I eagerly read Terry's PMMS review today, and immediately checked this forum.... I'm now a bit bummed ,since I just got my '42 STZ last week. I really anticipated a neat T-34 variant. Now it appears this hull will be a bear to assemble cleanly. The upper hull seems to be changed ,for the worse. Are we in a time warp to the 1970's now?? Not that I mind some extra fitting work , but this IS a newly tooled kit. Cyber Hobby should offer us a replacement upper hull for the price we paid for this kit.
Ouch!!

Steve, see my reply here:
https://armorama.kitmaker.net/forums/110423&page=1

They (DML) have made corrections to other kits after-the-fact, and may well do that here. The best thing to do is contact them, express your disappointment, and ask if you can send the kit back or exchange the hull for one from another early T-34 kit. Based on their previous record, I'd suggest that if enough people email them, they will act to correct the situation.

Cheers
Scott Fraser

Well put Scott. I see your point. I didn't mean to come off bitter and don't mind a bit of a challenge either. I'll forward my concerns to CH. If / when I build this one, at least I know what to watch out for.

I ordered three of them from my dealer and I contacted him the other day regarding these kits and canceled my order. he told me that he has gotten the same request from many others who also ordered this kit as well. He is upset in regards to what he will now do with these kits that no one now wants. Simple--I told him to send them back and demand a refund and on the shipping.
I am sending a letter to Dragon myself to express my outrage over this *&&k up they call a model kit.
I hope this is an end to the Cyberhobby gimmick all together. If Dragon was smart, they would retool this kit and do something (compensation) for the folks who bought this kit.
I know I wont buy another Dragon kit until I read reviews first. But honestly I thought for sure they would have got it right as all the other T-34's are really nice.
I feel for the people who are on the Cyber-Hobby membership--my advice--send your kit back and demand a refund and a refund on your shipping. And cancel your membership with them....maybe that will wake them up......

That's the true irony Mark. The previous DML T-34's were excellent model kits,we expected more of the same with this one.

having read the PMM site review, I stole another look at "what fell out of the box" and I'm not up to what it will take to make that upper hull work. sorry.

I've read this thread with interest and just checked out the PMMS review. Very disapointing from DML/cyberhobby. It makes you wonder if they actually build their kits before they ship them out.

tut tut dragon!

James

As I said in the Cyberhobby-Help post, my copy fit perfectly. Of course I didn't butcher the kit prior to assembly. As for the others, they are doing something wrong, unless Cyber by mistake put in another upper/lower hull. I can't complain about the kit. The other errors are no worse that what I've seen by other companies. Certainly not deserving all the rightous indignation I've been seeing. Chill out guys .
I stil think it is a nice kit.
Doug

Hi Doug,

Can you show us pics of how to do it and the end result?

Before posting my mis-adventures with the kit with removed fenders, I opened up my second kit and tried the same with fenders in place. Similar result. Then I posted the pictures of bad fit with no fenders.

Here's what I got with fenders in place:









I do not think the kit is useless and worthless. The wheels and tracks alone are worth the price as they are not made in plastic or resin by anyone else. The little bits that are needed for STZ model are also useful. The driver's hatch is very nice.

The hull is would be easier to build using a modified 1940/41 hull, in my opinion. The turret from CMD and Mig is also easier and faster. CyberHobby turret is good too and will work with a little effort. Gun housing is well done.

All I am saying is that the upper hull part is not well done. Rushed.

I think this kit is still very useful if you want to build an STZ model at this point. it is just not all you will need.

I am not returning my 2.

Dmitry

I will try to get some photos taken. But I'll tell you now that it looks nothing like what you have there. There are no gaps between the upper and lower hull. I did this without reading any of the fixes that folks have alluded to. Even the sponsons fit well, just a little putty work on a very tiny gap.
Doug

I would love to be wrong about this...
Dmitry

Really I would like to see pictures Doug .
Terry Ashley at PMMS says basically the same thing that Dmitry has said and shown photos of it .

