_GOTOBOTTOM
Яusso-Soviэt Forum
Russian or Soviet vehicles/armor modeling forum.
Object 704 build log
Bizarre
Visit this Community
Akershus, Norway
Joined: July 20, 2010
KitMaker: 1,709 posts
Armorama: 1,581 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 12, 2014 - 07:43 AM UTC
Here are my thoughts on the rear of this SPH.
First of all - original vehicle never had any rear drums. This is a feature taken from WoT and if you are interested in making real vehicle you should avoid these items. I filled the holes with putty and sanded.

And there is another item right in the middle of the rear panel that I have no clue about. It is not on the original Object 704 images....



At the same time I do not understand why Trumpeter haven't made tow shackles and tow cable as per original....


The extra fuel tank are OK and look sufficient.
Bizarre
Visit this Community
Akershus, Norway
Joined: July 20, 2010
KitMaker: 1,709 posts
Armorama: 1,581 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 12, 2014 - 07:51 AM UTC
Smaller details -
headlight will be substituted, why they did not include clear parts????


DShK looks OK detailed, but no bored barrel and muzzle, maybe I will look for MiniArm resin offering.


The roof is OK detailed apart from driver and commanders hatches. If you check the video from WoT channel (I have link in one of the messages above) you will see that the driver and commander hatches on Object 704 could be rotated together with periscope, but the hatch itself was sliding on a side, similar to ones on Panther. Trumpeter made it as 1 circular part, meaning you will not be able to open any of these hatches to place a figure unless you are Master of Scratch.

Bizarre
Visit this Community
Akershus, Norway
Joined: July 20, 2010
KitMaker: 1,709 posts
Armorama: 1,581 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 12, 2014 - 08:04 AM UTC
Co-axial DShK is not bored as well. Can be fixed with a fine drill in principle...



front view. Still need to add handle on the hull nose and adjust the direction of co-axial DShK.



As you were asking about width with metal tracks - it matches pretty well the images of the real thing. Also the sag is there...

CMOT
Staff MemberEditor-in-Chief
ARMORAMA
Visit this Community
England - South West, United Kingdom
Joined: May 14, 2006
KitMaker: 10,954 posts
Armorama: 8,571 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 12, 2014 - 08:07 AM UTC
You are making quick progress on this one Roman, well done.
Bizarre
Visit this Community
Akershus, Norway
Joined: July 20, 2010
KitMaker: 1,709 posts
Armorama: 1,581 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 12, 2014 - 08:08 AM UTC
otherwise I am pretty much done, just need to do some welds, etc and wait for the metal barrel to be released by RB model.
Bizarre
Visit this Community
Akershus, Norway
Joined: July 20, 2010
KitMaker: 1,709 posts
Armorama: 1,581 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 12, 2014 - 08:10 AM UTC

Quoted Text

You are making quick progress on this one Roman, well done.



Thanks, Darren, it is an easy to build kit, and I also skipped cleaning up plastic tracks
dvarettoni
Visit this Community
South Carolina, United States
Joined: September 28, 2005
KitMaker: 778 posts
Armorama: 763 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 12, 2014 - 10:50 AM UTC
Roman looking great tracks are spot on !!! now would you get some paint on this its killing me
dave
Bizarre
Visit this Community
Akershus, Norway
Joined: July 20, 2010
KitMaker: 1,709 posts
Armorama: 1,581 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 12, 2014 - 11:18 AM UTC
thanks, just need to wait a bit
C_JACQUEMONT
Visit this Community
Loire-Atlantique, France
Joined: October 09, 2004
KitMaker: 2,433 posts
Armorama: 2,325 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 12, 2014 - 09:48 PM UTC
Great build, thanks for the new pics.

I must say I'm not 100% convinced your tracks are wide enough, although it's hard to determine given your photos.

I guess you could compare the width of the track outside the outer part of the roadwheel on this picture.



Cheers,

Christophe
Bizarre
Visit this Community
Akershus, Norway
Joined: July 20, 2010
KitMaker: 1,709 posts
Armorama: 1,581 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 12, 2014 - 10:07 PM UTC
well. the tracks that I have are 650mm - the ones that are on the example in Kubinka and on other IS series tanks. Let's say it is the only item on that model that I am sure that has correct size.
Bizarre
Visit this Community
Akershus, Norway
Joined: July 20, 2010
KitMaker: 1,709 posts
Armorama: 1,581 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 12, 2014 - 10:09 PM UTC

Check frontal view



and original shot from 1945

Bizarre
Visit this Community
Akershus, Norway
Joined: July 20, 2010
KitMaker: 1,709 posts
Armorama: 1,581 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 12, 2014 - 10:12 PM UTC
and if you look again on the rear image in the top of page 2 of this thread you will notice that the tracks are within the rear mudguards. similar to what I have.
hugohuertas
Visit this Community
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Joined: January 26, 2007
KitMaker: 1,024 posts
Armorama: 1,013 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 12, 2014 - 10:32 PM UTC
I'm with Cristophe here...
Something does not "look" right with the track width. Maybe it is related with the wheels position in the kit, but they do look narrow.
Every attempt I make projecting the outer line of the tracks in those pics end seeming that they go beyond the mudguards.
But lacking of "first hand" view or references, I'll give you the "right" with this.

