Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
Hosted by Darren Baker, Mario Matijasic
Best WWII Light Tank?
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Monday, February 18, 2002 - 12:22 AM UTC
Been working on a Tamiya PzKpfw III Ausf. M/N (the old one) and using the Osprey New Vanguard PanzerKampfwagen III and Squadron Signal PzKpfw III in Action (also the Vanguard StuG III and StuG III Walk Around for additional hull shots). This light tank looks to be a good design, low in profile and a decent gun in later marks. Much better than the 37mm in US light tanks. I'm not sure of the mechanical reliability and I've got pictures of at least three different running gear set ups.
pipesmoker
Joined: January 31, 2002
KitMaker: 649 posts
Armorama: 379 posts
Posted: Monday, February 18, 2002 - 02:12 AM UTC
Rob,
From whit I've read, the PzIII was very reliable and liked by it's crews. With the addition of the 50mmL60 gun it had the striking power of the PaK40. Armor protection (30mm) was adequate for 1940 but was not for Russia. The addition of another 30mm spaced armor helped somewhat. but the model was out classed at the end of the war.
From whit I've read, the PzIII was very reliable and liked by it's crews. With the addition of the 50mmL60 gun it had the striking power of the PaK40. Armor protection (30mm) was adequate for 1940 but was not for Russia. The addition of another 30mm spaced armor helped somewhat. but the model was out classed at the end of the war.
GunTruck
Joined: December 01, 2001
KitMaker: 5,885 posts
Armorama: 3,799 posts
Posted: Monday, February 18, 2002 - 04:02 AM UTC
Though it came late in the war, I give the nod to the 75mm Chaffee. It was a drastic improvement over the 37mm M3 / M5 Stuarts, quick, and agile on the battlefield - which made up for it's thinner armor protection. It couldn't really go toe-to-toe with a heavier German tank, but in the hands of skilled crewman the 75mm gun gave the tank opportunity and capability to fight its way out of a sticky situation.
There were some engagements where with some fortune added to the element of surprise and positioning the M24 Chaffee knocked out a number of Panthers and Tigers. Other historians label these engagements flukes - but - the Chaffee crews did knock out superior armored and armed opponents when pressed up against a rock and a hard place.
I like the scrappers - to me what a Light Tank is...
Gunnie
There were some engagements where with some fortune added to the element of surprise and positioning the M24 Chaffee knocked out a number of Panthers and Tigers. Other historians label these engagements flukes - but - the Chaffee crews did knock out superior armored and armed opponents when pressed up against a rock and a hard place.
I like the scrappers - to me what a Light Tank is...
Gunnie
210cav
Joined: February 05, 2002
KitMaker: 6,149 posts
Armorama: 4,573 posts
Posted: Monday, February 18, 2002 - 07:18 AM UTC
Gunnie--I wish I had the room to construct a diorama with the Dragon Wagon carrying an M-24 as the centerpiece passing through a typical European village with M-5's moving in the opposite direction. If anyone has a dirama with the Dragon Wagon in it, can you post the dimensions of your base and describe the scene.
Thanks
DJ
Thanks
DJ
GunTruck
Joined: December 01, 2001
KitMaker: 5,885 posts
Armorama: 3,799 posts
Posted: Monday, February 18, 2002 - 07:48 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Gunnie--I wish I had the room to construct a diorama with the Dragon Wagon carrying an M-24 as the centerpiece passing through a typical European village with M-5's moving in the opposite direction. If anyone has a dirama with the Dragon Wagon in it, can you post the dimensions of your base and describe the scene.
Thanks
DJ
DJ - my Dragon Wagon / Hell Cat combination sits on a base 24 inches by 8 inches - inside a plastic display case. No diorama - my typical. There wouldn't be much room along side the tank transporter (comfortably) for anything wider than the M3 / M5 Stuart with these dimensions. All the Dragon Wagon dioramas I've seen on contest display tables are at least that long, and go up to 20 inches wide. This appears unwieldy to me, which might be why you don't come accross many...
Gunnie
KMM
KitMaker: 91 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Monday, February 18, 2002 - 10:34 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Been working on a Tamiya PzKpfw III Ausf. M/N (the old one)
Hey Sabot, how is the old Tamyia Panzer III? I'm hopefully getting one pretty soon and have been looking for any information on it. Given how important the Pz III was for the germans in the early/mid war, there seem to be very few kits for it.
