BEF Bren gun carrier and Daimler Dingo

[Steve-the-Duck]

28mm Carrier, Bren No.2 Mk.I, 1st Batt. Royal West Kents, 4th Inf. Div., converted from the Warlord Universal Carrier plastic kit
[ATTACH alt="IMG_2401.JPG"]392067[/ATTACH][ATTACH alt="IMG_2406.JPG"]392068[/ATTACH][ATTACH alt="IMG_2407.JPG"]392069[/ATTACH]
The great thing about this kit is all the rear compartment detail is separate pieces, readily lending itself to conversion and 'back-dating' - I intend to follow this up with Scout and Cavalry carriers in the future. I may even build a stock Universal, as there were some early ones withe BEF
Markings are from the Starmer range. There is some evidence/heresay the 4th. Div symbol had a blue background rather than white, for some units

28mm Daimler Dingo Mk.I, HQ B Sqdn, 3RTR, 3rd Armd Bde, 1st Armoured Div. Calais, back-dated from the Perry miniatures Dingo Mk.IB
[ATTACH alt="IMG_2408.JPG"]392071[/ATTACH][ATTACH alt="IMG_2409.JPG"]392072[/ATTACH][ATTACH alt="IMG_2411.JPG"]392073[/ATTACH][ATTACH alt="IMG_0429.JPG"]392074[/ATTACH][ATTACH alt="IMG_0431.JPG"]392075[/ATTACH]

All the stowage boxes were removed, and the engine deck re-profiled

[Guest]

Wow, that is not what I had expected — an actual Bren Carrier, and not a Universal one

[Steve-the-Duck]

Yes, indeed.
It's the case that, 'no-one does one, so you have to build one' in that scale.

Tell a lie. Apparently there is one NOW, years after I did this one.
So, I might get to finish the Scout and Cavalry jobs, ooh, a week before someone releases one...

[mrtintheweb]

Careful not to lose them down the back of the sofa!

[Steve-the-Duck]

Only when I take them out of the display cabinet to play with them!

[Guest]

.

[Guest]

Yes, indeed.
It's the case that, 'no-one does one, so you have to build one' in that scale.

I’ve got one in 1:72 scale, converted from a Plastic Soldier Company Universal Carrier. I plan to also convert the other two from the same set (these come three to a box) so I’ve got a full section, but haven’t got round to it yet.

[Steve-the-Duck]

After building the carrier I picked up the Warlord box set of three cheap to fill all my main needs - and then I got Vol.1 of Nigel Watson's hardback Carrier book series, which could keep me in sub-variants for a long time...
No, no, no! In service versions only!

Of course I do need another kit, or at least the track pieces, to build the unique long-track base Vickers Mk.VI, that was deployed in France, to add to my ever-expanding collection of that particular family (3 complete, 4 on the go...so far...)

[Steve-the-Duck]

Jakko, if you want to post a picture of your 1/72 job here, you're quite welcome to. I'd like to see it, certainly.
I am right in thinking I have to give permission, yes? 'No unsolicited pictures'?

[Guest]

Jakko, if you want to post a picture of your 1/72 job here, you're quite welcome to. I'd like to see it, certainly.

Let me dig it out …

Here’s the Bren Carrier, conversion done but still needing paint:

[ATTACH]392151[/ATTACH][ATTACH]392152[/ATTACH]

The front is still loose, so I can put figures inside. As this is intended as a wargames model (for a Western Desert Force army, ca. late 1940), I haven’t bothered adding overly much detail to it.

And I started converting another into a Scout Carrier:

[ATTACH]392153[/ATTACH]

But this is as far as I got before moving on to newer things

Oh, and I also found my notes, which may be useful to anyone else wanting a similar conversion in this scale:

[ATTACH]392154[/ATTACH]

I am right in thinking I have to give permission, yes? 'No unsolicited pictures'?

Yes, there is that silly rule around these parts …

[Steve-the-Duck]

Looks pretty good. Do I assume the traslucent parts are there just to support the frame behind the engine compartment?
Does make me wish I had the build pics of mine.

Now, do I stsrt up MY Scout carrier conversion...?
Or finish the last two A13 cruisers, the A9 CS and A10 CS...
Or the Vickers Mk.VI (unlettered)...

Interestingly the parts layout of your Plastic Soldier job seems to follow the Warlord one fairly closely.

[Guest]

There are no translucent parts — I think you’re mistaking the grey plastic stained by the cement I used, for transparency What I did was file down the rear bit of the engine cover to get rid of the moulded-in mesh and solid sides of the Universal Carrier, then add plastic strip for the framework that held the mesh on these early Carriers.

As for finishing vehicles … for that same WDF I’ve got half-built or half-painted a full platoon of 2-pounder anti-tank guns, three A9 Cruisers (with the turret front detachable so they can be Mk. I or Mk. I CS), plus totally unbuilt four more Carriers, two Rolls-Royce armoured cars and two A13 Mk. Is that I want to convert to Mk. II — and I think I’m forgetting some more stuff …

[spanner570]

"Yes, there is that silly rule around these parts"


So you consider me, the rest of the mods. and Admin silly for trying to keep some sort of order on S.M., and I'm really sorry you don't like the way this forum is run!

I don't much care that kind of public comment on this forum, and I resent the veiled implication that I am silly!

The 'Rule' stops certain members seeing it as an opportunity to show off their own finished work, and in doing so, possibly intimidate and deflate the thread poster, particularly if they are new to model making. A sort of 'Beat this, if you can'.

We are all for giving as much help to each other as we can, but as far as finished pictures are concerned, only if asked for.

Please refrain from any similar public comments in the future. Should you wish to continue writing to another member in the same tone about decisions made by mods. or Admin., kindly confine such comments to a P.M.

As you don't like how Scale Models decided to approach this issue, I'm sure you will know of other forums with a more 'relaxed' view of this subject.

[Guest]

So you consider me, the rest of the mods. and Admin silly

I said I find the rule silly, not that I find anyone here silly.

I don't much care that kind of public comment on this forum, and I resent the veiled implication that I am silly!

There was no veiled implication, beyond what you’re putting into it yourself — I said it exactly as I mean it: I find the rule silly and unnecessary, and you may note that I’ve been saying things to that effect every time it’s come up. However, at no point have I said (or deliberately implied) that it was made by silly people.

As you don't like how Scale Models decided to approach this issue, I'm sure you will know of other forums with a more 'relaxed' view of this subject.

You know, you could also just ban me if you don’t want me here.

[Steve-the-Duck]

Blimey.
Wish I hadn't said anything now.
I have no wish to be the cause of ructions.

But such is my lot in life