1:72 Medium Mark E "Stinger" tank

Dizzyfugu · March 04, 2019, 06:00:07 AM

1:72 Medium Mark E "Stinger"; vehicle "D/6" a.k.a. "Daphne C"., s/n A351, British Army 6th battalion, D company, Péronne (France), autumn 1918 (Whif/Emhar kit conversion) by dizzyfugu, on Flickr

Some background:
The Medium Mark E "Stinger" was a British tank of the late First World War. It was a development of the Medium Mark A "Whippet" and intended to complement the slower British heavy tanks by using its relative mobility and speed in exploiting any break in the enemy lines.

On 3 October 1916 William Tritton, about to be knighted for developing the Mark I tank, proposed to the Tank Supply Committee that a faster and cheaper tank should be built to exploit gaps that the heavier but slow tanks made, an idea that up till then had been largely neglected since it had been at that time a typical cavalry task. An armored vehicle would have a much higher survivability, though, and the new tank was to be able to move in the same environment as the rhomboid-shaped tanks of the first generation.

The proposal was accepted on 10 November and approved by the War Office on 25 November 1916. Actual construction of the new tank type started on 21 December and it was designated "Mark A". The first prototype, nicknamed "Whippet" due to its (relatively) light structure and high speed, was equipped with a revolving turret taken from an Austin armored car — the first for a British tank design. It was ready on 3 February 1917 and participated in the tank trials day at Oldbury on 3 March. The next day, in a meeting with the French to coordinate allied tank production, the Commander-in-Chief of the British forces Field Marshal Haig ordered the manufacture of two hundred vehicles, the first to be ready on 31 July. Although he was acting beyond his authority, as usual, his decisions were confirmed in June 1917.

1:72 Medium Mark E "Stinger"; vehicle "D/6" a.k.a. "Daphne C"., s/n A351, British Army 6th battalion, D company, Péronne (France), autumn 1918 (Whif/Emhar kit conversion) by dizzyfugu, on Flickr

1:72 Medium Mark E "Stinger"; vehicle "D/6" a.k.a. "Daphne C"., s/n A351, British Army 6th battalion, D company, Péronne (France), autumn 1918 (Whif/Emhar kit conversion) by dizzyfugu, on Flickr

1:72 Medium Mark E "Stinger"; vehicle "D/6" a.k.a. "Daphne C"., s/n A351, British Army 6th battalion, D company, Péronne (France), autumn 1918 (Whif/Emhar kit conversion) by dizzyfugu, on Flickr

1:72 Medium Mark E "Stinger"; vehicle "D/6" a.k.a. "Daphne C"., s/n A351, British Army 6th battalion, D company, Péronne (France), autumn 1918 (Whif/Emhar kit conversion) by dizzyfugu, on Flickr

The first production tanks left the factory in October and they differed from the prototype in having a fixed crew compartment instead of the turret, a polygonal structure at the rear of the vehicle. Two engines of the type used in contemporary double-decker buses were in a forward compartment, each one driving a track separately. The Mark A was armed with four air-cooled machine guns and lacked a heavier cannon.
Two Mark As were delivered to the first unit to use them, F Battalion of the Tank Corps (later 6th Battalion), on 14 December 1917. In December 1917 the order was increased from 200 to 385, but this was later cancelled in favor of more advanced designs, leading to the Mark B, C, D and finally the E types.

Medium Mark B-D remained prototypes and introduced several novelties like a separate engine compartment, new transmission systems (the Mark A was complicated to drive since it was steered through the separate throttle input to its two engines), a smoke screen device installed in the exhaust system. However, these medium tanks became bigger and heavier (in excess of 20 tons), and their development appeared like a dead end.
As a short-term alternative, and certainly influenced by the highly successful light Renault FT tank from France, William Tritton proposed a modified variant of the Medium Mark A. It would incorporate many lessons learned from the Mark A's initial operational use in France, as well as proven innovations that had been tested so far in the Mark B-D prototypes and in other vehicles.

