Jump to content
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

    1,254
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,068 Excellent

1 Follower

About Das Abteilung

  • Rank
    Very Obsessed Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Weymouth

Recent Profile Visitors

2,194 profile views
  1. Nice work. I like the scheme too. But, if I may, the canvas cover over the 75mm extended some way onto the cast casemate and there was a line of snaps onto which it fitted. As you have it, the gun could not traverse. I would post a photo but Imgur have stopped their mobile site in favour of an app - which I can't fathom. Not beyond rectifying as the new cover would be larger and cover the old one.
  2. Das Abteilung

    Stormer tracks

    I can't provide the number. But don't forget that links would be removed as the tracks stretched in use beyond tensioning with the idler, so the number could vary. The vehicle's AESP would say how many links could be removed before the tracks needed to be replaced. It probably says how many when new. You can buy the Stormer AESP on line, but they seem to be £50+.
  3. There were 2 trailers for the M45 mount. The 2-wheeled type shown here, which could not be towed far or fast or cross-country and was usually carried portee in a truck bed. Then there was the larger Ben Hur trailer with 4 truck wheels which could be towed at convoy speed and off-road. That might explain the dimensional difference.
  4. Looking forward to the initial impressions of the real thing rather than the CAD.
  5. It looks to be an order of magnitude better, especially if you want the interior. Better even than the Takom offerings, and greater version variety. Low £50's seems to be the starting price in the UK. Or low €50's from some European sources. They will come down if we can all be a bit patient. I worked out that you can get them from Ukraine for under £40 if you pay in UAH, plus shipping and the import VAT risk. But that might have been a good exchange rate day: they've nose-dived again recently. But some non-Euro currencies like PLN and UAH vary less against £ than $ or €.
  6. Looking at these 2 gorgeous models I think I'll quiety slip my unstarted WIP Lanchester back in the box until everyone has forgotten how good these are! Nice to see some honesty in colour. They were a bit less accurate with some of their locations and colours in the original kit (no Lanchesters ever went to Persia although some were in Armenia with RNAS). Truth is, no-one knows with any accuracy what the colours were. Russian cars were ex-RNAS and may still have been grey on delivery but may have been repainted. Ultimately the RNAS ACEF cars were left behind for the Russians too. No sign of the promised interior or engine add-ons for these kits yet. I wondered if they might vary the tyre pattern in the new kit. Lanchesters and R-Rs were often seen with different tread patterns, especially a small checker-board pattern. For a while it was believed that different patterns on the front wheels aided handling. I keep hoping one of the resin companies will have a go as my hand scribing isn't remotely good enough.
  7. It seems that story has become conflated/embellished along the line in the corridors of MOD(PE) (as it was called when I joined it a couple of years after the Falklands), and if incorrect I apologise. I believe it is a matter of public record that she asked 1SL why we couldn't send the Ark and was unaware of her decommissioning. That wasn't the first and won't be the last project to go to IAC on the basis that "we're doing what S of S or Minister has instructed so approve it" only to be sent away to provide the necessary compelling evidence - which no-one had bother to collect or compile based on huge approval over-confidence. Marinised Chinook was one of those, never to see the light of day again. I've worked on or been associated with a couple which went that way and it it still happening on the work I'm doing for MOD today - although now as an agency contractor rather than on the books so I don't feel the need to lose sleep over the client's decisions contrary to advice. For rotorcraft the cost rule of thumb used to be (some years ago now, admittedly) that operating them through life (net of fuel etc consumed) will cost about 12 times the capital purchase and integration cost: having them donated free only saves about 8% of the through-life cost. Fast jet was about 9 times. With changes to maintenance regimes and greater efficiency I imagine these have gone down now. But it underscores the critical importance of modelling and understanding the alleged operating costs of proposed new equipment compared to its alleged operational effectiveness. Political industrial decisions notwithstanding.
  8. Is my ageing and feeble brain correct in believing that there was a possibility of a carrier-capable F111 after The Most Monumental Aviation Blunder Of All Time to cancel TSR2 in favour of the never-to-materialise F111K?
