Can anyone point me to photos of the T-34/57? I have located pictures of three: Lukin's #20 disabled and off the road, the flat-turret prototype with it's odd mantlet, and a hex-turret that I suspect might be the prototype of the second production batch in the hex turret. Any additional photos of any other tanks, or any pictures of Lukin's tank from some side other than it's left would be great!
Thanks,
Matt K.
Hosted by Jacques Duquette
Request for T-34/57 photos
MKessler
Ohio, United States
Joined: February 28, 2008
KitMaker: 51 posts
Armorama: 39 posts
Joined: February 28, 2008
KitMaker: 51 posts
Armorama: 39 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 04, 2009 - 01:13 PM UTC
Minsk94
Wisconsin, United States
Joined: June 16, 2008
KitMaker: 418 posts
Armorama: 408 posts
Joined: June 16, 2008
KitMaker: 418 posts
Armorama: 408 posts
Posted: Monday, January 05, 2009 - 11:53 AM UTC
I don't know what exactly you have, so I posted what I have. I wouldn't worry much about the right side. The hull, just as a turret were just the same as on a "regular" T-34-76. The only difference was the gun itself and the mask of a gun. The difference of a mask from 76mm was in additional armored (?) ring at the base of a barrel.
C_JACQUEMONT
Loire-Atlantique, France
Joined: October 09, 2004
KitMaker: 2,433 posts
Armorama: 2,325 posts
Joined: October 09, 2004
KitMaker: 2,433 posts
Armorama: 2,325 posts
Posted: Monday, January 05, 2009 - 10:25 PM UTC
Great stuff, thank you very much Alex.
A+
Christophe
A+
Christophe
MKessler
Ohio, United States
Joined: February 28, 2008
KitMaker: 51 posts
Armorama: 39 posts
Joined: February 28, 2008
KitMaker: 51 posts
Armorama: 39 posts
Posted: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 - 03:08 AM UTC
Alex,
Thanks very much! The overhead shot of the hex turret version I hadn't seen before. It does clear up some of the questions I had about that one.
As for the tanks being identical to the standard T-34/76, I understand what you're saying, but at the same time, every T-34 is different. For example, if you look at Lukin's #20, it's stowage is rather different from most flat-turret T-34's. It's got no mounts for fuel boxes on the hull sides, and the jack block is missing from the rear fender as well. Also, the tracks appear to be what was labeled in T-34 Mythical Weapon as a "variant of the Ural type track", which I haven't seen often if at all. Basically, I wanted to try and model one of these two tanks as closely to the actual vehicle as possible. But I get your point, and there's also the old modeler's rule of thumb: "If you can't find anything to show you what it looks like, then odds are that no one else can either".
Thanks for the help!
Matt K.
Thanks very much! The overhead shot of the hex turret version I hadn't seen before. It does clear up some of the questions I had about that one.
As for the tanks being identical to the standard T-34/76, I understand what you're saying, but at the same time, every T-34 is different. For example, if you look at Lukin's #20, it's stowage is rather different from most flat-turret T-34's. It's got no mounts for fuel boxes on the hull sides, and the jack block is missing from the rear fender as well. Also, the tracks appear to be what was labeled in T-34 Mythical Weapon as a "variant of the Ural type track", which I haven't seen often if at all. Basically, I wanted to try and model one of these two tanks as closely to the actual vehicle as possible. But I get your point, and there's also the old modeler's rule of thumb: "If you can't find anything to show you what it looks like, then odds are that no one else can either".
Thanks for the help!
Matt K.
Minsk94
Wisconsin, United States
Joined: June 16, 2008
KitMaker: 418 posts
Armorama: 408 posts
Joined: June 16, 2008
KitMaker: 418 posts
Armorama: 408 posts
Posted: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 - 06:11 AM UTC
Quoted Text
As for the tanks being identical to the standard T-34/76, I understand what you're saying, but at the same time, every T-34 is different. For example, if you look at Lukin's #20, it's stowage is rather different from most flat-turret T-34's. It's got no mounts for fuel boxes on the hull sides, and the jack block is missing from the rear fender as well. Also, the tracks appear to be what was labeled in T-34 Mythical Weapon as a "variant of the Ural type track", which I haven't seen often if at all. Basically, I wanted to try and model one of these two tanks as closely to the actual vehicle as possible. But I get your point, and there's also the old modeler's rule of thumb: "If you can't find anything to show you what it looks like, then odds are that no one else can either".