1:72 Medium Mark E "Stinger"; vehicle "D/6" a.k.a. "Daphne C"., s/n A351, British Army 6th battalion, D company, Péronne (France), autumn 1918 (Whif/Emhar kit conversion) by dizzyfugu, on Flickr

1:72 Medium Mark E "Stinger"; vehicle "D/6" a.k.a. "Daphne C"., s/n A351, British Army 6th battalion, D company, Péronne (France), autumn 1918 (Whif/Emhar kit conversion) by dizzyfugu, on Flickr

1:72 Medium Mark E "Stinger"; vehicle "D/6" a.k.a. "Daphne C"., s/n A351, British Army 6th battalion, D company, Péronne (France), autumn 1918 (Whif/Emhar kit conversion) by dizzyfugu, on Flickr

1:72 Medium Mark E "Stinger"; vehicle "D/6" a.k.a. "Daphne C"., s/n A351, British Army 6th battalion, D company, Péronne (France), autumn 1918 (Whif/Emhar kit conversion) by dizzyfugu, on Flickr

The resulting Medium Mark E tank was based on the Mark A chassis, but actually only the suspension system, the tracks and the hull's floor were actually the same. The hull with the engine and crew compartment was thoroughly redesigned and their positions exchanged: The engine was moved to the back, while the crew's compartment was moved to the front. The fuel tank was re-located from the front to a low position between the engine bay and the cabin. Through this shift of the center of gravity the Mark E was expected to have a much better climbing ability, despite the relatively low front idler wheel.
The Mark A's twin powerplant was replaced by a single Ricardo 4-cylinder petrol engine, which produced 105 hp (76 kW). It not only offered more power and torque than the former arrangement, it also was lighter and was coupled with a new sliding gear transmission that drove the tracks at the rear and featured four speeds forward, one reverse. One main clutch plus two subsidiary clutches (one for each of the two tracks) were used for steering the tank, a much more efficient arrangement than the former dual throttle/gearbox mechanism.

Another novelty was the re-introduction of a turret, mounted on top of the crew compartment close to the vehicle's front and with a free 360° arc of fire. The octagonal turret, made from riveted steel plates, just like the rest of the hull, furthermore featured a cupola for the commander at the top. It was fully operated by hand, though, and did not have a rotating floor.
As main armament the turret carried a light Vickers 2-pounder "pom-pom" gun, a 40 mm caliber rapid-fire gun, outfitted with a water-cooled barrel and a Vickers-Maxim mechanism. This weapon was originally ordered in 1915 by the Royal Navy as an anti-aircraft weapon for ships of cruiser size and below, but it had already been earmarked for the use on board of the early "Little Willie" tank. It was successfully tested for this application, but actually never mounted to this experimental vehicle, which never got beyond the prototype stage.

The Vickers 2-pounder was a versatile weapon, though, and added considerable firepower to the Medium tank class. It could fire single shells like an ordinary gun, but it could also be fed with hand-loaded fabric belts and fire automatically at up to 200 rpm (even though this figure was only theoretical, since the barrel would quickly overheat under constant fire or the firing mechanism would jam, esp. in the hot environment of a tank). Typically, short belts of 5 rounds each were used, almost exclusively consisting of explosive shells. A total of 275 rounds could be carried, 45 ready in the turret and the rest in racks in the lower hull. Beyond explosive rounds, the Vickers 2-pounder could also fire armor-piercing shells against fortified bunkers or enemy tanks, as well as shrapnel rounds against soft targets.
Three air-cooled 0.303 inch Hotchkiss machine guns in ball mounts in the lower hull, firing to the sides and forward, completed the vehicle's armament. 3.000 rounds for the machine guns were carried. While the 2-pounder in the turret was operated by the commander and a dedicated gunner, the machine guns were operated from case to case by one or two assistant drivers who were also tasked with re-supplying the cannon ammunition from the racks in the lower hull.

