Self Propelled Artillery/Mortar GB 2006-2007

Will7813 wrote:

WHen I think of artillery, don't you see guns firing up? Do you not? If it is primarily a tank killer, then its main gun is a cannon, with an unintended and very secondary use of indirect-fire support. If we look at it that way, we can put a mounted .50cal in this GB because on rare occasions it was used indirectly.

Tell that to the Germans: StuG crews were part of the Artillery arm, not Panzer arm, and wore artillery accoutrements. A StuG is not a tank killer, it's an infantry support system. Its job is to aid friendly infantry with the application of high explosive shells to suppress or destroy enemy targets. i.e. Artillery. It's primarily direct-fire artillery, not indirect fire artillery, but it is artillery. Otherwise, your definition of artillery would exclude pretty much every single artillery piece from pre-Napoleon through to the American Civil War, bar mortars.

 [ETA: Indeed, I would submit that tank-killing cannon would also count. Archer (Brit WWII version) or Nashorn, for example, should qualify as self-propelled artillery vehicles]

NTM

Hummmm!  A very dark M12.  I like it alot.  You took your time on that one Larry, and the result is very good.  I remember having trouble with the decals but they look great on your model.

 Nice job.

Thanks for the kind words plastic_cross! No one will motice if you don't tell them that part is missing, can't wait to see it finished!!

Will

PanzerWulff wrote:

Wish me luck Chris"PANZERWULFF" Gray

Chris - I want to wish you all the luck in the world.  You can count on us to keep you in our thoughts.

Larry "Plastic" Cross 

Will7813 wrote:

Plastic_Cross- Looking Superb!! What part is missing?, I can't tell! Will

Will - There's a hinged shield in front of the gun sight.  It fell off while I was doing the filter wash.  I noticed that my fill job on the two pin marks was poor, so I just left it off instead of fixing it and re-attaching it.  I've posted the picture below to document my true confession.  Thanks for the great job moderating this Group Build, and thanks for your very encouraging comment.  This is a Rockin GB. 

Gun Tech wrote:

That looks awesome Cross!  Very interresting, not a subject that I know.   I think I see an ejector pin mark on one of the roller in the 1st pic. Very well done, I really like the wood box in the last pic

You have an eagle-eye Gun Tech.  That indeed is a pin mark.  I missed a couple of them on this build.  I'm really glad you like the wood box.  I discovered how to use oil paints by experimenting on that little ammo box.  It was a very gratifying aspect of this build for me. Thanks a ton for the nice comments, I really appreciate it.

Larry

WHen I think of artillery, don't you see guns firing up? Do you not? If it is primarily a tank killer, then its main gun is a cannon, with an unintended and very secondary use of indirect-fire support. If we look at it that way, we can put a mounted .50cal in this GB because on rare occasions it was used indirectly.

Will

In fairness, the first post on this thread says 'any form of self-propelled artillery is allowed', it doesn't say anything about requiring an indirect-fire role.

NTM

PanzerWulff- Thats no good, I hope all go well.

Plastic_Cross- Looking Superb!! What part is missing?, I can't tell!

Will

I'm really sorry to hear about your eye Chris , i truely hope the surgery goes well for you .

Shell

Ok guys I'm sorry to say that I am temporarily unable to model I woke this morning with a strange blurring in my left eye ,I went to the optometrist and found I have a Diabetic Hemmorage in my left eye and I am currently having great difficulty seeing .I am forcedto wear a patch which kills my depth perception they hope it can be corrected with laser surgery but we will not know until the 19th

Wish me luck Chris"PANZERWULFF" Gray

That looks awesome Cross!  Very interresting, not a subject that I know.   I think I see an ejector pin mark on one of the roller in the 1st pic.

Very well done, I really like the wood box in the last pic  

Academy M12 GMC - Report from the Field: Finished at last.

Lost parts: 1 (replaced with homemade)
Broken & abandonded parts: 1 (did not replace it, and hope nobody notices)
Most tedious part: It's a tie between the #$#% string/pulleys and the decals for the ammo covers.
Biggest goof: Mis-alignment on the recoil-spade steps.
Biggest personal breakthrough: I applied filter washes, a pin wash, and dry brushed - and for once I didn't make the model look worse.
Next Build: Not sure, probably the M40

My intention was to produce a "gently worn" M12.  By this I mean minimal weathering, just enough to try to make it as realistic looking as I can.  This is the 4th model I've ever built, and I think that it's a big improvement over my previous 3.   This guy is very very far from perfect, but I feel quite happy with the results.   All four kits have been OOB, so I am going to raise the bar and try to do a little customizing, or at least use an aftermarket upgrade on the next build.  I've got PE upgrades for the LAV, Hummel and Hetzer, and an interior upgrade for the M18.  I'll also look for something interesting to add to the M40 Big Shot. 