BTW: I'd probably go for the Pz III as the best early war light tank, and the Chafee for late war.
TreadHead
Joined: January 12, 2002
KitMaker: 5,000 posts
Armorama: 2,868 posts
Posted: Monday, February 18, 2002 - 10:50 AM UTC
For the record Gunnie, your gallery (just left there) of models is EXCELLENT!
The Dragon Wagon is a wonderful example of detail. Many small things (like the well weathered and coloured tyres, winch assembly & rusted exhaust) adding up to one large, excellent model.
Love the M20 too!
Tread.
The Dragon Wagon is a wonderful example of detail. Many small things (like the well weathered and coloured tyres, winch assembly & rusted exhaust) adding up to one large, excellent model.
Love the M20 too!
Tread.
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Monday, February 18, 2002 - 11:15 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Actually there are several kits of the Pzr III. Tamiya's old one is old! But they have an excellent new Ausf. L (#35215) out. While I do not have that kit (believe it or not), I do have the new StuG III Ausf. G that is based on the same kit. It puts the old Tamiya Pzr III to shame. I have been collecting up bits for the old Tamiya Pzr III for years and it includes the On-The-Mark photoetch set, Cornerstone resin torsion bar covers, Jordi Rubio aluminum 50cm barrel, Airwaves photoetch turret armor and DML 40cm individual track links. More of a labor of love than anything. If I didn't have so much invested in it, I'd snatch up the DML kit instead.Hey Sabot, how is the old Tamyia Panzer III? I'm hopefully getting one pretty soon and have been looking for any information on it. Given how important the Pz III was for the germans in the early/mid war, there seem to be very few kits for it.
DML makes several Pzr III in various Ausf.'s such as the Ausf. J (#9011), Ausf. M/N (#9015), F1 Flammpanzer (#9017), Ausf. K Command tank (#9018), Ausf. H (#9029), Ausf. H Artillery Observer (#9030), DAK Ausf. G (#9032), Tauch Panzer Ausf. H (#9033), Ausf. E (#9040), Ausf. J Control tank with Borgward remote demolition vehicle (#9054) as well as about a half dozen StuG III variants.
Some of these are out-of-production, but there are plenty of variants to chose from. I'm extremely tempted to dump the old one for a new one!
KMM
KitMaker: 91 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Monday, February 18, 2002 - 11:45 AM UTC
I sometimes overlook the DML kits. Like I've said before on this forum, I haven't really made up my mind on DML yet. If the kit is like the Firefly I'm currently building, then its a great buy. If its like the Pz IVJ I bought a while ago; its not worth the time it takes to throw it in the garbage.
I'm kind of new to armor, so having an older kit with less detail isn't such a big deal to me. I bought the cheap Tamiya Panther (which is REALLY old) and it turned out surprisingly well. If I get the kit, maybel I'll take this opportunity to try out some aftermarket parts.
Thanx for the input.
I'm kind of new to armor, so having an older kit with less detail isn't such a big deal to me. I bought the cheap Tamiya Panther (which is REALLY old) and it turned out surprisingly well. If I get the kit, maybel I'll take this opportunity to try out some aftermarket parts.
Thanx for the input.
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Monday, February 18, 2002 - 07:21 PM UTC
DML kits run the gambit of excellent ot OK. They also have a habit of reboxing other company's kits such as the Alan or Marquette Valentine and Bishop. They also borrowed basic Sherman molds from Italeri on their early M4 kits. Some of their modern Soviet stuff was based on photos instead of actual vehicle inspection.
Now for their good points, they actually tried to make modern Soviet stuff during the Cold War by basing a model off of photos when there were no real ones to be had. They produced about a dozen variants of the Sherman (where before there were about 3). They reboxed Eastern European models when these companies could not distribute to the US and they have generally taken over as the most diverse modern armor and WWII German armor manufacturer.
For a Pzr III kit that falls together, go for the Tamiya PzKpfw III Ausf. L, if it's anything like my StuG, it will fall together.
