Kingsman

Also not made by or for the Home Guard but passed-on to them later by the Army, the Bedford OXA. Here in 1/35 from MMK's nasty resin kit. I have a recurring hankering to do an Armadillo - again not HG and not used by them but definitely improvised - from the ICM Ford 917. There is a barrel-nose Ford 2nd in line just peeking out behind the Bedford WTL in front. Then another M series Bedford and a Fordson 7V. This photo at RAF Wyton IIRC. Heres a back view of an Armadillo on what looks like another Fordson 7V - heavily overloaded. But here is something HG. Essentially an HG copy of an Armadillo. Although I kept the image I did not keep a note or where or when. Bumper design says M or O series Bedford chassis.

Open, 2-3, out 2-3, bang 2-3, bang 2-3, bang 2-3..........

Yes that photo is a well-known oddball. Proving never say never. Well spotted that it is HVSS but still with a large loader's hatch and still without a muzzle brake. Too early for the armoured exhaust deflector.

Yes the little piece on top of the engine deck is a hook for holding it open.

Doing more digging I found this undated image purported to be a Condor Legion 4cm FlaK 28 in Spain. It is certainly an ex-Austrian Bohler-built Bofors being towed by a Mercedes LG3000 truck. The wheels are distinctive for an Austrian gun. Germany inherited some after the Anschluss in March 38 but didn't really want them so they were mostly sold off. The Heer was never interested, preferring to stick with 3.7cm, but once manufacture facilities were captured elsewhere the 4cm was adopted by Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine. But there is nothing to say it is Spain. Every other picture I found so far of Condor Legion FlaK is 2cm FlaK 30 towed by Krupp Protze or 8.8cm. If inherited Austrian guns were sent to Spain then it would probably be late 1938. There is a whole book on the subject (below). The SCW is just on the cusp of the realisation that 20-25mm AAA is no longer adequate, as the US report linked above says. I still can't help wondering if this is another case of circular sourcing. References referring only to each other with no original period source material. The US report us closest but is still second or third hand. Remember that for 75 years everyone believed the Petard Mortar was 290mm when it was actually 230mm. Because of a typo, circular referencing, and no-one actually checking........ -

Yes that is interesting. But if they were as common and effective in SCW as that memo suggests, then why is it so difficult to find any hard evidence?? I am tempted to say that people are perhaps trying to fit evidence to the theorem. Nothing unearthed so far has proved conclusive.

Thanks @Pig of the Week. Your eyes are better than mine. I can see it now. No, Autocar did not have any European subsidiary operations. Ford and GM both had plants in Spain which were expropriated by the Nationalists. Having identified the truck brand I can confidently say that those 3 photos with the truck are definitely not SCW as the truck is a post-WW2 model. That style of Autocar radiator grille only appeared in 1947. The previous style had fewer thicker vertical bars, but even that was only introduced in 1940 briefly before production of civilian-specification Autocars was suspended in 1941. Does anyone recognise the architecture? I have a suspicion those photos could be Argentina or Chile. Both used Bofors and many civilian-type trucks of US origin, although I can't find Autocars definitively. The Germanic uniforms could certainly be Argentine. I'm convinced the guys in the photo with the French writing are French from early WW2. To suggest that Spanish troops of either side had souvenirs from a French AA unit is to suggest that France played some role in at least training them, which is contrary to what we know. Unless it belonged to a French soldier who left or deserted from 401 RADCA to join one side or other in the SCW, which does not prove that he operated Bofors in Spain - only that he came from a unit equipped with them in France. The photos from @old knobbly came from this book BTW. Bofors 40mm prominent on the cover with Bofors 37mm AT peeking in on the right.

Actually the German radio antennas of the early war era on the fold-down rotating base were "big like a pole", at least at the base! Although moulded plastic ones are usually overscale. they had a noticeable taper from base to tip. The RB Models or Master Models turned brass ones are nice.

