Rubicon Models - 1/56 Plastic Kit - Q1/17 New Releases Shipped 170407

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Col. Dash**

I have to disagree, theres a picture floating around somewhere which someone actually used a 1/48th scale marder III and put a warlord fig in it . He also used a WL Marder for the same thing. He then did side by sides with a pic from WW2 with a guy in the same position. It fit the 1/48th perfectly, the fig made the 1/56th look like a clown car.

Oh well to each their own. There isn't that much difference between the two, I just think it looks better in 1/48th. I have a SDkfz 222 in both scales and I still cant figure out how 2 guys can fit in the turrets of either of them. Like I said the Rubicon stuff looks great, as good as tamaya stuff. I definitely will be interested in seeing what they come up with if they do true scale 28mm guys.

**judgedoug**

Oh, they'd fit - painfully. I've had the (dis)pleasure of riding inside a T-34 in the machine-gunner's position in the hull. That was painful to be in for five minutes (nevermind the exposed spring bouncing up and down for the suspension that would sever your fingers if you didn't pay attention) because it was obviously designed to give it's crew scoliosis

I agree some of the sculpts for Warlord's various ranges they bought are pretty chunky, but Perry 28's are dead on for 1/56 (which is why they sculpt for 1/56 Blitzkrieg) and many of the newer Warlord ranges such as the French are also dead on for 1/56.

**Haldir**

Hi , really like your stuff and very happy with my order. Just a quick question. How come no 1/56 fighter planes? No one has done this , there might be a market for it. I'm in!!

**RubiconModels**

Haldir wrote:
Hi , really like your stuff and very happy with my order. Just a quick question. How come no 1/56 fighter planes? No one has done this , there might be a market for it. I'm in!!

Fighter planes in 1/56 scale are quite large compared to vehicles. We see a lot of gamers use 1/72 scale as the planes in the air should look smaller. However, we are looking into doing some 1/56 scale "grounded" aircraft in resin as we believe the market is quite limited.

**sing your life**

RubiconModels wrote:
We see a lot of gamers use 1/72 scale as the planes in the air should look smaller.

Not exactly, most of the BA players in my area use 1/72 since Airfix's kits in the scale are basically everywhere in the UK and planes in that scale are smaller/cheaper than the same plane in the closer [to 1/56] 1/48 which is useful when BA only has the planes on the table for a few minutes each game [hence why I personally use the even smaller 1/144]. The effect of distance on perveiced size doosen't seem to mean much when choosing scales for this ruleset.

**snurl**

If you folks do any planes, please do a landed Glider.

**sing your life**

snurl wrote:
If you folks do any planes, please do a landed Glider.

You could just use any of 1/48 or 1/72 models of the Horsa already, it admittedly would be a bit too large/small compared to the figures but that wouldn't be very noticeable on the tabletop unless you really care about comparative sizes.

**judgedoug**

Whew, I used a 1/72 Horsa Glider for the Pegasus Bridge scenario I ran on the D-Day anniversary. That thing is HUGE on the tabletop even at 1/72.

A 1/56 kit would be enormous and absurdly expensive!

**Manchu**

Here are the 3D prototypes for the M10/M36 project! Quite satisfied with the initial result. Going to make some minor changes and to enhance the details and assembly...

Now comes the most difficult process - what is going to stay and what is not! Too many parts right now, some need to be omitted!

The current setup will enable you to build quite a few variants and/or combinations:

- M10 Wolverine (early and late production turrets) on either a M10 or M10A1 chassis
- Achilles Ic or IIc (17pdr with late M10 turret and a different shaped counterweight) on a M10 or M10A1 chassis
- M36 Jackson converted from M10A1s
- M36B1 with the M36 turret is designed to fit onto our M4A3 kit
- M36B2, M36 using M10 hull

**sing your life**

Holy fething gak.

* gets super excited waiting for release*

**Big P**

No muzzle brake or fume extractor on WW2 M36... some had a counter weight added at the barrel end but I think the other additions were post war.

**RubiconModels**

Big P wrote:
No muzzle brake or fume extractor on WW2 M36... some had a counter weight added at the barrel end but I think the other additions were post war.

As on our M36 image stated, that gun barrel together with the muzzle brake is post-war! We do have another gun barrel, which is actually longer than this version with a WW2-era muzzle brake; the same double muzzle brake like those found on the M26 Pershing late in the war.

**Big P**

Cool!

**snurl**

I'll be getting one. Keep them coming.

