Cromwell IV Tank

[Paul A H]

Cromwell IV Tank

1:76 Airfix

The A27M Cruiser Tank Mk. IV Cromwell, to give it its full name, was almost identical to both the A24 Cavalier and A27L Centaur tanks except for its Rolls Royce Meteor V12 petrol engine. The Meteor was a modified version of the famous Merlin aero engine that was capable of developing 600bhp. This made the Cromwell the fastest cruiser tank around at the time. Early marks were armed with the 6pdr gun, but with the introduction of the Mark IV came the 75mm gun. This was still no match for the larger German tanks such as the Panther and Tiger however, and the Cromwell struggled in the early days of the invasion when fighting was confined to the Normandy Bocage. It fared better once fighting moved further into France and the Low Countries where its impressive turn of speed could be exploited. The Cromwell was eventually developed into the A34 Comet and armed with the much more capable 77mm quick firing gun.

Although Airfix's new armoured fighting vehicle kits are fewer and further between than their aircraft kits, they are nonetheless very welcome amongst modellers of small-scale armour. Their latest kit of a classic British tank is no exception as injection moulded small scale Cromwells are not exactly ten a penny (with the exception of the snap-together Armourfast kit). Inside the now familiar bright red box are two sprues of grey plastic which hold the kit's 91 parts. The sprues are crisply moulded and feature very convincing detail, raised and recessed as appropriate. The only quibble I have about the sprues is that the attachment points for some of the parts are very heavy. This is nothing that can�t be overcome with a little careful work, but a minor inconvenience nonetheless.

 

The first thing that strikes me about this kit is the way the tracks are moulded. I've built a fair few tanks in my time and am used to one-piece vinyl tracks or link and length plastic tracks. In this kit, however, the plastic tracks are moulded in one piece, complete with sag, and the road wheels and drive sprockets are moulded separately. This is an excellent idea as it allows for a nicely detailed track that won't take an age to cut from the sprue, clean up and build and it'll be nice and strong once it�s done too. Ten out of ten to Airfix for this excellent feature!
 

The hull is nicely detailed although the pioneer tools are moulded in place rather than as separate pieces. The hatches are also moulded closed, with the exception of the commander's hatch on the turret (which can be built open or closed as both options are included on the sprues). The turret itself is moulded just like the real thing as the armour plates are separate parts that have to be added to the inner structure. Optional parts are provided for wading gear and the hedge cutter used in the Bocage fighting.
 

Two options are provided for on the decal sheet, although if variety is the spice of your life you are likely to be disappointed as both are finished in the usual plain Khaki Drab. The first option is a tank of the 5th Royal Horse Artillery, 7th Armoured Division and the second is from the 11th Armoured Division. If you're after something a little different for your Cromwell you could try a white finish as quite a lot of these tanks were whitewashed in the winter of 1944-45.

Conclusion

This is a truly excellent little kit that typifies the innovative approach that Airfix are taking to their new products these days. It's nicely detailed without being overly complex and it should look great once built. Here�s hoping that many more British subjects will follow in its footsteps (or tracks).
 


Review sample courtesy of

[Test Graham]

I'm looking forward to this one, and the track arrangement looks promising. Sadly, I don't think it would work for tracks with a more complex tread pattern or double inner "risers" (sorry, I can't recall the correct term).

However, the Revell 1/72 Cromwell has been widely available for some years now, so Cromwell kits aren't quite as rare as you suggest. This is, I believe, the first 1/76 injected kit.

[BWP]

Two options are provided for on the decal sheet, although if variety is the spice of your life you are likely to be disappointed as both are finished in the usual plain Khaki Drab.

Surely not? British Olive Green (SCC15) I would think ....

What is the detail like on those track links? It's a bit hard to say for certain from your photos but it gives the appearance of looking like a continuous band with no separate links detailed inside or out. If that's the case it's disappointing. Absence of track detail is something you expect from a quick-build kit (and is what stops most of them from being suitable subjects for display models).

Seems very nice otherwise (although as you note the moulded-in tools are also a little disappointing).

[Paul A H]

However, the Revell 1/72 Cromwell has been widely available for some years now, so Cromwell kits aren't quite as rare as you suggest. This is, I believe, the first 1/76 injected kit.

