What If the British Army bought the M113?

[rickshaw]

As an alternative to your proposed Swingfire mountings.  How about a single Swingfire vertically mounted on each rear corner?  They would pivot at the top to the appropriate angle for launching.   That way, you'd still be able to use the rear ramp for enbus/debus/reloading.   Coupled with a modified commander's cupola with an elevating sight, you'd have a minimal change to the standard vehicle.

For the section vehicle, can I suggest you take a leaf out of the Australian book and use the Cadillac-Gage T150 turret?   Your section vehicle could mount twin .30cal or one .30cal and one .50cal.

One problem you're going to face if you give the vehicle commander a separate cupola is a reduction in the size of your section. The M113 was quite cramped for 10 men, the more equipment you add and separate seats/cupolas, larger turrets, etc. the less room for diggers there will be.   Which is why our improved M113 went for an extra road wheel and a reduction in numbers internally, while still largely retaining the same configuration as the standard M113.

[Weaver]

As an alternative to your proposed Swingfire mountings.  How about a single Swingfire vertically mounted on each rear corner?  They would pivot at the top to the appropriate angle for launching.   That way, you'd still be able to use the rear ramp for enbus/debus/reloading.   Coupled with a modified commander's cupola with an elevating sight, you'd have a minimal change to the standard vehicle.

I'm not sure what the maximum launch angle of Swingfire was: most of the real installations seem to fire it 20-30 degrees to the horizontal.

The real issue is can you achieve under-armour reloading? If you can (FV438) then two launchers is fine. If you can't (Striker) then you need more ready rounds (5 vs 2) to avoid a long-winded and dangerous reloading every five minutes. This in turn speak to the different roles of the two vehicles: FV438 was a WOMBAT replacement for the Royal Artillery anti-tank regiments whereas Striker was anti-tank backup for the recce regiments. Ferret Mk.5 had the same role, but was overtaken by Striker due to the general switch from wheeled recce to tracked recce. So basically, I have to decide if my M113 Swingfire is to meet the needs of the RA or recce regiments....

For the section vehicle, can I suggest you take a leaf out of the Australian book and use the Cadillac-Gage T150 turret?   Your section vehicle could mount twin .30cal or one .30cal and one .50cal.

.50 cals wern't at all common or popular in the British Army in the 1960s (Even the "anti-aircraft" FV432 only had 2 x 7.62mm GPMGs) so I can't see them requiring or specifying a .50cal for the section vehicles, indeed I suspect they'd be falling over themselves to get rid of the standard one and replace it with a GPMG. 0.50 cals didn't really make a return to favour until the Falklands.

I picked the Saracen turret simply because I've got some and it's distinctly British-looking. If I could get a Peak GPMG turret as later fitted to FV432s then I'd use it, but I can't (well not without spending silly money on an entire resin FV432 just to nick the turret). What concerns me about it is lack of visibility: it doesn't have the ring of periscopes seen on the T150 or the Mk.16. Having said that, it seems to have been regarded as okay on the Saladin so.....

I suspect the really "authentic" British fit would be a Mk.16 cupola, but I can't find one of these either....

One problem you're going to face if you give the vehicle commander a separate cupola is a reduction in the size of your section. The M113 was quite cramped for 10 men, the more equipment you add and separate seats/cupolas, larger turrets, etc. the less room for diggers there will be.   Which is why our improved M113 went for an extra road wheel and a reduction in numbers internally, while still largely retaining the same configuration as the standard M113.

I suppose that what I'm thinking of is the Spartan layout where the vehicle crew is the driver and machine-gunner (in the cupola) and the infantry commander sits alongside the gunner with a ring of periscopes. You're right though: AIFVs are generally rated at 3+6/7 whereas the M113 rates as 2+11.

[rickshaw]

I'm not sure what the maximum launch angle of Swingfire was: most of the real installations seem to fire it 20-30 degrees to the horizontal.

I was proposing that it would be stowed vertically but would tip over for firing.  I also misunderstood the vehicle's purpose.  I was thinking it was going to be a substitute MICV rather than a substitute APC.

