M3 Prototype Build

[Robert E Morey]

Adrian,
I do remember the first turret debacle -before Gill and Mark. Many owners were without turrets - for a while. I think that is more a vendor problem than casting problem - but don't remember the details. I do like the new tiger turret with bent plate.

I think the Sherman cast turret and tranny housing are really nice. But there are inconsistencies with casting vs machined. CNC milled would be dead on accurate, but mountains of waste chips. Ah well - hogging it out it is!

Jack the pattern could be 3D printed. One nice thing with printing - patterns are easy!

Keep on making Armortek!
Bob

[Jack Hrovatin]

Bob,
Yes, you and I as Mechanical Engineers understand that. And, if further thought to using a material other than Aluminum is at least considered, many obstacles and barriers disappear, and many opportunities reappear.

Jack

[sean kerambrun]

The cast Centurion turret came out really good, I am very impressed especially considering the size.

Cheers

Sean

[Chris Hall]

Jack said (above) .............

I've been very busy (Real Life ) of late, so I haven't been able to comment on the development of the M3 as it goes. It's all looking very exciting, though - how do Armortek consistently manage to raise the bar with each release ?

I have to challenge the comments of Jack Hrovatin, though. Jack - you're missing the point. Armortek's USP (Unique Selling Point) is the build quality and strength of an all-metal construction. That certainly doesn't make them the cheapest but, in my opinion, it does make them the best. Other manufacturers cast their hulls in resin, and scratch-builders do it in wood but, from the examples I've seen, they just don't compare. I, for one, would never compromise build quality for price, and I support Kian in his stance. Anything else just wouldn't be Armortek.

It's got absolutely nothing to do with "crashing walled structures with their big investment". Some do, but very few. It's all about quality, and longevity.

Corporate Rant over. Now can we go back to enjoying our toys ?

All the best,

Chris

[Chris Hall]

Adrian,
Yes, I picked up on that too....also, is someone going to make the Conical Rivets too, and not dome ones? At this scale, these things need to be correct, as it’s a primary point of focus!

Jack

That is an issue. After having a good look at the Bovington Grant during the last TankMod, I noticed the different patterns of mushroom rivets, conical rivets, hex heads, slot-heads ........ which the current state of my research suggests were consistent all the way through the build series (up to M3A5). The conical heads would appear to be the most difficult. It may be that they can be filed down with a Dremel, or that there's a special type of rivet snap out there that will deform the soft copper of the mushroom rivets. For the time being, I'm happy to leave that to Mark.

There are lots of other questions too - M2 or M3 main gun, Lee turret with or without the m/g one on top, side doors opening / welded shut / not there at all, front m/g's in use or plated over ......... loads of scope with this one !

Pete - at TankMod, Dave (Armorpax) was having a good look over the Grant. He already does things like filler caps and tools, and was starting to think about internal detail, especially door locks and vision port handles. So, whether or not they come with the Armortek kit, they'll be available as add-ons.

Adrian - I agree. I'd always thought that the easiest way to manage the limited traverse 75mm gun would be to have a 'cut down' version of the "wiggly gun pack" used in the WW1 Mark IV (cut down because it'll only have to work one gun and probably two servos, rather than the 5 guns and 8 servos on a Mark IV ). That'll leave more controls on the Tx for the turret, 37mm, the co-ax m/g and (if wanted) the twin hull m/g's. Again, though, I'm happy to leave that to the magic that Mark does so well .......

A very enthused,

Chris

[Adrian Harris]

The conical heads would appear to be the most difficult. It may be that they can be filed down with a Dremel, or that there's a special type of rivet snap out there that will deform the soft copper of the mushroom rivets. For the time being, I'm happy to leave that to Mark.

Cone rivets do exist in small scales: eg:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Cone-Rivets- ... 3044269299

If there's nothing in the kit, then I was planning on writing a bit of gcode for my CNC lathe which would allow a standard rivet to be held in some form of collet or pin vice and have the edges re-profiled. Would be tedious to stand there switching them out but it should be possible to get close to the original.

Adrian - I agree. I'd always thought that the easiest way to manage the limited traverse 75mm gun would be to have a 'cut down' version of the "wiggly gun pack" used in the WW1 Mark IV (cut down because it'll only have to work one gun and probably two servos, rather than the 5 guns and 8 servos on a Mark IV ). That'll leave more controls on the Tx for the turret, 37mm, the co-ax m/g and (if wanted) the twin hull m/g's. Again, though, I'm happy to leave that to the magic that Mark does so well .......