Anyaway, a really fast and great build!
I'll be anxious too waiting to see it finished and painted
Bizarre
Visit this Community
Akershus, Norway
Joined: July 20, 2010
KitMaker: 1,709 posts
Armorama: 1,581 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 12, 2014 - 10:39 PM UTC
It is up to you, guys. Like I already said the tracks are fine, let's blame the manufacturer:)

If that doesnt look right to your eyes - take a measurement tool, go to Kubinka and clarify the issue
Bizarre
Visit this Community
Akershus, Norway
Joined: July 20, 2010
KitMaker: 1,709 posts
Armorama: 1,581 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 12, 2014 - 11:02 PM UTC
Also the road wheel diameter and width are fine.

Let's say you need to support your claims with something more substantial then photo taken under a certain degree
C_JACQUEMONT
Visit this Community
Loire-Atlantique, France
Joined: October 09, 2004
KitMaker: 2,433 posts
Armorama: 2,325 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 12, 2014 - 11:27 PM UTC
Well you have more data than we do, it was just an impression given the photos of your build you put up. Have you done the comparison with the outer face of roadwheel and outer part of the track? Does the width check out?

And I just wanted to give a constructive remark, Me I'm more interested in constructive remarks on my builds than the "WOW it's great!!!!" style of "feedback", but to each his own (just saying that because you sound pissed off);

Also this vehicle has been a pet subject of mine for years. I have the kit and some reference at home but I'm on holiday right now.

Cheers,

Christophe
KurtLaughlin
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 13, 2014 - 01:20 AM UTC

Quoted Text

and another thing - I assume there is something with the wheel base in that kit as original data says 86 links per side and Trumpeter has 84 in the manual. Well, Trumpeter's tracks are out of proper size but look here. When using metal tracks with correct size I got a lot of sag with 86 links and 84 would not be sufficient here.

There is no way to adjust idler position without modifications, so I will keep it as it is, or maybe skip one lightweight split track to avoid that sag.]



I never give any thought to the number of track links in a run unless it is grossly in error. In addition to the variable number on the real vehicle due to suspension arrangement (sometimes the number differs between sides), wear, track tension, and vehicle loading, model parts can also be nominally correct but vary in practice. The shrinkage from cement curing, the extent to which you clean up the connecting joints, the distance from the contacting surface to the pin center, and small differences in the location and size of the suspension can easily affect the number of links needed to give a complete run. As long as there are enough and they fit the sprocket, plus or minus two links from nominal is perfectly acceptable.

As example, Shermans had 79 links per side with a pitch of six inches. In 1/35, it only takes an difference of .002 inches (.055mm, about one-half the thickness of a sheet of paper or two coats of model paint) per link to change the track run by one link.

BTW, the problem with the Trumpeter split links is well-known:


Quoted Text

Trumpeter have departed from their earlier link-and-length tracks, in favor of individual link tracks. No vinyl tracks are included. The tracks depict the split-link tracks without a guide 'bump' on the split links, appropriate for an SU-152. However, the kit tracks scale out to 700mm wide, whereas all vehicles based on the KV-1S were fitted at the factory with 650mm tracks, except for a few early production examples with 608mm tracks. For accuracy, you should replace the tracks with aftermarket items.



(From 4BOgreen.com)

KL
Bizarre
Visit this Community
Akershus, Norway
Joined: July 20, 2010
KitMaker: 1,709 posts
Armorama: 1,581 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 13, 2014 - 04:08 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Well you have more data than we do, it was just an impression given the photos of your build you put up. Have you done the comparison with the outer face of roadwheel and outer part of the track? Does the width check out?

And I just wanted to give a constructive remark, Me I'm more interested in constructive remarks on my builds than the "WOW it's great!!!!" style of "feedback", but to each his own (just saying that because you sound pissed off);

Also this vehicle has been a pet subject of mine for years. I have the kit and some reference at home but I'm on holiday right now.

Cheers,

Christophe



I don't mind constructive feedback

To me they look as per post war images available. As both the tracks and road wheels have correct size I don't see a possibility for the issue here.

We know that this vehicle has early IS-3 tracks (lightweight), the dimensions of roadwheels are correct...

Bizarre
Visit this Community
Akershus, Norway
Joined: July 20, 2010
KitMaker: 1,709 posts
Armorama: 1,581 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 13, 2014 - 04:09 AM UTC

Quoted Text


BTW, the problem with the Trumpeter split links is well-known:

(From 4BOgreen.com)

KL



Thanks, I also found that info on PMMS after I did my post and wanted to check what is known.
Bizarre
Visit this Community
Akershus, Norway
Joined: July 20, 2010
KitMaker: 1,709 posts
Armorama: 1,581 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 - 05:41 AM UTC
alright, I think I know the answer. The SPH in the museum has several different type of tracks. The ones on the left side are actually from IS-4!

see the holes on them



and here is the IS-4, wider tracks although quite similar shape





But when we look on the historical images from the field Obj 704 has similar tracks on both sides. From that aspect we should not refer to Kubinka when it comes to how the vehicle was in operational mode.




Also note that the museum vehicle has rear mudguards welded and no hatches on the area above them - this is also "museum" modifications.
Bizarre
Visit this Community
Akershus, Norway
Joined: July 20, 2010
KitMaker: 1,709 posts
Armorama: 1,581 posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 - 09:15 PM UTC
I am back

pgb3476
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Joined: March 11, 2007
KitMaker: 977 posts
Armorama: 976 posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 - 11:54 PM UTC
Love the streaking and weathering in general.
Bizarre
Visit this Community
Akershus, Norway
Joined: July 20, 2010
KitMaker: 1,709 posts
Armorama: 1,581 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 - 01:12 PM UTC
thanks, I will make some proper pics later.
 _GOTOTOP