_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
Hosted by Darren Baker, Mario Matijasic
REVIEW
DML Sherman Mk.Ic Firefly Hybrid
c5flies
Visit this Community
California, United States
Joined: October 21, 2007
KitMaker: 3,684 posts
Armorama: 2,938 posts
Posted: Monday, July 05, 2010 - 05:36 PM UTC
Pat McGrath provides an In-Box review of the Sherman Hyrid Firefly Ic from Dragon, a Smart Kit release in 1/35.

Link to Item



If you have comments or questions please post them here.

Thanks!
exer
Visit this Community
Dublin, Ireland
Joined: November 27, 2004
KitMaker: 6,048 posts
Armorama: 4,619 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 - 02:24 AM UTC
Thanks for putting this up James.
One mistake I made in the review:
Quoted Text

The periscopes to the front of the front hatches are now separate so they can be modeled opened or closed.

Of course there was no co driver on a firefly so that periscope would never be used and the cover should remain closed.
metooshelah
#011
Visit this Community
Jerusalem, Israel
Joined: February 06, 2009
KitMaker: 1,507 posts
Armorama: 1,304 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 - 03:13 AM UTC
thanks Pat! enjoyed reading this one very much, as I have the kit too.
I agree with you on the markings options, and feel too that more options should have been given.
by the way, just a note on the gun: there is a "nice" seem going from end to end, which will need sanding. usually their one (or almost one) piece guns are pretty good.
barkingdigger
Staff MemberAssociate Editor
ARMORAMA
#013
Visit this Community
England - East Anglia, United Kingdom
Joined: June 20, 2008
KitMaker: 3,981 posts
Armorama: 3,403 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 - 03:44 AM UTC
Pat,

Thanks for the review! Is the turret sprue truly new to this kit? I can't get hold of my Vc kit at the moment to compare... (And is the gun tube the correct length? I remember there being a fuss that the older Dragon one was a tad long...)

Tom
exer
Visit this Community
Dublin, Ireland
Joined: November 27, 2004
KitMaker: 6,048 posts
Armorama: 4,619 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 - 08:22 AM UTC
@ Tom: The barrel is approx 99mm long from the tip of the muzzle brake to the end of the tapered section some of which will be covered by the mantlet but it is still way too long by about 9mm

firefly barrel
Sorry I didn't put that in the review I missed it because I plan on using a lionmarc barrel.


The turret sprue is a new casting as unlike the VC it doesn't have the pistol port.

@metooshelah: "Nice" of you to add the note about the gun- an ommission on my part- again because I plan on using the Lionmarc one though of course not everyone will do that.
AlanL
Visit this Community
England - East Anglia, United Kingdom
Joined: August 12, 2005
KitMaker: 14,499 posts
Armorama: 11,675 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 - 10:04 AM UTC
Hi Pat,

Thanks for the review. I gave up waiting for this one and bought their 9037 re-issue when it can out, at £15.00 I'll make the fixes and give this one a miss.

The re-issue has the two indi track set links and duckbill connectors which I like anyway.

Pity they still haven't got the correct barrel length! The barrel in the 9037 kit is even bigger!!

Thanks

Al
ALBOWIE
Visit this Community
New South Wales, Australia
Joined: February 28, 2006
KitMaker: 1,605 posts
Armorama: 1,565 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 - 01:20 PM UTC
Thanks for the review although I wish to clarify a statement in the review:
"The majority of hybrid Ic Fireflys were made with the low bustle turret without the pistol port and with the added oval loader's hatch."

This is incorrect as the original turrets had no loaders hatch when the pistol port was removed (as were most of the British M4 Composites (75mm). The oval loaders hatch was introduced along with he pistol port briefly before production switched to High Bustle turrets although these are incredibly rare and hard to find pictures of (I've only seen them on Soviet M4A2 and an M4A1). The HB turrets all had the oval loades and the Pistol port
The LB turret without pistiol port had the standard Firefly Loaders hatch added and not the oval one as is depicted in the kit.
This turret is a big improvement over the original DML Firefly turret but I'm not a fan of the lower/upper split. The original followed the cast join of te real thing which was easy to deal with.
CHeers
Al
exer
Visit this Community
Dublin, Ireland
Joined: November 27, 2004
KitMaker: 6,048 posts
Armorama: 4,619 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 - 01:44 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Thanks for the review although I wish to clarify a statement in the review:
"The majority of hybrid Ic Fireflys were made with the low bustle turret without the pistol port and with the added oval loader's hatch."

This is incorrect as the original turrets had no loaders hatch when the pistol port was removed (as were most of the British M4 Composites (75mm). The oval loaders hatch was introduced along with he pistol port briefly before production switched to High Bustle turrets although these are incredibly rare and hard to find pictures of (I've only seen them on Soviet M4A2 and an M4A1). The HB turrets all had the oval loades and the Pistol port
The LB turret without pistiol port had the standard Firefly Loaders hatch added and not the oval one as is depicted in the kit.

My mistake Al -it should read "rectangular" loader's hatch which was added during the tank's conversion to a Firefly, I might ask James to edit that.

If ABM are still going they do a very good High Bustle Firefly Turret
ppawlak1
Visit this Community
Victoria, Australia
Joined: March 14, 2006
KitMaker: 1,973 posts
Armorama: 1,843 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 - 02:05 PM UTC

Quoted Text


If ABM are still going they do a very good High Bustle Firefly Turret


Pat,

Formations have a great high bustle that they have just released also :

High Bustle Turret from Formations

I've just ordered it - looks GREAT !

I'll be using it with this kit for one slightly different Polish Version
c5flies
Visit this Community
California, United States
Joined: October 21, 2007
KitMaker: 3,684 posts
Armorama: 2,938 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 - 05:29 PM UTC
Hi Pat,

Added the 'corrections' (hopefully I did them correctly) and the image that you posted of the barrel...hope this is ok.

Great review, thanks!
exer
Visit this Community
Dublin, Ireland
Joined: November 27, 2004
KitMaker: 6,048 posts
Armorama: 4,619 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 - 09:32 PM UTC
@James thanks for that

@Paul That looks great- Rob Ervin's stuff is excellent.
barkingdigger
Staff MemberAssociate Editor
ARMORAMA
#013
Visit this Community
England - East Anglia, United Kingdom
Joined: June 20, 2008
KitMaker: 3,981 posts
Armorama: 3,403 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 - 11:55 PM UTC
Pat,

Thanks for the barrel info! Do you think the unwanted 9mm can be safely "lost" from just behind the muzzle brake? I'm thinking in terms of being able to suggest useful fixes in the review...

Regards,

Tom
exer
Visit this Community
Dublin, Ireland
Joined: November 27, 2004
KitMaker: 6,048 posts
Armorama: 4,619 posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 - 03:30 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Pat,

Thanks for the barrel info! Do you think the unwanted 9mm can be safely "lost" from just behind the muzzle brake? I'm thinking in terms of being able to suggest useful fixes in the review...

Regards,

Tom


You could do that, the barrel is tapered but the increase in thickness is minimal in those9mm.
trainsdavid
Visit this Community
Wales, United Kingdom
Joined: September 01, 2007
KitMaker: 16 posts
Armorama: 15 posts
Posted: Friday, November 25, 2011 - 02:26 AM UTC
pat could your please tell me if co-axial machine gun is a flush fit or perturding thanks david
 _GOTOTOP