JackG

Evidence wise, there is none indicating that the black panzer jacket was worn beyond the Tripoli parade photos of early 1941. Panzer crews were issued the same tropical jackets as the other troops. To maintain their identity, they were allowed to transfer the metal skulls onto the lapels. Many officers would also use the black backed shoulder boards, collar tabs, and chest eagle from the continental uniform. The only other black item shown to have been worn by some is the black side cap. For warmth panzer crews were issued the greatcoat that was produced in brown wool. Colour wise, yes the light weight cotton material for tropical clothing varied in hues, ranging from brown to a dark olive green khaki. Along with sun fading, washing also added to the worn out colour.

You have my vote.

@Kingsman thank you for checking my post. I think you are correct about the welded turret being present in the lower photo. Going by the smaller vision port on the turret, both images presented in the barrel length study must be of the welded type - also known as D38976. Apologies about how the study was presented as trigonometry was not my aim. It did require drawing a perpendicular line from the center of the hull bow up to the barrel tip The easiest method (for me anyways) was to use vector software, and I had chosen the rectangle tool but should have kept it simple via the straight-line tool (as in the example below).

Having exchanged a few emails with Kurt Laughlin, he has been able to provide some additional info. Some points have already been mentioned by Kingsman, but have included them just for completion. The shorter barrel was a result of testing on the M2A4 where it was deemed the M3 barrel was susceptible to damage while traveling as it protruded past the front of the hull. To address this the barrel was produced at a shorter length to basically have the muzzle line up flush with the bow. With the introduction of the semi-automatic breech, the tank gun became breech heavy and the solution was to lengthen the gun barrel to act as a counterweight, bringing the center of gravity slightly forward. To save on production delays, they simply returned to utilizing the M3 instead of brand new lengthened barrel. As to when the M6 became available for Stuart production it does seem to be at some point with the rounded turrets. The M6 barrel was already in production in August of 1941 while the M5 continued on at the factories into November of 1941. It likely was the Lee and Grants received the priority until M6 manufacture increased in numbers over several factories. -------------------------------------------------------- My own little study of a couple photos of Stuarts shows that in the few months before Gazala operations there may have been a mix of the two barrel lengths in use.

If I understand correctly the site linked below, there was just the one length of M6 barrel. The M5 was the shorter version found on the very early Stuarts? According to the web page (which is based on the TM 9-250 Ordnance Maintenance: 37-MM Gun M6 as seen in the footnotes) the gun was . . . 6" (15cm) longer than the earlier M5, and the M6 had a semiautomatic breechblock instead of the M5's manual breechblock. https://afvdatabase.com/usa/m3stuart.html#M3A1 Their charts indicate the M6 gun was used in welded turrets and the later cast round, but not the earlier riveted type.

Screenshot of latest newsletter from Special Hobby . . .

A few more dimensional measurements that one can check. Both wingspan and overall length (prop nose tip to back edge of rudder) will be dependent on whether it is land or float version. The kit though needs to be constructed to facilitate measuring. Can say that the broader tail/rudder piece appears to be 3mm too wide on the AZ model compared to Arawasi figures. Below are their measurements 1:1 scale expressed in mm. K5Y1 K5Y2 wingspan 10985 10997 overall length 8050 7965 tail/rudder width 1610 1690 *Note about Arawasi scale drawings: not sure why they have some difference in the wingspan, but at 1/72 scale that difference is only 0.16mm. Also, I would have thought the K5Y2 would be the one longer in overall length as it has the much broader tail/rudder but their numbers state otherwise. Putting a ruler to their respective profile drawings does have the K5Y2 slightly longer. Maybe these two values on the their plans were interchanged by mistake??

Alright got the ruler out and here is the results of comparing the AZ plastic float to the Arawasi drawings that also contain actual measured lengths in mm of the full size aircraft. Have recalculated those measurements into 72nd scale with the following results (note measurements on graphic not drawn to scale): As already mentioned, it mainly is that bottom step that needs to be moved back by about 2mm. Most can live with the slightly short floats - but because they are also a bit larger in height the overall impression gives a bit more bloated float. Below is a quick study of the the float profile, the bottom one showing the corrections to the dimensions and that step moved back.

The discussion about the fuselage occurred seven years ago and that thread link can be found above five posts back. Basically the shape when viewed from above is like an elongated tear drop. It really should have some flatness occurring at sections 2 and 3 (see the study below) instead of just one constant curve from front to back. As for the floats they were only mentioned here by me after comparing the plastic to the drawings found in the Arawasi publication.

@Dennis_C still waiting for my kit to arrive so am only going by measurements based on the drawings found on the pdf instructions. At its widest the Special Hobby fuselage could be anywhere between 19.3 to 19.8mm depending where the ruler is placed on the pixels. I have found the Tamiya kit 60765 1/72 DeHavilland Mosquito NF Mk.XIII / Mk.XVII for US$15.00 at SealModels. Based in Hong Kong they are still accepting orders but do not plan to ship until later in November of this year due to restructuring.

Example below is a cross section of the maximum height and width provided from an earlier posted diagram that has been scaled down to 72nd scale (18.7mm x 22.93mm). The cross section shape in red is wider by 1.0mm while height remains the same. The blue outline shapes represents the canopy, both are same size but note on the red fuselage it is forced to sit higher.

Hello @The wooksta V2.0 - yes, as stated at the beginning of the quoted post, the drawings utilized for shape comparison (but not size as kit instructions rarely include a scale bar). Not scanned by myself, just screen grabs of the respective downloadable pdf manuals. As for original WW2 blueprints/technical drawings, have come across mention of this from two sources. One was from these forums in 2014 where the late Edgar described where they ended up. There is also a BBC story from 2017 of a find of more than 20k drawings. Wondering if these are both one in the same? They both share the story of being found by chance though in different locations - the former at Hatfield airfield while latter has it as Broughton. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-40873628

Seems the plastic measurements may be worse than the profile drawings on the respective kit instructions. Below is the Special Hobby in grey with Tamiya in Red outline over top. Likely wrong to assume both fuselages are equal length - but that is how the comparison was done which at least may reveal shape differences. Looks like most of the problem is on the nose bottom on the SH Mossie. I had to combine the slightly taller canopy and the nose bottom to arrive at the 2mm height difference when compared to Tamiya. Note too how the retracted tail wheel sits further back.

The only line drawings I have are from Rikyu Watanabe - but no plastic from a Mossie kit to compare them with. Here are a couple scans if they are even worth the trouble . . .

Though they don't have anything for the Croc trailer, Inside The Armour has a number of 3D printed items for the Churchill tank in the three main scales. https://www.insidethearmour.com/search?q=churchilll The engine deck in 72nd scale would be quite useful if correcting the Dragon kits. In an exchange of emails , ITA3 said they may produce a corrected Dragon turret depending on sales of existing items.