RMASG Centaur.

[Redcoat2966]

Looking great John....I see a couple of things I missed off mine like the handles on the rear engine deck.....and I see you fitted the light on the turret. It's in a different location than shown in the Tamiya instructions.....is this the case for centaurs. I think I'll also take your lead on the stowage.......the can holder at the rear right looks great......must find some Allied fuel cans. Were the British still using those crappy tins in '44?......as I think I have some American one's I could use.

 

Love it all so far....

 

Simon.

[Bullbasket]

2 hours ago, Badder said:

Hi John,

Fantastic build. She's gonna look wondeful with some paint on, I'm sure.

 

Rearguards,

Badder

'Afternoon Badder,

Primer coat is on. It's taking a while because I'm having to mask off the lower hull and tracks as they've already been painted. Getting there though.

 

John.

[Bullbasket]

11 minutes ago, Redcoat2966 said:

Looking great John....I see a couple of things I missed off mine like the handles on the rear engine deck.....and I see you fitted the light on the turret. It's in a different location than shown in the Tamiya instructions.....is this the case for centaurs. I think I'll also take your lead on the stowage.......the can holder at the rear right looks great......must find some Allied fuel cans. Were the British still using those crappy tins in '44?......as I think I have some American one's I could use.

 

Love it all so far....

 

Simon.

Thanks Simon,

I only changed the handles on the armoured intake cover and the main engine deck hatch as all the rest were, I believe, the kind that when not in use, dropped down into a recess, so the moulded on ones of the kit suffice (those that are not covered by stowage).

With regards to the searchlight. I'm sure that it's included in the kit, but could find no mention of it in the instructions. Looking at several photos and some profiles, Centaurs did carry it, but further back than on Cromwells. The reason why could have been because of the inclusion of an additional No.19 aerial base just where the light used to be.

I think that by and large, the use of the old square POW cans ceased when jerrycans became available, but there again, never say never. The ones that I used came from a set by Italeri. It contains British, US and German cans.

 

John.

[Redcoat2966]

Hi John, decided to go with it as it is ...., couldn't wait, needed to get the airbrush going....😁...I might add the light later.... and I'll probably go with the can's I have....I think they are American, so they'll do. I'll have to start pulling together some stowage as I think it needs it.

 

Simon

 

 

[Kingsman]

I had a look at the idler mounting arrangement on the Bovington Crusader, as the Cavalier and original Centaur arrangements were supposed to be similar if not the same.  The idler axle is mounted into a casting which in turn has an axle into the hull, on the end of which would be the worm tensioning drive.  So the casting swivels as tension is applied.  It's in a dark narrow gap and I only had my phone camera, so I couldn't get any clear pictures.

 

But it shows that leaving off the "hockey stick" tensioner and mounting the idler directly on the resulting stub axle, as Tamiya's instructions state, isn't correct for a Centaur with the worm-drive tensioner.  That area is more visible on the Centaur, especially with trackguards cut back.

[Kingsman]

I couldn't get a decent picture of the Crusader idler mounting arrangement even with my Nikon and flash gun.  Just too dark and narrow.  However, of course, Covenanter had the same arrangement.  I could see enough of the Crusader part to see that they are the same.  And it's a lot more visible on the Covenanter.

 

So here is what the idler mounting on a Centaur should look like. I believe.  As I said above, sticking on the kit peg isn't the right answer.

[Kingsman]

I thought you might like this photo of a Centaur IV for sale on eBay (for £150, if you will!), apparently featured in a modelling magazine.  We sometimes talk about over-weathering.  These vehicles were ashore for only a fortnight or so and only got about 10 miles inland, probably travelling less than 30 miles in the process as most went into static positions.  There is no way that one would have got into this sort of state of paint loss and rust runs in that sort of time or mileage.  This is years of wear, and IMHO entirely and completely unrealistic.

 

[Redcoat2966]

I agree DA

 

A little over the top........at most the scratch’s would be predominantly around access hatch’s gained in training and simple dust from the dry road conditions.

