_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
Hosted by Darren Baker, Mario Matijasic
NEWS
DML: M2a1 Howitzer w/USMC Crew
jimbrae
Visit this Community
Provincia de Lugo, Spain / España
Joined: April 23, 2003
KitMaker: 12,927 posts
Armorama: 9,486 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 - 02:55 AM UTC
Dragon Models have had their M2A1 Howitzer out for a while now. They have though, just announced a type of 'Re-Issue' with the gun and a U.S. Marine Crew. Full Story here:



Link to Item

If you have comments or questions please post them here.

Thanks!

HeavyArty
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 - 03:01 AM UTC
Interesting crew figures. The question is are they new, or reboxed with new arms like the Battle of the Bulge gunners in their prior kit? I don't recognize the poses from any other Dragon USMC figures.
2IDsecondtonone
Visit this Community
Queensland, Australia
Joined: May 22, 2010
KitMaker: 47 posts
Armorama: 43 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 - 04:23 AM UTC
It's a shame Dragon followed the same route as with their original M2A1 using the 101st Airborne at Bastogne figure set. From the CAD images it's obvious that they've used the U.S. Marines Iwo Jima (6408) with different arms. Also it's kind of misleading when the box art and the actual figures are in different poses.

The US Artillery crew WIP by Masterbox should be much more suitable in representing actual artillery crew, not modified infantry figures.

HeavyArty
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 - 04:33 AM UTC

Quoted Text

it's obvious that they've used the U.S. Marines Iwo Jima (6408) with different arms.


I don't think so. The poses do not look the same and the arty crew figures in the drawing are wearing leggins.

Iwo Marines:


New Marine Arty Crew:
Dangeroo
#023
Visit this Community
Zurich, Switzerland
Joined: March 13, 2009
KitMaker: 2,058 posts
Armorama: 1,656 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 - 04:39 AM UTC
The boxart is not the same as the cad images. If you look at these it's obvious they are the iwo jima marines. No leggins there and especially the kneeling figure is obvious. Too bad... As Jim said, it would have been nice to have a credible artillery crew, not infantry manning a gun.


Cheers!
Stefan
alanmac
Visit this Community
United Kingdom
Joined: February 25, 2007
KitMaker: 3,033 posts
Armorama: 2,953 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 - 04:39 AM UTC
Hi

Gino, the box art shows leggings but check out the CAD images of the figures in the article. On that basis I think Hyun-Jae Hwang is correct in his assumption.

Alan
2IDsecondtonone
Visit this Community
Queensland, Australia
Joined: May 22, 2010
KitMaker: 47 posts
Armorama: 43 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 - 04:41 AM UTC
Follow the link and take a look at the CAD images . They're exactly the same as the Iwo Jima figures minus the weapons. Also as I said in the previous post, the boxart and the supplied CAD figures are different
HeavyArty
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 - 05:14 AM UTC
OK, sorry I missed the CAD part. Too bad they didn't make them as in the boxart.
jimbrae
Visit this Community
Provincia de Lugo, Spain / España
Joined: April 23, 2003
KitMaker: 12,927 posts
Armorama: 9,486 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 - 05:35 AM UTC
Curious isn't it? When DML do an Axis release, they pull out all the stops. When its an Allied release it seems to be a series of compromises and recycling of other releases.

A U.S.M.C. Gun Crew (not a recycled infantry set) could have been a good seller for them. Used on their Priest, with the 75mm Howitzer or any other appropriate SP Gun it could have been good business.

Hopefully they WON'T release this as a seperate set.
bill_c
Staff MemberCampaigns Administrator
MODEL SHIPWRIGHTS
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: January 09, 2008
KitMaker: 10,553 posts
Armorama: 8,109 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 - 05:35 AM UTC
Mike del Vecchio has pointed out that artillery crews shouldn't be wearing their traps, either, as there's too much risk of getting straps caught in the recoil of the gun or other moving parts.
HeavyArty
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 - 06:00 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Mike del Vecchio has pointed out that artillery crews shouldn't be wearing their traps, either, as there's too much risk of getting straps caught in the recoil of the gun or other moving parts.


And he is correct. Here are some examples, note that none of them are wearing any type of web gear or equipment.






Since the 80s and ODS only the PAGST vest was usually worn.



For current ops in Iraq and A'stan the IBA vest and its gear is usually left on since the gear on it is pretty tight and doesn't have hanging straps.