**sing your life**

It's quite interesting you decided to include the post war style barrel. Hardly anyone seems to be playing the Korean War compared to those doing WW2 right now, though that could end up changing if Warlord decides to put some focus on the former conflict.

**Snord**

I'm really looking forward to this kit. I can see myself getting at least two of them - one for the Achilles and one for the M36. It'd be nice if the ammo stowage in the turret could be included, as it's quite prominent on the real vehicle.

sing your life wrote:
It's quite interesting you decided to include the post war style barrel. Hardly anyone seems to be playing the Korean War compared to those doing WW2 right now, though that could end up changing if Warlord decides to put some focus on the former conflict.

Korean War M36s had overhead armour on the turret. With that and the post-war barrel, I think Rubicon would exceed their parts allowance.

**sing your life**

Tailgunner wrote:

sing your life wrote:
It's quite interesting you decided to include the post war style barrel. Hardly anyone seems to be playing the Korean War compared to those doing WW2 right now, though that could end up changing if Warlord decides to put some focus on the former conflict.

Korean War M36s had overhead armour on the turret. With that and the post-war barrel, I think Rubicon would exceed their parts allowance.

Only 3/4 of Korean war M36 were fitted with the extra turret armour. The rest remained open-topped during the war.

**Big P**

Well roof covers did appear in WW2.

813TD fitted them to their M10s in September 44. In Korea they seem fairly standard. There was also the hull mounted MG too.

**RubiconModels**

Big P wrote:
Well roof covers did appear in WW2.
813TD fitted them to their M10s in September 44. In Korea they seem fairly standard. There was also the hull mounted MG too.

That's very true, Big P. We have the roof done, but due to too many parts, we have decided not to include them.
As for the hull mounted MG, we are not so sure. From references, we know Taiwanese M10 had the modification, but those were very late, post WW2!

**Alpharius**

What was the reason for the various tank destroyers being 'open topped' to begin with?

EDIT:

I went and looked on Wikipedia and found this:

Based on US infantry doctrine, this was not considered a major flaw as American infantry was supposed to have carried significant support firepower when supporting the vehicles in the type of combat that made them most vulnerable. However, the open-topped turret gave excellent visibility, which was valuable for a vehicle that was tasked with finding enemy armored vehicles and other targets. The open top also made escape easier when the vehicle was hit and improved communications with accompanying infantry.

Infantry support FTW!

But it must have been tense around snipers, grenades and artillery strikes...

**RubiconModels**

Alpharius wrote:
What was the reason for the various tank destroyers being 'open topped' to begin with?

Here is a quote from Wikipedia:

The M10's open-topped turret left the crew vulnerable to artillery and mortar fire and fragments. The crew is also exposed to long distance sniper fire and infantry close assault, such as thrown grenades, or attacks from upper story windows, especially in urban combat and wooded areas. Based on US infantry doctrine, this was not considered a major flaw as American infantry was supposed to have carried significant support firepower when supporting the vehicles in the type of combat that made them most vulnerable. However, the open-topped turret gave excellent visibility, which was valuable for a vehicle that was tasked with finding enemy armored vehicles and other targets. The open top also made escape easier when the vehicle was hit and improved communications with accompanying infantry.

**Big P**

No hull MG in WW2. Post-war mod.

Reason for open top was visibility, weight, ease of breech handling, higher propellant ratio... dont for get these were seen as 'shoot & scoot' weapons.

US TD doctrine failed for fighting anything other than tanks... and some might argue they were not great for tanks either.

**Snord**

The initial tank destroyer designs were more like German Panzerjaegers - fixed weapon mounts and minimal armoured shielding with no overhead protection. The M10 was a development from these; the open-topped turret saved weight and allowed a heavier weapon to be mounted. The M10's sloped sides were a result of feedback from US troops in the Pacific, who were critical of the vertical armour on existing US tank designs. The open top was a major liability in service, particularly when tank destroyers were employed in a fire support role. This was an increasingly common occurrence as the war progressed because tank destroyers, lacking enemy ranks to fight (especially in Italy), were often attached to infantry divisions to provide fire support. Tank destroyers in this role were very vulnerable to counter-battery fire - and mortars.

As Big P said, the tank destroyer concept was a mistake. It was compounded by infighting over armour doctrine at high levels, leading to an increase in towed anti-tank guns at the expense of armoured vehicles - until the Battle of the Bulge revealed this to be a serious error.

