Gino P. Quintiliani provides an In-Box review of AFV Club's Special Edition T34/76 Model 42, with a clear upper hull and turret to show off a full interior of details.

Link to Item



If you have comments or questions please post them here.

Thanks!

This kit, despite a little work, builds into a very attractive model. I simply painted certain areas of its clear hull and turret with an airbrush, hiding the few interior components that lack back details. Nice kit, nice review! The resin crew set available from Hobby Fan is also a great addition!

Just a minor correction if I may: AFV Club's T-34-85 is a factory 174 tank, not 183.

See you all at AMPS 2010 !

Another small correction; Factory 183 UTZ was not located in Stalingrad but Nizhni Tagil.
STZ was located in Stalingrad.

Overall my opinion of these kits is not that high. If all you want is a model that looks like a T-34 then these will do (but then so will Tamiya's old models).


Mark

I agree with that, but I think the best value-for-money kits are AFV Club T-34s. I have the Model 1942, Factory 112 and will buy the T-34/86 Factory 174 for sure. Best regards.

José.

Thanks for posting this up James. The corrections have been noted. I always mess up the STZ, UTZ, STD, etc., etc. Those crazy Russians!!

Gino, with all due respect, this model is a wreck.

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.

This link goes to a photo essay on a Russian site known to some. http://legion-afv.narod.ru/T-34-76_Velykye_Luky.html. The tank was recovered from a lake in 2007, and was built at UTZ (Ural Tank Zavod = Zavod No.183) in August 1942. It is in remarkable condition, virtually intact. Note the wheels, bottom part of the page.

Your review creates the impression that this is a good model, worth the $40 to $70 people are charging for it. I believe many people will be annoyed to discover that the wheels included in the kit are not usable. I know I was, so it bothers me when I see someone urging people so publicly to run out and buy a model without informing them of the problems in the kit. In this case, we have a tank without wheels, and a tank without wheels is a wreck.

Regards
Scott Fraser

Sorry, I disagree. The roadwheels look the same to me. Thanks for the opinion, but In my opinion, it is far from a wreck.

Those holes in the rubber-rimmed wheels seem to be too big, and the holes in the steel wheels have a lip, I think it is missing on the kit's wheels. Best regards.

José.

You did not offer an opinion. You said nothing at all about this most obvious error. The rest of your review shows you know something about the tank, so I am surprised that you missed the elephant in the room.

There were seven different types of roadwheel fitted to the T-34. What AFV Club includes matches NONE of them. I included a link to a real tank to illustrate the point. This is a working link to a primer on T-34 wheels that spells out the differences in design and usage.
http://t-34.hobby-site.com/new/GU/susp/GU_roadwheels.htm

You may wish to revisit your opinion once you are aware of the issues.

Scott Fraser

I never claimed to be a roadwheel expert. To my untrained eye on the 7 specific types of Russian roadwheels, they look pretty much the same. I still don't think this makes the kit a wreck and I leave it up to others to decide if it is or not. Thanks for the additional info so others can look at it and decide for themselves.

You are welcome. The whole point of my post was that people should be able to make an informed opinion.

I regret if I sound peevish. Perhaps I am. If this were a Sherman tank or a German tank, people would be screaming blue bloody murder, but it isn't. It's just a T-34.

I like to build Soviet armour. I really like to build T-34s. I'm tired of disappointments, and don't understand why it happens over and over again. Before anything else happens, this model will cost me another $20 for new wheels, or I scrap a DML kit for parts, or else I scrap this $50 kit. Yeah, I'm peevish. It isn't just AFV Club. The other guys are no better --- DML's "Model 1942 STZ" T-34 (6388) is another disaster, and of course we have Trumpeter's T-62. It is almost, pardon a bad joke, like Russian Roulette.

I like to know something about what is in a box before I buy it. Mistakes cost me $50 nowadays, so I read reviews. I don't put as much credence in them as others do, but they serve a purpose. I think it is as important that hey highlight the weaknesses of a kit as much as it's strengths, but that is just my opinion.

In any case, we can agree that it is important people are able to make an informed opinion before buying a model. We can agree to disagree on our opinion of the model.

Regards
Scott Fraser

I noticed this as well. My Zvezda kit has the correct wheels with the lip. Should I ever wish to build this one I could always swap them out. I am a great fan of AFV Club, but I have to say, the vinyl tracks are a huge disappointment. This seems a throwback to the old Tamiya kits. Some vinyl tracks look good, but on T-34's of any make, they look terrible.