The real issue is can you achieve under-armour reloading? If you can (FV438) then two launchers is fine. If you can't (Striker) then you need more ready rounds (5 vs 2) to avoid a long-winded and dangerous reloading every five minutes. This in turn speak to the different roles of the two vehicles: FV438 was a WOMBAT replacement for the Royal Artillery anti-tank regiments whereas Striker was anti-tank backup for the recce regiments. Ferret Mk.5 had the same role, but was overtaken by Striker due to the general switch from wheeled recce to tracked recce. So basically, I have to decide if my M113 Swingfire is to meet the needs of the RA or recce regiments....

If it has to answer both, then it will need to be built to the higher specifications of the FV438.    Otherwise your RA Regts will have to accept a lower spec. vehicle.

For the section vehicle, can I suggest you take a leaf out of the Australian book and use the Cadillac-Gage T150 turret?   Your section vehicle could mount twin .30cal or one .30cal and one .50cal.

.50 cals weren't at all common or popular in the British Army in the 1960s (Even the "anti-aircraft" FV432 only had 2 x 7.62mm GPMGs) so I can't see them requiring or specifying a .50cal for the section vehicles, indeed I suspect they'd be falling over themselves to get rid of the standard one and replace it with a GPMG. 0.50 cals didn't really make a return to favour until the Falklands.

I picked the Saracen turret simply because I've got some and it's distinctly British-looking. If I could get a Peak GPMG turret as later fitted to FV432s then I'd use it, but I can't (well not without spending silly money on an entire resin FV432 just to nick the turret). What concerns me about it is lack of visibility: it doesn't have the ring of periscopes seen on the T150 or the Mk.16. Having said that, it seems to have been regarded as okay on the Saladin so.....

I suspect the really "authentic" British fit would be a Mk.16 cupola, but I can't find one of these either....

Nothing wrong with GPMGs or even a .30cal.  The .50cal just has more penetration, even if a lower ROF.  The Saracen/Ferret turret is adequate.  I wasn't aware we were necessarily talking about a set time period, so obviously you have work with what you can.

The T150 turret can take two GPMGs or two .30cals or one GMPG and one .30cal or a GPMG and a .50cal or any combination of that.

One problem you're going to face if you give the vehicle commander a separate cupola is a reduction in the size of your section. The M113 was quite cramped for 10 men, the more equipment you add and separate seats/cupolas, larger turrets, etc. the less room for diggers there will be.   Which is why our improved M113 went for an extra road wheel and a reduction in numbers internally, while still largely retaining the same configuration as the standard M113.

I suppose that what I'm thinking of is the Spartan layout where the vehicle crew is the driver and machine-gunner (in the cupola) and the infantry commander sits alongside the gunner with a ring of periscopes. You're right though: AIFVs are generally rated at 3+6/7 whereas the M113 rates as 2+11.

Well, its a bit of a stretch claiming you can fit 11 in the back.  11 skinny, anorexic Sheilas perhaps but not 11 big, beefy diggers and all their gear.  10 was the maximum generally and even then it was pretty cramped.   Knock it down to 9 and you might start getting a bit of legroom.  

[deathjester]

Hey, Weaver...

I've been looking up 105mm turrets...

Look what I've done!





All you need is;

M113 ACAV
105mm Gun set (short barrell & baseplate)
Turret from Vickers Light tank
Reverse flow cooling intakes from Saracen APC
Afterburner connecting ring from 1/72 Hasegawa F-14
...
Simples!!    

[Weaver]

I was proposing that it would be stowed vertically but would tip over for firing.  I also misunderstood the vehicle's purpose.  I was thinking it was going to be a substitute MICV rather than a substitute APC.

It'd be neither: it'd be a specialist tank destroyer, which was (and is) British Army doctrine.

