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.

Looks like the pigeons kit is under 20 quid on ebay, so I might pick one up. Comes with 36 birds, so enough to populate 3-5 Razorwing Flock bases easily and still leave a couple for diorama building. Of course if they came out with a box of crows or vultures, that'd be even better.

I can't see the pic you posted for the birds, can you share a link?

I think it possibly only worked for me because I had the image cached, so here's the product page instead of trying to hotlink an image: https://miniart-models.com/products/38036-pigeons/

 Fenriswulf wrote:
Yeah, at 1/56 scale it will be too small. The 1/35 versions of these are pretty damn close to Taurox size (longer, slightly thinner and shorter).

Hmm, it might work as an alternative Ridgerunner for GSC

Back on the T55 Model from Tamiya, after running the contents thorugh the converter, thanks for providing that , i'd say they'd make some nice alternatives for Salamander scout tanks, the main cannon is thin enough for an AC; maybee cut down on the barrel a bit, nothing to dificult, and the MG serves as the Heavy Bolter.

Wouldn't it be a bit long though?

 Fenriswulf wrote:
Wouldn't it be a bit long though?

they're all a bit.long, generally people object to being too small rather than too big.

Tanks being too large for their statline has few ingame benefits, so I've not met many people who've ever objected to scratch-builds and conversions that aren't exactly to scale, even in past editions where unit footprints mattered more thanks to deep striking, blast templates and the like.

I was more worried it would look out of place in the aesthetic, not the actual stats. I, too, have no problems with people going larger for kitbashed or proxy vehicles.

 Fenriswulf wrote:
Wouldn't it be a bit long though?

A vanquisher is excactly 1 CM shorter. Including Barrel, the body is nearly equal.

the main body is infact of equal length,, albeit the hight is a bit iffy at about 1 cm , which is why i suggested running it as a Salamander scout tank.

 Fenriswulf wrote:
I was more worried it would look out of place in the aesthetic, not the actual stats. I, too, have no problems with people going larger for kitbashed or proxy vehicles.

I generally find that the best aesthetic results come from shortening 1:35 models, usually by cutting down engine compartments.

this is amazing

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
I think it possibly only worked for me because I had the image cached, so here's the product page instead of trying to hotlink an image: https://miniart-models.com/products/38036-pigeons/

Very tempted to bling out my unbuilt St. Celestine and her bodyguards with those.

Orks have it easier though, as cut-together vehicles and smashing bits on top of it is always going to be part of the aesthetic

And yeah, those pigeons are actually pretty great Paint them white and they could be Dove stand-in's

If anybody thinks of getting the Carnodon tank, and does not want to sell their house, wife or kidney, I give you... The Pz IV! It has almost identical dimensions to a Rhino, and let's face it, the Carnodon is basically an ancient Predator, so...

 Fenriswulf wrote:
And yeah, those pigeons are actually pretty great Paint them white and they could be Dove stand-in's

Most white doves are pigeons. Standard domestic / feral pigeons are domesticated rock doves, and white doves are usually breeds of pigeon selected for their looks. Apart from the colour, there is basically no difference.

Huh, I did not know that, interesting!

A new video from Andy is up, he builds the 1/35 Takom AK-130 Russian Naval Deck Gun, and hooo-boy is it a big-un!




No idea what this could be used as, outside of a objective marker or the like, lol.

Aquila Strong Point.

Yeah, I can see that. And even cheaper than the GW piece, though it doesn't come with the built up area. A good idea for a kitbash though.

So, I got a few kits today to see how they match with the Leman Russ tank. Made as much of the tank as I could before I didn't dare to go further because I didn't want to stick things together and possibly not be able to assemble the tank as I wanted.

Here is the 1/35 M5A1 Stuart Tank in comparison with a Leman Russ. 1.5cm thinner, but also that much longer, so I think it evens out. The back end of it is also higher , so you've got a good enough silhouette for the tank. If it really worries you, you could always add some spacer armour to it, or so something with the sponsons if you decide to add them. A touch shorter, but not really enough to warrant a problem. Can always put it on a base if that annoys you.







I think it's a great match. Now I am trying to figure out how I can space out a 1/48 Sherman tank to become a Chimera

Some interesting reissues up for preorder.

