Churchill
-
Posts
214 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Events
Profiles
Forums
Media Demo
Posts posted by Churchill
-
-
Churchill's Pz IV Ukraine 1943. 1:72.
.
.
.
.
.
Many thanks to everyone for their kind words and support, this was my first GB and my first scale model in 37 years, but I'll definitely be back for more. Here's the build thread:
And here's a shameless plug for a thread that I hope you'll find both entertaining and informative:
-
21
-
-
23 minutes ago, Grey Beema said:
Anything flown by the Fleet Air Arm in WWII must qualify up to the introduction of the American aircraft Martlet/Wildcat, Hellcat, Corsair & Avenger. Swordfish, Skua (even though it was quite innovative), Albacore, Barracuda, Sea Gladiator, Fulmar (even though it gave good account), Sea Hurricane and Seafire (basically a MkV Spitfire with loads of weight added) all had their issues, it was only on introduction of the American trio that they really started to have an advantage...
I'd take the same approach with that as with early allied armour: which do you think was the worst, and why?
-
2 hours ago, vppelt68 said:
Well, speaking of "assault guns" and TSYWWTGTWW, you nearly can´t beat this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BT-42! "The BT-42s were used again during the major Soviet offensive in 1944. They were deployed in the defence of Vyborg. In one encounter, a Finnish BT-42 hit a Soviet T-34 18 times, failing even to immobilize the enemy vehicle, as this vehicle's fuses failed to work correctly." A steel coffin, that´s what it was. V-P
P.S. has anyone mentioned the Fairey Battle yet?
Ok, but as I understand it the difference between an assault gun and a tank destroyer is that the former has a gun optimised for firing high explosive, and its combat role is to take out fortified positions, whereas the latter has a gun optimised for firing high velocity armour piercing rounds, and its role is to take out tanks. So if you put assault guns into an anti-tank role you're going to struggle, and if you then give them high explosive rounds that don't explode...
-
51 minutes ago, vppelt68 said:
Wasn´t British tank design back then cemented on load gauge and weight restrictions of the rail system?
Wasn't everyone's? Being able to move tanks by rail was pretty important. I just finished reading Richard Freiherr von Rosen's memoirs as a panzer officer from Barbarossa to Normandy (not a great read, but interesting in places). Several times he mentions that in order to be transported by rail the Tigers had to have their operational tracks removed and narrower transport tracks put on, in order for them to fit in the loading gauge.
-
17 minutes ago, Troy Smith said:
I have not read the entire thread very carefully, has the Boulton Paul Defiant been mentioned yet? That would be a contender I think for this GB criteria?
I don't believe it has. Were you proposing to build one?
-
1 hour ago, Troy Smith said:
well, that can be said for everyone apart from the Germans, if the French had any idea of how to use what they had in 1940, WW2 would not have happened in the way it did, the Germans gambled on French inertia and command incompetence, and very successfully so as it turned out.
And it took the Soviets some time to use armour effectively. The US had some shock when first in combat in North Africa.
Hmm, also the ideas of what tanks were for were flawed as well, infantry and cruiser tanks, the British did improve their tanks, though painfully slowly, and the big problem is if what you ask for is wrong....
The US were not much better, with the tank destroyer concept and tanks.
In the end British and US armour did improve, and there was a lot of it, and it should be noted that the Centurion was developed during the war, about to enter service (some were tested in Germany in 1945) was one of the most successful tanks of the next 30 years.
It has been noted that on Youtube there is a 5 worst British tanks, the Covananter is an interesting example, but there is also the 5 worst foreign tanks, which includes the Jagdtiger.
The deficiencies of German armour are not usually mentioned either...
One aspect of WW2 I find very fascinating is what the ideas were to start with, and what actually worked in practice, the rise of the fighter-bomber, the fact that "the bomber did always get through", the obsolescence of the battleship in the face of airpower are a few that spring to mind.
In the end it's of note how similar the methods used by all the combatant powers became by the wars end.
I've just read that the Covenanter was designed by the LMS railway, who had no experience whatever in armoured vehicles. Perhaps we should be grateful it wasn't steam powered.
I'm not sure that the tank destroyer is such a terrible idea. If an anti-tank gun makes sense, then what's wrong with a self-propelled anti-tank gun with improved protection for the crew? Generally speaking the rationale for individual tank destroyers was often that they could get a bigger and more effective gun in a casemate or similar than they could fit in a rotating turret* and they were a little cheaper, which meant you could put more of them on the battlefield. Wasn't one of the Stugs responsible for more kills than any German tank? And given the choice of taking potshots at a Tiger from a well dug in and camouflaged Achilles with a 17pdr gun or going head-to-head with it in a Churchill, I know which I'd choose.
