Rumblestripe Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 (edited) Slightly late starting - good job I wasn't organising the real thing! So just a couple of "what have we got here" shots The plaggy bits ...and an improved machine gun barrel and grips. And a metal barrel for the 17pdr. This was bought in the full knowledge that the part was deigned for a Sherman Firefly in the hope it can still be used to replace the plastic kit barrel. And I still don't know if it can, I'll see what can be done when I get to the gun assembly, but as I intend to build a Firefly in due course it will come in useful if it doesn't work here. I'm a big fan of the Tamiya 1/48 AFV models and presently I'm limiting myself to British Army subjects (though those Tigers are VERY sexy!) (If anyone at Tamiya is listening a Valentine would be nice please?) More soon (probably) Edited June 13, 2019 by Rumblestripe spelligg mishtook 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxbat Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 (edited) Good to see this one, it's one of the few gaps in my own British 1/48 Tamiya stash. Hope the tracks are easier than the Tiger ones - the finished model may be sexy, but the tracks are an absolute pig to get together (I've just wrestled mine to a draw in the Tiger STGB). Andy Edited June 13, 2019 by Foxbat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumblestripe Posted June 13, 2019 Author Share Posted June 13, 2019 Hi Andy I've built a Tamiya 1/48 Sherman and found the tracks OK, if a little fiddly and these look like they are the same runners as there are a lot of different pattern wheels that appeared on the Sherman but not on the M10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxbat Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 7 minutes ago, Rumblestripe said: Hi Andy I've built a Tamiya 1/48 Sherman and found the tracks OK, if a little fiddly and these look like they are the same runners as there are a lot of different pattern wheels that appeared on the Sherman but not on the M10. Good to know. I'd add one to the stash now if I could get or cobble together the decals I want for one. I'm building the Crusader AA for this GB but it's on temporary hiatus while I move house. That also looks easier than the Tiger. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Stuart Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 Welcome to the build Rumblestripe. 1 hour ago, Rumblestripe said: Slightly late starting - good job I wasn't organising the real thing! Think that was their only task, with family kept well out of the picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumblestripe Posted June 14, 2019 Author Share Posted June 14, 2019 (edited) 10 hours ago, Foxbat said: Good to know. I'd add one to the stash now if I could get or cobble together the decals I want for one. I'm building the Crusader AA for this GB but it's on temporary hiatus while I move house. That also looks easier than the Tiger. Andy Yes, part of my build (which will otherwise be largely straight out of the box) with the exceptions shown in my OP, is to have a go at making my own decals. I have some white inkjet decal paper and a cunning plan. Watch this space! Edited June 14, 2019 by Rumblestripe 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumblestripe Posted June 16, 2019 Author Share Posted June 16, 2019 A bit of a research day today. Trying to establish an appropriate identity for the build. I didn't want to build "Chelsea" as provided in the box. I had kindly been provided with a list of known British tank names including several M10 17pdrs. One of these names "Juke Girl" was also part of the 62nd Anti-tank Regiment Royal Artillery Chelsea was one of the M10s of C troop 245 battery and Juke Girl was one of the four members of 248 battery. Full story of Chelea's demise and why there is such a good photographic record here Juke Girl came ashore on Juno beach on D Day and was destroyed in Normandy when it ran over a mine resulting in serious injury to three members of the crew. The two uninjured crew, Walter "Wally" Shea and John "Jerry" Jerwood were assigned a replacement M10 which they named "Juke Girl II" This is "Juke Girl II" in Holland. Wally Shea is the soldier in the middle of the three on the barrel and "Jerry" Jerwood sits to the left of them with his legs on the spare wheel. In this photograph the tank is undergoing some maintenance and the muzzle brake and counterweight have been removed showing the under-coated barrel. In his account Wally Shea states that "Duke Girl was not equipped with the 17pdr but the American "3 inch gun" but the RA records the strength as all 17pdr equipped (it might be that he was mistaken?) it would appear odd to me that the RA went to Normandy with tanks requiring different ammunition, as all the towed A/T guns were 17pdrs and Chelsea was obviously 17pdr fitted. A D-Day story So, I have a tank that went ashore on D-Day but possibly with the wrong gun and no record of the serial number... But if I go with this tank I can use the divisional markings provided in the box. Well, that was my Sunday, hope yours was more fruitful! 