Jump to content

Das Abteilung

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

6,551 profile views

Das Abteilung's Achievements

Very Obsessed Member

Very Obsessed Member (5/9)



  1. The Universal Carrier has the same fittings on the glacis. I couldn't find a stowage diagram for the Valentine or MkVI showing that area. But on a Universal Carrier stowage diagram it is described as a "Rope, Towing, Steel, Light". The one on the Valentine looks to be larger diameter cable, so maybe "medium" or "heavy".
  2. I'm not sure the Mulberry could take the Churchill's 40 ton weight. You see Shermans and Cromwells on Mulberry but I don't recall seeing a Churchill.
  3. I think this photo answers the question.
  4. Basically yes. They haven't changed much, if at all, externally since their introduction. They had the diesel engine from the outset and so did not undergo that conversion. I don't know if any changes are being made for Ukraine. The cupola mount will need to be adapted for a PKM, although Ukraine does now have some M240s which should be compatible. The UK L7 GPMG is not fully compatible with the M240 for parts as the designs diverged some years ago, so giving them L7s would cause more problems than it would solve. No one wants Dead Man's Click........ Ideally Ukraine needs weapons with which they are familiar, which are ammunition-compatible and ideally spares-compatible. This influx of Western weapons will cause supportability headaches. AA resin track strips can be pains to bend to shape. You might think about the AFV Club individual links for CVR(T) but you will need 3 sets as the Stormer is longer.
  5. Yes it will need another flat coat after the tracks and any further work are finished. The oils and pastels used will need to be left to dry out first too.
  6. I think I'm calling this one "done" apart from the tracks and a bit of lower weathering after that. And an antenna. Unfortunately despite copious Micro Set some of the decals have silvered slightly and their edges are visible. Which is a shame.
  7. It seems that Tamiya have perpetuated the same glacis error in 1/48 as in 1/35. That glacis belongs on an M4A4, possibly on a Ford (only) M4A3. The applique armour patches largely hide the incorrect hood shape but the welds are all wrong. If that worries you.......
  8. SAS looked at the ALSV Flyer 60 (60" wide) about 5 years ago. They wanted the Flyer 72 (72"wide) but that wouldn't fit the RAF Chinooks because of extra armour plating in the cargo hold. Too wide. They didn't like the 60. Apart from being really too narrow it was apparently very noisy.
  9. Wading trunks get a mention at the top - or at least that what I presume that "huge air intakes" means. Whatever you choose - and I suspect that will be guided by whatever is available in 1/350 - any AFV to be landed over the beaches on D Day or after would have been wading-equipped. Black Cat seem to do M7s and Shermans. AFV Club have some vehicle sets but they're very US-oriented.
  10. I think it is as simple as this. The first vehicles sent to N Africa were not "Tropen" or tropical vehicles. They would therefore have been Dunkelgrau, the standard colour of the day. Green is just fantasy: German tanks were never green. Repainting happened in theatre, most likely in the authorised RAL8000. The idea that Luftwaffe RLM colours might have been used has been debunked. This is when you see vehicles with worn paint showing the darker colour underneath and unpainted grey patches around insignia etc. It became apparent that operations in N Africa and Russia needed vehicles adapted to dusty environments: the "Tropen" standard. Vehicles produced as "Tropen" with tropical air filters etc were initially factory-finished in RAL8000 from March 1941, over which 1/3 by area of RAL7008 was to be applied. This colour scheme provided little contrast and was changed in March 1942 to RAL8020 with 1/3 coverage of RAL7027. From about March 1943 everything went over to RAL7028 regardless, but it is highly unlikely that anything in that colour would have made it over to Tunisia.
  11. Has anyone else tried using Clean Spirit for brush cleaning? I bought some in B&Q as it sounded useful and now I use it all the time to clean brushes during and after painting. It also removes dried paint from plastic pallettes, given time to work. I haven't yet tried it as an airbrush flush. So far only used on acrylics but I understand that it will work on solvent and water based paints too. Because of its consituents you can swill it away in a domestic drain or sink once used. But if you leave your brushes to stand in it (which of course you should not do anyway) 2 undesirable things will happen. First, the bristles will curl and will not then straighten again. Second, it it is allowed to wick up wooden handles it will soften the paint on the handles. Having seen it in B&Q I now see it in other places selling decorating products. Bought another bottle in