_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
REVIEW
Resicast Canadian Bogies
CMOT
Staff MemberEditor-in-Chief
ARMORAMA
Visit this Community
England - South West, United Kingdom
Joined: May 14, 2006
KitMaker: 10,954 posts
Armorama: 8,571 posts
Posted: Monday, April 15, 2013 - 10:18 AM UTC
Kevin Brant takes a look at the two sets of Bogies designed specifically for the Sexton but that can also be used for a Grizzly from Resicast.

Link to Item

If you have comments or questions please post them here.

Thanks!
bill_c
Staff MemberCampaigns Administrator
MODEL SHIPWRIGHTS
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: January 09, 2008
KitMaker: 10,553 posts
Armorama: 8,109 posts
Posted: Monday, April 15, 2013 - 10:26 AM UTC
Nice review, Kevin. Nice to see other points of view, too, on this manufacturer.
AlanL
Visit this Community
England - East Anglia, United Kingdom
Joined: August 12, 2005
KitMaker: 14,499 posts
Armorama: 11,675 posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 - 04:11 AM UTC
Hi Kevin,

Look forward to the build. I bought both sets and agree they look like a good update option. Minimal work required on the kit to make the switch.

Who'd have though we would have a Sexton in plastic, grand times for Allied Modellers.

Cheers

Al
SgtRam
Staff MemberContributing Writer
AEROSCALE
#197
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: March 06, 2011
KitMaker: 3,971 posts
Armorama: 2,859 posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 - 07:30 AM UTC
Alan

Now that we have a Sexton, can we have a Grizzly?

Kevin
multibank17pdr
Visit this Community
France
Joined: February 06, 2010
KitMaker: 127 posts
Armorama: 119 posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 - 10:18 AM UTC
Thanks for this review. Resicast M4 molded-in-one VVSS boggies proved To be vert convenient to up date some kits (italeri, Tamiya...) or save time on others (Tasca...). I guess these Canadian twins Will do the same.

Also, Formations Models had offered such a conversion before -http://www.formationsmodels.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=4&products_id=61-

If #F116 is planned To convert Tasca boggie, I did modified Dragon VVSS boggie with a set from Formations without major issue... Now I am just waiting for the Sexton kit to reach my bench...
Removed by original poster on 04/16/13 - 22:26:10 (GMT).
tankmodeler
#417
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: March 01, 2004
KitMaker: 3,123 posts
Armorama: 2,539 posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 - 03:45 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Alan

Now that we have a Sexton, can we have a Grizzly?

Kevin


Sure. Buy a good M4A1 75 Dry VVSS, modify the stowage to commonwealth pattern and ensure the tracks are either T54E1 or CDP and voila, you have a Grizzly.

It's no more difficult than that.

Now, a Ram. That would be loverly!

Paul
junglejim
Visit this Community
Alberta, Canada
Joined: February 18, 2003
KitMaker: 1,728 posts
Armorama: 1,629 posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 - 03:52 PM UTC
...and file the notch on the rear hull top edge! But you knew that!

Jim
tankmodeler
#417
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: March 01, 2004
KitMaker: 3,123 posts
Armorama: 2,539 posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 - 04:15 PM UTC

Quoted Text

...and file the notch on the rear hull top edge! But you knew that!

Jim


Just so!
ericadeane
Visit this Community
Michigan, United States
Joined: October 28, 2002
KitMaker: 4,021 posts
Armorama: 3,947 posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - 05:05 AM UTC
What was the purpose of the notch? I always wondered why it was implemented.
tankmodeler
#417
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: March 01, 2004
KitMaker: 3,123 posts
Armorama: 2,539 posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - 06:23 AM UTC
I'm not sure anyone has ever come up with a definitive answer for that, Roy. The most common answer I've heard is that the notch on the cast Lees, Shermans (and Grizzlies) and Rams that had it appears to have been to permit rain water falling on the engine deck to drain off over the stern as opposed to filling up the ledge around the deck plates and then seeping into the engine compartment.

Makes some sense, I suppose, especially if the engine electrics were very suseptable to damp/water, but later vehicles didn't have anything of the kind, and the welded Shermans never did, so it must not have been really needed. Perhaps it was one of those things thought "good to have" when the initial requirements were created and then never got removed from the casting drawings until much later in the war.

Paul
 _GOTOTOP