Hi, Matt! You are welcome!
I am not an expert in T-34, so I can talk about things I have in the literature I have.
Tracks: on the picture like that really hard to tell what tracks are on - Ural type or other. The only thing is obvious - those are so called "winter" tracks. Here are two pages from "T-34 From top to bottom". First page - Ural type tracks. Second page - tracks from Stalingrad. Kind of hard to decide for sure which ones are on #20...
Jack block - someone probably took it off. Mounts for the fuel tanks - there is something on the left fender... Could it be them?
MKessler
Ohio, United States
Joined: February 28, 2008
KitMaker: 51 posts
Armorama: 39 posts
Joined: February 28, 2008
KitMaker: 51 posts
Armorama: 39 posts
Posted: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 - 09:10 AM UTC
I'm leaning to the tracks at the top of the first page. I can defintely see the chevron portion, but I can't make out any of the web in the center of the link. Also, the two white dots on the outside of the upper link on the drive sprocket of the intact tank look suspiciously like the notches for the ice cleats on that same track. Now if someone just made them as an aftermarket set...
I don't think those are fuel tank mounts on the fenders, although I'm not sure what they are. I'm going to have to do more research on that.
The jack block mounts would still be located on the rear fender if the block had been stored there, and there's no sign of them. I'll need to do more research on that as well. I'll post what I come up with if anyone is interested.
Thanks again,
Matt K.
I don't think those are fuel tank mounts on the fenders, although I'm not sure what they are. I'm going to have to do more research on that.
The jack block mounts would still be located on the rear fender if the block had been stored there, and there's no sign of them. I'll need to do more research on that as well. I'll post what I come up with if anyone is interested.
Thanks again,
Matt K.
Minsk94
Wisconsin, United States
Joined: June 16, 2008
KitMaker: 418 posts
Armorama: 408 posts
Joined: June 16, 2008
KitMaker: 418 posts
Armorama: 408 posts
Posted: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 - 10:10 AM UTC
Yes, at least I would like to know what you come up with. I will see what I have too.
MCR
Arizona, United States
Joined: July 15, 2004
KitMaker: 464 posts
Armorama: 407 posts
Joined: July 15, 2004
KitMaker: 464 posts
Armorama: 407 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 08, 2009 - 12:06 PM UTC
Based on the fender studs it appears that this tank may have been built on an early STZ hull.
From the back of the tank to the front the first two studs (parallel to the hull sides) were for mounting a pair of extra track links.
The next set of four studs probably mounted the ZIP tool box normally mounted on the apposite fender on tanks made by anyone other than STZ.
The second set of four (just behind the gun cleaning tool box) is a bit of a mystery but may have held an additional box for holding another set of cleaning rods for the gun.
I'm guessing here but the longer gun would have required either longer cleaning rod sections or more of them. If the latter is true another box may have been needed to hold those extra sections.
For what it's worth,
Mark
From the back of the tank to the front the first two studs (parallel to the hull sides) were for mounting a pair of extra track links.
The next set of four studs probably mounted the ZIP tool box normally mounted on the apposite fender on tanks made by anyone other than STZ.
The second set of four (just behind the gun cleaning tool box) is a bit of a mystery but may have held an additional box for holding another set of cleaning rods for the gun.
I'm guessing here but the longer gun would have required either longer cleaning rod sections or more of them. If the latter is true another box may have been needed to hold those extra sections.
For what it's worth,
Mark
MKessler
Ohio, United States
Joined: February 28, 2008
KitMaker: 51 posts
Armorama: 39 posts
Joined: February 28, 2008
KitMaker: 51 posts
Armorama: 39 posts
Posted: Friday, January 09, 2009 - 03:59 PM UTC
Aha! More input! Thanks much!
That was along the same lines I was thinking. The spacing on the threaded sockets definitely suggest two of the bins. I still can't figure out where the jack blocks were located. What about Krasnoe Sormovo? I know they mounted the blocks on the right-hand side of the hull for a time. Does this put the rear-most storage box more in the correct location?
