|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 15, 2020 10:57:59 GMT
Chuck, sorry chum I didn’t see that post of yours about panzer colours, but from memory the Germans used the basic panzer grey [Panzergrau RAL 702] up to around 1943 when they changed to a dark yellow [Dunkelgelb RAL 7028], but I saw a program recently which said that late in the war they send them from the factories in their basic red primer and left it to the crews to paint the various colour schemes which suited them, but main it was only three basic colours;
Dunkelgelb (RAL 7028) Olivegrün (RAL 6003) Rotbraun (RAL8017)
Ian
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 15, 2020 17:56:20 GMT
Well Ian, the Firefly built upon the example of the 4/7 Royal Dragoon Guards drawing on the web site is about half done.
The M4A4 I have completed and when I source some decals, it will be either the 1st (now 1st Cavalry) Tank Battalion or the 13th (now 13th Cavalry) Tank Battalion, both of the 1st Armored Division "Old Ironsides" in Italy circa 1944.
Not sure what I will do with the third model. Maybe the New Zealand example.
The Panzer colors are about what I expected. In the end they did what they had to do to get panzers in the field. I suspected they would have painted them sky blue pink, if that was the only paint available. The use of primer surprises me a little, in that primer has very little pigment, and alone it does not offer that much protection against rust.
Decals: Where do you source yours?
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 15, 2020 21:04:22 GMT
I have yet to source any Chuck, all my kits have them apart from the PSC 221, so what I intend to do is see if I have any spare DAK from my other German 1/72 kits which have many spare decals, I will of course check them before adding them, but it that fails, then I will source them but first I will ask where is the best place on line, as there will be many. A NZ Firefly will be a refreshing change Chuck, I had intentions of making a small Free French Army armoured group, with US vehicles but painted in FFA colours. I have an old book titled tanks of ww2 by Chris Ellis, mine is so old it has lost its jacket, but it gives all the the different paint schemes you need to paint you vehicles, it is on Amazon for only a few quid.
Ian
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 15, 2020 23:42:39 GMT
The Firefly is together and has been given a base coat of paint (awaiting detailing), but when you put the Firefly next to the A4 model, even the model scares the beejesus out of me. Must have been a nasty surprise for Jerry.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 16, 2020 15:08:16 GMT
Yes Chuck, the QF 17 PDR was a real tank killer and could take out a Panther and Tiger @ 1000 yards or more! It did have a few drawbacks with its HE round for one, apparently it was not as effective as a standard 75mm, but we needed a gun to take on the German heavies and it fitted the bill for the British.
The US Army turned down an offer by the British, to supply them with 17 pdrs, but they decided to keep with the 76mm gun.
Yes it did scare the hell out the Germans Chuck, that is why the British tankers had to paint their gun barrels so that the Germans didn't notice at long ranges, which were Fireflys and normal Shermans. Don't know if it was effective or not, but the German gunners were trained to take out the fireflys first.
We also mounted the 17 pdr on three other vehicles, one was the US Army M10 TD, which we replaced the 3in gun for a 17 pdr, we named them Achilles. The Cromwell tank also had a 17 pdr variant named Challenger. But my favourite was the Archer which was based on the chassis of the obsolete Valentine tank, the 17 pdr was fitted facing the vehicles rear, which meant that the driver reversed into position to fire, that way it could change positions pretty quick once it fired a few rounds.
I don’t why the US Army turned the gun down as they had nothing to compare with it until they developed the M26 & M36, with the 90mm, but that was well into 1944 before they managed to get any of them into action.
Ian
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 16, 2020 16:47:41 GMT
Don't know about the M36, but the M26 had developmental problems that delayed that vehicles fielding.
Anyway my New Zealand Firefly is about half way done, and the Firefly I built representing 4/7 Dragoons is awaiting decals just like my M4A4. I enjoy these quick projects as a relief from what can be tedium building ships. In the time it takes to build some of my ships I could build a whole armored division..
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 16, 2020 21:06:46 GMT
Yeah, Chuck, you can whip them up really quick and enjoy it too. I am in a bit of a quandary with my Allied models, when I checked what I had in the attic, Airfix wise, II had three M4 Sherman’s, plus one unmade, one Churchills and one unmade, artillery wise I had one 6 PDR and Bren Carrier and two unmade and a 25 pdr. I also have some Matchbox too in the shape of two Firefly’s, two M24s and two M5s. All of these are 1/76 scale, so I can present these all together and all of them are painted up for Europe 1944, but all my allied figures are 1/72, so they look a bit daft together. I don’t know whether to shelve these vehicles and start again with new 1/72 kits. Most of my old vehicles were made during the 1970s and have this old look to them which I find appealing, so I am reluctant to just tucking them out of mind and out of view. My British and American 44/45 figures are great, I have a full company of each, with crew served weapons, all based and painted. So, I may just finish off my 1/72 DAK vehicles and base and paint my DAK Infantry company, which I still have just cut of the sprue and kept in their box. I have three different types of Italian figures, all 1/72 and all unpainted, but I have no vehicles as yet, but I wouldn’t mind having a small force of tanks and SP-Guns to add to my DAK group, but we will see.