1:72 Medium Mark E "Stinger"; vehicle "D/6" a.k.a. "Daphne C"., s/n A351, British Army 6th battalion, D company, Péronne (France), autumn 1918 (Whif/Emhar kit conversion) by dizzyfugu, on Flickr

1:72 Medium Mark E "Stinger"; vehicle "D/6" a.k.a. "Daphne C"., s/n A351, British Army 6th battalion, D company, Péronne (France), autumn 1918 (Whif/Emhar kit conversion) by dizzyfugu, on Flickr

1:72 Medium Mark E "Stinger"; vehicle "D/6" a.k.a. "Daphne C"., s/n A351, British Army 6th battalion, D company, Péronne (France), autumn 1918 (Whif/Emhar kit conversion) by dizzyfugu, on Flickr

1:72 Medium Mark E "Stinger"; vehicle "D/6" a.k.a. "Daphne C"., s/n A351, British Army 6th battalion, D company, Péronne (France), autumn 1918 (Whif/Emhar kit conversion) by dizzyfugu, on Flickr

A prototype was built from an unfinished Mark A chassis at Fosters of Lincoln in just six weeks, and, since it was based on an existing design, the trials were radically shortened on behalf of the British Tank Supply Committee. 200 Medium Mark E tanks were almost blindly ordered in late 1917, and production immediately started, even though the output numbers were only limited and detail improvements were made while the tanks went through the workshops.

The Stingers' first operational use was, grouped in so-called "X-companies" attached to larger units made of heavy Mk. IV and V tanks, the Amiens offensive on 8 August 1918, which was described by the German supreme commander General Ludendorff, as "the Black Day of the German Army". Behind the heavy British tank the Stingers effectively broke through into the German rear areas causing the loss of the artillery in an entire front sector, a devastating blow from which the Germans were unable to recover.

Until the end of the war, only a total of 56 Stingers had been completed and delivered to the troops, the rest of the order was cancelled and the unfinished hulls scrapped. Only about twenty Medium Mark E tanks survived and were soon relegated to training units. In front line service, the Medium Mark E was soon replaced by the Vickers Medium Mark I from 1924 onwards, which introduced a suspension that allowed much higher road and cross-country speed, as well as many features that set the conceptual standard for modern tanks.

Specifications:
Crew: 4-5 (commander, gunner/loader, driver, 1-2x mechanic/assistant driver/machine gun operator)
Weight: 16.5 t
Length: 20 ft (6.10 m)
Width: 8 ft 7 in (2.62 m)
Height: 10 ft 1 in (3.06 m)
Suspension: none (unsprung)
Ground clearance: 1 ft 1 in (33 cm)

Armor:
14 – 22 mm (0.55 – 0.87 in)

Performance:
Speed: 8.5 mph (14 km/h) on even ground
Operational range: 240 km (150 mi)
Power/weight: 12,96 PS/tonne (11,5 hp/ton)

Engine:
1x Ricardo 4-cylinder petrol engine with 105 hp (76 kW)

Transmission:
Fosters of Lincoln sliding gear transmission (four speeds forward, one reverse)

Armament:
1× Vickers 2-pounder (1.57"/40mm) rapid-fire gun
3× 7.92 mm Hotchkiss machine guns

The kit and its assembly:
This build was inspired by whiffy EMHAR 1:72 Medium Mark A, built by fellow modeler RAFF-35 at whatifmodelers.com. The WWI tank had been thoroughly modified through a simple reverse of the tracks, so that the engine would now be placed at the rear and the crew compartment at the front, with some modifications like a new driver's hatch and an alcove for a forward-firing gun. I liked the idea and kept it in the back of my mind, and recently got hold of the EMHAR kit.

The basic concept would be the same, but I wanted a further update in the form of a turret, so that the tank would feature a "modern" layout like the next generation Vickers Medium tank.

The EMHAR kit is very simple, with molded tracks, and it basically goes together well. However, in my conversion almost nothing remained at its original place! The tracks were built and taken OOB, just the mud chutes had to be painted before the assembly because the interior remains well visible, but the opening don't allow any delicate painting inside (see below).

