Landships II

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: 1/72 Cardmodel MkIX "Pig"


Lieutenant

Status: Offline
Posts: 54
Date:
RE: 1/72 Cardmodel MkIX "Pig"
Permalink   


Hello Wayne,
following up on Tincantadpole's entry above, my data (via David Fletcher back in 80's) has Mark IX being ordered on Marshalls Ltd. with WD numbers 901 to 1100. Apparantly only 36 completed.

R Simmie

__________________
R Simmie


Colonel

Status: Offline
Posts: 205
Date:
Permalink   

TCT,

These discussions are great!

I have these models ready so far:

1.  white model

2.  Bovington (IC-15) (I haven't built this one yet)

3.  UK Plan1919

Models planned:

4.  US Plan1919

5.  French Plan1919

6.  Experimental Amphibeous "Duck"

 

Please bear in mind that, with the exception of the Bovington IC-15 and the others in a few photos, the "Pig" cardmodels are all very much speculative.  I can make other models with whatever numbers are requested.  This one is my crack at a vehicle that was not made - assuming that more than the original 36 or 40, or more even than the original order for 200, would have been required for Plan1919.

The IC-XX tactical markings were suitable when there were fewer than 50 of them, I'm guessing all in one company.  "IC-XX" might get a bit clumsy with several hundred of them divided into maybe a couple of dozen battalions.  Unique battalion ID's would be required, similar to those on the tanks, but it would seem confusion to repeat the tanks' battalion letters - hence the battalion number "8".  I can add other models with other markings.

Vehicle census/manufacturer number is very open .  I like the letter concept.  Would the "A" have been used here, too?  Or, was the "A" for the Medium "A" only?  What letter would the Carriers Use?  "I" for Infantry Carrier and "S" for Supply Carrier?  How do we get Gwyn's attention to this discussion?

The color is the same brown-khaki I use on all my UK vehicles.  The photos were taken with a backlight from an open window, so the colors might not be the best. 

I have also started a French Plan1919 version (the markings for that one will also spark some discussion <Grin>  What would the French have called their Carrier Units - maybe some variant of "Dragoon"?). 

I will also make a US version, marked in like fashion to the US Plan1919 MkVIII. 

The "Duck" is progressing.  I have made an "alpha" build to check the tanks and screen for fit-up.  I'll post pix later.

I can accommodate the variations being discussed pretty easily.

 



__________________


Colonel

Status: Offline
Posts: 205
Date:
Permalink   

Pix of the amphib "alpha" build. Note this is only a partial model, to test the fit of the tanks to the side frame and hull.  I chose the right side, so I could check the intake screen.

676 is a side shot, with a slight down-angle.  The tanks appear to be mounted lower than they really are.

677 is a high front view. 

678 is from high on the right front quarter.  The front tank appears to be too high. Right now it is the same diameter as the side tanks, but I might have to make it smaller so it will fit and still be below the top of the driver's visor.  The exhaust pipes are very spindly - I wlll include them as paper parts, but will recommend they be made from wire.

The open brackets supporting the side tanks are very fiddly, though the effect is nice when finished.

I am not yet OK with the fit-up.



Attachments
__________________


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1062
Date:
Permalink   

I agree with using wire for exhausts; perhaps also for tank supports and radiator trunking?

As far as I can see, the front tank could simply be rolled a little further forward to drop down to the right height - I think there's a bit of leeway, judging by your photos.

Re WD numbers, the figures supplied by R Simmie should answer the question nicely (200 vehicles sounds an ample number), but if you want to ask Gwyn, try sending him a Personal Message. He has posted recently in the thread "Identity of Mk V Tank 9171 at Imperial War Museum", which you'll find lower down the page if you click on 'Recent Posts' - just click on his name and you'll be able to send a PM.



-- Edited by TinCanTadpole on Monday 26th of November 2012 11:10:30 PM

__________________


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1411
Date:
Permalink   

Hi, yawn I was woken by a PM knocking on my inbox...

I try not to call these numbers "WD numbers", or War Department numbers, because they're not. The numbers were allocated by the Ministry of Munitions, and specifically the Mechanical Warfare Supply Department (MWSD) later known as the Mechanical Warfare Department (MWD). The War Department was a separate part of Government. I'll call them serials.

Actually the answer is contained in R Simmie's post, in which quite rightly is pointed out that Mark IXs were allocated the serials 901 - 1100.  We know this because it's contained in "Office Instruction No. 19" issued by the MWD and signed by the Deputy Controller, Percival Perry.

The serial 1201 is not appropriate for a Mark IX.  It is in fact the number of a Medium B. 

The IC - nn numbers seen on post-war photographs of Mark IXs are not understood.  It is presumed that IC means Infantry Carrier but the truth is, we don't know.

How they might have been marked or numbered had Plan 1919 gone ahead and Mark IXs actually been issued to units is a question of speculation and any view I might have is probably worth no more than other opinions expressed, so I'll leave that one to you.  Maybe someone would have given them names!

