login   |    register
Armor/AFV: Allied - WWII
Armor and ground forces of the Allied forces during World War II.
Hosted by Darren Baker
Studebaker US6 U5 tanker
RobinNilsson
Staff MemberTOS Moderator
KITMAKER NETWORK
Visit this Community
Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: November 29, 2006
KitMaker: 5,636 posts
Armorama: 4,761 posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 - 10:15 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Just to throw a little more info into this discussion— I believe the Italeri deuce kit is actually an old (but still nice) Peerless Max mold, and not originally one of their own. But I think the more recent Studebaker mold from ICM is all new molds. But doesn’t someone else make a Studebaker deuce?
VR, Russ



There used to be some resin kits by CMK / Robin
panamadan
Visit this Community
Minnesota, United States
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 1,297 posts
Armorama: 1,234 posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 - 11:17 AM UTC
ICM makes a Studebaker.
Dan
PzAufkl
Visit this Community
Germany
Joined: October 24, 2009
KitMaker: 68 posts
Armorama: 67 posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 - 08:19 PM UTC
No, Russ,
Italeri's CCKW has absolutely nothing to do with the ancient Peerless/MAX kit. That had a one-piece chassis frame with "banjo" type axles, a movable tail gate and vinyl tires. Apart from that, it was a little too wide in the cab/hood area. Not a bad kit, but something you wouldn't want to buy nowadays.
Peter
jon_a_its
Visit this Community
England - East Midlands, United Kingdom
Joined: April 29, 2004
KitMaker: 1,277 posts
Armorama: 1,086 posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 - 10:03 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

Just to throw a little more info into this discussion— I believe the Italeri deuce kit is actually an old (but still nice) Peerless Max mold, and not originally one of their own. But I think the more recent Studebaker mold from ICM is all new molds. But doesn’t someone else make a Studebaker deuce?
VR, Russ



There used to be some resin kits by CMK / Robin



I believe the 3 Italeri CCKW variations were developed in house, as the multi-part chassis is/was an order of magnitude better than the Max/Peerless/etc one-piece ladder frame of that vintage, as all of the other Peerless/Max/etc., models Bedford QL & the WC's, had a simple ladder frame & not a multi-part chassis.

I still have an old German Airmodel Vac-form Studebaker cab kit, if a single sheet of styrene can still be called a kit...
RobinNilsson
Staff MemberTOS Moderator
KITMAKER NETWORK
Visit this Community
Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: November 29, 2006
KitMaker: 5,636 posts
Armorama: 4,761 posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 - 10:12 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text


Quoted Text

Just to throw a little more info into this discussion— I believe the Italeri deuce kit is actually an old (but still nice) Peerless Max mold, and not originally one of their own. But I think the more recent Studebaker mold from ICM is all new molds. But doesn’t someone else make a Studebaker deuce?
VR, Russ



There used to be some resin kits by CMK / Robin



I believe the 3 Italeri CCKW variations were developed in house, as the multi-part chassis is/was an order of magnitude better than the Max/Peerless/etc one-piece ladder frame of that vintage, as all of the other Peerless/Max/etc., models Bedford QL & the WC's, had a simple ladder frame & not a multi-part chassis.

I still have an old German Airmodel Vac-form Studebaker cab kit, if a single sheet of styrene can still be called a kit...



I have a resin Studebaker cab conversion made by SMA, Scale Model Accessories,a resin caster in England. I have seen better resin castings ...
PzAufkl
Visit this Community
Germany
Joined: October 24, 2009
KitMaker: 68 posts
Armorama: 67 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 24, 2019 - 12:35 AM UTC
The rumor of the Tomy/Peerless/MAX kit's paternity to the Italeri kits is kept alive by Scalemates who are stubbornly sticking to the incorrect pedigree they show with the Italian kits.
I can only repeat that there is no relationship whatever between them.
Peter
165thspc
#0
Visit this Community
Kentucky, United States
Joined: April 13, 2011
KitMaker: 9,116 posts
Armorama: 8,364 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 24, 2019 - 12:40 AM UTC

Quoted Text

The rumor of the Tomy/Peerless/MAX kit's paternity to the Italeri kits is kept alive by Scalemates who are stubbornly sticking to the incorrect pedigree they show with the Italian kits.
I can only repeat that there is no relationship whatever between them.
Peter



I agree completely.

