Emhar Mark IV - accuracy

Hosted by Francois Gousse this discussion group is dedicated to AFV's of the First World War from all countries as well as tank development during the 1920s and 1930s.

Emhar Mark IV - accuracy

David Maynard
David Maynard

April 30th, 2004, 11:35 am #1

I've wondered about the accuracy of the Emhar Mark IV (both scales), in particular the hull between the track frames, which seems too wide.

What are the problems?

Which issues of Tankette mention the problem?, as I have just joined MAFVA and am starting to collect back-issues.
Quote
Share

Kerry Brunner
Kerry Brunner

May 1st, 2004, 2:35 am #2

While I haven't matched it up with any plans, some stuff is pretty glaring ... ie, the male sponsons being inaccurate. Some of the panel dimensions are off as well. Dick Harley wasn't a fan of the kit at all. ~ but, it's the only game in town.
Quote
Share

Peter Kempf
Peter Kempf

May 1st, 2004, 8:36 am #3

I've wondered about the accuracy of the Emhar Mark IV (both scales), in particular the hull between the track frames, which seems too wide.

What are the problems?

Which issues of Tankette mention the problem?, as I have just joined MAFVA and am starting to collect back-issues.
Check out the Landships site (http://www.landships.freeservers.com)! There, in the reviews section, you can find an article on the EMHAR 1/72 Mk IV. The biggest error, and the by far most difficult one (the others are pretty easy to fix) is, as mentioned, the male sponsons, which are wrong in several ways. But for us 1/72-ers there exists a aftermarket resin sponson made by MATADOR, that takes care of this. (This set is also reviewed on Landships.)

Hope this helps
/Peter K

Quote
Share

Mike Cooper
Mike Cooper

May 4th, 2004, 8:57 am #4

Hi folks.

I read Dick Harley's scathing review, so I tried the measurements out against drawings for the Mk IV and the works drawings of teh Mk V.

Sorry to say - from the modellers point of view - that Dick Harley was spot on. The main issue is not teh sponsons - they're out - but the fact that the track frames and the hull dimensions are all badly out changing the shape of teh tank completely.

In 1/35th, unless you want to convert from the Mk V that came out a couple of years agao, it is the only game in town, but to my eye there is something about it that doesn't look like a Mk IV.

In 1/76th your best bet by far is to take the Airfix Mk II, corrcet it, and add the Matador bits.

I have a note I did for the IPMS with hull measurements for kits etc which I'll dig out.

Mike
Quote
Share

Peter Kempf
Peter Kempf

May 5th, 2004, 7:56 am #5

Mike!

Please write something about your findings on these dimensional errors, and I will ASAP post it on "Landships"!

Seems like we perhaps are in need of a whole new 1/72 Mk IV... Would be a nice project for some Resin Manufacturer out there.

All the best
/Peter K
Quote
Share

Mike Cooper
Mike Cooper

May 5th, 2004, 8:08 am #6

Peter

How could I refuse - I'll get the data into a word file and off this weekend (especially if it rains).

Please drop my home e-mail a reminder of the e-mail to send it to.

Lets get this in proportion: if you want something in 1/72 that looks rhomboid shaped and will pass, fair enough, but once you get a feel for what a rhomboid looks like, the Emhar won't cut it.

Critcal relationships in dimension between the hull components -for example the plates of the hull roof - are sufficiently out so as to force the shape out. Shape bothers me more than dimension, and in this case an error in the one has forced the other out.

Mike
(Reading UK, where showers are IN!!!)
Quote
Share

Mike Cooper
Mike Cooper

May 6th, 2004, 5:01 pm #7

Mike!

Please write something about your findings on these dimensional errors, and I will ASAP post it on "Landships"!

Seems like we perhaps are in need of a whole new 1/72 Mk IV... Would be a nice project for some Resin Manufacturer out there.

All the best
/Peter K
Please forgive teh grotty typing - but I've sent this to Peter for his input.

Mike

In the table below

AB = Front cab base at hull top
BC = Rear of cab to rear of hatch
BC1= Rear of cab to front of hatch
CD = hatch base
DE = plate aft of hatch
EF = rearmost hull roof plate.

All dimensions are in mm, and are as close as can be measured by eye or reasonably calculated.



Actual 35th Emhar 35th 76th 72nd
AB 26.5 31 12 12.6
BC 74 70 34 36
BC1 50 45 23 24
CD 22 18 10 10.5
DE 22 22 10 10.5
EF 27 27 12.5 13
Hull between track frames (width) 1575 45 20.7 21.9
Cab (width 1296 37 17 18
Track 520.7 14.9 6.8 8.8
Quote
Share

Joined: May 24th, 2003, 3:07 pm

May 7th, 2004, 5:05 am #8

>>Hull between track frames (width) 1575 45 20.7 21.9
>>Cab (width 1296 37 17 18
>>Track 520.7 14.9 6.8 8.8

Mike,

In the numbers above, would the "1575", "1296", and "520.7" be the 1:1 scale dimensions as opposed to the 1/35th of the full dimensions as appear in the other rows?

Thanks

Paul
Quote
Like
Share

Mike Cooper
Mike Cooper

May 7th, 2004, 9:26 am #9

Sorry I had a nasty feeling my formatting wouldn't work!

Yes they're actuals based

a. On measuring a Mk IV
b. On contemporary works drawings for IV and V

Sorry my formatting was up the creek - Peter Kempf has the file and I hope it will sort out.

Mike
Quote
Share