 

Simon

[Redcoat2966]

Looks like the ware and tear on a Panzer IV after a year in southern Russia😬

[Bullbasket]

Yes, I have to agree with you. Totally OTT. But I have to admire his sense of humour......£150???

 

John.

[Kingsman]

Giving the modeler the benefit of the doubt, he/she may not have done their research and realised just how short-lived this unit was.  But I think you'd be unlikely to see any British vehicle in NWE looking like that, even given the maritime environment of their first couple of days.  Many other AFVs were in open LCT well decks and they didn't all look like this after a fortnight.  Salt water spray isn't that corrosive.  And we keep returning to the fact that armour plate alloys contain corrosion-inhibiting elements, especially so in the face-hardened type of plate used on all British tanks until Centurion because of the high surface carbon content.  While the bins etc here would have rusted as they were mild plate, wear would have been bright for the same reason.

 

You might also like to think that the editor of a - presumably reputable - modelling magazine might look at something like this and say "no".  How is inaccurate weathering any different to inaccurate detail or colour scheme?  But as was said recently on another forum, why let reality get in the way of an artistic finish?

 

Hobby horse stabled............. And I'll be keeping my £150!

[Soeren]

Even the Stug III that was digged out the samp a few years back didn't look that bad.

[Andrew Jones]

I also agree that this amount of rust and wear is way over the top. Go and have a look at earthmoving equipment in a quarry or construction site , you will see bright metal tracks without rust , rubbed edges but little rust . The amount of rust seen on some models will only be seen in reality after many years of disuse, vehicles in regular use show remarkably little rust by comparison , dust , mud , chips and scuffs yes , but little rust .

A tank in action will probably only have a life expectation counted in days or weeks , so to depict it as a rusted wreck is at best artistic licence.

[Redcoat2966]

3 hours ago, Das Abteilung said:

Giving the modeler the benefit of the doubt, he/she may not have done their research and realised just how short-lived this unit was.  But I think you'd be unlikely to see any British vehicle in NWE looking like that, even given the maritime environment of their first couple of days.  Many other AFVs were in open LCT well decks and they didn't all look like this after a fortnight.  Salt water spray isn't that corrosive.  And we keep returning to the fact that armour plate alloys contain corrosion-inhibiting elements, especially so in the face-hardened type of plate used on all British tanks until Centurion because of the high surface carbon content.  While the bins etc here would have rusted as they were mild plate, wear would have been bright for the same reason.

 

You might also like to think that the editor of a - presumably reputable - modelling magazine might look at something like this and say "no".  How is inaccurate weathering any different to inaccurate detail or colour scheme?  But as was said recently on another forum, why let reality get in the way of an artistic finish?

 

Hobby horse stabled............. And I'll be keeping my £150!

I agree DA

 

My Centaur I think will be a tough one with this in mind. A fine line between not enough and too much. I always see Allied AFV’s having this problem as they weren’t around long enough to get that worn to worn out look that Axis armour had due to their need to keep everything operational longer due to lack of replacements. 

 

Still....nice weathering as a model, just as you say the wrong subject for it.

 

3 hours ago, Soeren said:

Even the Stug III that was digged out the samp a few years back didn't look that bad.

Yes Soeren, interesting to see these AFV’s dug up after so many years. The best is when they found that T-34 in a Baltic swamp and primed the Diesel engine and started.......after nearly 70 years 😳and as you say, body not in bad condition also

 

Simon

[Kingsman]

3 minutes ago, Redcoat2966 said:

My Centaur I think will be a tough one with this in mind. A fine line between not enough and too much. I always see Allied AFV’s having this problem as they weren’t around long enough to get that worn to worn out look that Axis armour had due to their need to keep everything operational longer due to lack of replacements. 

This is a difficult one. Yes they were on exercise in the UK before loading for D Day, but there would have been a maintenance period in between.  The tanks came from depot stock, so probably still in factory paint.  If repainted in SCC15 (let's not re-open that can of worms!), also fresh paint.  Looking at the unit actions, most vehicles went into static firing positions ashore and stayed there, or just moved to another static position.  A very few were used in direct support of ground troops.  As a whole, the unit was under-utilised for various reasons when they could have been much more effectively deployed.  But they were in the fire plan as SP artillery, not armour.  The unit was wound up on D+14, having got less than the same number of miles inland.  So much for Caen on D+1.............  I would be surprised if any of their vehicles, even those supporting ground troops, covered more than about 30 miles: 50 at most.  So how tatty would they have become?  Hunter is about the only one pictured in actual action inland, and I'm surmising it was one of those deployed in direct support work.  But of course in b/w there is so much you can't tell.

 

From a diorama perspective, one parked up as static artillery with a crew shelter rigged on the side and ammo crates on the rear deck with the front gunner passing rounds would work.  Given the availability of boxed ammo (and some apparently towed Porpoises with extra ammo) it is likely they would have used this first and kept the vehicle racks full in case of the need to bug out in a hurry.

[Redcoat2966]

7 minutes ago, Andrew Jones said:

I also agree that this amount of rust and wear is way over the top. Go and have a look at earthmoving equipment in a quarry or construction site , you will see bright metal tracks without rust , rubbed edges but little rust . The amount of rust seen on some models will only be seen in reality after many years of disuse, vehicles in regular use show remarkably little rust by comparison , dust , mud , chips and scuffs yes , but little rust .

A tank in action will probably only have a life expectation counted in days or weeks , so to depict it as a rusted wreck is at best artistic licence.

I agree Andrew, but what I have seen more in my research is more a haze of scratch’s with an over rub of pencil graphite rather than a distinctive mapping approach to paint chipping as you see a lot and what I did on a recent Wespe. I’m just finishing a 38t open top with this effect. Reminds me of the farm equipment look I remember from my youth.

 

I also have started to tone down on tracks too. More a light hue of rust and more grey steel showing through and rubbed high spots.

 

As regards length of use in the field - I’d say yes to Allied but Axis, especially German were; kept running way longer- hence the policy of not leaving the field of battle for the sole reason to recover and fix. Very common in North Africa due to supply issues. The Brits would withdraw and leave everything behind and get new ones

 

Simon

[Kingsman]

38 minutes ago, Redcoat2966 said:

I also have started to tone down on tracks too. More a light hue of rust and more grey steel showing through and rubbed high spots.

No WW2 tracks were grey or silvery steel, even late-war German!  Most WW2 tracks had a good content of manganese in the alloy for wear durability.  This gave a goldy-yellow metallic colour, hard to replicate and no-one makes the right colour - at least not yet.  It doesn't capture well in photos as it sheens in the light, making it look silvery.  German tracks had less manganese as it became harder to get, making them a darker browner colour.  British tracks had a high content, and were noticeably goldy-brown. Russian tracks were darker.  US were similar to UK.  Others varied.  Char B tracks were chocolate brown, but these were still pressed hardened plate in the WW1 style and not typical of other French tanks.  WW1 tracks were also dark brown.

 

All-metal tracks today, such as Russian T-series and Merkavas, are still high-manganese-content.  Rubber-padded tracks are generally not, as the pads provide the wearing surface and can be replaced - and manganese is expensive.

 

Manganese inhibits rust, so manganese tracks don't rust as readily as mild steel.  It doesn't oxidise to orangey shades.  Higher manganese content will have a grey-brown oxide, sort of coffee coloured.  Lower content will tend towards a dark brown.

 

So the tracks on the eBay Centaur are completely wrong too (as well as having a broken track pin, apparently!).  £150 and the tracks aren't even properly joined...........  I'm in the wrong business!

 

Apologies for cantering the hobby horse around again, but I'm on something of a quest to change the way tracks are depicted.  Reality over artistry again.  Rubbing with graphite or sanding back white metal tracks to reveal the base metal are just plain wrong.  Shiny silvery metal is equally wrong, as is orange rust.  Everyone - well, most people - assumes that worn steel will be shiny silvery without understanding the actual colour of the base metal.  It's one of those historical modelling hang-overs.

