Here is my completed M7 B-FIST. It is the replacement for the old, M113-based, M981 FIST-V used by artillery observers in mechanized units. You may remember the in-progress shots I put up of the full interior earlier. Here is the finished product. It is a vehices from 1-10 FA, 3ID during the invasion of Iraq, 2003. The kit is the new Tamiya M2A2 ODS with added extras and a converted interior to include full turret and all the parts to make it an M7. Also has a converted engine compartment from a Tamiya Marder 1A2.
Enjoy, and let me know what you think.
Hosted by Darren Baker
M7 B-FIST complete
HeavyArty
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 10:53 AM UTC
PvtParts
New Jersey, United States
Joined: June 18, 2003
KitMaker: 1,876 posts
Armorama: 1,120 posts
Joined: June 18, 2003
KitMaker: 1,876 posts
Armorama: 1,120 posts
Posted: Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 11:01 AM UTC
Gino, I think you have outdone yourself here..Fabulous! All the detailing is incredible...take a bow, Sir!!
Grumpyoldman
Consigliere
Florida, United States
Joined: October 17, 2003
KitMaker: 15,338 posts
Armorama: 7,297 posts
Joined: October 17, 2003
KitMaker: 15,338 posts
Armorama: 7,297 posts
Posted: Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 11:17 AM UTC
Looks fantastic Gino.
Burik
New Jersey, United States
Joined: March 12, 2002
KitMaker: 1,437 posts
Armorama: 1,303 posts
Joined: March 12, 2002
KitMaker: 1,437 posts
Armorama: 1,303 posts
Posted: Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 12:57 PM UTC
Very, very nice. I have the Tamiya kit to do as well (no conversion though), and I hope to do as well as yours when I get around to it. I want to do a 3rd ID one at the airport with some battle damage.
Bob
Bob
Red4
California, United States
Joined: April 01, 2002
KitMaker: 4,287 posts
Armorama: 1,867 posts
Joined: April 01, 2002
KitMaker: 4,287 posts
Armorama: 1,867 posts
Posted: Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 01:04 PM UTC
Transmission is a little off, but looks good otherwise. Nice job. "Q"
Petro
Connecticut, United States
Joined: November 02, 2003
KitMaker: 984 posts
Armorama: 846 posts
Joined: November 02, 2003
KitMaker: 984 posts
Armorama: 846 posts
Posted: Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 01:05 PM UTC
I was waiting for an update on this model. It is just excellent!!
HeavyArty
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 01:58 PM UTC
Thaks for the comments.
I know it is not the exact same tranny, but it is close eunough for me. Looks close emough to Bradley transmission/ engine compartment. Unless you are a Brad oficiaonado or mechanic, it will pass.
Quoted Text
Transmission is a little off, but looks good otherwise. Nice job. "Q"
I know it is not the exact same tranny, but it is close eunough for me. Looks close emough to Bradley transmission/ engine compartment. Unless you are a Brad oficiaonado or mechanic, it will pass.
Mech-Maniac
Virginia, United States
Joined: April 16, 2004
KitMaker: 2,240 posts
Armorama: 1,319 posts
Joined: April 16, 2004
KitMaker: 2,240 posts
Armorama: 1,319 posts
Posted: Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 01:58 PM UTC
well done
garrybeebe
Oregon, United States
Joined: November 24, 2003
KitMaker: 1,969 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Joined: November 24, 2003
KitMaker: 1,969 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 02:10 PM UTC
Gino what can I say but Awesome! And beautiful job.
I realy looks better then the real thing. Hmmm, or is it the real thing? :-) LOL!
Great model Amigo!
Garry
I realy looks better then the real thing. Hmmm, or is it the real thing? :-) LOL!
Great model Amigo!
