Jump to content

Das Abteilung

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Das Abteilung

  1. A new engine is very possible. British tank troops in North Africa unfamilair with radial engines (who would be - it was an aircraft engine.......) failed to appreciate the need to hand-crank the engine a few turns before starting it. This distributed the lubricating oil from the bottom cylinder to the others. If you did not do this the engine did not last long before failing. Spare engines had to be air-freighted across the Atlantic because so many were ruined. I imagine it is likely that Russian troops may have made the same mistake.
  2. Stop press. The "Camouflage - the Art Of Disappearing" book author is Tim Newark. It is published by Thames and Hudson. It is also shown as being published by Osprey, possibly an earlier edition/version just called Camouflage.
  3. This image has just popped up on Missing Lynx and is an excellent rear view of stowage on an M4A2 Sherman III that has not long come ashore on Sicily. Note the sand shield stowage bins and the large pile of gear on the rear deck, which I suspect might have been redistributed now on dry land with the wading trunk removed. Not a fuel can or 75mm ammo box in sight..... And no side rails. The boxy object on the right is the dismounted intake trunk.
  4. If that is the only way the parts fit together with 2 different hole and peg sizes then that sounds right. You should leave the frame side loose so that you can fit and tension the tracks properly. Only glue it once you are happy. That is how the real thing worked and M3 tracks did not usually sag very much.
  5. Doesn't mean it wasn't done - just that your crew have yet to gain the wisdom of experience! Carriers are most usually seen heavily stowed at the rear. Even for a 4-man crew they had relatively generous stowage space inside the rear compartments. Diorama idea with 2 figures having a "do you think that's a good idea?" conversation........
  6. I was bringing in some past discussions on colour and how the same colour can - logically - look very different under different lighting conditions. Of course we see this every day with online images of the same subject taken at different times under different ambient light conditions, and of course with different cameras - and different film stock, developing and scanning for older non-digital images. But maybe there was a bit of tongue in cheek................... Perhaps this is better as a wider discussion under the general modelling forum. It doesn't just apply to WW2 military models. If you believe in it then it applies to ships, aircraft, figures, scenery and indeed all forms of modelling. Aircraft are somewhat easier because they naturally have defined upper and lower surfaces, but curved fuselages - as they usually are - would be an interesting challenge. I worry that we are in danger of scaring people away from the hobby by pushing the expectations beyond us ordinary folk with ordinary skills. The counter-argument being that this is always how the hobby has developed and improved from the days before Verlinden when we didn't even use washing and dyrbrushing. Maybe Miguel Jiminez and others are just taking up that baton and moving it along. As well as also making money by selling us the products to go with their ideas, of course. The self-perpetuating prophecy. Verlinden generally used available finishing products, just differently.
  7. I'd be waiting until both have been reviewed before I bought. The Airfix kit is apparently an Academy tooling and their latest kits such as their Pzs II and III have been very well received. But the Airfix Cromwells, apparently also Academy toolings, have errors. But Gekko are not fault-free although their Bedford MWs have generally been well received. One issue for me will be whether either or both need expensive after-market resin wheels because the included ones are vinyl or incorrect tread. Gekko did well with their MW tyres with separate tread and sidewalls, which I imagine they will perpetuate as they used the same method on their ATMP. The texture of the canvas-skinned body will be another. I'm sure there will be after-market improvements anyway. Gekko are likely to incude some photo-etch, Airfix are not. Although they did issue separate Eduard-produced etch sets for their 1/48 vehicles.
  8. When I have to worry about the angle of the sun or even the presence of sun, time of day, season of the year and so on when painting I think it might be time to give up! I can imagine the conversation with a competition judge that my model is painted as being up-sun on a bright day in northern France early in the afternoon in mid-August whereas his colour expectation is that of a dull day in central Germany early in the morning in October.................................... This degree of artistry might work in a diorama setting in a fixed location with a fixed viewpoint but on an individual model I do have to question it as they will be seen from multiple angles in different ambient light conditions. But maybe I'm just missing the point..................
