M5A1 Stuart / M8 Scott - Project CLOSED!

[Rubicon Models]

Given that (1) the M5A1 wasn't widely used by the Commonwealth forces, and (2) this turret ring doesn't seem to have been a feature of the Recce/Kangaroo, if you produce this version you'll end up with a rather obscure vehicle…

Don't worry, we will give this plenty of thoughts before going into production.  We still have to do 3D prototyping... will probably do a few more variations of the gun ring to see how this will turn out!

[Cat]

Given that (1) the M5A1 wasn't widely used by the Commonwealth forces, and (2) this turret ring doesn't seem to have been a feature of the Recce/Kangaroo, if you produce this version you'll end up with a rather obscure vehicle…

I have no idea about the frequency of the MG ring — but it's cute!
 
However, for those of us modelling the Canadian army, info on wwiitanks.co.uk is that Canada used 3,427 Stuart V  and 2,075 Stuart VI.  So for myself, I wouldn't be fussed about using either the M3 or M5 for variations.
 
The M5/M8 combo certainly makes the most sense for the basic kit, and given that, I'd be happy to have any recce version that works too.

[Pinky]

Found a photo of what looks like an M5A1 Recce.  Also a couple of photos of what I'd suggest the kit should depict.  I think the version with the canvas tilt and camouflage scheme looks particularly nice (although it's a lot neater than most Recces!)  It looks as though a large stowage box on the rear would be a good addition.

[Rubicon Models]

Found a photo of what looks like an M5A1 Recce.  Also a couple of photos of what I'd suggest the kit should depict.  I think the version with the canvas tilt and camouflage scheme looks particularly nice (although it's a lot neater than most Recces!)  It looks as though a large stowage box on the rear would be a good addition.

Thanks Pinky!  We also have these photos, but the image resolution is just too low to make out how the gun mount is being field modified.  Today we have a long production meeting, will probably do a few variations of the gun mount, then decide how to proceed after doing some 3D prototypes.

We are also facing some production issues as part counts for a M5/M8 combo is over 100 pieces!  Need to figure out a solution... but that would be after the 3D prototype phase!

[Pinky]

It was a  simple pintle mount, often fixed to the inside of the turret ring.

[Pinky]

We are also facing some production issues as part counts for a M5/M8 combo is over 100 pieces!  Need to figure out a solution... but that would be after the 3D prototype phase!

I guess I'd be asking how popular an M5/M8 kit really would be…

[Laffe]

We are also facing some production issues as part counts for a M5/M8 combo is over 100 pieces!  Need to figure out a solution... but that would be after the 3D prototype phase!

I guess I'd be asking how popular an M5/M8 kit really would be…

I'd buy at least three... not playing competitive games I think light armour is more fun than heavy stuff. At least one will be used as a recce or kangaroo version.

[Cat]

I'ld buy 2 primarily to use as M8's and the cornerstone of building elements of a US Armored Recon Battalion.
 
It would be great if the various turret options can be swapped out, and then I'ld also use them for recce with the Canadians

[Rubicon Models]

It would be great if the various turret options can be swapped out, and then I'ld also use them for recce with the Canadians

While both the M5/M8 chassis look the same, it is not be possible with the M5 and M8, both have a different hull layout & design features; and most importantly, the turret ring size is different!

[Pinky]

Seems to me that the M8 might be more popular than than the M5A1…since you'd need to provide 2 hulls anyway, maybe you could do an M3A3 (which, I'd suggest, is a more important version of the Stuart than the M5A1) and an M8?  Doesn't really help your parts count problem, I know... 

[Rubicon Models]

Seems to me that the M8 might be more popular than than the M5A1…since you'd need to provide 2 hulls anyway, maybe you could do an M3A3 (which, I'd suggest, is a more important version of the Stuart than the M5A1) and an M8?  Doesn't really help your parts count problem, I know...

We have looked into the M3/M5/M8 before the project, the M5/M8 share a lot more common features than the M3/M8 combo, that's why we did it!
The initial plan was to do a M3/M5/M8... just not possible!

[elcee]

According to other forum in the book "British and American Tanks of WWII" by P Chamberlain and C. Ellis has
info on the Stuart Kangaroo--"Late war conversion of redundant vehicles (any mark) by removal of turret and addition of seats for infantry for APC role in infantry units of armoured brigades. 1943-45 and post-war".
Page 91
I cant confirm the amount of information because i dont have this book, maybe someone can look it up.

The elevated ring seems to be the t8e1 though. The information i found on the internet implies that the kangaroo had not just the turret removed but also some part of the upper hull removed, also this might be some mix up with the artillery tractor based on the stuart.
For some pictures

See armchair general "name this tank" p.285 post by republicanguard
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34055&page=285
Sixth army group forum, shots of a model
http://www.sixtharmygroup.com/portal/viewtopic.php?t=21705

Given tne amount of parts for the interior a droping the variant entirely (or adfing the recce version instead) might be worth a thought, especially with the amount of parts you mentioned.

[Rubicon Models]

elcee: Thanks for the pointer!  We have google through most of the information available on the net, including the two links you have included.  The elevated ring is indeed for the T8E1, which we had included as an alternative; that particular gun ring might not even made it to the final sprue.  During the 3D drawing phase, it is better to prepare all the possible parts than add them later!

Thanks again... really appreciated!

[Rubicon Models]

Experimenting with more alternatives to the Kangaroo design.  Read more books on the subject and come up with two variations (still need refinement):

Design 2: Create two MG holders to "hide" the turret secure notches.  Disadvantage is the holders are at 45 degree angle, making it looks a bit odd...


Design 3: Add an irregular shield like ring on top of the gun turret ring.  Disadvantage is ring size gets smaller!


Any comments?

[Pinky]

The second one looks much better, IMO.  Can I suggest, however, that you widen the shield so it's level with the outer rim of the turret ring, and have it sitting on a very shallow ring, with a couple of tabs underneath to fit into the 'bayonet' openings in the turret ring.  You might also consider a second gun mount, so people can fit the .30 cal as well.