Kingsman

If you're looking for SCC15, why not use one of the pre-mixed colour-matched SCC15s? I used the Hataka version on my Tortoise and I think it looks OK. The problem with most Tamiya and Gunze colours is that they are just generic colours not matched to anything in particular. I hate mixing colours because of the lack of repeatability: we are not as precise as we like to think we are, unless you use graduated syringes and mix in big batches. But as Troy said above while I was still typing (slowly!), no A13 would ever have been seen in SCC15. A13 production ceased about 4 years before SCC15 was introduced and none were still in service when it was introduced in time for D Day. As noted in the Mike Starmer quotes from Troy above, the BEF period and up to mid-'42 means Dark Green G4 over Khaki Green G3 - although plain KG3 is not impossible, KG3 is noticeably brownish, "khaki" being the clue word. Pre-war A13s were gloss Deep Bronze Green, and this may be the colour you're thinking of. All those that served in France with BEF were repainted, although some left behind in the UK might - and I stress might - have lingered longer in the old scheme. I recently did a Bedford OXA in Greens G3/G4. For that I settled on the Vallejo Model Air Khaki Green G3 after trying colour spots of several alleged G3s. To my eye it has just about the right brown tinge. For the G4, again after experimenting, I used Hataka's Dark Green G4. Came out like this.

In their new 2019 catalogue.

ICM have some new stuff for 2019 in 1/35. Can't see anything new in 1/72. Liberty B truck Series 2 Liberty B with US infantry (unknown if figures are new) FWD B truck Ford T Touring 1917 US WW1 drvers ANZAC WW1 drivers British WW1 tank crew French WW1 Zouaves German WW1 MG08 team (MG08 available separately) German WW2 MG08 team German WW2 Command Vehicle crew Leichte Traktor !! Pz Spw 204(f) with CDM turret SdKfz 251/6 Ausf A with command crew Renault AHN with German drivers Ford WOT 6 (we already know about, with wrong body) Ford WOT 8 Mercedes Type 320 with German staff figures Pkw Typ 1 re-release Pkw Typ 2 (re-release?) Opel Kadett K38 cabrio Moskvitch 401-420A car ZIL-131 KShM truck with drivers For those who like their larger figures there are 2 SEAL figures in 1/24, IDF dog handler, Delta Force, Roman Centurion and Met Police office with MP5 figures in 1/16.

With apologies to William, I'd like to re-awaken this previous recent topic - linked below and which has gone dormant now - as there was a fundamental error in the original post concerning the vehicle platform. The original topic says "Crusader", but the quoted Tech Report says Cruiser Mk IV - which is not the Crusader. The Crusader A15 was the Cruiser Tank Mk VI. The Cruiser Tank Mk IV was in fact the A13 Mk II !!. So we're looking at an experimental 25pdr SPG based on the 4-wheel A13 chassis, obsolete in 1941. No wonder there were concerns about its viability! The quoted Tech Report is dated 1944 so there is an assumption that the conversion was also 1944, which is not necessarily so. If the report was early 1944 the conversion could have been 1943, or perhaps it was merely a summary of prior activity up to that point. However desperate we may have been, and by 1943-44 the SPG supply situation was not exactly problematic with Priests and Sextons, it smacks of desperation to consider using an A13 chassis. Having said this, the 25pdr was preferred to the 105mm and the Sexton was only just becoming available. But if something along those lines was seriously being considered then we had 500 otherwise-useless Cavaliers - A24, Cruiser Mk VII - and several thousand non-combat-worthy Centaurs A27L Cruiser Mk VIII kicking around. Both had the 5-wheel chassis and the Cavalier had the uprated 410BHP Liberty (but even less reliable, hence why Centaur went back to the 340BHP version). Those chassis would have been far more viable SPG prospects than the A13 and the prototype Archer 25pdr conversion seems fully viable. There don't seem to be any photos of this conversion, regardless of its chassis.

On closer inspection, nothing listed as new for 2019 in 1/48. This is the listed range, below. But they appear to have pulled a rabbit from the hat in 1/35 by announcing something not in the catalogue within a couple of weeks of announcing the catalogue! On the other hand, the catalogue doesn't show other 1/35 things they said they would be doing. So I'm not sure just how trustworthy the catalogue is.

According to IDF Modelling, HobbyBoss are doing a Merkava 4M with the battering ram in 1/35. They show boxart. Definitely not in the HobbyBoss 2019 catalogue, though.

