Kingsman

More info. First, here is what the interior prism boxes looked like. Prism not fitted. The exterior slot is just below the level of the top of the box. Second, on the MkIV Male sponson there is a mixture of prisms and slits but on the female they are all slits. Third, I was confusing the MkIV and MkV vision slits. On the MkIV they did not allow direct vision at all. They offered either the 8 holes or completely solid. The plate simply slid up and down. Apologies for the fuzzy focus here. The plate lifted up and slid to the right in the L shaped slots to reveal the holes or could quickly be knocked left to drop closed. Note how the internal joint fishplate is shaped to accommodate this. The MkV introduced 2 improved designs which did rotate to allow direct vision or holes as I described - but no solid option.

The Airfix Brummbar StuPa is a re-box of the Academy kit. The only difference is the decals provided and the lack of zimmerit decals in the Airfix version. So any review of the Academy kit will be valid, but those are quite thin on the ground too. The tooling itself is very recent as the original Academy kit was only released in 2020, although using parts of their 2018 PzIV. It has already been reviewed on Britmodeller here https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235111045-sturmpanzer-iv-brummbär-mid-version-a1376-135/. The Acadamy version has also been comprehensively reviewed here on APMS https://www.amps-armor.org/SiteReviews/ShowReview.aspx?id=14572 Zimmerit decals and stickers can apparently both be challenging to use in different ways so you may be better off without these. Although I'm tempted to say that a "mid" production StuPa would probably have had Zimmerit, whereas early and late ones would not. Whether you can make an "early" one from the parts provided is a question I can't answer. I know the early version had a shorter gun barrel shroud, no driver's periscope and rubber tyred return rollers. Academy don't sell the Zimmerit decals separately anyway, so if you want Zimmerit it will be DIY with putty, Eduard etched brass (very hard to work with and far too uniform) or Atak resin https://atakmodel.istore.pl/en_US/searchquery/brummbar/1/phot/5?url=brummbar There are lots of other after-market parts if you really want to go to town and have deep pockets.

Just looking back through this, I see that you drilled out the vision slits around the drivers cab. These were not actually direct vision slits - open slots - but were in fact an early form of prism periscope and each of them had a glass block behind for indirect protected viewing from inside. They would therefore appear solid and glossy black from the outside. Because of the offset in the prism and the box holding the prism there was no way of viewing directly through them. The drivers' front flaps did have direct vision slits under the smaller inner flap but IIRC the kit does not give you the option to have these open. The sponson vision slits were different. These did not have the glass prisms but were covered internally by a rotating metal plate which had 2 groups of 4 tiny round drilled holes, about 0.1mm in scale. So these slits did allow direct vision but in action the plate would be rotated to cover the slit leaving just the tiny holes for vision. Whether crews left them open for better vision or chinks of light I do not know. But we do know that German forces learned to target the vision slits with small arms fire, which is why some tanks are seen with false vision slits painted on in different places. More common on Medium A Whippets and French tanks.

Apologies to Admins if this should go somewhere else that I didn't see. Does anyone have any recommendations for a brand or type of cyano that a) cures quickly and b) stays stuck? I'm fed up holding parts together for ages while the glue cures. And when I use accelerator the bond seems to be very much weaker with glued parts easily breaking off. I find that 'accelerated' cyano tends to break off leaving all the glue on one side, which is then fairly easy to pick off.

That gives the same basic dimensions but doesn't help with the case taper, shoulder length and angle etc. Have you looked at whether 1/48 50mm (is there any?) or 1/35 37mm ammo might work? Diameters will be about right but there is length and shape to consider.

17pdr APCBC round was 859mm overall. Cartridge was 583mm and projectile 276mm (APDS only about half that). Projectile was obviously 76mm diameter. Cartridge base diameter was 135mm. I can't find measurements for the diameter and taper of the cartridge case body. About 125mm at the base at a guess. In that scale a few mm makes little difference.