1:72 Medium Mark E "Stinger"; vehicle "D/6" a.k.a. "Daphne C"., s/n A351, British Army 6th battalion, D company, Péronne (France), autumn 1918 (Whif/Emhar kit conversion) - WiP by dizzyfugu, on Flickr

The central hull was reversed and the new front end received a raised underside. Then the engine cover was added and the tank was installed – also onto the new front. Since the reversed tracks were now relatively higher than on the Whippet's original layout, I decided to discard the original crew compartment and scratch a new one, also with regard to the addition of a turret which would necessitate a lower and flat roof.
The new superstructure was created from single panels from the original cabin (e.g. using the machine gun portholes) and styrene sheet material. The boxy design of WWI tanks made this feat quite easy, and only a few seams had to be filled with putty.

1:72 Medium Mark E "Stinger"; vehicle "D/6" a.k.a. "Daphne C"., s/n A351, British Army 6th battalion, D company, Péronne (France), autumn 1918 (Whif/Emhar kit conversion) - WiP by dizzyfugu, on Flickr

1:72 Medium Mark E "Stinger"; vehicle "D/6" a.k.a. "Daphne C"., s/n A351, British Army 6th battalion, D company, Péronne (France), autumn 1918 (Whif/Emhar kit conversion) - WiP by dizzyfugu, on Flickr

Originally I planned to use an early Valentine turret, but found it to look too modern for the rest of the vehicle. Luckily I found an early M3 Stewart turret in my stash (from the Hasegawa kit) as an alternative donor part, and it turned out to be the much better choice. It was taken almost OOB, I just modified the gun barrel to resemble a typical Vickers 2-pounder barrel and muzzle, modified the gun mantlet, and the attachment point for the M3's AA machine gun disappeared.
I also used the commander figure from the M3 kit and left the cupola hatch open – I just replaced the figure's head, so that it would (more) resemble a British WWI officer.

1:72 Medium Mark E "Stinger"; vehicle "D/6" a.k.a. "Daphne C"., s/n A351, British Army 6th battalion, D company, Péronne (France), autumn 1918 (Whif/Emhar kit conversion) - WiP by dizzyfugu, on Flickr

1:72 Medium Mark E "Stinger"; vehicle "D/6" a.k.a. "Daphne C"., s/n A351, British Army 6th battalion, D company, Péronne (France), autumn 1918 (Whif/Emhar kit conversion) - WiP by dizzyfugu, on Flickr

Once the basic structure was completed, I added some air vents and visor slits made from styrene material and replaced/added rivets with white glue. As an additional detail I added a pair of prongs to the front – I found a help to overcome barbed wire obstacles with the relatively low front tracks to be quite plausible, and it supports the vehicle's overall "edgy" look.

Painting and markings:
Well, this is not really authentic, but I wanted "something different". British late WWI tanks were, after 1916, typically painted in a uniform dark khaki drab or earth brown, with red and white ID markings. However, I found this option to be quite dull, since there had been some, well, creative alternatives a little while earlier.
One of these were the Solomon schemes, christened by their inventor and typically applied to the early Mark I and IV tanks in France. These were disruptive multi-color schemes, sometimes edged with more or less wide black stripes. Even though there was a standard to be followed, frontline units painted the vehicles AFAIK with much freedom, and if you try to find references, there's the impression of "anything goes".

My interpretation of the Solomon scheme consists of no less than five colors (sand yellow, blue-grey, medium green, red brown and dark brown) plus black demarcation lines. Painting was done with Humbrol enamels (94, 87, 252, 113 and 173) and thinned Revell 9 (Tar black) for the lines, everything done with brushes. The tracks were painted separately, before the final assembly of the model, with an irregular mix of iron, grey and some red brown.