  9. Ah, tadpoles. AFAIK none of these were ever used and other than the prototypes in the UK none were ever converted. They were not new-build tanks: conversion kits were manufactured and shipped out to Central Workshops where they sat outside unused. I found a picture of them in a book last night but cannot find it online. If any were converted I am certain they were never used in action but I'm prepared to be proved wrong. The extended horns proved to be insufficiently rigid, leading to twisting and track throwing. So, you could be in the realms of "what if" here, in which case you can almost do what you like as long as it stays "what if". We don't want to be debunking it as reality 5 years down the line.......... Here is the dazzle MkIV with its turtleback mesh screen, which you may have seen already. Below that is Bovington's model which is said to represent that scheme, designed by Percyval Tudor-Hart not Solomon J Solomon. Originally an idea for a fabric for uniform canouflage. You might like to track down a copy of the book 'Camouflage' by Thames and Hudson in conjuction with the IWM. I understand that this has a lot on WW1 camouflage. Here is an Australian Austin armoured car in a dazzle scheme, bizarrely with very prominent red/white ID stripes. I can't find an online image of the 1935 Morris CS9 in dazzle. The British Army is looking at these ideas again now. The bar armour on some AFVs like this Scimitar are ideal for hanging changeable fabric screens.
  10. Written by David Fletcher in his former capacity as Museum Historian at Bovington with unlimited access to their archives. Which to me means "enough said". But no-one is infallible and time has passed. I understand that the new editions have been re-proof-read for errors, corrections and new information. They are full new reprints, not just pdf scans of the old editions as some "reprints" turn out to be. Like the Hunnicutt books. The photo images have been re-scanned at today's quality.
  11. The Solomon schemes were the only types actually used, and only on some Mk1s. It was rapidly realised that the tanks got so muddy as to make camouflage painting pointless. The zig-zag scheme was applied only to a single MkIV as an experiment but the colour contrast was apparently inadequate and the colours could not be discerned beyond a few yards. Solomon of couse also invented the ship dazzle camouflage and British WW2 disruptive painting carried forward the lesson from that of high-contrast colours for best effect, especially on moving ojects: deceit rather than concealment. But I'm not aware of such a scheme being applied to a tank in WW1 even experimentally. Dick Taylor doesn't mention it in Warpaint vol1 but he does mention the others. Captured tanks recycled by German forces (technically Bavarian) were painted in German buntfarbenstrich but that doesn't qualify as dazzle as they used large irregular areas of colour. Some post-war suvivor tanks have been painted in some odd schemes since 1918. We did experiment with "dazzle" and other colour schmes in the 1920s and 30s and the image I recall seeing most is a Morris CS9 armoured car in a sort of splinter-dazzle scheme. It may heve been applied to some Medium Mks I or II but these are most usually seen in broad wavy bands. Book artwork is frequently unreliable, especially of that period as any colours will be purely conjectural: there was no colour codification and no colour imagery. But I have no idea whick book you might have seen. It isn't David Willey's own book "Tank" and it isn't anything else I have on the WW1 era. Volume 1 of Warpaint was re-published with Museum branding in 2020 so it might have been that. But the only "dazzle" image in it is a b/w photo of the Morris CS9 again from 1935. The Museum was talking around that time about reprinting the HMSO David Fletcher book series, so it could have been an original copy of Landships. But there are no images in there that are remotely "dazzle".
  12. For those familiar with the original editions, the reprints are a smaller format.
  13. I can only support Troy's point. This is a question that needs to be asked by vehicle type, or even sub-type/variant, in order to get a sensible and understandable answer. There is no universal truth. Tamiya are still marketing kits dating back to the 1970s which are poor by current standards although they are a well-regarded brand (which has lost its way lately IMO). And you can't tell from the marketing or packaging. Many current Dragon kits go back to the 1990s. Recent kits by newer manufacturers are no firm guarantee of superior quality or accuracy. Scalemates is a very useful resource as it usually shows the product evolution so that you can see how old it is, when it might have been updated, whether it is a re-box of another brand etc. They also link to known product reviews and to relevant after-market upgrades and corrections. They indicate who might have stock and at what price, although this area is less reliable as it changes rapidly.
  14. I second what Bullbasket says. Even stowage set manufacturers like Black Dog, Legend etc often pay scant attention to what items were actually stowed and how items were secured, and modellers frequently show models festooned with stowage with no visible means of support and where there is nowhere even to attach it. Example: the UK added "footman loops" to the left side of the Sherman turret for rolled stowage. US Shermans did not have these yet stowage is often shown here with nothing to hang it on. As I often seem to say, there is no substitute for spending an hour in front of Mr Google looking for examples. There is no shortage of images of British tanks with stowage that you might use for ideas, even if you don't copy them exactly.
