Armortek

Nice one Richard. Impressive use of the router, who needs a miller?

Charles A Stewart wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 01, 2021 8:38 pm

Nice Richard.

A concern I have is how do you secure the fire extinguisher safety?

I have managed to use small screws as pegs for the bracket, but don't feel confident enough to rely on superglue

Cheers Charles

Hi Charles,

I haven't yet secured it properly; if you blow the picture up you'll see its secured together with sellotape and its this that is glued to the base of the atu. That's because it will be easy to remove. When I do finally secure it, I will do the same as you ie pegs in the extinguisher, through the bracket and into the the base of the ATU. I'll prob use super glue to hold the pegs in the ATU but then put some JB Weld along the bracket where it butts the ATU for added strength. Hope that helps?

John Clarke wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 01, 2021 9:01 pm

Nice one Richard. Impressive use of the router, who needs a miller?

Thanks John. I am considering its use for the drivers hatch as well but that's way down the line

Am writing this in the half time break between England and Ukraine...........come on England!!!

So today was spent doing some of that position and alignment thing I've been on about using my skirting template. So your probably asking how is that going to help me? The answer is quite simple; it allows me to match the Berlin pattern to the model accurately and identifies if any changes are needed. It is important that the tie downs, the skirting plate mounting points, and even the sizes and positions of everything above the mudguards aligns in perfect harmony with the pattern on the skirting plates. For example, take the following picture of 03 EB 20 in her heyday showing the left side large box and skirting plate....... Concentrate on the grey/blue area on the top part of the skirting plate which is sandwiched between the two brown blocks. The left side of it is in line with the left side of the mounting piont and further up the box, the white area also aligns with it. Note the position of the catches of the long box also! The right side of the grey blue block transfers up onto the long box; again, note its position relative to the bin catches! If we now see the template in action, you'll hopefully see what I mean.... With the pattern accurately transferred from a picture to the template it becomes plain to see that the bin catches are in the wrong position. In addition, one of the skirting mounting points needs to be moved. This also allows you to fine tune the position of the tie downs as well to ensure they fit in with the pattern and align to things like the mounting points.

So what issues did I find on the left side, well these ones....
1. All side mounted boxes need their catches repositioning
2. 2 skirting mounting points need relocating
3. the triangular box needs extending
4. Tie downs need to be relocated
5. the slope of the top row of tie downs needs to be changed

So not only has my template checked alignment and positioning, I now also have a painting template for my left side skirting plates as well as a drilling template for the tie downs!

I am pushing beyond the limits of Armortek's design to ensure things align with the Berlin pattern so its no surprise that things need relocating. For a Green/Black or Sand Chieftain, you probably wouldn't notice this stuff unless of course, you seek perfection (Monsieur Clark and White ) but on a Berlin Chieftain, this stuff sticks out like a sore thumb!! One down and I've got to do it all again since guess what, the pattern is different on the other side! I've already spotted one item that needs moving

On a final note, I see others starting to comment who have built Chieftains but I've not seen any pictures of theirs. Come on guys lets see those tanks!

Come on England....stay safe everyone

The position of the catches along the bin look perfect to me.
The mounting of your bin on your model does not however match to the photo of the tank you are trying to depict so you cannot use the bin or any parts of it as a reference point. You need to use the mounting points for the side skirts as reference points
The Chiefy long bin had no mounting points, you drilled holes through it where you needed them. They were such a useful item we had them fitted to every armoured first line REME vehicle when I was serving, ARV, ARRV, 432, 434, Warrior 512. They even got fitted to the wheeled vehicles.
Whenever we had to send a vehicle back for base overhaul, we always removed the long bins from it before doing so, then we could fit it to the new vehicle.
8 years after Chieftain left service, one of our bins rusted through. We put in a spares demand and within a week we had a brand new replacement.

A busy weekend, My daughters wedding, I gained a Son and England won 4:0. What could be better?

So I'm sitting here, Me, Monsieur Clark (that's Clarke with an e I may add) with a cup coffee and a biscuit. (It's too wet to mow the lawn)

Thinking I'm sure I said "nothing is correct on Chieftain" so your on a slippery slope before you begin. (The bins are too big!)