AlanL
Visit this Community
England - East Anglia, United Kingdom
Joined: August 12, 2005
KitMaker: 14,499 posts
Armorama: 11,675 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 - 06:15 AM UTC
Sad isn't it. They did the same with their Welbike kit.

Al
zapper
Visit this Community
Skåne, Sweden
Joined: October 18, 2005
KitMaker: 745 posts
Armorama: 734 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 - 06:36 AM UTC
A bit strange to depict a guy ramming a round onto the cradle (or whatever it's called on an artillery piece) and not into the breech? Might be possible to position him differently but one wonder considering it's origin.

/E
JeepLC
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Joined: June 20, 2007
KitMaker: 510 posts
Armorama: 469 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 - 07:17 AM UTC
I saw the link and the box art and almost jumped out of my chair with glee... then I saw the cad images and looked at the DML Iwo Jima box on my shelf. Lazy lazy lazy... this is the stuff that kills me.

I would have been much happier with something like this:








Thanks DML for another uninspired offering... at least no one is pointing and they aren't wearing overcoats. Who are we kidding though? Did anyone expect less? They haven't even released a 1/35 LVT for Pete's sake... this was the easy route.

-Mike
berwickj
Visit this Community
Fyn, Denmark
Joined: April 16, 2007
KitMaker: 352 posts
Armorama: 342 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 - 07:54 AM UTC
Nice shot at the bottom, Gino. We used to stand right behind our 105s and watch the projectile go. We would also remove all our webbing and leave it in the deuce. So I'll be waiting for MasterBoxes artillery crew as well.

John
ianclasper
Visit this Community
Washington, United States
Joined: September 02, 2009
KitMaker: 227 posts
Armorama: 141 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 - 07:57 AM UTC
It is about time that Dragon released the M2A2 / M101 !

From the sprues of the M2A1, it has been apparent that this kit would appear some day as Dragon had already done all the engineering. There is a shield size hole in the main sprue of the M2A1 kit, everything else for a M2A2 is already there. Now, I guess with this new kit that the aforementioned hole in the sprue will be filled with the M2A2 shield and there will be a corresponding hole in the sprue where the M2A1 shield use to be. Everything else needed for the M2A2 has been in the M2A1 all along, items such as the fixed fwd shield, main axle, slewing mechanism, brake levels etc.

So the question now is, do I buy this kit to build a M101 or wait 6 months for AFV Club to release their version ? From the AFV Club sprues it is obvious that they have also tooled more versions of this gun (both styles of Brake Levers, early and late styles of wheel rims etc).

Ian

Vodnik
Visit this Community
Warszawa, Poland
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 - 08:09 PM UTC

Quoted Text

And, as the M2a1 has been out for a while, many people will have seen the actual model. However, what's new is the crew.


Jim,
As Ian pointed out above, this is not just a re-issue with a crew. The model now has the M2A2 carriage with different shield configuration. It can now be used to build late configuration M2A1, but also M101 howitzer, as used in Korea, Vietnam etc.

Pawel
jimbrae
Visit this Community
Provincia de Lugo, Spain / España
Joined: April 23, 2003
KitMaker: 12,927 posts
Armorama: 9,486 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 - 08:25 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

And, as the M2a1 has been out for a while, many people will have seen the actual model. However, what's new is the crew.


Jim,
As Ian pointed out above, this is not just a re-issue with a crew. The model now has the M2A2 carriage with different shield configuration. It can now be used to build late configuration M2A1, but also M101 howitzer, as used in Korea, Vietnam etc.

Pawel


With respect Pawel, that is not the issue. The issue as far as i'm concerned is their half-baked approach to ANYTHING Allied. The predominant issue, is sticking a few extra arms with an existing Infantry set and calling it a gun crew.

When DML release their 25 pounder, we'll doubtless see their 8th Army infantry set with a new sprue of arms as well. Full webbing and equipment included?

You can fool some of the people some of the time, DML are well past the point of being able to fool ALL of the people all of the time...
berwickj
Visit this Community
Fyn, Denmark
Joined: April 16, 2007
KitMaker: 352 posts
Armorama: 342 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 01:32 AM UTC
It's funny how they depict it with the drawbar and lunette down. The drawbar is always rotated to the up position before the trails are split.
They did the same on the "M2A1, Battle of the Bulge" set. I would not want to dig the right spade out after a longer fire mission, with the drawbar down.

