New tool Crusader III?

[fatfingers]

How do chaps.

 

Possibly wishful thinking, but.......

 

Been watching some 'Inside The Chieftains Hatch' videos on the tube. One of which was about the Crusader III and Rototrailer. The tank and trailer had lots of dots stuck all over them. The guy doing the video said the the dots were reference points because 'they' are 3d scanning the tank and trailer. I wonder who 'they' are. The video was filmed at Bovington last August. Could this mean a new tooled kit? If so my guess would be either Bronco, Gekko or maybe even possibly Tamiya...... 

 

The Italeri kit is nice but is long overdue for replacement. 

 

Regards

 

Steve 

[f matthews]

That’s been at the top of my list for years.  Let’s hope!

[Peter Roberts]

another vote here!

 

[Kingsman]

I believe that was one of the 1/6 scale RC companies, possibly War Slug.  They were there some months ago scanning a number of subjects also including at least the M26 and T26.

 

But yes, a new tool Crusader series would be nice in 1/35 - and 1/72 for that matter.  The Tamiya 1/48 offering is quite recent.  Maybe the recent interest in other Cruisers might bring something.  Crusader is a notable and very important absentee in the decent kit stakes.  I do sometimes wonder why Bronco didn't finish off the A13 series with the Covenanter - and indeed why such a different vehicle was still classed as an A13 in the first place. 

 

Tamiya's decision to re-tool their Matilda II was a good one - but why not re-tool the earlier Marks too - but is at complete odds with them just re-boxing the old Italeri Crusader for a quick buck.  Surely someone like Bronco, Gecko or maybe even MiniArt or Tamiya could get some decent mileage from Crusaders I, II, III, Gun Tractor and AA Mks I and II, maybe with a Covenanter alongside.  Argentine Crusader 105mm SPG anyone?  It did at least exist in service in small numbers, unlike many of the never-ware kits now on offer. 

 

I suppose a Cavalier might be too much to expect. 500 built and did at least see active service, if only as an OP tank.  But then that opens the door to new A27s - which would be no bad thing.  The Tamiya kits are flawed and the Cromwell was an important type.  I suppose the inverse argument works: we could do with new A27's, and maybe an A24 might result.

 

 

[alanmac]

Wasn't the Covenanter a disaster, and although many were built, none were accepted for service by the MOD? David Fletcher is quite scathing about it in his video. Number two in his" bottom" five

 

[Kingsman]

Yes it was a complete disaster as a tank.  But it plugged a fundamental gap to allow more capable vehicles to stay on operations by facilitating training in the UK and providing something for re-formed and newly-formed units to form around.  So when they received combat-worthy vehicles they were well versed in tactics and doctrine and needed only type conversion training.  Not to mention providing extensive training for REME fitters and RASC Recovery Companies, and finally gunnery training as targets...... 

 

Nearly 1,800 were built.  Had it not been for that, 1,800 Crusaders - a third of those built - would necessarily have been held back from operations to provide training and home vehicles.  So its contribution to the overall war effort should not lightly be underestimated, technical shortcomings notwithstanding.  In many respects both Cavalier and Centaur were equal "dogs" with Covenanter, neither having adequate performance and/or reliability and both being sentenced as unsuitable for service and nearly equaled it in joint numbers.  But neither are remotely as reviled.

 

Perhaps the writing was on the wall when Nuffield chose to develop the A15 Crusader when their A14 and A16 designs were rejected rather than continue to evolve its existing A13, that latter task being given to LMSR with zero experience of AFVs.  I suppose someone thought that with the Nuffield-designed suspension and turret and mechanicals from the august names of Wilson and Meadows, what could go wrong.  Clearly a lot!

 

Covenanter is, for all its shortcomings, a lovely-looking vehicle that perhaps deserved better.  The MkIV solved most of the problems but by then it was obsolete and the stigma had stuck.  It is widely forgotten that Covenanter Bridgelayers saw active service in NWE and the Far East.  I'm sure that very many British tank enthusiasts would welcome a Covenanter kit, and if , say, Bronco were to go down the Crusader road they would have many parts already tooled.

 

Personally I'd love to see a newly-tooled line of Crusaders - going back to where we came in - and would be more than happy with a Covenanter spin-off.  A bridgelayer would be really something.............

[SleeperService]

10 minutes ago, Das Abteilung said:

It is widely forgotten that Covenanter Bridgelayers saw active service in NWE and the Far East.

AFAIK all bridgelayers in NWE were Valentine for Sherman & Cromwell units and Churchill for Churchill units. The Covenator did see limited use in the Far East though. One Covenator did make it to the Middle East presumably somebody hoped the problems would disappear after the sea voyage.