Now for their good points, they actually tried to make modern Soviet stuff during the Cold War by basing a model off of photos when there were no real ones to be had. They produced about a dozen variants of the Sherman (where before there were about 3). They reboxed Eastern European models when these companies could not distribute to the US and they have generally taken over as the most diverse modern armor and WWII German armor manufacturer.
For a Pzr III kit that falls together, go for the Tamiya PzKpfw III Ausf. L, if it's anything like my StuG, it will fall together.
210cav
Joined: February 05, 2002
KitMaker: 6,149 posts
Armorama: 4,573 posts
Posted: Monday, February 18, 2002 - 07:46 PM UTC
Gunnie--I am working on the M-8 HMC by Tamiya. I put a VLS interior in her. Also bought AFV T-16 track. This is a new realm of modeling for me. According to the instrutions, you do not glue the end connectors on the track blocks. Rather, you afix them to each block. It is tedious to say the least. The results are gratifying however. It easily goes around the running gear. I have ones side of some 64 blocks almost done. Look forward to sharing with you future progress reports. Still want to finish the M-26 Dragon Wagon. Yours is an inspiration. Well done as always.
DJ
DJ
GunTruck
Joined: December 01, 2001
KitMaker: 5,885 posts
Armorama: 3,799 posts
Posted: Monday, February 18, 2002 - 10:21 PM UTC
Quoted Text
For the record Gunnie, your gallery (just left there) of models is EXCELLENT!
The Dragon Wagon is a wonderful example of detail. Many small things (like the well weathered and coloured tyres, winch assembly & rusted exhaust) adding up to one large, excellent model.
Love the M20 too!
Tread.
Thanks Tread!
Gunnie
GunTruck
Joined: December 01, 2001
KitMaker: 5,885 posts
Armorama: 3,799 posts
Posted: Monday, February 18, 2002 - 10:26 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Gunnie--I am working on the M-8 HMC by Tamiya. I put a VLS interior in her. Also bought AFV T-16 track. This is a new realm of modeling for me. According to the instrutions, you do not glue the end connectors on the track blocks. Rather, you afix them to each block. It is tedious to say the least. The results are gratifying however. It easily goes around the running gear. I have ones side of some 64 blocks almost done. Look forward to sharing with you future progress reports. Still want to finish the M-26 Dragon Wagon. Yours is an inspiration. Well done as always.
DJ
DJ - I've got a M8 HMC in the pot too. I'm doing the same thing to mine as you are. We might even be at the same point in building the kit. I'm using the VP interior and have added the VP M5 Stuart Engine Compartment too - which called for some tricky cutting and drilling to get everything in there properly. I left the Engine Doors open in the rear to show off VP's cool dual fan blades. The two Cadillac Engines are really nice - too bad they're inside the model kit. I haven't put paint on it yet, still futzing around with equipment and small details.
AFV Club's individual track-links are pretty nice too. No glue needed, just press-fit. It does take some time to get a run together, however. Keep me up on where you are with yours!
Gunnie
210cav
Joined: February 05, 2002
KitMaker: 6,149 posts
Armorama: 4,573 posts
Posted: Monday, February 18, 2002 - 11:38 PM UTC
Gunnie as always many thanks for your response. An engine for the M-5? Wow! I have the Sherman recovery vehicles and several Sherman tank engines. All of which I will put into a diorama once I figure out how to display the M-26. MMiR had a superb review of the construction process for the M-26 a while back. I studied it and trust I can replicate some of their work. It will be a while before I get to that one.
DJ
DJ
GunTruck
Joined: December 01, 2001
KitMaker: 5,885 posts
Armorama: 3,799 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 - 01:43 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Gunnie as always many thanks for your response. An engine for the M-5? Wow! I have the Sherman recovery vehicles and several Sherman tank engines. All of which I will put into a diorama once I figure out how to display the M-26. MMiR had a superb review of the construction process for the M-26 a while back. I studied it and trust I can replicate some of their work. It will be a while before I get to that one.
DJ
DJ - go out and get the M5 Engine Compartment Set before they begin to disappear from the shelves. The twin Cadillac engines (because M5 Stuarts are powered by two Cadillac engines) are mind-blowing - worth having all by themselves. Beware of the engine VP put out for the LVT-4 and M12 155mm GMC. The radial is wonderfully detailed, but the actual engine only had seven cylinders - the VP part has 11 cylinders. If you're not a detail nut, it doesn't matter, but if you're gonna open up one and display that powerplant, it is noticable...
