Jump to content
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. :)

Centaur95

Members
  • Content count

    112
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

50 Good

About Centaur95

  • Rank
    New Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Earth

Recent Profile Visitors

440 profile views
  1. Ajax (Scout SV)

    As Niall points out, the Ajax is a scout vehicle not an IFV so you aren't comparing vehicles of the same class or purpose. Nowt wrong with a 40mm cannon using modern ammunition and propellant technology but on a scout vehicle, opening fire on the enemy is a tactic of last resort because it means you've been spotted and need to escape rather than taking the fight to the enemy. Adding an ATGM (or similar) system to a scout vehicle does several things. It makes the vehicle more expensive; it makes it heavier and larger (you need space to mount the launcher and carry the spare missiles); it either increases the number of crew required to operate the vehicle (more space required) or increases the workload on the existing crew members and erodes their ability to carry out their priority task (scouting); it increases the training requirement for the crew (an extra specialism to learn); it may encourage the crew to duke it out with the enemy when they should be retreating and reporting their findings WITHOUT being spotted; it can encourage field commanders to mis-use the vehicle as a surrogate tank, at which point it becomes extremely vulnerable in a role for which it was never designed - armoured vehicle development is littered with examples of all of the above. Cheers, Centaur
  2. A couple of Challengers 2 ...

    The Trumpeter Challenger 2 is one of their earlier efforts so don't judge them entirely on this kit. I much prefer the Tamiya option in this case but many of the more recent Trumpeter kits are excellent builds. Cheers, Centaur
  3. Books covering D-Day and the Battle of Normandy

    Keegan - ponderous? Yeah, you're probably right but my first exposure to him was through reading The Face of Battle and The Mask of Command and it was the level of analysis that attracted me. As an aside, Carlo D'este's books on the battle for Sicily (Bitter Victory) and Winston Churchill (Warlord) also make very good reading. Montgomery was most definitely a questionable source for a balanced viewpoint. His star has definitely waned since the '60s. Cheers, Centaur
  4. Books covering D-Day and the Battle of Normandy

    I've read Beevor's book and whilst it's a good narrative, I'd argue that it doesn't have the depth that Keegan and D'este bring to the camapign. Ditto for Hastings - a good read but lacking some of the depth of the other options. D'este brings his experience as a career US Army Officer to the table, which to me is especially valuable as his perception is different from that of a pure academic. (it balances the academic histories. It's not better or worse - just different.) One book I did omit from my list was Rick Atkinson's third book in his trilogy on the US Army - 'The Guns at Last Light', The whole trilogy (An Army at Dawn, The Day of Battle and The Guns at Last Light) covers the development of the US Army in Africa and Europe through WWII and is a masterwork - readable, intellectual and also honest about the highs and lows of the army's development. The choice of books is a very personal one, so i appreciate others might have differing views on particular authors. Cheers, Centaur
  5. Abrams Deflector and Tow Bar

    Just because the towbar is supplied in 'most kits' doesn't mean it's an authorised stowage item for an Abrams. Kit manufacturers supply such accessories because they look good and it helps to sell their kits. Yes, crews might grab one if they can beg, borrow or steal it and hang it on their tank - just as they would do with anything else that looked 'useful' (especially in a combat arena, where the regulations are less strictly enforced), but that's very different from it it being an 'issue' item for the vehicle with a pre-defined stowage location. There's no reason you can't use it if you want to but because it's not a standard item, it won't have a defined location on the vehicle. Cheers, Centaur
  6. Books covering D-Day and the Battle of Normandy

    Outstanding in my opinion -Six Armies in Normandy by John Keegan -Decision in Normandy by Carlo D'Este Very good, but not as good as the first two titles -The Battle for Normandy by Robin Neillands -D-Day by Stephen Ambrose - The Struggle for Europe by Chester Wilmott (very dated by today's standards) There are probably hundreds of other books that cover some or all of the Normandy campaign, but the first two titles I've listed are, for me, the most balanced and well written. Cheers, Centaur
  7. Abrams Deflector and Tow Bar

    The towbar isn't a standard fit on the vehicle. The normal towing apparatus consists of the two tow cables on the turret. It is rare to see a towbar carried on the tank . Not sure what you mean by the exhaust 'deflector'? If you mean the upwards facing unit that attaches to the exhaust vent, then that's actually part of the deep wading kit and is only seen on USMC Abrams as far as I'm aware (US Army M1a1 'Common' hulls have the mounting points for it - 'common' meaning a specific production batch of Abrams tanks that were manufactured for both the Army and the Marines that had the same fittings for manufacturing convenience). You also need to be aware that the exhaust of an Abrams gets VERY hot so it's unlikely that much will be stowed on it Others may have better info. Cheers, Centaur
  8. Churchill Bridgelayer

    Glad you found them useful Cheers, Centaur
  9. Takom Finnish Marksman

    Yes - they were new-build Polish hulls ordered specifically for the Marksman turrets. Cheers, Centaur
  10. Churchill Bridgelayer

    OK - PM me your address. I have some layout plans that will certainly help with the cupola shape (hexagonal, elongated on one side). The bridgelayer used the standard engine deck. The bridge could be partially raised to allow access as far as I'm aware. Cheers, Centaur
  11. Rolls Royce Armoured Cars detail sets?

    Might be worth checking out Gaspatch for some exquisite MGs. They do a variety of scales aimed primarily at aircraft modellers but the products are really nice. They don't do a .303 Vickers in 1/35 but offer several in 1/32 www.gaspatchmodels.com. Cheers, Centaur
  12. Churchill Bridgelayer

    That's a pretty vague request - what do you think is 'wrong' with the Airfix kit that would prevent it being a Mk VII? I'm not saying it isn't you understand, just that it's really difficult to work out what information you might need. Cheers, Centaur
  13. MERDc camo M-60, summer verdant & tropical verdant

    Yep - so do the Italians, Argentines and the Spanish. However, a lot of those countries have upgraded their Amtracs to a similar standard to the USMC so it becomes difficult to be certain. I went for Brazilian because they seem to have been slower to upgrade their 'tracs. Happy to be proved wrong though Cheers, Centaur
  14. MERDc camo M-60, summer verdant & tropical verdant

    That photo doesn't make sense. The USMC personnel are wearing modern MARPAT camouflage and it is a completely different timeframe to the MERDC scheme (about 20 years different). Those AAVP7s are not USMC vehicles. They are also original A1 variants and haven't been upgraded in any way. My guess is that they are modern Brazilian vehicles. The Grey and Red Desert schemes were used, as were the Winter options, but never as extensively as the Winter/Summer Verdant schemes - my personal favourite of all the MERDC options was the Grey Desert option. Cheers, Centaur
  15. MERDc camo M-60, summer verdant & tropical verdant

    The most common scheme used was the Winter Verdant. The Summer verdant was less common and the Tropical Verdant very rare - possibly only used by a few USMC units based in the Pacific. I seem to remember that the old Tamiya M151 MUTT with TOW Launcher included a Tropical Verdant scheme and it was credited to a USMC unit. Their LVTP7A1 kit also included the Tropical Verdant scheme which would tend to confirm a bias towards USMC units (possibly those based in Japan?). That would mean you couldn't paint an M60A3 in the scheme as the USMC only used the M60A1 and never upgraded to the A3. The original plan was that the major colours could be repainted during the year to match the terrain/vegetation, but most units didn't have the time or the inclination to do so. Cheers, Centaur
×