There are supposedly-matched Russian colour sets from MiG and AK Interactive. The colors are all available separately and easy to get hold of. For the 3-colour scheme you mention they suggest: A.MiG-055 Oil Ochre A.MiG-056 Green Khaki A.MiG-059 Grey AK 4144 Light Yellow Green AK 4146 Olive Green AK 4133 Pale Grey

UM seem to be continuing their quest to kit every possible M4 variant and M4-based vehicle. No bad thing. This kit makes it 10 early hull and 6 late hull gun tanks and no less than 24 other M4-based vehicles. Usefully, the drivers' hood area of the hull is a separate piece on their 47-degree welded hulls, allowing for different hood type inserts and thus allowing for different sub-variants. The standard M4A4 kit only comes with DV hoods AFAIK. The VC kit comes with both types and can be built OOB as a standard V, early or late - making it the best one to get (except that there's no loaders's hatch for the Firefly in their VC or IIC). This new kit seems to have only the non-DV type, but the shape isn't right for an M4A4: too square-edged and no little undercut at the base. Those look like the welded hoods unique to Fisher-built M4A2s (and UM's M4A2 kit includes DV, cast and welded hoods!). The M4A4's cast hoods were unique to that variant and different to all others. With hull applique fitted there should also be applique plates in front of the drivers's hoods, which are missing here but easily added and which would disguise some of the shape error. If the DV hoods are in the kit these can be used with applique too, but probably not with the M34A1 wide mantlet. I presume the resin parts are the rockets.

Nicely done. You never see a clean one in photos, but IDF isn't renowned for "bull". And they believe in making their vehicles work for a living! I mulled over both brands' kits but the reviews at the time suggested that the Tiger was "better", so I have their early and late versions still to build. I hope they turn out this well.

I was thinking Kummersdorf because that's the proving ground where the trials that proved its excellence would have been conducted and MAN because they designed it.

I absolve you, my brother......... Just face Kummersdorf and say 3 Hail MANs. looking at that lot I think you may have single-handedly solved the retail downturn........

Er, hang on a mo here guys.......... Re-reading the tech report it says Cruiser Mk IV. We've all missed the fact that the Cruiser Mk IV was in fact the A13 MkII !!. The Crusader (A15) was the Cruiser Mk VI. No wonder the report is worried about overload on that 4-roadwheel chassis. It was that element that made me look back, thinking that Crusader's weight can't have been so borderline that +1 ton would represent a problem overload. By 1944 the A13 was well obsolete. While I can understand the possible thinking behind a Crusader SPG in 1944 - bearing in mind its then-current use as an AA SP - using an A13 chassis surely falls into the category of "faintly ridiculous desperation". It would have been a better prospect on some of the 500 or so otherwise-useless A24 Cavaliers (Cruiser Mk VII), of which a few were used as RA OP tanks in NWE. Cavalier at least had the benefit of the 410 BHP version of the still-unreliable Liberty engine. While there were 4,000-odd A27L Centaurs (Cruiser MkVIII) kicking around that tank reverted to the little-less-unreliable 340 BHP engine version and needed a weight-reduced hull with weaker suspension as a result: so weight and recoil force might still have been a problem. The Archer conversion actually makes a lot more sense than anything on a Cruiser chassis as the relatively high speed of the Cruiser wasn't really necessary for an SPG and, as can be seen, was a relatively much more straightforward prospect. Assuming that it might have been intended more as an assault gun, an Infantry Tank chassis made more sense - although the jury is still out on whether the Valentine really was an infantry tank. And in that role the Cromwell Mk VI CS and Churchill Mk VIII CS seemed adequate. The 95mm howitzer was larger calibre, although it still fired a 25lb HE shell, and there was HEAT ammunition for it. I can't find any photos online of an A13 25pdr conversion and I don't ever remember seeing any anywhere in the past.

2 different vehicles. There are no known pictures of the original Crusader conversion. The Archer conversion photos are just for interest while we're talking about 25pdr conversions that went nowhere.

An odd choice, agreed. Likewise the relatively unknown M36B1. Who knows if part of the deal involved taking a less popular product. But for the uninitiated who might only shop for Airfix in a toy shop they're all tanks. This is product placement for a different market, not for serious entry into the 1/35 AFV arena.

Valentine of course inherited the same basic suspension from A10 and A9, with some wheel differences across the Marks and different tracks. The 25pdr SP is definitely a Valentine-based Archer.

The tractor must be the Thunder VAI. The rest are certainly all Academy: no-one else's product range matches. So Academy are in bed with both Italeri and Airfix. So this move might get 1/35 kits into the many places that stock Airfix and little or nothing else. Largely toy shops selling the wider Hornby product range. But it kinda misses the point completely. There is so much more that a little imagination and investment could do. Re-boxing other people's products is little more than a cash cow, assuming the mark-up is good, and it didn't work out too well last time around. But the product range is better this time: tanks sell. BTW, did anyone else see that Bronco are going into 1/32 armour with a T-34/85? How's that for some role reversal?

