one of the new Bergepan-

ther releases, but will

have to wait until I get my

sticky paws on one to see.

So we have had in the last

12 months (in 1/35 scale)

all versions of the King

Tiger with interior, Pan-

thers A and G with interi-

ors, and Tiger 1 with inte-

rior.

There are a limited num-

ber of such vehicles sur-

viving, whereas there are

literally hundreds of Sher-

mans—just look in almost

any military museum over-

seas.

How long, then, do you

think we will have to wait

to see a Sherman with full

interior?

There was a time not all

that many years ago when

DML would produce a kit

followed closely by, and

not in any particular order,

the same kit from Trum-

peter, Hobby Boss, AFV

Club etc.

Now it seems there are

new kids on the block.

Takom released several

versions of the King Tiger

last year, closely followed

by Meng, and more re-

cently by several other

firms as well.

Rye Field Model released

a Panther G with full inte-

rior, closely followed by

Takom with three versions

of the Panther A, and then

Meng hopped on the

bandwagon as well. Sigh!

Takom (bless their little

Chinese socks) an-

nounced the release of a

Bergepanther, and guess

what, so did Meng! In fact,

Takom released two ver-

sions, Meng only one (to

date). Hullo RFM, bit slow

on the uptake this time?

This makes me suspect

that the speed of some of

these releases means that

the model firms have had

them waiting in the wings

for some time, moulds

already made, just waiting

for the optimum moment

to release them.

I know that a well known

international modeller pro-

duced a master of a

Bergepanther Ausf A well

over 20 years ago, which

seemed to disappear into

the woodwork. I suspect it

was the basis for at least

Editorial (aka Rob’s Rantings)

5 May 2018

Volume 14, Issue 4

AMMS Brisbane News

Inside this issue:

From the Cupola 2-3

Some Thoughts on

Figures 3

Kugelpanzer 4

Different Use for a Scammel

5-6

Some Thoughts on

Tracks

6

Odds and Sods 7

.

.

In the May 2017 issue

of this august publica-

tion, this picture ap-

peared. Those inter-

ested should note that

in the current edition

of Model Military Inter-

national there is a full

build article on the

same model.

Page 2

Volume 14, Issue 4 AMMS Brisbane News

WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?

I thought it might be a fun exercise to ask all of our members to participate in the creation of a progressive group

article and so I ask for your assistance, but first let me elaborate.

I was engaged in a conversation with other club members a few months ago and we were talking about recent 1:35

releases and from memory I had applauded Takom for releasing their M3 Lee / Grant kits and also to Miniart as

they had also announced a series of M3 Lees. I could immediately see that my comment aroused little interest due

to the subject matter so I followed it up with the statement that they were far superior kits to the previous offerings

from Tamiya which date back to the previous Century.

Someone’s curiosity kicked in at this point and the question was asked in what way were the new kits better to

which I replied that they were of substantially better detail as they were designed and produced around 40 years

apart and notwithstanding the rather dubious fact that Tamiya had engineering some rather unfortunate blunders

into their design.

At this point some of my audience looked at me with puzzled expressions on their faces and so further explanation

was in order and this folks is the how this particular article topic came to fruition.

So it will be no surprise to many what my answer was, and thus at the time when I explained Tamiya’s folly I was

the one who was surprised that those I was talking to were unaware of this rather embarrassing piece of infor-

mation. So what tiny mistake had Tamiya committed all those years ago, that has never been corrected by the way,

with their 1:35 M3 Lee and M3 Grant kits?

Well, somehow the design team managed to include an additional spoke into the roadwheel design of the kit re-

leasing it with 6 spokes (and therefore 6 lightening holes) instead of the 5 spoke roadwheel design (and therefore

with 5 lightening holes) that actually existed. Go figure?

Now I must give some credit here, the roadwheels in the kit actually looked rather nice as they had the same rather

complex appearance as the original items, although they were obviously incorrect. Not really sure how you do this

by the way when you are making a scale replica of the original. Perhaps someone “assumed” incorrectly that it was

6 spokes because the idler wheels were a 6 spoke design? Or they just stuffed up because they were rather poor

at counting!

But that wasn’t the only faux par. Obviously the same design team engineered the kit tracks too. Well they too ac-

tually look the part but upon closer inspection they were rather humorously incorrect. On the original vehicles the

track links were connected via end connectors as each link of track had a pin at either end and so one pin from one

link had to connect to another pin of the neighbouring link. Therefore the end connectors on each side of the track

links sit between links to hold the tracks together. Seems rather obvious doesn’t it? However Tamiya decided to

defy the laws of physics here and place the end connectors on each link so that they actually don’t connect one link

to the next link. So if it were an actual representation of reality none of the links would be connected. Oops!

Continued on Page 3

So then here is my proposal for those of you who may be interested to contribute. Identify other such blunders

and bloopers incorporated into model kits, and submit it as an article for the newsletter. Hopefully we will be

able to identify many such mistakes and these can be included as regular articles for everyone’s enlightenment

and enjoyment.

Until next time, take care, stay safe, and happy modelling to all!

