_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV: British Armor
Discuss all types of British Armor of all eras.
Hosted by Darren Baker
Question about Aber 6-pdr alu barrel
Martinnnn
Visit this Community
Zuid-Holland, Netherlands
Joined: April 26, 2004
KitMaker: 5,435 posts
Armorama: 2,762 posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 01:53 AM UTC
Hi all,

I'm looking for an alu barrel for my Revell Crusader Mk.III kit in 1/35. Aber has an alu 6-pdr barrel which looks like one for the Crusader Mk.III, but it's listed as a Cromwell/Centaur barrel. To my knowlage the Cromwell had a 75mm and the Centaur a 95mm so I'm a bit confused here.

It's this barrel:



http://www.minitair.be/product_info.php?cPath=39_188&products_id=4177

Is this one usable for my Crusader?

Thanks,
Martin

Removed by original poster on 03/12/08 - 14:32:57 (GMT).
jjumbo
Visit this Community
British Columbia, Canada
Joined: August 27, 2006
KitMaker: 2,012 posts
Armorama: 1,949 posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 02:32 AM UTC
Hey Martin,
Early production Centaur Mk. I's and Cromwell Mk. I, II and III's were equipped with the 6pdr cannon.
Amourscale produce a 6pdr barrel for the Crusader Mk. III and other British 6 pdr tanks.

http://www.armorscale.com/products/barrels35/B35-018/

Cheers

jjumbo
Drader
Visit this Community
Wales, United Kingdom
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 3,791 posts
Armorama: 2,798 posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 02:34 AM UTC
The 6 pdr Mark III is perfect for the Revell/Italeri Crusader, and is the same as the kit barrel - I used the Armorscale one on mine, mainly because it offered both types of muzzle counterweight.

The Armorscale one brings a minor problem, in that the butt end of the barrel is almost the same size as the kit breech, so it needs a bit of careful work to stop the plastic splitting (guess how I found out?) . Looks like the Aber one tapers so it won't be as difficult to fit.

David
Drader
Visit this Community
Wales, United Kingdom
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 3,791 posts
Armorama: 2,798 posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 02:46 AM UTC
Is it too late to run through a list of improvements to the base kit?

David
Martinnnn
Visit this Community
Zuid-Holland, Netherlands
Joined: April 26, 2004
KitMaker: 5,435 posts
Armorama: 2,762 posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 06:25 AM UTC
No not at all. Haven't started yet. At the Kitmaker Benelux site we'll have a desert campaign focussed on the North-African front, starting in may. So, some time to go before I'll get started, just gathering kits and info (picked up the Revell kit for 9 euros today )

A list of possible improvements is most welcome!

Also looking for interior options....not sure if I'm gonna add one, but is there resin kit available? Or does anyone have good interior pics and drawings?

Thanks for the replies,
Martin
Drader
Visit this Community
Wales, United Kingdom
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 3,791 posts
Armorama: 2,798 posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 09:13 PM UTC
Where to begin?

References for the interior of the Mark III are definitely less common than for the 2pdr tanks, your best bet is the artwork in the Osprey New Vanguard (but don't bother much with the colour plate commentary as it doesn't match the illustrations )

Starting from the hull front:

Spare track stowage on the nose is dubious, so leave it off

The bolts on the sloping plate around the headlights should be countersunk screws flush with the plate, sanding time

Italeri put blackout hoods on both headlights, remove the one on the lefthand light

The most notorious error is in the shape of the front end of the trackguards, Italeri copied some bogus restoration on the APG tank, the trackguard should have a continuous slope instead of a step. PE sets will take care of this

PE sets can provide some bits and pieces for the driver's cab - the flap on the right side of the visor is a pistol port so it doesn't have to be open

For some unknown reason the parts for the trackguard stowage bins and air intake covers on the engine deck were mistakenly swapped around. The crowbars should be on the left side of the tank and the U-shaped clips for the tow rope on the right. Swapping the bins and intake covers to the opposite side from the instructions puts everything in the right place. You can also cut the butterfly nuts off the tools and reattach at random angles for a better look

If you feel like it, rivets can be added to the vertical sides of the air intake covers and also the hull sides behind the air filters - the devices on the rear end of the trackguards are the air filters BTW, not exhausts

The external fuel tank needs a fuel line added from the fitting on the hull rear, running downward at first, then bending to the left before feeding up into the top louvre on the hull rear.