Garry
Jacques
Minnesota, United States
Joined: March 04, 2003
KitMaker: 4,630 posts
Armorama: 4,498 posts
Joined: March 04, 2003
KitMaker: 4,630 posts
Armorama: 4,498 posts
Posted: Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 05:48 PM UTC
Okay GIno, not to be a balck cloud, but you gotta muster through a ex-FIST:
Basically, I am impressed with what you did on the inside, very nice, good to see initiative to tackle waht most only talk or dream of doing...
...but
...The main EXTERIOR change that I know of is the replacement of the TOW-2 launcher with the new "box" housing the various electronic goodies (not sure if they are still using all the toys I used in the past.) Anyhow, here is a pic to show you what I am talking about.
Now, did they change the vehicle after all and just use the TOW-2 casing to cram in the Laser rangefinder and designator?
Sorry to go and "piss on your leg" but I really want to know the answer as what has put me off of building my own M7 has been dealing with that darn armoured box.
Basically, I am impressed with what you did on the inside, very nice, good to see initiative to tackle waht most only talk or dream of doing...
...but
...The main EXTERIOR change that I know of is the replacement of the TOW-2 launcher with the new "box" housing the various electronic goodies (not sure if they are still using all the toys I used in the past.) Anyhow, here is a pic to show you what I am talking about.
Now, did they change the vehicle after all and just use the TOW-2 casing to cram in the Laser rangefinder and designator?
Sorry to go and "piss on your leg" but I really want to know the answer as what has put me off of building my own M7 has been dealing with that darn armoured box.
HeavyArty
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 06:54 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Now, did they change the vehicle after all and just use the TOW-2 casing to cram in the Laser rangefinder and designator?
Yes, the production vehicle has the standard TOW box with all electronic equipment crammd in it, the rear of the box is capped off with a flat plate. It was too hard to get the GVLLD optics to line up with the TOW optics and make all the laser stuff work properly. Also, the US Army Artillery is phasing out the Copperhead laser guided round, thus no need for the GVLLD to designate for it. Also, the TOW optics are higher power than the GVLLD optics, and they have integrated thermal night viewer as well.
This is a production M7 B-FIST at Ft Sill (notice extra antennas.)
So nope, I didn't miss the changed GVLLD box. Got the model right on.
Jacques
Minnesota, United States
Joined: March 04, 2003
KitMaker: 4,630 posts
Armorama: 4,498 posts
Joined: March 04, 2003
KitMaker: 4,630 posts
Armorama: 4,498 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 03:17 AM UTC
Hey Gino,
Well, sorry for yellin' at you then...
i just can't find any other pics of the beastie other than those prototype once with the supposed different box. I have been informed that it was the same "new" box that went on the M6 Linebacker, but instead of GAM's it had all the electronic crud.
Now, do you happen to have any pictures of the box with the cover open? I would like to see how they set that up. Have they downgraded the FO mission for designating for close air support as well? That would require a Laser designator.
And I thought/hoped they had found a better outfit than the old GVLLD...with all the improvements in electronics, I thought they may have "taken a step forward" in battlefield optics for the FIST! :-)
Finally, if I got this right, the only exterior difference to a regular Bradley is the 5 airiels?
Well, sorry for yellin' at you then...
i just can't find any other pics of the beastie other than those prototype once with the supposed different box. I have been informed that it was the same "new" box that went on the M6 Linebacker, but instead of GAM's it had all the electronic crud.
Now, do you happen to have any pictures of the box with the cover open? I would like to see how they set that up. Have they downgraded the FO mission for designating for close air support as well? That would require a Laser designator.
And I thought/hoped they had found a better outfit than the old GVLLD...with all the improvements in electronics, I thought they may have "taken a step forward" in battlefield optics for the FIST! :-)
Finally, if I got this right, the only exterior difference to a regular Bradley is the 5 airiels?
HeavyArty
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 04:11 AM UTC
The FIST Teams still have the task of lasing for Aircraft dropped laser ordinance, the GVLLD is stored in the rear and is used dismounted, or the new USMC designed MULE, a small, hand-held designator is used. The GVLLD is being phased out as well.
