Landships II

Breaking:


Announcement: Please read the following announcement!

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Chatbox
Please log in to join the chat!
Post Info TOPIC: Cardmodel 1/72 St.Chamond progress


Lieutenant-Colonel

Status: Offline
Posts: 199
Date:
Cardmodel 1/72 St.Chamond progress
Permalink   


The first page of parts is attached.  This is still in the early stages, so the camo might not match at the edges yet.  I'll add parts numbers and make instructions, later.



Attachments
__________________


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1062
Date:
Permalink   

It looks great so far, I like the camo scheme too.

__________________


Commander in Chief

Status: Offline
Posts: 667
Date:
Permalink   

Looks great ....

What about a box "This box should be xx mm long in 1/72" ?

__________________


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1062
Date:
Permalink   

There IS a box - towards the bottom left of the page; it has imperial measurements rather than metric, requesting that it be sized to 6 inches.

That means size it to 152.4mm

 

TCT



__________________


Commander in Chief

Status: Offline
Posts: 667
Date:
Permalink   

I have seen that box. I just thought it would be a good idea to add a box for people who use metrics.

__________________


Lieutenant-Colonel

Status: Offline
Posts: 199
Date:
Permalink   

no problem.  actually I re-worded the note as: "the border should be 7" x 10" (178mm x 254mm) at 1/72 scale", and deleted the scale box entirely.  I sized the border so it should print with either US letter (8.5"x11") or metric A4 (210mm x 297mm)



__________________


Commander in Chief

Status: Offline
Posts: 667
Date:
Permalink   

Great!

__________________


Lieutenant-Colonel

Status: Offline
Posts: 199
Date:
Permalink   

white model is attached. "Teddy" is next



-- Edited by wayne on Sunday 10th of June 2012 11:34:48 PM

Attachments
__________________


Lieutenant-Colonel

Status: Offline
Posts: 199
Date:
Permalink   

sorry about the double upload.  here's "Teddy"



Attachments
__________________


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1062
Date:
Permalink   

This looks great Wayne - although challenging! So many tiny pieces!

__________________


Lieutenant-Colonel

Status: Offline
Posts: 199
Date:
Permalink   

photos of completed model, but without the MG's.  I know there are some things I might want to revise:

a. the shape of the vent hood on the roof.  some photos show this as tapered to front and rear.

b. the left side door needs to be taller

c. some photos and plans show a door in the lower right rear panel.  I have not been able to confirm that this door was on the early model hull.

d. the 75mm gun opening in the front plate

e. there may be more hatches on the roof than the 3 I have now.  comments?

anything else?  any comments or sugestions?  consider this the Beta release <Grin>



Attachments
__________________


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1724
Date:
Permalink   

 

Looking at the drawings and images in Lawrynowicz's book:

- his drawings seem to show the roof vent was thickest in the centre and sloped to the front and back. The slope isn't very noticeable on period images. The St Chamond crews seem to have used the roof vent to store the tank's tarpaulin.

- "left side door?" the St Chamond had a door on the right side (facing forwards). I agree it should be a bit taller.

- the door on the right hull rear plate does seem to have been on the early model tanks.

- I'd have to build the model before I can comment on the gun mantlet but it looks pretty good on your build.

- The Law.,etc drawings show 3 pairs of roof hatches on the the early model and 2 pairs on the later variants.

Regards,

Charlie



__________________


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1062
Date:
Permalink   

On the chars-francais website, photo "saint-chamond-1 x025.jpg" shows what looks like the very top corner of a rear door in the bottom left corner of the pic; it is an early model with the flat roof.

There should be a transverse ventilator running across the top of the main ventilator on the roof, and another pair of hatches either side of the silencer - or certainly there's one on the right side. Ah - there it is, didn't see it!

The bottleneck on the 75 should be closer to the glacis plate - about half as far out as it presently is.