HTH

Gwyn



__________________


Lieutenant

Status: Offline
Posts: 54
Date:
Permalink   

I vaguely recall reading somewhere that there were 3 Infantry Carrier Battalions to be raised, separate from the Tank Battalions in 1919. Anyone else read/know of this?
If true, your number 2 issue may be void as the IC tanks are not part of the Tank Battalions and could be A,B and C IC Battalions. How many IC tanks per Battalion? 36 or 48? who knows!

R Simmie

Jeeps! i just notied I'm a Sergeant now!



-- Edited by R Simmie on Wednesday 28th of November 2012 08:42:15 AM



-- Edited by R Simmie on Wednesday 28th of November 2012 08:42:57 AM

__________________
R Simmie


Colonel

Status: Offline
Posts: 205
Date:
Permalink   

Thanks, Gwyn,

Are the serials listed by type somewhere?

__________________


Colonel

Status: Offline
Posts: 205
Date:
Permalink   

OK, we have three issues to resolve for the UK Plan1919 model "Pig":

1. serial? - only 901 to 1100 were assigned to the MkIX, so anything in that range is safe.  1066 has a nice ring to it, if a bit tongue-in-cheek. 

2.  Tactical sign - bearing in mind this is for Plan1919, would the "IC" numbers be extended from 1 through 200?  Would it be necessary to distinguish between vehicles of different battalions?  If no, then the "IC" scheme would work as well as any.  If yes, then would the Letter-number-number scheme used in the heavy tank battalions be extended for the pigs?  Would there have been enough letters in the alphabet to do this?  I would like to hear more ideas on this before I pick one.

3. Name?  This is wide open.  Cities, rivers, ocean liners, politicians, girlfriends?

Other issues of sorts

   - RAC flashes. Should there be an RAC flash on the cab roof?   I didn't put one there.

   - Track width.  All the built models seem to have narrow tracks without extensions.  Should there be wide tracks or extensions?



__________________


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1062
Date:
Permalink   

RAC flashes? Yes, I think there should be some on the cab roof, as an easy I.D. marking for aircraft to see - heavy tanks had stripes on their cab/cupola roofs.

Tracks: I was thinking they'd be fine at normal width, but you have a good point here; if the vehicles are used as supply carriers it likely doesn't matter so much, but as an infantry carrier the vehicle would need to have the same mud-plugging abilities as the heavy tanks. There seems to be a little space between the inside of the track frame and the cab, so there may be room for wider tracks - which I think would be fitted in preference to extensions like grousers, at that stage of the war (as there aren't so many photos of Mk Vs with grousers as with wide tracks).

__________________


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1411
Date:
Permalink   

wayne wrote:

Thanks, Gwyn,

Are the serials listed by type somewhere?


Not all in one place Wayne.  Well, I have them of coursebiggrin.  I originally wanted to understand how Mark IV serials worked, but having cracked that problem I'm now finding them immensely useful to study (at the macro level) tank production, and the history of individual tanks at the micro.  Hence the reason my little heart jumps for joy every time a new photo turns up that shows a serial!

Gwyn 



__________________


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1411
Date:
Permalink   

R Simmie wrote:

Jeeps! i just notied I'm a Sergeant now!


I was 666 last week.  That's even more scary.

Gwyn

 



__________________


Colonel

Status: Offline
Posts: 205
Date:
Permalink   

OK,

4 models:

 - white model

 - UK Plan1919, with revised serial number, RAC flash on cab

 - Bovington - IC15, near as I can get it.

 - France Plan1919 - I haven't beta-built it, so i don't know if the camo matches on all the parts.  The markings are purely fictitious, and assumes France would have used some of them.

 

I'm still working on the "Duck" version, on hold till I finish the mods on the St.Chamonds.



Attachments
MkIX.UK.Bovington.pdf (1,500.2 kb)
MkIX.white.pdf (632.2 kb)
__________________


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1062
Date:
Permalink   

Very good!

1066? That'll be "A" for 'arold, then?

__________________


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 2119
Date:
Permalink   

The Mark IX models are available for download on Landships II.
Regards,
Charlie


__________________


Colonel

Status: Offline
Posts: 205
Date:
Permalink   

I hadn't thought of that.  It seems appropriate.

Can we get some builds, so we get photos for the models page?  I have made so many alpha-builds I need some relief.



__________________


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1062
Date:
Permalink   

I have just looked on the Tank Museum website, and the listing for the Mk IX says that there are two sizes of loopholes along the sides, with the larger ones provided internally with mountings for light MGs - so it looks like the hypothetical door mounts are unnecessary.

http://www.tankmuseum.org/ixbin/indexplus?_IXSS_=_IXMENU_%3dVehicles%26ALL%3dmark%2bv%26_IXACTION_%3dsummary%26%252asform%3d%252fsearch_form%252fbovtm_combined%26_IXSESSION_%3dacGIu2qaiY9%26TYPE%3darticle%26_IXFPFX_%3dtemplates%252fsummary%252f&_IXFIRST_=5&_IXSPFX_=templates/full/tvod/t&_IXMAXHITS_=1&submit-button=summary&_IXSESSION_=acGIu2qaiY9&_IXMENU_=Vehicles



__________________
«First  <  1 2 | 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


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard