I would welcome any review by Mr. Fraser. He obviously knows his subject matter. Personally I don't think he was being rude. Unfortunately it seems his comments were taken that way. He certainly isn't an overt ass the way the recently reborn Mr. DeNazo has been.
This is a forum. It is not a radio show where all comunication is one way. I'm glad people can respond to others' comments. I have learned a great deal more by reading subsequent comments than I did from the initial review. That is not to disparage the review at all. What it did do is generate discussion on a point that was missed. No one is perfect. We should all learn from our mistakes and move on.

I totally agree...these forums are a communications device. And I too woudl love to see Scott do reviews...his knowledge is far above mine on T-34 related discussions.

But this also means civil discourse, because these forums should not A.) be personal B.) be unduly critical or C.) scare people away from either the forum or the hobby.

I can totally see BOTH points of view on this. I just think there could be a better way to disseminate the information.

BTW Scott, I still do not think you intended to go out and annoy anyone, but look at how you described the AFV Club T-34/85 kit :

I like their T-34-85. It's not perfect, maybe not even as good as DML's T-34-85, but it is the first model of a T-34 from Omsk, complete with unique turret and rear plate, which AFV Club have moulded nicely enough. Like the tracks, all AFV Club T-34s suffer from the front hatch set too far over, but that can be fixed. There are other things to tweak. The engine screens are lumpy, and there are other details to tweak that are part of modelling any T-34, but the driver's hatch is a nuisance, and it loses points there to the competition. On the other hand, it's a very nice change from DML's UTZ turret.

vs. their T-34/76 m42:

There was nothing at all said about the suspension of the model. The suspension is very poorly executed, such that amyone wanting to build this into an accurate model of a T-34, ANY T-34, must replace the roadwheels. They are wrong, for this or any other T-34. ... In this case, we have a tank without wheels, and a tank without wheels is a wreck.

And then, looking through what you presented, while I can see the problem with the road wheels: 1.) They resemble real wheels close enough to fool anyone without a set of references with them at a show and 2.) they can be easily replaced with aftermarket/other kit wheels.

So, NOT taking into account the road wheels, is the kit still a wreck? Are the Zvezda wheels really the best solution to fix this problem?

The first comment was about a kit. The second comment was about a review, so it's not quite a straight comparison. Still, the answer to your question is contained in the comments. I like the T-34-85 kit. It is not without its flaws, but it can be built without having to buy anything else (other than tracks) into a reasonably accurate model of what is represented on the box. It is a version no one else has done before from a factory no one has featured. I actually bought two of them, and will build them --- one as a T-34-85 from Omsk, the other as a T-34-76 from Omsk, and I will convert the second turret to a Sormovo turret, which has a very similar shape.

The T-34 "other one" however they label it, does not have those attractions. It purports to be a T-34 from Zavod No.183 with 'hardedge' hex turret. The box shows a model of a tank from Zavod No.112, although no one has commented on that here. We know about the wheels. The hull is from Zavod No.183, but so are most T-34 kits, so zero for originality. It's only appeal for me is the hardedge turret. The turret itself is only marginally better than Zvezda for shape, if it even is. The Zvezda turret is actually pretty good, for a fraction of the price, and the AFVC turret seems narrower than it should be to me. Despite that unresolved question, IMHO, this kit still offers significantly less value than their T-34-85, because of the wheels and because it duplicates available kits without being significantly better.

Similar comments might apply to their first kit, from Zavod No.112, which is again a duplicate of a version in DML's catalogue. It has correct wheels, but in my judgement, the DML kit (6479) is easier to build, more accurate, better detailed, and more complete for the same dollar.

A caveat: in commenting on the AFVC kits, I am ignoring the clear plastic and the interior parts. Some people like them, some people hate them. If having an interior or having to work with clear plastic make a difference to modellers, they will buy based on that preference.

Regarding fixes for the wheels... The T-34 has been treated badly by manufacturers. Back in the old days, Tamiya brought out steel wheels, but designed the wheels to be the same width as the rubber-tired wheels. Zvezda followed suit, so their wheels look okay from the side, but are way too thick when glued together. The steel wheels are much thinner, enough that when they went to use them, the same load on a smaller area in the center of the link fractured the track, leading directly to the adoption of "waffle" track at the start of 1942.