The front of the Bradley Armored Box (BAB) as it is called does not open, it is fixed, just as it does not raise up and elevate like a TOW box. The side opens to service the electronics inside.
Yes, the only external difference between a standard Bradley and an M7 is the extra antennas. That is the idea, to make it less refcognizable as a special vehicle like the M981 was. It is designed to look just like any other M2A2 ODS.
For the M6 Linebacker, the box is totally different. It has a 4-shot Stinger launcher in place of the TOW box. Here is a photo of it.
Here is a page with more info too: M6 Linebacker
The front of the Bradley Armored Box (BAB) as it is called does not open, it is fixed, just as it does not raise up and elevate like a TOW box. The side opens to service the electronics inside.
Yes, the only external difference between a standard Bradley and an M7 is the extra antennas. That is the idea, to make it less refcognizable as a special vehicle like the M981 was. It is designed to look just like any other M2A2 ODS.
For the M6 Linebacker, the box is totally different. It has a 4-shot Stinger launcher in place of the TOW box. Here is a photo of it.
Here is a page with more info too: M6 Linebacker
ShermiesRule
Michigan, United States
Joined: December 11, 2003
KitMaker: 5,409 posts
Armorama: 3,777 posts
Joined: December 11, 2003
KitMaker: 5,409 posts
Armorama: 3,777 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 04:40 AM UTC
That is one heck of a build.
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 04:41 AM UTC
Great job, looks very good. The rear looks like you can climb right in and fill your canteen!
Quoted Text
Remember the M981 was designed when scout platoons were comprised of 3 M113A2s and 3 M901s. Add to that the old Mech Infantry Echo company with its M901s and the M981 sort of blended in with a US combined arms task force. Yes, the only external difference between a standard Bradley and an M7 is the extra antennas. That is the idea, to make it less refcognizable as a special vehicle like the M981 was. It is designed to look just like any other M2A2 ODS.
HeavyArty
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 04:56 AM UTC
Rob,
I totally agree. But the M981 has grown long in the tooth. It now sticks out among Bradleys and Abrams since the scouts now are HMMWV mounted and E Co is no more. It doesn't blend in on the modern battlefield anymore. It has gotten too slow as well, can't keep up with Abrams and Bradleys. Many active units still have M981 s though. Just completed a rotation here with 1AR from Ft Riley and they still have M981s and are not supposed to get B-FIST any time soon. Still gotta love the old FIST-V though, it is what I grew up on as a young FISTer, great little vehicle. I built my FIST-V when I was in 1st CAV too. Gave it the same treatment with the interior too. Here it is, circa 1995:
They now sit next to eachother on the shelf, brothers in arms.
I totally agree. But the M981 has grown long in the tooth. It now sticks out among Bradleys and Abrams since the scouts now are HMMWV mounted and E Co is no more. It doesn't blend in on the modern battlefield anymore. It has gotten too slow as well, can't keep up with Abrams and Bradleys. Many active units still have M981 s though. Just completed a rotation here with 1AR from Ft Riley and they still have M981s and are not supposed to get B-FIST any time soon. Still gotta love the old FIST-V though, it is what I grew up on as a young FISTer, great little vehicle. I built my FIST-V when I was in 1st CAV too. Gave it the same treatment with the interior too. Here it is, circa 1995:
They now sit next to eachother on the shelf, brothers in arms.
Robster
Utrecht, Netherlands
Joined: October 04, 2004
KitMaker: 386 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Joined: October 04, 2004
KitMaker: 386 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 05:11 AM UTC
that thing is awesomly cool![:::]
Greetz Robster!
Greetz Robster!
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 05:49 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I agree that it is in need of a replacement. It was new when I was a second lieutenant about 18 years ago. I was just defending its existance. It is out of place now, but when it came in the system, it did blend in.I totally agree. But the M981 has grown long in the tooth. It now sticks out among Bradleys and Abrams since the scouts now are HMMWV mounted and E Co is no more.
