Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

383 Excellent

About Churchill

  • Rank
    New Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    West Sussex

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Progress is slow, but is happening. The running gear is on, and I've made a start on the link and length tracks. KBO, Churchill.
  2. Still planning to join you, just making slow progress in The Specialists GB.
  3. I might be misremembering, but I think both those aircraft have cropped up in the thread already. The Defiant, a fighter with no forward firing guns, and the underpowered Lavochkin of which Wikipedia has this to say: "The LaGG-3 proved immensely unpopular with pilots. It was somewhat hard to control as it reacted sluggishly to stick forces. In particular, it was difficult to pull out of a dive, and if the stick was pulled too hard, it tended to fall into a spin. As a consequence, sharp turns were difficult to perform. Moreover, pilots reported a number of imperfections: badly made hydraulic systems, broken connecting rods, oil leaks, overheating engine. Moreover, the landing gear was defective, the tail wheel easily broke, the canopy was badly fitted, the metal sheet on the engine cowling and the stressed skin were badly finished." They're both pretty awful although the Defiant I think found a role better suited to it, and they'd both fit in this GB. I'll put your name down if that's ok.
  4. I have to say the idea of riding that thing in the combat zone doesn't appeal. Were you proposing to join the GB with it?
  5. Excellent choices both. Thank you for joining us.
  6. Now let's be quite clear: No-one is making a scale model of a mobile phone for this GB, is that understood? Funnily enough, that's exactly what I thought when I saw it.
  7. We've ruled out fictional vehicles. But civilian vehicles that were pressed into service would fit the brief.
  8. I shall put your name down for a midget submarine, a bomber, a cavalry unit or something in-between.
  9. Odd that Messrs @Stevejj and @Gorby have been looking at some of the rather desperate products of Home Guard ingenuity, because that's where Exhibit 3 from Bovington tank museum comrs from, and I think it tops the Beaverette for sheer daftness. I give you the Thornycroft Bison: a concrete armoured lorry with less power than a Nissan Micra: From a modelling perspective, both the Beaverette and the Bison could be fairly simple scratchbuilds for supporting roles in a diorama. The gun on top of the Beaverette was sometimes a glazed gun turret from a bomber.
  10. Wikipedia sets out several flaws: "The vehicle was considered a very imperfect design, because of a poor layout, insufficient fire-power, a cramped interior and inferior mobility due to an overhanging nose section, which had been designed to crush through the belts of barbed wire but in practice caused the tank to get stuck." However, I think the best one was making the fuel tanks unarmoured and outside the hull. Genius. Pleased to add you to the list, and I look forward to seeing the model.
  11. Oh wow, we've not had much maritime interest so far. I'm not familiar with this sub, but a quick search confirms that it's still in service and that the radiation shielding is poor, being based on 1950's technology. Scary stuff. I'll add you to the list, and welcome.
  12. Ok, Exhibit 2 - I give you the NSU Springer Sd. Kfz 304: This is a shot from the rear of the vehicle, showing the area where the solitary occupant sits. The wire grille is I believe a museum addition, to prevent visitors poking around inside. The Springer is a tracked vehicle based on the Kettenrad half-track motorcycle affair. The motorcycle front fork and wheel have been removed, and a third of a ton of high explosive put in its place. The idea is that you drive the Springer up to an enemy's fortified position, then jump out and go and hide behind a bush. From there you use a wired remote control box to manoeuvre the Springer into its final position, and then blow it up. That is, of course, unless the enemy has something capable of penetrating a few mm of armour plate. Strongly fortified positions often do. In which case, the enemy will have blown you to atoms before you got within a hundred yards of him. Not something I'd Want To Go To War In.
  13. A bit of pre-shading (never done this before) and a coat of Mig Russian Green. The flash exaggerates the pre-shading, which is a little more subtle in normal light. KBO, Churchill.
  14. Masked a few spots where the running gear will be glued, then shot a coat of primer.
  15. I had the pleasure of a trip to the tank museum at Bovington this week, if you've never been it is absolutely worth a visit, there are hundreds of AFV's from the very first tank prototype (Little Willie, surprisingly more like a modern tank than the Mark I was) through to Abrams and Challenger 2. Of course, it's also a rich seam of material to be mined for this thread. Apart from the obvious candidates, Covenanters and the like, three items in particular caught my eye. First, I give you the Carro Veloce L3/33. Based on the Carden Lloyd carrier (a predecessor of the Bren gun carrier) and built in vast quantities by the Italians. The museum's example is a flame tank conversion, and it's this specific version that you Wouldn't Want To Go To War In. The display sign explains why: Here it is, with its fuel trailer like a little Churchill Crocodile (yes, they've got one of those too) Will be back later with exhibit 2, KBO, Churchill.
  • Create New...