AFV Content

The nearest one on the left has a cab roof star as usual. Unfortunately you can't see if the others have cab roof stars as well as those on the tilt. Perhaps the large tilt stars were intended to be temporary. It rapidly became clear that the Luftwaffe was not a threat. It is said that German soldiers coined the saying that "if you see a dark plane it is British, if you see a shiny plane it is American, if you see no plane it is the Luftwaffe".

Thanks Lee! Einar

Nice work on the PE. Very neatly done.

Great job! Very realistic. Yes, compressed air cylinders for emergency engine start. Here is the text from the instructions for starting the T-34 engine Note. "If the electric start is faulty, it is necessary to start the engine with compressed air, for which open the valve on the cylinder and the reduction valve, and when the engine starts working, immediately close them." The link you posted has a description. Dmitriy

the dry brushing is good to highlight raised areas, usually using a lighter version of the base colour, it would probably work well on a muzzle break like the PzH 2000

a nice stash of zvezda, I've built one of their tigers and a panther but not actually built any of their modern stuff yet.

Wow! What a great looking model. The cammo and weathering are first class. John.

Lovely work Simon. Those Vallejo washes look very handy and leave a good effect.

Well clearly they did just do that. My previous self as a TA signals instructor is turning in its grave.......... You definitely want your radios secured, and those are manpack sets. Presumably for easy dismounting if necessary. So it would be logical for the Clip In Kit (CIK) frame to be used if available. But unit workshops could doubtless have come up with something else. The height of the set suggests that it is on something reasonably deep. But then again I don't see the backpack frame. Here is a 351/352 configured as a 352 with the SURF on top of the set and the 16W amp (finned) between the set and battery. Note the wide GS bergen frame it all fitted onto. Next to it is the CIK frame which would be attached to the vehicle and into which the bergen frame clamped. On FFR Rovers it went on the Dexion behind the front seats. Clansman was coming into service in the late 70's: it had just arrived at Woolwich when I was there in 79 (don't you dare scratch it......). So maybe too late for your timeframe. Prior to that and perhaps in the image timeframe there was the Larkspur system. This looks like the kit radio between the seats. Larkspur A43, which is a UHF set: odd. There was a wider variety of manpack sets in Larkspur than Clansman. You can't tell from these images: too grainy. But I might bet on the A14 for HF as it was widely used by Marines and Paras. The interim BCC HF156 (centre) was also used by these same units and for "special tasks", although the A16 (right) was much longer-ranged. For VHF I might bet on one of the A41 or A42 manpack variants. The control panels differed. A41/42 battery box shown separately. The set attaches to the top. I don't know if they could be separated with one of the kit cables.

Well the Mks I and II certainly had the rear hull vent where the 3rd trunk later was. Unless I'm much mistaken, the only time that Churchill I or II were fitted with wading gear was at Dieppe. Some early Marks survived well into the Italian campaign, particularly a Mk I/II hybrid variant with 2 3" CS howitzers, in hull and turret. But I don't believe they took part in any of the Italian amphibious landings. The few Dieppe photos showing the wading gear still fitted suggests that the tanks there - including the few Mk IIIs - did not carry the rear trunk. But I wouldn't call it conclusive. Perhaps it was felt at the time that the pressure of the expelled exhaust cooling air through that vent was sufficient to keep the water out without a trunk, or that it just didn't matter for the short distance they were expected to wade. Obviously you don't want to risk ingesting water into the engine and cooling air intakes or the engine exhaust. I'm fairly certain that the rear vent exhausted both up and down. This is about the best photo of the rear of a wading-equipped Mk I or II, which seems to confirm that. It looks as if the lower vent had been covered over to prevent water ingress, with the covering now hanging off. But around the rear vent is the flange we associate with wading trunking. But was that standard on the Mk I? The lower photo suggests not. Film of pre-Dieppe training shows Churchill Is without any wading gear at all, but landing feet/tracks dry directly onto the beach. Was the wading gear essentially a hurried afterthought when someone stumbled on the Dieppe beach topography and tides? Although photos do show landing craft right up to the beach. Equally they show KO'd tanks in the surf but the tide may have changed by the time those were taken.