DML caught this, and the wheels in 6355 and 6388 (the STZ wheels) are suitable for some very early tanks. The steel wheels from DML 6424 or 6487, or the EXTRA wheels included in 6564 can also be used, and are more normal for tanks from the Urals. Resin wheels of the correct type are available from ARMO (Jadar in Poland) and Voyager has a set of six STZ wheels.

Plan B is to replace them entirely, all ten wheels, with the late stamped wheels included in the other two AFVC kits, or from DML's 6479, or the DML SU-100 kits. Miniart also offers these as an aftermarket item.

So. The wheels are fixed. What is the potential of the kit?

Tanks roughly like this entered production at UTZ in the spring of 1942, with the first series (usually 200 tanks) finished in early April. The last tanks with this turret (and cupola) were delivered two years later, in April 1944. There's a lot of combat in between, from the fighting for Voronezh before Stalingrad through Kursk to the opening salvos of Bagration. Of the 30,000 T-34s built, probably a third of them were delivered with this basic hull and turret. They were produced simultaneously, in quantity, over the two most critical years of the war at five different factories spread across the USSR, and everywhere they were made differently. They were all simply called "T-34", they all look the same from across the battlefield, as they do across a table in 1/35 scale, and the devil is in the details.

The hull, with detail changes, is suitable to any of the T-34 factories other than Zavod No.112. Every factory had their own way of doing things, and T-34s from one factory differs from another in these quirks: the number and shape of hinges in the rear, even the number of bolts. Yes, it is true. T-34 nuts count bolts, but they ARE bolts, not rivets. In any case, the differences are minor, largely confined to the rear plate, and within any modeller's ability.

Turrets were very similar at different factories, but differed in detail over time as various improvements were made, so early turrets lacked handrails, pistol ports and the removable plate between the hatches, just examples. If the goal is to build a tank from a particular period, these are things to be aware of for the sake of accuracy and variety. (An aside --- it's the variety that draws me to pursue accuracy, in my hobby. I want this T-34 to BE different from that T-34, not just LOOK different, especially if they're both mine. That's done by addressing the details.)

So yes, this kit has lots of potential. Everybody go look at Jacques' SU-100 blog, then come back.

Where to get the most improvement for the least effort? The minimum I would do:
1.) Replace the tracks, obviously.
2.) Install a woven screen over the louvers on the rear motor deck.
3.) Do something about the screens on the air intakes! The real ones were thin steel strips and thin steel rod, welded together. These are decidedly chunky. There are one-piece drop-in etched parts that work easily, or there are sets from people like Aber so that replicas of the real ones can be fabricated by crazy people with three very steady hands and really good eyesight, working in a Clean Room so they can find airborne parts. I've been known to cheat, and sand the back off the solid parts included in DML kits.
4.) Paint it. All of it. No more clear parts. (You asked)

As for clear parts and interiors and whatnot, Steve Zaloga recently completed a model with the T-34-85 kit that showed the interior, with the shell of the tank painted and cut away, with red edges, to show the innards. That's a great way to show it off. Me, I want a model that looks like the others until I lift the roof of the fighting compartment, which will show what's inside, and I can leave the roof of the motor-transmission compartment removable as well. I confess to an intense dislike for injection-moulded clear styrene, except for lenses.

So that's my take on the model. You asked for it, there it is. Obviously, the wheels really bug me, mostly because of what they say about AFVClub and their attitude toward Soviet subjects. They do German stuff, and those are head and shoulders ahead of these kits. I conclude they don't really care about Soviet stuff or these would have been as good. But no, fix the wheels and it's a tank again, not a wreck, and like any model (except for that ghastly T-60) can be built into something that will stand out.

Regards from the cheap seats
Scott Fraser

First of all, much as I appreciate AFV Club for what they've done, the following thoughts do tend to come to the surface...

On the positive side, probably because it's NOT their only commercial division, they can afford to be much more imaginative in their choice of subjects than other manufacturers. Their Churchills have been sublime, their M5s excellent and (going by the feedback of others) their Stryker series seems to be excellent also.