@Scott: Do you have any of the kits in hand? I planned to purchase three of the T-34/85's.
What's the verdict on that one? If it has equal shortcomings I may just use them for the interiors in DML kits I already own. Still cheaper than resin...

I have each of their kits, and examined them. They all come with rubber tracks. AFV Club now makes styrene links that will clip together and stay, if handled carefully. They are very nice, and not too expensive. Both the other kits include late stamped wheels, which are appropriate to either version as offered. (They can also be used for this one.) I actually quite like the stamped roadwheels. The drive wheel and idler will pass, and are common with the other kits. I prefer parts from Tamiya or DML.

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.

Cheers
Scott Fraser

Yeah Scott, you're peevish!

I think you are a lot more dissappointed in these kits that many of us are, and I think you tend to express it well. I know, I used to be like that as well. I got the starch knocked out of me when I busted my butt on my T-80U and while a handfull of people "in the know" saw all the corrected details and the like, 95% of the people who saw it just didn't know or care...and we are talking AMPS type people, not IPMS or random strangers...

Anyhow, I do appreciate the AFV Club kit. It has a cool gimmick that is going to get a lot of younger buyers to give it a serious look over, and I have seen several older (40+) people look the "clear hull" kits over and buy them becasue that was a cool looking kit. They may not be the most accurate, and I REALLY wish they would just put that little more effort into it, BUT...those kits may do wonders in bringing in NEW people that like to build Soviet/Russian armor all because of a gimmick. And as they start to do their own research, and get their own enjoyment, they will understand what the problems of that first kit are.

It sounds like you are more upset that your money does not buy all you want for the price you want. I guess I never thought that the AFV Club kits were going to be the newest, most fabulous T-34 kits...the clear hull pieces sorta gave that away to me. But, as stated above, is has a very nice set of interior pieces for less hassle (resin intimidates people) AND price than resin. I know builders who were willing to pay $50 for the interior alone...and they got a tank kit as a bonus. If that gets them excited, it is fine with me. Rubber band tracks are more attractive to the average modeller than indi-links...I cannot tell you how many people I know who were all excited to get a DML Sherman until they saw those tracks...and slowly put the box away. Not what I would have done, but there are a LOT more people like that than like me in the modelling world.

Now, it may cost you $70 instead of $50 on this kit, but that is because you want those details correct. I cannot say why they did not do the roadwheels correctly, and it is good for you to point out that they are not correct. But to say the whole kit is "trashed" just based on somewhat, and I use somewhat because the wheels are iffy to all but the most ardent T-34 fan, incorrect wheels that can be replaced to make the kit good again is a poor review. How good is the kit beyond the wheels? Better than "trash".

A less emotional response would have pointed out the positive and negative aspects of the kit and the best corrections for any problems. If you really want to point out any flaws, do a BLOG on the kit, it would be great. But don't blast Gino for doing a review that is perfectly acceptable...it disrespects his efforts and turns off people who really do want to hear what you have to say.

That said, I am gearin gup my efforts to finish my SU-100 builds. Maybe that will cheer you up?

Firstly, Jacques, I agree, for $50 I definitely want the details correct. Maybe that's unreasonable.

This is not shades of grey, either. We are not questioning whether a particular wheel was used on a particular tank, but whether it even existed. The one in the kit never did. That's pretty black and white, in my opinion. A tank without wheels is a wreck, by any standard, and that's how I described the kit --- as a wreck. Not "trashed".




Jacques, please read what I wrote before you get arfy. I may have been peevish, but I was not rude. Nowhere did I point any finger except at AFV Club. The only critical comment I made of Gino or his review was that something I thought important was left out of what he wrote. I provided ample evidence to support why I thought it was important that reference to the wheels be included, and left it there. There were no aspersions made against Gino's ability or character, or against anyone else. I don't know Gino, and have no reason to suspect it was anything but an innocent oversight. So I posted my observations, and now people know. Mission accomplished.

Better than most, I know how difficult it is for modellers to get decent information on the T-34 or any other Soviet tank. For someone new to the breed, the varity is bewildering, and there really isn't much out there in the way of help. What there is, is as confused as modellers.

