_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
Resicast SBG Bridge
iamheaminot
Visit this Community
Invercargill, New Zealand
Joined: January 03, 2004
KitMaker: 265 posts
Armorama: 185 posts
Posted: Friday, June 28, 2019 - 03:22 PM UTC
Help!
Which would be the most suitable AFV Club Churchill AVRE to go with the Resicast SBG Bridge?
I have both the AVRE Mk III and IV.
My thoughts head towards the Mk IV.

Good, thanks and ta.
Frenchy
Visit this Community
Rhone, France
Joined: December 02, 2002
KitMaker: 12,719 posts
Armorama: 12,507 posts
Posted: Friday, June 28, 2019 - 07:42 PM UTC
At first I would have said Mk IV, but it seems that Mk III is a valid option :



(from Panzerserra's blog )

H.P.
iamheaminot
Visit this Community
Invercargill, New Zealand
Joined: January 03, 2004
KitMaker: 265 posts
Armorama: 185 posts
Posted: Friday, June 28, 2019 - 07:55 PM UTC
Thanks for that info. Appreciated
ericadeane
Visit this Community
Michigan, United States
Joined: October 28, 2002
KitMaker: 4,021 posts
Armorama: 3,947 posts
Posted: Saturday, June 29, 2019 - 02:40 AM UTC
I wish someone would do a 3D version. I have the US Treadway bridge from Shapeways. They are amazing!

https://www.shapeways.com/product/TT35J4XSY/treadway-bridge-section?optionId=65978617&li=marketplace
JohnTapsell
Visit this Community
United Kingdom
Joined: August 24, 2011
KitMaker: 227 posts
Armorama: 226 posts
Posted: Saturday, June 29, 2019 - 07:51 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Help!
Which would be the most suitable AFV Club Churchill AVRE to go with the Resicast SBG Bridge?
I have both the AVRE Mk III and IV.
My thoughts head towards the Mk IV.

Good, thanks and ta.



The equipment fittings on an AVRE were standardised so any fully converted AVRE (MK III or Mk IV) could be fitted with the full range of AVRE gadgets. (I say fully converted because the AVREs used in Italy did not always have the equipment fittings on the sides of the hull - the kits were shipped out to Italy and existing gun Churchills were converted in base workshops, unlike the UK where they had the luxury of being able to convert the vehicles prior to D-Day).

The Mk IV was definitely the more common variant but there were more Mk IIIs used than many people realise.

Regards,
John
B_Ernie
#266
Visit this Community
Queensland, Australia
Joined: October 14, 2012
KitMaker: 54 posts
Armorama: 22 posts
Posted: Saturday, June 29, 2019 - 08:10 AM UTC
I used the Mk.IV when I built mine, you'll need to load up the hull of the tank with a suitable counterweight to stop it tipping forward onto the bridge, but not so much as it sits flat, they had a noticeable nose down attitude when carrying the bridge and when they stopped for any extended period - or even overnight, they lowered the bridge to the ground.

http://p-two.net/Scale_Models/AVRE/Churchill%20AVRE%20Bridgelayer.html
JohnTapsell
Visit this Community
United Kingdom
Joined: August 24, 2011
KitMaker: 227 posts
Armorama: 226 posts
Posted: Saturday, June 29, 2019 - 09:25 AM UTC
Yes - it wasn't unknown for the forward bogies to generate so much friction (because they were compressed so much) that they caught fire. The bridges could be towed behind the tanks on single axle bogies for longer trips between locations and there were also plans to try a folding version but I don't know if it was ever tested.

The SBG bridge should be painted white if you are doing one from the D-Day landings - I assume they were white so that they didn't show up as much when sticking up in the air in the landing craft. Later operations in NW Europe appear to have reverted to darker coloured bridges.
iamheaminot
Visit this Community
Invercargill, New Zealand
Joined: January 03, 2004
KitMaker: 265 posts
Armorama: 185 posts
Posted: Saturday, June 29, 2019 - 09:28 AM UTC
Yes Roy the treadway looks good.

John Thanks for the information, most helpful.

And Bernard nice model. If mine turns out half as good I will be more than happy. And yes I knew about the weight in the hull factor.
 _GOTOTOP