Stuart Tank Comparison Images (1 Viewer)

[ivanmoe]

With the release of KC's new "Honey" tank, there are now two M3 Stuart tanks for TS-collectors to choose from. The older issue, that from Figarti, is 1/32, while the newer set is in 1/30 scale. First some side-by-side comparisons below:

View attachment 181635
View attachment 181636
View attachment 181637
View attachment 181638
View attachment 181639

Before continuing, I need to explain a few things. The smaller Figarti part, above, does not come with a figure. The TC-figure in the cupola above can be purchased separately as part of a four figure set. I'm personally glad for the option, but it's worth mentioning that the addition essentially doubles the price of ownership. As to the whip-antennas and pennants show above, both are my creation. The included Figarti antenna was sort of mutilated when I received the set and is somewhat infamous for inflicting wounds on unsuspecting collectors. The KC antenna looks less lethal, but I opted to display my own with an eye toward preserving the original.

Continued below:

 

[ivanmoe]

Below are detail shots of both models. I've tried to focus on like areas of both sets. First, pics of the bow-area of the Figarti and KC Stuart:

View attachment 181645
View attachment 181646


Next, the rear decks:

View attachment 181647
View attachment 181648


I don't know if this occurs to anyone else, but I'm struck at how similar the two sets of pics are in their particulars. Either both manufacturer did their homework on these two replicas, are they're both wrong in many regards!

More detail pics below:

 

[uksubs]

Below are detail shots of both models. I've tried to focus on like areas of both sets. First, pics of the bow-area of the Figarti and KC Stuart:


View attachment 181640

View attachment 181641

Next, the rear decks:

View attachment 181642

View attachment 181643

I don't know if this occurs to anyone else, but I'm struck at how similar the two sets of pics are in their particulars. Either both manufacturer did their homework on these two replicas, are they're both wrong in many regards!

More detail pics below:

There a problem with the photos !?

 

[ivanmoe]

There a problem with the photos !?

There was; fixed it I hope.

 

[ivanmoe]

Comparison photos of the models'cupola and MG:

View attachment 181649
View attachment 181650

Finally, some pics of the running gear on both models:

View attachment 181651
View attachment 181652

BTW, in each of the sequences above, the Figarti pic was first.

Below, closing pics and a summary:

 

[ivanmoe]

Standalone Figarti Honey:

View attachment 181653

And that from KC:

View attachment 181654

In closing, I wanted to mention something of a coincidence surrounding these two models. Both are cited as being T.28035. One is marked as being from B Squadron, 8th Hussars. The other is marked up as being from B Squadron, 3/RTR. I don't know which is right, although I suppose that it's possible that the vehicle changed hands in late 1941 or 1942. Both regiments were assigned to 4th Armoured Bde during the Crusader offensive. They are both nice models, and I'm delighted to have them both on display.

-Moe

 

[Go for Broke]

I haven't bought anything in awhile, as I'm pretty much priced out of the hobby. I saw your KC tank and thought it was a beautiful model and checked on the price hoping for $149 to $169. Wow $199. I'll have to pass. I'm still thinking of getting the older German halftrack or maybe a Japanese Zero (upcoming green version).

 

[jazzeum]

This is the first tank I've purchased in a very long time and I'm quite pleased with it.

 

[lancer]

I intend to add this little beauty even though I don't do Nord Afrika. I would also like to see a USMC version from Guadalcanal. It is my favorite Allied tank. -- Al

 

[Phantom Warrior]

mine arrived today. Aside from a few minor quibbles, it seems very accurate historically right down to the rivets and has the detail and features of exactly that version of the M3 in the early part of the desert war.

Terry

 

[Terp152]

Agree Moe, both a great models. I recently added the KC tank. Great addition to the collection. Chris

 

[WesternOutlaw]

Great comparison; as a collector of K&C's 8th Army & DAK, I've got the Honey on my wish list. I appreciate seeing your more detailed pictures. Both pieces actually look very nice. I love your custom K&C flag; great idea in fact. Neat topic and I'm glad to have stumbled upon it.

 

[ivanmoe]

I love your custom K&C flag; great idea in fact. Neat topic and I'm glad to have stumbled upon it.

Hi WO,

Here's the graphic for the pennants:

View attachment 181849
The swallowtail pennant on the right denotes the vehicle as belonging to the squadron commander. The two triangular pennants were pretty much standard for Stuarts and were normally configured in the "two high" position on the antenna. I matched the pennants to the hollow yellow-square on the KC model's turret.

The color codes were as follows:

Red - Senior Regiment
Yellow - Middle Regiment
Blue - Junior Regiment

Seniority was based on the regiment's order of precedence in the army as a whole, but it corresponded in general to the cavalry regiment's number, with all cavalry regiments outranking all battalions of the Royal Tank Regiment, and all RTR battalions outranking all Yeomanry battalions.

The symbol codes were as follows:

Diamond - Regiment HQ
Triangle - A Squadron
Square - B Squadron
Circle - C Squadron

The symbols that I reference above were hollow.

My comments on these matters are based entirely on a book by Frank Chadwick that's titled Benghazi Handicap. In his words, "we will begin with the standard caveat that there was considerable variation between units, but the following is a fairly universal system settled into by late in the period covered here." Thank you Frank.

-Moe

 

[WesternOutlaw]

Thanks Moe - appreciate the graphic and info.

 

[Obee]

I've got this one, (Scale 1:1) just down the road from me at the Army Museum of Western Australia

http://www.armymuseumwa.com.au/the-museum/the-collection/guns-and-vehicles/

If anyone needs some details photographed, let me know, I can be back in 30 mins

John

 

[Phantom Warrior]

I've got this one, (Scale 1:1) just down the road from me at the Army Museum of Western Australia

http://www.armymuseumwa.com.au/the-museum/the-collection/guns-and-vehicles/

If anyone needs some details photographed, let me know, I can be back in 30 mins

John

You had to paint it grey. They never came in grey. Did Wayne bring over a case of beer and put you up to this. {eek3}^&grin

Terry

 

[ivanmoe]

I'm going to post a link below to an analysis of a close-relative of T.28035, a stablemate known as Bellman, T.28037:

http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/bellmanwm_1.htm

The article captured my attention in that it's easy to see how the graphics and commentary could have shaped development of the KC M3 Stuart tank (aka Honey). The author is a gentlemen named William Marshall, and his approach to the subject vehicle impresses as being both sober and scholarly.

For those who don't wish to digest the full content of the article, here are some of the images that may have caught KC's eye:

-Moe

 

[Obee]

You had to paint it grey. They never came in grey. Did Wayne bring over a case of beer and put you up to this. {eek3}^&grin

Terry

No, its not grey, just faded olive drab .... to much stetting outside in the Aussie sun

John