For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
Bronco Humber Mk. 1 w/ Twin Ks
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Joined: May 02, 2006
KitMaker: 5,425 posts
Armorama: 4,659 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 - 04:30 PM UTC
Jeremy Coyle provides an In-Box Review of the 1/35 Bronco Humber Mk. I Scout Car with Twink K Guns (D-Day).

Link to Item

If you have comments or questions please post them here.

Visit this Community
Christchurch, New Zealand
Joined: January 11, 2006
KitMaker: 438 posts
Armorama: 359 posts
Posted: Sunday, September 21, 2008 - 12:00 PM UTC
Thanks for the review, I have the first kit on order and will probably be keen to add this one to the stash as well.
Visit this Community
Indiana, United States
Joined: July 31, 2003
KitMaker: 1,523 posts
Armorama: 710 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 02:49 PM UTC
UI was checking on my review and what people thought. I mean if it was helpful. I noticed only one of three did. May I ask what you didnt like about it. Knowing this will help me for my future reviews and What more i may be able to add to this one...

Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: September 15, 2005
KitMaker: 1,901 posts
Armorama: 553 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 03:10 PM UTC
Hi Jeremy,

There's nothing wrong with your review, it's informative and well written with clear photos.

I have Bronco's initial release of the Humber and found it a bit finicky. Fantastic detail inside and out. The only flaw I could find with the inside were the injection plugs on the underside of the roof, a pain to remove.

Again, Jeremy, don't sweat it if these individuals hit the 'no' button and then go scurrying under some rock. Their lack of commentary speaks volumes.

Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: July 25, 2007
KitMaker: 886 posts
Armorama: 120 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 03:43 PM UTC
I found your review just as good and informative as any other and I will probably get the kit too.
Visit this Community
Alberta, Canada
Joined: October 13, 2004
KitMaker: 1,683 posts
Armorama: 1,248 posts
Posted: Friday, July 28, 2017 - 10:54 AM UTC
Not M-1's, but Lee Enfield .303s
Visit this Community
United Kingdom
Joined: September 06, 2013
KitMaker: 1,112 posts
Armorama: 938 posts
Posted: Friday, July 28, 2017 - 04:29 PM UTC
There are probably lots of people who look at reviews and looks T's of other things on the internet and just never click a button to indicate if it is helpful or that they like it. I certainly never do. I'm used to getting zero feedback for reviews I write for print publications so it doesn't bother me at all. If I think I have something useful to contribute then I do but if not, I don't see how it helps anyone - if I know nothing about a subject and say it was helpful is that any more use than feedback from someone who knows it well and just says it wasn't helpful? Surely it is only written comment that assists you to make any changes for future reviews or articles?

Having said that, in box reviews are only useful to me if they tell me what is in the box (yours is fine for that - better than many) and if it is written by someone with enough knowledge of the subject to tell me whether what is provided is accurate and what if any work needs to be done to depict the various marking options correctly (e.g. which parts need to be used/not used or scratchbuilt/altered). That may be just me though - I can't speak for anyone else.

Incidentally, while the Humber may have offered better weather protection, it was pretty poorly protected against mines (a SRY veteran once claimed that you could put a bayonet through the floor, which may be overstating it but you get the idea), so was used more for liaison than proper recce - the WE for the corps AC regts in 1944/45 had Daimler SCs rather than Humbers, although going over a mine in the former tended to result in broken legs for the driver and anyone else with them under the frontal armour.