Some are smaller scale 1/72, 1/188 for the bomber, but you might find some use or just do them for fun. I wonder if the Soviet Tank is close enough to be a cheap mass-production Leman Russ.

The Peacemaker and Howitzer appeal to me.

http://web-extract.constantcontact.com/v1/social_annotation_v2?permalink_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fmyemail.constantcontact.com%2FNew-Pre-order-Don-t-Miss-It---Atlantis-Models.html%3Fsoid%3D1107025842220%26aid%3Dnj9lo7zkO-w&image_url=https%3A%2F%2Fmlsvc01-prod.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fc20d1efb101%2F1e9dcd02-c3eb-4065-a9ab-d847093850b7.jpg%3Fver%3D1582945629000&fbclid=IwAR11eGnP2YLKglPmXDsc9EfMgzp20JwWTKsrQLoEogfhPJOheQc8eJ8CFO0

I have always loved the B-36 Peacemaker.

On a completely unrelated note, has anyone else wondered why the box covers of models never shows the actual model?

 Easy E wrote:
I have always loved the B-36 Peacemaker.

I was doing some reading on it, apparently it was commissioned in 1943, completed in 1949 and later refit with those weird jets on the ends of the wings.

As for the use of art, for older kits maybe photo reproduction for packaging wasn't good enough? Or a fear they wouldn't have a model complete in time to photograph for the packaging? Or maybe just a fear that if the product didn't match the photo they'd be sued?

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I have always loved the B-36 Peacemaker.

I was doing some reading on it, apparently it was commissioned in 1943, completed in 1949 and later refit with those weird jets on the ends of the wings.

As for the use of art, for older kits maybe photo reproduction for packaging wasn't good enough? Or a fear they wouldn't have a model complete in time to photograph for the packaging? Or maybe just a fear that if the product didn't match the photo they'd be sued?

It's just the way some companies do it. Testors generally has pictures of the assembled and painted model. Others prefer more active images of the vehicle in action.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I have always loved the B-36 Peacemaker.

I was doing some reading on it, apparently it was commissioned in 1943, completed in 1949 and later refit with those weird jets on the ends of the wings.

As for the use of art, for older kits maybe photo reproduction for packaging wasn't good enough? Or a fear they wouldn't have a model complete in time to photograph for the packaging? Or maybe just a fear that if the product didn't match the photo they'd be sued?

Or maybe because art looks better than just a photo of a model?
GW just slapping a photo of the models onto the box is terrible, imo. The art was so much more interesting and nicer.

A 1/48 IS-3 will be around 8" long and 3" wide. You could shorten the hull to make it closer to a Russ in length, or just leave it longer. Guard tanks are too square anyway.

Almost wishing I still made terrain. That Peacemaker would make one hell of a cool crash.

The howitzer seems a bit small.
0.4 Cm barrel width with 10 CM barrel length. Probably not there for a Earthshaker count as, but certainly capable enough for a Thud or Big mortar stand in.
That is with the right base.

potentially interesting for use, still 'd prefer a piture for size estimation.

Anyone looking for Guard artillery should give that 8" Howitzer a look, at about $17 it shouldn't take much conversion to look very 40k.

Justyn wrote:
A 1/48 IS-3 will be around 8" long and 3" wide. You could shorten the hull to make it closer to a Russ in length, or just leave it longer. Guard tanks are too square anyway.

Almost wishing I still made terrain. That Peacemaker would make one hell of a cool crash.

The issue with the leman russ is imo, that anything chimera based is longer then it
Same as mentioned above with the t55 , it can stand in perfectly as a Salamander scouttank dimension wise but not really as a Leman russ, mainly due to the body.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Justyn wrote:
Anyone looking for Guard artillery should give that 8" Howitzer a look, at about $17 it shouldn't take much conversion to look very 40k.

As some of the smaller available guard arty pieces, yes quite likely.
Then again i use 8,8 AA guns with AC cannon parts as count as thudd / Big mortar field guns.

Oh very true. It may not make it as an Earthshaker. But as a Heavy Mortar it should do well.

Justyn wrote:


Almost wishing I still made terrain. That Peacemaker would make one hell of a cool crash.

It's going to be molded in shinny plastic, it's tempting. Even with the scale so small it's big enough it may pass as a crashed fighter.