  9. Comet had the HV 77mm gun, not a 17pdr. Used a shorter but otherwise similar barrel. For a Firefly you need a proper 17pdr. RB Model probably best value in metal. It was called the 77mm to differentiate it as it fired completely different ammunition: it was a completely different weapon. Same projectiles as 17pdr but mated to the shorter and less powerful cartridge of the 3" 20cwt AA gun. Not as effective as the 17pdr because of reduced velocity. Never used on any other tank. I'm afraid that doesn't work. It wasn't just longer: the angles where the sides and deck slope down to the rear were completely different. Different rear engine access door arrangement to either M4 or A3. M4A4s also had a unique style of driver's hoods not found on any other Sherman type - although Tamiya goofed one of their M4 kits by using these in error. If yours have a slight undercut at the bottom then you have the right ones. But if you add the applique plates, which you should, then this area will be hidden. You haven't mentioned the differential cover: all M4A4 had the bolted 3-piece type. I would have gone with the 1C too. As noted above, the M4A4/Sherman V had so many differences to all other Sherman types you can't really make one - at least not accurately. Having said this, because they were only built by Chrysler they were the least varied of all the Sherman types. Normal production variation evolution but no factory variation. The Sherman Minutia site can help you with these. Don't forget that Fireflies built on M4s not fitted with the turret loader's hatch had the British-pattern rectangular hatch added. Later conversions on turrets built with the oval loaders hatch retained that hatch. T62 tracks were most commonly factory-fitted on A4s, although others may have been used and field replacements could have been anything except plain rubber block and probably not rubber chevron. By the time you've sorted all the variations out and found all the correct parts you might as well have bought a Dragon VC. Not as good as Asuka but workable and half the price.
  10. The non-interior version of the Grant is on the way now too. No news on the Grant II yet.
  11. Wouldn't some of the worn paint areas be black as the tanks were in green/black before repainting, not overall green. Wear on the anti slip areas is to be expected as that's where the crew walked. So I wouldn't worry about that.
  12. This seems very plausible - as well as being extremely well done. 2cm FlaK on the back of Blitz certainly existed, and IIRC the DAK version had the cut-off cab. By 1944 very mobile FlaK was essential and towed guns found themselves being transplanted onto pretty much anything that would take them. This combination would rock a bit when firing to the side but is perfectly possible. It might be questioned whether the truck should be Dunkelgelb for that era: the gun would have been in grey as production stopped at about the time of the colour change. But it could easily have been an older vehicle on garrison duties in France or Germany. Repainting was not mandated.
  13. Agree this is an interesting subject. Clearly they were used, even if only in limited numbers, yet records and books etc seem silent on the subject. If we had 1,500-1,600 twin 50 turrets available from converted M14s it would seem logical that they were put to use. As noted, they were self-contained being self-powered and required minimal installation - and were effective. Four guns were just more effective. We had access to the ammunition: not sure the UK manufactured 0.50 BMG during WW2 but it certainly came over from the US. We were deploying single, twin and quad Lewis guns, twin Brens and twin 303 Brownings plus single 20mm Hispano for local defence of airfields, gun batteries and searchlight positions. The Navy were even breaking out Hotchkiss Mk1s from store. In N Africa, Australian AA regiments and some RAN ships were equipped with captured Breda 20mm. So the availability of so many twin 50s would seem like manna from heaven. The film clip I recall has no positional reference. It's coastal and on a concrete base, IIRC with a sentry stood At Ease next to it. Taken from behind the mount looking seaward. Local defence of coastal gun batteries, which sprouted up all round the coast, would be logical. I'm not sure that the 50 Browning had the effective or accurate ceiling to deal with V1s, but the proverbial curtain of lead has an appeal.
  14. I meant the Thames forts being identical to each other, not identical with the Mersey configuration. IIRC the longer view of that photo was captioned as Red Sands, apparently incorrectly. Yes, self-powered is an easy installation but the power units were not marinised and I wondered about reliability. I guess OK with adequate maintenance and running-up. All the weapons would have needed much cleaning and oiling in that salt-laden environment anyway. I also wondered if the M33s might have been added later, but couldn't find any event that might have caused it - other than the sensible need for a CIWS. The M14s (and a very few M13s) arrived before the forts were built so they could have been installed during build. Being only on 1 side and with limited arcs I presume they faced seaward? Using sponsons at a lower level, somewhat like the German Flak towers, M33s could have been fitted to all the 'outer' towers without impeding the main armament field of fire. Thinking of surface action, wasn't one of the forts credited with a U-Boat 'kill'?
×
×
  • Create New...