 

Best match I've found so far for depicting worn track surfaces is a Vandyke Brown Metallic oil pastel.

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

On 10/19/2018 at 12:30 PM, Das Abteilung said:

These vehicles were ashore for only a fortnight or so and only got about 10 miles inland, probably travelling less than 30 miles in the process as most went into static positions.  There is no way that one would have got into this sort of state of paint loss and rust runs in that sort of time or mileage.  This is years of wear, and IMHO entirely and completely unrealistic.

 

Especially when you look at the divisional marking (little blue painted flag) which is in neat pristine condition 🙄 Compared to the rest of the vehicle ?   

[ejboyd5]

Every one of you reading this thread knows more about tanks than I do so I ask what is the purpose of the vertical lines and numbers appearing on the turrets depicted by the box art and the post immediately above.  I'm assuming they represent degrees of angle for the main gun with 180*  being straight ahead, but how were the markings used?

Edited October 20, 2018 by ejboyd5

[Bullbasket]

 

On 21/10/2018 at 00:22, ejboyd5 said:

Every one of you reading this thread knows more about tanks than I do so I ask what is the purpose of the vertical lines and numbers appearing on the turrets depicted by the box art and the post immediately above.  I'm assuming they represent degrees of angle for the main gun with 180*  being straight ahead, but how were the markings used?

 These tanks were originally meant to be used as artillery pieces for the run in to the D-Day beaches using their 90mm howitzers to shell various targets. They weren't meant to go ashore. In fact, some had their engines removed, but were later reinstated. The idea was that  someone would be able to direct the gunner onto a target using the compass markings on the turret. That's a very basic description, but hopefully, you'll get the idea.

 

John.

[Bullbasket]

I needed to mask off the lower hull as it had already been painted, and once done, I primed the upper hull and turret with Halford's grey primer. My usual “go to” paint is a Tamiya mix, but I was missing one of the paints, so I resorted to using SCC2 from Mig. I'm having problems with gloss varnishes a the moment, so to cut a long story short, I brushed on a coat of Daler and Rowney's acrylic artist's varnish. I was a bit heavy handed and it ended up running in some places. I used the decals from the kit for the turret, and whilst they weren't too bad going on, I'd made it more difficult for myself by adding the four lifting lugs and the searchlight before the decals, meaning that I had to cut the decals up to go around them. The rest of the markings came from the Peddinghaus set for the Centaur, but unfortunately the serial number was too long to go on the rear track guard. Sealed in with some more gloss varnish, it was then given an all over with Mig's Dark Wash.

Once I was (reasonably) satisfied with the effects of the wash, I sealed it in with a coat of Daler Rowney matt varnish. (Thanks for the advice Simon).

I carried out some detail painting of the stowage, pioneer tools, jerry cans, spare tracks and tow cables. Hopefully, they will come to life a bit more once the weathering goes on.

 

 

 

 

That might be it for a while as I'm off to Blighty next week for the Telford gathering. If I get anymore done before I go, I'll post it while I'm over there . Thanks for looking.

 

John.

[Hamden]

 

Coming together nicely I like this a lot and look forward to seeing it completed!

 

   Roger

[Bullbasket]

Thanks a lot Roger. Nearly finished now.

 

John.

[Bullbasket]

I had to remove the tracks as I'd forgotten to paint the undersides of the etched brass parts of the track guards. These areas were then blended in with Mig pigments.

I'm not very good at carrying out shading with an airbrush, so I tend to use Carr's weathering powders for this job instead. I may have gone a little OTT.

Not much more that I want to do with this now, apart from a couple of figures and aerials and some rations in the open stowage bin, and give the tracks another dark wash, and then it will be onto a base and into RFI.

 

 

 

Thanks for looking.

 

John.

[Redcoat2966]

Nice John.......like it.....mines gone off the boil....I must get back into it again.......

 

Great job...

 

Simon.