_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
REVIEW
Canadian Grizzly AVGP
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: Sunday, July 15, 2012 - 10:15 AM UTC
Kevin Brant gives us a review of the Trumpeter Grizzly (Late).

Link to Item



If you have comments or questions please post them here.

Thanks!
Heatseeker64
Visit this Community
New South Wales, Australia
Joined: October 05, 2008
KitMaker: 307 posts
Armorama: 305 posts
Posted: Monday, July 16, 2012 - 01:31 PM UTC
How come version 2 of this kit gets a glowing 90 per cent whereas the earlier Grizzly from the same company was canned and rated 45 per cent?

https://armorama.kitmaker.net/review/7205

The earlier review said the turret was unusable ... has it been fixed in the later version?

I rode around on Grizzlies in Rwanda back in 1994 and would like to build a model of one, but these reviews leave me confused!
SgtRam
Staff MemberContributing Writer
AEROSCALE
#197
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: March 06, 2011
KitMaker: 3,971 posts
Armorama: 2,859 posts
Posted: Monday, July 16, 2012 - 01:51 PM UTC
I rated it as a kit, for the enjoyment of building, not for accuracy. To me I like the kit, I can overlook minor inaccuracies. So depending what side of the fence you sit on, will determine how your feel about the kit.
LeoCmdr
Visit this Community
Alberta, Canada
Joined: January 19, 2005
KitMaker: 4,085 posts
Armorama: 3,917 posts
Posted: Monday, July 16, 2012 - 02:13 PM UTC

Quoted Text

How come version 2 of this kit gets a glowing 90 per cent whereas the earlier Grizzly from the same company was canned and rated 45 per cent?

https://armorama.kitmaker.net/review/7205

The earlier review said the turret was unusable ... has it been fixed in the later version?

I rode around on Grizzlies in Rwanda back in 1994 and would like to build a model of one, but these reviews leave me confused!



No need for confusion....

Having written the Early Grizzly review I can say very accurately that all of the same errors exist in the Late Grizzly...and Trumpeter even managed to add another error where it includes the tank telephone from the Cougar mounted on the left rear door.

The biggest error is the turret...in both kit the angles are backwards creating the wrong slopes on the front and back. At least this time they included the turret build instructions in the instruction booklet.

The paint scheme and markings are overall correct for this late version Grizzly...but...the only Grizzly's that deployed to Bosnia with SFOR that looked like this were assigned to the Artillery and used as Gun Tractors to tow 105 mm Howitzers....all other SFOR Grizzlys had the LAST armour package. Grizzly's with KFOR had the uparmouring mounts over the entire hull and turret or had a full package of add-on armour mounted.

If you are looking to build a Rwanda Grizzly then the early version is the kit you want. For a Rwanda deployed Grizzly the kit OOB is the way you want to build it....minus all the errors.

I rated the Grizzly kit the way I saw it...for me it is not fun to build a kit with significant visible dimensional errors.

If you want to see how much work is required to correct the Early Grizzly kit check here....

http://www.network54.com/Forum/169232/message/1342406605/Final+work+in+progress+Grizzly+hope+you+all+like+it.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/169232/thread/1336160849/My+Grizzly+Build+update+Thanks+Jason%21

I don't expect Trumpeter to correct any of the issues on these kits but hopefully we will see the late version parts used to produce a late version Cougar kit.
Heatseeker64
Visit this Community
New South Wales, Australia
Joined: October 05, 2008
KitMaker: 307 posts
Armorama: 305 posts
Posted: Monday, July 16, 2012 - 03:07 PM UTC
Thanks for that gents ... it's a pity that Trumpeter can't get basic details on a simple yet interesting vehicle in the ball park!

Yes, I remember the vehicle in Rwanda had the props, so the early one it is.

Will need to check my pics to nut out the turret.

Cheers.
Heatseeker64
Visit this Community
New South Wales, Australia
Joined: October 05, 2008
KitMaker: 307 posts
Armorama: 305 posts
Posted: Monday, July 16, 2012 - 03:17 PM UTC
Ouch, that's some major surgery!
afv_rob
Visit this Community
England - East Anglia, United Kingdom
Joined: October 09, 2005
KitMaker: 2,556 posts
Armorama: 2,199 posts
Posted: Monday, July 16, 2012 - 08:22 PM UTC

Quoted Text

I can overlook minor inaccuracies. So depending what side of the fence you sit on, will determine how your feel about the kit.