However, when I was first told by the company that they were doing the T34, I had a kind of niggling feeling about it. I can't explain why, but I felt that it wasn't a complimentary direction for them to go in - simply put, there was TOO much competition out there and unless they produced something as good as their Churchills it was going to be a bit of a minefield for them. I don't know who did the research for the models, frankly though, with the issue of the wheels, it seems difficult to believe that they SEEM to have got is so wrong. Whether this was an issue at the time of doing the CAD design or whenever, i've no way of knowing. Let's assume that the data they were given WAS essentially correct and it was badly translated into the production model...

Moving onto the Review. Firstly, i'm with Scott and Jacques over their comments. I also insist on accuracy (or at least something which is 'fixable'. I'm not over-obsessed with it but there's a minimum I expect.

Gino has published a large number of Reviews here, IMO, he's one of the most demanding Reviewers we have. However, he's also a valuable asset in that he has the ability to look at a subject through the eyes of a modeler and see it in terms of whether it'll build a representation rather than a perfect replica. Now that is where this site differs from others. We have over 40K registered users on the Network - that means everything from absolute beginners who are taking their first steps to those who regular take Golds at the major competitions. The 'average' modeler (whatever that actually means ) are those we have to aim the majority of Reviews at. If we were suddenly to become a platform for the Uber-Modeler, or the opposite, we'd soon lose traction. In that, Gino's Review reflects what the majority want - a relatively trouble-free model with good detail and will build into a good representation of what it's supposed to be.

It's great to see this kind of feedback on a Review and even better to see the thing being kept cordial but, IMO, Gino has taken exactly the approach which most people want to read...

Scott, you really need to be writing reviews of T34s for this site. You obviously have the knowledge and you write really well, You almost made me want to buy the kit just so I can apply the fixes you recommend

Scott,
That is the more objective review I was talking about. Thanks for your in-depth knowledge and insight. I would love to see more reviews from you on Russian subjects in the future.

Jim,
Thanks for the nod of confidence and reasurance that I am on the right track with my reviews. I couldn't agree more with your below statement,

" I also insist on accuracy (or at least something which is 'fixable'). I'm not over-obsessed with it but there's a minimum I expect."

I also am of the opinion that any kit is buildable and with effort, can become a gem. No kit is a "wreck", in my opinion.

Thanks to all for the input.

This has been a really good, productive discussion.

I love building T-34s and now I know a little more abut them. I am almost finished with AFV Club's factory 174 T-34-85. I have enjoyed building it quite a lot, despite the flaws and despite the clear plastic (which I have painted). I also stupidly attempted to start DML's T-34 STZ Model 42 last night, which tells you how much I love the subject I *knew* I shouldn't buy it and I did it anyway !

I just want to add one small thought which perhaps hasn't been stated yet, and that is the question of accuracy. What does "accurate" mean? Accuracy isn't a binary thing, that is, a kit component can't really be thought of as "right" or "wrong" as if it were either flawless or hopelessly poor, in my opinion.

Accuracy runs on a continuum, with "more accurate" at one end and "out to lunch" on the other. In my job, peoples' lives depend on us doing accurate scientific work and yet there is always a degree of error. Few things are *perfectly* accurate, even in science, much less so with model kits. Thus we are always looking at approximations and some error, and the question really is "how much error can you live with?", i.e., "how good does it have to be before we pronounce it 'accurate' "? Scientific results come complete with error bars; model kits don't.

Here in this thread, and out in the rest of the world, we each have different perspectives. Some have a tighter standard than others. Often I think that depends on how much you know about a subject, but that's not always a decisive factor. It is not a black-and-white issue. We have fun calling each other "rivet counters" which simply reveals the point.

I am not saying facts don't matter, by the way. They do, very much. We each get to have our opinions but not our own set of facts. They are what they are. All I am saying is since no kit is perfect, we are always dealing with the continuum of 'more' or 'less' accurate and the value judgment of how much that matters to each person.

Finally, this is a hobby, we build little tanks to have fun, and getting this kind of high quality info from you guys makes it more fun for me, so thank you all.