Ian
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 16, 2020 22:42:00 GMT
I would not go throwing any of those old kits away, built or un-built. Sometimes they become very rare and demand high prices from collectors.
An example. When I was a kid I must have built 30 or more Aurora USS Bennions. I bought them for 69 cents a piece. I saw one recently, un-built in the original box selling for just over a $100. Wish I had one (or fifty) today, as it was a great little kit for its time, the mid 1950's, but I don't want one that bad.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 17, 2020 16:09:11 GMT
I won’t throw them out Chuck, as the missus will testify, I am a hoarder and clutter the place with stuff that nobody wants, so she has to rein me in at times. Did Colt serve in the M60A2? If so then here he can talk a walk back in time. It also has similar shows concerning the Firefly, in two parts I think.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 17, 2020 20:10:19 GMT
Yes, he was an M60A2 guy.
The narrator says in the opening lines of the video that the A2 was a "great" failure. Having only seen one of them in a TDY trip to Knox many, too many, years ago, I cannot really comment on that statement with any authority. It seem to me though had the Army not concentrated to A2's in a battalion of their own, and done what the Germans did early on, in having a company of the stubby barrel Mark IV's in each of their panzer battalions, thus a battalion being composed of three companies of A1's or later A3's with a supporting company of A2's. That way you would have a gun/missile capability in each tank battalion, and they could be task organized with mechanized Infantry, giving everyone in a heavy brigade a gun/missile capability.
Maybe the Gunslinger can comment of this. I would love to hear his views on the matter, as he is seemingly the only one in Little Big Horn Land who has ever ridden one.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 17, 2020 20:58:24 GMT
Chuck, I forgot to ask, was your M4 kit a 'plastic soldier kit'? Does the kit have an option to build a M4 with a 76mm gun? You could build the M4s all with different armament, 75mm, 76mm and 17 pdr.
Ian
|
|
colt45
First Lieutenant
Posts: 439
|
Post by colt45 on Jan 17, 2020 22:40:32 GMT
Chuck, Ian, The comment about the M60A2 being a great failure is not too far off. From the automotive side of the house, it was still an M60 just like the A1. The turret was another matter.
The new innovation items were a stabilized firing platform, meaning the tank could shoot on the move and the gun tube would remain on target even while the vehicle bounced up and down, a laser range finder that fed data into an onboard computer that adjusted the gunner's reticle for elevation, so in theory all the gunner had to do was put the cross hairs on the target and allow for lead, if necessary, and a gun/launcher that could shoot both conventional tank rounds and a IR guided missile.
If all this had worked as intended, this would have been a hell of a tank. However, nothing ever works as intended. This is where the story gets good.
First disappointment: The stabilization system.
It almost never worked. This system depended upon gyros and proper hydraulic action in order to keep the gun on a bouncing tank still enough to be able to hit a target while moving. This was a system that was very finicky and I think just too intolerant of the environment a tank and its crew operate in. Most problems dealt with faulty gyros or hydraulic leaks somewhere in the system. Even a very tiny leak you might not see could cause problems. And if the pressure wasn't right, again problems developed. The tank had a hydraulic pump that ran when the pressure dropped below the prescribed level, which meant the pressure in the lines was never constant. If you were sitting in the tank with the system on, even if you weren't moving the turret, you would hear the pump kick on and off.
Also, the battalion mechanics generally were not very familiar with this model. Fixing a stab system generally involved trial and error by replacing a part (when you could get them) or gyro and hoping for the best. In my platoon, there was only 1 tank out of 5 that had a working stab system, and in our company of 17, only about 3 could be counted on for a working stab when gunnery qualification came around. My particular tank, Alpha 11, was a thrill to be in when I turned on the stab system. The turret would start traversing in a counterclockwise circle while my cupola went in a clockwise circle. It was quite funny to watch. Needless to say, I never could use my system. It never got fixed.
Second disappointment: The gun system.
The A2 had a 152mm gun/launcher. The conventional rounds had a combustible casing, which meant there was no casing to be discarded after firing. There was just a neoprene bag left, which covered the combustible casing. Little rubber bags on the turret floor were not a problem like those 105mm shell casings the A1 had all over the floor after firing. However there is always a disadvantage and no free lunch. The A2 had to have a way of getting rid of the spent gases after firing a conventional round, so there was a CBSS (Closed Breech Scavaging System) under the back deck.