I'm not sure about the STZ production, but it is definitely an option. I recall reading somewhere that STZ was one of the factories provided with the ZIS-4 guns. The only thing that throws me is that the rest of the hull (that we can see) seems to match factory 183 methods as far as I can tell. It has rubber-rimmed roadwheels (at least on the last station), no interlocking of the rear hull plates, flush transmission access hatch, and two hinges on the rear hull plate. That being said, I know that when STZ was getting started up they were assembling entire tanks from parts shipped to them from factory 183.
Still analyzing...
Matt K.
Quoted Text
The second set of four (just behind the gun cleaning tool box) is a bit of a mystery but may have held an additional box for holding another set of cleaning rods for the gun.
That was along the same lines I was thinking. The spacing on the threaded sockets definitely suggest two of the bins. I still can't figure out where the jack blocks were located. What about Krasnoe Sormovo? I know they mounted the blocks on the right-hand side of the hull for a time. Does this put the rear-most storage box more in the correct location?
I'm not sure about the STZ production, but it is definitely an option. I recall reading somewhere that STZ was one of the factories provided with the ZIS-4 guns. The only thing that throws me is that the rest of the hull (that we can see) seems to match factory 183 methods as far as I can tell. It has rubber-rimmed roadwheels (at least on the last station), no interlocking of the rear hull plates, flush transmission access hatch, and two hinges on the rear hull plate. That being said, I know that when STZ was getting started up they were assembling entire tanks from parts shipped to them from factory 183.
Still analyzing...
Matt K.
MKessler
Ohio, United States
Joined: February 28, 2008
KitMaker: 51 posts
Armorama: 39 posts
Joined: February 28, 2008
KitMaker: 51 posts
Armorama: 39 posts
Posted: Friday, January 09, 2009 - 04:05 PM UTC
Here is a portion of a posting I found here.
Assuming that the remaining guns really did go to Krasnoe Sormovo, that would make it the odds on favorite. However, this also shows that we can't rule out any one factory as the source. Anyway, I thought it was interesting.
Matt K.
Quoted Text
Mass production of those guns started in August 1941. In September 1941 it was temporary delayed and on December 1, 1941, it was cancelled. That was because of shortage of 57 mm ammunition and productional expenses. According to report of Ministry of Ammunition (Narkomat Boepripasov), in 1941 the Factory # 92 has manufactured 133 ZIS-4 guns.
Until evacuation, KhPZ had received 21 guns for reaming some production T-34s. STZ had received 20 guns. From October 1, 1941, T-34-57 must been manufactured on "Krasnoye Sormovo" Factory, but despite best my effort, I was unable to find any records in factory's statistic reports.
Assuming that the remaining guns really did go to Krasnoe Sormovo, that would make it the odds on favorite. However, this also shows that we can't rule out any one factory as the source. Anyway, I thought it was interesting.
Matt K.
MCR
Arizona, United States
Joined: July 15, 2004
KitMaker: 464 posts
Armorama: 407 posts
Joined: July 15, 2004
KitMaker: 464 posts
Armorama: 407 posts
Posted: Friday, January 09, 2009 - 06:24 PM UTC
Well I have to make a small correction; The ZIP tool box was on the driver's side of the hull on Model '40's and what I believe to be some early '41's. I am not really sure when the switch was made to the opposite fender by KhPZ but it appears to have been before the move to the Urals.
I was being a little too over-generalizing to be accurate and to tell the truth something often enough jumps out to bite you on the butt when trying to pin down who made any given Model '41.
As far as the jack blocks go, it appears that KhPZ and/or Krasnoye Sormovo (there is some speculation that this could be an identifier for early Factory 112 production tanks) were placing a single block on the loader's side hull (the "right" side facing the rear of the tank) near the intake grill. Soon enough though they simply omitted the blocks altogether.
BUT there are some photos of what claim to be STZ tanks with the same feature!
One of the huge problems in identifying KhPZ, STZ, and 112 made Model '41's is that they were all based on exactly the same designs with very little variation, at least in their initial batches.
In reality, and upon some reflection, the tank in question could have been made at any one of those factories.
I was being a little too over-generalizing to be accurate and to tell the truth something often enough jumps out to bite you on the butt when trying to pin down who made any given Model '41.
