band of customers who are happy to spend time in the forums to find out what’s happening but there is a bigger group of casual potential customers who are not going to spend time in forums who will simply look at the updates and deduce that the company is no longer trading and move on.

Cheers,

Nigel

6

General Discussions / Re: Product Updates

« on: January 27, 2020, 01:44:56 am »

Thanks for the explanation.  Hard to believe if I am honest - a server hosting problem preventing you from updating the site which has not be fixed in over 6 months, maybe as much as 12 months.  You must have the worst IT team in the world..

Cheers,

Nigel

7

General Discussions / Re: To Some - Size does matter!

« on: January 25, 2020, 11:55:55 pm »

Hi Rubicon Models! 
I find your military models VERY attractive, but the odd scale unfortunately keeps me from buying any, have you considered releasing any (or preferable all) in scale 1/72, I for one would buy at least one of almost all the different models in your line,
(I think this scale will have a lot larger market than the 1/56.)

John Jensen

Do you appreciate that these models are targeted at wargaming - in which case 1:56 or 28mm is not an odd scale, particularly for skirmish or platoon size battles.

1:72 equates to 20mm, which is also a common wargaming scale, suited for larger armies, company or bigger.

Thing is there are loads of 20mm options out there.  Not saying that they couldn’t do a good job but they could work their socks off and their range would still be tiny by comparison.  Same with 15mm.

Best sticking with 28mm but my advice would be to avoid duplicating plastic models by warlord/italeri.   The 28mm range across all manufacturers is tiny so there is plenty of market for everyone so pointless directly competing by bringing out the same models.

Cheers,

Nigel

8

General Discussions / Product Updates

« on: January 25, 2020, 11:31:13 pm »

Why is the product update of the website not being updated, the last was almost a year ago.

If you don’t intend to use that section of the website any more then get rid of it.  As it is, it gives the website an abandoned, “we’ve gone out of business” feel.

Cheers,

Nigel

9

General Discussions / T26 Assembly Question

« on: January 17, 2020, 07:22:32 pm »

Hi,

I have a question about fitting the track assemblies to the chassis.

There are holes in the track assemblies and pins on the chassis.  They all line up perfectly, but the pins that mate with the sprocket, idler and road wheels all seem slightly too big - they sit against the holes in the track assembly rather than going in them.

Before, I open up the holes a little, I am wondering whether this is how they should be.

Cheers,

Nigel

10

Wish Lists / Re: Focusing on the more useful kits – wake up and smell the molded plastic!

« on: September 26, 2019, 11:55:28 pm »

If you are looking for Early War Russian Front kit, to equip both sides, then so far from Rubicon you have:

Russian:
Multiple versions of the T-26 light tank. Of the 21K tanks Russia had in June 1941, over half were T-26
T-34/76 medium tank. Not many were present in June 1941 but they were there, and became more and more present as time went on.
KV-1 and KV-2 Heavy Tanks. Not many were present at the start, but they were there from day one.
BA-3/BA-6 and BA-10 Armored Cars. This represents about 3,900 of the armored cars available to Russia in June 1941.  There were just over 6,100 armored cars when Barbarossa began, so this is the lion's share of any ACs Russia had.
GAZ-AA/AAA Trucks.  Main transportation vehicle.

SU-85 is available from RM, and it came into service in 1942
SU-122 is available from RM, and it came into service in 1942 as well.

German:
Pz IV D/E Medium tank.
Kubelwagon. Main jeep.
Opal Blitz Trucks. Main transportation vehicle.
SdKfz 7 Halftrack. Main heavy transportation vehicle.
SdKfz 251/C and 251/1 D Halftrack. Main armored transportation vehicle.

Pz IV F2/J medium tank. Came into service in 1942.

And we have Pz IIIs in the pipeline somewhere. Not much fighting armor, and transportation heavy when it comes to the German side of things. I do wish we had a plastic Pz II (for example), and the SdKfz 222 seems to have dropped from their web site.

But not a bad assortment for Early War Russian Front.

Thanks, I should also have said that I don’t want AFVs to be a big feature so my main interest is the smaller tanks, so the T-26 ticks the box absolutely.