This is a great GB.  My Appreciation goes out to our great GP leader - Will7813

And now the pics:

Will7813 wrote:

Yup, indirect fire only. I was suprised when you asked becaue I did not realise the vechiles early war use. Will

I completly forgot about that early war use     

Yup, indirect fire only.

I was suprised when you asked becaue I did not realise the vechiles early war use.

Will

 The kit I am building is the early version and it was used as mobile assualt artillery to support infantry attacks.  It has the smaller 7.5 cm Stuck 37 cannon.

In 1935 Von Manstein called for a mobile artillery to be created to support infantry.  Later these vehicles were to take on a tank killer role, but not early in the war.

 The earlier war vehicles like the Sturmgeschultz were not intended to fight tanks. They were to act as mobile assault artillery in support of the infantry. Thus, their attachment to the artillery arm. In this role a cupola is hardly necessary. The commander using a standard artillery siccsors periscope could direct fire under cover when necessary and just stick his head out the rest of the time.

It is true this piece could not offer much in the way of indirect fire, but it was definitely an artillery piece when introduced.  However, if the GB is for indirect fire only, I will understand. 

   I have a question about zimmerit . Whats a good putty to use to replicate zim ? I read in FSM once that A-B putty was good , one of the reasons given was that it has a slow to set up ,which gives  more time to work with it .

My SturmTiger is ready to assemble . I've painted the interior in a grayish white and did some slight weathering inside . I want to do the zim next so i can finish assembly and then paint it .

It's direct fire for sure. The elevation range on the gun cannot permit indirect fire. That also why the gun was upgraded, to penetrate more armor.

ok the info I found was of 3 StugIII Ausf G used as artillary support in the defense of the monastary at Monte Casino they looked similar to this one

A Sturmgeschutz or Stug is an assault gun or tank destroyer like my mistakenly built Jagdtiger

Stug III Ausf.C

Sorry to have to spill the beansbecause I personally LOVE the Stug sieries of vehicles so yes will it is primarially used as direct fire but let me check my references I think I read somewhere that in a pinch they were used indirectly. it was in italy either at Solerno or Monte Casino I'll get back to ya on it

Will7813 wrote:

SgtBrown wrote: Is it still possible to get in on this?  I have a Sturmgeschutz III Ausf. B, Sd. Kfz. 142 kit from Dragon I've been itching to start. Show me a pic please. Will

Isn't that a gun firing in the direct fire role?

SgtBrown wrote:

Is it still possible to get in on this?  I have a Sturmgeschutz III Ausf. B, Sd. Kfz. 142 kit from Dragon I've been itching to start.

Show me a pic please.

Will

A well done teaser Larry.  It sure look appealing.  Interesting that AFV Club started with the gun assembly.  Like you said, usually they tell you to assemble the wheels first in the instructions, which as far as I can tell, nobody follows.

 I'm glad things turned out good for your M12, can't wait to see it.

espins1 wrote:

oh man, that M40 looks killer.  I may have to do one of those for this build instead.  I checked out some of the reviews of that kit, and some photos of the parts... gorgeous, simply gorgeous.  I'm really looking forward to seeing some build photos from you.

Ok.  Between you and Yann I now feel compelled to start the M40 kit.  I was going to jump into something else, but this SP Art Group Build seems to be pretty energized.  I'm winding down on the M12, just final weathering to do.  I gotta say that I surprised myself on this one.....it's turning out better than I had anticipated.  I think I'm finally starting to understand how to use oil paints too.  I did a filter type wash with the oils, applied decals and used oils to paint the ammo boxes and misc. onboard tools.  I still have a long long way to go, but I'm certainly enjoying the journey.  I'll probably post final pics this weekend.

 Larry

espins1 wrote:

oh man, that M40 looks killer.  I may have to do one of those for this build instead.

I found a very recent review of this kit (11/28/06) Roy Chow  http://www.track-link.net/reviews/k1772

Judging by the remarks in his concluding paragraphs, I think Mr Chow has a high opinion of this kit.

"This is an overall excellent kit of a significant vehicle in the US inventory in terms of development and historical implementation. AFV Club's great research and kit engineering are extremely appreciated. With only the need for possible alternative tracks, I can not see why this kit does not deserve the highest recommendations. "

Larry