In-Box Review
Humber Mk. I W/Twin K guns
Humber Scout Car MK. I W/Twin K-guns (D-Day)
  • CB35016_revised

by: Jeremy Coyle [ HERCHEALER ]

The role of the Daimler Scout Car was expanded in 1942 to include scouting, liaison, and forward reconnaissance and so the production of the little vehicle could not keep pace with the increased demand. Humber was asked to build scout cars to fill the need, but instead of copying Daimler, they produced their own slightly larger vehicle using many of the same components in production. The result was the Humber Scout Car Mk.I. which appeared in 1943.

The Humber was powered by an 87 BHP Rootes 6-cylinder engine, which gave a top speed of 104 Km/H on the road, and a range of 320 Kilometers. Armor was 14mm thick and the weight was just shy of 4000 Kg. It was normally armed with single, or twin, .303 Bren light machine guns, on a PLM remote mounting on the roof of the car. A number 19 Radio set was used for communication and the Humber had a normal crew of 3. The Humber was highly prized by its crews, it was fast, reliable and it had much better weather protection than the Daimler. It was mostly issued to the Tank and Armoured car regiments of the Royal Armoured Corps, but was also used by infantry, signals, and engineering and artillery units. A total of 1,698 Humber cars were produced before being modified to the Mk II in 1944. They were widely used during the D-day landings and also saw action in smaller units in Italy, Greece, and Palestine. They were retired by the British Army in the 1960ís.

Bronco has accurately produced a nice little armored car that will be very useful to the modeler, whether it be to be built as a stand alone or as part of a diorama. Upon opening the box one will find 4 sprues, a separately molded roof, lower body, two sets of wheels, and two small photo etch frets. There are also markings for 6 units encompassing the D-day landings and later operations. The 15 page instruction booklet is very well laid out and easy to follow with large and clear pictures. So with that letís see what we get for our money.

Sprue A: This contains mostly body components and the chassis. The parts are cleanly molded with very small traces of flash on a few parts. Rivet detail is nicely done as are several weld seams. The body also has some nice texture molded to capture the roughness of the steel. There are also no pin marks located in bad spots with all being limited to non visible areas on the parts. No sink holes are also evident.

Sprue B: Moving on to sprue B we see the engine details as well as suspension parts and the hubs. The engine parts are very cleanly molded with good detail and should build into a nice representation of the 6-cylinder Rootes engine, just add a few spark plug wires and you are set. The wheel hubs are nicely cast with very good details throughout. The rest of the parts are beautifully molded with no flash or sink holes noted on this sprue.

Sprue C: Moving along with Broncoís theme here Sprue C is the Interior parts. I really like how they thought out the layout of the sprues. Overall the the molding on this sprue is good as well, with only a few minor sink holes but again no flash, remarkable considering the size of some of the parts.

Sprue F: This sprue has the twin Guns and also the radio. Also included on the sprue are a couple of helmets, a Tommy gun, two M-1ís, and a few other stowage accessories. The Details on the guns are good, as are the pack details. The face of the radio is a little soft in its molding but nothing a little time and careful painting canít remedy.

Tires: When looking in the box I was surprised to see two sets of tires included. They have two very different tread patterns and one set has no writing while the other says "Dunlop". They are soft vinyl and are very cleanly done. With a little weathering they should great.

Roof and Body: Both are very well molded with subtle texture and good weld seams molded in. There is also once again no sink holes, the use of putty on this kit I believe will be very little no none.

PE frets and Decals:They consist of various latches a small cover for the radio as well as a few other goodies. The decals are printed clearly with good color, they do not appear to be too thick and already have a dull tint too them. Markings are provided for six vehicles.
1. 31st Tank Brigade (Operation Epsom June 1944)
2. 30th Armoured Brigade, 79th Armoured Division, Caen, July 1944
3. Polish 10th Dragoons, N.W. Europe 1944
4. Polish 1st Signal Battalionís HQ Signal Squadron, N.W. Europe 1944
5. HQ 34th Army Tank Brigade, N.W. Europe, 1944-45
6. 59th Heavy Regiment, Royal Artillery, Dreierwalde, April 1945

