Conversions and Scratch Builds
#521
Kentucky, United States
Joined: April 13, 2011
KitMaker: 9,465 posts
Armorama: 8,695 posts
Posted: Monday, July 18, 2016 - 09:20 PM UTC
How about this one; a conversion already in kit form, right out of the box from the manufacture!
Academy's new Russian T-34, depicted as captured by the Germans. The Germans converted it by repainting, re-lettering and they even added a Pz. IV cupola to give the commander more room and greater visibility.
Neat eay?
p.s. More photos of captured T-34's on the Achtung Panzer! website at:
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerkampfwagen-t-34r-soviet-t-34-in-german-service.htmMore assorted other captured tanks (including US equipment) again on the Achtung Panzer! website:
Gallery I:
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/ctpic.htmGallery II:
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/ctpic2.htm#362
California, United States
Joined: December 01, 2013
KitMaker: 1,661 posts
Armorama: 1,202 posts
Posted: Monday, July 18, 2016 - 09:47 PM UTC
Hi Mike - I might be up for a campaign, scratch or conversion - don't know what at this point - but why not? As for time - whatever you wish! I just like building stuff and a scratch or two in the future are likely anyway!
Cheers
Nick
#521
Kentucky, United States
Joined: April 13, 2011
KitMaker: 9,465 posts
Armorama: 8,695 posts
Posted: Monday, July 18, 2016 - 10:37 PM UTC
OK, I guess I'm in for the campaign as well, but that is still only five of us!
At this point I'm thinking it will be one of the following:
- 2-axle Hard-Cab, Chevy Firetruck
- MAZ-543 8x8 semi tractor
- Large Australian aircraft crane based on the CCKW.
These 3 are all vying for first place on my "next most wanted model" list.
barkingdigger
Associate Editor#013
England - East Anglia, United Kingdom
Joined: June 20, 2008
KitMaker: 3,981 posts
Armorama: 3,403 posts
Posted: Monday, July 18, 2016 - 10:51 PM UTC
Quoted Text
OK Michael, I admit in making the following requests/suggestions I am being a choosy (or cheeky) beggar . . .
Perhaps the addition of a flat vertical mounting bracket coming off the bottom rear portion of the horn body please. Also the voltage regulator shown in the photo is a very generic item under the hood of 30's thru 60's autos that could be included in the horn set for even greater value. (They came in a variety of sizes - the one for the Jeep was huge!)
p.s. Thank you for making the end of the trumpet horn a bit more pronounced like on the Diamond T horns rather than squashed flatter as on the Spartan horns.)
Hi Mike,
Yep - brackets, wire attachment stud, and regulator are on the cards! (Just wanted to crack the basic shape first...). My plan is a "hi" and "low" plus regulator in a set, all on a small sprue.
BTW, I'm Tom, not "Michael"...
"Glue, or Glue Not - there is no Dry-Fit" - Yoda (original script from Return of the Jedi...)
#521
Kentucky, United States
Joined: April 13, 2011
KitMaker: 9,465 posts
Armorama: 8,695 posts
Posted: Monday, July 18, 2016 - 11:13 PM UTC
Very sorry Tom. I don't know how I got that crossed up.
Apologies
Mike
#521
Kentucky, United States
Joined: April 13, 2011
KitMaker: 9,465 posts
Armorama: 8,695 posts
Posted: Monday, July 18, 2016 - 11:18 PM UTC
Well I just figured out my confusion. I also posted this request for the "turtle horns" over on Michael Goldberg's thread about looking for 3D parts to print. I falsely assumed it was Michael responding to me here on my thread without reading the by line.
My mistake.
Arizona, United States
Joined: January 18, 2006
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,808 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - 12:25 AM UTC
Quoted Text
OK, I guess I'm in for the campaign as well, but that is still only five of us!
At this point I'm thinking it will be one of the following:
- 2-axle Hard-Cab, Chevy Firetruck
- MAZ-543 8x8 semi tractor
- Large Australian aircraft crane based on the CDCKW.
These 3 are all vying for first place on my "next most wanted model" list.