I think you've dealt with the "blue problem" very well without a repaint. The actual colour had the appearance of a pale green not unlike the RAF's Sky Type S. The genesis of the confusion with Sky Blue or Azure Blue was explained recently in another thread on this forum. Speaking as one who hasn't finished anything in the last year or so and who has half a dozen AFVs and several Warhammer models stalled, I get the desire to have something finished. Hopefully something will turn out this well. I am surprised that Tamiya moulded the otherwise very nice figures without headsets. If they are meant to be "relaxed" then the driver would probably be head out too. If moving, the commander needs intercom with the driver. In either case the loader/op should be listening on net. You could add the loader's headset laid on the turret top in front of his hatch and the commander's similarly or in his lap. Or hooked over their open hatch flaps. If it's not too late, add the auxiliary fuel tank feed pipe. Tamiya mould a bit of it on from the filler cap, but it should go down in front of the tank and attach to a fitting under the rear hull overhang. I haven't been able to find a photo showing this.

Here are the photos @old knobbly mentioned. The first 3 look to be the same vehicle, which seems to be carrying the gun portee for the parade. It probably couldn't be fired like that. So definitely at least 1 Bofors. The insignia on the cab door suggests an AA unit. The red French writing on the lower right photo possibly says "Souvenir of/from the 401st Defence Contre Avion (i.e. anti-aircraft)". There was a French Army 401st Regiment d'Artillerie Defence Contre Avions from January 1924, renamed from the 1st RDCA. Interestingly they are noted as having Bofors guns in 1940 as well as 25mm Hotchkiss and 75mm mle 32/33 AA guns. France was not of course involbed in the SCW. Could that photo be an interloper from France and not SCW? Does anyone recognise the truck brand? At the risk of continuing to be a naysayer, I'm not entirely convinced this is SCW: I think it might be later after the civil war when the Spanish Army had adopted German-style uniforms. Also the guy in uniform on the left of the picture appears to be wearing the curious and distinctive Guardia Civil cap, Although they split onto both sides in the SCW with the Republican cadre re-naming themselves Guardia Nacional Republicana (Republican National Guard).

For most plastic construction I have for years used Tamiya Extra Thin. Ocasionally for stronger joins I use standard Tamiya liquid cement (white cap). Sometimes the Quick Setting Extra Thin. Very rarely do I use anything that comes in a tube or with a nozzle. I keep a bottle of Plastic Weld handy as it is useful for the odd bit of non-styrene plastic you might come across. Plastic Magic does things like ABS too. For transparencies you can get clear PVA in most hobby shops like Hobbycraft. Does all the same things as white PVA but is clear from the bottle. Microscale's Kristal Klear is the old standard. Any PVA should be fine with acrylic paints as most are today. Thin liquid poly can be used, carefully, with a fine brush by capillary action. For resin and metal parts etc then cyanoacrylate remains the preferred adhesive. I tend just to use stuff from DIY and hobby shops. None of it sets very quickly these days so an accelerator is useful or you'll be sat holding parts in place for ages. Brush-on type probably more useful than spray, especialy for small bonds. Ammo MiG Ultra Glue is supposed to be for dissimilar materials, but to me it just seems like PVA, is quite thick and doesn't seem to bond very strongly.

@old knobbly Those would be good to see to close this discussion off conclusively. To do that you would need an image hosting service like Imgur, which is (still) free. I use that one but there are others like Hobby Photo Host. Basically you create your free account then just drag and drop images from your own PC or cloud storage into your hosted image library. From there you can select various forms of link to embed the images into web pages like this one. I could do that for you but you would need to email them to me, and they would then be in my image library. Although that doesn't stop you creating your own and uploading them yourself later. At least that would get them into the debate.