I like the M26 too. If I come across some good references - I'll let you know. The MMiR article is a good one - most of MMiR's stuff is good for modelers.
Gunnie
210cav
Joined: February 05, 2002
KitMaker: 6,149 posts
Armorama: 4,573 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 - 01:46 AM UTC
Gunnie--based on your recommendation, I ordered the engine. She is definitely going to cut the credit card into a million pieces now.
DJ
DJ
Kencelot
Joined: December 27, 2001
KitMaker: 4,268 posts
Armorama: 2,804 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 - 05:06 AM UTC
Quoted Text
put quote Beware of the engine VP put out for the LVT-4 and M12 155mm GMC. The radial is wonderfully detailed, but the actual engine only had seven cylinders - the VP part has 11 cylinderstext here
The VP engine is certainly incorrect for both vehicles. However the M12 used the Continental R-975-C1 which had 9 cylinders, and the LVT-4 used the Continental W670-9A which yes had the 7 cylinders.
What's really odd is where VP got the idea to use an 11 cylinder engine...because no US armored vehicles had one!
GunTruck
Joined: December 01, 2001
KitMaker: 5,885 posts
Armorama: 3,799 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 - 06:44 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Textput quote Beware of the engine VP put out for the LVT-4 and M12 155mm GMC. The radial is wonderfully detailed, but the actual engine only had seven cylinders - the VP part has 11 cylinderstext here
The VP engine is certainly incorrect for both vehicles. However the M12 used the Continental R-975-C1 which had 9 cylinders, and the LVT-4 used the Continental W670-9A which yes had the 7 cylinders.
What's really odd is where VP got the idea to use an 11 cylinder engine...because no US armored vehicles had one!
Maybe Uncle Frankie copped the basic mold from an aircraft engine - and figured we wouldn't care to notice anyway...
Gunnie
Kencelot
Joined: December 27, 2001
KitMaker: 4,268 posts
Armorama: 2,804 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 - 07:37 AM UTC
I'm sure there are other examples of this...but it sort of bewilders me that a company would take the time to "make" an add-on or detail set that is way off base. Like you said Gunnie, maybe they had the mold already (but in 1/35th???) and decided "what the heck, they'll never know."
Hmmmm...lack of research or lack of care for a well -informed modeler on the companie's part, no matter how ya slice it! Which again makes no sense. If a modeler is going to detail a model one would think he or she does their homework, which would of course, result in "finding out" what is correct or what is not.
Oh well. Anyway, if you look at the VP set for it's added dimension of detail, it's still pretty good, so long as you don't look too hard.
Hmmmm...lack of research or lack of care for a well -informed modeler on the companie's part, no matter how ya slice it! Which again makes no sense. If a modeler is going to detail a model one would think he or she does their homework, which would of course, result in "finding out" what is correct or what is not.
Oh well. Anyway, if you look at the VP set for it's added dimension of detail, it's still pretty good, so long as you don't look too hard.
GunTruck
Joined: December 01, 2001
KitMaker: 5,885 posts
Armorama: 3,799 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 - 07:48 AM UTC
Actually Ken - you raise a good question. What level of detail is acceptable to a modeler - or better yet, how much are you willing to pay for it? Suffice to say if I was going to plop one of those detail sets into a LVT-4 or M12 (which I am getting ready to do) then I'd want to make them correct - reasonably correct that is 
I've been told that his items sell so well despite the fact that they aren't 100% correct. I bought one hoping it would be. I got it, it wasn't, but I didn't send it back to demand my money back either. It never occurred to me to do so.
Rob related a couple of weeks (?) ago that Cookie Sewell thought the reason so many aircraft kits keep getting released is because the A/C modeling community is more fussy and vocal than the armor community - it spurs on better and better details. Maybe us armor modelers aren't that fussy - or maybe armor modelers are accustomed to hacking away at a piece of plastic as a normal course of modeling and such errors as the 11-cylinder engine is just par for the course. I wonder...