The 563rd Ordnance Heavy Maintenance Company of 7th Army devised armoured covers for the M10 turret, and the 813rd Tank Destroyer Battalion fitted these to about half if its M10s (not M36s). Overhead armour kits were developed for the M10 and the M36 in late 1944, but they weren't that common in service in WW2.

**Alpharius**

More fun facts from the Wiki article on the M10:

In order to compensate for its deficiencies, some individual US crews improvised overhead turret armor in Normandy to protect against mortars and grenades. One M10 was photographed with an almost complete roof fitted to a raised edge which had vision slits, all manufactured out of captured German plating. In UK service, one M10 in the 86th Anti-Tank Regiment (XII Corps) in Normandy drove back out of action three separate times with the entire turret crew dead. Two turret crews had been killed by 88mm air bursts or mortars exploding in treetops, one crew were killed by a direct hit through the turret. The same driver survived each time. When this driver was placed with a new crew, his fourth, he was declared to be a 'Jonah' (bad luck) and they refused to drive with him. He was transferred to another unit and told to keep quiet about his history.

By the end of the war its armor was clearly too thin to provide protection from the newer German tanks, anti-tank guns, and infantry anti-tank weaponry. M10s in Europe were fitted with layers of sandbags or baulks of timber attached to front and side armor to detonate Panzerschreck rockets and Panzerfausts before they struck the main plate. The M10 had a very slow turret rotation speed, as the turret traverse was unpowered and the crew had to hand-crank the turret around. It took approximately two minutes to rotate a full 360 degrees. However, this slow rotation speed may have been again more a theoretical flaw than real as compared to German armored fighting vehicles, as the M10 was generally more mobile than its turreted opponents in the most common tactical situations in Europe and had far better traverse than turretless German tank destroyers with virtually no traverse and which were much less mobile. The German Panzer IV Ausf. J, produced exclusively in 1944-45 also had manual-only turret traverse, which was twice as fast as the M10, with the Tiger I having the same speed as the J's. Panthers and Tiger IIs could traverse four times as fast as the M10. It was more important that US AFVs would generally operate in greater numbers in tactical situations, and therefore had more firing angles and greater firepower in battle than their German opponents. Consequently, the Germans in the West lost more AFVs than they could afford. The Western European terrain permitted very little in the way of long distance tank engagements where the heavy German tank's high velocity guns and thick frontal armor could be used to their advantage. The lack of German AFV numbers is indicated by the fact that U.S. tank destroyers fired many more high-explosive shells than anti-tank ammunition, indicating that they were employed much like the tanks they were assigned to support.

**sing your life**

Looks like being a M series TD turret crew was a pretty gakky job to me

**RubiconModels**

Had been a busy two weeks at our studio. We have three sets of mould done for the British A15 Crusader, the US M5/M8, and the US M3/M3A1. We have also started some new Q4 projects, and had several Q3/Q4 projects moved into 3D prototyping.

Based on our existing SdKfz 251/1 Ausf D plastic kit (280018), here are some SdKfz 251 Variants 3D prototypes from last weeks 3D drawings:

NOTE: These are just prototypes and are subject to modifications based on production requirements. SdKfz 251/2 Mortar Carrier prototype not yet available for display.

Comments are welcome!!

**sing your life**

I never really got all the community fascination with all the German 1/2 Tracks and Panzergrenadiers. By the great allied offensives fo 1944 onwards most of the Heer's had been destroyed with horse drawn wagons the standard mover for most infantry units.

**Big P**

Should the 251/9 version not have the gun mounted further forward?

Though there was the other gun mount version too...

**Snord**

sing your life wrote:
I never really got all the community fascination with all the German 1/2 Tracks and Panzergrenadiers. By the great allied offensives fo 1944 onwards most of the Heer's had been destroyed with horse drawn wagons the standard mover for most infantry units.

It's true that Panzergrenadiers and SPWs are over-represented on the tabletop. In reality, the majority of German troops were footslogging infantry (they didn't actually travel in horse-drawn wagons - their supplies did though). But those units that were mounted in SPWs were usually highly effective (probably more so in the East than the West), and could have a disproportionate effect on a battle. And German equipment has always been popular with wargamers and modellers - mostly because it just looks good.

**RubiconModels**

Big P wrote:
Should the 251/9 version not have the gun mounted further forward?
Though there was the other gun mount version too...

Big P, sharp eyes!! It was a photo setup error. We are using the same chassis for all the variants... had the 251/9 module placed at the wrong position!

Rest assured the design is correct!