What interests me here is that the Bofors story exactly parallels the Vickers HV story. Exactly, except for the source. Which to my mind is hinky. And many observers would never have heard of the Vickers and many researchers might have been confused. The Vickers looks more than a little like the naval water-cooled Bofors, which came along a lot later. Also, the Bofors 40/60 was an inherently mobile weapon and the SCW was the first war where air power was a significant factor. Why would such weapons be squandered for coastal defence? They would be far better employed defending land forces, forward HQs etc. The Nationalists' German advisers would have understood this even if the Italians didn't. The Vickers guns were on hefty shipboard mountings really only suitable for permanent emplacement. The Republicans seem to have found some way of using them but their inherent immobility may have contributed to their capture. Although it is not impossible that we could be talking about both Vickers and Bofors and that they have become conflated as one and the same. It is also not impossible that we could be seeing circular sourcing: this image is already appearing in Google searches. The only other source I have found for Polish Bofors - admittedly not with the most thorough research ever - is NavWeaps. But their information is confused as it says that Polish export Bofors were embargoed in Sweden in the run-up to WW2. Which makes no sense as there is no reason for Polish-made Bofors to be in Sweden. The Russian-hosted site on Polish AA weapons does not mention Spain, only the UK and the Netherlands, as Polish export customers. https://en.topwar.ru/196021-polskie-sredstva-pvo-vo-vtoroj-mirovoj-vojne.html. There is a Polish-language book on the Polish Bofors which might shed more light. Now, the other confusing factor here is the Bofors 37mm anti-tank gun, licence-built in Poland as the Wz.36 (same year designation as the 40mm AA) and sold for export by Poland. A quantity of these were definitely acquired by Republican forces although the source seems unclear. This widely used and initially effective anti-tank gun is generally overlooked. The SCW was its first combat use. As a Bofors design it may be that these anti-tank weapons are being confused by name with the anti-aircraft weapon. But are not something suited to coastal defence. This very niche book confirms the dismounted naval 40mm Vickers but the site on which I found this extract did not show pages for land service weapons. However the photo could be the single piece of evidence that proves Bofors AA guns in Spain. Although the fact that the seller seems to deal exclusively in Italian memorabilia is a confusing factor.

And that's just 1!! Imagine a whole Squadron or even a whole Regiment thundering down the road towards you. At Villers-Bocage Herr Wittman had 3 Regiments of Cromwells heading up the road towards him. Cromwells sounded pretty much the same. And I was surprised at Tankfest this year to hear that the Liberty engine in the newly-restored Centaur also sounded much the same. Another V12 petrol of about the same cc. I was at the Museum one day when this Comet was being test-run over at the workshops and you could clearly hear it even at idle from the main Museum 400m or more away.

That exact photo is currently for sale on eBay titled as Italian Army Bofors guns in Spain in 1936. Although 1937 is pencilled on the back of the photo. The seller seems to be a seller of primarily Italian military photos. https://www.ebay.it/itm/256281739509?mkevt=1&mkcid=1&mkrid=724-53478-19255-0&campid=5338722076&customid=&toolid=10050 Here it is to aid the discussion. It certainly looks like a photo of that era. The white section is not explained. It sure looks like a cut-out section from the front because of the shadow at the top but does not appear in the image of the back of the photo. But the bottom edge profiles of the 2 images do match up so they are the same picture. So is it a piece stuck on, and if so what is it covering - and why? The Italians had a considerable - if often ineffective - presence in the Nationalist forces. About 45,000 regular Italian soldiers and 30,000 Blackshirt militia volunteers would serve in Spain. Italy would supply Spain with about 1,800 artillery pieces in addition to those they fielded themselves. It seems that Italian ground forces did not deploy to mainland Spain until January 1937 and that their involvement in 1936 might have been limited to the Balearic Islands. The photo is clearly a coastal location and it appears that live fire against an airborne target is going on. The uniforms could be Italian artillery or Nationalist: units of both wore jodhpurs with puttees or long socks and sidecaps. But they could be several other nations too. Greece did not get any of the Bofors they ordered. They could be Poles, Dutch, Romanians or even Finns. The uniform detail is not clear enough. But Italy's medium-calibre AA gun of the period was the 37mm Breda 37/54. And the only identified Italian use of the Bofors gun was the US-made M1 version supplied to Italian Co-Belligerent forces working alongside Allied forces after Italy's surrender. One Co-Belligerent AA unit was equipped with British-made Bofors but 5 Aviation Groups (51st - 55th) supported the USAAF with ground defence and AAA. The Bofors in the picture are not US-made as they have the predictor sights. The very earliest British guns did still have the predictor sights but it is unlikely that any of these would still have been around in 1944. The US NavWeaps site claims that Poland supplied 24 guns and 50,000 rds of ammunition to the Republicans in 1938 which were "eventually" captured by the Nationalists and ended up as coastal defence guns. Which sounds very much like the Vickers guns mentioned in my earlier post. But if true that is the wrong side and wrong date for the Italian photo. I'm not sure that I can see Poland supporting the Republicans anyway. Pre-war Poland was no friend of Communist causes. And Poland was busily re-equipping its own armed forces, although they apparently actually exported 168 guns to the United Kingdom, France, Romania and The Netherlands. None of which seem likely to have ended up in Spain or Italy. And the early Polish built Wz36 guns had wheels with fewer larger holes, although the type shown here was used later on the Wz38 - potentially too late for the picture date. A Russian-hosted site on Polish AA weapons doesn't mention Spanish exports of the Bofors. So I don't think we're much further forward despite what the photo says. Supply of Bofors to Spain remains unclear and use by Italy in the timeframe as the photo claims seems to be a definite no. And if Italy was supplying the Nationalists with artillery why would Italian forces be using Nationalist weapons supplied by others?

