Except for it being all green & having a star on the side, I knda like the look of it actually. I've got to ask as I'm no armour exper... Self propelled gun vs. tank killer: what's the difference? Are they really all that different? I'm assuming that tank killers have a larger gun and probably used armour-piercing rather than high explosive rounds? What else?

VanceCrozier

I've got to ask as I'm no armour exper... Self propelled gun vs. tank killer: what's the difference? Are they really all that different? I'm assuming that tank killers have a larger gun and probably used armour-piercing rather than high explosive rounds? What else?

I'm not expert either, but on the Allied side at least, I believe tank destroyers had rotating turrets. See M10, M36, Achilles, etc, versus the Archer or Priest or what-have-you.

VanceCrozier

Except for it being all green & having a star on the side, I knda like the look of it actually. I've got to ask as I'm no armour exper... Self propelled gun vs. tank killer: what's the difference? Are they really all that different? I'm assuming that tank killers have a larger gun and probably used armour-piercing rather than high explosive rounds? What else?

Tank killer or tank destroyer is a role a particular unit or equipment plays on the battlefield.

A self-propelled gun is basically just that; a gun or cannon, normally of the towed variety, that was then mounted to a mechanized chassis and now able to be positioned under its own power (as opposed to being towed by a prime mover or horses).

A self-propelled gun can be a tank destroyer if the gun in question has that capability.

US tank destroyers like the M10 and M36 were actually classified as Gun Motor Carriage, just like the M16 AA halftrack, M12 155mm gun, etc. were all GMCs. The vehicle existed to transport the gun and the gun was the piece of equipment that fulfilled the role on the battlefield.

Rob is right here, this is an SPG that serves as a tank killer.  The Archer mounts the famous British 17 pounder (the same gun mounted on the Firefly), basically the only AT weapon the Western Allies had in their inventory that could effectively deal with the frontal armor of the Panthers and Tigers, until the 90mm mounted Jackson and Pershings came along. 

One cool thing about the Archer, the gun faces the rear of the vehicle, so its meant to wait in ambush, fire off a round or two, and then get out of dodge.  Shoot and scoot!

I think its great that Bronco is venturing out and doing kits of French and British armor like this - gives us all lots more choices. 

Jeff

Manny: the kit may bore you but it's getting rave reviews -- one of the best Allied releases of recent note.  I'd get one save for the bajillion kits in my stash and on the workbench right now....

Think of it as an Allied version of the Nashorn.

I do like the British Valentines and hope that Bronco release some of the early marks.

Lt. Zogg

...One cool thing about the Archer, the gun faces the rear of the vehicle, so its meant to wait in ambush, fire off a round or two, and then get out of dodge.  Shoot and scoot!...

Jeff

wow, I hadn't noticed the vision port for the driver, that is a great idea for something that is intended to be used for hit & run.

T26E4

Manny: the kit may bore you but it's getting rave reviews

I would have to agree with Rob, this is a fine edition to the list of Allied vehicles available. Its also a logical release since its based on the Valentine chassis and expands on that family of vehicles.

There are still significant Allied vehicles not found in 1/35 plastic. The British Mk VI light tank for one, which was used in France, North Africa and Greece. There was also a German tank killer version of the Mk VI mounting a 105mm gun which was develop by Major Alfred Becker and used on the eastern front.

But we have at the same time every conceivable German vehicle including paper ones. I would also like to see some more French vehicles like a new kit of the Panhard 178 armoured car and some of the British AC's like the Humbers and Daimler. the Dingo is a scout car and thankfully revised.

Mike T. 

I'll join in with another big thumbs up

Great to see something Allied that's not a T34 or Shermie.

I'll be sure to pick one up in a year or two when I can get it a little cheaper. Not like I'm going to run out of stuff in the mean time.

I don't think I've ever read as positive a review as of this vehicle, as put out by the Perth site, and looking at some of the images, the thing looks like complete masterpiece right out of the box.

How about a link?

Manstein's revenge

How about a link?

...will sausage links do?

VanceCrozier

Manstein's revenge:

How about a link?

 

...will sausage links do?

Dont know why but that really made me about spit my drink all over monitor...that was funny.

Those links sorta look like a number nine...hmmmmmmmmm...or a backwards two...

"number nine...number nine...number nine..."

I hate the about half the White Album, thanks for invoking it.

http://www.perthmilitarymodelling.com/reviews/vehicles/bronco/cb35074.html

Thats the link

If you find that boring, here are some scarier links;

Scary, because it's made from 229 parts, is 229cm long, weighs 229 grams, was found in a Super Tomcat kit box & costs 229 of any known currency.

The enclosed health & safety documentation advises that it be disposed of after cutting 229 trees of 229cm diameter & that to prevent failure from inevitable corrosion - it should be used within 229 days.

I first came upon this kit I think in the January FSM magazine and thought I would like to build that.

I went to the Perth site and when I saw it had 1300 pieces I decided to hold of for now.

The original works just fine, you just have to click on it.

LOL! I love that Diastermaster!

Mike T.

Bores = boars = pigs = sausage = links.

It all makes sense now.

Somehow Kevin Bacon fits into this.

iraqiwildman

Bores = boars = pigs = sausage = links.

It all makes sense now.

Somehow Kevin Bacon fits into this.