Jump to content

As a result of the close-down of the UK by the British Government last night, we have made all the Buy/Sell areas read-only until we open back up again, so please have a look at the announcement linked here.

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. :)

Das Abteilung

Members
  • Content Count

    1,593
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,548 Excellent

3 Followers

About Das Abteilung

  • Rank
    Very Obsessed Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Weymouth

Recent Profile Visitors

3,375 profile views
  1. I believe Resicast also did the M4A1 version principally used by US forces but with limited UK use in Normandy. No-one has done the Sherman III M4A2 version used on the Rhine and at Walcheren. There were several versions of the DD, differing mainly in the skirt support structure and the later use of an air compressor instead of air tanks. I don't know which is modelled by Resicast but I suspect Mk Is for D Day. I believe the later ones were all M4A2 Sherman IIIs. This is not something that could easily be kitted in injection plastic, erected or folded. Not impossible, but not easy.
  2. You could ask Bovington archives, although currently closed until further notice. They have a lot of original WW1 tank drawings. library@tankmuseum.org The Coventry Transport Museum has what are described as "technical drawings and blueprints, glass negatives of Daimler and Lanchester vehicles and factories" from 1900-1939. May be something there. enquiries@transport-museum.com As for walk-rounds, there are only 10 surviving vehicles that used this engine, not all of them complete by any means. Perhaps 6 of these might still have their engines inside. I don't know of any dismounted engines anywhere. The MkII at Bovington has an open side and a complete engine which you can photograph easily. Their MkIV is complete and still technically a runner, but access is by special appointment only. None of this is any use unless getting to the UK is feasible for you. And the museum is closed until at least early July.
  3. So, bogie saga over. But when I was fitting them to the hull I noticed something about the drive sprockets that hadn't struck me before. The Tamiya ones had central guide rings for the guide horns, whereas the Dragon did not. A quick look in an Academy M51 revealed that this kit has them too. Something not quite right here. Or is there? A question over on Missing Lynx got the hoped-for answer from Kurt Laughlin. Guide rings were never factory-fitted. The spockets for the M26, and later M46 and M47, were essentially the same as those from the M4 and did have the guide rings, but far too narrow for the wider guide horns on the M4 track. Hmmmmm....... These rings are only seen on Israeli Shermans (hold that thought) so the inescapable conclusion is that the "ringed" sprocket hubs are Israeli-made. Why seems to be unknown, likewise why they only appeared very late in service. Surfing back through the Tom Gannon Israeli and Chilean Sherman books again looking for sprocket rings (good job I'm on furlough, eh?) I came to the following conclusions. Couldn't see a single period IDF M50 with the rings However, some of the M60 supplied to Chile did have them - on both A1 and A4 hulls Some late-service M51s did have them Some M51 supplied to Chile had them, which fits with the previous point The Latrun M51 has them Other preserved M51 and M50 have them At least some M32s with HVSS had them At least some Gordons had them So they are NOT appropriate to an early M51 as kitted by Tamiya. Fooled by Latrun, at a guess. But they could be appropriate for a cast-hull Chilean M60. Probably not appropriate to the Dragon M51 kit either as it isn't the final late configuration - but I was making it thus with this conversion and some Chilean M51 had them. The rings are appropriate to the Academy M51 kit. I tried a sprocket swap but they didn't fit well, and no-one wants a wobbly sprocket! I could have left them on the M60, but decided against it. So they were clipped off and the damage fettled.
  4. The Tamiya M4 Early also has an M4A4 glacis which is essentially impossible to correct without more than doubling the cost with resin parts. That kit is fit only for the bin. There are a couple of etched brass turret stowage bins. ET and Voyager spring to mind. I believe ET do it separately and Voyager include it in their Sherman III etch set. Verlinden did them in resin but now very hard to find. "Wrong wheels" and "wrong tracks" are difficult statements to substantiate as both varied over time and from one manufacturer to another. The UK received M4A2s from all manufacturers of that type (question mark over Federal) and these were frequently shipped as mixed batches by Ordnance Tank Depots. US Ordnance regarded each sub-type of Sherman as a singular type regardless of manufacturer variations and shipped whatever they had on hand. Older build standards might get held up for urgent modifications often required to be incorporated by depots before shipping. So units were not necessarily all equipped initially with the same "brand" or configuration and replacements would have been ad-hoc. Tracks and wheels were also replaced in the field. There is nothing wrong with the T54 tracks and pressed spoke wheels on the Tarawa M4A2 for a British tank as that was a build configuration at Fisher for a time. But that kit is least suitable as it has none of the "British" parts. The Asuka kits are reputedly very nice. I have the early DV M4A2 and that is certainly nice. Their M4A2 Romilly kit works but would need new tracks plus stowage bins etc. The UK did not like rubber chevron tracks whereas the US did, so T48 tracks on British tanks are rarer than all-steel types. Their Sherman III #35-018 is ideal, at a price. Again there is nothing wrong with the T49 track and pressed spoke wheels. We had Shermans with T49 tracks. M4A2s were fitted with them and Fisher used pressed-spoke wheels. In Dragon-land, their Sherman III Sicily #6231 and Sherman III #6313 are both perfectly usable. They just represent different "brands". 6231 is Fisher-built and 6313 is ALCO or Pullman Standard, or possibly Federal. However, the tracks supplied with the "Sicily" tank would only be appropriate for Italy and even then are unusual there. But it is probably the most appropriate Sherman III kit to use as Fisher built 3 or 4 times more small-hatch M4A2s than all the other manufacturers combined, so they are by far the most common. For the Firefly VC, I've just built both Asuka and RFM and there are pros and cons both ways. Asuka bogies are easier to build but I don't like vinyl tracks, whereas RFM comes with indy links at a cost of complex bogies and daft sprocket construction. Asuka has applique armour, RFM doesn't. etc etc.