Just checked other photos on chars-francais: there are six hatches on the flat of the roof! Three each side. The plans they have on that site show this, although I was wary of trusting them because the proportions of the tank are wrong.

Apart from that, I'd only say that I hadn't noticed that Teddy was repainted in a different scheme until your model made me check the photos on chars-francais; not sure if there were as many colours though - maybe you've seen better pictures.

Well done, looking forward to the final version.

__________________


Corporal

Status: Offline
Posts: 18
Date:
Permalink   

Very attractive model, Wayne.



__________________

Regards, Don

Currently working on:

Recently completed: 1/24 Holt 1-man tank



Lieutenant-Colonel

Status: Offline
Posts: 199
Date:
Permalink   

pix of the latest revision-new gun mantlet, new gun "bottle" and lower slide, right-side door, rear door, roof vents and roof hatches. i'll post the parts and instructions when i get home from work



Attachments
__________________


Lieutenant-Colonel

Status: Offline
Posts: 199
Date:
Permalink   

the colored model of "Teddy" is attached. is attached



Attachments
__________________


Lieutenant-Colonel

Status: Offline
Posts: 199
Date:
Permalink   

I would like feedback on "Teddy" before I go on to the late production hull.  I also have started an alternate camouflage as "Fantomas".  Is anyone interested in coloring the whitemodel for other vehicles in the early production series?  if so, I can upload the whitemodel as pdf, corel draw (v5), or paintshop pro.



__________________


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1724
Date:
Permalink   

We seem to be attracting a fair number of model downloads from the wargaming community, white models would probably be attractive for them.

"Teddy"'s looking good to me - all the issues we raised seem to be fixed.

I guess you could do with the team in the attached for the late model St Chamond.

Regards,

Charlie



Attachments
__________________


Lieutenant-Colonel

Status: Offline
Posts: 199
Date:
Permalink   

The whitemodel is attached.  Also a screenshot of the "Fantomas" camouflage in progress.  The photos and color art seem to all be for the left side only.  is there a photo of the right side of this vehicle?

I expect my having the help of a team of young lovelies like those in your photo would strain my wife's sense of humor a bit. <grin>



Attachments
__________________


Lieutenant-Colonel

Status: Offline
Posts: 199
Date:
Permalink   

"Fantomas" early St Chamond is attached, with a couple of photos



Attachments
__________________


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1724
Date:
Permalink   

 

"Fantomas" is on Landships II now.

Regards,

Charlie



__________________


General

Status: Offline
Posts: 380
Date:
Permalink   

Bonsoir,

About camouflage and markings of "Teddy".

http://pages14-18.mesdiscussions.net/pages1418/Pages-d-Histoire-Artillerie/Artillerie-Speciale-chars-d-assaut/artillerie-speciale-chamond-sujet_1483_1.htm

A plus - Michel



__________________


Lieutenant-Colonel

Status: Offline
Posts: 199
Date:
Permalink   

Two schemes for "Teddy"!  It is the same vehicle in both schemes, right? ...same vehicle number?  Is the second scheme 2 colors only?  looks like sand or ochre and either brown or green/olive.  My French is a bit scketchy, certainly not up to making an accurate translation. 

 

BTW, I am close to finishing the late hull and Mle 97 gun.   Any volunteers to color one of them?



__________________


General

Status: Offline
Posts: 380
Date:
Permalink   

Bonjour,

"Two schemes for "Teddy"! It is the same vehicle in both schemes, right ? ...same vehicle number ? "

It's right

Without color photos from the war, I never speak about colors of these tanks.

Camo diagram and markings are enough for recognition.

Bonne journée - Michel



__________________


Lieutenant-Colonel

Status: Offline
Posts: 199
Date:
Permalink   

Here is the late hull St. Chamond with the Mle1897 75mm gun.

I picked a relatively easy camo scheme this time.

Also the white model.

(Charlie - these can go on the models page)



Attachments
__________________


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1724
Date:
Permalink   

 

Thanks Wayne.