Overall this is a beautifully molded kit with crisp detail and sharp edges. The only drawback is a lot of the great detail will be hidden inside once completed but we will know it is there. The effort that was put into this kit is excellent with obvious care taken to minimize flash and sink holes. There are a number of decal options setting one up for many possible builds and diorama options. A Build Log will be available via the forums to evaluate part fit and assembly.
Highs: Beautifully molded kit. Will be a joy to build. Lots of decal options. Clear easy to follow instructions.
Lows: A lot of the great detail will be hidden on the inside of the car. Radio is a little soft in detail.
Verdict: This will be a great addition to any one's collection and will give the modeler lots of ideas for Dio options.
Percentage Rating
  Scale: 1:35
  Mfg. ID: CB-35016
  Suggested Retail: $50.95 USD
  PUBLISHED: Sep 17, 2008
  NATIONALITY: United Kingdom

Our Thanks to Stevens International!
This item was provided by them for the purpose of having it reviewed on this KitMaker Network site. If you would like your kit, book, or product reviewed, please contact us.

View This Item  |  View Vendor Homepage  |  More Reviews  

About Jeremy Coyle (Herchealer)

I have been modeling on and off for about 20 years now. I started building more heavily about 12 years ago when I was stationed in Japan. I primarily build armor, but I would like to start building some of my Aircraft I have in my stash.

Copyright ©2021 text by Jeremy Coyle [ HERCHEALER ]. All rights reserved.


Thanks for the review, I have the first kit on order and will probably be keen to add this one to the stash as well.
SEP 21, 2008 - 12:00 PM
UI was checking on my review and what people thought. I mean if it was helpful. I noticed only one of three did. May I ask what you didnt like about it. Knowing this will help me for my future reviews and What more i may be able to add to this one... Jeremy
SEP 25, 2008 - 02:49 PM
Hi Jeremy, There's nothing wrong with your review, it's informative and well written with clear photos. I have Bronco's initial release of the Humber and found it a bit finicky. Fantastic detail inside and out. The only flaw I could find with the inside were the injection plugs on the underside of the roof, a pain to remove. Again, Jeremy, don't sweat it if these individuals hit the 'no' button and then go scurrying under some rock. Their lack of commentary speaks volumes. Frank
SEP 25, 2008 - 03:10 PM
I found your review just as good and informative as any other and I will probably get the kit too.
SEP 25, 2008 - 03:43 PM
Not M-1's, but Lee Enfield .303s
JUL 28, 2017 - 10:54 AM
There are probably lots of people who look at reviews and looks T's of other things on the internet and just never click a button to indicate if it is helpful or that they like it. I certainly never do. I'm used to getting zero feedback for reviews I write for print publications so it doesn't bother me at all. If I think I have something useful to contribute then I do but if not, I don't see how it helps anyone - if I know nothing about a subject and say it was helpful is that any more use than feedback from someone who knows it well and just says it wasn't helpful? Surely it is only written comment that assists you to make any changes for future reviews or articles? Having said that, in box reviews are only useful to me if they tell me what is in the box (yours is fine for that - better than many) and if it is written by someone with enough knowledge of the subject to tell me whether what is provided is accurate and what if any work needs to be done to depict the various marking options correctly (e.g. which parts need to be used/not used or scratchbuilt/altered). That may be just me though - I can't speak for anyone else. Incidentally, while the Humber may have offered better weather protection, it was pretty poorly protected against mines (a SRY veteran once claimed that you could put a bayonet through the floor, which may be overstating it but you get the idea), so was used more for liaison than proper recce - the WE for the corps AC regts in 1944/45 had Daimler SCs rather than Humbers, although going over a mine in the former tended to result in broken legs for the driver and anyone else with them under the frontal armour.
JUL 28, 2017 - 04:29 PM

Click image to enlarge
  • 21131
  • 14152
  • 22133
  • 19121
  • 18129
  • 16137
  • 15146
  • 11050
  • 12243
  • 7175
  • 5189
  • 6193
  • 6193
  • 4247
  • 2578
  • 17134
  • 13186
  • 11239
  • 10243
  • 3301
  • 8135
  • 9140