It'll be all about getting it to look about right in the eye of the beholder and your doing a marvelous job at the moment, just look at the ATU box

So if you want to keep your hair and prevent grinding the teeth away, make some allowances.

I'm Certainly with you on the other builds, lets see some more Chieftains.

Mr Clarke, I can only apologise profusely However, in my defence, I was trying to write that in the half time break! As it was, it took longer than expected such that I missed goals 2,3 and 4 . It wont happen again.......hmmmm

Mark, I'd mostly agree with you but not totally. Take the picture below that using my mediocre paint skills I have attempted to colour in.... Having marked the position of the hasp on the left hand side of the big bin and then comparing this with the picture, it showed that the mounting point arrowed in red was not in the correct position; it needed to be moved to the right slightly as indicated by the green arrow. A minor change but significant nevertheless. Now I've looked at it again, I forgot to move that tie down below that point so thanks for that.

John has nailed it when he said it was getting it to look right to the eye of the beholder. It isn't easy to match this stuff, it is a Chieftain after all

So after raiding the larder again for more cereal boxes, the right side template was constructed. Relevant measurements were transferred from the left to the right template but not the pattern......... With it affixed to the hull, the pattern was carefully measured from the photo and transferred to the template, then the fun began!!
We already know that the catches on the front box have to be moved and that the triangular box needs extending however, on this side, it also requires the pattern to be adjusted as well. That was all quite minor for what was to come, the real square peg round hole moment and it was all down to this......... I think its an electrical access point and its associated conduit although happy to be corrected by the more knowledgeable folk on here? Note the following:
1. its position relative to the centre line of the turret box above
2. the position of the skirting mounting point relative to the turret box
3. the width of grey/blue paint either side of the access point, roughly 2:1 ratio
4. how the colour of the skirting blends up around it

Now compare that information with how the model looks below........ Note the red circle denotes where the access point should be!

Not right is it? So is there a way to resolve it? YES, THERE IS!! :

Moving the access point 30mm to the left brings it into the correct position relative to the turret box centre line. Note that the conduit should also move which then brings the right hand end to the join between the casting and side plate. Then move the mounting point so that its positioned correctly relative to the turret box then finally, adjust the whole paint pattern from the right edge of the long box to the very front taking into account the other area's of interest.

By doing this, you'll end up with this...... Now look at the 4 issues identified above and see if they are resolved?

Whilst a good line diagram gives you a good idea, nothing beats actual adding colour and filling in those blocks to give a good visual result. To that end, I used Microsoft Paint (badly I hasten to add) to do this and would highly recommend its use for others doing the Berlin scheme. Here's the comparison between the reference picture used and the coloured in template..... Not bad for a first pass I think you'd agree although more than happy to take both positive and negative comments!

Using PAINT has identified an area to me on this side that I may need to revisit but only after the boxes have been made up and positioned in their final resting place. Its here..... Am certainly going to do the same with the left side as well; well worth the effort methinks ignoring the colour choice though

Richard Goodwin wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 06, 2021 5:18 pm

I think its an electrical access point and its associated conduit although happy to be corrected by the more knowledgeable folk on here? Note the following:

Richard, you're close. It's an armoured cable outlet which allows heavy duty cables to be routed from the main vehicle harness inside the hull to the external power pack for the tank dozer blade, via an unarmoured conduit. For tanks fitted with the dozer blade (1 per squadron), the hydraulics power pack was fitted to the right front catwalk in lieu of the front right bin. The cables were routed along the outside of the hull right side. The armoured cover maintained pressurisation within the fighting compartment, up to a point. The NBC system maintained an over-pressure to exclude contaminants.


The dozer blade was a pain in the ..... if you were the unfortunate whose tank was lumbered with it. It was generally on the second in command's tank in squadron HQ. Some sage advice given to me by a respected general: "never be second in command of anything". He was so right.

Super info Stephen,

Great detail work Richard, (more petrol on the fire.......no more please Arghhh)

Check out the angles on the conduit
and I suppose now it's faking weld lines here we come time....again

As we've said before, its about making the pattern fit the model. Square peg, round hole, lots of in this instance. Compromise is a must here, it'll never be perfect unless its Stephens Chieftain in which case i'd have the pattern fitted to it in less than an hour! As it is, it took nearly 10 hours to achieve that first pass on one side

Before moving any of the hull fittings, the positions of which will have been accurately measured by Armortek prior to making the model, please take a closer look at the reference photo you are using.
Whilst initially appearing that the turret is pointed straightforward, it is not. Several indciations cause it to look to me like it it is traversed 15-20 degrees to the right.