  15. Grants were specified to be produced in Khaki Green 3. NOT the Olive Drab No9 usually depicted by us modellers as worn paint under the N Africa repaint. There is reference in the Dewar papers to some early Grants destined for the desert possibly being finished in the commercial colour Coronado Tan, as were the early cash Diamond Ts. It is possible but unknown that the remaining Grants produced at Baldwin after Lend-Lease production harmonisation might have been OD. Although Grants remained British contract tanks, that harmonisation led to the last 83 being produced as diesel Grant IIs rather than petrol Grant Is because DoD had instructed Baldwin to cease petrol M3 production in favour of diesel. So a colour change is also feasible. Baldwin was the only plant to produce both Lee and Grant. But as the ARV is a Grant I, Khaki Green 3 looks favourite.
  16. IIRC the 206 and 206S share common running gear. The 202 was completely different.
  17. It's a fusion of various sources including Warpaint and Mike's own booklets. But we are in danger of tripping over terminology over authorised, instructed or preferred - which doesn't really help. SCC2 was an enforced change and the intent was always there to return to a green shade for NWE as soon as was feasible. Light Mud remained the preferred base colour for Italy for some months later into 1944 until the campaign moved into the darker more mountainous terrain in the North, when SCC15 became preferred/authorised. SCC2/SCC1A was also used in Italy, notably on armoured cars. Yes, factories were to use up SCC2 stocks but not on new tanks AFAIK, because priority for SCC15 was given to new equipments for front-line units. The Final Specification Cromwells authorised for production in Feb(?) 44 were all finished in SCC15, for example. So were Churchill VII and VIII. When I said "rush" I was meaning the repainting of in-service tanks and other front-line AFVs still in SCC2 that were to be deployed for Overlord. Probably mostly Churchill V/VIs as Shermans were already OD and later Churchills and new Cromwells were SCC15. Second-line vehicles were permitted to remain in SCC2. Mike says somewhere that there is no firm evidence of SCC7 Light Green being used (it has been confused in some places with Light Mud) and I've never heard of SCC1A Dark Brown being used as an overall colour. Olive Drab in that document is SCC15. But in terms of tanks, leaving aside other A vehs, Canadian units at that time were equipped with Shermans already in US OD and Churchills - some of which were probably still in SCC2. M10s and Achilles were already in OD or SCC15. Sextons at that time would have been SCC2 and many apparently stayed that way. So it may recognise the knowledge that the amount of A veh repainting required was limited. The continuing use of SCC2 on A and B vehs was re-affirmed as late as Oct 43 in ACI 1496, with SCC14 or SCC1A disruptive painting. SCC15 was "adopted" as the new base colour on 12 Apr 44 under ACI 533. But as with the Canadian instruction, repainting from SCC2 by units was only to be undertaken when "due and necessary" and when SCC2 stock had been exhausted. Mike says that some units ignored this part of the ACI. ACI 1100 of Aug 44 authorised discontinuing of disruptive painting in the UK but its retention overseas. However it had already stopped in the Far East and was about to stop in Italy with the Light Mud to SCC15 switch. 21 AG issued an instruction in July 44 requiring the painting-out of side white stars on all tanks with "drab" paint. It further says that "Green camouflage paint is now available and tanks will be repainted with drab in place of brown." This is taken to mean SCC15, and crucially it apparently does not say "when necessary" or similar. But it does point to SCC2 tanks still being around in July, several weeks after D Day, and is perhaps a response to the realisation that SCC2 did not suit the terrain.
  18. What nationality are you modelling?
  19. The available photos give a good idea of the outside configuration and we know what the standard Grant interior looked like. But there must have been an internal winch of some sort, most probably of UK manufacture rather than US. Ammunition bins doubtless removed but probably stowage for other gear. I wouldn't mind betting that the interior might be very much the same as the Cromwell ARV MkI, but pictures of that seem to be non-existent too. Ultimately any interior would be conjectural, however. The references to other Grant conversions might also mean the 8 Australian Armoured Recovery Vehicle (Aust.) No. 2 and No. 3, although these were actually built on Lee hulls. One went to New Guinea but the rest stayed in Australia. The 6 No2s had an internal engine for the winch and the 2 No3s had a main engine PTO winch drive. Australia also built Grant Dozers with the M1 dozer kit intended for Shermans, a single Grant BARV (still exists!) and 14 of their own version of the Sexton, the Yeramba. (The copyright caption on this image is incorrect and not legal BTW. It is so old as to be out of copyright years before the claimed start date).
