Been rereading threads here and in Missing-Lynx and find that all Dragon T-34 kits have some problems . There seem to be things out of place or ignored and sometimes just forgotten on the various factory types. Not too mention fit problems .Are there any that are close to 85 /90 % correct . Even if the hull and turret are missmatched , you could put it down to repairs. Any words of wisdom from you gurus of all things 34. Or do I wait for the AFV Club T-34 ???
Thanks Jim

No model is 100% correct
I think the early Dragon T-34s are pretty nice. Buy the german Army version and build it as regular Soviet tank. I think it is pretty nice and accurate enough. Hull turret dimensions are pretty good, I think. Part of the problem is that there are no definitive resources on what is accurate. Also they often all slogans and such for improper version, as there were so few vehicles with any markings on them. Just paint it green. HTH, Dmitry

Most of the griping was regarding just one kit, the STZ T-34 with the wedge shaped gun cradle, sold under Cyber Hobby's label. It was misengineered, and the upper and lower hulls simply did not mate properly. Actually, most of Dragon's T-34 kits are just fine. So far, they have only offered one T-34-85 turret shell, so the choice there is limited to tanks with the "flattened" turret, but the T-34-76 variants are mostly quite good. They also seem to have goofed at the last minute with the new T-34 with the soft edge hexagonal turret, as they swapped out the photoetch engine screens for an earlier style that is usually incorrect for that turret type (and does not fit the kit part's opening). Aftermarket photoetch will solve this.
If you look at the new books on T-34s coming out of Europe, you will find a bewildering variety of major and minor part and assembly differences on photos of preserved vehicles. If somebody says the kit is "wrong" because his drawings say so, you need to wonder, how accurate are those drawings, and are they necessarily better than the Dragon design team's drawings?

Gerald, there is pretty definitive information on many aspects of T-34 development history, certainly enough to say that DML has laid several eggs, in succession. They are at least three years behind current research, going back to early 2006, when Lagutin's monograph on STZ T-34s was published. It's in Russian, but so what? DML should have a research budget, and Frontline Illustrated is one of those "must have" publications if you're into Soviet armour. DML dropped the ball on the [u]best[/u] documented T-34s, the STZ tanks, so I'm pretty skeptical about their standards these days, and not much inclined to cut them slack.

Jim, Dmitry's recommendation on kits is sound. DML's Kharkov-built T-34s are pretty good, all else considered. I would recomend #6418, with the cast turret. It also includes the welded turret, and because it is a newer kit has all the aftermarket doo-dahs. Green green there.

The STZ kits are #6355, which is okay, with qualifications (work from a photo) and #6388, which is black black ugly run away! Unless you really want the turret with the cheek cutouts or chisel mantlet, then be prepared to wrestle with a hull that is just plain screwed. Just the other day, I finally found some .050 sheet stock to cut the hull plates and do it from scratch. (They are 45mm)

The two Sormovo kits are okay, sorta-kinda. They are nice, okay, but they could be better, and would be if they were German. That grates. They are accurate, but soft on detail.

Their latest is much the same. Dmitry has a great blog where you can see for yourself. Again, it's things like the wheels that are annoying. That's my opinion, not that it matters.

Anyway, HTH

Cheers
Scott Fraser

Gerald, after re-reading this, your comment about drawings reminded me of something else I discovered. I'm building an STZ T-34 from the February 1942 production batches with applique armour on the front. The front beam is riveted, and the armour eflects this, and from photos and known dimensions it is easy to draw a template. I have copies of factory drawings for much of it, ay now have a complete STZ hull drawn up in 3D CAD, so I'm quite sure on the dimensions. I drop my paper template onDML's hull and discover the tow cleats are too far apart, marginally, not so you'd notice. I didn't.

I went looking, and ( I will confirm which one) plotted out a bunch of drawings from different books I have. Lagutin's book, which I mentioned, is:
Stalingradskaia tridstat'chetverka : Stalingrad's 'thirty-four
Frontovaya Illustratsiya : Frontine Illustrated 04 - 2006 : Moscow 2006

... has plans showing one dimension, repeated a few months later in Kirsanov's T-34 monographs, and this is matched in one of the Polish books I have. It is wider in another Polish book and a Czech book, and tis the dimension of the DML kit. By my eye, by my template, they are wrong, and the Russians are rght.

It's a small point, and I wouldn't have noticed were it not for this armour, but it shows how drawings can spread errors and all. In saying this, I say nothing against DML, because the same could and has happened to others, all in good faith.