Despite the crappy markings options that come with the Dragon M4 Normandy kit, I am thinking about using one of them (the variant illustrated on the box top - C Co, 70th Tank Battalion). I have two questions though -

- The painting guide shows a black band around the base of the turret. Was this painted on or was it some sort of water-proofing applied for the Normandy invasion?

- Neither set of markings include front or rear unit / vehicle codes. Is this accurate? I thought most / all US vehicles had these painted on.

Thanks in advance,

John

The black band is not part of any waterproofing that I know of or have seen. The model itself obviously depicts a tank sometime removed from the landing as it has no waterproofing or deep wading trunks.

I believe that the omission of unit markings is incorrect. Markings on American equipment in NWE was notorious for being non-regulation but most units carried the unit "bumper codes" at least on the rear of the tank. Also, units in Normandy had not been in action that long, and markings were probably closest to regulation, due to their units having recently been in "non-combat" mode. Remember, all American units drew new equipment for the Invasion, my Father has distinct memories of his unit drawing new guns.

That said, the stars are very good, thin, and with a gloss coat, show no silvering, at least on my M4 (which I actually built for a generic 4th Armored unit.)

John

So it seems that my $68 dollar model, which only offers two markings options, managed to get both of them wrong.

I knew I should have waited for Tasca to do an M4.

Before you go all postal, just buy a sheet of bumper codes from Archer's and make your own. You will also note that I said that I believe its an error, I don't have anything on those particular tanks, nor do I know exactly what period they are marked for. Normandy covers at least two months of fighting, and many things can change in that period. The kit itself is very good, it builds into an excellent representation of an M4 and frankly can cover a period probably from Italy through VE Day. The decals that are there are also of very high quality.

Not going postal but this kit is one of the more expensive 1/35th scale plastic armor kits out there. I find it to be BS that Dragon only provided two markings options and then apparently manged to screw both of them up. For the price I paid, I don't think I should have to spend a nickel on aftermarket items just to get an accurate model. I also think that I should get more than two decal options.

If you are ok with spending the extra money in order to get an accurate model, great.

I have no issue with the model itself, it appears to be of high quality.

John

You are going by my belief that they screwed up. Neither you nor I know that these markings are incorrect. To condemn a model (and believe me in this, there are plenty of more expensive models out there) simply because of the decal options seems to me to be shortsighted and unfair.

I have been modelling for some 45 years now. I marvel at what is available now, realizing that the level of accuracy is incredible. My first Sherman was a Revell, I think 1/40th scale, that was something like an M4A1E8 with a 75mm gun. Along the way I've seen M4s with no sponson fillers, no periscope guards, wrong gun mounts. And not just tanks, I've built just about every type of model over the years, tanks. ships, planes, artillery and figures. In the old days if you wanted an Essex Class carrier, you probably ended up with a cold war angle decked box scale kit. You wanted a Fokker Triplane? You got Von Richtofen's. Nowadays, you don't like the options in the kit, buy a decal sheet. You'd rather have an M4A3 wet 75? Buy a new turret and get the M4A3 76. We are so spoiled today. Feel ripped off by Dragon? Fine, don't buy from them anymore.

I have done additional research beyond just taking your word for it. Everything I've seen indicates that Dragon screwed up the decals. I guess I am just old school, where I feel that if you pay a substantial amount of money for something, it should deliver an equal amount of value. The decals are incomplete, therefore out of the box, I cannot get an accurate model. Coupled with the piss-poor directions, this leads me to the conclusion that I did not get my monies worth. If this kit went for $38 instead of $68, I would feel differently and would have no issues picking up aftermarket decals.

I've been modeling a few years myself and fully appreciate how far the hobby has come. However, that does not justify the issue with this particular kit. If a little company like Tasca can product a model of superior quality AND give you 4-5 complete, well-researched decal options for the same, if not lesser price, why can't Dragon?

If you wish to be an apologist for Dragon that is fine. You can jump online with Blogger-whatever and continue to tell the world how lucky we are that Dragon produces such outstanding kits and how anyone who dares to raise an issue with them is "going postal" or is simply spoiled.

John

"Bostic" was an asbestos/tar compound that was used, along with canvas strips, to water proof tanks for deep wading. I think it's a lot like the stuff you use on your roof around the chimney. That did stay on the tank even after the canvas strips had been pulled off and shows up in photos as a black/dark band.




A lot of ETO tanks show up in photos without bumper codes. I don't have many pictures of 70th TB tanks. One I have of an M5 shows bumper codes, but the medium companies used the large speed numbers and may not have used bumper codes. They would not have been the only unit to not have used them. Also, some units seem to have added and deleted the codes at various times during the campaign.

Mike Canaday