Does anybody know if there is a manufacturer who produces 1/16 scale 37mm ammo for Allied ordnance, i.e. M5A1 Stuart?
I know FC Model Trend do an ammo rack + some shells (qty?) for the M8 Greyhound, also that there some included in Andy’s M8.
But I don’t want to buy the latter just for the shells.
I’m removing the required interior parts of the 1/16 M8 75mm HMC to put into the British M5A1 Stuart Mk VI. I want to complete the interior with ammo racks, that’s why I need 37mm shells.
I’ve tried to use a scale converter to see which 1/35 similar shaped shells would suit, but my mind can’t grasp the numbers involved…only got a C in CSE maths.
That’s great, thank you. I don’t have a printer nor know anybody with one. So I’ve contacted Battleground Models, to see if they post to the UK, especially with the current state of the tariffs debarcle.
Just hope somewhere in the UK the gauntlet will be picked up and produce similar items.
The crate - which is actually a box in the context of how ammunition was packaged - is complete fantasy for the shipping container used for 37mm ammunition.
I understand the situation, however. The information to make an accurate box is available, but the buyers and users of this dreck apparently don’t care if it’s the right size, right shape, right design, or even the right time-space continuum to use with an M3 37mm gun, they just want a box. Why should the guy who designed the set care then, either?
This cartridge would be 0.908 inches long in 1/16. Something 0.908 inches long in 1/35 represents a real life object that is 31.78 inches long.
A 37mm projectile in 1/16 would be the same diameter as a 81mm projectile in 1/35. The first thing to do would be to look for ammunition that is close to the shape shown here, and ignore those that don’t. From that group, look for cartridges that are around 31.78 inches long, and discard those that are far off. If you find anything that passes those two hurdles, see if that ammunition is available in 1/35.
I suspect you’ll have a hard time finding any ammunition that is suitable.
I look at the illustrations, and my CDO (it’s just like OCD, except the letters are in alphabetical order. AS THEY SHOULD BE.) pings on the mislabeling in the original illustrations, because the thin ogival cover on the nose of the projectiles make them APCBC (Armor Piercing, Capped, Ballistically Capped), not APC.
It’s odd what little knee-jerks your memory throws out.
That the definition does not draw the distinction does not mean that the distinction does not exist. Retaining the designation as APC after the ballistic cap became standard was an administrative shortcut to avoid the overhead in paperwork and logistics of adding a separate inventory item for the APCBC variant, since it was a straight-up upgrade of the uncapped round and would replace it in inventory as the uncapped rounds were expended. Not all of the streamlining and simplification of war production involved hardware.
You said it was mislabeled. You were wrong. It is not mislabeled. It is a US Army document and it is labeled correctly in accordance with the US Army nomenclature.
And D still stands for Disorder. I don’t think you are giving that the attention it deserves.
Ever had one of those moments at a family get together (apart from the oh schite - wish I wasn’t here), when somebody recalls an incident in their favour. Then others chime in saying you’re wrong and besides you weren’t there. Then the photos come out and in the end it boils down who is the favourite child (btw it is me).
I don’t care what colour tip the cap is, it wont be seen inside the model anyway, as they are loaded tip first and the loader will know where each type is. It’s not as if I’ll be making them real…..anybody know how to case harden an aluminium barrel?
Unless you are the mythical Walter Kowalski, the backward loader and put the rounds/shells/cartridges/APC/HESP/OCD/VHS/CDR etc in any order they preferred.
