Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JackG

  1. I think it is just a package labeling thing. Some include the 'loading handle' words, and some don't. Those gun sets that contain both a standard and reversed ammo feed never include those two words, just to keep the description from getting too clunky? regards, Jack
  2. That does seem to be what the illustrations show in the WingnutWings instructions. Though whether armed as a single or duel Vickers, they show only standard feed? A post over at the Aerodrome forums is showing a cocking handle that looks more cranked than the E type, probably to clear that padded windscreen? https://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/showthread.php?t=66028 regards Jack
  3. According to Merrick's publication Luftwaffe Camouflage and Markings 1933 to 1945, experimentation of camouflage patterns and a return to using RLM 02 was already taking place before it was officially announced that 02 was to replace RLM 70 on top surfaces. JG 53 is specifically mentioned that they used all three top colours as both straight edge and smooth flowing patterns. He also adds no two aircraft looked exactly the same. In the the end, this experiment was deemed too complex and time consuming, and showed no advantage over the revised scheme introduced in the last two months of 1939. regards, Jack
  4. Over at the asisbiz website, there is a white 8 which appears to have similar pattern on the wings as Bevan Brooks build. Would be nice if he had a link to his build progress to see how he arrived at his particular scheme. https://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Bf-109E/JG53-I.html
  5. Hello John @Viking you are welcome. Found this overview about the Canadian built Sabres as quoted 'the Mk 2 was essentially an F‑86E with an “all flying” tail plane to provide better flying characteristics, as well as a flat windscreen.' http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/aircraft-historical/f-86-sabre.page regards, Jack
  6. One more confirmation on the Sabre serial and mark from a Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10158305046174972&set=gm.776832426005663 regards, Jack
  7. A member over at missinlynx has offered to design the suspension units for 3D printing in order to avoid the 30 plus parts x 4 from the Gecko kit. It is interesting the comment that even with all those parts, Gecko has simplified the overall shape of the suspension. https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/missinglynx/gecko-daimler-suspension-units-t330306-s10.html From what I gather, other than being an overly complicated kit, the main knock is the lack of weld beads on the main body, and a roof that does not fit all too well. regards, Jack
  8. It does seem the Silverhawkauthor site is contradicting itself. At the very top of their page, they list the various marks and serials of the Sabre, and there it does place 19250 as a Mk II. This site also list it as such: http://www.rwrwalker.ca/RCAF_19201_19250_detailed.html A site dedicated to 416 Squadron again reaffirms this, though they only give some sample serials: https://www.rcafassociation.ca/heritage/history/post-second-world-war-rcaf/416-squadron/ --------------------------- Lastly, though nothing on Canadian Sabres, this publisher on Canadian aircraft might have some handy reference material, and the option to purchase downloadable pdf versions is a nice cheaper alternative: https://www.kestrelpublications.com/shop-online regards, Jack
  9. Thank you Peter @Das Abteilung for the detail on the background of the return to green paint on British vehicles/equipment. Was this from one of the Warpaint books by Dick Taylor? Mike Starmer also makes reference to the return to green, but it does not come across as "the rush was on to implement it in time for D Day." He instead uses the term a "shift back". As he explains, the particulars were sent out in A.C.I. 533 and dated March 12, 1944. Of the point already mentioned concerning repainting of vehicles/equipment in the previous scheme of SSC2, this was not 'authorized'. In addition to this, if any repainting had to be done, existing old stock of SCC2 were to be used up first. From another perspective, the First Canadian Army issued the option of three paint choices going forward into the operations of North West Europe, one of which is not even green but a dark brown: https://heritage.canadiana.ca/view/oocihm.lac_reel_t6677/840?r=0&s=1 regards, Jack
  10. According to the research of @Mike Starmer SCC15 was introduce so that lend lease equipment would not have to be repainted. As for friendly fire incidents, a huge white star was adopted as a recognition marking in 1944 as well. This was standard on top location, either painted directly on the vehicle, or applied to a tarp and displayed. The sides of the vehicle could have stars as well, but not always as experience showed these became aiming points for enemy guns. regards, Jack
  11. A period photo of the Dragoons carrier can be found at the beginning of this pdf file: http://daimler-fighting-vehicles.co.uk/DFV-File Part D009a-Canadian armoured brigade.pdf Canada was operating Dingo's prior to Dieppe, and for the raid itself. In both cases, the base colour seems to have been Khaki Green no.3. Barry Beldam's research also indicates a green colour: regards, Jack
  12. Was there also a configuration of just two cannons and two machine guns? It has been several decades since reading 'The Buzz Beurling Story' by Brian Nolan, but if I recall correctly, this configuration was explained as conserving ammo during a certain desperate period? regards, Jack