If it would bring more people on board, why not allow things like that T-34 and the IDF M50 and just call it a conversions campaign? Just allow extra time for the extreme conversions.
After reading some of the What If threads I'm stuck on a What If mood. I'm waiting for some parts for my M50's, real What If's!
My thoughts (nightmares):
M4A3E8 90mm
M4 Sturm-Sherman
M4 Jagd-Sherman
American-ized Panther G, Panther F or Panther II.
I found a nifty feature on the forums called HIDE USER.
I was going to try it on myself and go stealth, but it only works on other users.
#521
Kentucky, United States
Joined: April 13, 2011
KitMaker: 9,465 posts
Armorama: 8,695 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - 12:36 AM UTC
Good points all!
I personally would have no problem with the Academy captured "German" T-34 or the IDF M-50, after all they ARE conversions!
I would have no problem even with a captured stock Sherman with just German crosses painted on it either.
barkingdigger
Associate Editor #013
England - East Anglia, United Kingdom
Joined: June 20, 2008
KitMaker: 3,981 posts
Armorama: 3,403 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - 01:31 AM UTC
Hi Mike,
Not a problem! I only raised it light-heartedly as I assumed it was a confusion with MikeyBugs' 3D print thread. (I saw it there shortly after my first reply here...)
I'm still planning to finish the set as described, and might even scale them up to 1:25 too for the car/truck guys. I'll let you know when they're ready!
"Glue, or Glue Not - there is no Dry-Fit" - Yoda (original script from Return of the Jedi...)
#521
Kentucky, United States
Joined: April 13, 2011
KitMaker: 9,465 posts
Armorama: 8,695 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - 05:27 AM UTC
I am truly excited about soon being able to fill this void in my modeling.
Thank You
#521
Kentucky, United States
Joined: April 13, 2011
KitMaker: 9,465 posts
Armorama: 8,695 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - 05:29 AM UTC
Removed by original poster on 05/14/19 - 02:00:50 (GMT).
#521
Kentucky, United States
Joined: April 13, 2011
KitMaker: 9,465 posts
Armorama: 8,695 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - 05:57 AM UTC
What is your thinking regarding not being painted? Never thought of that one - should we not require finish paint?
Scotland, United Kingdom
Joined: April 30, 2007
KitMaker: 1,597 posts
Armorama: 806 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - 06:15 AM UTC
I know of some scratch builders who's builds are so clean and tidy in white plastic that many have been told that it is a shame that they consider painting them !! Keeping them unpainted offers the viewers an opportunity to see how the scratch went together !!
"Procrastination is the art of keeping up with yesterday."
Don Marquis
Procrastination isn't the problem, it's the solution. So procrastinate now, don't put it off.
Ellen DeGeneres
Removed by original poster on 05/14/19 - 02:01:19 (GMT).
Arizona, United States
Joined: January 18, 2006
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,808 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - 06:52 AM UTC
Quoted Text
What is your thinking regarding not being painted? Never thought of that one - should we not require finish paint?
Won't bother me any. I got third place at a local show with an unpainted M4A1. Nichimo, with Tamiya, with Italeri.
I found a nifty feature on the forums called HIDE USER.
I was going to try it on myself and go stealth, but it only works on other users.
tatbaqui
News Writer #040
Metro Manila, Philippines
Joined: May 06, 2007
KitMaker: 2,713 posts
Armorama: 2,451 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - 07:31 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text
What is your thinking regarding not being painted? Never thought of that one - should we not require finish paint?
Won't bother me any. I got third place at a local show with an unpainted M4A1. Nichimo, with Tamiya, with Italeri.
Am good with paint as an option. Glad to see this campaign proposal getting traction.
#521
Kentucky, United States
Joined: April 13, 2011
KitMaker: 9,465 posts
Armorama: 8,695 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - 08:25 AM UTC
I just wondered what the thinking was on the paint.
I can agree with Nige completely on his response to the question.
Personally my scratch construction has never been precise enough to be left unpainted but I see your point.
Arizona, United States
Joined: January 18, 2006
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,808 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - 09:32 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I just wondered what the thinking was on the paint.