That is why it is so important for reviews to be accurate. I don't want to start a discussion of reviews here, but good reviews save me money. Bad reviews cost me money. Maybe that's the wrong way to say it --- "good" reviews cost me money, and "bad" reviews save me money. Before I buy, I ignore the "good" reviews and seek out the "bad" reviews, the ones that list things the reviewer found poor or wrong. Those are the things that concern me, because I'm one of those types that like to build accurate models that are sometimes pretty, not pretty models that are sometimes accurate. That's just my hobby, though. As you often point out, we all march to a different drummer, and not everyone cares about accuracy.

Cheers
Scott Fraser

Scott,

I am not getting arfy, and I know you have the best of intentions. But while you are making a valid point, you are doing it in a way that is aggressive enough to insult people.

There seem to be two issues:

1. Presentation. Had this been my review I would have been annoyed at the least, even knowing that you are not intentionally trying too (incidental insulting?). You make it seem that Gino did a poor review by his missing a very obvious error. Even I cannot agree it is obvious, only with research did I find out it was incorrect. This could be handled in a better way if you want to make sure the information is heard and understood.

2. Perception. You and I like paying attention to the little details. I can guarantee (Guarantee!) that there are at least 100 other people out there who do NOT care about this issue...they want to know about buildability and any cool details. All they care about is that it HAS wheels that are not grossly off...either post-war wheels or something weird like T-55 or M1A1 wheels. I can tell you I am like that in certain areas...I do not care that the wheels on the Long Tom from AFV Club are post war...I am still putting them on it for a WWII diorama. I don't care about that. It doesn't matter to me. And there are a LOT more people out there that feel that way about models in general. WE, the detail experts, are by far the minority. So we need to speak 2 languages...one of the detail nut, and one of the regular modeler. If we screw it up, we become joy-suckers and detail-nazi's.

This hobby needs detail fanatics...I am proud to be one. But we have to remember that we are the minority.

Just to make another point...DML's 6388 Model 1942 STZ is a BAD kit. Why? Because it CANNOT be built OOB. It is faulty. THAT is something that should be pointed out so that ANY builder does not fall into that trap.

Trumpeter's T-62 may be not the way we all want, and there are issues, but it is BUILDABLE and it builds up good OOB. I have seen it built up, it looks very nice OOB, warts and all.

Tamiya's Matilda is the same...screwed up a bit, but only to those in the know who care. It is buildable and it builds up good OOB.

This kit is good too and even more easily fixable than the other two. If you even want to fix it. If not, it is a buildable kit that looks good OOB.

If you don't think you were insulting, you should reread what you wrote.



A little insulting to me at least. Jacques is on target. Most people could care less if it has wheels missing a .01 mm lip and the holes are .003 mm too large. To most (as I saw them) the wheels look the same as the ones in the picture you provided. I am not going to pull out a calipers and measure them to make sure they minutely match. To say it is a wreck due to this is ridiculous. The model is far from a wreck.

If you would like better reviews, maybe you should take the time to write them yourself and you can find the most minute problems (which every kit has) and blow them out of proportion. Then you can warn everyone of the evils of the model companies who are out to get us so we buy more after market parts and suck more money out of our wallets. They are just evil I say, evil.....

This whole episode has been ridiculous. I'm going to get back to modeling total wrecks now.

@ Gino: My comment about the elephant in the room is cliché, and a reply to your comment about "I don't see any difference". If you didn't know what to look for, it isn't obvious at first, so look a second time.

@ Jacques:

1.) DML's 6388 ("T-34/76 Model 1942 STZ") is a disaster, no mistake. There are useable parts, but the upper hull must be fixed or replaced, which is considerable trouble. People buying the kit should be aware of that beforehand.

2.) Trumpeter's T-62 has many problems stemming from poor research. Very many. It can be build into something that looks kinda-sorta more like a T-62 than the thirty year old Tamiya kit. People buying it should know beforehand that while it is a nice model kit, it has serious accuracy issues, not least of which is that the wheels are in the wrong place.

3.) Tamiya's Matilda is a beautiful model kit, but again is victim of poor research. As boxed, the model represents no known Matilda. For $50, resin parts are available to make an accurate Matilda Mk.II, Mk.III or Mk.IV. People buying this model should know beforehand that the model is not accurate as kitted so they can make an informed decision about buying it.