Graham you are quite right - sloppy research on my part

Surely not? British Olive Green (SCC15) I would think ....

I've referenced the kit instructions which call for Humbrol Khaki Drab.

What is the detail like on those track links? It's a bit hard to say for certain from your photos but it gives the appearance of looking like a continuous band with no separate links detailed inside or out. If that's the case it's disappointing. Absence of track detail is something you expect from a quick-build kit (and is what stops most of them from being suitable subjects for display models).

Seems very nice otherwise (although as you note the moulded-in tools are also a little disappointing).

The tracks have the appearance of a continuous band on the inside but not the outside. I take your point about the absence of detail but I think these single piece tracks are a better alternative to vinyl tracks which are difficult to fix in place and paint. They are also nice and thin so they don't look over scale.

[Test Graham]

Certainly SCC15, but more detail (and more correct) information on colour mixes can be found in Mike Starmer's notes for MAFVA.

http://www.mafva.net/other%20pages/Starmer%20camo.htm

Sadly, Mike does not rate the WEM SCC15 either, so we are without a good representation straight from the tin. It is however an olive green, not a khaki, greener than the US Olive Drab it could be seen alongside.

If this method doesn't present a good representation of the track (and I'll reserve judgement until I see it), then it is not an improvement over the better vinyl tracks (although it is over the worse), and inferior to the link and length method used elsewhere. Although that is taken to extremes, and I'm sure companies could produce them with more lengths (included curved parts) and less links!

[lufbramatt]

certainly a big improvent in terms of ease-of assembly though I expect- rubber band tracks in small scales are very fiddly, and separate lengths arn't much better as it is often very hard to get them all to line up and leave the right size gap for the last section to fit in! Also avoids the problem of rubber tracks perishing over time. Cromwell tracks are a fairly simple design in real life, so this approach seems a very good compromise to me, there is relatively little detail lost in return for ease-of-assembly and a good overall scale look with the correct sag- no more trying to tie/glue rubber tracks to the top of the road wheels!

If little jonny can build and assemble a kit and be happy with the result he will buy more, which in turn keeps the hobby going for generations to come.

[Paul A H]

certainly a big improvent in terms of ease-of assembly though I expect- rubber band tracks in small scales are very fiddly, and separate lengths arn't much better as it is often very hard to get them all to line up and leave the right size gap for the last section to fit in! Also avoids the problem of rubber tracks perishing over time. Cromwell tracks are a fairly simple design in real life, so this approach seems a very good compromise to me, there is relatively little detail lost in return for ease-of-assembly and a good overall scale look with the correct sag- no more trying to tie/glue rubber tracks to the top of the road wheels!

If little jonny can build and assemble a kit and be happy with the result he will buy more, which in turn keeps the hobby going for generations to come.

You've hit the nail on the head there. Most kits are a compromise between fine detail and ease of assembly, with the balance in either direction depending on the intended purchaser. Dragon's recent 1:35 kits, for example, are firmly in the fine detail camp and have a complexity and price tag to match. Same with some of the Trumpeter kits (I've got their 1:35 Ostwind and it has something like 800+ parts). For a £7 kit this kit has plenty of detail and I think the tracks will look fine. I myself would choose these over vinyl, although I appreciate that this is a personal choice and others may disagree. I take Graham's point about the detail that can be achieved with link and length plastic tracks, but I don't think the improvement they offer over is always capitalised on. It can be if the manufacturer wishes to push the boat out, but often they are not particularly well-detailed either.

[thx6667]

You've hit the nail on the head there. Most kits are a compromise between fine detail and ease of assembly, with the balance in either direction depending on the intended purchaser.

Precisely, more of those Cromwells are likely to be made by non-enthusiasts, so one-piece tracks are one way of making sure assembly is as easy as possible. They won't be to everyone's personal taste, but what's new - link and length is fine for experienced modellers but can be as equally taxing as rubber bands for the tyro, personally I prefer Dragon's DS tracks that can be glued, but as with any AFV kit, shortcomings in the track department can usually be overcome with mud and pigments - you know, the fun stuff!

