Old pro

Well I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for someone to release a new challenger so I set about correcting the available kits. Fun fact #1 If you want a challenger that has been sat for a while, you need the Revell kit, if you want one that has been moving for a while, you need the Trumpeter kit. Anything in between the Revell kit will let you play with the wheel position. The Trumpeter turret is slightly better than the Revell in shape and some details (especially the TOGS housing) it is also slightly taller than the Revell one. To make a Mk2/3 the front upper glacis of both kits need to be altered, (although the kit is correct for an early model, and could be found on later upgraded models, they are rare rather than the norm) the step in the glacis needs to be removed. This is easier to do on the Revell kit as the Trumpeter has some internal bracing, the glacis should be straight all the way across, ( the RHS one is just one that I have been playing with as regards to paints and weathering. I have started the strengthening braces on the front joints, Trumpeter has them depicted on the turret sides but not anywhere else, Revell are totally lacking in any. I also started modifying and rebuilding the rear turret stowage bin. Fun fact #2 The cutouts marked in red on the kits, should only be there for tanks designated to carry a dozer blade otherwise they should be the full width and the moulded on tools were either located to the rear top of the turret or some bin somewhere but not mounted where shown.

They seem to have taken a leaf out of Cromwells book with that, it was a pain then! was thinking about their PT 76 tracks but looking at the pictures on their website shows misprints so that doesn’t inspire me with confidence. The PT 91 is an early prototype used for trials, the in service tank was different as is the Malaysian tank, surprised they haven’t updated the model.

What is the quality of Modelltrans stuff like? For no particular reason I have always been wary of ordering from them.

I have not seen them in the flesh, however going by the pictures there seems to be a lot of layering on some models and some especially the Russian ones are totally wrong in details, it could just be a learning curve and that earlier ones sufffer from it. However although there are some interesting models but when I see dubious errors or short cuts, I worry about the rest. I would have to see one in the hand before deciding to buy. Added to that 3D resin is an unknown factor (to me) not sure how it would take to modification or correction, a lot of the Russian ones are available in plastic anyway and although they to have their problems, plastic is much easier to work with.

The British didn’t give up the Chieftains until 1995, but all would have been mk10/11 variants, it’s just that none were sent to the gulf in 1990/91. Still brew came into use in 1985 but it took a while for all tanks to receive it. Judging by 11 inf brigade, it seems you want earlier than 1985 so there will be no problems with what you have in the box.

Not really a fair comparison in the guns, the German design was an anti tank gun from the start using bigger casings to give the shell more oomph, where as the British gun was a rebored 6lbr to use the American ammunition and as such was a dual purpose gun that excelled at neither but was considered adequate at the time but soon showed its shortcomings hence the 17lbr pure AT gun. Maybe the British should have kept the 6lbr for the Cromwell and used the 75mm in the Churchill since that was an infantry tank, the 57mm 6lb had better penetration than the 75mm and more oomph

Some interesting models there, shame they are of dubious quality and accuracy.

Not sure what you mean by “Gulf war 90s standard” the only chieftains used, were by the Kuwaiti army and they would be of the type you already have, Stillbrew chieftains of the British army would be the mk 10 &11 of which takom sell as a double pack but they weren’t used in the gulf war, only Challenger 1 was used as gun tanks.

Yeah I did wonder, but not being able to see the turret ventilator correctly although there is something black there, that said it has all the features you would expect from an early T 54 especially with the main gun minus fume extractor and the wheels. T 54z seems to be an unofficial title, there is no reference to them in German orbats although sources do tell of 3 z programs for the T 54, 54A and 54AM (which is an oxymoron as the AM is already a modified A) however in German literature they are all classed as T 54A of which there were 193, at the time of German reunification, 160 of which were in reserve and 33 stored, although there is no difference noted between command tanks and troop tanks. All that said it would be odd to give a T 55 these features mainly because the fume extractor was part of the main gun stabilisation and the main gun does look to even have the weight to replicate it seen on earlier T 54s.

My solution for windows, leave them off until the very end where possible or masking tape, I’ve had such poor results with masking fluid whatever brand I use. Free hand spraying with the airbrush is possible it’s a question of playing with pressures and mixing ratios and cheating! I tend to clear up the edges with the base colour almost like dry brushing but a bit more. I find that even at this small scale there is a marked difference between a soft and a hard demarcation line in camo.

Well yes there is that, but a 56 could pull an old trailer and vice versa

You could try blue/white tack or silly putty, doesn’t have as much grip as masking fluid, also it is easier to get softer edges on camouflage schemes. That said I really struggle with masking fluid on windows to the point of not being able to remove it sometimes.

That is a snorkel, indicative of a Czech built tank, the protective bar/bumper is an East German modification. Polish built tanks (as well as early Russian builds) also put the snorkel in this location although the casing is different (a simpler tube) early Russian builds also had it optional to be mounted on top or underneath the fuel drums. early T 55s An interesting photo of another Finnish T 55 showing a rear mounted tube that seems thinner than the normal snorkel. an odd East German T 55 (with a lot of old and new features) seems to show a thinner tube mounted behind the bumper and in front of the snorkel, unfortunately it is a poor quality picture. and just to throw in more confusion, here’s a T 55 with apparently 2 snorkels, is one being used as other stowage?.?

Here’s an interesting thought! Because there are various levels of command tanks that were used company, battalion, regiment etc, that not all carried the mast, the 4 metre whip would have been enough for lower levels (that’s larger than used on regular tanks about 1.5-2m) I say that, because I found this photo of a Finnish command, the whip is larger than a standard tank and seems to just fit on the normal antenna base also the rear stowage case is small as in the Polish tank above. also has the flap on the rear of the turret

God that was annoying, you know when you know something but then doubt yourself so you have to check! The mount/flap thing is actually the holder for the drivers TVN 1 night vision scope, the front periscope is replaced, it is a fixture of most T 54/55 tanks but gets fitted all over the place, Polish and Czech and Yugoslav builds seem to have them mainly placed as in the photo as do some Russian tanks, other locations including the rear of the turret or the turret sides or not at all, some have the screw for fixing them but not the bracket in that position some hide the screw somewhere! a popular opinion is the the antenna stowage is on the rear of Russian tanks, I am not 100% sure that is the antenna stowage in the photo of the polish tank (looks a little thin) compared to Russian stowage tubes.