Hmm it seems there are some major inaccuracies based on Jason's info, so perhaps it might be an idea to update the review and state at the end of the review that the kit has some accuracy issues. Of course you don't need to go into them because obviously you weren't aware what they are, but at least that keeps people in the know, so they can make a more informed choice.
SgtRam
Staff MemberContributing Writer
AEROSCALE
#197
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: March 06, 2011
KitMaker: 3,971 posts
Armorama: 2,859 posts
Posted: Monday, July 16, 2012 - 10:58 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

I can overlook minor inaccuracies. So depending what side of the fence you sit on, will determine how your feel about the kit.



Hmm it seems there are some major inaccuracies based on Jason's info, so perhaps it might be an idea to update the review and state at the end of the review that the kit has some accuracy issues.



As I mentioned I based my review on the quality of the kit, not the EXACT accuracies of the actual vehicle. I don't feel there is any need to go back and edit my review, I stand on my review of what looks like an enjoyable kit to build. Having built the Cougar, it was enjoyable. I am not concerned if the angle of the widget is off by 0.1 degree, and I won't give a kit a negative review because of it. I build models for the enjoyment of building, so what if there are some MINOR discrepencies? To me it resembles a Grizzly, and resemebles if very well.

I have talked to some younger modelers and they are being scared of bacause, when they get critism, it is because of comment about complete accuracy from some old timers. Maybe to get people, especially younger generations, some people can accept it is a hobby, not a photocopier. Allow people to build and model and enjoy it, even if the thing-a-majing is 0.05" too short.

Sorry that is just my take on it.
Heatseeker64
Visit this Community
New South Wales, Australia
Joined: October 05, 2008
KitMaker: 307 posts
Armorama: 305 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 - 12:15 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text


Quoted Text

I can overlook minor inaccuracies. So depending what side of the fence you sit on, will determine how your feel about the kit.



Hmm it seems there are some major inaccuracies based on Jason's info, so perhaps it might be an idea to update the review and state at the end of the review that the kit has some accuracy issues.



As I mentioned I based my review on the quality of the kit, not the EXACT accuracies of the actual vehicle. I don't feel there is any need to go back and edit my review, I stand on my review of what looks like an enjoyable kit to build. Having built the Cougar, it was enjoyable. I am not concerned if the angle of the widget is off by 0.1 degree, and I won't give a kit a negative review because of it. I build models for the enjoyment of building, so what if there are some MINOR discrepencies? To me it resembles a Grizzly, and resemebles if very well.

I have talked to some younger modelers and they are being scared of bacause, when they get critism, it is because of comment about complete accuracy from some old timers. Maybe to get people, especially younger generations, some people can accept it is a hobby, not a photocopier. Allow people to build and model and enjoy it, even if the thing-a-majing is 0.05" too short.

Sorry that is just my take on it.



Thing is, people, like me, are influenced by a review and hence there should be detailed info there - like the writer has done a bit of homework.

I'm all for "no brainer" builds where you ignore all inaccuracies just for the fun of building, but if you review something, you are setting yourself up as an expert on the subject, unless you have the disclaimer "this is just a build/inbox review and I have no idea about the accuracy of the dimensions of the kit".

I am no rivet counter, but if I hadn't seen previous reviews of the earlier kit, I would have raced out an bought one on your 90 per cent rating, and ended up very disappointed.

This is not a personal attack of the reviewer - modelling is supposed to be about fun, which is why I never enter comps.

SgtRam
Staff MemberContributing Writer
AEROSCALE
#197
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: March 06, 2011
KitMaker: 3,971 posts
Armorama: 2,859 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 - 01:20 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Thing is, people, like me, are influenced by a review and hence there should be detailed info there - like the writer has done a bit of homework.



When I write a review, I look at the history of the vehicle, and I look at images of the vehicle. I do not get my microscope out and count rivets or marks in the steel rolling process. The model looks very much like the images I found, and if you read the review I made comments on the paint schemes and antenna configuration that did not match the research I had done.