Agreed. But we know that there are many inaccuracies in wartime paperwork. And indeed in today's paperwork (I may have made a few of those😁). They pop up all the time, often stimulating vigourous debate. But it is entirely logical that we would have acquired OD9 paint for patch-painting the little UK mods and more major changes like Achilles and Firefly. I had been trying to find out if the US had supplied OD paint or if each vehicle came with a can in the OVM box. But US depots and workshops would of course have it, so why would the latter be the case. Even removing the shipping sealant etc was likely to cause the need for patch painting, and then there is over-painting the US serials, shipping data panels etc. So the UK use of OD paint on reception is entirely logical. Why doesn't it appear in any of the painting instructions? Because it wasn't something that field units would do or even need to know about. This was something that would be done by Jack Olding and others doing the inward processing of vehicles received from the US and workshops like Hayes and others doing the Achilles and Firefly conversions. So they would arrive at depots and units with that work done, essentially invisibly. They probably had no idea that it had even been done. Depots and units would then be responsible for the relevant theatre painting standards. While British tanks were not authorised to be disruptively painted in NW Europe it seems that Achilles, technically SP artillery, often were. Now, whether that OD paint was available in the field through the supply chain for repainting is an entirely separate question. It is a large quantity. And it was for spraying, although doubtless it could be brushed. But then we received tens of thousands of Lend-Lease vehicles so maybe a quarter of a million gallons didn't go that far.

In 1/9 you perhaps have a bit more latitude with sheen. I suspect we were all assuming 1/35.............. IIRC, somewhere on here in the past @Mike Starmer has posted a picture of a motorcycle tank he believed to be still in original SCC2 paint, but good luck finding it. If he is listening in perhaps he could re-post it here.

Now there is a typical British contradiction of officialdom........

Yes it would. The rear armour around the engine compartment was thinner and the shock absorber on the 2nd last wheel station was removed. This was because the Liberty engine was lighter, but with not much more than half the BHP of the Meteor some weight needed to be saved. This is partly why only about 500 of the roughly 2,000 Cromwells were considered combat-worthy. Add on the roughly 1,800 Centaurs, 500 Cavaliers and about 1,800 Covenanters and you have about 5,600 non combat worthy tanks built in the UK during WW2. A Great British Tank Scandal indeed, to quote David Fletcher.

In WW2 definitely NOT gloss. High gloss and true flat matt were actually quite difficult for UK paint manufacturers in the WW2 era and most could be described as "satin" - a slight to moderate sheen. The US was way ahead of the UK in paint technology from its automotive industry. Olive Drab No9 was described as "lusterless" - meaning flat matt. Drab in their parlance also meant matt. That paint was reformulated to a satin finish in 1944 for greater wear resistance. However, as pointed-out above, painting your WW2 AFV model with a satin paint will not look realistic even if it is technically correct.

This same question is also being covered simultaneously on this Achilles thread here.

You are correct about T120629, about 60 numbers from the end of the M-C Cromwell 1 sequence. From which it would be logical to assume that the group of 24 later numbers were all Type Fs too, T120540 is a Type D hull with the flat-top trackguards. T120466 is indeed a MkVI on a Type C hull with sloping front trackguards, and the markings are for the RAC Gunnery Wing at Lulworth. A school tank. Here it is I suspect that only a handful of C Hull Mk VIs were built, using tanks already in build at the time of the switch. They would not have been considered deployable as that hull did not meet the Final Spec. This is the lowest MkVI serial I have seen, and being a Type C hull must be close to "pationt zero" for the change. Which means that M-C had switched to MkVIs at least as soon as the 51st tank built from an order for 274 MkIs - i.e. the vast majority. And this is where British records are untrustworthy as there are clearly differences between "as contracted" and "as supplied". A quick bit of math says that M-C therefore built at least 247 MkVIs. Fowlers we know built 91, making 338. The recorded total of MkVIs is 341, so there are a stray 3 somewhere. Either M-C built 250 or Fowlers completed 3 Centaur IVs as Cromwell VIs. But it does therefore seem that the order for M-C to switch from MkI to MkVI came very early in MkI production, potentially with as few as 48 and no more than 51 completed as MkIs. Here is T120521, a Type D hull again. These 2 from B Squadron, 15th/19th King’s Royal Hussars are in the T120xxx Type D range also. Can't make out the rest. Note the odd angle of the counterweight on the closest one. 2 more in that sequence with the Czechs. Nearest one looks like T120551. Type Ds again.