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Posted June 16, 2019 Share Posted June 16, 2019 1 hour ago, Rumblestripe said: A bit of a research day today... Well, that was my Sunday, hope yours was more fruitful! Sounds like a great Sunday. Thanks for sharing your research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumblestripe Posted July 2, 2019 Author Share Posted July 2, 2019 OK, we have a decision. I will build this model as "Juke Girl II" after reading the story and having a think I have reconsidered and I'm sure that "Juke Girl" was probably armed with the 3in gun rather than the 17pdr, I'm sure Wally Shea remembered it right and I know there was a delay in getting all the M10s converted to 17pdrs before D-day so I'll go with the one I KNOW carried the 17pdr and assume that the re-equip happened within the period specified and I am minded to thereafter build "Juke Girl" as a companion piece. So just a few pictures to show progress with a comment or two. In a variation from the Tamiya instructions I will add the tracks once paint has been applied to the chassis. I may need to do something about that gap at the sponsons? Anyone built this and know if it is an issue when completed? More later... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsairfoxfouruncle Posted July 2, 2019 Share Posted July 2, 2019 I built this for the M3/M4 Sherman group build last year. I used plastic sheeting in post #33 to cover the areas under the sponsons the tracks also do a good job of covering a lot from the outside. Dennis 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumblestripe Posted July 2, 2019 Author Share Posted July 2, 2019 Oh dear! Just after posting this, I put the two halves of the turret together and tried to rotate it... ...bleep, bleep bleepety beeeeep. I have placed the ammo racks on the wrong sides and orientation and they are fouling the turret. I have managed to lever them off and re-apply them, if you are building this kit be careful, you have to look very closely at the instructions which shows the correct way to stick em in. At least the damage is hidden behind the racks. Ho hum. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumblestripe Posted July 8, 2019 Author Share Posted July 8, 2019 Progressing slowly. A question. Looking at the photograph above of "Juke Girl II", can anyone tell if she has the additional armour plate on the front glacis as provided in the Tamiya kit? I've looked and looked at that photo trying to be sure and I'm pretty sure it isn't fitted. Looking at the photographs accompanying the Wikipedia article many of the preserved M10s do not appear to have the additional armour. Was it a post war addition? Was it fitted in the field? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/17pdr_SP_Achilles Help! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigfoot Posted July 9, 2019 Share Posted July 9, 2019 (edited) I would say from that photo the additional armour isn’t fitted. The armour was bolted on with quite prominent bolts and I can’t see those in evidence on the hull side where I’d expect them to be. Hard to tell on the front of the bolts are present but they don’t look to be in the areas I think they should be. I don’t think the armour was fitted very often to the vehicles from what I’ve seen (but I stand to be corrected on this). progress is looking good on the kit though. Edited July 9, 2019 by bigfoot Clarification 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumblestripe Posted July 9, 2019 Author Share Posted July 9, 2019 Thanks, I agree, I can't see the additional plate. Here is the corrective work for the misplaced ammo rack As you can see the damage is behind the racks and won't be visible once the hull is closed up so I haven't even bothered to try to remove it. Still annoying though but! Here I have added some strips of plasticard to fill those sponsons. Some other work not shown here, I have created a very simplistic representation of the transmission to go between the driver and co-driver a simple half cylinder made from plasticard, it just looked too empty there. You probably won't be able to see it in a closed up model but if if you can.... Off to throw some paint at the chassis, more later. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exdraken Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 (edited) Very nice work! I really do like these Tamiya kits.. although I do mostly flying stuff.... Edited July 10, 2019 by exdraken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatfingers Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 Top job. Those Tamiya 48th scale armour kits are really nice. Have built a couple and have more in the stash. Regards Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumblestripe Posted July 21, 2019 Author Share Posted July 21, 2019 Some more research findings/observations Chelsea, the M10 upon which the Tamiya kit is based has the additional appliqué armour plate on the front glacis. Here Chelsea is examined shortly after bing knocked because in later photographs the spare wheels and track links have been "liberated". What it doesn't have is front running lights. Juke Girl II does... I have found a non-watermarked copy of the photo in my post above and enhanced and enlarged it using Photoshop to examine as much detail as I can. At 1 you can see the front running lights fitted to Juke Girl II. In the Tamiya kit the mounting points and lights are there but are not mentioned in the instructions and indeed if you were representing "Chelsea" you should fill in the mounting points for the light guards. Also the piece of appliqué armour provided partially covers the light guard mounts. Now, look at arrow 2. That line looks to me like there is an appliqué plate BUT it has been cut to fit around the left front running light. However, looking back at the right front running light at 1 I cannot see the plate. Now look at the appliqué mounting bolt inboard of the right front running light and note the length of the exposed bolt thread. Now look back at the appliqué mounting bolt inboard of the running light at 2. Look at the thread length. Shorter isn't it, suggesting that the armour plate is there but not at 1? I suspect that the armour was fitted by the British Army as it seems to have the mounting points for spare bogie wheels. Note Juke Girl II has only one spare wheel in the photo but there is an upright piece of metal to mount a second that one of the crew members has his foot on and this is a very similar pattern to the arrangement on Chelsea. Perhaps Chelsea was supplied without front running lights or might the British have removed them for D-day? So, in summary, Juke Girl II needs to have the front running lights fitted and I think it should have a reshaped piece of appliqué also. Progress photos of the model to follow later today (possibly). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigfoot Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 (edited) 5 hours ago, Rumblestripe said: Now, look at arrow 2. That line looks to me like there is an appliqué plate BUT it has been cut to fit around the left front running light. To me, that doesn’t look like a cut appliqué plate but the support strut for the light guard. Look at the light guard on the other side - the same strut can be seen immediately to the left of the light. At arrow 2 it just passes behind the plug holder (not the proper name but can’t think of it!). What looks like the bottom of the appliqué plate is the top of the track holder. I agree the thread appears shorter on the right bolt head but I think that may just be because they welded on lengths of thread to mount the plates on so there may be variation in the lengths. IMO there’s no plate attached to Juke II. Edited July 21, 2019 by bigfoot 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumblestripe Posted July 21, 2019 Author Share Posted July 21, 2019 1 hour ago, bigfoot said: To me, that doesn’t look like a cut appliqué plate but the support strut for the light guard. My word, thanks you're right! Sometimes you need a second pair of eyes on something to see the obvious. Do you think the mounts for the spare wheels are simply welded rods? Looking at US M10s there is no such mount. It must be fairly substantial piece of ironmongery to support a pretty heavy wheel, and in the picture the weight of the crewman. It looks to be the same diameter as the wheel axle (which would make sense I suppose) Thanks again, saved me from a horrible mistake! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigfoot Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 2 hours ago, Rumblestripe said: Do you think the mounts for the spare wheels are simply welded rods? From the information I’ve come across, yes the spare wheel mounts were often lengths of rod welded to the hull, sometimes threaded with a nut on the top. I can’t see any other method of attachment in your photo so I’d say it’s a fair bet it is a length of rod in this case. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumblestripe Posted July 21, 2019 Author Share Posted July 21, 2019 Not usually very good at delivering stuff on time but the model is coming together nicely! I'm grateful for the input of "bigfoot" in particular in helping me make sense of the complexities of these tanks. I have painted the interior of the turret quite carefully there is much detail present in the standard kit and it is worth making sure all is presented as well as possible If like me you wish to fill the gap presented by the sponsons, do it after you have assembled the tracks! The top track "length" is the very divvil to get on with the plasticard in place, right track went on after a bitter battle and the left popped off. Grrrrr... Notice that the rounded lump between the seats is a (very) basic representation of the transmission. Better than an empty space - if only just! Let's see what we have got... As you can see I have added the front running lights which are not mentioned in the instructions (to be fair, they are absent from the example depicted by the kit "Chelsea"). From memory they are parts A2 and A22. What you may notice are the indents on the side panels where the bolts for mounting appliqué armour were to be found on early production examples of the M10. I'm not sure whether to remove them completely? Certainly in the photo of JG II I cannot see a trace of them so I think they'll have to be removed. I decided against using the 17pdr aluminium barrel as fitting it was quite difficult due to the design of the kit and the fact that the mantlet is completely different from the Firefly for which the product was intended. As I will be building a Firefly in due course it will come in useful. The plastic barrel had a very minimal molding line which was easily removed. Still some bits to clag on, notably the aerials and the .50 cal which I intend to leave to last as they otherwise are likely to meet a fate involving my sausage fingers and the carpet monster. So, plan is to get the last few additions added and then mask up to get a basic coat of green on proceedings. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumblestripe Posted August 3, 2019 Author Share Posted August 3, 2019 Progress has slowed by a dastardly combination of fine weather and cricket. Will the gods give me no peace? So... The improvements to the .50 cal. Rather a cruel enlargement, looks better as it now is painted black and dry brushed gunmetal. To make the model a better representation of Juke Girl II I have added the two spare wheel mounts and a single spare wheel as shown in the photograph of the actual vehicle. Also note the securing bar that can be seen in some photographs of M10s (but cannot be discerned in the photograph of JG2) A bit over scale but once painted looks more acceptable. Also added the spare track links mounted on the hull front. Just the radio antennae and perhaps a tow cable before chucking some paint at it. (Oh and some clutter like tarpaulins and ration boxes, helmets and other gubbins involved in living in a fighting vehicle in war time) More soon. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumblestripe Posted August 18, 2019 Author Share Posted August 18, 2019 So this is where "Juke Girl II" fits into the organisation of 62nd Anti-tank Regiment Royal Artillery. One of the four M10s making up J troop of 248 Battery. Tweaked the photograph again to try to see the way in which the name has been applied to the side of "Juke Girl II" ] Juke Girl II would appear to be vehicle "J1" of J troop, the markings otherwise match those provided with the kit. The name "Juke Girl II" looks to me like it has been hand painted in a script at a slope ascending from rear to front, I guess as this was issued as a replacement vehicle, the script would have been hand painted by some in theatre dauber? The spear symbol of 1st Corps is visible to the vehicle left in the full image. There is no visible identification star in the photograph at this time the star was generally applied to the rear of the turret but there is nowhere on an M10 to do this. Was it simply omitted? I'm in two minds whether to hand paint the name... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawzer Posted August 19, 2019 Share Posted August 19, 2019 great work so far! 👍 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumblestripe Posted September 30, 2019 Author Share Posted September 30, 2019 (edited) And it's a fail from me! All going so well until my son arrived home unexpectedly in August to complete his PHD for submission by the 22nd of September, unfortunately this meant surrendering my modelling area to give him a desk to work at. I thought I might manage to finish it in the last few days and got very close. I made the custom decals for JG2 and they worked pretty well I even got some weathering done. I had wanted to add some more clutter to the tank as they seemed to appear in photographs looking more like a removals van than a tank! That didn't happen but I did get the .50 cal finished with the PE improvements. So last night I took some photographs thinking I could at least get something in the gallery. Then I couldn't get into my Flickr account, no idea why, the browser usually handles my passwords for that. To make matters worse when I looked at the photographs to choose which ones to use and spotted I had missed off the .50 cal. That was the point when I just gave in to capricious fortune. Ah nuts. So I will get JG2 finished and post in the Armour RFI. Edited September 30, 2019 by Rumblestripe Added image 5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now