Just in case you/anyone needs a bit of inspiration:
If I get a chance I’ll check at latrun and see what they say in the archives.
This is gonna take awhile. So no holding your breath…
2 Likes
I’ve got no dog in the hunt. I already built one many years ago as a Soviet vehicle. But I tend to agree with your statement. Whether we eventually find out if it was used by Egypt or not, these stories take on a life of their own after decades of being repeated. Often, the initial statement is made by the “expert,” and even if it’s refuted years later, folks will Google it - and find the original false statement to back up their claim. I offer two examples I can readily think of, although there are many more:
-
The Tamiya M48 needs a shim underneath it to make it the correct height.
I disproved this with my own research by measuring turrets from many makers (if I remember correctly Monogram’s old turret was almost exactly right) and actual M48 turrets, the results of which I posted in this forum. Verdict? The Tamiya turret was slighty too high! Why did it need a shim? -
Speaking of that Monogram M48 - it and their half track are reputed to be 1/32 scale.
False, in fact, I have taken leftover side plates from Dragon/DML half tracks and used them to replace the side plates on the old Monogram kits. Similarly, Tamiya M48 road wheels are perfect replacements for the horrid Monogram ones. And the engine deck fron the old Monogram M48 (previously unavailable in any other kit) fit the Tamiya kit perfectly.
So I no longer take it at face value when I read about what someone thought 20 or 30 years ago. Another very respected talking head used to talk about how off the Tamiya Centurion was - so much so that the proportions were “ruined” - and I’ve done side by side comarisons to show it was not.
There are even bogus statements made by a talking head here from time to time, but I digress.
Needless to say, if you’ve ever posted an image of a 3D model pulled from the interweb and offered it as evidence of whatever it was you were trying to say, believing it was a photo of a real vehicle - well, your research skills may be off a tad…
Yes. I believe I built mine under the Eastern Express moniker. Knowing the incestuous relationship of eastern bloc companies, I’m sure it came from one of the ones you mentioned.
1 Like
Yes I’ve seen that video- pretty cool!
Thank you Robert.
1 Like
That stand up landing will get you a counseling statement in some units…
1 Like
Being the reason for a safety brief is not a good thing…
I would know that better than most 
.
2 Likes
Why am I not surprised 
Yup - it’s quite alarming how these things take on a volition all of their own. Regarding the BTR-50 for instance: just about every reference book I have trots out the same old line of being able to carry 20 x troops. A glance at the open topped version on the Soviet parades, making its debut in 1959, clearly shows it maxing out with 12; no way would 20 troops ever get in, but time and time again we see"Crew: 2 + 20".
Coincidentally regarding the Monogram M48: that was one of the first kits I ever tackled, having somewhere along the way learned that it was in fact, 1:35; I had great fun turning it into a Bundeswehr version, though I did use Tamiya tracks.
Back to the ASU. I note the Wiki entry (no great validity I grant you but we have to start somewhere) claims some seven users in addition to the Soviets; I mean seven - and no pics anywhere? C’mon.
2 Likes
Yes Brian I said the same thing after I read it.
Sorry Brian , here is the full quote I was referring to
to[quote=“BootsDMS, post:30, topic:38092”]
Back to the ASU. I note the Wiki entry (no great validity I grant you but we have to start somewhere) claims some seven users in addition to the Soviets; I mean seven - and no pics anywhere? C’mon.
[/quote]
1 Like
Yeah I guess no vodka ration for a week……
1 Like
I think I’m up to eleven different things wrong on Wiki articles - I’ve lost count. Once I thought to send in a correction, but it was too much asspain so I let it go. But in the case of the Flasher I believe I can track the origin of the wrong photo - the Squadron book on US Submarines - it also shows that photo as being of the Flasher. And that book came out long before Wiki. In fact several historical sites (that should know better use the same photo.
That tells me a lot of “researchers” simply parrot what they’ve been fed, and when they contirbute to their own Wiki article do little to verify anything.
It amuses me to see a certain reviewer on this site pull text verbatim from a Wiki article when doing the preamble in the review about the history of a vehicle. No attributes, just spouting it off as if it were his own knowledge. Yes, we have to start somewhere, but more and more I’m finding Wiki ain’t the place.
1 Like
Maybe it was “facts” “leaked” by a spy (planted Soviet desinformant) to confuse the West about how many soldiers were carried (Jane’s Armour & Artillery 1987 - 88 also says 2+20)
It’s mad isn’t it? So for decades, we’ve been told that the BTR-50 can field 20 troops per vehicle, when it clearly can’t!
1 Like
Clearly those fuel tanks could each comfortably seat three men each. 
2 Likes
It can carry 20 in addition to the crew, just not under armor. Here is the passage from the 1963 technical manual for the BTR-50P and BTR-50PK:
These vehicle were intended to ferry troops across water courses as well as into battle; the stated number includes those riding on the deck as well as on the inside.
KL
1 Like
If IDF didnt capture one, it doesnt exist 
They need to round up their collection with a Tu-22, or better yet tow away the ruzzian pride Kuznetsov next time it breaks down off the syrian coast.
… and there was precious little armour over the heads of those 12 riding inside the troop compartment.
The driver and commander had some top cover but their backs were exposed to the open troop compartment.
The only advantage for those “inside” was the protection from the sides if they kept their heads and shoulders down