Somewhere I recall reading of problems with the Tamiya half tracks. I remember reading something about their front tires and wheels, but from looking at pictures of the boxes, I can't readily see any problem areas. I am thinking of getting their M16 quad AAA unit, as when I was in the Calif. NG, I was in an AAA outfit with 40mm M42 Dusters and quad M16's.

I would appreciate those in the know letting me know clearly what the problem areas are in this model. Suggested fixes for the problem areas would be appreciated. TIA for the help.

If you have not bought the Tamiya kit yet,then I would suggest you go and get the Dragon M16 kit instead. It's leaps and bounds ahead of the 1970s era Tamiya kit in terms of accuracy.

the tweaks on the DML kit are pretty minor.

Arthur listen to Roy ,,, he's 100 percent right ,,i have many half tracks ,,love the things and the Dargon M2 and M3 half tracks are amazing compared to the very very old Tamiya items .. the tracks in the Dargon kits alone make it better than the Tamiya kit ..its really showing its age now ,,do yourself a favor ... get the Dargon kit

Phill

The "issue" with the front tires you have probably heard of is said to be with the Dragon half-tracks. Dragon molded a slight bulge and flat spot where the tire touches the ground. They must have been looking at under inflated tires on their referance vehicle. The actual vehicles show no bulge/flat spot. That is about all that is "wrong" with them though. If it really bothers you, there are resin replacement wheels for them.

I agree, go with the Dragon kit, the molding is better as you would expect from what is maybe a 30 year old newer kit. My only real advice would be to test fit everything before you glue it, well, the major assemblies as in my experience they can be a bit fiddly.

Gino now that you say that i had to take alook and i have never noticed that but ya they never look like they are bulged .. funny it takes one person to see that and its been on front of me for years

Oh really?



The DML kit may be leaps and bounds ahead of the Tamiya kit in terms of molding quality, finesse of details, sharpness of parts but you might need to re-think your 'accuracy' statement Roy.


Over thirty years ago, even Tamiya new what the correct size and shape of the winch strengthening plates were and did their best with the molding ability of the day to recreate that.





Tamiya 1, Dragon 0


Over thirty years ago, even Tamiya new the correct configuration of the rear stowage boxes. Not only is the larger box more shallow, but shorter in protrusion as well. I guess Dragon was just thinking about equality?





Tamiya 2, Dragon 0


Over thirty years ago, Tamiya knew in order to get the guns to clear the sides, a six inch adapter ring had to be attached to the standard ring in order to raise the mount higher. Dragon seems to think there was just one giant ring, which there wasn't... Ever.





Tamiya 3, Dragon 0


Over thirty years ago, even Tamiya new the spare headlight bracket was a standard fitting on the M16 (and most others as well). Looks like Dragon missed that memo.





Tamiya 4, Dragon 0


This is the type of information that actual research will uncover, I could go on with this list of facts but I'm guessing these few things show the truth for what it is. The DML M16 is the better kit in terms of detail but more accurate?

Good one.


note: research is more than just looking through published books and emailing those who are clearly more knowledgeable than yourself with questions on the topic. For example, crawling over, under and around actual vehicles with note pads, rulers and a camera- comparing these notes with wartime photos purchased from private/personal collections for starters.

Good points on Tamiya accuracy, Ken. The question I have about the stowage boxes is whether these were standard through WWII and the Korean War into Vietnam or if changes had been made.

I believe Dragon does the Quad 50 on a trailer as well, that might be the one to buy.

AFV's Quad 50 is also quite good, but everyone seems to forgotten because it's attached to a truck.

There are good Bofors Guns around in plastic too, if you're thinking to convert a Walker Bulldog into a Duster

Actually, the body of the M16 is from 1974. 37 years.

You don't need to convert an M41 to get a decent M42 Duster. Tamiya's M42 Duster is pretty readily available and can be made into a really nice piece with a little work.

Hi Kevin,

WWII photos seem to show this as the norm on M16's, of course this doesn't mean there isn't a photo or two somewhere showing an altered vehicle.

I have some photos of Korean War M16's with both boxes just like this or even none at all. Sometimes though in the post WWII vehicles you have to make sure it's not an M16A1 or M16A2, which would have different boxes.

Arthur,
When did the California NG retire the M16?
Thanks for any help,
Grant

Wow, thats a terrific Duster. If I may ask, what aftermarket stuff did you use? I always liked the Duster and I think that the NM National Guard out here at Ft Bliss was the last unit operating them. Would love to build one.

I had the Renwal one (I think it was Renwal) when I was a kid at Ft Lee VA and would love to build the Taniya.

You are right. That's a pretty nice looking kit, but those tie downs are way overscale. They almost look like grab handles. Is that one of their kits from the 1970's?

Thanks for the replies on the Duster. The kit is 1/35, but from the '70s. The only AM on it are the AFV Club M41/M42 Running Gear and track sets. All the other details are scratchbuilt. The tie downs are a little big. They are all hand bent 0.015 styrene rod. The M42 was part of my M123A1C w/M15A1 trailer that won the Director's Choice Award at TamiyaCon in '04.

Who exactly are you referring to with this statement?

KL

I don't know about the tires, WWII stuff having not been my thing for over 30 years now, but I do know the wheels themselves are not correct for a lot of the earlier IDF half tracks. I discovered the White Scout Car wheels ARE correct for what I needed, so stocked up accordingly.

I guess it depends on which part of the statement, as some of it refers to myself. For the most part it can just be considered a blanket statement but If you would like to discuss this in greater depth in private, I would be more than happy to accommodate your question in full. You will have to get my current email off of ML though, as the old email we've spoken through before, is no longer in use.

I will give you an example though, if that will help you to understand my position on the topic?

When combining the information in photos I personally own, with photos from another private collection in the past, I wanted to double check the registration numbers to assure myself of my findings. I don't have access to certain documents found in places far from my home, others do. I emailed you about registration numbers before, because you have actually physically researched that aspect yourself at NARA (IIRC).

After doing so, I have never and would never, be found posting on forums around the internet, that the findings of my research of those numbers resulted in any specific outcome. For one, I believe in giving credit where credit is due and claiming I researched those registration numbers, would be utter BS. If I was ever questioned as to the authenticity of those numbers anywhere, at any time, by anyone, I would gladly publicly state that your research was infallibly helpful in determining the authenticity of those registration numbers.

I'm not sure if that answers your question in any way but as I mentioned, if you would like to speak in greater depth about this, email me. I would be more than happy to expand on this.

Grant--I left the CNG in 1959 to join the regular army in 1959. We were still using the M16 quad fifties then. Not sure when they got sheisse canned.

Thanks. I had heard that the Guard used halftracks during the 68 demonstrations.

Best wishes,
Grant