What does surprise me is how little the opposing sides copied each other's weapons. It's said that at one point Goering, frustrated at the lack of a heavy bomber, threatened to force the German aircraft manufacturers to build Lancasters if they didn't come up with their own design soon - but why didn't he just do it? And why didn't we just build Panzer IV's and Tigers? Was it just national pride?
*I believe one such tank destroyer became obsolete when they did work out how to fit the gun in a rotating turret on the same chassis, so they upgraded it to a tank. Russian, I think, but I can't remember which one.
-
2 hours ago, Peter Lloyd said:
The brilliant David Fletcher called his book on British World War II armour (actually I think it just covered the first half of the the war) The Great Tank Scandal, the 'scandal' being that having invented them and deployed the first armoured, combined-arms force, the British went to war with such terrible tanks and failed to improve them. Of course, in the 1930s parsimony affected many nations, so there were all sorts of 'tankettes' and puny things sent out in 1939.
I have the impression that in addition to fielding some very mediocre armour, the British were very behind in terms of training, equipping, and organising infantry to work effectively in concert with the tanks.
-
42 minutes ago, Foxbat said:
I could fancy this with another T-60 (scale to be decided). Under powered, under armoured, under gunned and with a two man crew which meant the man in the turret was commander/gunner/loader there wasn't much to recommend them to the Russians who had to use them. They were quite popular with the Germans though, maybe because they used them as gun tractors and munitions carriers.
Much, much more on this truly terrible tank here: T-60
Andy
" it was hated by all who had to deal with it – all except the Germans, who found it to be a substandard and underwhelming opponent, and a rather nice ammunition carrier or gun towing tractor, once captured. As a result of its poor armor, substandard armament and sluggish performance, it was more dangerous to its crews than anybody else, earning it the title Bratskaya Mogila na Dovoikh, literally: “a brother’s grave for two.”"
" The T-60 was simply dreadful. As a result of the combination of inferior armor, a sub-standard main gun, poor mobility and a two-man crew, it was universally hated by the Soviets. In a meeting with Stalin in 1942, Major-General M.E. Katukov said: “It has only a 20mm gun. In serious combat with armored forces, it just does not have it … To attack in mud or snow is a deadly affair. In the battles around Moscow, we continually had to drag them in tow.”"
And then they tried to stick wings on it.
You're in at number 17, Mr Foxbat.
-
1
-
-
On 3/6/2019 at 2:55 PM, Badder said:
Now don't you go doing what I saw one chap do years and years ago, and that was to place his tank on a diorama and line up the camo stripes across all the wheels‼️
That would not be inauthentic. General order #5318008 of the OKH required all vehicles of the Wehrmacht to ensure that camo on wheels was properly aligned when at a halt for periods of more than forty minutes.
This is Germany, after all.
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, Peter Lloyd said:
I would hope for this group build the mods will apply a generous spirit, as at the very least we will not be seeing too many of the 'usual types' in this group build
For the time being I am The Mods, although if this gets through the vote I will most definitely be in need of an experienced co-host or two.
The GB is not an open invitation to build whatever you like, and a couple of ideas have been rejected or asked for further development. But I don't see what purpose would be served by being overly stringent about proposals. As I I've indicated in a post above, I expect buulders to be able to present a reasonably cogent case why they think their proposal is something they wouldn't want to go to war in. I don't expect it to be uncontroversial: this GB, uniquely, involves damning every vehicle presented and there will be those who are willing to defend some of them. That is very welcome too and it's made the thread one of the most informative, entertaining, and sometimes thought-provoking that I've read.
We have already a wonderfully diverse range of proposals, not just in terms of subjects but of modelling techniques and materials too (see the updated post #1). I can't wait to see some of these built. We're here to learn, to give and receive advice and support, and above all to have fun, and in service to those aims I do indeed intend to apply a generous spirit.
KBO,
Churchill.
-
4
-
-
2 hours ago, Silenoz said:
well.. nice work on the ground, but only one thing confuses me a bit. There is a tarp over the muzzle brake, so it replicates some movement in non-combat zone, but the soldiers say something else, hence it is an attack by Partisans...
Yes. Partisans. Absolutely.
The partisans drove off the relaxed looking tank riders that I had intended to put on there, if they hadn't been so badly moulded 😉.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Looking amazing there, love the bunnies and the chamfered edge to the water will look very professional when you make it work.
-
1
-
-
All done bar some tidying. A very simple base, but I did want it to feel sparse and bleak.
I'm not particularly happy with the figures, and their faces should really be reworked completely, but they're only attached to the base with PVA so I can take them off and improve them at some point.
Will get something in the gallery this week when the light's good.
Thanks for your time and your support. See you in The Specialists GB, and the Patton STGB, and the Tiger, and the D-Day....
And hopefully in the SYWWTGTWI GB too!