Both Late St Chamond models are on Landships II now.

Regards,

Charlie



__________________


Lieutenant-Colonel

Status: Offline
Posts: 199
Date:
Permalink   

Pix of the late production hull model.  (Charlie - these can be used on the "models" page)

The mid-production model would use the late hull and the early gun.  Apparently some of the mid- and late- production models lacked the drivers cupola.  The Osprey book says the cupola was added to the mid-production model, but I have seen photos with the Mle1897 gun (late-production) but without cupola.  Is there an accepted way of referring to the different models?

Model "A"? - early hull, Romalho 75mm (some of the really early ones lacked cupolas)

Model "B1"? - late hull, Romalho 75mm gun, no cupola

Model "B2"? - late hull, Romalho 75mm gun, with cupola

Model "C1"? - late hull, Mle 1897 gun, without cupola

Model "C2"? - late hull, Mle 1897 gun, with cupola

 



Attachments
__________________


General

Status: Offline
Posts: 380
Date:
Permalink   

Bonjour,

It's not "Romalho" but "Rimailho". This retired Artillery Colonel was engineer for Saint Chamond Factory

After prototyp model, there is only two models of Saint Chamond :

           - Saint Chamond M1 with flat roof and 75 mm gun Saint Chamond : Tank number 62401 to 62550

                     48 of these tanks was built, in factory, as recovery tank without gun.

           - Saint Chamond M2 with slope roof and 75 mm gun Saint Chamond : Tank number 62551 to 62610

                This models with slope roof was built, and send to the Army, without tank driver cupola on the left front side.

                The tank driver cupola, send by the factory, was installed on this model in Tank Units.

           - Saint Chamond M2 with slope roof and 75 mm gun Model 1897 : Tank number 62611 to 62800

                 Those tanks with slope roof was built, and send to the Army, with tank driver cupola on the left front side

I used to speak, in my topics (on forum Pages 14-18), of "Saint Chamond M3" for the last serie (62611 to 62800).

It's easier for Recognition.

For serial numbers (62551 to 62610) and also some tanks after serial number 62611, it is possible to found photos of the same tank with and without tank driver cupola on the left front side.

Bonne soirée - Michel



-- Edited by Tanker on Wednesday 10th of October 2012 08:14:01 AM

__________________


General

Status: Offline
Posts: 380
Date:
Permalink   

Bonsoir,

About Saint Chamond

http://pages14-18.mesdiscussions.net/pages1418/Pages-d-Histoire-Artillerie/Artillerie-Speciale-chars-d-assaut/artillerie-evolution-fabrications-sujet_1533_1.htm

bonne lecture et bonne soirée - Michel



__________________


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1724
Date:
Permalink   

 

Thank you - a "tour de force" on the details of the St Chamond tank.

Wayne is well known for revising and updating his cardmodel designs - I hope he will incorporate the observations in your article on the St Chamond into his models

Looking at the images and the drawings in Lawrynowicz's book on the St Chamond there seems to be a difference in the angles of the lower front plates

between the flat roof and pitched roof variants of the St Chamond tank.

Regards,

Charlie



__________________


Lieutenant-Colonel

Status: Offline
Posts: 199
Date:
Permalink   

This is the sort of input I was looking for.  I need to print the article in color and try to translate it to English.  I get the gist of it OK, but I would like to get it all, even the fine points.  There is a lot of great info in the article.

The angles on the bow plates is the most troubling part of this so far.  I wish now that I had better drawings when I started it.  I am attaching a sketch of some critical dimensions for the bow plates.  It would be a great help if someone could measure the vehicle at Saumur and  send me those dimensions.  If the M1 and M2 versions have different bow plate angles it would further help to have both sets of measurements.  This requires major re-work of the cardmodel, so I would prefer to do it only once more...correctly.  A clear copy of the dimensioned side view in the article would also help - I saved a copy of the one on-line but I can't read the text clearly.