[Kingsman]

IIRC, Guards, 1st Polish and 1st Czech Armd Divs all kept their Covenanter bridgelayers when they re-equipped.  That could of course be incorrect, but all 3 units had Covenanters and would therefore not have had Valentine bridgelayers at the same time.  They could of course have gained them when re-equipped and they may subsequently have been mis-identified. The Valentine was a slow old bus before a heavy bridge and launching gear was added, and I suspect it would have struggled to keep pace with the speed of advance at less than 15mph flat out.  Covenanters were much more compatible with the Cromwells with which all 3 Divisions were partly equipped and the whole idea of assault bridging is to have it in the vanguard of the advance.  However, photographic evidence of Covenanters seems to be scarce to non-existent, so mis-identification is always a possibility but Covenanters and Valentines are very differerent.

 

But a kit would still be nice!

 

 

[Phil Gollin]

.

 

I'm still waiting for proper plastic full kits of the Churchill AVRE with SBG Bride and also one with a fascine.

 

.

[AntPhillips]

IBG have recently announced at the Spielwarenmesse show in Nurnberg, a complete range of Crusaders in 1/72, including the Mk.I, Mk.ICS, Mk.II, Mk.III, 20 mm AA and 40 mm AA versions, I'd love to think they might upscale them to 1/35 in the future too.

 

Link to catalog here: http://www.ibgmodels.com/IBG_Models_KATALOG.pdf

 

[SleeperService]

On 2/24/2019 at 8:56 PM, Das Abteilung said:

IIRC, Guards, 1st Polish and 1st Czech Armd Divs all kept their Covenanter bridgelayers when they re-equipped.  That could of course be incorrect, but all 3 units had Covenanters and would therefore not have had Valentine bridgelayers at the same time.

Thankfully all three units had the Covenators withdrawn well before D-Day. By NWE I assumed you meant in Europe rather than Home Based. My mistake.

Several of us have been researching units on the Continent and, except for Churchill units, each Brigade had three Valentine bridgelayers and AFV returns show NO Covenators of any kind on operations. Valentines are there all the way through as SP 17pdr, Bridgelayer and later as officers 'chargers' in Anti-Tank Regiments. 

Yes, the Valentine was slow but as they would be following the advance they could keep up. The 'Great Swan' across France and Belgium saw them struggling but anecdotal evidence is that truck borne bridging units were brought forward when a problem was anticipated. There were also transporters that could handle the bridgelayers even if it meant the bridge moved on another vehicle.   

[Kingsman]

Excellent.  Proof that one should not believe everything one reads.  Yes, I did mean across the Channel post D Day.  There was a specific mention somewhere - can't recall exactly where now - of the Czechs having/using a Covenanter bridgelayer during the assault on Dunkirk.  Presumably in the light of the info above that is bunkum?  Being mechanically incompatible with anything else, having Covenanters would have been a supportability nightmare.   Although some certainly went to the Far East - presumably with a shipload of spares - and the Austrailians have the only 2 survivors.

 

Out of interest, did your research throw up any Cavalier OPs?  I'm sure some went across.

[Seahawk]

Chamberlain and Ellis' British and American Tanks of World War II says "a few" Covenanter bridgelayers were used by the Australians in Burma in 1942.  We won't be seeing any photos of them then.  Otherwise it was "mainly used for training and development work, together with the Valentine bridgelayer."

 

Very much welcome the announcement of the 1/72 Crusaders, especially the AA variants.  Am working on an IBM Zrinyi II at the moment and it is a beautifully engineered and well-detailed kit.

Edited February 26, 2019 by Seahawk

[John Tapsell]

On 2/24/2019 at 11:19 AM, Das Abteilung said:

Tamiya's decision to re-tool their Matilda II was a good one - but why not re-tool the earlier Marks too - but is at complete odds with them just re-boxing the old Italeri Crusader for a quick buck. 

 

I think you misunderstand the reason Tamiya have been reboxing Italeri kits for the last 40-50 years.

 

Once upon a time, in the days before the Internet, the fact that Tamiya was regularly reboxing Italeri kits for the domestic Japanese market was virtually unknown outside Japan. It is difficult for companies to import their products without paying significant import duties. Therefore, it was a way for Italeri (and others) to get their kits onto the Japanese market at a reasonable price. Importing 'components' is a lot cheaper than importing a finished product.

 

Now we have the Internet, it ihas become common knowledge that Tamiya reboxes Italeri kits - the reason they do it hasn't changed but of course they now filter out to the international market much more easily.

 

John

[John]

If you don't mind the 1/56th wargaming scale the Rubicon Crusader is an excellent little kit. 

 

John 

[Kingsman]

Oh I get the market penetration advantage, and Tamiya aren't the only people to do it by any manner of means.  At least they show it on the box - which Revell don't, for example, and I imagine Airfix won't.  Obviously both companies get something out of it, and as you point out sales go wider than the intended market in the days of the internet and Scalemates has done a lot to track product histories.  But it can be argued that Tamiya could have achieved greater sales with an all-new Crusader of their own, albeit at greater initial outlay.  Hence my perhaps cheap comment about making a quick buck.