Tow hook is of the type more commonly seen on earlier marks (but not totally wrong), so it can either be left off or replaced with a heavier-duty one like the Cromwell's (I cheated and used a similar one from a Sherman)

You can also add an exhaust fishtail centrally in the bottom louvre of the hull rear

One thing you don't need to replace are the moulded handles on the rear end of the engine deck, they drop down flush with the covers and are meant to look like that

Which covers the hull......

As for the turret:

The worst parts are the turret hatches which lack the opening pistons and stays to stop the flaps opening too far. See the Osprey artwork for what's needed. The instructions also have you put the inside handles in the wrong place

Look to a PE set for a radio which is really needed in the turret bustle

If you want a periscope, then pinch one from a Stalin tank - the Soviet MK4 periscope is a straight copy of the Vickers one (which is itself derived from the Polish Gundlach design)

Spotlight on the turret side is a bit naff, a headlight from the Italeri Elefant looks much better

Not exactly major changes, but worth doing. I've probably forgotten others as I'm doing this off the cuff.

David



Martinnnn
Visit this Community
Zuid-Holland, Netherlands
Joined: April 26, 2004
KitMaker: 5,435 posts
Armorama: 2,762 posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 09:39 PM UTC
Right.....very accurate kit I see

Thanks a lot for this list, really useful! Don't think this is going to be as much OOTB as I'd have thought

Hmm....a detail/upgrade project might be fun, both on the interior and exterior....
Drader
Visit this Community
Wales, United Kingdom
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 3,791 posts
Armorama: 2,798 posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 09:49 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Right.....very accurate kit I see

Thanks a lot for this list, really useful! Don't think this is going to be as much OOTB as I'd have thought

Hmm....a detail/upgrade project might be fun, both on the interior and exterior....



Italeri's Crusader is fundamentally sound and has fewer problems than the either of the Airfix Crusaders - the 1/76 one is a disaster and the 1/32 version goes wrong at various places around the turret as well as having a dodgy suspension.

Most of the (really quite minor) problems I suspect are from Italeri looking too hard at the APG tank and not at period photos quite enough. Sometimes it's reality that's the problem....

One thing I've just remembered is that you'll need a second fire extinguisher and that Italeri's attempt at reproducing the Pyrene type isn't that wonderful. Aber do some replacement ones.

David
Martinnnn
Visit this Community
Zuid-Holland, Netherlands
Joined: April 26, 2004
KitMaker: 5,435 posts
Armorama: 2,762 posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 09:56 PM UTC
It's something you see on more kits.....based on restored vehicles that aren't always historically accurate. Oh well, it gives AM producers business right?

You're right the Revell/Italeri kit itself isn't that bad. I took a quick look at the sprues and the quality of details seems quite good. No idea about fit etc. yet.

Good base kit but it can use some upgrades

Wishlist so far:
- Fruil tracks
- Aber PE
- Osprey book

Martin
Drader
Visit this Community
Wales, United Kingdom
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 3,791 posts
Armorama: 2,798 posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 10:21 PM UTC
I had no fit problems with either of the two I built last year, you just need to be careful as Italeri don't really go in for locating pins, just fine raised lines which can lead to parts wandering occasionally

If you want to go to the Nth degree, the lower hull side plates are missing lots of bolt detail - but the road wheels and full-length sandshields hide this Should you really, really want the detail, the hull sides of the Crusader AA tank have been retooled to incorporate them.

EDIT finally (for now) Revell's markings are rubbish - bin them

David
Martinnnn
Visit this Community
Zuid-Holland, Netherlands
Joined: April 26, 2004
KitMaker: 5,435 posts
Armorama: 2,762 posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 11:07 PM UTC
Hi David,

Yeah, already found out the decals are quite useless. Will look for replacement for them.

This gallery at missing-lynx will help me with the bolt detail (also ok for Mk.III version I hope?)

http://www.missing-lynx.com/gallery/britain/crusadermkiimb_1.html

Martin
Drader
Visit this Community
Wales, United Kingdom
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 3,791 posts
Armorama: 2,798 posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 11:23 PM UTC
Good question about whether or not there are differences in the bolt patterns, I don't know for sure.

Some other things that may help

This book if you can find it has a good walkaround of the exterior of Bovington's Mark III (but no interior photos beyond the driver's visor)

http://www.perthmilitarymodelling.com/reviews/books/apg/apg06.htm

These shots of a Mark II are good for small details - ignore the turret interior the Mark IIIs is very different

http://www.toadmanstankpictures.com/crusader01.htm

And this ML thread has a detail shot showing the later tow hook, fuel line and position of the exhaust

http://www.network54.com/Forum/47208/thread/1186080339/Crusader+without+fuel+tank-

David
 _GOTOTOP