The real issue is can you achieve under-armour reloading? If you can (FV438) then two launchers is fine. If you can't (Striker) then you need more ready rounds (5 vs 2) to avoid a long-winded and dangerous reloading every five minutes. This in turn speak to the different roles of the two vehicles: FV438 was a WOMBAT replacement for the Royal Artillery anti-tank regiments whereas Striker was anti-tank backup for the recce regiments. Ferret Mk.5 had the same role, but was overtaken by Striker due to the general switch from wheeled recce to tracked recce. So basically, I have to decide if my M113 Swingfire is to meet the needs of the RA or recce regiments....

If it has to answer both, then it will need to be built to the higher specifications of the FV438.    Otherwise your RA Regts will have to accept a lower spec. vehicle.

Exactly, so in a wider context, I have to decide if my M113 is replacing just the FV432 or both that and the Spartan... hmmmm.......

Another layout's occured to me: FSV hull with modded top plate, commander/gunner's cupola behind the driver and two retractable launch boxes next to it, with reloading from behind (3rd crewman). That way the guidance wires just drop down over the engine deck/front plate without getting tangled in the cupola or any other fittings.

That's a wierd thing BTW: both FV438 and Striker had the launchers at the back, yet the FV438 had an elaborate forest of bars and poles to catch and control the missile guidance wires, while the Striker had zip. You see pictures of Strikers with wires just draped over the cupola and trainig down the front plate....

Nothing wrong with GPMGs or even a .30cal.  The .50cal just has more penetration, even if a lower ROF.  The Saracen/Ferret turret is adequate.  I wasn't aware we were necessarily talking about a set time period, so obviously you have work with what you can.

Sorry if I didn't make it clear. I'm seeing these as early-mid 1960s, just after they've been taken into service, so very new, very clean and no experience-driven mods yet. Partly it's 'cos I don't want to get bogged down in making a ton of detail cr4p to put on each one and partly 'cos it's different: almost everybody seems to fall over themselves to make modded-to-buggery Israeli Zeldas or 'Nam ACAVs with sandbags all over the floor and the crew sitting on the roof.

Well, its a bit of a stretch claiming you can fit 11 in the back.  11 skinny, anorexic Sheilas perhaps but not 11 big, beefy diggers and all their gear.  10 was the maximum generally and even then it was pretty cramped.   Knock it down to 9 and you might start getting a bit of legroom.  

Yep - these are the "standard" reference book ratings which always need to be taken with a pinch of salt. Officially, the M113 carries five on each bench seat and one on a backwards-facing "jump seat" in the middle of the aisle behind the commnader's station. Like you say, there's a world of difference between "passengers" and "fully equipped troops".

I'm tending towards a simple Saracen-style layout: MG turret on the standard commander's hatch, and a bolted-in plate in the cargo hatch position with a circular hatch (spare "standard" driver's hatch from an FSV) and a 270 deg skate rail for the section GPMG or Carl Gustav. They can learn by experience later that they'd have been better off just having the standard hatch.....

[Weaver]

Hey, Weaver...

I've been looking up 105mm turrets...

Look what I've done!

All you need is;

M113 ACAV
105mm Gun set (short barrell & baseplate)
Turret from Vickers Light tank
Reverse flow cooling intakes from Saracen APC
Afterburner connecting ring from 1/72 Hasegawa F-14
...
Simples!!    

LOL - I think the recoil stroke of a 105mm light gun is longer than the diameter of a Vickers Mk.VI turret....

[deathjester]

I'll admit to a certain degree of Handwavium there...although, I have extended the turret a little.

Also, I have a pic of the AMX-13 with GIAT 105mm gun - and the turret doesn't seem much bigger than what's on my model!

[rickshaw]

I was proposing that it would be stowed vertically but would tip over for firing.  I also misunderstood the vehicle's purpose.  I was thinking it was going to be a substitute MICV rather than a substitute APC.

It'd be neither: it'd be a specialist tank destroyer, which was (and is) British Army doctrine.

Then I'd recommend a turret.  Use an FSV hull and add a new turret with two or four missiles.  Have them super-elevate to be reloaded from under armour (a hatch behind the turret at the 6 o'clock position opens and the missile boxes are placed on the launcher).  Before reloading the turret turns to either 3 or 9 o'clock, the launcher super-elevates and jettisons the empty boxes, over the side.  The turret could either be manned or unmanned, depending how complex you want to make it.

