Jump to content

Churchill

Members
  • Content Count

    172
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

387 Excellent

About Churchill

  • Rank
    New Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    West Sussex

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Sound pretty conclusive to me. Sticking your undercrackers on your head and pencils up your nose then going "wibble" would be a better use of one's time. I'll put you on the list, Mr Botan.
  2. Ooh, mini-subs. Do tell us some more: what made you think of these?
  3. The Wikipedia entry is fairly damning, this is the worst of it; "The Botha proved to be severely underpowered and unstable; there were a number of fatal crashes in 1940." There seem to have been quite a few Blackburn aircraft suggested for this build. It won't be lonely.
  4. Thanks for the bump. Real life has slightly pushed modelling to the side for a few months but I will be getting back to it soon I hope, and my panzer IV from the STGB won first prize in a local model show, which was a boost.
  5. 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.
  6. Still planning to join you, just making slow progress in The Specialists GB.
  7. 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
  8. 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?
  9. 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.
  10. We've ruled out fictional vehicles. But civilian vehicles that were pressed into service would fit the brief.
  11. I shall put your name down for a midget submarine, a bomber, a cavalry unit or something in-between.
  12. 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
  13. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...