[Test Graham]

Funny that, but when I WAS a "little Johnny" I don't remember being the slightest worried about vinyl tracks - link and length being rather after my time - or difficulty in assembly of (eg) Tigers and Churchills, which were considerably more complex than a Cromwell. I don't believe their sales suffered at the time, either. Certainly they sold into the next generation (and still do): I unsuspectedly gained a premade (and rather dusty) Airfix Churchill when son left for university: it was at least as well made as mine from this same age. We are in danger of being over-patronising. How long does it take any beginner to be able to glue a few wheels or to wrap a tread around a sprocket? In the words of the common saying, they are not exactly rocket science.

The rest of the kit does not bear the signs of simplfying for the beginner - compare the Armourfast kits for that. It seems clear that Airfix intend to continue along this line of improvement in tooling, so there's no reason why the approach to the tracks should go against their own trend. Hard tracks are a step forward, but single piece tracks won't work on most subjects without very complex slide moulds. Nice try on this subject, though. And better, I'm sure it is safe to say, than the Cromwell Cromwells in this department.

Sadly, however, I think you'll find that the Cromwell wheels are slightly larger than those of the Crusader, so you can't achieve the close fitting and the true length required to correect the old kit. I did try this with some white metal examples, thanks to Barry of MMS Models. The track is wider too - although that may be more amenable to reworking than the metal ones. The key problem I had with the old one was to get a good alignment with the axles, and this may be easier with the new kit - wait and see on that, but it doesn't solve the key problem. Back to those T-34s I fear, and they only work with the "hubcaps" of the desert variant, not the open sides of the Normandy ones.

[thx6667]

I think difference, to when you were a lad Graham to today, is that results have to be a bit quicker in order to compete with other modern distractions. Its a different culture to when I was growing up 40 years ago, let alone your own era. As Paul says, most kits are about compromise - Tthat's not over-patronising, that's just common sense - and Airfix would appear to have tried something different on the Cromwell in order to make one area (the tracks) more modeller friendly. One could argue they could have provided two options, (like Italeri do on some of their kits) but that would inevitably have pushed the price up.

The telling will be how they look once a model is built and painted.

[The Velociweiler]

This is a truly excellent little kit that typifies the innovative approach that Airfix are taking to their new products these days. It’s nicely detailed without being overly complex and it should look great once built. Here’s hoping that many more British subjects will follow in its footsteps (or tracks).

An all-new Centurion with scope for the variants would be a godsend.

[Dave Fleming]

Now, can you cross kit with the Matchbox Comet to produce a more detailed Comet?

[lufbramatt]

Considering how many "make and take" events airfix run every year, many of which feature AFV models, i'm pretty sure they have a good understanding of how "people" (ie non-enthusiasts) cope with putting tracks on small scale kits.

As an aside, when I was a "little jonny", I thought rubber band tracks were crap. So the only AFV kits I ever made were scout cars or lorries (my favourite was the matchbox "montys caravan" set with the leyland retreiver and daimler scout car!), and I avoided tanks like the plague.

[thx6667]

As an aside, when I was a "little jonny", I thought rubber band tracks were crap. So the only AFV kits I ever made were scout cars or lorries (my favourite was the matchbox "montys caravan" set with the leyland retreiver and daimler scout car!), and I avoided tanks like the plague.

Big Jonny here doesn't like the rubber bands on his Hobby Boss Land Wasserschlepper as they are a pig to glue together (slots of superglue and accelerator) and slightly too tight that they are starting to weaken the rear axles.

[Seahawk]

As an aside, when I was a "little jonny", I thought rubber band tracks were crap.

I'm right with you. The silver Airfix ones fitted snugly but accordingly tended to overstrain drive sprockets and idlers, which often snapped off. They also tended to melt the plastic parts: DSs and Is tended to become rather elliptical over time. The black Airfix ones were better in that they were softer and would take paint. However a tendency to disintegrate over quite a short time was something of a drawback. I think Airfix have hit on a sensible compromise for this particular type of track, with a single row of guide teeth. I don't know whether I would feel the same about other track types but am eagerly awaiting Airfix's next exciting 1/76 AFV release to find out.

[Paul A H]

As an aside, when I was a "little jonny", I thought rubber band tracks were crap.

