Dragon 1/35 Sd.Kfz. 250/3, Tunisia, 1942.

[speedgraflex]

Hopefully, Maestro Sheperd Paine would approve of my use of forced perspective. I do not want to box the top and sides, but I know there is going to be one viewing angle so the back side will be covered by a scrim. I better make a mock-up at scale first. For that I will need the M5 tank’s smdimensions to convert actual size into size at scale.

To arrive at scale length, I am going to use the US Army Regs from the Tank Encyclopedia which list the tank as 15’2” by 72, which means the model is 2-1/2 inches long at 1/72 scale (source: Stuart: A History of the American Light Tank, vol.I, by R. Hunnicut).

[Duke Maddog]

Looking great Bruce and great idea for the forced perspective. I do hope you get one of those kits; I've been trying for decades and have yet to secure one.

Looking forward to seeing more.

[speedgraflex]

Looking great Bruce and great idea for the forced perspective. I do hope you get one of those kits; I've been trying for decades and have yet to secure one.

Mark! Happy Holidays! I will see if the company’s online store has more then one in stock! Thanks so much for visiting this thread and your encouraging comments are most welcome!!!

[speedgraflex]

Bjorn Jacobsen! A Master!

[Stikpusher]

That is some fantastic looking work! When coupled with the fire effects it looks incredible. That man has some fabulous modeling skills and photography talents. I hope to one day approach his model building and finishing talent level.

But now I must add my critique... And I’ll rate an A+ for artistry, but B-/C+ for realism...
Why? Well is the sponson over the track at the hit penetration point is blown down, B-, because that shows an onboard ammunition explosion (carried there on King Tigers) that would cause the damage to the side skirts, road wheels, and fire below. But most likely such secondary detonations would also dislodge the turret off of the turret race. If the sponson bottom is not blown out, C+ due to the damage to the side skirts and suspension being improbable from the Firefly’s 17 pdr armor piercing shot. The fuel cells are behind the engine compartment firewall and would not leak and burn down from that hit. Nor would the penetration impact blow off the road wheels. The side skirt, possibly...
And two things that the builder completely missed: 1, the open bottom of the machine gun ammo can carried by one of the Tommies; 2, no radio antenna on the Sherman Firefly.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s beautiful work and a treat to look at... just don’t look too hard.

[BlackSheep214]

Rivet counter......

I just couldn't resist.

[Stikpusher]

I guess I do have a streak of it in me...

That’s why I broke my critique down...

And yes, I had a feeling I would open myself up to the dreaded river counter label on that post...

[speedgraflex]

I am grateful for the critique—there’s a lot of insight to be gleaned here because Carlos knows the way tanks are built and operated—and having personally read an account of the particular engagement way back when I was researching Firefly in combat, I recall the photos or diagrams detailing a much greater distance between these two combatants. I figured the builder, whose work I admire, was making concessions of physical space by showing the Firefly closer having moved following the engagement. Thank you, Carlos! Thank you, BlackSheep214 for your thoughts as well!

Sheperd Paine:

http://sheperdpaine.atspace.com/grant.htm

[BlackSheep214]

ROFLMAO!!!!! It's all good, stik! Interesting observations though. Very interesting. Who knew?

[Stikpusher]

ROFLMAO!!!!! It's all good, stik! Interesting observations though. Very interesting. Who knew?

I usually am better at keeping it in check...