I know we're not talking about the Archer conversion here, but I found a couple of photos of it so here they are FYI. 25pdr Mk1 gun: no muzzle brake. Still not a simple conversion as the 17pdr on Archer was the tank version with inboard recoil system rather than the field version with under-barrel recuperator. But the structure would certainly be capable of absorbing the lesser recoil forces. An easier kit conversion prospect. Didn't find any interior pics. I don't think this one is genuine colour. I think it just has a sepia tint. Same vehicle, same place - so probably taken at the same time.

Ah. The document just displayed as a link when I first looked. Obviously not a Gun Tractor conversion, then. It all sounds very Heath Robinson and the report itself is very scathing about the practicality and reliability of the conversion. I'm not sure it even qualiifies as a prototype, but having said that the first workshop lash-up 17pdr on a Sherman at Lulworth became the Firefly once Chertsey and Vickers became involved. Even from that brief description I think we can deduce what it did look like, at least in principle. Enough to have a go at making it: without pictures or drawings it can't be held to be wrong as long as it makes mechanical sense. Your Crusader kit would need the turret ring opened out to the correct diameter as a starting point. And you obviously need a MkII 25 pdr. I believe that Dragon's is OOP. Bronco? If the shield is square then the framework must have supported a square floor. But we don't know if it was open over the turret ring. I suspect not as that might have impeded serving the gun and there would be no room for anyone to work below e.g. passing ammunition. And ejected charge cases would fall through. We also don't know what its height was relative to the gun trail, but as the 25 pdr was normally served from standing on the ground it must be below the trail, This means that the precise detail of the framework will be hidden under the solid "turret" floor and need not be a huge concern for correctness as it will not be seen. However, there will need to be brackets of some sort to secure the trail to the framework, and we have no idea what these were like nor anything to copy from. I wonder if a Crusader AA Mk1 with the Bofors mounting might be a better starting point than a gun tank? The turret base might be a useful staring point, and you get a spare Bofors gun, sans mounting. Indeed, might the "designers" have looked to the AA Mk1 turret for inspiration? It was around in 1944. We know the height of the shield, but not the side length. We know it was square in plan view, and can reasonably assume it didn't overhang the tank's sides as a max width - and therefore length. We might assume that the corners did not extend beyond the tank width at 45 degrees traverse, but that's a stretch and I suspect would make the working compartment too small for the immediate gun crew of 3-4. As a size guide, the Bishop's rectangular turret was only long enough for 4 men to work with the rear doors open for the loaders, who sat on the door lip. There would be a sighting slot to the left of the gun. With no on-vehicle ammunition stowage we might assume a drop-down flap in the rear plate to facilitate passing ammunition from the engine deck for trials - but there is no evidence, it's just logical. Bishop stowed ammunition on the turret walls, but it is unlikely that this would be done for this "prototype". We know that "removed wheels" are mentioned but not the axles. These bolted on underneath the trail, which made them easily removed to leave a flat underside. So they may have been removed. But the Bishop installation compromised elevation so it would have been necessary to keep the trail in roughly the same attitude as on its wheels, sloping down to the rear at about 15 degrees with the spade dug in. Tipping it level will take out that much elevation: not good. Keeping the axles and perhaps fitting them into some sort of bracket or stirrup would help keep the right attitude. That's what was done with the SIG33 on the Sturmpanzer 1 Bison. We know that the trail was cut down, but exactly where is a function of the turret length. It is also a function of keeping the trail reasonably at the same angle as when on its wheels. I think it is fair to assume that it would have been kept as long as possible to distribute the recoil forces mentioned in the document. No sand shelds to save weight. Probably slightly nose-down supension attitude compared to normal. Hull colour most likely Khaki Green 3 or KG3 and Green 5. Possibly SCC2 but production ceased at about the time of the change so this is very unlikely. Conceivably the conversion was repainted in SCC15.

I think that Tristar were very under-rated and it was a shrewd move by HobbyBoss to acquire the moulds. Excellent kits and much better VFM in this case than either Dragon or Tamiya offerings. Brummbar really looks the part with Zimmerit. Afrer all, it is a bear and it needs its furry-looking coat! Despite stick-on vinyl, decal and etched brass varieties I think that resin Zim is the only way to go for effect and the ability to modify and damage. A very, very nice outcome.