  13. An interesting read here: https://history.army.mil/html/books/104/104-7/cmhPub_104-7.pdf It confirms @Das Abteilung statement that broken down vehicles were very likely towed. According to the literature on pages 12-13 , they were towed to a collection point where they were safe from enemy fire and observation. From there they were sent either to the field repair shop or nearest rail head for shipping to a rear area facility. In all cases, tank transporters (prime movers with flatbed trailers) would move vehicles that could not do so under their own power. Also checking out early kstn files, the one for 1937 shows even then trailers were to be pulled by half tracks. https://www.wwiidaybyday.com/kstn/kstn11871okt37.htm In the illustrated chart, the trailers (also not a correct graphic) are of an early prototype ''... Tiefladeanhänger für Panzerkampfwagen 20t (Vs. Ah. 642) and the Tiefladeanhänger für Panzerkampfwagen 8t (Vs. Ah. 654) were testing model of the Tiefladeanhänger für Panzerkampfwagen 22/23t (Sd. Ah. 116) introduced in Dec 1940 and the Tiefladeanhänger für Panzerkampfwagen 10t (Sd. Ah. 115) introduced in Apr 1938. Vs. stands for Versuch-experimental.'' https://www.feldgrau.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1781 regards, Jack
  14. When SCC15 was introduced around April 1944, there was an additional 'memo' stating older vehicle were not to be repainted just for the sake of having all equipment the same colour. Repaints were justified only if there was a major overhaul that required a new coat of paint. So this means not even exteriors were repainted if already finished in the previous colour(s). regards, Jack
  15. Thanks for the correction on the Tatra, I should have checked other sources that don't fall under the wiki moniker. Also the photo I had posted of the Büssing-NAG should be the 900 series and not 4500. This seems to be a decent reference site: http://www.kfzderwehrmacht.de/Homepage_english/Motor_Vehicles/motor_vehicles.html regards, Jack
  16. Found this image of a Büssing-NAG 4500A: ... which reminded me AFV Club had released a kit of Büssing-NAG with a crane. It represents the 3 ton boom, but can't confirm it was used for towing wheeled vehicles: regards, Jack
  17. One truck that does have a larger capacity was the Tatra 111 with a 10.3 ton cargo capacity and towing a trailer loaded to 22 tons. The trailer designed for transporting tanks was the 10 ton Sd.Anh. 115 and 22/23 ton Sd.Anh. 116. Interesting post here states the 'piggyback' style of transport ended after the Polish campaign. Maybe there was several of these incidents as pictured below? https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/missinglynx/viewtopic.php?p=1527141#p1527141 regards, Jack
  18. The Emil cowl wasn't hinged like the later F and G models, but instead has a number of latches on both sides. The entire top section (and/or bottom) is completely removed in order to perform maintenance. regards, Jack
  19. Would the rudder be hinged to the outermost post of the incidence control system, or would that be too stressful?
  20. Over at Track-link forums, David Nickels is doing a build review. Interesting the number of comments of some not interested in obtaining the kit due to the high parts count and complexity. https://www.track-link.com/forums/site_blogs/50424/flat regards, Jack
  21. One other unit I seen mentioned over at missinglynx was Pz Abt 506 as a possibility. The unit comprised of only a third of the later non-zimmerit Tigers during the Bulge battles. The remainder had the coating, but again photos do not clearly show the type of scheme. One of the better known photos is the American captured Tiger that has a star draped over the turret and hull: Of interest is this thread, though the usual warning about artist interpreted illustrations: https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/trumpetertiger2/camo-scheme-and-markings-questions-t1048.html regards, Jack
  22. There is only about a three week period where zimmerit and ambush paint scheme overlapped. According to Tomas Chory, a directive was released on 7th September 1944 that ended the application of this special coating. The decision to paint camouflage directly on production vehicles was made some time during August of the same year. According to Chory, this wasn't immediate either, as official camouflage schemes were 'gradually transferred to all the manufacturers.' There was also the procurement of camouflage paints by the factories to consider, as up till that point camouflage was applied in the field. Taking a look at the more 'hardcore' forum missinglynx, this is discussed at length on many threads. Although some say the combination is possible, there have been no photos, or at least one of definite quality, to illustrate this. One interesting mention is of Pz Abt 503 as this unit was rebuilding, it apparently received the last of the zimmerit King Tigers. There is film of the unit on parade sometime around October 1944. and it is interesting the zim Tigers have a different camouflage compared to later style ambush with dots: regards, Jack
  23. I wouldn't know the correct terminology, something to do with ballistics maybe, but the gas created when a round is fired has to go somewhere. Wiki gives some number values of the .50 cal round as being in the vicinity of 53,000 to 60,000 psi. So if initially both the chutes and barrel openings are covered, if not instantaneous, those tapes should give way to pressure and casings? regards, Jack
  24. Was looking through photos from Peter Brown's publication (Model Centrum Progres), and concerning the Houseboat fittings, the front arms only appear in a few photos taken on the UK mainland. Some early images from Normandy still have some remnants of this (part D24) on the hull sides. I'm more familiar with the Canadian Fireflies from the early part of Normandy, and these don't have any remnants of the Houseboat fittings. They do have a trio of short tubes strategically welded along both sides of the hull, which may have been for similar use? It's purpose may have been just to disguise the vehicles from prying eyes during the buildup for D-Day? regards, Jack
  25. Cant think of any 'traps', just the usual health precautions when dealing with resin. I like using two part putty called Green Stuff to fill in gaps and air bubbles if any. The product has a two hour working period, and is very easy to smooth out with a little water on the fingertip. Utilizing this approach can result in very little to no sanding afterwards once cured. regards, Jack
  • Create New...