So as some of you will have seen from Da Great Queeg’s thread here
http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=87407.165, he (Brent) is kindly painting a motley batch of DAK and 8th Army vehicles for me. These will be done to his usual astonishing standard
Inspired by his handiwork, I’ve decided to have a crack at one myself
I used to make and paint a lot of Tamiya 1/35 kits about 30 years ago. Mostly, I’ve lost the techniques though, so I’m going to be learning afresh…
My first project is a Rubicon Crusader tank.
Rubicon are a relatively recent and fast-expanding entrant to the 1/56 WWII plastic kit market. They’ve made quite a splash, and are turning out a lot of product (like 4 or 5 new releases per quarter). Most of their kits come with multiple build options - so you can make up several different variants from the one box. They cost about 20 quid each. Not cheap, but not expensive either and pretty competitive with the leading resin makers.
I’d only ever heard great things about their kits – mainly:
- The fabulous flexibility (as mentioned above)
- The great, crisp detail and production quality
- Simple, foolproof, snug fit assembly involving the minimum necessary amount of components.
All of which I find to be true.
The Crusader kit can be used to build one of six different variants, including an AA version with a whole different turret to the tank variants themselves.
I suppose on the downside, this format means you do end up with an awful lot of unused plastic in the box. But this is outweighed by the flexibility, and hell, it’s plastic, so if you can’t cannibalise the parts for spares (quite difficult, because they’re mostly very specific) I guess you can just recycle the leftovers.
I went for the Mark III Crusader with the 6pdr gun. Mainly because I prefer the jack-in-the-box arrangement of the commander’s hatch compared to the sliding fore-and-aft hatch on the Mark I and II (I will be adding a Perry tank commander).
Unfortunately, the Mark III is mid-late war, whereas most of the vehicles Brent is doing for me are early-mid war. The Mark III came along after the discontinuation of the very distinctive and appealing Caunter Scheme disruptive pattern camo. I’m not going to let that stop me though, because I want to try my hand at Caunter. And frankly, because most of the people I play with won’t know the difference. Or care. And I’m not too precious about pinpoint historical accuracy anyway. For me, it’s whether something looks the part, rather than is actually spot on for the period…
The other thing - having looked at about 1000 Google images of actual Crusader tanks - is that there’s plainly no 'right answer' when it comes to WWII AFVs. Many of the photographs of the actual tanks appear to show elements of Mks I, II and II intermingled on the different vehicles. So I’m not going to get too hung up about it.
Anyway, here’s the kit built.
It was indeed incredibly easy to put together. Great instructions. Fits together wonderfully well. Everything beautifully moulded with zero flash or mould lines to speak of. All very easy to snip off the frame.
I filled the lower hull with Das modelling clay to give the finished beast a bit of heft on the table-top.
Unfortunately, I did encounter one problem getting the left-hand side-skirt to align with the front left wing. But I don’t think that was the fault of the kit or component. I think it was because I hadn’t quite aligned the top and bottom haves of the hull properly when I glued them together, and consequently the side skirt wouldn’t sit down quite properly at the front end. Anyway, I had to do a bit of minor surgery - meaning the lower edge of the front of the side skirt is now slightly misaligned. Irritating, although not so much that you’d notice it if you weren’t looking for it…
I’ve added some stowage made from Green Stuff plus various bits and pieces scavenged from plastic figure sets.
Enough? Too much? What do you think?
It’s very tempting to get carried away and add more…
For example you get various spare tank wheels in the kit - but I can’t see anywhere for them to go, other than plonking them onto the rear hull and putting chains on them. Or sandbags, more tarps, etc. But then this would obscure all the lovely, finely moulded detail, so… Knowing when to stop is the key I suspect
Also, looking at Brent’s masterworks, I think I should probably have added the stowage AFTER doing the base paintwork on the vehicle itself. But should be able to manage.
I’m following Brent’s basic method – brush painting – black/steel enamel undercoat, then all-over stone colour top coat, then the camo scheme, then drybrush highlighting, then the weathering and effects, then picking out the stowage and other details, then apply the decals (the kit comes with a really lovely decal sheet with a plethora of graphics, icons and signage). Then matt varnish the lot. Simples!
I’ve glued the gun in position but left the turret free to rotate at the moment. And it can lift off. (So technically I could make up one of the alternative turrets too, like the AA variant, and swap it over from time to time if needed – although the hull would then be slightly wrong… Sheesh... )
But I’m guessing for durability most serious 28mm AFV modellers decide on a turret position and fix it? Any thoughts on this?
I'm also wondering how much further embellishment to add. For instance, in some of the wartime photos, there appears to be a fuel line running from the real fuel tank into the rear hull - not present on the kit. Would they have missed such an important item? And on other pictures, you can see a rail stretching between the two sets of front headlamp guards, behind which more stowage is stacked... Worth adding? When to leave well alone? Just a matter of taste I suppose...
All advice and thoughts gratefully received…
01 June 2007, 05:20:20 PM