The last set of vinyl tracks I used were on the Trumpeter 1:72 Jagdtiger and I had to staple the two ends together to achieve any kind of join - truly horrible.

[BWP]

I appreciate that these tracks are better than the old vinyl tracks of Airfix's past kits -- hell, in most cases, mouldy porridge would be better than the tracks Airfix has offered. That does not mean that these are the best tracks that Airfix could have offered, and if they can detail the outer edge of the tracks what stops them from detailing the inner edge (other than laziness)? The kit is not being marketed as a quick-build where detail is usually unimportant, and people can hardly complain of small pieces that might be fiddly to apply -- that's par for the course for AFV kits in this scale.

95% of the time the problem with vinyl tracks is that they are made of vinyl. When tracks are made of styrene -- whether hard (link & length) or soft (Dragon's DS material) the results are invariably superior. Zvezda have already shown how to do "quickbuild" link & length tracks with their 1/72 kits and they don't even need glue. The DS tracks that come with Dragon kits are incredibly easy to work with. Both of these methods permit tracks to be as detailed as the manufacturer cares to make them, and it's hard to see how either method could bamboozle any little Johnny out there who is capable of assembling the rest of the kit.

This method that Airfix have used here is interesting, and kudos to them for looking for an alternative to the "vinyl terror", but all it boils down to is "nice effort, but not quite there". Here's hoping that their next new tank kit goes the extra step. And separate tools and stowage pieces, please!

[rotorheadtx]

Now, can you cross kit with the Matchbox Comet to produce a more detailed Comet?

Dave,

only if you are going to make one of the mild-steel prototype Comets, which had the Cromwell running gear.

All production Comets had return rollers added, so the tracks would have to be modified on their upper runs.

Linky to prototype piccy

You might be able to use bits and bobs, but the effort involved in really cross-kitting would probably be better spent just sprucing up the original Matchbox parts.

Also, I think the Comets all had F-type (?) hulls, and I believe the Airfix Cromwell has a D-type (??) hull, which means the driver and RTO hatches are different.

(There was a good write-up about hull types & hatch layouts, with drawings, in a recent issue of Airfix Magazine.)

Finally, my 2cents about tracks.... I like what Airfix is trying to do here, just imagine what they might pull off if they steal some of Dragon's slide-mould tech.

I have memories of buying the Airfix JS-3 and Centurion as a kid, getting them home, opening the boxes, and finding that the 'black tracks' had melted tread impressions all over the plastic parts.

Put me off Airfix tanks in the worst possible way - I wouldn't even consider the brand after that. I'm happy to give them another go in this generation!

[thx6667]

That does not mean that these are the best tracks that Airfix could have offered, and if they can detail the outer edge of the tracks what stops them from detailing the inner edge (other than laziness)?

The presumption of "laziness" is a little... lazy? They have a Facebook page, why not go and ask them?

The kit is not being marketed as a quick-build where detail is usually unimportant, and people can hardly complain of small pieces that might be fiddly to apply -- that's par for the course for AFV kits in this scale.

I don't anyone in this thread as said they are being marketed as "quick build", but just that the tracks tend to be a tricky area and this appears to be an attempt to solve it, more so for the less experience modeller. Whether it proves successful or popular time will tell.

As for the usual semantics of "well X do it this way, why didn't they try method Y" - ask them.

[BWP]

The presumption of "laziness" is a little... lazy?

Hmm ... no. I appreciate that there might be moulding limitations. If there are, that's just another indication that this was not the best possible solution. If there weren't moulding limitations, then omitting detail that should be present has few other possible explanations.

They have a Facebook page, why not go and ask them?

Because (a) Facebook is an abomination unto the face of the internet, and I'd rather live in a cave and eat raw potatoes than make any use of it whatsoever, and ( people from Airfix are as capable of collecting feedback from general internet sources like this one as you and I are. If they didn't do that, then they would clearly have no interest in getting feedback from any source. (And I know that's not true.) In any case, I don't need a personal seal of approval from Airfix before making comments about them.

I don't anyone in this thread as said they are being marketed as "quick build", but just that the tracks tend to be a tricky area and this appears to be an attempt to solve it, more so for the less experience modeller.