It will be tommorow sometime in the evening as I have to bring a camera home from work. Then get my computer savy wife to assist me in loading them up. I'll not go any further on the kit until then. I keep looking at those photos and I can't tell what the hey is going on.
Doug DeCounter
Pres. IPMS Front Range Scale Modelers

Got my unbuilt hull out and played with it some more since we are talking about it. I could actually squeeze the parts together to fit with a little bending. It least it would not look as bad as it does in my photos. With some superglue I think it could look similar to what Nick posted. Basically you have to distort the rear upper hull plate a little and shift the transmission plate down as far as possible. If you start with the top and bottom rear plates off and position them after the hull top and bottom are connected, you can get everything to fit somewhat with care and extra set of hands. No way to do this without glue! You also need to be aware of this before starting the kit and not follow their instructions. My original hull is ruined beyond repair now btw.

If the hull was perfect in every other way, this would be worth, but with so many other corrections that could be made, I think it is faster to use a 1940/41 hull and add the welds.

I guess i am spoiled by the great fit of their early T-34 what could be assembled without glue and would just fit together snugly...

Dmitry

Hello Dmitry. I feel your pain. While putting the T-34 on hold I started decaling a Monogram 1/48 F-105 ( Blasphemy I know) and put my finger on one of the decals and screwed it up. Naturally it's the planes name and no spare in sight. Oh well.
I kept playing around with the T-34 though, dry fitting it again and again. The only parts glued on it ( besides the inner spring thingys) is the rear plate. Some squeezing is done to press it to the upper hull, but it does go in fine. The upper and lower parts still mate perfectly. I am puzzeled why mine seems to fit so good. I can't wait to get this pictures out to prove I'm not lying about this. I use regular Tamiya thin cement. I haven't glued the hull together yet as to show the inner rear. It seems to look like yours, but after that....??? Is it possible that Cyber did pack the wrong hull parts? And I got the lucky one? Has anyone else out there had one that fits good? I love a good mystery, but this one is very wierd.

Look for the pictures tomorrow evening.
Doug D
(not Sherlock Holmes)

Yeah Doug, The back top hull plate and the hull meet perfectly and the top and bottom meet well at that point. My trouble began when I added the lower back hull plate (the part with rounded transmission covers).
Dmitry

I've been following this discussion with interest. There are actually a (very) few people who are actually happy with this kit, and who have no complaints. Then there are others who, like Dmitry and Terry Ashley, have had a go at this kit and struggled with the fit. Personally, I haven't bought the model although it was on my want list. At this point, until and unless DML release a corrected upper and lower hull combination, I won't be buying it at all.

Why? Not so much the fit issues — while I would be greatly vexed, there isn't much that a razor saw, some putty and determination can't fix. More important, to me at least, are the dimensional errors and the poorly moulded features of the engine deck.

DML know very well what the engine deck looks like — they have had excellent information from very knowledgeable people over the years, and have shown with their earlier T-34 models that they can put it to good use. Why they should screw this one up so badly is beyond me. I suspect the simple answer is that there in no one at the helm in their Quality Control department, if they have one, and were in such a hurry to get this out the door that they skipped the step where someone there actually builds the model. It's not the first time.

I agree with Dmitry that there is an easier way to build this tank, by starting from any of the five earlier T-34/76 models: #6092, #6185, #6205, #6355 or #6416 and adding the welds. They managed to get it right in these kits, and how they managed to butcher the deck on #6388 is anyone's guess.

In any case, it's coming back to bite them. I have never bought into their hype about "slide-mold technology", which has been around as long as there has been injection moulding. The whole "limited release" concept is designed to lure people to jump on the bandwagon and buy sight unseen, always a risky thing to do. Their latest schtick, the "new and improved DS tracks" are a throwback to the 1980s, before Tamiya and others started including individual track links in their kits. I had their "new and improved" Tiger I arrive on my doorstep recently, kit #6406, and the tracks SUCK! They don't even fit, if the most common (small) idler is used. They advertise in the instructions that individual tracks are available, but they are not, not from CyberHobby and not from DML.