4.) AFV Club T-34 "Zavod 183" Nowhere did I say the wheels couldn't be fixed. It is easy to fix. All it takes is another kit to rob parts from, or $20 for resin wheels. What I did say was that it couldn't be built as an accurate T-34 without replacing the wheels. People buying this kit should know that beforehand, so they can make an informed decision about purchasing it.

Sure, I focus on accuracy in my hobby, but it is my hobby, my rules. Yours is your hobby, and I don't impose my standards on you. Build away, and have fun.

Reviews and reviewers are another matter. Now it's my hobby being affected. I do believe that manufacturers be held accountable. Scale models are supposed to be accurate, and if they're not because of incompetence or neglect, consumers (modellers) need to be warned. Reviews are supposed to do that --- that's what makes them different from advertisments. Other industries have consumer standards imposed from above. The only standards modellers have, our only protection, are the standards we insist on ourselves. Yes, I can vote with my dollars, and do. Still, if some dog drops a turd in front of a friend, I'm going to tell him not to step in it. I would hope you would do the same.

Regards
Scott Fraser

First off let me say I am not apologizing for how Scott, a friend of mine, said what he said.
But, what Gino and Jacques say I think demonstrates a fundamental difference in how we view models and the hobby in general under certain, self defined, circumstances.
If buildability and “looking like” a given subject are good enough criteria then, if you like Soviet armor, DML’s T-72 and T-80 (and Trump’s poor T-62) series should be just fine. They look like their subjects.
Tamiya’s T-34s, by these standards, should rate near the very top. Not only do they look just like the tanks, they are easily the most buildable of any T-34 kits available.
But as we all know those are not the only standards on which most of us judge these models. Not even close.
Here is a fact; the AFV Club kits are in many measurable ways poor and demonstrably inferior to most of DML’s less than entirely stellar T-34s. In fact, much worse in terms of detail than the review here might suggest.
The AFVC tireless wheels are only one example. It isn’t only that they are missing a “.03 mm” lip around the holes that needs to be there for them to be accurate (or, alternatively, their having an extra rib if you want them to represent the earlier type) they are also chunky in terms of molding.
The cast wheels with the tires are not correct for the application in that they have the six small holes in the center of the hub (Tamiya made the same mistake). These did exist but are not commonly used in combination with the tireless wheels.
The drive and idler miss the mark in terms of depth and refinement.
The lower hull includes two large access panels that should not be there.
The driver's hatch is far too inboard of where it should be.
The upper hull and turret, due to the clear plastic they are made of, are very poorly detailed if you choose to paint them.
The interior of the fighting compartment, though more or less “complete” has a large number of errors in terms of detail. Yes, it’s fine if you button up the thing where none of it can be clearly seen (in fact more than adequate in that application) but it is not accurate in detail.
The refinement of exterior detail is inferior DML and even, in some respects, Tamiya.
There are things to like about the kit; the engine compartment and transmission are nice with little to complain about with the exception of the known issues with which parts to use for the Pomon and Tsyclon air filters and the fact that you only get the five speed transmission.
Detail for the turret is reasonably nice too.

The point being that these kits are being praised far more than they really deserve and not only on this site.
Part count and novelty do not make a great kit and detail really does matter to many modelers especially with the prices we're paying these days.

Mark

Since you ask, I will comment on reviews.




Why was the research done after the review was written?




Pardon me. Scale tank models are sold as accurate scale models. No manufacturer advertises their tank models as inaccurate models. As a manufacturer, I know very well that manufacturing has limitations inherent in the process, and economies, and even where many if them are. Every model has compromises. That's a given.

This is about error, not compromise. It is a small error, but it is conspicous to me --- the elephant in the room --- because it is immediately noticeable to someone who knows the tank. Somewhere somebody screwed it up, because they didn't know what they were supposed to be looking at. That's about research, teamwork, and quality control. It has nothing to do with compromises in manufacturing.

As such, a visible error, it should be included an a review, particularly since the model cannot be completed accurately with alternative parts included in the kit. If a manufacturer put inaccurate wheels on a Sherman tank or a German tank there would be a huge scandal, and yes, it would make a difference in who decided to buy. It should.




Who is a minority? In forty years of counting rivets, I have yet to meet a modeller who wasn't keen to make his next model better than his last one. I have yet to meet anyone building ships or trains or planes or tanks who didn't want his models to be more accurate. Have you? The only distinction is the effort and expense people are willing to suffer to achieve that.

