Posted by mal webber on 02/05/2019 23:14:11:
… all was looking good to me, until I looked at a couple of pictures where I noticed the hubs look a different size, maybe it's because the one in the picture is a later model made in the U.S and the one in the drawing is an early model made in the U.K ,what do you think go with the one i've made or back to the drawing board and have another go with different sizes to match the stub axle in the picture.
…
This is a difficult question: are you modelling an existing gun, working from a drawing, or doing your best with a mix based on detective work, books, web-photos etc? However you approach the model there are bound to be inconsistencies.
'British Artillery Weapons 1914-1918' (Hogg & Thurston) gives a good overview of the history of the gun. Marks 1 to 4, plus 'Howitzer B' were made by cutting down and boring out obsolete 6" naval guns and then mounting them on one of 5 different carriages. These were a rush job based on what was available, and there were huge differences.
The Mark 6 was a purpose-built design, delivered from Requirement in about 6 months by Vickers, but: 'Although a good enough weapon it was soon to be replaced by even better ones'. In practice, it's likely that the gun and carriage started to change almost immediately it was used in action because that's when things bend, break or otherwise misbehave.
The Mark 7 is similar but has a longer barrel and no guide ring. There are a shower of Mk7 variants, but most of these are internal; modified chamber and rifling etc. However the Mk7++ was adjusted slightly to strengthen the barrel and improve the gun's balance. Mounted on a modified carriage this became a Mk7A, finally the most up-to-date guns and carriages manufactured as a unit became the Mk8.
Hogg & Thurston don't say were the guns were made, but Wikipedia steps in. Most of them were made in the UK by all four major armament companies, and also by Midvale in the US. When the US entered the war, they adopted the American version of the Mark 6 and improved it to the Mark 8½. Wikipedia also quotes form the US Manual : 'Due to the combination of British and American manufacture, there are several types of breech mechanism in service…'
On top of this confusion it's likely that a museum gun isn't contemporary because the guns stayed in service long after WW1 and might have been updated, modified or repaired later.
My feeling is that none of the photographs, drawings or real guns are completely trustworthy or authoritative. If you have a complete set of original Mk6 drawings, you can say 'this is a model of the Vickers design', but it would be unwise to claim that the model was a completely accurate representation of a real gun later in the war. Likewise, in copying the actual Mk6 parked outside the War Museum in Helsinki, you would have to remember that this example was US made, bought from the US in 1939 and used in Russia until 1944 and then kept in reserve until the 1960's. It isn't a completely trustworthy representation of a real gun in 1918 either.
I suggest the best thing a modeller can do in the midst of such real-world chaos is avoid impossible combinations, like an American Breech on a British Gun, and to document what he's done and why. If a Rivet Counter criticises the model, you can always quote facts at him…
To answer the question: I'd leave the axle alone!
Super work.
Dave