I can agree with Nige completely on his response to the question.
Personally my scratch construction has never been precise enough to be left unpainted but I see your point.
Mike, your work looks just fine unpainted!
My current build, just put up in the What If section.
I found a nifty feature on the forums called HIDE USER.
I was going to try it on myself and go stealth, but it only works on other users.
#521
Kentucky, United States
Joined: April 13, 2011
KitMaker: 9,465 posts
Armorama: 8,695 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - 08:46 PM UTC
Randall
The wheels in my head have been turning ever since I saw the words "Jagd-Sherman" in one of your posts!
Not really sure why the US designers would have never tried an off-set, hull mounted gun with limited traverse in the Sherman.
Then trade all that weight of the now gone turret for extra armor and a lower silhouette.
barkingdigger
Associate Editor #013
England - East Anglia, United Kingdom
Joined: June 20, 2008
KitMaker: 3,981 posts
Armorama: 3,403 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - 10:17 PM UTC
Randall, that's an impressive "What If" you've built!
Mike, I wonder if such a fixed-mount effort could be 'bashed from the old M3 Lee? Drop the little upper turret, add a bunch of decent plate on the hull, replace the gun with a 90mm, swap in the HVSS and wide tracks... (If I only had precious build-time at the moment!)
"Glue, or Glue Not - there is no Dry-Fit" - Yoda (original script from Return of the Jedi...)
#521
Kentucky, United States
Joined: April 13, 2011
KitMaker: 9,465 posts
Armorama: 8,695 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - 10:25 PM UTC
I suppose it could be built out of the Lee/Grant but you would have to totally scrap the current hull mount for the canon and rebuild that whole area to accommodate the larger gun. Then even after losing the top turret you would still have a vehicle with a slightly taller silhouette than the Sherman.
Maybe start with the M7 Priest and completely rebuild the armored crew enclosure and make it a closed top???
Myself I like the idea of making a armored gimbal similar to that used on the Hetzer or Jagdpanzer IV, cutting it into the Sherman slopped front armor, off-center to the right (lose the co-driver and bow machine gun) and mount the US 90mm. The driver would remain in place with his standard escape hatch. The turret ring area would be plated over. The Commander would have some sort of raised cupola and either one or two escape hatches added to the top deck for the gunner and the loader.
#521
Kentucky, United States
Joined: April 13, 2011
KitMaker: 9,465 posts
Armorama: 8,695 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - 10:32 PM UTC
Well a proposal has now been submitted to the Campaign Manager's Group. We will see what develops over the next few weeks.
Arizona, United States
Joined: January 18, 2006
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,808 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - 11:12 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Randall
The wheels in my head have been turning ever since I saw the words "Jagd-Sherman" in one of your posts!
Not really sure why the US designers would have never tried an off-set, hull mounted gun with limited traverse in the Sherman.
Then trade all that weight of the now gone turret for extra armor and a lower silhouette.
There were a few prototypes but they decided on the turreted tanks.
I've done some layout work and the long 88 in a JadgPanther mount reaches back to just about to where the engine deck grills are on an M4A3. So, the gun would need to be above the hull top line for any elevation, or in a side mount like on the M3 medium (in your last post), pic 1 and 2.
I think the 88 mount from the Elephant would actually work better as the gun mount is more to the front with the trunions inside the ball mount. In pic 3 shift the gun forward and it might work.
Of course, the long 90 from the M26E4 would fit inside the hull, as it was designed to fit into the same turret ring as the M4's. But, what fun is that on a What If! I like the looks of the 88.
Edited for a typo.
I found a nifty feature on the forums called HIDE USER.
I was going to try it on myself and go stealth, but it only works on other users.
#521
Kentucky, United States
Joined: April 13, 2011
KitMaker: 9,465 posts
Armorama: 8,695 posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - 12:29 AM UTC
Here I am just expressing my personal opinions but I would probably stay with all US components in building a "Hunting Sherman".
Using the later model welded body, large hatches, GAA engine, 90mm gun, probably HVSS suspension therefore wide tracks and the very late war Commander's copula sitting on a raised armored ring.
