Not even started yet Jeremy I'm afraid. Couldn't resist all the great campaigns here plus life has a habit of getting in the way. But I'll make the end in a mad dash!

You and me both Sean Just wish I could say it was other campaigns that were my excuse.

M10 Sherman is 1/2 weathered. Stalled due to overtime & home renos.

Not a problem, looking forward to seeing it!

Considering possibilities for the Postcard campaign, I chopped an Emhar 1:35 Whippet in half. I considered an armed recovery tank, but decided I would want to do it in a different situation where I didn’t need to mount the crane boom almost vertically, or shorten the tank, to meet the "ground" rules.



The British did build some recovery versions of WW1 tanks; I was able to do a free download of a book called, “Breakdown – A History of Recovery Vehicles in the British Army”. On the Landships Forum I found a photo of a Mk 4 supply tank converted with a large fixed A-frame fitted to the front and a winch on top in the rear.

Sounds like an excellent use for a Whippet!

I was just looking at the mock-up photo again and thinking that with the front half of the chassis removed, it doesn't look unlike WW2-era Bucyrus Erie cranes with their squarish, angled cabs. I'm half-tempted to really shorten the tracks, but probably won't.

I found a photo of an early logging tractor with an A-frame crane, so might see what I could do in terms of building a boom similar to that. I kind of like the idea of a concrete counterweight hanging off the back; it might help balance the off-center mount of the boom, although the cantilevered cab extension on the left side of the Whippet should help with that.



While we're on WW1, I came across an image that looks like a civvie version of a Mk IV on steroids. It's described as a 'crawler-crusher' that was designed and built for clearing on the now-defunct Cross-Florida Barge canal Project. Imagine a tank so big that you needed a ladder to get into it.

I like your thinking Charles!

And whoa!!! That "crawler-crusher" is ridiculous! Aside from purely smashing things down to ground level, how else was it supposed to work?

Apparently that's all they expected of it:



Here's the text:

Inadvertently, some of you have helped me with a quest that I have been on for some ten years now, to find more information about a 'crawler-crusher' that was designed and built for clearing on the now-defunct Cross-Florida Barge canal Project. This machine was apparently designed and built for Gregg, Gibson and Gregg, of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for clearing a 13,000 acre tract of land near Lake Rodman, which was a part of this now-abandoned project.

It weighed around 300 tons, was around 20 feet wide on two tracks, each 10 feet wide, and was powered by two 270 hp Caterpillar diesels. It stood nearly 20 feet high and had a tree pusher bar protruding some distance out in front and was designed to work on a similar principle to the Le Tourneau jungle crushers but in swampy country. In side profile, it looked not unlike many World War 1 tanks but a good bit bigger and heavier.

Aha, so the frame was simply for pushing trees over so it could run over them. That's interesting about the CAT diesels as I was just at their main facility earlier in July and had a chance to learn a bit about their history and the rivalry they had, an interesting g history that included HOLT, CAT, and BEST during the early 1900's. There was no direct mention of this thing, probably because it was part of an abandoned project.

Quick update - I will say the builds are done on these two. Don't know if I'll ever get around to painting them though...maybe by Christmas!

Excellent! I especially like the one with the camera system on it, the telescoping pole and the stabilizer system is very cool

Both very nice Graeme but I prefer the Stry-ley, or is it a Brad-ker?

Awesome work here-- Graeme's two, plus all the crusher research.
Can't wait to start this, while still enjoying the work already on my bench! I'll get here soon enough. I've got my scheme in mind.
-Sean H.

That Crusher must have had a heck of a time steering. The wider the tread the tougher it is to differentally steer a tracked vehicle. Also the closer the tracks are to each other the harder it is to steer.

Giv'me forty acres and I'll turn this rig around!

I've managed to get my hands on an Airfix Mk.1 tank so I can start fudging some ideas for the Heat-ray and its mounting. The rear trail will be great place to fit the power unit.

On to my build.
Boxart.

Sprues. The detail is actually quite nice and I may have to get another of these to build as the real version.


Assembly has gone quite quickly. Both sides of the tank took less than ten minutes to clean up and assemble.


Comments welcome.

Graeme,

The wheeled recce vehicle is pretty cool, but it definitely looks arse heavy. Cross country performance must be horrible.

Paul

Hi Paul - Yep, it does look that way, but in reality, the AVGP are horribly nose-heavy, with all the engine weight up front. If this were real, i would reckon that the weight distribution on the 4 wheels is probably pretty decent.

However, the weight of the engine is not something easily conveyed in a model...so I chucked on the outriggers to give it some visual stability.

That being said, if I were to do it again, I'd push the rear axle further back.

Basecoated it in a Tamiya JGSDF Green:

Great job, Graeme! That 4X4 looks kind of cute! It's so squat and unique.

Nice to see a lot of resources going into kitbashing and fictional models.

Another nice piece of work Graeme. I agree about the rear wheels. It's still a nice looking machine. I do like the extendable boom and outriggers.