If I read the French correctly, the last production run, 62669-62800, had re-arranged (augmented or surblinde) armour, which was news to me.  Re-arranging the vertical plate lines and bolts in the cardmodel is relatively easy, and there can be several versions (like we have with the A7V's).  Likewise the plate joints can have the exterior doubler plates or omit them as required.

I noticed the "Fantomas" bow markings after I made the model.  The bow marking can be added easily.  I also see that some of the "Fantomas" lettering had no white shadow.  Were there two vehicles of the same name, or was this a re-paint?

Making the MG opening smaller (shorter) is easy.  The small circular openings next to them (vision openings or pistol ports?) can be made larger as well - no problem.

Changing the size of the left-hand side door is a minor adjustment, too.

 

I am sure I will have more questions, so bear with me, be patient.



Attachments
__________________


General

Status: Offline
Posts: 380
Date:
Permalink   

Bonjour,

"A clear copy of the dimensioned side view in the article would also help"

   My Email is on my profil, you can call me for that.

"It would be a great help if someone could measure the vehicle at Saumur"

I am far always from Saumur and you caN send an Email to the museum for that.

I agree you, it is important to found all the good measures to rebuilt a very good plan.

A plus . . . Michel



__________________


Lieutenant-Colonel

Status: Offline
Posts: 199
Date:
Permalink   

Many thanks for the drawings and the web article,  I am attaching a pdf showing the revised bow of the 3D model.  I have not yet gotten to the other changes.  Comments on the revised bow plates?



Attachments
__________________


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1062
Date:
Permalink   

Revised bow looks about right - not an easy task with all those angles to manage!



__________________


Lieutenant-Colonel

Status: Offline
Posts: 199
Date:
Permalink   

Tanker,

 

While re-doing the curves at the ends of the suspension wells, I saw that the suspension units themselves did not really match the photos.

In the attached screen shot, the red is the model as-is.  The blue seems closer to what I see in the photos and some of the more recently-received line drawings.  Do you have any comments or recommendatons?



Attachments
__________________


Lieutenant-Colonel

Status: Offline
Posts: 199
Date:
Permalink   

Views of the revised hull form are attached.

Have I got the major points covered?  I will adjust the joint lines per your article, to the limit of my ability to translate.



Attachments
__________________


General

Status: Offline
Posts: 380
Date:
Permalink   

Bonsoir Wayne,

Here is your measure done on the Saint Chamond, by contact in Saumur's Museum.

A: 63 cm.

B: 108 cm.

C: 96,5 cm.

D: 23,5 cm.

E: 145,5 cm.

F: 205 cm.

A plus - Michel

 

 

 



__________________


Lieutenant-Colonel

Status: Offline
Posts: 199
Date:
Permalink   

Michel,

Many thanks!  I plotted the points.  The angles and lines don't match any of the drawings.  I am attaching a screen shot of the plotted points and lines over a line drawing for comparison.  I expected much closer agreement.   Suggestions?



Attachments
__________________


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1062
Date:
Permalink   

That's a problem! The Chars-Français site has plenty of photos, and they show clearly that the lower front plate, at the side, slopes at roughly 45 degrees - which means the line drawing is about right for that particular line.

The red overlay looks much too steep there: are you sure you made no mistakes in measuring the new lines? To my eyes the measurements requested look like they would have been extremely awkward to obtain by measuring a vehicle, so they may be incorrect; much better to measure the length of each edge of the tank, then either measure angles with a protractor, or ignore that and use compasses when drawing a plan by hand. Old school perhaps, but more reliable.

__________________


Lieutenant-Colonel

Status: Offline
Posts: 199
Date:
Permalink   

You may be right.  I got better agreement from tracing the photos and overlaying some of the better line drawings. Maybe someone else can also plot the lines and put it up for comparison.



__________________
1 2  >  Last»  | Page of 2  sorted by
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us