I originally held the same belief but I have compared the sprues between the Peerless Max and Italeri Deuce trucks - definitely different animals - similar but different.
165thspc
#0
Visit this Community
Kentucky, United States
Joined: April 13, 2011
KitMaker: 9,116 posts
Armorama: 8,364 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 24, 2019 - 01:08 AM UTC
F.Y.I. Another note on doing the various Italeri vs Tamiya conversions.:

When building a open frame model (where the frame might be more visible as on a semi-tractor) I suggest using the multi-part Italeri frame over the one piece Tamiya "stick" frame.

The Italeri frame builds up out of properly formed "C" channels rather than looking like something made out of 4"x8" sticks of wood like the Tamiya offering provides.

Really the Italeri model is more accurate in many ways and ahead of its' time!


ericadeane
Visit this Community
Michigan, United States
Joined: October 28, 2002
KitMaker: 3,994 posts
Armorama: 3,923 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 24, 2019 - 07:15 AM UTC
I had the CMK fuel Truck conversion kit. But I sold it because the fuel tanks were inaccurate. CMK showed both ends to be bulging out when in reality, one end was concave. If you want to make a US5 fuel truck, I would recommend getting the hobby boss GMC tanker and using those parts combined with the ICM kit.
165thspc
#0
Visit this Community
Kentucky, United States
Joined: April 13, 2011
KitMaker: 9,116 posts
Armorama: 8,364 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 24, 2019 - 12:22 PM UTC
That was my plan Roy, to get the HB fuel truck loadbox and transfer it either to the ICM Studebaker or the Tamiya or Italeri Deuces.

Also am going to try and order 3-4 sets of those fuel truck decals from CMK. I have a converted Air Corps Deuce fuel truck, two 425 gal. single axle fuel trailers and a 900 gal.semi=trailer all under construction with no way to add marking.

To anyone's knowledge does any other model manufacture offer the fuel truck / fuel trailer markings?
DocEvan
Visit this Community
California, United States
Joined: August 09, 2014
KitMaker: 175 posts
Armorama: 175 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 24, 2019 - 01:24 PM UTC
Mike, how did you do the rear suspension of the GMC 4x4? Or is that a 4x2? If so, what did you use for the front axle??
DocEvan
Visit this Community
California, United States
Joined: August 09, 2014
KitMaker: 175 posts
Armorama: 175 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 24, 2019 - 01:26 PM UTC
And what did you use for this rear suspension????


Quoted Text



When building a open frame model (where the frame might be more visible as on a semi-tractor) I suggest using the multi-part Italeri frame over the one piece Tamiya "stick" frame.

The Italeri frame builds up out of properly formed "C" channels rather than looking like something made out of 4"x8" sticks of wood like the Tamiya offering provides.

Really the Italeri model is more accurate in many ways and ahead of its' time!



165thspc
#0
Visit this Community
Kentucky, United States
Joined: April 13, 2011
KitMaker: 9,116 posts
Armorama: 8,364 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 24, 2019 - 03:28 PM UTC
I used the third axle of the Deuce (Differential in the center) for the rear axle of both the 4x4 Chevy semi-tractor and the ton and a half 4x4 cargo truck shown earlier.

It should be noted that while the use of these split differentials for the Chevy trucks is not totally incorrect it was far more common to have seen the round banjo style differentials on these smaller Chevy trucks. (I believe it was simply that Timken supplied the GM division and Bendix supplied the Chevy truck division.) One after market manufacture does offer substitute round banjo axles for both the Deuce and the DUKW that would work in these applications.

I don't recall exactly where I found the rear leaf springs and booster springs for the semi-tractor but I believe they came from a scraped Tamiya Chevy Long Range Desert Truck I had laying around.

As an aside, I certainly wish Tamiya would choose to take that Desert Truck and create the wartime enclosed cab cargo truck but that's a story for another time.

namengr
Visit this Community
Illinois, United States
Joined: September 01, 2014
KitMaker: 283 posts
Armorama: 279 posts
Posted: Friday, October 25, 2019 - 12:58 AM UTC
I believe Gino mentions an after market set of fuel truck markings in his M49 Tanker build, but I don't think they have the gasoline decal. Wayne
HeavyArty
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,204 posts
Armorama: 13,377 posts
Posted: Friday, October 25, 2019 - 01:23 AM UTC
Wayne is correct. I found a German decal set from TL Modellbau that includes the "Flammable No Smoking..." markings in white, as well as black. No "Gasoline" markings though.

165thspc
#0
Visit this Community
Kentucky, United States
Joined: April 13, 2011
KitMaker: 9,116 posts
Armorama: 8,364 posts
Posted: Friday, October 25, 2019 - 03:16 AM UTC
At the risk of being picky that is not the correct type style for the US wartime fuel trucks and tanker trailers.