-
5
-
-
So Bomber Harris said that the Halifax was a "deplorable product [not] worthy for war or fit to meet those jeopardies which confront our gallant crews" but one airman who flew both said that the Whitley was worse.
I think Mr @Jabba's Whitley is in.
-
2
-
-
From the Backroom Boys book mentioned by @Pete in Lincs :
"airmen still speak highly of the Wellington and even the Stirling, but the Whitley appears to have had few friends."
"He flew the Whitley bomber, which had a crew of five. Crews called it ‘the flying coffin’, because of its shape and its peculiar flying attitude, nose down. When it was flown in action the losses it suffered gave the nickname a bitter flavour."
"In fact on my operational sorties on Whitley aircraft I only had one trip that worked perfectly, where I had no problems at all."
"[The Halifaxes] were much better than the Whitley which was a slow old thing, flew along with its nose down. You felt very exposed because you were going so slowly. You could see the flak following you up and think that’s bound to catch you – you see it start behind and keep bursting nearer and nearer. That’s going to get me soon!"
-
1
-
-
I haven't updated progress on the base in a while, this is partly because I don't know what I'm doing, but also I confess because I've been distracted by the SYWWTGTWI GB chat
By all means do come and join the fun.
I intend to get the base finished this weekend, if not then I'll post just pictures of the tank itself to the gallery.
I wanted a simple scene of the tank following a muddy winter track through woods with a light dusting of snow/frost on the ground, something like this:
I started with smallest picture frame I could find, and some 1:72 figures by Zvezda, which were made for their wargame Art of Tactic. I'd have liked to use some tank riders, but the few sets I found looked rather crude in comparison with the Zvezda pieces, which are extremely finely detailed.
General purpose filler was used to make a deeply rutted track, and I dug out tank track impressions for the tank to sit in with a screwdriver of the same width as the tracks
This was painted to match the pigment used in the mud on the tank (not the mahogany colour above) and some tree trunks shattered by shellfire were added with suitable twigs. The trees and the rutted ground were then masked...
...before the ground frost was added with a misting of Tamiya white.
And that's where I'm up to.
-
3
-
-
Delighted to have you with us, @Peter Lloyd, and look forward to hearing what you propose to build, sir.
Is Messrs @Procopius and @Pete in Lincs 's company also to be expected?
-
2 hours ago, Pete in Lincs said:
I recently read a book called Backroom Boys. A couple of ex Whitley fliers expressed their hatred of the Aircraft.
Very slow, it flew in a nose down attitude for some reason. Apparently the low operational ceiling put it within range of a lot of flak.
A lot of them, IIRC were sent out on the early big raids while the crews were still in training, which may account for losses.
The Mk1 Halifax was also mostly disliked, the blame generally being put upon the fins/rudders. The Mk2 however was preferred over the Lancaster by it's crews.
And I don't think that anyone has even mentioned the Blackburn Botha. Moving to a later design, I believe the Bristol Brigand wasn't that popular either.
Ok, I just got hold of a copy, and I've searched it for references to the Whitley. I think it's a little like the F104 in that there would be people with strong feelings on both sides, but a case can definitely be made for including Mr @Jabba's Whitley. I'll post some excerpts in the morning.
-
1
-
-
49 minutes ago, Jabba said:
I believe that the Whitley outclassed by opposition fighters due to its slow speed, docile handling characteristics and a ceiling of just 15,000ft with a full bomb load.
I'm not sure about this one. Wikipedia says it was obsolete by the start of the war, but other sources are more positive about it. Bomber Command museum of Canada for example, says; "The Armstong-Whitworth Whitley was a sturdy airplane with few vices, generally liked by those crews who flew them on operations. It could take a lot of punishment and was said to be a pleasure to fly, although a little on the slow side." We know how very high the casualties in Bomber Command were, and I wouldn't have been keen to fly in any of their aircraft, but the Whitley doesn't sound like a terrible aircraft. There were a number of variants though, and it might be that some of them were in service after they they should have been withdrawn.
Anyone out there knowledgeable about bombers and willing to give an opinion?
-
48 minutes ago, Peter Lloyd said:
Could I suggest the Mirage IV. My understanding is that in the 1950s various nations were faced with the problem of delivering a trans-continental nuke somewhere deep in the USSR, and getting the plane and crew back. Hence, large bombers like the V-series and the B-52. France had its nuclear deterrent, but no aircraft remotely capable of such range. Their answer was to make the 'big Mirage', accepting that it would not get back but even knowing the crew would not return, it fulfilled the deterrence requirement.
I am also thinking of the MkII tanks used at Arras and Bullecourt, 1917. These were boiler plate training tanks, sent into battle. At Bullecourt, all the tanks involved were destroyed in short order, mostly by machine-gun fire, half the crewmen being killed, mostly spectacularly burned to death.