The real issue is can you achieve under-armour reloading? If you can (FV438) then two launchers is fine. If you can't (Striker) then you need more ready rounds (5 vs 2) to avoid a long-winded and dangerous reloading every five minutes. This in turn speak to the different roles of the two vehicles: FV438 was a WOMBAT replacement for the Royal Artillery anti-tank regiments whereas Striker was anti-tank backup for the recce regiments. Ferret Mk.5 had the same role, but was overtaken by Striker due to the general switch from wheeled recce to tracked recce. So basically, I have to decide if my M113 Swingfire is to meet the needs of the RA or recce regiments....

If it has to answer both, then it will need to be built to the higher specifications of the FV438.    Otherwise your RA Regts will have to accept a lower spec. vehicle.

Exactly, so in a wider context, I have to decide if my M113 is replacing just the FV432 or both that and the Spartan... hmmmm.......

Another layout's occured to me: FSV hull with modded top plate, commander/gunner's cupola behind the driver and two retractable launch boxes next to it, with reloading from behind (3rd crewman). That way the guidance wires just drop down over the engine deck/front plate without getting tangled in the cupola or any other fittings.

That's a wierd thing BTW: both FV438 and Striker had the launchers at the back, yet the FV438 had an elaborate forest of bars and poles to catch and control the missile guidance wires, while the Striker had zip. You see pictures of Strikers with wires just draped over the cupola and trainig down the front plate....
[/quote]

Royal Artillery were always a fastidious bunch. 

I suspect it was also that they were designed at different times.  The FV438 when they were afraid the launch wires would cause problems.

I've had a thought though, isn't Swingfire more of a 1970s weapon?  Surely, if it's 1960s, they'd be using Vigilant?

Nothing wrong with GPMGs or even a .30cal.  The .50cal just has more penetration, even if a lower ROF.  The Saracen/Ferret turret is adequate.  I wasn't aware we were necessarily talking about a set time period, so obviously you have work with what you can.

Sorry if I didn't make it clear. I'm seeing these as early-mid 1960s, just after they've been taken into service, so very new, very clean and no experience-driven mods yet. Partly it's 'cos I don't want to get bogged down in making a ton of detail cr4p to put on each one and partly 'cos it's different: almost everybody seems to fall over themselves to make modded-to-buggery Israeli Zeldas or 'Nam ACAVs with sandbags all over the floor and the crew sitting on the roof.

Well, they did that for a reason - fear of mines.  M113s in Vietnam were rather easily penetrated by mines exploding under the floor or even worse, under the left sponson where the drive sat.  They introduced applique armour under the floor and under the sponsons.  I agree, you rarely see plain vanilla vehicles.  Just not "sexy" enough.

Well, its a bit of a stretch claiming you can fit 11 in the back.  11 skinny, anorexic Sheilas perhaps but not 11 big, beefy diggers and all their gear.  10 was the maximum generally and even then it was pretty cramped.   Knock it down to 9 and you might start getting a bit of legroom.  

Yep - these are the "standard" reference book ratings which always need to be taken with a pinch of salt. Officially, the M113 carries five on each bench seat and one on a backwards-facing "jump seat" in the middle of the aisle behind the commnader's station. Like you say, there's a world of difference between "passengers" and "fully equipped troops".

Having travelled in the back on a couple of occasions, its not fun.  Admittedly those were "familiarisation"/joyrides, it was quite cramped and claustrophobic and uncomfortable.  Wearing webbing, carrying a rifle, the inside stuffed with packs and other gear, it got quite cramped.  The Light Horse regiments, with only two or four troopers in the back (and even better just with the crew) used to live like Gypsy Kings compared to what normal Diggers had to endure.  I've seen wall-to-wall carpets, hammocks, "Jack" ration/Bin-Pack boxes, camp-chairs, all sorts of crap inside M113s on exercise.  Come inspection, it all disappears but once thats done, it all comes back out again. 