1:72 Medium Mark E "Stinger"; vehicle "D/6" a.k.a. "Daphne C"., s/n A351, British Army 6th battalion, D company, Péronne (France), autumn 1918 (Whif/Emhar kit conversion) - WiP by dizzyfugu, on Flickr

1:72 Medium Mark E "Stinger"; vehicle "D/6" a.k.a. "Daphne C"., s/n A351, British Army 6th battalion, D company, Péronne (France), autumn 1918 (Whif/Emhar kit conversion) - WiP by dizzyfugu, on Flickr

After that, decals were added (taken mostly from the OOB sheet, I just used a different vehicle name) and sealed with acrylic varnish. Next, the model received a wash with a highly thinned reddish brown (acrylic paints), a dry brushing treatment with light grey and sand, and finally some mud was simulated around the lower hull with an individual mix of brown artist pigments: initially, the lower model surfaces were wetted with water and then pigments were rubbed into it with a short brush, in order to create a mud-like paste for the running gear area. Then, once cured, more dry pigments were applied with a big, soft brush, simulating dust in the upper hull regions. This considerably toned the camouflage colors down, and confirms the real life practice of painting tanks in just a uniform brownish khaki tone, because the dirt and mud from the battlefield would soon cover any elaborate camouflage pattern!

1:72 Medium Mark E "Stinger"; vehicle "D/6" a.k.a. "Daphne C"., s/n A351, British Army 6th battalion, D company, Péronne (France), autumn 1918 (Whif/Emhar kit conversion) by dizzyfugu, on Flickr

1:72 Medium Mark E "Stinger"; vehicle "D/6" a.k.a. "Daphne C"., s/n A351, British Army 6th battalion, D company, Péronne (France), autumn 1918 (Whif/Emhar kit conversion) by dizzyfugu, on Flickr

An unusual project, and the result is certainly "different". Creating the new superstructure from bits and pieces was a tedious effort, but I think the result does not look implausible? The resulting tank looks a lot like an XXL size Renault FT, and the silhouette reminds me a lot of the later French Somua S-35 tank? The paint scheme is certainly weird, but I think that – despite the bright colors – it would be quite effective in a "normal" environment. Not certain how it would have fared in the blasted no man's land of WWI, though?

NARSES2 · March 04, 2019, 06:18:55 AM

I really do like that Dizzy

. It really does look as though it could have been a "What might have been" and would have been very useful if Plan 1919 had, had to have been put into action.

Old Wombat · March 04, 2019, 06:43:44 AM

Great idea & build, Dizzy!

Rheged · March 04, 2019, 09:03:51 AM

That is a really convincing what should have been!!

rickshaw · March 04, 2019, 06:05:10 PM

Interesting. It is initially quite bright and I feel it wouldn't survive too long as a camouflage pattern in real life. The dust and mud does tone it down, considerably. I'm not overly taken with the commander figure. The left handed salute looks awkward to me ( I realise he is just shading his eyes but it looks like a salute). Overall, it is quite effective.

Dizzyfugu · March 05, 2019, 12:02:52 AM

Thank you, glad you like it. As mentioned above, the figure is a compromise - I wanted "somerthing" for the open hatch, and it was the best donor I could find in the spares box. Works IMHO well, though. The scheme is odd - and the British Army quickly got away from the Solomon scheme, since it almost immediately "disappeared" under mud and dust at the front, and went for a uniform khaki brown/green color for the late WWI tanks. But it's decorative, and I find it (in the color pics) not to be ineffective. At least it's disruptive, and I can imagine that it works best in an urban environment.

zenrat · March 05, 2019, 01:18:42 AM

I like that DIzz. Good job.

Weaver · March 05, 2019, 06:08:43 AM

That looks great, and very credible - well done!

stevehed · March 09, 2019, 08:31:52 AM

Great job and very plausible.

Dizzyfugu · March 12, 2019, 12:52:16 AM

Thank you, too!

Captain Canada · April 24, 2019, 06:51:04 PM

Great job on that one Dizzy ! She looked even better before you got her dirty

Dizzyfugu · April 26, 2019, 04:36:58 AM

Quote from: Captain Canada on April 24, 2019, 06:51:04 PM
Great job on that one Dizzy ! She looked even better before you got her dirty

Yes, I somewhat regret the mud and the dust - originally, that tank reminded a lot of a church window! But, after all, the dirt was added in order to demonstrate how futile the camouflage efforts in WWI were, since the mud would cover everything very quickly. No wonder that British tanks were soon painted in an olive drab/brownish, uniform tone. But the more colorful option just looks more interesting.