Kindest regards,

Brad Littleboy AMMS Brisbane Coordinator 2018

Page 3

Volume 14, Issue 4 AMMS Brisbane News

From the Cupola (Continued from Page 2)

Some Thoughts on Figures

Having been reading some books recently regarding US forces in the ETO in WW2, I have come to the conclusion

that we are building figures of such incorrectly, and for the most part, illustrations on box tops are to blame. The

books all reference a common theme, and that is the length of time such troops spent in the field without proper hot

meals (assuming poisoners could ever produce such a thing), and most importantly, without a bath.

Ask yourself how many illustrations you have seen on box art showing figures who look half starved? Very few. How

many box arts have you seen showing figures who have five days (or more) beard growth, and who are just about

black from ingrained dirt, soot, smoke and other unmentionable stains? How many illustrations show troops in uni-

forms fit only for the rubbish pile?

After living, sleeping, and everything else in a hole in the ground in mud, snow, rain and all sorts of weather, for

weeks at a time, how could they possibly be clean? For that matter, look at figures in the desert – those men were

sometimes allocated only one PINT of water a day, most of which, of course, they drank. They certainly didn’t waste

any on washing! If there was one thing common with troops in North Africa, be they British Commonwealth, US or

German, it was dust, everywhere, all the time and in everything.

The above comments apply, of course, to infantry. Tank crews were hardly better – they had to live in a hot steel box

sometimes for days at a time, or even weeks. Despite the efforts of extract fans, those tanks were filthy dirty, oily,

greasy, fume filled places, and accordingly the crews accumulated the muck. There was a very good reason German

tank crew uniforms were black!

Next time you are building a figure model, think about the environment in which the figure existed. Happy to continue this theme as a discussion.

Kugelpanzer (thanks Peter Battle)

Page 4

AMMS Brisbane News Volume 14, Issue 4

Listed as Item #37 in the Kubinka tank museum, is the Kugelpanzer, or Rollzeug (literally meaning “ball tank” and ”rolling vehicle”). Manufactured by Krupp, it is the only known built example of this tank in existence.

The vehicle was captured by the Red Army. The most commonly believed theory is that at some point in the 1940s it was sent to Japan as part of Germany’s technology sharing scheme, and was captured in 1945 in Manchuria. How-ever, another report states that it was captured at the Kummersdorf proving grounds.

The tank’s secrets are closely guarded by the Russians. For many years it sat in the Kubinka Tank Museum hidden behind a Tiger I. Its internal components, including the engine, were completely stripped at some time.

There has been much conjecture about what the Kugelpanzer was designed for- a cable layer, artillery spotter, or scout vehicle. No one even knows whether it’s a pre/early war design, or a late war design.

From a thread on Missing-Lynx

Scammell recovery vehicle and the Railton Mobil Special. This was the first ground vehicle to pass 400mph in a measured run, a record established by John Cobb in 1947 and held for 18 years. These pics are taken in 1948.

Continued on Page 6

Looking for something different for your Scammell ? (hanks Peter Battle)

Page 5

AMMS Brisbane News Volume 14, Issue 4

Looking for something different for your Scammell ? ((continued from Page 5)

Page 6

AMMS Brisbane News Volume 14, Issue 4

Some Thoughts About Tank Tracks

In the beginning there was Tamiya among others, and the dreaded “rubber band” tracks. They were not particularly

accurate (refer Brad’s comments on Page 2), and had a habit of falling apart after a couple of years. Planned obso-

lence perhaps? Then came DML and individual links. I am not a fan of individual link plastic tracks, always seeming

to have trouble with the final join, not to mention getting the right number of links. I always seemed to end up half a

link too short or too long.

Then came new manufacturers of individual links such as Friulmodel, whose metal links, while not cheap, are the

best around for non-live tracks. Then we had DML DS tracks, which make tracks for Allied vehicles such as Sher-

mans very simple, less so for German vehicles which do not have live tracks.

A short lived manufacturer (unfortunately) was AFV Productions, who produced resin links which simply clicked to-

gether, and were among the best around.

Meng in their wisdom have gone down the individual track road, but there are SIX attachment points on each link,

plus one on the individual guide horns. Be real! Do the arithmetic for yourself, 87 links each side times SEVEN at-

tachments to clean up.

Now we have Takom’s panther A tracks. These have “link and length” tracks plus a lot of individual links, and sepa-

rate guide horns. The difference is that there are only two attachment points on the end of each link, and the guide

horns are produced so that they can be attached en masse. Best of all is that they provide a template for each side,

on which one mounts the drive sprocket and idler wheel, and proceed to insert tracks, which fit perfectly. After the

admittedly time consuming attachment of guide horns to track links it took me only 20 minutes for each side, and I

am left with a complete set of Panther tracks ready for painting.

What’s next, I wonder?

Meets first Saturday of every month at

Loganlea Community Centre, Timms Street,

Loganlea, between 11:30am and 4:00pm

Contributions to the newsletter are always

welcome. Please email contributions to the

editor at gncw@bigpond.com

A M M S B R I S B A N E

Some Upcoming Events

AMMS Brisbane is on

the Web at

www.ammsbrisbane.co

.

.