602RAF_Puff

just making it look a bit 'used' ..still to get its guts reworked and new metal tracks fitted.

Kabul Tanker

Looks Great!!!

How did you get that finish, over-all on teh hull.. I have a bulldog on the way and I woudl like to do what you did to it.

KT

602RAF_Puff

I used a can of Olive drab from Tamiya, after a grey undercoat I finished a full spray, then I drybrushed two different shades of green into the paintwork, highlighting the areas I could, final was a wash of dirty thinners and left it to run into the natural cracks etc on the hull....final will be a spray of clear matt varnish to seal it in.

martin g

Did you catch any *****?

Nice job

I cant write pu55y??? my cat would be offended by this!

The_Stuff

LMAO ***** hunters :P

TIGER76

lol my Tigers not afraid..bring it !!! lmao

Great job m8 the finish looks amazing on those photos [sm=thumbup.gif]

The_Stuff

seriously i love the weathering job on your tank.

602RAF_Puff

hehe..just a novel thought for a name for her..anyways folks thanks for the comments, I'll post some more photo's once the tracks are on and she's up and running

pattoncommander

Nice weathering job, but for accuracy and to be authentic, remove the aux periscopes by the driver and BOG....this Pershing has the larger 1000cfm blower motor and the p=scopes were removed and welded over. Also the US Army on the fender could go....enter a unit (div and Bn) and on the drivers side fender, the company and unit number. Same on the rear...or instead of on the fenders, put the markings in the hull under the bow MG and on the driver's side. Fenders tend to get damaged or lost.

Bill

Harquebus

That's interesting intel there. Would you by chance have a picture reference (or text) for that modification?

Thanks,
-Harq

Harquebus

pattoncommander:

I've been trying to verify this with online sources. The Heng Long M-26 has what I would call a more rounded housing for the rotoclone blower, thereby denoting it as an early M-26 according to the IPMS site. The front of the blower housing is what I am looking at where it is angled with the front hull glacis. It is said that the later larger 1000cfm blower housing is more square looking and the addition of this larger blower coincided with the practice of welding over the auxiliary periscopes offering better ballistic protection.

See the below sites for comparisons although it appears that both (indoor display M-26 and outdoor "tiger face" display) have their auxiliary periscopes welded over.

http://ipmslondon.tripod.com/armourr...cles/id14.html
http://www.naritafamily.com/Scalemod...hoto_frame.htm (better pics of the tiger face M-26)

I'm thinking they eventually welded over the existing aux. periscopes on all Pershings to acquire commonality.

Your thoughts?

-Harq

ah64

Don't mean to sound Faul but I think your to dark there. It looks alittle bit on the BLACK side rather than any Olivedrab. Looks to me like you Blended everything into one big Highlite.

swathdiver

Harq,

As you know the early tanks had the 400cfm blower with the rounded housing and one opening for the blower per side. When they switched to the 1000cfm blower, you now had two holes per side. There were tanks made with the auxiliary periscopes with the 1000cfm blower and tanks made without. Also depending on the manufacturer of the tank, one of them didn't make the blower housing so flat. Check out the pics, I have more if you need to them for reference.

Harquebus

I don't see any auxiliary periscopes on any of the tanks you pictured, at least none that have the telltale wire periscope guards. When was the larger 1000cfm blower introduced and when did they begin to weld over the aux. periscopes? If these were later changes, made after WWII then it does not concern me as much. I'm modeling a WWII Pershing so this information is desired for some reasonable accuracy.

Do you have any pics of a 400cfm blower?

EDIT: It appears that the Pershing from the Jacques Littlefield collection has the more rounded blower housing, like what the HL Pershing has, albeit with two slots per side...

Thanks for the reply,
-Harq

Harquebus

Swathdiver:
I do have a need for more reference pics if you have them.

Thanks!

swathdiver

We know that the Pershing tanks were made at two different factories, Fisher (GM) and Chrysler. I don't know which did what but these are my observations. In the photos I posted above you can see two types of front blower housings for the 1000cfm blower. One is more rounded like the 400cfm and the other is flat and angular. At the time they switched to the 1000cfm blower, the aux periscopes were no longer installed. This isn't true in all cases because we see 1000cfm equipped tanks with them. The two center photos are of the Littlefield Pershing and they've been removed and plugged.

What kind of photos are you looking for?

Harquebus

I'm trying to replicate a WWII Pershing as you know so do your sources indicate when they began welding over the periscopes and/or adding the 1000 cfm blower? It would seem that the Pershing's brief appearance and combat actions during the last year of WWII negated the possibility of this kind of change/overhaul. As in there wasn't enough time and it's combat experience was so brief. I tend to think it might have been post-war when they discovered that certain glancing shell hits could ricochet off the mantlet and pierce the thin armor around the auxiliary periscopes. The removal and welding over procedure sounds like a post-war mod.


I think the HL Pershing displays the earlier, more rounded style but it has the two holes per side. ???

I think this tank has given me OCD.

swathdiver

I haven't seen a WW2 ETO Pershing with the 1000cfm blower. So if you modified the blower housing for only one hole per side and left the front alone you'd be right. The plugging of the aux periscopes was a postwar mod. According to one of my books, I'm going from memory, they switched to the 1000cfm blower early in the production run, like after 235 at Chrysler and 550 at Fisher. So that would make 785 tanks which was about a third of production.

Harquebus

The Italian site at ferreamole.it seems to corroborate this as well, with the same figures you gave for the production runs. Many thanks for the clarification.

[sm=thumbs_up.gif]

http://www.ferreamole.it/images/pers...6_pers_01m.htm