I agreed that there is a group of people who are just plain nuts in what they do to decorate their bookshelf, just my humble opinion, but it's their hobby. The other extreme is the kid in Grade Nine (Nothing against kids in Grade Nine --- some of them are really good modellers) who wants to build a tank and have fun doing it. $50 is a lot more money to him. Kids don't have a library and don't know a lot about tanks and they put a lot of trust in what it says on the box and on websites. In between is the sliding scale. Embracing "average" is endorsing mediocirity, IMHO, and doesn't move the scale.

First of all, I defend the right of every modeller to determine for himself where he sits on that scale. We agree totally there. But I do believe that part of what makes the hobby enjoyable is progress, learning steps toward how to make models like your SU-100, as an obvious example. The audience is wide and with diverse talents, but everyone wants to be able to do that, to move their scale.

I'm afraid of figures. Terrified of painting faces, especially eyes. Someone once said to me that the secret was to start from a very good figure, a resin figure, not just anything off a sprue. In other words, what you start with, a good basis, is very important to how it looks when it's done, and how easy it is to get there.

Now take the Zvezda T-60, it has the right number of wheels and "looks like a T-60". It is, BTW, at the top of my list of Worst Tank Model Ever Made, and is (gasp!) still available. It is so bad it is beyond description, and not worth building, although it is possible to glue the parts together. Now think of our kid in Grade Nine, and how he will react to the thought of another tank model after shelling out $30 for this overpriced dog in his LHS. It's an extreme example with a horrid kit, but it's a sliding scale.

I'd like him to discover beforehand that his money is better spent. If he wants a T-34s, there are better kits, and this is why they are "better", normally meaning superior engineering and greater accuracy in exchange for the retail price. In this case, either of the other AFV Club T-34s is more accurate, both have interiors, or DML's kit is easier to build and more accurate without the interior. Now he has four choices, and may make a different decision.

He only gets those choices from information, and that speaks to the role of reviews, and modelling websites, and is a major can of worms. The world is not perfect. In a perfect world, we would have thorough, critical reviews by modellers as familiar with the subject as they are with building good models. They should measure them, build them, and report their conclusions, objectively and with illustrations. The models should be purchased, not samples from stakeholders, hosted on a website that is not beholden to the same stakeholders for sponsorship. That's a perfect world. Instead, we have another sliding scale. It's not my place to say where this forum belongs, or to determine it. I leave that to others. I only know where it is on my scale.

That said, I surrender the soapbox, and go back to lurking.

Regards
Scott Fraser

I think we fundamentally disagree on what makes a model a wreck and who a review targets. I write my reviews so that the average builder can read it and say, "Yes, that looks like a model I could build," or, "No, that model doesn't look that good to me." I don't write them for the rivet-counters who will find fault with every model. That is why the pictures are there though, so the more discerning modeler can look at the pics and say, "Those wheels don't really look right to me, maybe I'll change them." I also don't think roadwheels being not totally accurately modled (which still look correct to me, maybe I'm just blind) are enough to say a model is a wreck and can't be accurately built.

I personally feel no loyalty to Armorama or the model company to say a model is great or overinflate it. I provide objective reviews no matter how I acquire the kit.

Again, I give you the charge, If you are unhappy with the reviews here, write some up and submit them yourself. I'm sure they would be welcomed.

This is a fray that I wish to remain out of. However, I feel compelled to add to my previous comments.
My statement about the wheels being correct in the Zvezda kit -- I'd have made that no matter who discovered the flaw -- Gino, Scott, or anyone else. I merely wanted to point out that they can be used as a replacement. The whole Zvezda kit cost me a whopping five bucks at the IPMS Nationals in OKC several years ago, which is certainly less than aftermarket wheels would cost.
As for the track statement, well, no matter who's doing the reviewing, how well they know the subject, what the subject is, or what our level of AMS is, we all know what irks us and what doesn't. Those tracks are a huge disappointment. I'm glad Gino posted the photo, because the "S" factor makes itself readily apparent. Even Maquette supplies separate links in their kits (which again might be a good source, as those kits are dirt cheap as well.)
I AM glad AFV Club are doing better tracks for it, but they will again more than likely cost more than a spare kit.

These tracks are indeed very nice. In fact I might place them a notch above similar ModelKasten tracks and they are much less expensive to boot!

Mark