B-FISTs aren't being fully fielded since some of the units that use the FIST-V and would eventually use the B-FIST will be Styrker brigades in the not so distant future.
Jacques
Minnesota, United States
Joined: March 04, 2003
KitMaker: 4,630 posts
Armorama: 4,498 posts
Joined: March 04, 2003
KitMaker: 4,630 posts
Armorama: 4,498 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 10:23 AM UTC
Hey Gino, looking at your Fist-V almost makes me homesick...almost... I HATED the M981A1. Seriously. Slow, top heavy, touchy to use the electronics, took forever to get setup...no thanks. The guys and I in my unit decided that it would be better overall to just mount the radio's and GVLLD on a Hummer and at least be able to ride around at speed and low (and look very unimportant). Yes, you lost the ability to use the GPS ball, but at the time, hand held civilian GPS systems were coming on line, so we did not care. But I digress...
Nice M981...I am not a interior man, so it looks even better to me.
As for hte M6 box, yes, I know they were different setups, but I had heard, back when they were still doing pre-production mock-ups, that they were trying to utilize a common box in place of the TOW-2 launcher for various Bradley variants. Guess not.
And if I got this right, they "locked down" the TOW-2 box, filled it with electronic crap, and it helps out how...? I don't get what they could have in there that could be used if the front plate never exposes any optics. I assumed they put the GVLLD in it. I understand the need to keep them cammo'd (us FIST WERE the No.1 target for the bad guys) but to not utilize that box for anything worthwhile...
In conclusion, it looks like the B-FIST is just a radio'd up Bradley with no TOW. Crap. Now I can see what all the fuss was about how Company commanders would think of the FISTers as just another grunt asset. sigh.
Oh, and thanks for letting me know about this...I am starting my own B-FIST tonight...totally sweet deal, easy conversion. Best news I have had all weekend.
Nice M981...I am not a interior man, so it looks even better to me.
As for hte M6 box, yes, I know they were different setups, but I had heard, back when they were still doing pre-production mock-ups, that they were trying to utilize a common box in place of the TOW-2 launcher for various Bradley variants. Guess not.
And if I got this right, they "locked down" the TOW-2 box, filled it with electronic crap, and it helps out how...? I don't get what they could have in there that could be used if the front plate never exposes any optics. I assumed they put the GVLLD in it. I understand the need to keep them cammo'd (us FIST WERE the No.1 target for the bad guys) but to not utilize that box for anything worthwhile...
In conclusion, it looks like the B-FIST is just a radio'd up Bradley with no TOW. Crap. Now I can see what all the fuss was about how Company commanders would think of the FISTers as just another grunt asset. sigh.
Oh, and thanks for letting me know about this...I am starting my own B-FIST tonight...totally sweet deal, easy conversion. Best news I have had all weekend.
gcdavidson
Ontario, Canada
Joined: August 05, 2003
KitMaker: 1,698 posts
Armorama: 1,563 posts
Joined: August 05, 2003
KitMaker: 1,698 posts
Armorama: 1,563 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 11:28 AM UTC
Isn't the idea to make the FIST look like another "grunt" veh? No offense to the grunts, but a FOO is a higher priority target, and the less it looks like a FOO the better!
BTW... flame on, but, I can't stop laughing at the name "Bradley Fister".. sounds like gay porn actor!
BTW... flame on, but, I can't stop laughing at the name "Bradley Fister".. sounds like gay porn actor!
Posted: Monday, November 15, 2004 - 10:16 AM UTC
Gino,
You da man! Your BFIST came out great! I have to stop by and check out the post whenever I'm on the site. Strong work!!
You da man! Your BFIST came out great! I have to stop by and check out the post whenever I'm on the site. Strong work!!