And in another thread on colours on here somewhere an order for paint from British suppliers was discovered at Kew which had originally been for Khaki Green 3, by then no longer available, and had been amended to US Olive Drab. Tens of thousands of gallons IIRC. Unfortunately no copy was taken as the researcher was primarily looking for aircraft paint information. Which raises the possibility that modifications to US-origin vehicles were in fact patch-painted in OD. Which would be entitely logical and would explain why we don't see patchwork US-origin vehicles in service in NW Europe. SCC15 and OD would be noticeably different even in b/w.

Seems highly unlikely at this vintage. You might try the Renault archive - it was their design after all. But their Billancourt factory and head office was bombed by both German and Allied air forces in WW2. Also you might try the Weald Foundation in the UK, who completed the full strip-down restoration of a pair of FTs in 2018. You could also try the archive at Musee des Blindes at Saumur.

Interesting. Metro-Cammell only built Cromwell Mks I and VI, 300 overall. So I can see that production of Cromwell MkI might have been curtailed in favour of MkVI. A 95mm CS tank would be much more use than a 6pdr tank. Those number ranges are "as allocated" rather than "as completed". We know that manufacturers did allocate numbers differently as production priorities changed. Fewer Valentine Is and more Valentine IIs would be a known example. Contract Cards were rarely amended. So I can see that M-C might have been instructed to change from MkI to MkVI. They were only allocated 24 additional numbers for MkVIs but I'm not sure that anyone knows exactly how many of each Mark they completed. It is perhaps noteworthy that M-C and BRCW were the only A27 manufacturers who only built Cromwells: no Centaurs. They both began with the MkI but then BRCW jumped to the MkV and M-C jumped to the MkVI. So I'm wondering if the big jump of Cromwell manufacturers with EE, Fowler and Leyland all switching over to Cromwells from Centaurs, and the arrival of the Cromwell IV - the most-produced Cromwell variant - being built by all these 3 new arrivals, allowed the 2 original Cromwell manufacturers to drop the now-obsolete MkI in favour of something better. Fowlers were the only other builders of MkVI, of which there were 341. I can see at least 91 contracted to Fowler but there must have been more as some Centaur IVs from them were completed as Cromwell VIs. Which could leave as many as 250 being built by M-C, 84% of the numbers allocated to M-C. But I suspect a lot less because of the Fowler Centaur IV - Cromwell VI switch. It would therefore appear that there is certainly scope for some of the M-C number allocation for MkIs being used on MkVIs. Out of interest, did those photos have sloping or horizontal front trackguards? Sloping probably indicates an early change while still using the Type C hull. Early M-C MkVIs were on Type C hulls before moving on to D, E and F. Fowler only used Type F on their MkVIs but their Centaur IV crossovers used C and D hulls.

No Cromwells were rebuilt from Centaur hulls. That myth still does the rounds, but it is just a myth. A Cromwell X was prototyped by Leyland, which would have been a conversion of the Centaur I, but it retained the 6pdr gun and no more were built. A Cromwell IIIA conversion of Centaur Is was also postulated, also still 6pdr, but also not built. Many tanks that were contracted as Centaurs were built as Cromwells once Meteor engine availability was proved to be adequate and companies switched from Centaurs to Cromwells. 200 Centaur Is were completed as Cromwell IIIs but the Cromwell IIIA conversion of some of the 1,000+ Centaur Is did not go ahead. The Final Specification rendered every Cromwell earlier than the IV and all Centaurs obsolete and killed off the IIIA and X. Cromwell IVs, the most numerous Mark, were all originally contracted as Centaur IIIs but completed as Cromwells. The same is true for the Cromwell VIs, originally contracted as Centaur IVs. 400 FS Cromwells were required for D Day and this was just about done with Leyland and Fowlers switching from Centaurs to Cromwells. Leyland were the largest builder of Centaurs (643) and became the largest builder of Cromwell too (735). EE were a close 2nd on Cromwells with 647, almost all IVs. T120415 - 120689: Cromwell Is from Metro-Cammell T188657 - 188681: Cromwell VI from Metro-Cammell. Some VI with Type F hull T121150 - 121406: Cromwell I and V from BRCW T121701 - 121822: Cromwell V (and VII?) from BRCW T187501 - 188082: Cromwell IV and VI from Leyland and Fowler. T188151 - 188656: Cromwell IV from EE, Leyland and Fowler. Apparently all Type F T188687 - 188929: Cromwell IV from EE, Leyland and Fowler. Apparently all Type F T189400 - 190064: Cromwell III, IV and VI from EE and Fowler.