Also I’m not to bothered by troop transports as yet.  Can’t see the KV-1 and KV-2 though I wouldn’t be interested in those as they are too big.  Can’t see any of the Russian armoured cars that you are referring to.

Can’t see a Pz IV D/E either, though it would be ruled out by my ‘only small tank’ rule.  An early Pz III
would be good, as you say they are in the pipeline somewhere.  And Pz II and Pz I or the Czech stuff would be interesting but no sign of them either.

Of course there is the Warlord Games stuff, but I prefer plastic to resin - but they are bringing out more Italeri stuff.  I ended up buying a Warlord Pz 38(t) to face up against my T-26, it is very nice but would have preferred a Pz II.

The point is, I prefer the Rubicon models but the strange release order often means that there are no suitable pairings so I have to go elsewhere.

Cheers,

Nigel

11

Wish Lists / Re: Focusing on the more useful kits – wake up and smell the molded plastic!

« on: September 26, 2019, 04:46:54 am »

100% agree.

Many gamers want 1/56 (28mm) models for skirmish games like Bolt Action and Chain of Command, where it is important to have matched armies.

So for example, I have decided on early war Russian campaign and would like a small number of German and Russian vehicles for the opposing armies.  So let’s have a look

Well there is the marvellous T-26, great start.  Now for a German tank  of similar capability that can go up against it.  Let’s see what we have - err, absolutely nothing.

Maybe I should look at armoured cars.  Well Rubicon have an excellent Sdkfz 222, now for some Russian opposition - let’s see what we have - err, absolutely nothing.

So what I’d really appreciate a range of models that allow me to equip opposing armies in a given theatre.

Cheers,

Nigel

12

General Discussions / Re: T-26 1938/1939 Conical Turret

« on: August 28, 2019, 10:01:13 am »

What are you guys using for the missing spare wheel , screw jack and tools ? I found some HO scale jacks in my parts box ,and I have a variety of tools from older 1/48 kits , but no luck on finding a wheel

I’m in two minds about this.  Yes I was a little surprised at how little there is on the main chassis.  When you open the box and see the mass of sprues and parts the first thought is that it is going to be incredibly detailed.  But then you realise that the majority of those parts are for turrets and you will only use a handful of them.

So in my opinion it is great that there are so many turret options to choose from, great that the model is simple, so quick to build and robust to handle on the table top, but a little disappointing that there isn’t a little more detail - as you say, a spare wheel and a jack would have been nice.

Cheers,

Nigel

13

General Discussions / Re: T-26 1938/1939 Conical Turret

« on: August 28, 2019, 03:11:23 am »

Thanks for all the info, really useful.

Sounds like I could have gone with the 1939 then, but I’ve glued the 1938 superstructure on now.

So for the absent periscope it sounds like I have three options

1) leave it as it is, it’s a wargaming model
2) add a curved top to make it match the other one
3) cut it off and glue a flat disk in its place

Cheers,

Nigel

14

General Discussions / Re: T-26 1938/1939 Conical Turret

« on: August 27, 2019, 03:50:57 am »

Many thanks for the info.

Are you saying that you are confident that the turret top is correct for a 1939 but you are not sure about a 1938.

I debated over the 1938 and 1939 and decided to go with a 1938 as I thought that the Germans were more likely to encounter a 1938 when they first invaded in 1941.

Whether that it right or not, I have shot my bolt, because the under-turret superstructure is now glued in place.

Cheers,

Nigel

15

General Discussions / Re: T-26 1938/1939 Conical Turret

« on: August 26, 2019, 11:01:55 pm »

From my extensive research of the T-26, I can only say the turret top piece supplied is perfect for a 1939 model. As others have pointed out, the commander's hatch hinged at the front, had a mounting ring for the AA MG that rotated, so it could be brought to bear in many locations.

The missing commander's periscope is a different matter.  Due to supply issues, there were not always two present ... but from what I remember, when there was only one present, it was typically the commander's. Ultravanillasmurf has solved that issue nicely in his 1939 version (above).

Thanks for the info.  A couple of questions following the responses

1) You say the turret top is good for the 1939 version.  Does that hold true for the 1938 version too?

2) Periscope - which side is the commander and which the gunner?

It’s a shame that the model doesn’t have a separate hatch ring so you can set it in whichever position you want.

Cheers,

Nigel