Were all H-39s equiped at the factory with the trench crossing tail or just some production runs? Most pics I've seen are tailless and I was wondering whether most came that way or whether they came with tails that were then removed...
I'm doing the Bronco kit and found some markings on the char-francaise site that I would like to use, but the tank in question is tailless and I would like to use the tail. So maybe it had a tail at some time prior to the photo?
Thanks for any replies!
Hosted by Darren Baker
Question for Hotchkiss H-39 gurus...
nosewrit
New York, United States
Joined: November 30, 2007
KitMaker: 86 posts
Armorama: 11 posts
Joined: November 30, 2007
KitMaker: 86 posts
Armorama: 11 posts
Posted: Monday, March 09, 2009 - 11:56 PM UTC
Posted: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 12:48 AM UTC
From what I can remember, the last production runs in 1939, had increased armor, the longer SA38 barrel and the tail skid included as improvements. Some older tanks that were brought in for maintanence at this time also had these updates added, so I donīt think there is a definate rule for what has, and what hasnīt.
Im guessing, that those that received skid tails, kept them as they were used for stowage as well. Even the Germans ... who took over 600 -800 tanks ... had a field modifed stowage box fitted in the skid, so I donīt think the "had a tail at some time prior to the photo" story is suitable. Im no expert, so hopefully somebody who knows this subject better can chime in.
Im guessing, that those that received skid tails, kept them as they were used for stowage as well. Even the Germans ... who took over 600 -800 tanks ... had a field modifed stowage box fitted in the skid, so I donīt think the "had a tail at some time prior to the photo" story is suitable. Im no expert, so hopefully somebody who knows this subject better can chime in.
Posted: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 12:49 AM UTC
Hi Mathew. Also, see my build, with some notes that might be useful HERE.
nosewrit
New York, United States
Joined: November 30, 2007
KitMaker: 86 posts
Armorama: 11 posts
Joined: November 30, 2007
KitMaker: 86 posts
Armorama: 11 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 01:39 AM UTC
Thanks for the info!
Silly me for trying to be logical. I thought that since WWI tanks used the trench tail and most WWII tanks didn't that it would have been the earlier H-39 that had the tail and that the tail was "ditched" (pun intended) later on.......
Silly me for trying to be logical. I thought that since WWI tanks used the trench tail and most WWII tanks didn't that it would have been the earlier H-39 that had the tail and that the tail was "ditched" (pun intended) later on.......