Italian M13/40

[ripley]

Right , I forgot about the bin in the Allied Stowage Set  The round tube thing is a signal flag bin ( more pre "43 ) , easy to make from plastic , or leave off completely

[ultravanillasmurf]

Right , I forgot about the bin in the Allied Stowage Set  The round tube thing is a signal flag bin ( more pre "43 ) , easy to make from plastic , or leave off completely

It is not the same bin, but it does fit (though it might obstruct the hatches).

[ripley]

Its a Crusader style bin , seen on a lot of Shermans in North Africa and Italy .  Mind you the Mk III ( 1942 ) and early Mk IV Churchill's did have a more square turret bin when first issued , the angle cornered one came later . A square box is easy to make 

[ultravanillasmurf]

Yes, unfortunately for my (spare) Crusader turret, I assembled it before I had the Allied Stowage set.




I covered it (and one of my M4s) because I find square boxes difficult.

Useful for the next Crusader (and the next M4 that I am going to try and use the shortened M4A4 sand shields on).

Back on topic, the assumption is that the title of this topic is a future Warlord kit.

[ripley]

I think originally the topic was started to hopefully steer Rubicon in the direction of considering a M13/40 kit . Seems sort of useless now , as Italeri is rumored to have one on the way . Although , it's a Tiger II that's being shown at the GAMA show  . Who knows , maybe it's all smoke and mirrors to stall the competition from releasing a new kit . The larger scale companies ( Dragon , Hobby Boss , AFV ) do it all the time . As well , if a new company puts out a long wanted kit , everybody else seems to get one out ASAP to flood the market ( ie : about 8 King Tigers released in 1/35 lately , Meng , Tacom , Zvezda , repop Dragon .  And while Warlord , Italeri , and Rubicon might release the same tank kit , by far  the quality and detail of Rubicon's stands out . I would compare Rubicon's detail to the early 2000 Dragon kits ( not the newer Black Label crap ) but the 1/35 gold  standard that was set by Dragon when tanks were their main focus , not Marvel bobble heads and Star Wars merch like today . Although their 1/35 AT AT looks awesome . Sorry , rant over 

[Pinky]

I actually think Rubicon are closer to Tamiya in approach.  They engineer their kits far better than Warlord/Italeri; they are prepared to simplify the detail in some respects to do this (the tracks being the obvious example), but are increasingly proving able to combine detail with ease of assembly. 

I think the King Tiger will appear - the IS-2 signals it.  They (Italeri, not Warlord) also probably have their eye on the World of Tanks franchise, which they're already mining in larger scale.  I think WoT has attracted a horde of morons with no real understanding of armoured warfare or technology, but if it means more plastic tank kits it's fine.

UVS's comment about finding square boxes difficult is very funny.  I know exactly what he means.  That's why most of my WH40k stuff was Orky.

[Ballardian]

Found a pic of the WG/Italeri Tiger II (see below) - looks decent, on the plus side I like the cables/tools being seperate pieces (not molded on like those on their 251's fenders) & the mountable track sections. Don't much care for the Zim however, though once you chip a few bits off it'll look better (or just sand it all off). The cupola MG mount is still terrible (like those on the Tiger & Panther kits) but I suppose it's in the cause of making it more robust (not that I've had problems with Rubicons accurate version...).
 I don't doubt that a Rubicon version would be superior, but it's still nice to have a kit that'll (I assume) be available quite soon - I imagine I'll pick one up - despite not really needing one (got a CompanyB E-50 coming which fills pretty much the same slot) - it'll be a fun painting project.
 

[ultravanillasmurf]

@Ripley, yes this does appear a bit off topic.

Good catch on the Tiger 2 photograph. Did one of their children assemble it?

At least if the surface details are additional components you can sand off the Zimmerit and put them back on.

And yes I will get at least one (a Rubicon one would be better).

[tyroflyer]

Yes the original intent was to have Rubicon consider putting the M13/40 on their to do list. Whether or not that remains something worth advocating probably depends on the assessment of how good the rumoured Italeri kit turns out to be. I would like to see Rubicon make one eventually but there are other Italian tanks that could take its place on a priority list if an Italeri M13/40 proves to be very good.

[ripley]

 The guy who does Warlords plastic build videos ,tends to leave sprue attachment points on the kits he builds . The King T must be one of his  .  I do hope Rubicon decide to put out their own version of the M13/40 , King Tiger , etc  . As stated by others , theirs is a much better product ( even if I don't like the plastic ) .

[Pinky]

That King Tiger looks pretty good.  Hopefully it has a Warlord-style commander and not a weedy Italeri one (they're never consistent).  The Zimmerit looks okay - I hopethe pattern is properly vertical and not diagonal like the Tiger I's...

[ripley]

Back to the M13/40 . Both tanks pictured are said to be M13/40 , but one has the side hull door on the bow  gunner's side , the other has it on the driver's . The usual one is seen on the driver's side , is this a proto- type or something else

Aberdeen Proving Ground  Maryland (? )USA

Belgrade Serbia

[Pinky]

The bottom photo must be an M15/42,  which had the access door on the other side of the hull.  You can see the improved armour around the hull machine gun.  I think part of the gun is missing.

[ultravanillasmurf]

Inspired by this thread, I picked up Wavell's Offensive by Bryan Perfect from a charity shop.

[ripley]

Pinky , your right . Never heard of , or seen one before . It seems only 90 ( + 28 by the Germans ) made and used in Italy and Yugoslavia . So it's mislabeled on the plaque . And your right again , it had a longer gun than the M13/40