Hi All
I recently read an on line review of the Dragon M4 Composite hull PTO and saw in the artical that hull was not in some way correct and I wonder if any one could shed some light on the matter please?
Regards Rob.
Hosted by Darren Baker
Sherman M4 Composite hull issue with Dragon
smith_rc3
United States
Joined: May 11, 2008
KitMaker: 69 posts
Armorama: 66 posts
Joined: May 11, 2008
KitMaker: 69 posts
Armorama: 66 posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 - 12:40 PM UTC
KurtLaughlin
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 - 02:05 PM UTC
Provide a link to the review and perhaps it can be deciphered.
KL
KL
smith_rc3
United States
Joined: May 11, 2008
KitMaker: 69 posts
Armorama: 66 posts
Joined: May 11, 2008
KitMaker: 69 posts
Armorama: 66 posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 - 08:19 PM UTC
Hi Kurt
Thanks for replying, the artical is at the following URL:-
https://armorama.kitmaker.net/review/4236
and the paragraph is below:-
Second, the hull provided is for the M4A3, not the M4. For most modelers this won't be a problem as the bottom won't be visible. For some, especially in competition, it may be. I have asked Dragon Care if they will replace the hull and am waiting for the response. For all the detail and effort put into this kit, to make an error like this is again senseless.
So the question is, does it matter?
Thanks for replying, the artical is at the following URL:-
https://armorama.kitmaker.net/review/4236
and the paragraph is below:-
Second, the hull provided is for the M4A3, not the M4. For most modelers this won't be a problem as the bottom won't be visible. For some, especially in competition, it may be. I have asked Dragon Care if they will replace the hull and am waiting for the response. For all the detail and effort put into this kit, to make an error like this is again senseless.
So the question is, does it matter?
ALBOWIE
New South Wales, Australia
Joined: February 28, 2006
KitMaker: 1,605 posts
Armorama: 1,565 posts
Joined: February 28, 2006
KitMaker: 1,605 posts
Armorama: 1,565 posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 - 10:21 PM UTC
Ok, that makes it a bit easier to answer. The DML Composite kit is a Sherman they could have done better and they made a few mistakes but none are catastrophic.
The major issues are:
- The Lower hull (since corrected as my last purchased one had the M4 Lower Hull and not the M4A3). They did put M4S3 lowers in the original release but fixed it up through Dragoncare.
- The Turret - DML really stuffed up here and gave two turrets, a correct High Bustle one and an ultra rare Low bustle turret with a pistol port and a loders hatch. Firstly they thought they'd save money and only give you one turret lower piece so you could only really do the Low Bustle turret version. The only problem is that it is extremely unlikely that any of these turrets were used on Composites having only been seen on late M4A2 in USSR service so far.
The HB turret is fine but missing the lower so Dragoncare again. The LB turret seen on Composites had no pistol port and no loaders hatch (Fill the kit ones in or get an excellent replacement from Formations)
The rest of the kit is fine and I believe the Composite hull to be the best available as the excellent Formations one is missing the key recognition point for a composite the small bulge and mount in the middle of the glacis.
If you are willing to invest the time with Dragoncare this can be an excellent kit. The Decal options are not entirely correct for the vesrions offered and a check of Photographs will be necessary to select the correct turret (only the HB for most).
I live in hope of a Tasca one but once you know what's wrong with this one it is easy to fix. Poor attention to detail really let DML down.
If they re release it I hope they offer the correct LB turret and good markings for NWE (UK 33 AB and US 6AD) which are attractive markings with large turret or Hull numbers
The lower hull with only matter if you care about it.
Cheers
Al
The major issues are:
- The Lower hull (since corrected as my last purchased one had the M4 Lower Hull and not the M4A3). They did put M4S3 lowers in the original release but fixed it up through Dragoncare.
- The Turret - DML really stuffed up here and gave two turrets, a correct High Bustle one and an ultra rare Low bustle turret with a pistol port and a loders hatch. Firstly they thought they'd save money and only give you one turret lower piece so you could only really do the Low Bustle turret version. The only problem is that it is extremely unlikely that any of these turrets were used on Composites having only been seen on late M4A2 in USSR service so far.