Use reference points on the turret for your turret markings & fittings, and reference points on the hull for your hull markings & fittings.
The long bin, or parts of it, is/are not a good hull reference point. Mounting points for the side skirts are.

Mark

Mark, I think I going to have to disagree you on some of your observations here, I think Richard is correct in trying to pull as many references together to get the most accurate Berlin camo possible on an Armortek model.
This is difficult as there are many reference points that are just not where they should be.
Armortek has put together a very fine model and should be applauded for the design and development. But once you start analysing the build, it becomes apparent a lot of the detail has been relaxed to aid manufacture and is not necessary accurate.
Take the rear deck "T" plate for example, it's has symmetrical components, It is more in keeping with a Mk2 than a Mk5. Small things become apparent as you build, changing them upsets other reference points and so on.
The Dozer power output junction box has to be moved towards the rear to be in the correct position, a minor change, but bigger changes like the exhaust box had to be reduced in size otherwise other components looked out of scale. My telephone box is still a bit small even though I enlarged it.
Richard will have to move/expand on detail to achieve his ambition, as you'll find out when you build your Chieftain depending on the level you want to achieve.

Youngjae's very nice looking Berlin camo Chieftain, but it's of his own design, the Dozer power output box is clearly out of position.

Hi Richard

I really admire the level of research you are doing in terms of accuracy.

My apologies both, I have just hi jacked John's photo from your thread, the green & black one . It will now give me good reason to remove the junction box, finish the angle and refit. I will repost on 34 in due course.

Many thanks for heads up.

Charles

Mark,

I did say that negative comments were welcome so thank you for supplying some. It is regrettable however, that you haven't demonstrated it by examples which would I believe would be appropriate in this instance. In addition, you should also be aware that I look at several photo's not just one when making decisions regarding moving, scaling and detailing parts!

I believe that there are 4 categories of builders on this forum which are as follows:

CAT 1 - those that just build the model as is out of the box
CAT 2 - as per CAT 1 but add a little extra detail
CAT 3 - those that try to make the model more accurate and representative as they can carrying out extensive changes, modifying existing parts by correcting their scale and adding more detail where possible and making new parts when they are not supplied. They often use various references and calipers etc to establish size, position and detail.
CAT 4 - Throw away half the parts supplied and remake from scratch accurate and highly detailed parts correctly positioned. Also carrying out major structural mods to a far greater level of accuracy and detail.

For CAT 1 and to some degree, CAT 2 builders, the model supplied is an accurate representation of a Mk5. To CAT 3 and 4 builders, it is a good approximation of the model that requires significant (as a few have found out) finer tuning to make it more accurate and representative. For the money, its an excellent model but if greater accuracy and detail is required, that would come as an increased cost, perhaps double the existing price.

To demonstrate my approximation statement, look at the pictures below regarding the front mudguard support bracket and the the first skirting mounting point......
See how the support and the mounting point are combined. On the model however, its this......
Two separate parts! As a maintainer of many years experience on Chieftains, perhaps you can advise which is correctly positioned; the mounting point or the support bracket?

As already established, the Berlin pattern is a clearly well defined pattern with little room for adjustment if it is to be representative. That's why all Berlin Chieftains looked exactly the same. My problem is to try and fit a well defined pattern to an approximation of a model; a task that is fraught with danger as Youngjae found out and effectively demonstrated on his model. This isn't a criticism of Youngjae's build, far from it, he did the best he could with an out of the box build but quite clearly, it doesn't look right and the Berlin pattern will do that! The only way to beat this is to ensure everything is to scale and correctly positioned where possible, then adjust the pattern slightly to make it fit, further adjusting parts as required . That said, if you have a better way of doing it and can demonstrate it, then I'll certainly listen and judge its merits?

Still looking forward to seeing your build though; when are you going to start it?


John/Charles,

Many thanks for the support and encouragement. Its good to know that others out there understand and appreciate the time and effort that goes into not only modifying and building this model, but also maintaining a blog for the benefit of others so thank you.