_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
PHOTOS: MODEL
BTR-70 2S14 Zhalo
Teacher
Visit this Community
England - North West, United Kingdom
Joined: April 05, 2003
KitMaker: 4,924 posts
Armorama: 3,679 posts
Posted: Friday, February 02, 2007 - 05:07 PM UTC
Jacques Duquette shows his BTR-70 2S14 Zhalo, which he made from the Dragon kit.

His description:
1/35 scale BTR-70 2S14 "Zhalo" (Sting) Wheeled Self-Propelled Anti-Tank Gun.

The 2S14 was a quick method to mount the Soviet D-44 85mm artillery piece onto a BTR-70 chassis to give anti-tank and general purpose direct support to units utilizing wheeled APC''s and for Soviet Naval Units/Special Forces/Airborne Units. The real vehicle never made production as it was superceded by the mass production of man Portable ATGM''s.

This is DML''s BTR-70 with the SP Designs 2S14 conversion and SP Designs Open Hub BTR-70/80 wheels. I also added as much of the Eduard BTR-70 Photo-etch set as I could. Also replaced/added some of the handles with brass.


Thanks Jacques.


BTR-70 2S14 Zhalo



If you have comments or questions please post them here.

Thanks!
mark197205
Visit this Community
England - East Midlands, United Kingdom
Joined: November 10, 2003
KitMaker: 1,593 posts
Armorama: 1,465 posts
Posted: Friday, February 02, 2007 - 06:22 PM UTC
Very nice indeed Jacques, its one mean looking 8 wheeler.
M-60-A3
Visit this Community
Ohio, United States
Joined: June 14, 2003
KitMaker: 808 posts
Armorama: 479 posts
Posted: Friday, February 02, 2007 - 06:35 PM UTC
Nice work!!
Joe
SGTJKJ
#041
Visit this Community
Kobenhavn, Denmark
Joined: July 20, 2006
KitMaker: 10,069 posts
Armorama: 4,677 posts
Posted: Friday, February 02, 2007 - 11:38 PM UTC
Wow, impressive work! A really cool and unusual subject.

Well done - and thanks for sharing
panamadan
Visit this Community
Minnesota, United States
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 1,513 posts
Armorama: 1,449 posts
Posted: Saturday, February 03, 2007 - 08:37 AM UTC
Looking good! Dan
rfeehan
Visit this Community
Kansas, United States
Joined: July 20, 2003
KitMaker: 727 posts
Armorama: 648 posts
Posted: Monday, February 05, 2007 - 01:17 AM UTC
I have never seen this vehicle before. Nice work and its especially nice on something you don't see every day.

junxter
Visit this Community
Indiana, United States
Joined: December 28, 2006
KitMaker: 104 posts
Armorama: 94 posts
Posted: Monday, February 05, 2007 - 07:46 PM UTC

cool! Pinocchio "Puma"
Jacques
Visit this Community
Minnesota, United States
Joined: March 04, 2003
KitMaker: 4,630 posts
Armorama: 4,498 posts
Posted: Monday, February 05, 2007 - 09:42 PM UTC
Thanks guys, appreciate the comments. Now onto the T-55M5...
Cyberwombat
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Joined: March 09, 2006
KitMaker: 262 posts
Armorama: 219 posts
Posted: Monday, February 05, 2007 - 10:47 PM UTC
Nice! Might have to get that conversion kit.

Recoil in that thing must have been fun. Under the right circumstances I can picture it flipping right over.
Jacques
Visit this Community
Minnesota, United States
Joined: March 04, 2003
KitMaker: 4,630 posts
Armorama: 4,498 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 - 06:27 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Nice! Might have to get that conversion kit.

Recoil in that thing must have been fun. Under the right circumstances I can picture it flipping right over.



Not entirely sure...while not depicted well on the kit, the real deal had the massive recoil cylinders of the D-44 just above the main barrel under armor. Not sure how much recoil there was, especially with the "pepperpot" baffle...it was only a 85mm so it may have been safe to shoot even to the sides. However, I am sure doctrine was to engage either facing to the front or rear so as to represent as small a target as possible...these things were litterally tin cans with a big gun. That turret looks massive, but it was for the crew to be able to move, not for armor. Or, to better demonstrate, it was still amphibious so far as I know. Shoot and scoot NOT Stay and Play.

Also, I am not sure how things may have changed in production...for example, there is no Coax or commander's MG...nothing. i know the Russians would not have liked to keep that aspect of the prototype.
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 - 06:30 PM UTC
Jacques, you are like the king of all ex-Soviet/Warsaw Pact/Russian models. You never cease to amaze me.
Jacques
Visit this Community
Minnesota, United States
Joined: March 04, 2003
KitMaker: 4,630 posts
Armorama: 4,498 posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 - 01:13 AM UTC
Thanks Rob, complement appreciated. I am glad to help spread the knowledge I am scraping up, ain't the Internet great?!

Basically, I gather my info from people who are contacting me because of the SP Designs kits I help sell. Most of these people are ex-intell types who have access to non-sensitive photos or else declassified info. Or else, as a new twist, they are semi-pro photographers taking pictures of previously inaccessable places. Add in some deductive reasoning and some "brain storming" among ex-military types and anyone could amass the info I have. But again, glad to be of service.

Of course, I could have just reiterated what we had for a "Platoon song at Basic Training..."I've got friends in low places!"


Back on topic, I have been thinking of modifying one of these kits to reflect a 122mm artillery barrel specifically for direct fire support, utilizing K-5 ERA and hull panelling like on the T-72 Ramka (BMP-T).
Might make for a fast, powerfull, usfull in urban environments, wheeled support vehicle similar to the Stryker FCS.
 _GOTOTOP