  20. There is also the Black Dog set (below). This is designed for the more recent Italeri Pinkie but I can't see any reason why it won't fit the Tamiya version unless they are hugely dimensionally different. It actually looks quite a lot more comprehensive than the older Legend set. Black Dog also do an appropriate set with bergens, LAWs and SLRs with various sights if you want even more stowage. But the Black Dog set retails for close to £50. Wildcats Models has one on his eBay shop for £47.89 (link below) with free shipping but he doesn't have it listed on his web shop. They don't always align. I've used him many times and found him completely reliable. He is beginning to bring in product ranges that used to be hard to find in the UK and which I would have bought overseas in the past. If buying from anywhere outside the UK you're looking at 20% import VAT and a £10 fee from Royal Mail to collect the VAT in addition to the item price and the shipping. So a Legend set for £30 abroad could cost you almost as much as the Black Dog set from the UK. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/113195728837?hash=item1a5afdbfc5:g:kVEAAOSwLitbbrPk https://wildcatsmodels.com/
  21. According to 2 former Centurion crewmen of my acquaintance, in the British Army running with side skirts removed was not permitted. At least not in peacetime. But this doesn't necessarily translate to other users. They would only remove the brackets for maintenance. So, no help there. If the skirts and brackets were removed permanently then I can see no reason to replace the bolts. If the removal was temporary then perhaps they would have been replaced for later re-use and to save them being lost.
  22. V1 and V2 prototypes did not have zimmerit. V2 is the Bovington survivor and is quite well photographed at the time and since. The build period for the first 50 KTs with the Porsche-designed turret suggests that all the production vehicles would have had zimmerit. How many had the monobloc Elefant-style gun barrel rather than the later 2-piece stepped barrel I do not know, I do know that the monobloc barrel on V2 is not original, but may be correct.
  23. Not Army, but the RAF Armoured Car Companies are covered in much detail in Nigel Warwick's thick and excellent book "In Every Place". But this is only available on paper.
  24. I'm not sure that explanation is quite correct. SCC15 was introduced to bring Brtitish vehicles back to a "green" colour more suitable for the dark and wooded terrain of NW Europe, which had been lost in mid-1942. A shortage of imported chromium pigments for strong greens and priority for the RAF for remaining stock meant the end of the previous Khaki Green 3 + Green G4 scheme and enforced a change to colours that could be made from pigments available in the British Isles. This turned out to be SCC2, made largely from ochre pigment mined or quarried in Devon, with Nobel's Dark Tarmac / blue-black / SCC14 black disruptive painting. SCC1A darker brown was an acceptable alternative disruptor. So SCC2 was a forced necessity, not desirable but acceptable for the time being. It should be noted that US OD No9 for WW2 was also not a green, also being made from ochre but with lamp black. So it was also a brown but with a decidedly greener hue than SCC2 (US WW1 OD was ochre and white: definitely brown). Paint manufacturers who represent WW2 US OD as green are wrong. By early 1944 a new green colour that could be produced in adequate quantities had been formulated, SCC15. This was always a much greener colour than US OD, despite also being called OD, and was more like the previous Green G4 than the browner Khaki Green 3. It was authorised in early 44 and the rush was on to implement it in time for D Day. The time factor was one reason why only "front-line" equipments were authorised to be immediately repainted. Paint supply was another. At the same time, disruptive painting of tanks was discontinued - although some units ignored the instruction and continued the practice with SCC14 over SCC15. The same happened in the US Army, particularly in 6th Armored Div, with black over OD. Whether potential confusion between SCC2 and dunklegelb was a factor I really don't know. I suppose it isn't impossible and white stars were much less prominent on SCC2 than on SCC15 because of the contrast. But a milky chocolate brown was clearly not an ideal colour for northern France.
  25. Without wishing to go too far off-topic the idea of SCC2 RMASG Shermans largely comes from the original Bison decal set, which had Fox in SCC2. The later Star version of that set has been revised. AFAIK there is no evidence, but bags of assumption or misinterpretation. The only - and relatively remote - possibility is an older tank which needed repainting because of poor condition. RMASG Shermans were a mixed bag ot M4A4s and were said to be "old", but the earliest one of the handful photographed is still early 43 production and so unlikely to need repainting by mid-44. As for the open-top vehicle question, I suspect that there is no definitive or universal answer. I can certainly see units not being bothered about internal repaints. The enemy would be unlkely to see the interior, and if they're close enough to do so then the colour is the least of your problems.
  • Create New...