The HB turret is fine but missing the lower so Dragoncare again. The LB turret seen on Composites had no pistol port and no loaders hatch (Fill the kit ones in or get an excellent replacement from Formations)
The rest of the kit is fine and I believe the Composite hull to be the best available as the excellent Formations one is missing the key recognition point for a composite the small bulge and mount in the middle of the glacis.
If you are willing to invest the time with Dragoncare this can be an excellent kit. The Decal options are not entirely correct for the vesrions offered and a check of Photographs will be necessary to select the correct turret (only the HB for most).
I live in hope of a Tasca one but once you know what's wrong with this one it is easy to fix. Poor attention to detail really let DML down.
If they re release it I hope they offer the correct LB turret and good markings for NWE (UK 33 AB and US 6AD) which are attractive markings with large turret or Hull numbers
The lower hull with only matter if you care about it.
Cheers
Al
smith_rc3
United States
Joined: May 11, 2008
KitMaker: 69 posts
Armorama: 66 posts
Joined: May 11, 2008
KitMaker: 69 posts
Armorama: 66 posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 - 03:41 AM UTC
Hi Al
Thanks for replying, I was under the impression that the lower hull was from an M4, is that thinking correct?
Also, and the thing that I find confusing is that many M4 lower hulls seem to have a curve to them where the rear plate meets the hull bottom and yet the PTO Sherman has no curve, but then looked at several other m4s and m4a1s and it seems to me that it was possible that both are possible, do you have a view on this area please?
Regards Bob.
Thanks for replying, I was under the impression that the lower hull was from an M4, is that thinking correct?
Also, and the thing that I find confusing is that many M4 lower hulls seem to have a curve to them where the rear plate meets the hull bottom and yet the PTO Sherman has no curve, but then looked at several other m4s and m4a1s and it seems to me that it was possible that both are possible, do you have a view on this area please?
Regards Bob.
ALBOWIE
New South Wales, Australia
Joined: February 28, 2006
KitMaker: 1,605 posts
Armorama: 1,565 posts
Joined: February 28, 2006
KitMaker: 1,605 posts
Armorama: 1,565 posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 - 10:13 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Hi Al
Thanks for replying, I was under the impression that the lower hull was from an M4, is that thinking correct?
Also, and the thing that I find confusing is that many M4 lower hulls seem to have a curve to them where the rear plate meets the hull bottom and yet the PTO Sherman has no curve, but then looked at several other m4s and m4a1s and it seems to me that it was possible that both are possible, do you have a view on this area please?
Regards Bob.
Hi Rob, yes the Composite had an M4 Lower hull as it was an M4 just with a different Hull top. The rounded part you speak of was dependant on who manufactured the lower hull and the same in M4A1 pruction (shared the same lower Hull). The Composites were all manufactured by Chrysler but I cannot remember if theirs are rounded or not. I'll check some pics tonight but try searching Toadmans pictures to get an idea
Cheers
Al
smith_rc3
United States
Joined: May 11, 2008
KitMaker: 69 posts
Armorama: 66 posts
Joined: May 11, 2008
KitMaker: 69 posts
Armorama: 66 posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 - 10:32 AM UTC
Hi Al
I had that thought but my knowledge of Shermans does not extend to which company produced which models, so your guidance is much appricated, thank you.
However, in reseaching this area, I am begining to discover some of the additional information needed to understand things.
Once again many thanks.
Regards Rob
I had that thought but my knowledge of Shermans does not extend to which company produced which models, so your guidance is much appricated, thank you.
However, in reseaching this area, I am begining to discover some of the additional information needed to understand things.
Once again many thanks.
Regards Rob
russamotto
Utah, United States
Joined: December 14, 2007
KitMaker: 3,389 posts
Armorama: 2,054 posts
Joined: December 14, 2007
KitMaker: 3,389 posts
Armorama: 2,054 posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 - 03:30 PM UTC
Having built this kit previously, even with it's issues, I would readily do it again. I understand from other modelers that the correct low bustle turret is now included with the kit. In addition to the UK 33AB and US 6AD, I would love decals for Saipan, Anguar/Peleliu or Okinawa. For Okinawa, the hull would have to be modified to fill in the rear cutout.