  5. Mike Starmer is the expert here, but if I read his material correctly only tanks were required to be repainted (plain) SCC15 before DDay. Other vehicles would only be repainted when they needed it. Sextons in the UK for DDay, Mks I and II, would therefore almost certainly be in SCC2 with either blue-black/SCC14 or SCC1A. While the SCC15 change came in about 3 months before DDay it is unlikely that many, if any, in SCC15 would have been shipped over and issued in that period. Units arriving later and replacement vehicles would probably be SCC15, with or without SCC14.
  6. I thought the promised semi-mythical Bronco kit was going to be the stripped-down airborne version anyway? I've seen pictures of Morris Mk IIIs towing 17pdrs.
  7. Harder to get squared and true than the Tamiya version. Springs and brass tube are a waste of time. Trying to get everything together with the springs without bits pinging everywhere is nigh impossible. I gave up, not wanting them working anyway. The brass tube will only work with a lot of filing down of the plastic piston. The middle ground would be more parts than Tamiya, less than Dragon and forget the articulation. The only other Dragon HVSS kits I have are some M50s and these have completely different bogie parts to the M51.
  8. Did I mention that the 28 parts, of which only 25 are plastic, have 35 sprue gates and 21 knock-out pins? So that'll be 46 sprue gates to clean up then........
  9. It's been posted on here before. A 'what if' Tortoise II CS. I just cropped out the cam net bit.
  10. I told you we needed to buy a roof box for the holiday luggage .......................... Exceptionally nicely done.
  11. Another rolled cam net idea. Old School. Plasterer's cotton scrim. Soaked in watered down PVA, set in place and then sprinkled with tea leaves while still wet. You could probably do the same with other natural material cam nets like Verlinden or Wee Friends. I had thought of doing a Dutch modern AFV with their hessian-strip net and had thought of using PVA-soaked tissue paper strips. But that would be tedious. The permanence of masking tape might worry me.
  12. There's a lot about the RAL history online. It is my understanding from this that while some of the names have changed to better describe the colours, the colours themselves have not changed. The same is true also of BS colours: BS LIght Stone today is exactly the same as BS Light Stone of the Western Desert campaign. I can say from first-hand contact with those involved that the out-of-the-can RAL8000 which Bovington's Tiger is painted matches the original RAL 8000 found in un-repainted areas of the tank during its restoration to running order. And that is a color whose name has changed. Changing colours against the same colour code is a recipe for disaster and is the very antithesis of the whole principle of paint colour codification. So I very much doubt that it happened. Especially with the Germanic virtual obsession with detail, accuracy and precision. With all respect to Mr Byrden, I suspect he is confusing the name change with a colour change and he means that for WW2 we should use the WW2 names and not the current ones. This is something that model paint manufacturers might like to take on board. I bought an Ammo MiG desert Sherman colour set, for convenience more than anything else. It said it contained #61 Light Stone BSC61 and #217 Dark Slate BSC34 but the bottles inside of the same codes were in fact generic Warm Sandy Yellow and RLM79 Grau!! One code, 2 names.............. Humbrol paints are not generally specifically matched to anything: if they match something it is more by luck than design. Same with the majority of Tamiya paints. That being said, the "matched" paints from other brands often vary wildly from one to another. I often end up patch-testing to see which looks right to my failing eye. But my eyes are different to yours, my monitors are different to yours (I have 2 the same bought at the same time and they're slightly different, which may be because one is connected by HDMI and the other by DVI), my colour personalisations are different to yours - and then we come to the vagaries of photograph or scan colour values and file formats. So when we argue about colours on screen we're arguing as much about the methods by which the images are acquired and presented as about the actual colour.
  13. I imagine we will see other T-34 variants if their other family offerings are anything to go by. I'm just surprised that it's taken this long for their SU series to morph into gun tanks.
  14. Well it would certainly be useful if Tamiya followed other manufacturers and quoted the RAL or RLM colours their paints are intended to match. And indeed FS, BS and other codification standards. Originally 8000 with disruptive pattern of one-third coverage of 7008, changed to 8020 with 7027 in March 42 but not required to be immediately implemented for repainting. You can see from the swatch below that the contrast between 8000 and 7008 is not great. Bovington's Tiger 131 is painted in the authentic 8000/7008 scheme and from a few yards the difference is hardly visible. The beauty of RAL is that the colours have not changed one bit since inception. Ever. So a can of 8000 today is the same as a can of 8000 in 1942. However, some of the names have changed - which can be very misleading. 8000 was GelbBraun but is now GrunBraun. 7008 was GrauGrun but is now KhakiGrau. 8020 has remained Braun and 7027 has remained Grau. So it would seem that XF92 is intended to be RAL8000, although the pot lid colour looks more like 8020. XF93 is intended to be 8020 but the pot lid seems to be way off: it's more like BS Light Stone. And where are 7008 and 7027?? As for the 2nd edition of the the 3-colour scheme colours I can only assume that they are intended to be better matches. The pot lids look about right. I think my problem with Tamiya paints is that, like old Hunbrol and Airfix paints, they are actually fairly generic rather than specific matches. Compared to other paint manufacturers their range is very small at less than 100.
×
×
  • Create New...