One might suppose that it used the Gun Tractor superstructure as a starting point. As discussed on this site in the past, Argentina converted some Crusader gun tractors post-war into 105mm SPG like this. It could perhaps be speculated that they got the idea from the alleged 25pdr experiment/prototype, if it existed. Maybe they got it and cloned it? There are pics and drawings around of a 5.5" SPH on the Crusader, but nothing on a 25-pdr as you say. There was a 25-pdr Archer prototype too. Everyone seemed to be looking at ways of making 25pdr SPs: Australia converted a small number of M3 Lee or Grant post-war into substitute Sexton, called the Yeramba.

Yes, MiniArt seem to be taking control of the figure set market. The 9 announced plus the 8 un-named makes 17 WW2 sets this year if they get through them all. 24 in all, assuming that the WW1 items are not figures, plus a bunch of re-releases. I'm happy that the British NWE tank riders are back. The last set I saw on eBay was £40+! Their take on accessory sets is fairly unique and useful too. Much imaginative stuff that no-one else is doing, although fuel cans are hardly innovative. This year's vehicles, other than the M3s, are all essentially exploiting existing moulds: nothing completely new, although we don't know what the WW1 items will be.

With the amount of dredging of the Pompey entrance and channel they could have straightened out the Hamoaze! And QE is allegedly far more manouverable. But I must admit to being surprised that she hasn't got azipods as main propulsion like most modern large liners. Berthing would be far easier, azipod tugs notwithstanding. IIRC, not everything from Sultan is going to Collingwood. There's a lot of functional centralisation of "centres of excellence" going on under the Defence Estate Optimisation Programme, including cross-service. Sadly, I suspect that Bristol is perhaps coming to the end of her days. Perhaps one of the T23s would be a more appropriate instructional piece now. I remain surprised that she kept her pennant number. I recall that when Ajax went to Raleigh years ago she became just a Seamanship Training Barge. I was doing ship commercial disposals in those days, including selling Tiger.

MiniArt have a large 2019 programme in 1/35, but nothing that I would call significant and most of the vehicles are re-works of existing products. Not forgetting that they haven't yet delivered their full 2018 catalogue, with none of the promised M3s being released. Those are now shown as 2019 new items. But in addition to the firm announcements there are 20 other new teaser items simply marked as "New Item" with no further information, including 4 items in a tantalising new WW1 series, 8 WW2 figure sets, 3 more "what ifs" and 5 aircraft. Perhaps surprisingly, no further developments of their T-series: they have in the past indicated the likelihood of a Tiran 5 and there are many other possibilities. 3 railway wagons GAZ AA with BM-8-24 MRL T-60 ARV T-60 TACAM 2 more Opel fire trucks (different trailer pumps?) Civilian Cat bulldozer version 9 assorted M3 variants including 4 Grants (2018 hold-overs) SU-122-54 late (2018 hold-over) BMR-1 + KMT-9 (Ukraine) BMR-1 late + KMT-7 KMTs 5M, 7 and 9 separately US fuel cans German fuel cans German fuel drums Assorted WW2 fuel cans including British 5-ton gantry crane Field Workshop eqpt Construction eqpt 9 WW2 figure sets 4 modern figure sets: Russian, Arab, IDF and UK tank crews 3 civilian figure sets Several older figure sets re-released as "special editions" MiniArt 2019 catalogue here. https://miniart-models.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/MiniArt_2019.pdf?utm_source=Main+MiniArt's+Subscribers&utm_campaign=1f25a1d8e6-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_01_05_09_52&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_da2fe6ed5a-1f25a1d8e6-78715489

Do you want the gun to move? If not I'm sure there must be a way of bodging it to get the mantlet in the correct position on the mounting and fixing it in place. As noted above, plastic or metal rod, even a thin bolt, would seem the obvious answers especially if you still have access from inside. More difficult but not impossible if the hull halves are assembled. Without knowing or seeing the parts, could you drill out the gun assembly too using rod or wire of the same diameter as the hole you mistakenly drilled and, using the appropriate adhesive, simply insert the gun to the correct position? OK it won't elevate, but does that really matter?

No, you're not seeing things! In a throwback to the 1970's Bronco have just announced a T-34/85 in 1/32 scale. Yes, 1/32!! MB32001. A strange move, to be sure. Although it has photo-etch for the main grille, it is rumoured to be a simplified kit at the entry level possibly targeted at those who play or wargame with the very many 1/32 plastic soldiers on the market. No sprue shots yet, only CAD imagery. It looks passably well detailed. http://www.themodellingnews.com/2019/01/broncos-new-t-34-85-but-in-what-scale.html#more