I'm tending towards a simple Saracen-style layout: MG turret on the standard commander's hatch, and a bolted-in plate in the cargo hatch position with a circular hatch (spare "standard" driver's hatch from an FSV) and a 270 deg skate rail for the section GPMG or Carl Gustav. They can learn by experience later that they'd have been better off just having the standard hatch.....

No reason why you can't have a hatch, within a hatch, on the roof.  A cupola insert in the roof hatch, with an MG mount that collapses when you want the bigger hatch to open.  Alternatively, have an MG mount, either side of the standard hatch like on the ACAV version.   Personally, I've always thought it would have been better to have two large hatches, inserted into the one big hatch.  The two hatches would have their hinge in the centre, so you could open them up and they'd offer a modicum of OHP if you were firing out, while you'd still have the utility of the one bigger hatch for loading/unloading.

[Weaver]

I was proposing that it would be stowed vertically but would tip over for firing.  I also misunderstood the vehicle's purpose.  I was thinking it was going to be a substitute MICV rather than a substitute APC.

It'd be neither: it'd be a specialist tank destroyer, which was (and is) British Army doctrine.

Then I'd recommend a turret.  Use an FSV hull and add a new turret with two or four missiles.  Have them super-elevate to be reloaded from under armour (a hatch behind the turret at the 6 o'clock position opens and the missile boxes are placed on the launcher).  Before reloading the turret turns to either 3 or 9 o'clock, the launcher super-elevates and jettisons the empty boxes, over the side.  The turret could either be manned or unmanned, depending how complex you want to make it.

The whole point of Swingfire was that it didn't need a turret: the missile could turn 90 deg immediately on leaving the launcher by thrust-vectoring, which was it's unique feature. This is why the initial scheme for putting a Ferret Mk.5 turret on the Striker was replaced by the fixed boxes: presumably it was deemed safer to reload the boxes from behind the vehicle than to reload a turret by sticking your head up out of a hatch, however semi-shielded. This is also why the "turret" on the FV438 was actually fixed. Having said that, the Ferret turret scheme did exist, so it's possible that they might have adopted something like that on the M113 - all worth thinking about....


Swingfire doing it's party piece (no this missile is NOT out of control!):

The real issue is can you achieve under-armour reloading? If you can (FV438) then two launchers is fine. If you can't (Striker) then you need more ready rounds (5 vs 2) to avoid a long-winded and dangerous reloading every five minutes. This in turn speak to the different roles of the two vehicles: FV438 was a WOMBAT replacement for the Royal Artillery anti-tank regiments whereas Striker was anti-tank backup for the recce regiments. Ferret Mk.5 had the same role, but was overtaken by Striker due to the general switch from wheeled recce to tracked recce. So basically, I have to decide if my M113 Swingfire is to meet the needs of the RA or recce regiments....

If it has to answer both, then it will need to be built to the higher specifications of the FV438.    Otherwise your RA Regts will have to accept a lower spec. vehicle.

Exactly, so in a wider context, I have to decide if my M113 is replacing just the FV432 or both that and the Spartan... hmmmm.......

Another layout's occured to me: FSV hull with modded top plate, commander/gunner's cupola behind the driver and two retractable launch boxes next to it, with reloading from behind (3rd crewman). That way the guidance wires just drop down over the engine deck/front plate without getting tangled in the cupola or any other fittings.

That's a wierd thing BTW: both FV438 and Striker had the launchers at the back, yet the FV438 had an elaborate forest of bars and poles to catch and control the missile guidance wires, while the Striker had zip. You see pictures of Strikers with wires just draped over the cupola and trainig down the front plate....

Royal Artillery were always a fastidious bunch.  

I suspect it was also that they were designed at different times.  The FV438 when they were afraid the launch wires would cause problems.

I've had a thought though, isn't Swingfire more of a 1970s weapon?  Surely, if it's 1960s, they'd be using Vigilant?[/quote]

Well yes and no: Swingfire production started in 1966, but FV438 didn't come in until the 1970s, so yes, I'm pushing the timeline a bit...

