Welcome to Britmodeller.com

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

  • Announcements

    • Mike

      PhotoBucket are no longer permitting 3rd party hosting   01/07/17

      As most of you are now painfully aware, Photobucket (PB) are stopping/have stopped allowing their members to link their accumulated years of photos into forums and the like, which they call 3rd party linking.  You can give them a non-refundable $399 a year to allow links, but I doubt that many will be rushing to take them up on that offer.  If you've previously paid them for the Pro account, it looks like you've got until your renewal to find another place to host your files, but you too will be subject to this ban unless you fork over a lot of cash.   PB seem to be making a concerted move to another type of customer, having been the butt of much displeasure over the years of a constantly worsening user interface, sloth and advertising pop-ups, with the result that they clearly don't give a hoot about the free members anymore.  If you don't have web space included in your internet package, you need to start looking for another photo host, but choose carefully, as some may follow suit and ditch their "free" members at some point.  The lesson there is keep local backups on your hard drive of everything you upload, so you can walk away if the same thing happens.   There's a thread on the subject here, so please use that to curse them, look for solutions or generall grouse about their mental capacity.   Not a nice situation for the forum users that hosted all their photos there, and there will now be a host of useless threads that relied heavily on photos from PB, but as there's not much we can do other than petition for a more equitable solution, I suggest we make the best of what we have and move on.  One thing is for certain.  It won't win them any friends, but they may not care at this point.    Mike.

KRK4m

Members
  • Content count

    668
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

253 Excellent

About KRK4m

  • Rank
    Obsessed Member
  • Birthday 25/04/57

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Krakow PL

Recent Profile Visitors

891 profile views
  1. Being Polish and speaking English for last 50 years of my life I can confirm that Seahawk is absolutely right. Many Polish books on military hisotry are written/printed in bilingual form. Cheers Michael
  2. Wicher (gale) and Burza (storm) were two first destroyers (2010-ton each) of the Polish Navy. They were built in France in 1928-30 as "a bit modified" Bourrasque-class vessels of French Navy. Wicher was sunk by the Luftwaffe bombers in September 1939 while in Hel harbour. Burza survived the war after long and eventful service in Polish Navy along the RN all over the North Sea and Atlantic. However they weren't the only two Bourrasque-class destroyers used by Polish Navy, as in 1940-41 the Poles used (as the loan from Royal Navy) also another one - the Ouragan (hurricane), taken over by the British after the fall of France. Cheers Michael
  3. With Academy going 1/700 maybe the chances appear at last for a straight-deck Midway-class, so precisely avoided by Hasegawa, Tamiya, Fujimi, Aoshima, Pit-Road, Dragon, Trumpeter, a.s.o. Cheers Michael
  4. AFAIK there's only one 1/72 kit of the AMX-13. Unfortunately Heller states that it portraits the last variant (from the '80s) with 105mm gun. My question is whether this kit is buildable as the 75mm-gunned early variant that was used by the French in anger (in Suez and then in Algierian campaign). What parts should be modified/replaced and generally - is it worth bothering with as the kit itself looks crude? Perhaps it will be better to wait for some new tool, but life is so short... Cheers Michael
  5. There are plenty of 72nd scale kits of this most numerous German WW2 tank and each one has its own afficionados. Do you think is the new Modelcollect 72078 any improvement over the well established offerings by ESCI/Italeri, Hasegawa, Dragon and Revell? Cheers Michael
  6. I just have been watching the English-narrated newsreel on Little Norway camp in Canada - there's a thread in WW2 section of this forum. There's nothing like "pale green" on the Cyclone-engined Norwegian Hawks - they wear standard OD over NG camouflage. Mind this before printing your H75A-8 boxes ! Cheers Michael
  7. And in the end we have a proof that Norwegian P-36Gs (H-75A-8) in Canada were painted (light) OD over NG like I supposed for last 30 years and NOT "duck egg green" overal like they appear on all the colour profiles until today Cheers Michaell
  8. Most of us are so used to Vee- (or W-) engined Breguets and their triangular wingtips that looking at your 19.8 in 3-colour camo we cannot simply find a Breguet in your model For me it looks like a 2-seater variant of Henschel 123 fitted with Curtiss F11C Goshawk engine - a rare bird indeed! Cheers Mike
  9. Thank you, BallsBuster My idea was to build a mainstream T-34 (with 2 men turret and long barrel 76mm gun) and a WW2 SU-100 using kits from the same manufacturer. This will make the differences between the two models similar to the real vehicles - e.g. the rear hull won't feature different slope angles and dimensions. As I wanted sharp, crisp details and correct scale (between 1:70 and 1:74) my first choice was Zvezda. But their T-34 features this awful hexagonal cast turret while SU-100 has the post-war rectangular front fenders. Due to that there are only two options left - Dragon and UM. Dragon is "clean" and easier to built while UM is closer to a short-run, but spot-on to the drawings. This is why the question appears: are the Dragon shape issues worth the expected struggle with UM bad fitting parts?
  10. One more question - were the early (small turret) Valentines still used by the 1st line units when ops moved to the Italian soil? I know the Churchills were used even after the D-day landing, but on the other hand Grants didn't go northbound farther than Tunisia, didn't they?
  11. Presumably Zvezda snap-kit is better than any of the trio mentioned above, but i don't like the looks of the hex-turret model 1942/43. So can anybody tell me what are the pros and cons for the early production T-34 in Braille scale? Is Dragon really so wrong and Unimodels so good? And what about the Trumpeter? Is it worth its price?
  12. In 1/72 you have several very good M3 kits by Polish Mirage company. There are both US Lees (small turret) and British Grants (elongated turret), welded (M3, M3A3, M3A5) or cast (M3A1) hull in plethora of markings - US, British, Soviet and so on. The kit is very well engineered and crisply moulded, surpassing ancient Hasegawa ofering by miles. Cheers Michael
  13. Churchill... OK - I can ignore the Mk.III. Good news is that all Mk.IV kits (cast turret) feature all 3 gun barrels. Valentine..... Just ghastly? I dare say horrible Compared to it even the S-model M113 and BMP-1 do look like museum-quality models
  14. Thank you, Gentlemen, for such a detailed survey. So I understand that ESCI/Italeri kit is the only choice for the Valentine as Armourfast is just a toy. Concerning the Churchill there're some good news - I can buy any Dragon Mk.III or IV as the sprues are virtually the same. Hasegawa and Airfix/Heller/Humbrol antics should be left aside, but one question remains here however - Carli Danilo at "On the way" values the ancient ESCI/Italeri Churchill higher than "new" Dragon kit. What's your opinion?