At last something to show for my efforts. at todays session I managed to finish all the remaining track pieces and applied some steel texture from diluted Tamiya putty. At this point I haven't knocked any of the rough edges of with sanding. a couple of days ago I also made a strip of Shurtzen plate to go with the individual plates that I had cut previously The next job is to plot and cut out the rectangular holes for the mountings

Thanks! I've thoughrolly enjoyed this project. Definitely going to have a go at another AA conversion. Just days away from finishing this one for now

I have to disagree. This post is about WW2 practise, not what we see today. There is little colour photography in WW2, and no reliable colour photography because of colour shifts caused by the film stock of the day. Green and blue shifts are most common. So period photos are untrustworthy and colourised photos are completely untrustworthy. Monochrome shows you only tone, not colour. And preserved vehicles will always have been repainted. Surviving untouched WW2 painted vehicles are extremely rare, WW1 even rarer (2 tanks). There is no "loads of proof" because we do not have surviving untouched examples (which would in any case have endured another 80 years of paint weathering since WW2) and we do not have trustworthy imagery. Instead we have supposition, speculation and assumption. And there is no conspiracy of disbelief in the modelling community. This argument is usually deployed by those with a fixed point of view that is wide of the mark and who think they know best regardless. Modelling books - books about modelling I mean, especially those dedicated to artistic weathering published by paint companies with products to sell - are likewise not to be trusted because they fall into the same trap of supposition, speculation and assumption. Not to mention artistic interpretation: 10 from Len.......... As for the colour of armour plate, whether Rolled Homogenous or Face Hardened (which includes castings) of any nation, I can assure you that it is - and has for at least 107 years been - a dark chocolate metallic brown with very slow corrosion and oxidation because of the effects of other metals contained in the alloy. Unless in a corrosive atmosphere such as salt water or salt-laden air. The very purpose of a non-etching primer like red oxide is to provide a keying surface for the top coat colour to bond to while it bonds to the metal surface. Having the top coat chipping off is exactly the effect the primer is designed to prevent compared to painting onto bare metal. An etching primer like the zinc chromate used in Russian 4BO Protection Green (note the name) will etch itself onto the metal surface to bond. Which is how Russia gets away in WW2 without priming. That being said, in areas of high boot traffic on AFVs you may see the top coat being worn through to primer by abrasion. But wear-through to bare metal will happen fairly quickly after that because the primer has relatively poor abrasion resistance. That's why you top-coat it with durable paint layer or two......... Otherwise we'd all be using 4BO. Something else to ask yourself about chips and scrapes is where and how. Too many models are polka-dotted with chips in all sorts of strange places. Boots, hands and uniforms will cause wear-through, not chips. The same with areas where tow cables are stowed. These often vibrate and move about, wearing away paint where they touch. Chips and scratches come from contact with objects, vegetation, buildings and structures, other vehicles - things hard enough to take the paint off: not the mayor's prize Begonias. So think how and where - and why - the vehicle will have contacted them. Will the glacis, upper hull sides and the dished roadwheels on a Jagdpanther have a chickenpox of chips as I saw recently on a model? Unlikely. Small arms projectile and shell fragment impacts will be different. These will be directional and will most likely have dinked the metal surface. Even a 7 - 8mm ball round will leave a small dink. You may well get chips around the edges of heavy engine access hatches where these have been manhandled none too carefully. But around the openings of crew hatches smooth wear-through is much more likely than chips.

Finally i found some time to get some work done on the Tiger. The tracks are on. Love the look. they need a bit more work but so far i'm happy i bought the aftermarket tracks. did the detail painting of the tools and weapons. Still need some weathering. And i started the chipping fase. I will do all the chips with a brush so it will take a lot of time but looking at the top of the turret, i think it's the right way to do it. The roadmap is done so now i can fill the chips with a grey brown to add depth. Working in segments i will take my time to not mess it up. Still a lot of work to do but i really enjoy the proces and so far, the model and the picture i have in my mind are still the same. I'll keep you guys posted. Cheers! Btw, the cyborg hand of my son is finished. I will post pictures next time. He did a splendid job and the thing works great

The wheeled wagon looks like a Mastiff, not a Wolfhound and yes, the other picture is a Stormer.

Just had a look at my Centaur dozer and the tyres do have the holes around the rim on both the individual wheels and the one piece wheel/track section. No detail on the inside of the tracks, which I can just about live with on the dozer as it will be pretty dirty. I'd hestitate in buying the gun tank version though.

I can see it on HPH @Armorrich and it looks a cracking model.

That looks great. I like that camo scheme. You did really well with it. Nice work...best, rich

Hi Lee, Many thanks for your kind comments, i'm glad you like it. The Stuart tracks are vinyl, and the Lee ones are link pieces (not link a link) that is, hard plastic. Cheers and TC Francis,

Well, after all it is an armour thread........................

thx Roman Schilhart, LeeM, sardaukar. yes, the outcome is interesting and better than i think.

Beautifully faded and worn. Nice work. Regards, Pete

Wow, I originally misread this as 1/25th and was impressed Now I am awake and realise its1/87, I take my hat off to you.

I know what you mean about a decent compressor. I had a cheapo set up without a tank and the package included an airbrush. I really struggled and almost gave up on the whole idea when my compressor dived off the bench and destroyed itself. I took advice and bought a decent Iwata airbrush and compressor and I haven't looked back.

Something as mundane as a couple of footsteps, and you've made it fascinating to watch. Keep it up Paul. John.