Don't get me wrong — I like DML kits. Some of the best kits I have are DML kits, and I like them very much. Their (corrected) #6264 PzKpfw IV Ausf E and their #6290 PzKpfw 38(t) are outstanding kits, as are their earlier T-34/76 releases, as good or better than anything anyone else has out there. What I don't like is their marketing. It seems to me that if they put as much effort into designing accurate, well-engineered models as they do to generate this hype, they wouldn't need the hype — the quality of their kits would speak for itself.

So, guys, caveat emptor, let the buyer beware. It's time we went back to basics — wait for the kit to be released, read the reviews, and make an informed judgement on whether to buy a particular kit.

Cheers
Scott Fraser

Well, to Scott and all the other who say they won't be buying this kit, whatever. It fit well for me, which seems to have generated no comment at all. And being dismissed as a "few" who are happy with this kit is rather condescending. What annoys me is that two (which is all I've seen) builders have had troubles. Not really a large consensus on it's own. Talk about a "few". Everyone else have condemmend it sight unseeen.
As to the marketing, well that's their business. It seems to be working, or they might have quit by now. It really is smart business to appeal to the "Limited" thing. They are many collectors out there who don't plan on ever building the kits, so any quality issues are not relevant. Get's extra milage out of the molds. And not every modeler is into 100% accuracy, 85% accuracy maybe. Or correctable inaccuracy. I'm trying to be funny here. We are after all only talking about models. And every company likes to blow it's own horn, justified or not. It's good brag about yourself. Hey there are Ford people and Chevy people. Each thinks the other is a P.O.S. No company admits to errors. Just quietly fix them. Or not.

As kit buiders we have to choose what to spend our cash on. Duh. Use whatever decision making process you want. I like shiny pictures on the box myself. As for the power of not buying a kit ("that'll teach em") . Well, I've never bought a 1/24 scale jet but that doesn't seem to stop them being made. Someone else will always buy it. That or car models. Brrrrrr. car models. ( that was a cold shivering sound).
Have fun y'all.
Doug
Now onward little T-34 buddies, mush!

Caveat Emptor is the keyword here let 's hope the new cast turret T34 is better .

Hi Doug, I did not mean to annoy you by not replying. I cannot see very well the details of fit in the photos. But I trust you. You and Nick and others are right that this is very fixable to some extent with minimal manipulation. I expected better and I can make a better model with the earlier release hull, but that is just my opinion and my lack of building/correcting skills.

I actually want to put this issue to rest, as it already took up too much of my time, but here is the last set of pics to show all that Nick's post is very true and you can get things to fit as follows:

Here is the fit of the back plate. Perfect!



Hull top and bottom click together.





The front is not good. The front bumper will not cover all that.



But with a little squeeze, you can get it to basically be OK (?)



The back, if done by instructions will look like this! That is what I had the first time.





This is an ugly gap.



BUT, you can position parts in a way to make that gap go away. A few "little" things will be off here and there, but honestly most people will probably not look closely enough to notice. here is how it can look with minimal effort (just need to be aware to consider this issue).







I think that most will probably be happy with such fit. I see many issues with it that annoy me and are very hard to fix to my tastes.

So with this, I think this issue can be closed.

THE KIT IS OK, CAN BE BUILT TO LOOK LIKE SPRING 1942 STZ TANK. NOT THE BEST EFFORT, NOT COMPLETE CRAP.