I figured I'd post some of Katy. This is fitting the Katyusha Launcher from Clara on an Italeri RSO. It's a pretty straightforward project. By the way, I've got an idea for the now defunct Panzer IV chassis. Think and armored IR spotlight carrier for nightfighting tanks.

First up was to remove the launcher. I'm going to rework some of the launcher like add a motor to elevate it.


I removed the bed from the RSO. The sides will get in the way so I'm going to cut them down.


Test fit to see how it'll look.


And the cut. I left them a bit higher than I had planned. I was worried the styrene would try to curl. I might add fold-down sides.


Anyway, that's it for now. This is a side-project and there really isn't a lot of work needed to make this work. I don't plan on putting this one in the Campaign Gallery.

Well hello there! You guys got another one in the game. First campaign, so I'll give it a good hard try.

So this is something I've been thinking about for a while now, but I finally decided to go ahead and give it a try.

While reading a blog about Soviet Armor, I came across:
http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2013/04/bovington-t-34-and-kv-1-impressions.html

Background
Just like the Americans, the British received a T-34 and a KV-1 tank for testing. Their response to the tests was radically different (to the americans).

(Report from Soviet delegation)
"Upon arriving at the proving grounds, we were invited to a meeting room where the administration of the grounds gathered, military and civilian, about 15 people. The chief of the proving grounds introduced them as the heads of various groups and departments. All of the military men were majors and lieutenant-colonels. These people had prepared questions from various areas for us.

We were asked questions regarding the construction of the vehicles, their materials, armament, usage, etc."

Additionally, in our conversations, we have learned that:
a) the T-34 and KV vehicles will be produced for the British army. The former will be equipped with a 17-pounder, the latter with a 6 inch howitzer.
b) the tanks will be built with an improved gearbox and differential clutches.
c) the KV air pumps will be improved. [Note: the KV the British got had a defective air pump]
d) the tanks will be equipped with centrifugal air filters that will draw air from the transmission compartment. This is explained as follows: if you take air from behind the tank, it will contain dust kicked up by the tank. If you draw air from the transmission, the air purity reached is 100% ideal.
e) the welding will be performed with electrodes made from high hardness steel, which will result in welding seams being as robust as the armour plates.

English critique of the armament of our tanks:

Their opinion of our armament is good. This could not be otherwise, as their newest Centaur tanks were just recently equipped with 75 mm guns with ballistics equivalent to the American 75 mm gun on the Sherman tank. Currently, the largest caliber tank gun the English posses is the 6-pounder (57 mm). If you further recall the Churchill tank with a 2-pounder gun, you could not expect any other evaluation of our guns. The English themselves admit that arming the Churchill with a 2-pound gun was a poor idea.

The T-34, on which they adore both the gun and the sloped front armour, is deemed to have satisfactory armament for a tank of that type. However, the English wish to outdo us and replace it with a 17 pounder gun.

Re-armament requires some modifications, and will take time, but, taking into account the manufacturing power of England and her dominions, we could very well see a T-34 with a 17-pounder gun and a KV with a 6 inch howitzer in our time. The fact that the English expect to produce our tanks is almost not hidden from us. This was established in conversations with workers of the Scientific-Investigative Tank Proving Grounds, and is backed up by other evidence. For example, when visiting an English gun factory near Liverpool, journalist [illegible] was informed that the factory is getting ready to produce 17-pound guns for T-34 tanks, that the English will soon produce........"


As we all know, the British got Shermans/M10's and armed some of them with their 17 pounder gun. But what if they had followed through with the T-34?


Looking at various T-34 kits from the '42-'43 time frame, chose this one simply because I like the shape of the turret. It will be easier to work with for the things I have in mind as I'm using the Firefly as inspiration for the turret.


I got a good start on the hull


the hull is mostly done, just need to work on the rear plate, add some details. There was a big gap around the front plate/hull so I used some epoxy putty for the welds. replaced the hull MG with a RB model Besa (will also do with the coaxial). Kit has a few headlights in the sprues so I added a second one and am working on the head light guards. After I glued the drivers hatch, I started thinking I should do something different. Like no periscope covers/raise the periscopes higher on a armored "bulge" (that make sense?). Might also add in a spare splash guard from a T-55 kit. Seeing as a bunch of pictures I saw of shermans/fireflies had a ton of gear tied down on the front of the tanks.

Already have a 17 pounder gun and Firefly VC radio box on the way from this shop in Australia that I like to buy from (they always seem to have just what I need) and I already have some british antenna aerials. I know I want to round out the turret a bit more towards the rear, replace the hatches with something like the ones on the sherman with a MG mount for a .50 cal. I have a spare sherman commander's cupola I can fit if I round out the turret a bit. Maybe a gun lock on the rear plate? So many ideas, will see what sticks

What's a good stowage set? Want to hang a bit of kit on the turret/frontal plate.

ComradeMP,
Nice idea. I had thoughts of making a US made version of a T-34 at some point but never took it beyond the planning stage. I'll be interested to see you bring the idea to life.