As far as the jack blocks go, it appears that KhPZ and/or Krasnoye Sormovo (there is some speculation that this could be an identifier for early Factory 112 production tanks) were placing a single block on the loader's side hull (the "right" side facing the rear of the tank) near the intake grill. Soon enough though they simply omitted the blocks altogether.
BUT there are some photos of what claim to be STZ tanks with the same feature!
One of the huge problems in identifying KhPZ, STZ, and 112 made Model '41's is that they were all based on exactly the same designs with very little variation, at least in their initial batches.
In reality, and upon some reflection, the tank in question could have been made at any one of those factories.
MKessler
Ohio, United States
Joined: February 28, 2008
KitMaker: 51 posts
Armorama: 39 posts
Joined: February 28, 2008
KitMaker: 51 posts
Armorama: 39 posts
Posted: Friday, January 09, 2009 - 07:09 PM UTC
Working from two pictures of roughly the same angle of this tank is proving to be a bit too much of a handicap to really get too conclusive with the identification of it's origins, but I think I'm getting to where I've got the answers I need to build a pretty representative model of it. Here's my idea, please feel free to chime in with your own opinion (anyone).
I think the best option for modeling this tank is to start with a combination of Aber's beautiful ZiS-4 57mm barrel with the Cyber Hobby T-34/76 STZ Mod. 1941 hull mated to the turret from Dragon's T-34/76 Mod. 1941 Cast Turret. That gives me the following:
Rectangular transmission access hatch
Rounded rear hull
Two hinge rear hull
Something close to single rear tow hooks (as opposed to "hammerhead" or "early")
Horizontal engine louvers
Non-interlocking hull plates
Early drive sprocket
Early rubber-rimmed dished roadwheels
Early style cast turret
Turret hatch with fitting in place of POP mount
Welded on turret ventilator cover
Rounded front fenders
Front mounted headlight (assumed due to lack of side headlight)
I'm assuming the early driver's hatch and bow MG without cover are probably correct, as well as the turret with the separate rear plate. I think I'll leave all the stowage off except for the toolbox on the forward left fender and two of the other boxes on the left fender in the proper locations for the sockets visible on the fenders in the picture. Treads are the only real disappointment, as I turned up empty looking for an early style track similar to the ones that seem to be visible in the pictures.
On a last note, I do find it interesting that I know of at least three publications from three different publishers that have line drawings of a T-34/57 flat turret, along with the drawings in this thread, and none of the drawings seem to properly represent this tank as shown in the photographs. Since these seem to be possibly the only pictures available of this rare variant of the T-34, where did they get the information for the drawings?
Anyway, please feel free to tell me where I've gone wrong.
Thanks for all the help,
Matt K.
I think the best option for modeling this tank is to start with a combination of Aber's beautiful ZiS-4 57mm barrel with the Cyber Hobby T-34/76 STZ Mod. 1941 hull mated to the turret from Dragon's T-34/76 Mod. 1941 Cast Turret. That gives me the following:
Rectangular transmission access hatch
Rounded rear hull
Two hinge rear hull
Something close to single rear tow hooks (as opposed to "hammerhead" or "early")
Horizontal engine louvers
Non-interlocking hull plates
Early drive sprocket
Early rubber-rimmed dished roadwheels
Early style cast turret
Turret hatch with fitting in place of POP mount
Welded on turret ventilator cover
Rounded front fenders
Front mounted headlight (assumed due to lack of side headlight)
I'm assuming the early driver's hatch and bow MG without cover are probably correct, as well as the turret with the separate rear plate. I think I'll leave all the stowage off except for the toolbox on the forward left fender and two of the other boxes on the left fender in the proper locations for the sockets visible on the fenders in the picture. Treads are the only real disappointment, as I turned up empty looking for an early style track similar to the ones that seem to be visible in the pictures.
On a last note, I do find it interesting that I know of at least three publications from three different publishers that have line drawings of a T-34/57 flat turret, along with the drawings in this thread, and none of the drawings seem to properly represent this tank as shown in the photographs. Since these seem to be possibly the only pictures available of this rare variant of the T-34, where did they get the information for the drawings?
Anyway, please feel free to tell me where I've gone wrong.