Nothing wrong with GPMGs or even a .30cal.  The .50cal just has more penetration, even if a lower ROF.  The Saracen/Ferret turret is adequate.  I wasn't aware we were necessarily talking about a set time period, so obviously you have work with what you can.

Sorry if I didn't make it clear. I'm seeing these as early-mid 1960s, just after they've been taken into service, so very new, very clean and no experience-driven mods yet. Partly it's 'cos I don't want to get bogged down in making a ton of detail cr4p to put on each one and partly 'cos it's different: almost everybody seems to fall over themselves to make modded-to-buggery Israeli Zeldas or 'Nam ACAVs with sandbags all over the floor and the crew sitting on the roof.

Well, they did that for a reason - fear of mines.  M113s in Vietnam were rather easily penetrated by mines exploding under the floor or even worse, under the left sponson where the drive sat.  They introduced applique armour under the floor and under the sponsons.  I agree, you rarely see plain vanilla vehicles.  Just not "sexy" enough.

I dare say that once British M113 got to Vietnam or somewhere like that, the UOR (Urgent Operational Requirement) system would have been used and abused in the customary way to get them all kinds of mods.

Well, its a bit of a stretch claiming you can fit 11 in the back.  11 skinny, anorexic Sheilas perhaps but not 11 big, beefy diggers and all their gear.  10 was the maximum generally and even then it was pretty cramped.   Knock it down to 9 and you might start getting a bit of legroom.  

Yep - these are the "standard" reference book ratings which always need to be taken with a pinch of salt. Officially, the M113 carries five on each bench seat and one on a backwards-facing "jump seat" in the middle of the aisle behind the commnader's station. Like you say, there's a world of difference between "passengers" and "fully equipped troops".

Having travelled in the back on a couple of occasions, its not fun.  Admittedly those were "familiarisation"/joyrides, it was quite cramped and claustrophobic and uncomfortable.  Wearing webbing, carrying a rifle, the inside stuffed with packs and other gear, it got quite cramped.  The Light Horse regiments, with only two or four troopers in the back (and even better just with the crew) used to live like Gypsy Kings compared to what normal Diggers had to endure.  I've seen wall-to-wall carpets, hammocks, "Jack" ration/Bin-Pack boxes, camp-chairs, all sorts of crap inside M113s on exercise.  Come inspection, it all disappears but once thats done, it all comes back out again.  [/quote]

Sounds like Tank Girl's tank   Although externally, the early version was clearly a scaled-up Scorpion and the later one based on the movie's Stuart, I've often wondered if the real inspiration was an Aussie MRV or a british FV432+RARDEN, since it always has a hatch in the back and TARDIS-like living accomodation....

I'm tending towards a simple Saracen-style layout: MG turret on the standard commander's hatch, and a bolted-in plate in the cargo hatch position with a circular hatch (spare "standard" driver's hatch from an FSV) and a 270 deg skate rail for the section GPMG or Carl Gustav. They can learn by experience later that they'd have been better off just having the standard hatch.....

No reason why you can't have a hatch, within a hatch, on the roof.  A cupola insert in the roof hatch, with an MG mount that collapses when you want the bigger hatch to open.  Alternatively, have an MG mount, either side of the standard hatch like on the ACAV version.   Personally, I've always thought it would have been better to have two large hatches, inserted into the one big hatch.  The two hatches would have their hinge in the centre, so you could open them up and they'd offer a modicum of OHP if you were firing out, while you'd still have the utility of the one bigger hatch for loading/unloading.
[/quote]

Have you seen the setup on the Swedish Pbv.302? Pics in a minute.

[rickshaw]

Yes, I was aware of the Pbv.302, although I'm not sure if it has a bigger hatch, as well as the two smaller hatch.

And no, I wasn't aware of the Swingfire's party trick.  Impressive.  I wonder if it reduces range though?

[Weaver]

As far as I know, the Pbv.302 has just the two hatches with the longitudinal bi-fold hinges and a fixed centre bar. I have seen pics (IIRC) of scrapped ones where there's a huge rectangular hole in the roof with no centre bar, so maybe the whole frame for the two hatches was a separate component? I don't think removing it was an option in the field though.