I know, I know . . . I'm a choosy begger!)
HeavyArty
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,204 posts
Armorama: 13,377 posts
Posted: Friday, October 25, 2019 - 03:45 AM UTC
Not correct for WWII fuelers and tankers. It is correct for Vietnam era to present though.
RobinNilsson
Staff MemberTOS Moderator
KITMAKER NETWORK
Visit this Community
Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: November 29, 2006
KitMaker: 5,636 posts
Armorama: 4,761 posts
Posted: Friday, October 25, 2019 - 04:07 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Not correct for WWII fuelers and tankers. It is correct for Vietnam era to present though.



plenty of wars to choose from so 'wartime' is a tricky definition
165thspc
#0
Visit this Community
Kentucky, United States
Joined: April 13, 2011
KitMaker: 9,116 posts
Armorama: 8,364 posts
Posted: Friday, October 25, 2019 - 04:34 AM UTC
Thought I said "WWII wartime". My bad!
barkingdigger
Staff MemberAssociate Editor
ARMORAMA
#013
Visit this Community
England - East Anglia, United Kingdom
Joined: June 20, 2008
KitMaker: 3,608 posts
Armorama: 3,075 posts
Posted: Friday, October 25, 2019 - 04:35 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

Not correct for WWII fuelers and tankers. It is correct for Vietnam era to present though.



plenty of wars to choose from so 'wartime' is a tricky definition



Sadly you're right - there's a never-ending supply of "wars to end all wars"...
PzAufkl
Visit this Community
Germany
Joined: October 24, 2009
KitMaker: 68 posts
Armorama: 67 posts
Posted: Saturday, October 26, 2019 - 08:38 AM UTC
May I try and bring this thread a little more back to its original topic, the Studer gasoline tanker?

Scrutinizing HB's parts, I found that their rendition of the spare wheel carrier is about as correct as their GMC cab: Of the lateral clamps, only one should be movable and thus be constructed as in the kit (same mistake as Italeri made with their water tanker). In addition, these clamps should be of equal width from top to bottom, not 'broad at the shoulder and narrow at the hip' as HB did them.

Studebaker, on the other hand, - as can be seen in the TM illustrations in Tankograd's book on the subject - , made the bottom plate wider, with an indentation for the tire, and with clamps that were basically flat and narrowed with rather sharp bends at their tops - again with only one of them folding, held in place with two support rods.

Basically no problem to copy these illustrations in plastic, if it weren't for CMK's kit of this vehicle which has a very different spare wheel carrier! If only there were a single photo straight from the side of a Studer tanker showing whether it had a CMK-type or a standard Studer spare wheel carrier - seems like after someone took that omni-present shot from the front left, nobody ever looked again.

HELP!, cries certified rivet counter
Peter
Frenchy
Visit this Community
Rhone, France
Joined: December 02, 2002
KitMaker: 12,387 posts
Armorama: 12,175 posts
Posted: Saturday, October 26, 2019 - 09:34 AM UTC
Could it be the same as the dump truck, or tractor truck one ?





EDIT : I guess this type must be shown in the Tankograd book...

H.P.
PzAufkl
Visit this Community
Germany
Joined: October 24, 2009
KitMaker: 68 posts
Armorama: 67 posts
Posted: Sunday, October 27, 2019 - 06:56 AM UTC
[quote]Could it be the same as the dump truck, or tractor truck one ?

Yes it definitely could, and I think it should. Trouble is that I don't know if maybe there was a CMK style rack that was used on the tanker only? Somewhere they must've got the idea, or what do all the experts think?
Peter
Frenchy
Visit this Community
Rhone, France
Joined: December 02, 2002
KitMaker: 12,387 posts
Armorama: 12,175 posts
Posted: Sunday, October 27, 2019 - 07:17 AM UTC
If you look closer at the ubiquitous picture, I guess you could notice the "bottle" shape of the carrier :



IMHO, I don't see why they would have changed the carrier shape on this version...

To be sure, there're only two solutions (apart from finding a picture) )





H.P.
165thspc
#0
Visit this Community
Kentucky, United States
Joined: April 13, 2011
KitMaker: 9,116 posts
Armorama: 8,364 posts
Posted: Sunday, October 27, 2019 - 08:10 AM UTC
The GM part - just for comparison.
(Rain running down the cab side - the barn roof leaks!)


Photo Mike Koenig - All Rights Reserved