Thanks for all the help,
Matt K.
MCR
Arizona, United States
Joined: July 15, 2004
KitMaker: 464 posts
Armorama: 407 posts
Joined: July 15, 2004
KitMaker: 464 posts
Armorama: 407 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 11, 2009 - 06:45 AM UTC
Your list seems pretty complete.
As for tracks you could go with Modelkasten SK-35 which represent the first type of link shown in the article above. Maybe not exactly what you're looking for but also the more common and, because of that, more likely.
I'm pretty sure your assumption about the early drivers hatch would be correct.
For some reason I was thinking that the photos shown here were taken in something like February of '42 but I see that they have actually been dated to October of '41 which I believe puts it before commonly accepted dates for the introduction of the new cast hatch.
The only thing that bothers me (just a very little) is that given the angle of the second picture I would have expected to see the top of the cover for the driver's outboard vision block peeking out above the glacis.
Still, it could be that the angle really isn't right for that, the covers were actually shorter than I believe, or that the cover itself has been knocked off.
OK, just a couple of nit-picks: Your first three detail items (the hatch, rear plate, and hinges) are really all just part and parcel of the same thing. If you have the Model 40/41 rear plate you will also always have the rectangular hatch and two hinges.
Interlocking hull? Definitely not, way too early for that. Of course not all STZ tanks had them and their initial batches would have been much the same as what you see in the photos.
When you say rounded fenders you are speaking of the common type not the really rounded sort seen on the Model '40, correct?
You can modify DML's "hammerhead" towing hooks to look like the modified single "beak" type without a huge amount of work (it involves sanding away the short "horn" and shimming out the upper portion from its base). It's not perfect but is gets you close.You could always scratchbuild the part too if you're adventurous. Dmitry Kiyatkin did this, you can see his post a page or two back on December 7.
I can provide you with a photo or two and a side view scale drawing if you need them.
Good luck with your project! You are going to post photos as your work progresses, right?
Mark
As for tracks you could go with Modelkasten SK-35 which represent the first type of link shown in the article above. Maybe not exactly what you're looking for but also the more common and, because of that, more likely.
I'm pretty sure your assumption about the early drivers hatch would be correct.
For some reason I was thinking that the photos shown here were taken in something like February of '42 but I see that they have actually been dated to October of '41 which I believe puts it before commonly accepted dates for the introduction of the new cast hatch.
The only thing that bothers me (just a very little) is that given the angle of the second picture I would have expected to see the top of the cover for the driver's outboard vision block peeking out above the glacis.
Still, it could be that the angle really isn't right for that, the covers were actually shorter than I believe, or that the cover itself has been knocked off.
OK, just a couple of nit-picks: Your first three detail items (the hatch, rear plate, and hinges) are really all just part and parcel of the same thing. If you have the Model 40/41 rear plate you will also always have the rectangular hatch and two hinges.
Interlocking hull? Definitely not, way too early for that. Of course not all STZ tanks had them and their initial batches would have been much the same as what you see in the photos.
When you say rounded fenders you are speaking of the common type not the really rounded sort seen on the Model '40, correct?
You can modify DML's "hammerhead" towing hooks to look like the modified single "beak" type without a huge amount of work (it involves sanding away the short "horn" and shimming out the upper portion from its base). It's not perfect but is gets you close.You could always scratchbuild the part too if you're adventurous. Dmitry Kiyatkin did this, you can see his post a page or two back on December 7.
I can provide you with a photo or two and a side view scale drawing if you need them.
Good luck with your project! You are going to post photos as your work progresses, right?
Mark
Minsk94
Wisconsin, United States
Joined: June 16, 2008
KitMaker: 418 posts
Armorama: 408 posts
Joined: June 16, 2008
KitMaker: 418 posts
Armorama: 408 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 11, 2009 - 07:20 AM UTC
Lets just start that it couldn't be a tank from Stalingrad, because STZ tanks had steel wheels.
As far as mounts for extra fuel tanks - yes, there were such installed on fenders, and not on the sides of a hull.
Tool box? It's right there, it opened, and clearly visible on the photo.
As far as mounts for extra fuel tanks - yes, there were such installed on fenders, and not on the sides of a hull.