Hope we see you all at AMPS 2010 (April 22-24) and we can talk this over again, this time with beer !

- Danny

As the thread drifts in a different direction...




I agree that you certainly know your T-34's. I'll definitely be asking you some questions in the future.
As for the screens, On the Mark did them correctly way back in '87 (in fact, I still think some of their stuff was the best available from anyone) but they sure are a pain like Aber. (Not the ones in the bottom of the photo, but the vertical slats with the holes in them for the extremely thin brass rod)


I had to resort to exactly the same solution you did -- sanding the parts flat.


Personally, the only way I really like to show interiors is either through the hatches, or as a result of "violence on the objective." Even so, I"m very glad the interior components won't have to be scratchbuilt quite so often...

I really wish AFV Club had done the research rather than taking someone else's problem child and selling it as their own.
These kits are up scaled versions of the Hobby Boss 1/48 T-34s, no more or less.
Had they done their own research and given us a completely new model I think we would have a heck of a lot less to complain about.

Mark

Wow, Five days at work and I missed so much.
Last week I did put together one of these AFV's hard edge hex turret kits.
It's OK, but if you do not need the interior, the DML kit is a little easier and nicer right now (yes, you would need a resin hard edge turret). The AFV steel wheels are very funny looking, I agree with Scott, but replacement are only $20. Drive wheel and idler are bad too.
Basically IMHO the kit could have been a lot better with a little more care from AFVC. Am I happy its out - yes, nothing is lost here. Now if only Tamiya released an updated T-34...
Hope to post photos soon.
Best regards, Dmitry

Guys-
I have corresponded with most of you and never passed an unkind word. It bothers me a little to see fans of the T-34 figuring ways to disagree rather than work together.

As I read this it reminds me of a Winston Churchill quote:
" Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm."

This pretty much sums up my personal experience with building T-34 models. You do the best you can with what you know, but be prepared to get some feedback on how to do better.

To me the real Elephant in the room is that there is huge upside to all this. The AFV Club kit, the Dragon Formochka, Dragon Model 1943 with cupola, and the "Mythical Weapon" book all have problems. But I for one do not want to roll back the clock to the times when we didn't have them. They are raw material- nothing more.

Each time I see Scott or Mark dissect a new release I learn something- and I appreciate it- a lot! It upsets me that Dragon (or AFV Club) doesn't hire guys like them during the design process. But when the kit hits the street its too late for the "if only" discussion.

AFV Club gave us some new raw material. I know that with the collected experience of the people in this thread we could do the research, correct the parts, and start producing resin correction parts in a matter of weeks. But we won't.

I am not making excuses for Dragon, or AFV Club- but I know that no matter how loud I squeal they won't hear.

.....and that isn't going to stop me from building more T-34's

Bob Skipper- your T-34 wreck is a beauty and if you could point me toward some more pics- I'll be checking them out immediately.

Gino- I give you credit for doing a review- always a thankless job. BTW- I still owe you a 5lb peanut butter.

Steve

Scott - Thanks for your work. That is exactly the kind of thing I knew you could do. I apppreciate it.

Gino - Keep up the good work.

Now I am off to continue work on the SU-100 and on my review of DML's T-34/76 m43 with commander's coupola.

Don't get too carried away patting yourself on the back. You may end up with a collapsed lung.

It is clear to me, personally, from this thread alone, that this site does not embrace the same values as I do. Models are supposed to be accurate. When they are not, modellers DESERVE to be told so. A review that does not address the concerns of ALL modellers, even the "detail-nazis", to use your highly offensive term, is not relevant to my hobby. The bottom line is that the reviews on this site have no credibility with me.

By extension, this site is not for me. I care about accuracy and fidelity to the prototype, since that matters to me in in how I pursue my hobby. I am saddened, because there are not a lot of places where modellers interested in Soviet equipment can get good information, but the message I get here is that the "average modellers" here don't care about details and accuracy. Implicit in that message is that I should seek another site where people embrace the same valuies as I do, and I will.