Hello there Mr Lloyd, thank you for joining us. In post #83 above, Mr @Giorgio N informs us that the one-way mission profile was common to many cold war bombers. Were I on such a mission I'd personally be less concerned about knowing I was going to eject/parachute out of the aircraft on the return leg than about the radioactive post-civilisation that I'd be parachuting into.
The tanks, though - I remember reading a history of the first tanks which related that story. The tanks were really just proof-of-concept models never intended to go into combat, just to demonstrate the idea. They had 3mm armour which wouldn't even stop small arms fire. All this was explained to the general, but he poked one of the tanks with a chisel and said "seems sound enough to me. Send them to France." 🙄
I shall add you to the SYWWTGTWI list, if I may.
-
2
-
-
38 minutes ago, Silenoz said:
as a pilot you would have been most lucky to get airborne in the first place,
On the contrary, you could count yourself fortunate if for whatever reason it failed to take off.
-
3
-
-
16 hours ago, trickyrich said:
if I hadn't already built it then my P-43 Lancer would have been in for sure, that was a pile of
. It was declared unfit for combat when we got them!
Fancy a challenge?
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, trickyrich said:
You may need to start a list to help keep track of interested parties, just add it to the bottom of your first post, it'll make life so much easier of Enzo......he needs all the help he can get!
I've been meaning to do that, I think there are enough names now for a list.
If the GB goes through, then some interesting modelling will be on show. The Bob Semple tank is to be scratch built, the BV40 is a vac form, the Natter has a fearsome photoetch structure, the Centaur hulk will need to be modified from a kit...
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, Enzo Matrix said:
How about a Galaxy-class starship?
One of them was destroyed by a computer virus. Two others were destroyed by much smaller and less powerful adversaries. And those Starfleet idiots were willing to put their families on them!!!
While I appreciate the advisability of keeping Mr Matrix happy and on-side, I'm going to draw the line at purely fictional craft. Anyway, the problem with the Galaxy class wasn't the ship, it was the bunch of milquetoasts crewing it.
"Captain, the Romulan vessel is targetting the warp core!"
"Ooh, I know - Drop our shields and power down the weapons to show them we mean no harm, Mr Worf. And then invite them round for a nice cup of Earl Grey."
-
1
-
2
-
. It was declared unfit for combat when we got them!
The cutest little tank destroyer ever
in The Specialists GB
Posted
When I win the lottery*, the first things I'll buy will be a Universal Carrier and a Boys anti-tank rifle. I shall cruise around my country estate** in the carrier, blank rounds loaded in the Boys, and terrorise any Axis-looking rabbits that cross my path.
Until then, I'll have to settle for building a Boys equipped carrier in 1:72 for this GB. Here it is:
The artist has copied the photo below for the box art. I love the way he's added explosions and a burning vehicle for dramatic effect, but hasn't changed the bored looking Ivan in the centre:
Now as far as I'm concerned, when you take the bren gun out of the front of a bren gun carrier and replace it with an anti-tank rifle, what you've done is to create a little tank destroyer. Tracks - check. Armour - check. Open top - check. Limited traverse gun designed for AP - check. Sounds like a tank destroyer to me. The Boys in the form fitted in the carriers was really of no use for anything except engaging light tanks. It fired a .55in armour piercing round that would penetrate Panzer I's and II's, the Japanese Ha-Go, T26's and the like at ranges of 100m or so. But it had only fixed iron sights (or two position iron sights with a redundant near/far lever to switch positions) so it couldn't be aimed with any accuracy at targets much beyond its effective range against armour. Against infantry and soft skinned vehicles you'd be better off using a bren for volume of fire, or an SMLE for accuracy. And while the bren gun carrier was not considered a fighting vehicle as the intention was that it would only transport the bren team, who would dismount with the bren gun before engaging the enemy, the Boys equipped universal carrier was considered a fighting vehicle and the Boys was to be used while still fitted in the front weapon slot (although dismounting it was an option).
Now I know what some of you are thinking. Despite the points above, you're thinking Mr Trickyrich has been a bit lax in letting this one through, that it's not a proper tank buster. Well I've got news for you: the Boys and radio equipped carrier was officially designated the Scout Carrier and was issued to scout platoons for the purpose of reconnaissance, ha!
@trickyrich has noted that you wouldn't want to come across a Tiger in one of these, and that observation prompted the SYWWTGTWI GB chat which you're very welcome to join. But while it's a terrible idea to take on a Tiger with an AT rifle, that doesn't mean people didn't try. Take a look at the vision slots on this Tiger cupola!
.
Next post will involve building some stuff.
KBO,
Churchill.
* admittedly improbable, and all the more so given that I never buy tickets.
** third on the shopping list.