All points I made in my post. Thanks for taking the time to read it. There's nothing wrong with Airfix making the attempt -- something else I mentioned above. The issue is not the attempt itself, but rather where the attempt has gone wrong. If the industry didn't already have other, better solutions available, it would barely be worth mentioning.

[thx6667]

Hmm ... no. I appreciate that there might be moulding limitations. If there are, that's just another indication that this was not the best possible solution. If there weren't moulding limitations, then omitting detail that should be present has few other possible explanations.

Presumably.

Because (a) Facebook is an abomination unto the face of the internet, and I'd rather live in a cave and eat raw potatoes than make any use of it whatsoever, and ( people from Airfix are as capable of collecting feedback from general internet sources like this one as you and I are. If they didn't do that, then they would clearly have no interest in getting feedback from any source. (And I know that's not true.) In any case, I don't need a personal seal of approval from Airfix before making comments about them.

And no one is saying you do, but it doesn't obviate the fact that it takes the same effort to ask a question as it does to presume and opine. Facebook is a useful communications tool, if you prefer not to use it then that's your prerogative. The tools are there for you, if you make the effort.

I'm constantly bemused how many people attend Telford every year and have the chance to ask questions and get answers, but still stick to their own theory of things.

All points I made in my post. Thanks for taking the time to read it. There's nothing wrong with Airfix making the attempt -- something else I mentioned above. The issue is not the attempt itself, but rather where the attempt has gone wrong. If the industry didn't already have other, better solutions available, it would barely be worth mentioning.

Equally all points I made in my post, that it appears to be being tried to make an area of construction easier - some people will like it, others won't, whether it works time will tell.

[Moofles]

Paul would you reccomend this kit to some-one who has never built Tanks before? Really looks quite nice and im toying with the idea of picking one up, to be honest those trackes look far easier then what ive seen in other kits which has been one of the main thing putting me off building armour. It just doesn't look like you could hash those tracks up, like you can with those multi-part ones. Great idea, and far less daunting (well to me anyway).

[thx6667]

Paul would you reccomend this kit to some-one who has never built Tanks before? Really looks quite nice and im toying with the idea of picking one up, to be honest those trackes look far easier then what ive seen in other kits which has been one of the main thing putting me off building armour. It just doesn't look like you could hash those tracks up, like you can with those multi-part ones. Great idea, and far less daunting (well to me anyway).

Ive got a Revell Cromwell in loft that I started 8 years back but just didn't get on with their L&L tracks and it remains unfinished. I'd suggest give thus kit a whiz, you can always cake the tracks in mud!

[lufbramatt]

Paul would you reccomend this kit to some-one who has never built Tanks before? Really looks quite nice and im toying with the idea of picking one up, to be honest those trackes look far easier then what ive seen in other kits which has been one of the main thing putting me off building armour. It just doesn't look like you could hash those tracks up, like you can with those multi-part ones. Great idea, and far less daunting (well to me anyway).

interesting that the new-style tracks are getting people that have previously shyed away from armour kits to go and buy them . . . I think that says something??

[Paul A H]

Paul would you reccomend this kit to some-one who has never built Tanks before? Really looks quite nice and im toying with the idea of picking one up, to be honest those trackes look far easier then what ive seen in other kits which has been one of the main thing putting me off building armour. It just doesn't look like you could hash those tracks up, like you can with those multi-part ones. Great idea, and far less daunting (well to me anyway).

Yes Nick, I would definitely recommend this kit to someone who has not built tanks before (as well as someone who has). In my opinion the experience of building a model tank is very different to that of building an aircraft. In some ways it is easier (fewer seams to sand down) and in some ways it is more complex (I will never enjoy painting the tyres on all those road wheels). I think Airfix have achieved a good mix of detail, ease of assembly and value for money with this kit.

The issue of whether the technique Airfix used to mould the tracks was the best option available depends on what they were trying to acheive. If they were aiming for ultimate detail then no, it probably wasn't the best method to use. If they were aiming for ultimate ease of assembly then again it probably wasn't the best method as they could have moulded the sprockets and road wheels in one piece with the track. If their intent was to combine ease of assembly with decent detail, then perhaps it was the best option available. Remember that these kits are aimed at a diverse market, not at enthusiast modellers specifically.