The CBSS pushed 3000 psi air into the gun tube to evacuate the gases. There was also an obturator seal in the breech that sealed the tube so gases could not get into the turret. If you had insufficient air pressure in the CBSS or the seal was defective and you fired the gun, guess what happened. If you guessed a turret full of noxious smoke, you would be right. The seal was made of stainless steel so unless someone nicked it or bent it when removing it for cleaning, it was generally not a problem. But the CBSS was prone to getting leaks in the tubing running from the back of the engine compartment to the gun and the only way you generally knew this was when you fired a round. And that would be the last round of the day since the smoke in the turret was not pleasant at all (I have personal experience with this). Again, the system was just not robust enough for the environment and the troops who worked with it daily (crew).
All the above was reference to conventional rounds. But we also had an IR guided missile. Now this system didn't generate as much smoke in the turret as a conventional round would if the CBSS failed, but it had other issues. First of all, the missile was guided by an infrared beam and that beam depended upon the gunner keeping the reticle centered on the target. The missile had several small thrusters around the main thruster which allowed for course corrections. This had the unfortunate effect of appearing to the gunner as if the missile were hopping all around the target. Even though the gunners were trained to ignore what the missile was doing and just keep the damned reticle centered on the target, the human factor got involved and gunners couldn't seem to resist the urge to help the missile to the target, so too many misses would occur.
And if one of the guidance thrusters failed, there was no telling which way the missile was going to go. I watched one leave the gun tube and almost immediately go straight up and tumble. I was on the ground outside the firing tank when this happened and everyone outside that tank was scrambling for cover. It landed about 100 feet in front of the tank that fired it and exploded. Scared the crap out of everyone, including the crew that fired it.
Third disappointment: The fire control system
The A2 had a laser range finder that fed elevation data into an onboard computer, which automatically set the gunner's reticle to the proper elevation. All the gunner had to do then was move the reticle to the target and add any windage that might be needed. Simple, right? Wrong. The computer was primitive by today's standards and didn't always process the information correctly, causing the reticle to not necessarily be properly elevated. The tank commander could also fire the main gun using this system, so if the computer didn't set the gunner's reticle correctly, the TC's reticle was also off. Most of the time, our crews used the choke sites, which were the backup system. Choke sites were the primary system on the A1s. If your laser didn't work, or the area was obscured with smoke (highly likely in a combat situation) so the laser couldn't be used, you couldn't use the computer so you would be forced to the choke sites.
The coax machine gun was another total disaster. It was a 7.62 coax that was normally to be fired electrically. Most of the time the solenoid didn't work, so the loader would have to manually press a plate on the back of the gun to fire it. That is, if it would fire at all, which was mostly never. That damn gun was designed to jam constantly and make crews say all the bad words they knew. In that objective it was a success. On the gunnery range, a crew would take 500 rounds of belted 7.62 down range, and return to the ammo dock and offload around 400 rounds or more. It jammed constantly so you never could count on using that weapon. Thank god for the M85 50 cal in the cupola. That gun had two rates of fire and worked every time. Best weapon on the tank. Since the coax failed constantly, crews used up the 50 cal ammo on both the coax engagements and the 50 cal engagements.
As a front line tank, it was a failure. The new innovations, while brilliant in concept, simply didn't deliver the goods. There were only about 500 A2s built, and only one battalion of them stateside. That was the 1/67, 2AD, stationed at Ft Hood, my battalion. All the rest were in Germany, probably augmenting the A1 battalions and divisions.
But, most of the innovations made it into the XM1, which became the M1 Abrams. I left active duty before the Abrams came online so I didn't get a chance to try one out, but I understand they got the stab system figured out so that it actually worked in the M1. I don't know if the fire control system made it to the M1, but I assume a better version did.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 17, 2020 23:10:08 GMT
Yes Ian, it was the Plastic Soldier kit. You have the option to build an M4A4 with a 75mm, or one of two versions of the Firefly with the 17 pounder. As I said before the instructions leave a lot to be desired, so there may have been another option, that I am unaware of.
Colt: How depressing, and puts one in mind of the million dollar toilet seat. That however is until you got to the last paragraph, which validates the old saw that for every success there are a thousand failures. The lessons learned from the failures are what lead to that one important success.
Weren't most of the A2's converted to A3's
|
|
colt45
First Lieutenant
Posts: 439
|
Post by colt45 on Jan 18, 2020 0:24:41 GMT
Chuck, If they were, it involved a removal of the turret and replacement with a turret like the A1 had. The A2 had a very long, thin turret, designed to give a very small target to the enemy armor. It was, I believe only 3 or 4 feet wide when viewed from the front. There were a couple of "humps" in the turret where the loader and gunner sat, but most of their bodies were inside the hull. The TC was the one guy who was totally in the turret.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 18, 2020 4:17:30 GMT
Yes I think I read somewhere that the A2's were sent to Anniston, and became A3's with new built turrets.
|
|