Best regards,

Dmitry

Dmitry, I wasn't annoyed by you at all. I was refering to the others on the site who just went ape over your difficulties. I apologize if you thought so. I just thought that perhaps if someone showed that it was not as bad as it was that maybe some people who were so quick to condemn the kit might seem fit to give it a second chance. By the way, I have no association with Dragon or Cyber, just a customer who likes to make up my own mind.
Anyway, once again I'm sorry. Keep up the good work, you do fantastic stuff.
In admiration and friendship
Doug

Doug, I'm sorry if I ruffled your feathers by indirectly including you in the "few" who are pleased with the kit. This kit has been much discussed here and elsewhere, and the general consensus is that the kit doesn't fit. As I said in my post, that is not the end of the world, just unexpected and unwelcome after the very nice T-34s that DML have released before this kit. Fit can be fixed.

No, what bothers me about this kit are the proportions and the details of the engine deck. That is just plain sloppy, and for that reason I won't be buying this kit. I guess I'm one of them anal rivet-counter types, but I want my models to be as accurate as I can make them, and for that reason I would rather start from an earlier, more accurate kit and add the welds myself.

As for DML's marketing, certainly it works, or they wouldn't be doing it. That said, there's a famous quote by P.T.Barnum that comes to mind. I choose not to pre-order or buy before reading reviews. I don't buy a lot of models, and I want to make sure my money is spent wisely. That seems to me to be simple common sense, which I guess isn't as common as I thought.

In any case, enjoy your model, and have fun.

Cheers
Scott Fraser

Kudos to Dmitry for being very honest about his experience with the kit, all the way around, with both the bad and the good.



-YL

Probably the most annoying factor of it is that this is a kit directed to those who do care about accuracy. The average model builder is not going to care about the differences of a '41 or '42 STZ kit...they are just looking for a T-34. But those of use who DO know the difference are the INTENDED customers for the cyber-hobby niche kits. So for them to cut corners on this kit (and knowing that they were given the proper detailed information, someone did cut corners) just shows an extreem amount of disrespect for their intended customers. They KNEW better...and released it anyway. (They may even have made a inferior kit to their main stream kits).

The other aspect of the CH kits is that they are limited runs, so essentially they are pre-sold. If you wait for a review, you are probably already out of luck and will have to pay someone 2-3 times the price for the kit. But if the kit is no good and you pre-order...you are probably stuck and are not going to recoup the cost of a less-than-anticipated kit. The only other option is to not care about the release which is not a really valid argument because DML is targetting you in the first place to get you to pre-order the kit. If you didn't care, they couldn't market to you.

Now, noone (well almost noone) expects these kits to be made out of gold, or to just fall together in the box. But I for one, and many others, expect that a niche kit that costs extra and that canbe hard to get, will be ACCURATE simply because of the nature of the market and marketing.

In the end I would be FAR more forgiving of DML if they had made a mistake on a regular run kit that they might have rushed a bit and would most likely fix in later runs. For a CH kit, they should be checking their details 3 times over for accuracy since they market that these kits are LIMITED run and will NOT be made into regular run kits.

THAT SAID...There is other corroborating evidence:

In China right now die cutting skill needs are at a all time high with not enough supply. Companies like DML and Trumpeter do not have enough capacity within their companies to cut their own dies on their schedules. And their skilled die cutting labor is in high demand for almost ALL industries...see a problem?

I have heard that job retention is getting to be a problem with ALL skilled labor in China, let alone die cutters. And that some companies, although I am not naming any one company, have "sold off' their own staff time to higher paying commissions and then contracted with lesser experienced outside sources for their own needs. So that means that you roll the dice on quality...for example, look at all the lead paint suddenly making its way out of China in children's toys...directly tied to low end subcontractors.

My guess is DML subcontracted out this job for the '42...but I have no proof. Whoever did the work rushed and botched the job. DML let it go for wahtever reason. And the short-run customer gets the pain.

My only question, as a long and faithfull purchaser of DML products, including the '42 STZ, is what will they do to rectify this problem. They have let down their intended customers.

Fool me once DML, shame on you. Fool me twice...