Y'all have fun here. Modelling is supposed to be about fun, so do that. Me, I'm an anal-retentive rivet counter intent on spoiling things, insisting that manufacturers actually sell what they say they are selling, and my standards are too far above "average" to be relevant here. I got the message.

Write your review, Jacques, and have fun. I may see it, but this is my last post here, so you can relax. I don't intend to post here again. It's actually a better model than most of their earlier T-34s, notwithstanding the fact that they cheaped out by not including an aluminum barrel. I hope you will note its weaknesses as well as its strengths, but I say that without confidence. The "average modeller" doesn't care, so long as it has tracks and a turret, and this site is about them, not people lke me. I return to from whence I came, and don't look back.

Scott Fraser

Scott, personally I think you're over-reacting a little. Several of us have requested that you contribute with Reviews or Features - that offer is still very much open.

Despite what you may think, there is no policy of 'dumbing down'.




Now, I think THAT is a little unfair. If the Site was to be pitched at the level of those who use ML (for example) many less-experienced modelers would find little to attract them. As it is, there is a LOT of 'mentoring' going on in this site, a lot of New Modelers a year or two ago have found real help and assistance on this site (not least from people such as Gino or Jacques).

Frequently, i've felt that we DON'T do enough for the 'Novice' modeler, I also feel we don't do enough for the Experienced modeler either. I'm a great advocate of creating new areas such as a 'Research Forum' or even a 'no-holds barred' Constructive Criticism Board where those who are really into the area can feel free to post.

I really would like you to reconsider...

Now let's be fair, Jim, and accurate. No one from this site has ever approached me to do a review. Never.




I will accept what you say at face value. There may not be an explicit policy, but to be told that details are not important falls flat. They do matter, or whatever was under discusson would not be under discussion. It matters to me, and while I may live on the fringe, I am a modeller. I have money, I buy models, and I want to spend my money wisely. I read a review, "this is a great kit" and I go out and buy it. I open it, and am extremely annoyed when I see that I have been lied to.

My standards are NOT high. I am a manuffacturer. I have produced many parts, and know very well that every manufacturing process has implicit compromises. I can live within these constraints. My modelling skills are modest, but enough to overcome these.

When I see a reviewer flogging a fraudulent model, I will speak out. My fellow modellers deserve that much. When a manufacturer screws up, from poor research, poor engineering, poor manufacturing standards, or just plain poor execution, as in this case, consumers have the right to know. My interest is Soviet armour. I will stipulate that there is not good information available, and that I have language skills that give me access to information not available to "average" modellers in the English-speaking world. So? There are other people with the same abilities and resources, including some who visit here. Likewise, there are others who have gotten the same message as I, that "elite" modellers are not welcome, and we should not bother. We cast pearls before swine, as the saying goes..

I have no problem with mentoring, as you know. I teach, as well as do research. Knowledge not shared is knowledge wasted. I have a website devoted to the T-34 tank, an extensive library and at this point, some familiarity with the vehicle. I also have every T-34 model ever produced in polystyrene since 1960, and far too many mostly useless bits of resin and metal. Where it comes to T-34s, and T-34 models, I do have some knowledge.

Gino posts his review, and no disrespect to Gino, he's doing his best with the information he has, but he misses something. I post, and get attitude. "I don't see the difference." I post again, with further information, and then... then what? "Bugger off, elitist scum..."

I got the message. Me and the other "elitists" who don't post here any more will hang out at Missing Lynx.




My comments above are pretty clear. I think the mistake is in trying to "pitch" the site, but that's just an opinion. You pick an audience, deal to them, and the rest of us go away because we never get cards. I don't have a hand to play, so I'm going to another table.

I might suggest you focus on the information rather than the audience. If you put it all out there, it is more work, but the newbies can learn what they need to learn, the "elitists" can discover whether the wheels are right, and the Great Unwashed can pick and choose what's important to them. In the meantime, my conclusion is that this site is happy pandering to mediocrity, and there is not a lot here for "elitists" like me.