Gunnie
I've been told that his items sell so well despite the fact that they aren't 100% correct. I bought one hoping it would be. I got it, it wasn't, but I didn't send it back to demand my money back either. It never occurred to me to do so.Rob related a couple of weeks (?) ago that Cookie Sewell thought the reason so many aircraft kits keep getting released is because the A/C modeling community is more fussy and vocal than the armor community - it spurs on better and better details. Maybe us armor modelers aren't that fussy - or maybe armor modelers are accustomed to hacking away at a piece of plastic as a normal course of modeling and such errors as the 11-cylinder engine is just par for the course. I wonder...
Gunnie
Kencelot
Joined: December 27, 2001
KitMaker: 4,268 posts
Armorama: 2,804 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 - 08:09 AM UTC
Gunnie, I fired off an e-mail to VP asking about their "Update/Detail set which depicts an 11 cylinder engine. (I wished I did a copy n paste...) If I get a reply from them, I'll be happy to post it here. I should have asked them if they'll accept some $3 bills as payment for it too. hehehe, just kidding.
I won't hold my breath on their reply though.
I won't hold my breath on their reply though.
TreadHead
Joined: January 12, 2002
KitMaker: 5,000 posts
Armorama: 2,868 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 - 10:06 AM UTC
Excellent point Gunnie, in the second paragraph of your post dated ( 2002 02 19 07:48:59 PM ). Sorry, I don't know how to include the bolded 'qoutes' thing.
Anyway, about the A/C modeling community being more 'picky' and/or tenacious about what exactly they expect from the manufacturers in regard to the accuracy of their kits and detail accessories. Do you really think we as the Armour community expect less? Maybe that's a question that should be presented to the group for input. Never thought about it, but it's a good point. I've always just 'figured' a way to do it myself. Hmmm, interesting fodder.
My local hobby shop almost always has a 'clearance' sale of aviation & automotive extras, but seldom armour stuff
I don't know, I'm not learned enough to have an opinion on this. So I'll just shut up .
Anyway, about the A/C modeling community being more 'picky' and/or tenacious about what exactly they expect from the manufacturers in regard to the accuracy of their kits and detail accessories. Do you really think we as the Armour community expect less? Maybe that's a question that should be presented to the group for input. Never thought about it, but it's a good point. I've always just 'figured' a way to do it myself. Hmmm, interesting fodder.
My local hobby shop almost always has a 'clearance' sale of aviation & automotive extras, but seldom armour stuff
I don't know, I'm not learned enough to have an opinion on this. So I'll just shut up .
TreadHead
Joined: January 12, 2002
KitMaker: 5,000 posts
Armorama: 2,868 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 - 10:07 AM UTC
Oh, almost forgot. In case you're out there listening Rob...congratulations on the ' full bird' !!
Tread.
Tread.
Kencelot
Joined: December 27, 2001
KitMaker: 4,268 posts
Armorama: 2,804 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 - 10:46 AM UTC
Certainly Treadhead, the armor community may not be as popular as the aircraft's, but by no means are we any less picky of accuracy in kits. We all "kitbash" all the releases that come out of the pike. Maybe it's because we all figure a way to correct or fix or scratch-build the missing or incorrect parts that keeps us from whining to the manufacturers.
I personally think that that alone is a quality in us armorers that sets us apart from the rest of the herd.
Nonetheless, it's no reason the manufacturers should not know about the misgivings to the amor they produce. Perhaps a whine to them may help a bit.
I personally think that that alone is a quality in us armorers that sets us apart from the rest of the herd.
Nonetheless, it's no reason the manufacturers should not know about the misgivings to the amor they produce. Perhaps a whine to them may help a bit.
GunTruck
Joined: December 01, 2001
KitMaker: 5,885 posts
Armorama: 3,799 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 - 11:49 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Gunnie, I fired off an e-mail to VP asking about their "Update/Detail set which depicts an 11 cylinder engine. (I wished I did a copy n paste...) If I get a reply from them, I'll be happy to post it here. I should have asked them if they'll accept some $3 bills as payment for it too. hehehe, just kidding.
I won't hold my breath on their reply though.
Oooh - you might inspire their wrath! All we'll get is 11-cylindered radial engines from now on.
Gunnie
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.