At least you got a later moulding with the right number of bolts on the wheels!

I think too much reliance is placed on the idea of LRDG doing their own thing with colours. Rogues and all that, stealing RAF paints and so on. All of their vehicles would have been supplied in Light Stone, either factory finish or depot repaint. I believe the Chevy 1533s (the Tamiya kit) were factory-finished in Light Stone in Canada specifically for the Middle East. The CMPs they used before that probably were too. Not sure about the earlier Chevy WBs and Ford 01s: probably depot repaints from Khaki Green. You see all sorts modelled including pink and blue, the latter presumably a hang-over from the days when people thought that the Caunter scheme used a blue. There is even a preserved one in sand and blue, although in some images it looks more grey. Chevrolet WBs seem to have been mostly disruptively painted in broad bands, and I would bet they were the local theatre brown paint over Light Stone. The relatively low contrast in images suggests this. Disruptive painting on CMPs and Chevy 1533s is seemingly less common but looks to be very similar contrast. So I would say that brown was probably used on these too. Slate BS34 is a possibility: it was used on some AFVs. But the contrast doesn't look high enough to me for this: it appeared as a dark green. Silver Grey BS28, the colour so often substituted for a blue? This appeared as a pale green and the contrast is about right, so could be. The same can be said for Desert Pink, which would also show relatively low contrast with Light Stone. I'm not convinced about the idea of LRDG vehicles in overall Desert Pink as they mostly look too pale in images, especially the Chevy 1533s. It is the CMPs you generally see modelled or drawn/painted in this colour, and they were too early for the Oct '42 instruction to use it. Disruptive painting in the desert is less useful than you might think. Moving vehicles will throw up dust, rendering it useless. Shadow and tyre tracks are a much greater give-away than colour for static vehicles - assuming they're not in a stand-out colour. So, what seems plausible from the contrast in black and white imagery? IMO, these: Theatre brown over Light Stone (maybe the brown was the old Dark Sand?). This is a racing certainty. Silver Grey over Light Stone Desert Pink over Light Stone Plain Light Stone. Also a racing certainty.

You do see the Airfix ex-JB kits 2nd hand from time to time. There was a Stalwart from a brand I can't remember but Ace do one too, along with Saracen, Saladin and Salamander. Have you thought about Oxford Diecast? They look as if they could be detailed up. They do Bedford RLs, but strangely not MKs. There is a TK with a genset body and various CA minibuses. Also Sherpa van/bus, many Land Rovers, Minis, Morris J2,

See also the thread in the WW2 discussion area about tow cables. I've just posted a piece in there about why rusty tow cables on models are wrong.

I presume you mean the antenna on the MkI and early MkII for the No11 Wireless? The one mounted on the fold-back bracket on the rear face of the turret? The antennas for the far more common No19 set installation were both on the turret roof with no visible cabling. Presuming that is what you mean, I would hazard a guess that it went through the same hole later used for the No19 A set's No8 antenna base at the right rear of the turret. That would put it pretty much above the radio. There would have been a bolted cover over the hole. The No19 B set antenna re-used the mounting hole for the signal lamp also seen in this photo. This image seems to confirm that. I believe the cable entry cover was a standard part that looked like this. The fold-back antenna base had a thin wire cable from the back edge going into the lower rear of the turret so that the crew could pull the antenna down. I believe this shows where the cable entered the turret. The square plate is the old antenna base. The cable ran down into the round device through then slot. There is a small pulley wheel inside. The small eye is, IIRC, for hooking back the antenna base once pulled down. This is the antenna bracket itself, here on an A10. The pull-down wire attaches to the rear arm.