Tool box? It's right there, it opened, and clearly visible on the photo.
MCR
Arizona, United States
Joined: July 15, 2004
KitMaker: 464 posts
Armorama: 407 posts
Joined: July 15, 2004
KitMaker: 464 posts
Armorama: 407 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 11, 2009 - 12:20 PM UTC
Hey Alex,
Absolutely not true. STZ started production well before they introduced the "internally dampened" tireless wheel and made hundreds of T-34s with rubber tired wheels before switching over.
As stated it is nearly impossible to differentiate an early STZ or Factory 112 Model '41 from those produced at KhPZ. All the major changes we associate with these company's production came later.
True enough, and from the single photograph where the bracket can be clearly seen (that I've so far been able to find, i.e. pg 48 of the English version of Mythical Weapon) the brackets can have been mounted on second set of studs we see in the Lukin tank photographs as well as on the set that would often hold the second, smaller tool box on these hulls. Who knows, perhaps the reason this smaller box was moved to the opposite fender in the first place was to allow for the mounting of those extra cells.
Interestingly though, I have not been able to find a photograph showing the brackets for the fender mounted fuel that did not also show the welded on side brackets (though several show the fender studs without them). I’m not saying they aren’t out there somewhere, just that I haven’t found them yet.
Of course since I posted last I've found several good photos showing that extra set of studs on tanks other than those mounting the 57mm gun which blows my theory of a second box for gun cleaning rods out of the water. I've also found a couple that clearly show these studs on a tank with the second, smaller tool box mounted in its later standard position on the rear of the loader's side fender so it may well be that they were intended only to hold the brackets for the extra fuel cells whether they actually ever did or not.
I've also found one or two photos where the extra set of studs is present with the smaller tool box still mounted in its initial location on the driver's side rear of the fender.
(STZ would continue to mount the smaller box on the driver's side throughout production.)
BTW, the fender mounted brackets actually begin to show up on the Model '40.
I'll have to try to illustrate all this in my next set of scale drawings!
I'm not sure what you are referring to here? Did someone say that there was no box for the gun cleaning equipment mounted? I did speculate that there may have been a SECOND box mounted for extra cleaning rods stating my reasoning but the above paragraph shows that I now doubt that speculation. It's still possible I suppose, just not very likely.
AS an aside; I knew I had it in one of my ref’s but the date for the introduction of cast driver's hatch was somewhere around December of 1941 which means that, if the October date for the photos of Lukin's tank are correct, it would definitely NOT have the later hatch. Yet still I ask myself IS that date correct?
Hope this all is more helpful than confusing!
Mark
Quoted Text
Lets just start that it couldn't be a tank from Stalingrad, because STZ tanks had steel wheels.
Absolutely not true. STZ started production well before they introduced the "internally dampened" tireless wheel and made hundreds of T-34s with rubber tired wheels before switching over.
As stated it is nearly impossible to differentiate an early STZ or Factory 112 Model '41 from those produced at KhPZ. All the major changes we associate with these company's production came later.
Quoted Text
As far as mounts for extra fuel tanks - yes, there were such installed on fenders, and not on the sides of a hull.
True enough, and from the single photograph where the bracket can be clearly seen (that I've so far been able to find, i.e. pg 48 of the English version of Mythical Weapon) the brackets can have been mounted on second set of studs we see in the Lukin tank photographs as well as on the set that would often hold the second, smaller tool box on these hulls. Who knows, perhaps the reason this smaller box was moved to the opposite fender in the first place was to allow for the mounting of those extra cells.
Interestingly though, I have not been able to find a photograph showing the brackets for the fender mounted fuel that did not also show the welded on side brackets (though several show the fender studs without them). I’m not saying they aren’t out there somewhere, just that I haven’t found them yet.
Of course since I posted last I've found several good photos showing that extra set of studs on tanks other than those mounting the 57mm gun which blows my theory of a second box for gun cleaning rods out of the water. I've also found a couple that clearly show these studs on a tank with the second, smaller tool box mounted in its later standard position on the rear of the loader's side fender so it may well be that they were intended only to hold the brackets for the extra fuel cells whether they actually ever did or not.
I've also found one or two photos where the extra set of studs is present with the smaller tool box still mounted in its initial location on the driver's side rear of the fender.