Scott Fraser

Hi Scott. I also ask you to rethink this.
I consider myself an average modeller. I recently built my first T34 and went against your better advise and built the Zvezda/Italeri T34. Did I get the best kit .... maybe not. Did I learn more about the T34 ... definatly yes. I had a lot of personal communication with you via e-mail, and I got more information regarding a subject I knew very little about. This has been built upon with comments from Mark and others afterwards, plus discussions like these on top of that. Im still not an expert, but I know several 100% more than I did 6 months ago.
Many modellers will buy kits like the AFVC model based on not only the reviews, but discussions on the review. This has been a perfect example of that. To say the site doesn´t care is somewhat wrong, as the site is more than a internet based page you are reading. Its also the members who read these posts. More than 1100 views already. We are all learning and the group that are demanding higher quality is growing. Thats why your insight is so needed right now. Its not a losing battle or falling on deaf ears. With all the kits that are now available, and the current interest in anything T34 related, why not stay and influence more people? The Russo-Soviet forum is starting to get more popular also .... and now that better info is starting to become available ... more passionate modellers will also step up and join the call for better models.

Precisely WHY we need the input of people such as yourself.




OK, consider yourself 'officially' invited

Duly noted. I read Frank's post, and he got under my skin.

I don't think we have ever really 'pitched' the site in that manner. Rather, what has happened, is that sometimes it seems to take on a life of its own. When I first joined, almost 7 years ago, it was much smaller, perhaps more 'intimate' than it is now. We can't turn the clock back but rather we need input to help us cater more widely - that includes areas where more experienced modelrs CAN feel comfortable. As it is, with the demands the Staff group have, there's (inevitably) more time spent on housekeeping rather than development - as you seem to be advocating. I hold my hand up to that - unfortunately there are only so many hours in a day. That's why we do need to bring in people like yourself. Mainly to keep us focussed on what the future site should look like.

Unfortunately, or perhaps understandably, the sheer complexity of just what goes on 'behind the scenes' is lost on most people. At the moment, there are something like 20 Reviews 'pending' - now 2-3 staff have to go through these, Edit them, make decisions on when (and if) they should appear. Others are looking for Features - same process. Then, in the News, it's trawling, talking to manufacturers, editing photos they are ALL long-winded processes.

I'll repeat it again, i'd be delighted if you could share your thoughts with me off-board

I gotta jump in quick here:

Scott - I am not patting myself on the back...sheesh. I thought you really did a good job when you were commenting ont he model and not on Gino's review. The kind of focus you have to offer is a help to this site, not a hinderance, unless it is disruptive. However, "pandering to mediocrity" is a loaded statement and tends to slap people in the face for not being as detail oriented as you. This strikes me as if someone called you a detail-nazi (which I did not call YOU, I brought it up as a illustration.). I don't look at this as a contest between the accurate building crowd and the average modeler...they both have their place.

Now my last post was intentially short as my boss blew out his ACL and needed surgery , so work is now a interesting study in short-notice high-demand projects. I am probably going to get my A%^ chewed out for writing this and not doing what I should but too bad for them...this is important to me too.

I think this site has two very good aspects about it:

1. the reviews are aimed at the average modeller. So while DML's kit 6388 STZ m'42 would rightfully get low marks (since the darn thing is unbuildable), AFV Club's 35S57 would be how Gino described it. I look at Armorama's reviews for GENERAL info, like if there are major screwups that would not allow a kit to be built. Yes, in all honesty, something like Lindberg old Snap-together Tiger I would get good marks CONSIDERING what the kit is, in my opinion.

2. BLOG's. This is where I think detail issues are appropriate and will shine. Using my SU-100 BLOG as a example, all the things I note in there could NOT have been in a usefull review. A BLOG allows for thoughtfull discussion, links to resources, and even consideration of new material in discussion as it comes up. It is a "living" document while a review is a snap-shot of someones opinion. This would also be the best place to take out our frustrations with short cuts that the manufacturer's have made for the kits, AND offer fixes for the problems.

I would say that you are being a bit over sensitive Scott. I think that the Reviews section here is not for you, but that the BLOGs probably are. I would have expected a BLOG to catch all the details that this kit has problems with as there would have been many voices involved, hopefully even yours.

and my review of DML's T-34/76 m43 with C. Coupola will probably not meet with your approval. I have already noted a few problems, but a review is not the place to deal with them. I will need to BLOG the issues and solutions. That is how I feel about addressing the kits shortcomings, which it has.