If you use right single stick for driving, you could use left stick for the sponson, with the recoil coming from the Audio Module, or have a random movement generator for the sponson and use the left stick for the turret. Or use one of the transmitter switches to swap the stick between the sponson and the turret. Sales of 9 or 18 channel transmitters are going to go up

Adrian.

[Jack Hrovatin]

Chris,
I wasn’t trying to decrease Armorteks namesake, I just merely pointed out that there might be other ways to produce models that have never been done. If what you and Kian say is fact, we will never see the M4A1 Sherman tank that is greatly needed..,IMHO. Kian stated that it would cost too much to make a Cast Aluminum Hull. If Armortek is going to remain a leading producer of the best quality, albeit at a higher price model, then why limit your models due to the potential for it being costly to make? Just seems hipocritical.

Jack

[Mike Conley]

Jack Hrovatin

I WISH the return rollers on my M4A3 Sherman WERE metal WITH sealed bearings but they're plastic.

Every time I run the Sherman in any soil grit gets picked up by the tracks, carried up over the rollers, and particles fall to get jammed in the axles that stop the rollers practically every time I take it out. I then have to use the water hose to blast it out while turning the rollers by hand to get'em free again. That happens so often that it's now just regularly expected.

I really like the looks of the Armortek M3 and I'm seriously planning to get a Lee!


Mike in Kentucky

[Jack Hrovatin]

Mike,
Yes, some people too are “Missing the Point”. I am not slamming Armortek, in fact I’m trying to increase their market share. I merely listed a couple things to make this M3 even better....and potentially give them a great foundation that could wed itself to an even better (IMO) kit of the M4A1.
I think that having the return roller being made out of anything other than metal is rediculous!

Jack

[Stephen White]

As Chris rightly says, one of Armortek's unique selling points is the predominant use of metal. In as much as there is any real competition, it comes from one sixth plastic kits which are intended for static display and others made predominantly of glass fibre, which are intended for RC. There are significant issues of realism and longevity with both.

There are some all metal prototypes from one Far Eastern source which have surfaced recently but there is currently no sign of the designer going to market with production kits. So Armortek holds a unique place in the market in offering metal kits. There is overwhelming commercial advantage in Armortek continuing to offer kits predominantly made in metal. I didn't say all metal though.

With the maturing of 3D printing and the increasing use of metalised composites, there could well be a route in the future to what Jack is advocating without compromising Armortek's unique selling point. From what I've seen when I was working in the aerospace industry, the technology has high tooling, materials and production costs but if these improve, it might be something we see on our models.

Of course the most pressing need to replicate cast armour is for the front hull and the turret pieces of the forthcoming Chieftain from Armortek......

Stephen

[Jack Hrovatin]

Stephan,
I totally agree. I would prefer that Armortek continue with the predominantly metal kits. Let’s make these the best that we can....even if we pay for those improvements! Eliminate rubber where it wasn’t used, get the Rivets correct for such a LARGE scale, put radiuses where they need to be. These small improvements will make a better kit, and prevent those of us who don’t have our own machine shops with three axis milling machines from needing to invest even more in hiring someone to machine, or fabricate necessary items. I’m planning on purchasing one....I just see easy opportunities to enhance it before it goes to production.

Jack

[Jack Hrovatin]

Adrian,
Great picture of the Grant. It shows the very significant feature of the three piece bolted transmission housing to great detail! Perhaps it’s not too late for Armortek to add more bolts on this unit to a greater degree of accuracy as on the original. It’s such a prominent feature, it would be great to not have to do so much more machining on our own.

Jack

[Armortek]

Prototype is now 90% complete.

Some more photo to follow later ... and some video of the Grant in motion tomorrow.

M3_Grant_Motion_Movie.gif (3.22 MiB) Viewed 11803 times

[Chris Hall]

Wow, that's quick work .....

Looks like the shorter 75mm M2 which, to my mind, is the better option (if only because it'll fit in the car easier ). But it'll need a counterweight .....

[Pete Nash]

Chris hall says "Looks like the shorter 75mm M2 which, to my mind, is the better option (if only because it'll fit in the car easier ). But it'll need a counterweight .."

No doubt Dave Dibbs is' already on' the job', or will Kian give us two barrels?

Forgive me if I'm wrong but didn't some of the early production M3's lack the Gun Gyro Stabilisation system so didn't require the weight on the barrel muzzle. It was only when the system was fitted did the weight become necessary. The extra weight of the the longer barrel negated it.

I will now fly peacefully along and wait to be shot down in flames

Pete