Wilko. This is what the Dulux Decorator Centre website says about Clean Spirit, which they have under the Bartoline brand. "CLEAN SPIRIT is a revolutionary water based alternative to White Spirit, Turpentine Substitute and Brush Cleaner. Due to the minimal solvent content, Clean Spirit is safer for the user and to the environment. The mix of high tech components are all readily biodegradable." "Clean Spirit can be used to clean both oil and water based paints from brushes, rollers and paint pads. Containing a specialised conditioning agent, paint implements are left feeling soft and supple. Clean Spirit may also be used to remove paint spills from hard surfaces such as worktops, laminate flooring, glass, etc, as well as from textiles such as clothing and carpets. It also makes an excellent degreasing fluid for removing oil and grease from tools. In tests, users stated there was no difference in cleaning qualities between White Spirit and Clean Spirit, and when removing paint from textiles, they thought Clean Spirit performed better. Classified as Low in Volatile Organic Compounds, with a solvent content of below 8%, Clean Spirit is safer for the environment, especially when compared with traditional solvents that are regarded as Very High VOC’s with 100% solvent content. Clean Spirit carries no Dangerous for the Environment classification. Clean Spirit is virtually odourless. Normal paint solvents usually have a very strong hydrocarbon smell that most users dislike, especially when using in confined areas. This means when painting internally, there is no requirement to open windows and doors as when using White Spirit, etc. Clean Spirit is classified as non-toxic, non-flammable and non-corrosive, resulting in a product that is much safer to use. This also means that it carries none of the label warnings of other paint solvents. There is no restriction on the sale of Clean Spirit and no need for the usual storage precautions associated with White Spirit, etc. In recent years, the instability of world oil prices have resulted in massive price rises for hydrocarbon based solvents traditionally used in the paint industry. As there is only a small volume of solvent in Clean Spirit, costs will be more stable and not vary as widely. Clean Spirit is also extremely cost effective, currently costing less than White Spirit." NOTE. Unlike White Spirit and Turpentine Substitute, Clean Spirit cannot be used as a thinner!! I have tried it for degreasing and it seems to work for that too: so much so that I am asking my employer to switch to it from White Spirit.
  12. Managing to get some more done in between work, overtime and domesticity. Time is now pressing as we're past half way in the GB. Well into the Fiddling and Faffing stage now. I think I've done all the basic detail painting so now it will be on to decals and finishing - and track building. The eagle-eyed might notice that I chickened out of painting the crockery and bottles buried in the stowage blob and covered it over with another anonymous canvas. The dish roadwheels were a pain to paint as the rims are very poorly defined. If I use them again I'll re-scribe the dividing line and sand them down to a more defined flat edge which the kit parts don't really show. Or use some resin alternatives.
  13. Do you mean the double or single rollers? I might have a spare one somewhere. Do you want me to have a rummage? At the risk of being pedantic, the M51 was never called Super Sherman. Nor was the M50. Although they are both commonly and incorrectly called this. There was the M1 Super Sherman. This was a vanilla production-standard M4A1E8(76) obtained from France. They pre-dated the M51 and all were later converted into M51s.
  14. A bit late to say this, but I believe the auxiliary gun shield was only fitted to those US "Shop Tractor" CDLs based on the cast-hull M3A1. Takom have most probably goofed this through faulty assumption. True Grant CDL conversions certainly never had it, and Takom's kit is clearly a Grant hull with the drivers' periscopes. Some "Grant" CDLs were actually converted on turretless Lee hulls bought from the US for that purpose but it is not believed that any of these had the auxiliary shield, although most if not all had the M4 bogies. The gun counterweight was not needed as the shield added considerable weight to the gun. It is possible that a breech counterweight might have been needed to balance the gun back the other way. I say "believed" because the CDL was so uber-secret that very few photos have survived and it is possible that other configurations existed.
  15. Which is impossible with images taken from the internet which are not already attributed. Also, some sites claim copyright over images to which they clearly do not own the copyright. Any image of WW2 vintage will be out of copyright protection anywhere in the world. Re-hosting or re-publishing that image does not create new copyright in it.
  • Create New...