And I enthusiastically invite you to write reviews OR better yet...BLOG's.

Jim - any way we can make a listing of BLOG's on this site similar to the reviews section?

Hi Frank

Frank, of all people...

Guys like you are what makes it worthwhile, and I'm sure Jim would say the same. We have exchanged emails, and I have watched you suffer with that model. You ask, you listen, you learn, you use that knowledge in your modelling. That's what it's about.

You will have read the thread, and understand the issues. I believe that "average" modellers are no different from me. I don't build fast or much, and there have been hundreds of thousands of pages written describing explicitly what I don't know about Sherman tanks or German tanks. (Funny, maybe ironic how that rhymes...)

So Frank, I want to build a Sherman, one of the diesel-engined Shermans sent to the USSR. I think they were called 'M4A2'. What kit do I buy? Who do I believe? Where can I go for help? Who has reviews I can believe? I've been burned before, you know. It used to hurt, but now there's so much scar tissue...

I am very critical of reviews. I make no apology, because of the scarring, and despite those scars it still hurts to open a box and see a [removed] model someone said was good. EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM can be glued together, even as an abstract art form, and is called "a good model". Yeah, right.

So, where is the line?

Jim and Jacques and all the other powers-that-be may resent me for suggesting they consider doing anthing differently, but I do believe the line is a lot farther than they place it, or at least as I perceive where they place it.

I don't believe in "average" modellers. I want the line way out there, something to aspire to, not something easily crossed. I want excellence, not "good enough"... The AFV Club T-34 kits are "good enough". Are they worthy of a green check mark? I don't think so, and said as much.

I think now everyone accepts that the wheels are wrong with the T-34 kit, which is what it was all about in the first place. It should not have been a battle. Therein lies the crux of the problem. I made a similar post on M/L, although not in regards to a review. No big deal.

There was a most constructive discussion there recently, several in fact, about Thumper's T-62 (which sucks bigtime, BTW). Half a dozen guys were brainstorming online, trying to get to the issues, which are complex, and which were eventually nailed down. I don't know if you've heard about the model. Briefly, keep the roadwheels and the gun barrel (okay, not quite that bad). In any case, we figured it out, some guys went off to torture themselves making a new hull, other built it with the whistles and bells abailable to dress it up and had a nice model that "looked like" a T-62 from across the room, and people like me put their $50 back in their pocket.

I want a review that gives me those options, ALL of those options.

BUT it's about what you guys want, Frank. You and Jose and Steve and Bob and Doug and... the other "average" modellers out there. I'm sure Jim and Jaccques and company will do their best to provide that. We have a difference of opinion about where the line should fall, that's all, so it's up to you guys to make it known what kind of reviews meet your needs. We cannot both be right, but we CAN both be wrong, so perhaps this is the opportunity for everyone to speak out, and maybe help them redefine the parameters now used to determine content.

I'm going to go build a model while you do that.

Scott Fraser

Just so long as I am being helping rather than just a "power that be".

Scott has a point. Armorama may want to do reviews that are more in depth similar to what Terry did/does at PMMS. Those are the reviews that almost all agree are top-notch...but I am not sure that ANYONE could do what Terry does...he really is a blessing to the model world with the work he does. IF we want to change focus to that level, I am willing to help but it probably means more time before reviews are ready and a lot more work on the part of the reviewer. I honestly do not know how Terry does all that he does in such a short time frame.

I would still prefer a two tier system...1. reviews to give a breif overview of the kit and any MAJOR flaws that prevent it being built OOB and 2. BLOGS to do in depth review, pointing out less-obvious/necessary weakness' and advice on what to do and where to find references.

As Scott points out, this is about what the normal/average/recreational model builder who frequents this site (now ain't that a mouthfull)...so what does everyone think? Woudl it be better for Russio/Soviet model builders to have a higher caliber review system or a two tier review/BLOG system?

the road wheels is good, i seen the same in severals pictures of T34. You must buy the T34/76 book of MBI and seen the wheels is correct.