John
dioman13
Visit this Community
Indiana, United States
Joined: August 19, 2007
KitMaker: 2,184 posts
Armorama: 1,468 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 03:56 AM UTC
Some one is not doing thier home work at dragon. Seems that they are going the cheap way just for a new release, such a shame. There is a possability of using the figures as infantry who replaced the gun crew after they were taken out in the middle of battle though. Still, as dragon is one of my major figure factors, I feel that we are geting the short end of a whittled down to nothing stick. Better figures as pointed out, could have made this a major seller. Actions like this make me look elsewhere.
CDK
Visit this Community
Massachusetts, United States
Joined: September 24, 2006
KitMaker: 358 posts
Armorama: 339 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 04:42 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

Mike del Vecchio has pointed out that artillery crews shouldn't be wearing their traps, either, as there's too much risk of getting straps caught in the recoil of the gun or other moving parts.


And he is correct. Here are some examples, note that none of them are wearing any type of web gear or equipment.


And while I agree with statement, it isn't written in stone and photos showing just the opposite can be found if one is diligent enough in their research.

It did happen occasionally, for whatever reasons.

HeavyArty
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 05:34 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text


Quoted Text

Mike del Vecchio has pointed out that artillery crews shouldn't be wearing their traps, either, as there's too much risk of getting straps caught in the recoil of the gun or other moving parts.


And he is correct. Here are some examples, note that none of them are wearing any type of web gear or equipment.


And while I agree with statement, it isn't written in stone and photos showing just the opposite can be found if one is diligent enough in their research.

It did happen occasionally, for whatever reasons.



That is true, there were/are always exceptions to the rule. It is not the norm for artillerymen to wear their gear when manning their guns though.
bill_c
Staff MemberCampaigns Administrator
MODEL SHIPWRIGHTS
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: January 09, 2008
KitMaker: 10,553 posts
Armorama: 8,109 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 06:18 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

Mike del Vecchio has pointed out that artillery crews shouldn't be wearing their traps, either, as there's too much risk of getting straps caught in the recoil of the gun or other moving parts.

And while I agree with statement, it isn't written in stone and photos showing just the opposite can be found if one is diligent enough in their research.

As some of you know, I am also a Civil War reenactor, and we often debate extensively about what they wore, how they wore, etc. An "Occam's Razor" we use in our debates is PEC: plain, everyday, common.

While I'm sure there were artillery crews who because of a lack of time or some other reason (stupidity?) left their traps on, it would be unusual, not normal, not PEC. When I build something, I don't want a real soldier from the era who might wander into a model show or my basement to be startled or focus on something like that.

Manufacturers should make our lives easier, not harder. DML isn't alone in this: Eduard's new Bf109 E-7 won't let you put the engine in the aircraft if the cowl is going to be in place. The landing trim tabs on the front of the wings are molded to be extended, though you rarely see photos of actual planes with the tabs out.
Vodnik
Visit this Community
Warszawa, Poland
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 06:51 AM UTC

Quoted Text

With respect Pawel, that is not the issue.

I know what you mean and I agree. I just want to point out what you did not include in your News Report at all - that if fact we get a new gun variant here (with poorly done crew figures added). I fully understand your sentiments and agree with you about those figures, but I don't like the fact that your report lacks that very important piece of information (for me the most important, as I rarely use any figures with any of my models). Well, of course you quote the carriage type giving the new set name, but not everyone knows the difference and the rest of your article suggest that the kit is the same as before with only figures being different.

Oh, and don't think that I write it to defend DML, because I'm their consultant. I'm no longer one.

Pawel
jimbrae
Visit this Community
Provincia de Lugo, Spain / España
Joined: April 23, 2003
KitMaker: 12,927 posts
Armorama: 9,486 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 07:33 AM UTC

Quoted Text

I don't like the fact that your report lacks that very important piece of information (for me the most important, as I rarely use any figures with any of my models). Well, of course you quote the carriage type giving the new set name, but not everyone knows the difference and the rest of your article suggest that the kit is the same as before with only figures being different.


Well, i've got copies of the original U.S. Army publications on both the carriage and the howitzer, but I trust i'll be forgiven for not wading thru them and giving a potted history of their features. I wanted to get the story out - when it gets reviewed, that's when the Reviewer will have time to make these points?
 _GOTOTOP