E-50 Buffel build dilemma

[Ballardian]

 I'm in the process of making a model of the entirely ficticious E-50 Buffel APC/IFV as it's always looked like a fun project, but having acquired all the necessary bits & made a start I've reached a point where a choice has to be made.
 I've based the kitbash on an old Kitech 1/48 Marder APC, (many thanks Roderigo) which is pretty much (in most respects) the perfect size, being (mostly) the same dimensions as the Company B E-50 Ausf M.
 My problem lies with the upper glacis/hull - I'd originally intended to simply use the one in the Marder kit, (I'd removed the upper glacis & replaced it with a slightly plainer WWII-ified version) as this mimics the scale model version kitbashed by some 1/35 modeller (pic below) - it just looks tooooooo wide (when placed next to the E-50). The hull sponsons flare out to the full width of the tracks (as opposed to the 3/4 width of the E-50 or the 1/35 kitbash) - making for a very, (& in my mind 'unrealistically') wide vehicle - if you can say such a thing about ficticious subject matter.
 This leaves me with the (slightly more work) option of entirely scratch-building the upper hull according to some 3D renders I found online, which produce a slimmer vehicle (pic below).
 So which one do think looks better? (I'm leaning towards the second option though I've been chewing at this one long enough to screw my objectivity so would appeciate input!)

 
  

[Ultravanillasmurf]

I think the second version looks more like a WWW2 vehicle.

Not convinced about the exhaust system.

Where does the driver sit?

[Ballardian]

 
 UVS, I'm certainly leaning toward that design (just means more work). Perhaps the exhaust could be little further forward.
  The driver (in the render) appears to sit in the upper forward position on the left side (there's a small vision port that protrudes out of the upper glacis). It would depend where I 'put' the engine - on the right of the hull, giving scope for driver placement more like the modern APC, or centrally, like the render example.

[Ultravanillasmurf]

Maybe exhausts like the late model FV432?

I look forward to seeing how it goes.

[Wyrmalla]

The second image has parts of the E-25 APC (exposed engine), though personally I'd copy the Panzer III/IV's front glacis (the way it is now I don't see space for the front suspension - the III/IV had a similar angle, but two bulges for the space). The first one looks like its trying to be a WWII vehicle, but from someone who's seen later stuff - common with these designs (it looks like it is just a Marder TBH).

It depends on what period you want to aim for. Either an early vehicle based on the E-50 chassis, or a later one when production's been high enough to  diversify and we have more refined designs.

The exhaust placement on the second is weird. I'd move it further to the front, as apparently the radioman (?) doesn't have shoulders. Having a box exhaust like on more modern tanks (as in the first one) might look less out of place (though French APCs of the period had the tube exhaust down by the front right mudguard IIRC). The turret is also weirdly located for German WWII tanks. It should be skewed to one of the sides, not mounted centrally. The way it is now looks like its obscuring the front two seats (and makes the right position slightly redundant, as that's presumably where the ammo racks are). Skewing it would also fit with the German doctrine of giving every crew member an escape hatch, or at least give the driver a hatch above his seat.

I've not been into the rear turret either. Personally I'd remove that and replace it with a hatch on the roof ...like pretty much every other APC. The side MGs seem overkill too, though that's maybe fitting early APC silliness (re: Bradley). The US did experiment with fixed M16s, before coming to the conclusion that the men were already carrying M16s... Apparently only two of the passenger MGs get to see as well, as the other two don't have periscopes. God, and looking at it I can't imagine it has a high transport capacity. If those MG gunners want to have proper firing arcs and space for the magazines you'd barely be able to fit 3 men to a side (on the second one), and presumably no bench in the middle of the compartment due to the two turrets.

The headlamp on the left mudguard seems a bit out of place to me, and just like its been added for the sake of it. Tigers IIs just had the one in the middle of the front glacis I believe. 

I was thinking of doing a Buffel myself. The issue I found however is that with Warlord's kits making an E-50 is pretty difficult. Those roadwheels are diabolical, so I only built the one regular E-50.

[Ballardian]

 
 Thanks for the input, it's all grist to the mill.
  I'd planned something that would looked like a refining of the E-50 chassis, a bespoke APC if you will rather than simply taking the hull & plonking a superstructure on top (though god knows that'd be easier).
 I want to avoid the vehicle looking like I'd simply added some E-50 tracks & a period turret to a post war Marder & hence a preference for the second image.
 So I'll go with elements of the rendered images - centrally front engined, with exposed intakes (I'll put some box armour over them & a 'lip' of armour in front of them to help prevent rounds penetrating the vents). I planned to move the turret to the left side of the deck, freeing up some room for the driver (also putting a small bulge where the upper glacis meets the deck for some vision blocks & a hatch.
 The exhaust has to go somewhere around the front/side, though I suppose it could in fact go under the hull sponson, providing there's enough room at the top of the track run & it allows for the full range of suspension movement.
 The rear mg barbette I'm not decided on - I see it as more of a 'remote controlled' barbette as opposed to a turret - more akin to the 'remote' weapons found on late StuGs & Jagdpanzer 38t's. The problem with that is that the handle, with its trigger & cable to connect to the mg, would essentially hang down in front of the rear door & get in the way of troops entering/exiting - unless it could be secured up in the barbette itself.
 The mg mounts along the hull never seemed a realistic possiblity, even a cut-down weapon like an MG15 would take up too much room, so they're going to be reduced to flip-up pistol ports for close in defense.
 Luckily, I've got a set of spare tracks from the CoyB kit & they fit the lower hull beautifully, so wont have to rely on the slightly disappointing WG Tiger II running gear.

[Ultravanillasmurf]

Something like this (assuming it will display).


"the handle bar with the sight is for the remote mG , the black thingy in the rear is the " breech " of the cdw ( photo from a  fantastic Missing -Lynx  Stug III build by Mike Roof  )  "

Quote from Ripley on the Rubicon forum.
http://forum.rubiconmodels.com/index.php?topic=281.msg6233#msg6233

[Ballardian]

 That's pretty much what I thought of when considering the rear barbette - however, the mechanism would obstuct the rear door a bit - unless they could fold upwards - & while not impossible, it could be a bit much, so I'll probably put a roof hatch in.
 Cheers & all input is much appreciated

[CompanyB]

FYI...

I have many, many extra pairs of E50 tracks in 1/56.  Just saying....


Brent
Company B