Jump to content

Churchill

Members
  • Posts

    214
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Churchill

  1. Which raises the obvious question: what on earth was getting shot down at that rate, and should it not be in this GB?
  2. Now it just so happens that this has been sitting in my ebay watch list for a month or two: So I must congratulate you on your taste and discretion Mr @Bonhoff, and welcome you to the SYWWTGTWI group build.
  3. Well, so far we have greenlighted the following: A flying tank, the Snatch Landrover the pilot-melting Komet Unarmed spitfire over occupied Europe a jeep with gyrocopter fittings a tank made out of a bulldozer and some corrugated iron a rocket powered interceptor built from plywood nailed together and designed to come apart in flight something similar, only without the rockets a Centaur hulk filled with men and towed into battle a fighter plane whose purchasers asked for their money back We've rejected: Tornado armed with JP233 system Meteors over Korea What I ask for is that the proposer be able to provide a reasonable rationale as to why their proposal fits into one of the categories, and is something you wouldn't want to go to war in. So when early Allied armour was proposed, I asked the builder to identify which vehicle was the worst of that unimpressive bunch and say why it was the worst. The Whitley bomber has been proposed and I've asked for the rationale. The Bradley was approved after I asked for the rationale and the proposer explained that he had twice gone to war in it and listed the many reasons, serious and trivial, why he might have appreciated Uncle Sam providing him with something else to scout about Iraq in. Now with regard to the F104, that has been the subject of the most intense and detailed debate in the thread, and the proposer acknowledged that he'd picked a subject that tested the eligibility criteria. And what's filtering through from the debate for me is that the 104 was fine as the point defence interceptor it was designed to be, the real problems started when the manufacturer tried to dress it up as some kind of general purpose fighter/ground attack craft. We can argue forever about whether the 104's reputation is deserved, but what's undeniable is that it has a terrible reputation: few aircraft achieved that much notoriety. And for that reason, the German F104 in its general purpose/ground attack configuration is going into room 101. .....sorry, I mean it's approved for inclusion in this build.
  4. I was thinking of doing an Elefant (1:72). Dragon's 7253 seems to be an excellent kit, but expensive and hard to find. Dragon seem to have replaced it with 7515, the problem is I can't find any reviews of that kit, and from the few pictures of the sprues and instructions I've found it looks like it might be a step back in detail. I asked about that in the Tiger GB chat, but no advice so far. Anyone on here know? But first, I'm doing an anti-tank bren carrier in the The Specialists GB, and the prototype super Pershing in the Patton GB. So I can make up my mind about the Tiger build later. I do intend to be in it with something.
  5. Of course. Please expand on your suggestion: into which category does the Whitley fit, and why?
  6. Looks fantastic, including the raging torrent. The few bits of brighter colour, the flag and the fuel can etc, set off beautifully against the winter camo.
  7. It was relevant and amusing, and thank you for sharing your first-hand experience of the Bradley. Perhaps if the SYWWTGTWI GB passes the vote, you'll reconsider building one. But be warned, under the circumstances we'd expect a high standard of accuracy and authenticity from you, right down to the dodgy wiring in the turret!
  8. With that in mind, I think it's worth noting that Mr @CliffB did specify a German Starfighter.
  9. I believe you've made your case. And I'd love to see those vac-form kits under construction. Welcome to SYWWTGTWI.
  10. Absolutely do go on - that is, if you're happy to share personal info about where and when you were in those Bradleys. I feel a certain extra latitude should be allowed for anyone suggesting a vehicle that they actually served in: after all, who am I to question someone's confidence about a vehicle which they either went to war in or which they would have been expected to go to war in? Assuming you could bring yourself to build one, did you have a kit in mind?
  11. Some good points there, Mr @Giorgio N. A quick search suggests that around fifteen pilots died in crashes involving the Lightning although I don't know how that compares when numbers in service is taken into account. To me, the condemnation of the F104 by Hartmann and others, as well as the successful action brought by widows of F104 pilots against the manufacturer, qualifies it for inclusion. 'Lawn Dart' was a nickname for the F104 before the F16. All vehicles, even the best, eventually become obsolete and the reality is that many of them won't be withdrawn from service until that point is passed. But for the avoidance of doubt, category 1 applies to those vehicles that were already obsolete when they first entered service - Gloucester Gladiator, anyone?
  12. Hi Keith, Yes, those are the plates that were added to Belton-Cooper's tank, although I don't know how much of it was put on at the factory to counterbalance the gun, and how much Belton Cooper put on to balance the armour he'd welded to the mantlet and glacis. It's shown clearly in this photo with the turret reversed:
  13. Then Mr @whiskey, please do share your experience - the discussion about whether or not a vehicle deserves to be condemned as SYWWTGTWI is what makes this thread so interesting.
  14. Not an aircraft I'm familiar with, but I'll be guided by Mr @Brad. There can't be many combat vehicles where the nation purchasing them asked for their money back. You're in.
  15. A modified Centaur and towing vehicle together would make an interesting project. It might only have been a proposal, but both vehicles existed. You have the green light.
  16. The Natter absolutely counts, and that is a very exciting kit.
  17. Sadly true. An interesting thing about this GB is that it's not just the barking mad stuff like flying tanks, but common equipment that hundreds or thousands of servicemen and women did indeed have to go to war in, such as snatch landrovers. For early Allied armour, none of it was up to much, so I think we'd have to ask you to pick what you think was the very worst, and explain your choice.
  18. If I recall correctly, at least one very senior air force officer declared the Starfighter unfit for service, which I'd say counts as 'wouldn't want to go to war in it'. Over a hundred luftwaffe pilots died in Starfighter accidents in peacetime, so it meets the dangerous to crew even without the enemy doing anything criterion. On the subject of the Meteor over Korea I know nothing - care to tell us some more?
  19. I keep doing this. The Natter wasn't landed with those stubby wings, the pilot and the fuselage containing the rocket motors came down under parachutes, while the nose and cockpit crashed to earth. Still wouldn't want to go to war in it
  20. Great to have you on board, Giorgio. It sounds like you have some interesting ideas there. Wikipedia says the Ba88 'represented, perhaps, the most remarkable failure of any operational aircraft to see service in World War II', but it was a good looking aircraft and would make a nice model. Some of those last ditch aircraft would certainly qualify, someone has already mentioned the Bachem Natter. The Natter was operational, and I certainly wouldn't want to land a plywood airplane with no propulsion and tiny stubby wings designed for the rocket powered phase of flight. The Germans proposed an aircraft with an armoured nose and armoured leading edges on wings and tail, which was supposed to be smashed through Allied bombers and survive the collision to come back and land - but I don't know if the idea got far enough that was even a design that one could build a reasonably accurate model of, which would rule it out.
  21. I think it's definitely a GB that's likely to prompt some interesting discussion, and we've seen that already.
  22. @GrimReaper09, thank you for those insights. Category 3 would only apply if the JP233 itself was likely to damage the aircraft but that wasn't the case. Category 4 would apply if using the weapon put the aircraft at unacceptably high risk of being shot down. If none of the Tornadoes using it in the Gulf war were lost to enemy action, then the case that the weapon was deeply flawed or misconceived doesn't seem very strong. The JP233 is no longer used, but I understand that was more to do with the legality of the bomblets than because it was thought too risky for the aircrew.
  23. I recall these being in the news during the Gulf War. Deploying them leaves the crew very exposed and arguably they'd fit in category 4. But Mr @Mig Eater might be right that the Tornado GB would be tailor made for the advice and support which is, to me, what a GB is all about?
×
×
  • Create New...