(STZ would continue to mount the smaller box on the driver's side throughout production.)
BTW, the fender mounted brackets actually begin to show up on the Model '40.
I'll have to try to illustrate all this in my next set of scale drawings!
Quoted Text
Tool box? It's right there, it opened, and clearly visible on the photo.
I'm not sure what you are referring to here? Did someone say that there was no box for the gun cleaning equipment mounted? I did speculate that there may have been a SECOND box mounted for extra cleaning rods stating my reasoning but the above paragraph shows that I now doubt that speculation. It's still possible I suppose, just not very likely.
AS an aside; I knew I had it in one of my ref’s but the date for the introduction of cast driver's hatch was somewhere around December of 1941 which means that, if the October date for the photos of Lukin's tank are correct, it would definitely NOT have the later hatch. Yet still I ask myself IS that date correct?
Hope this all is more helpful than confusing!
Mark
MKessler
Ohio, United States
Joined: February 28, 2008
KitMaker: 51 posts
Armorama: 39 posts
Joined: February 28, 2008
KitMaker: 51 posts
Armorama: 39 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 - 05:22 AM UTC
Mark,
I've been looking for pictures of studs or boxes in the location of those studs with no success. Could you either post the pictures or give a book and page reference for some of them? I'm curious to say the least. For that matter, do you know of any pictures that show the studs in use for the fuel tank brackets?
As for the extra studs on standard 76mm gun tanks - the references mention that the 57mm guns were replaced on surviving tanks following the wearing out of the original guns. I know the odds would be low that this is the case, but I wonder if these could be rebuilt T-34-57's?
I will do a build log if there's interest. I've got a Dragon model 41 to finish first however. I'll be posting soon for suggestions on a painting sequence for it. It's been too long since I've finished an armor kit, and too many good ideas have come around since then.
Thanks,
Matt K.
Quoted Text
Of course since I posted last I've found several good photos showing that extra set of studs on tanks other than those mounting the 57mm gun which blows my theory of a second box for gun cleaning rods out of the water. I've also found a couple that clearly show these studs on a tank with the second, smaller tool box mounted in its later standard position on the rear of the loader's side fender so it may well be that they were intended only to hold the brackets for the extra fuel cells whether they actually ever did or not.
I've also found one or two photos where the extra set of studs is present with the smaller tool box still mounted in its initial location on the driver's side rear of the fender.
I've been looking for pictures of studs or boxes in the location of those studs with no success. Could you either post the pictures or give a book and page reference for some of them? I'm curious to say the least. For that matter, do you know of any pictures that show the studs in use for the fuel tank brackets?
As for the extra studs on standard 76mm gun tanks - the references mention that the 57mm guns were replaced on surviving tanks following the wearing out of the original guns. I know the odds would be low that this is the case, but I wonder if these could be rebuilt T-34-57's?
I will do a build log if there's interest. I've got a Dragon model 41 to finish first however. I'll be posting soon for suggestions on a painting sequence for it. It's been too long since I've finished an armor kit, and too many good ideas have come around since then.
Thanks,
Matt K.
MCR
Arizona, United States
Joined: July 15, 2004
KitMaker: 464 posts
Armorama: 407 posts
Joined: July 15, 2004
KitMaker: 464 posts
Armorama: 407 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 - 10:05 AM UTC
Matt,
I've sent along a PM regarding photos.
There is the photo I mention in the previous post that shows the brackets in use and there are several more I could scan for you if you need them.
As far as the images that show tanks with the extra studs on 76mm gunned tanks being evidence of rebuilds, that seems unlikely. There were very few T-34 "destroyers" built but so far I've been able to find quite a few photos showing the studs or fender mounted fuel cells in the same location as the studs
I'm looking forward to seeing your build log!
Mark
I've sent along a PM regarding photos.
There is the photo I mention in the previous post that shows the brackets in use and there are several more I could scan for you if you need them.
As far as the images that show tanks with the extra studs on 76mm gunned tanks being evidence of rebuilds, that seems unlikely. There were very few T-34 "destroyers" built but so far I've been able to find quite a few photos showing the studs or fender mounted fuel cells in the same location as the studs
I'm looking forward to seeing your build log!
Mark