I tried home printing once and standard inkjet ink just ran as soon as it touched the water. Spray varnish helped but made a thick decal. Maybe I'm missing something........ Gaso.Line do a small range of 1/48 decals of their own brand and from Star and Peddinghaus. But nothing British. https://www.promodels.eu/en/kit-accessories-diorama-decals-xsl-425_434.html Rubicon probably do the largest range of 1/56 scale decals. They have 2 sheets for Commonwealth subjects. Ironically I have just this weekend sold my pair on eBay........ IIRC one or other of either Echelon or Archer used to do smaller-sized 1/35 markings for smaller vehicles. Those might work for larger 1/48 vehicles like tanks if you can find them.

The drawings will be Caterpillar proprietary intellectual property covered by copyright and you will be unlikely to find any freely available that would be sufficiently detailed for a scratchbuild. You may be able to licence them from Caterpillar, but at a hefty price you won't like. Allowing detailed drawings out in the public domain would allow third parties to manufacture alternative spare parts etc, which is why they are tightly controlled. This is why many kits don't use the official brand or product names - to avoid licence fees, and copyright lasts for decades. Most are also now laser-scanned in the real world from real units which is then converted to CAD. In The Old Days we would find one and take lots of photos using a ruler painted in inch or centimetre segments in each photo to scale from later, plus measurements. Which still works if you are a dab hand with old-school tech drawing or CAD. If you search for Caterpillar 621G Specs you will find some simple General Arrangement drawings and a lot of key dimensions on websites dealing with plant machinery, plus many photos. I don't know the likelihood of finding a real one in the UK to photograph. Used ones for sale all seem to be overseas. Finnings have been the UK Caterpillar agents for ever. Perhaps you might contact them for help?? It seems that both the M1070 and 621G are available as 1/50 scale pre-finished models, but where is the fun it that? And they are likely to cost you about £700..........

My somewhat obtuse point is that WO was apparently buying OD paint. Which puts a different complexion on the Crab, Firefly etc conversion colour debate. It may not be a binary choice of SCC2 vs SCC15.

However, in another thread on this forum about colours it was identified that a WO contract for Khaki Green 3 paint made some time after KG3 had become unavailable had been amended to US Olive Drab. Suggesting that the UK could make OD paint. We had the necessary ochre clay pigments fron Devon (as used in SCC2) and lamp black.

Those are definitely new pontoons, and they appear to be self-propelled. That would remove the need to bring up Combat Support Boats as tugs.

The US also developed their own copies of the Mine Exploder, as they called it. Although in their parlance that description also encompassed mine rollers. I believe the Crab at Bovington was a School tank there and is still a MkI, not a MkII. Which might suggest that MkIs predominated in units if that was the equipment being trained.

Have you another format for this file? I've tried to enlarge it after opening in a new tab but it will not. It just wants to download. I've tried downloading and saving it but my PC wouldn't recogise the file type and open it. I think there might be some other tank types in the middle of the picture. 6 RTR had a mix of Lights, Cruisers (A9/10?) and some Medium Mk IIs in this timeframe. The Mediums were passed on to 1 RTR later in 1940 IIRC.

Looks like you could be right. Look at these Griffon and Jaguar delivered new last year. France is a large country with varied terrain, and they have expeditionary warfighting aspirations. Maybe they think this is a good universal fit. Belgium are having their Griffons and Jaguars in a fetching shade of green. That being said, French Griffons are also seen in French NATO-flage. But the recent French deployment to Estonia including the old AMX-10RC seems to have been brown.