The reason why the British SACLOS missiles, Vigilant and Swingfire, didn't sell more widely and arn't, in consequence, very well known, is that they were VERY expensive. Doing this research I found a story by an ex-FV438 crewman who said they used to call the missiles "GTi"s because that's what they cost the same as: a VW Golf GTi....

However, that cost came about because they were good. They had sophisticated autopilots, auto-gathering and "velocity control" guidance logic which made them much easier to control than simpler, cheaper missiles like SS.11 and Sagger. That, plus Swingfire's thrust-vectoring, meant that they had a very short minimum effective range because they came uder control more quickly and in the case of Swingfire, it didn't need to get up to a speed where it's control surfaces worked. Swingfire's minimum range is quoted as 150m whereas SS.11s is 500m.

The TVC probably does reduce the range a little, but it's got 4000m to play with....

[deathjester]

Just spoted this seller on eBay - lots of goodies, including decent resin turrets, and BRDM-1 kits!

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1-72nd-75mm-Sherman-Late-High-Bustle-Turret-with-Applique-Wee-Friends-WVC72009-/310646131367?pt=UK_ToysGames_ModelKits_ModelKits_JN&hash=item4853f3caa7#ht_1338wt_722

[Weaver]

Just spoted this seller on eBay - lots of goodies, including decent resin turrets, and BRDM-1 kits!

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1-72nd-75mm-Sherman-Late-High-Bustle-Turret-with-Applique-Wee-Friends-WVC72009-/310646131367?pt=UK_ToysGames_ModelKits_ModelKits_JN&hash=item4853f3caa7#ht_1338wt_722

Yeah, that's Wee Freinds - goes to a lot of the model shows. He does some good stuff.

Got to wonder what this one's all about though:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1-72nd-Bath-Time-Girl-girl-bath-rubber-duck-Wee-Friends-WFM72027-/261131272197?pt=UK_ToysGames_ModelKits_ModelKits_JN&hash=item3ccca30005

[deathjester]

Heheheh - thought about getting that...didn't think I'd get away with it!!

[Weaver]

Okay, modelling update:

Scorpion and Scimitar turreted jobs in paint, but might need some tweaking yet.

Section vehicle still in thought.

Swingfire vehicle : decisions have been made and plastic cut....

I'm going for an FV438-style vehicle. It'll be based on an FSV hull with the top plate replaced: there's no point using an ACAV hull because I'm moving the commander's position and the standard roof hatch is too small and too far forward for what I want. The commander's cupola will be behind the driver on the left. Behind that will be a full-width superstructure that's best described in two halves:

The left hand half will have the Swingfire gunner and the periscope sight seen on the FV438. It's back end will be level with the FSV's top panel, i.e. a bit forward of the extreme rear of the vehicle.

The right hand half will have two independently elevating Swingfire launchers in it's back face, the back end of the launchers protuding past the FSV's top panel and being level with the back of the vehicle. On the FV438, these boxes have a peculiar "hump" in them not seen on any other Swingfire vehicle. It took me ages to figure out what this was but I finally sussed it. Because the FV438 "turret" had to fit on the exisiting circular roof hatch, there wasn't room to elevate a reload missile tube a "flat" position and slide it straight back into the launcher. Instead, it had to be pushed up at 45 deg then rotated once more than half it's length was inside the launcher, hence the "hump" to allow the end of the tube to temporarily go beyond the height of the launcher proper.

I don't need to do this on mine, because I'm replacing the whole roof, not working through an existing hatch. However, if I make the "penthouse" long enough to raise a reload in the flat position then it's too long and forces me to put the commander alongside the gunner and risks guidance wires getting tangled in his cupola (something the RA seemed to have been concerned about, judging by the number of wire-control rails and devices on the FV438). My solution is to have the launcher in the reload position drop just below the horizontal, so that it's muzzle is just below the original roof line and it can be reloaded by a semi-automatic system at about 20 deg that sits alongside the commander.

Pics later.