Also, don't overlook bicycle cables. Especially the thinner gear change type rather than the heavier brake type. Although the thinnest I've seen is 1mm, which is fine for some of the heavier tow cables in 1/35. Bike cables can work well in larger scales like 1/16 as they can be as large as 2mm. A problem with some picture hanging wire is that it is not always wound tightly enough to represent steel wire rope (SWR) in scale, which has a very tight spiral and is usually wound around a central core, often of hemp rope. You can sometimes tighten this up a little using a vice and a pin vice without the need for winding pliers. Something else to bring up, crossing over with the rust topic currently running on this forum, is rust. Or more precisely the lack of it on SWR cables. It's something else that some people like to slather rust all over on models, which is wrong. A rusty cable will not work properly and would in peacetime conditions be condemned. Everyone's SWR cables and cable fittings like thimbles (eyes) and crimp ferrules were galvanised in WW2 to prevent corrosion. They were also required to be kept clean and lubricated. Old Man Shitancrap is the sworn enemy of keeping SWR in good order. Lubrication is necessary to allow the individual strands to move against each other as the cable flexes. Without it, and if covered in grit, mud, etc, the cable will become stiff and rigid and will not flex properly. Ideally cable will be kept off the ground except on firm hard solid surfaces. Not so easy recovering a bogged-in tank in a muddy morass in the rain in the dark........ At some point cables used thus should be laid out in the dry, well brushed off and re-lubricated with grease or oil. If this isn't done then grit and dust can work its way right inside the cable and begin to abrade the hemp core, as well as being impossible to remove and making the cable stiff. There are 2 types of ends for tow cables, and they behave differently. One way, perhaps more traditional, is to form a loop in the cable around a pre-formed pressed metal thimble to make an eye. The running (loose) end is then secured to the cable using a crimp ferrule or sometimes U bolt clamps on improvised or repaired cables. German tow cables were mostly made this way. The other way is to use a cast end piece which is both eye and ferrule. This is heated before the cable is inserted and as it cools it shrinks to grip the cable. Russian and US tow cables were usually made this way. The UK used both methods. The wearing surfaces of the thimbles/eyes would rapidly lose their galvanising from friction with shackles etc and would rust, likely to be worn off the next time used. These areas would also be lightly lubricated to retard corrosion. The chunky solid cast eyes would be a hardened high-quality steel alloy which would oxidise and corrode only very slowly.

Note to self. Private equity companies are only interested in milking profit. As apparently was senor Vallejo, who seemingly pocketed a tidy bob or two. IMO it would be better for control of such companies - or indeed any company - to remain with people invested in the subject - not just invested. Hobby horse stabled.........

Vehicles recovered from lakes and especially bogs in Eastern Europe are often in comparatively good condition compared to those of similar vintage above ground on ranges because of reduced oxygen content. Peaty bogs can be almost completely anaerobic.

Yes crumpled track cover centre sections could indeed obstruct the turret and were often removed. But the whole length was often removed as the clearance over the tracks was limited and they could easily acculmulate mud and debris. There was a scraper at the lower rear for the inside face and the reinforcing bar across the bottom of the rear overhangs acted as an outer face scraper. The front and rear overhangs were also easily damaged or pulled off in close terrain and could get in the way of obstacle climbing - bocage hedges for example - and so were often removed. In which case the rear scraper bar was lost, compounding the accumulation of mud and debris under the covers. The front and rear ends of the covers, where the flat dimpled/riveted plates are, were thicker applique reinforcing plates to protect the covers from being stoved-in by gun muzzle blast.

Annoyingly, images of it in use are usually obstructed by the breech. In this view it seems that the bar across the trail legs hinges on the left (as seen here). In the previous view there doesn't seen to be an operating catch of any sort on the bar, and the tab on the cradle is just a simple T piece. So I would take a swag that the bar hinged forward, the cradle was elevated to the correct angle and the bar swung back into place to retain the cradle tab.