It is up to the review reader, and potential model builder to take from the review what they would like. I personally don't like the reviews that go into the detail of counting rivets, as I would like to know how enjoyable the kit is to build.

The internet is full of reviews, it up to anyone to do their own research to determine if the kit will fit their specific requirements.

Again I stand by all my reviews, past, present, and future.
viper29_ca
Visit this Community
New Brunswick, Canada
Joined: October 18, 2002
KitMaker: 2,247 posts
Armorama: 1,138 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 - 02:55 PM UTC
Looks like a duck, talks and walks like a duck....must be a duck.

Fact of the matter, 99.9% of the modelers out there wouldn't be able to pick out the so called inaccuracies in any of of the 2 Grizzly kits or the Cougar.

Build it...have fun doing it, that is what this hobby is all about, and at the end of the day...you will have a decent looking kit to adorn your shelves.
Removed by original poster on 07/18/12 - 20:01:12 (GMT).
PEIRECCE
Visit this Community
Prince Edward Island, Canada
Joined: August 14, 2002
KitMaker: 117 posts
Armorama: 60 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 - 04:33 AM UTC
"As for modeled accuracy for the SFOR mission, after looking as some reference pictures the model could be considered correct. A few things I did notice is most Grizzlies serving in SFOR/KFOR had an extra antenna mounted on the right side between the passenger view ports. Also a lot of pictures showed the lack of the driverís wind screen and most vehicles carried the standard Green/Olive Green/Black camouflage."

While I understand your approach I don't think you can advertise this vehicle for service in these missions, it is missing the add on armour that all late versions with the large tires had. I think that you should address this in the review rather than mislead people. There are some big errors in the kit and I like others might build it like it is but really it is not accurate. Tell it like it is, and how you intend to enjoy it.
SgtRam
Staff MemberContributing Writer
AEROSCALE
#197
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: March 06, 2011
KitMaker: 3,971 posts
Armorama: 2,859 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 - 05:33 AM UTC

Quoted Text

"As for modeled accuracy for the SFOR mission, after looking as some reference pictures the model could be considered correct. A few things I did notice is most Grizzlies serving in SFOR/KFOR had an extra antenna mounted on the right side between the passenger view ports. Also a lot of pictures showed the lack of the driverís wind screen and most vehicles carried the standard Green/Olive Green/Black camouflage."

While I understand your approach I don't think you can advertise this vehicle for service in these missions, it is missing the add on armour that all late versions with the large tires had. I think that you should address this in the review rather than mislead people. There are some big errors in the kit and I like others might build it like it is but really it is not accurate. Tell it like it is, and how you intend to enjoy it.




Would the average modeller know it was missing? NO! Would the average modeller like to know it is a decent kit to build? YES!

End of story. If you don't like the review, don't read it. And if you have nothing positive to say, then move on. We are not all perfectly knowledged in every screw and bolt on every vehicle. But we enjoy building models till some one comes along and declares themself the king perfectionist and tries to take the fun out of it.

Thanks for your comments. Glad you enjoyed the review.
sauceman
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: September 28, 2006
KitMaker: 2,672 posts
Armorama: 2,475 posts
Posted: Friday, July 27, 2012 - 10:14 AM UTC
I think there are two parts to a review. How well the kit builds, you know parts fit, flash, molding lines ect. And then the question of accuracy should be addressed. This would satisfy both the rivet counters and OOB builders.





Cheers
recceboy
Visit this Community
Alberta, Canada
Joined: July 20, 2006
KitMaker: 706 posts
Armorama: 665 posts
Posted: Friday, July 27, 2012 - 05:18 PM UTC
As a guy who worked on these beasts drove and commanded, and have noticed the errors with both kits compared to the real deal, think the review was a good one as a out of the box review.
For those of us who have served and know the little things about the Beasts, are also here to help out the builders that want the accurate built one. There are enough "TECH's" on the forum to ask around and , we would be happy to help anyone out.

Anthony
Taeuss
Visit this Community
Manitoba, Canada
Joined: January 03, 2016
KitMaker: 3,791 posts
Armorama: 3,778 posts
Posted: Thursday, December 29, 2016 - 09:07 AM UTC
Thanks Anthony, for those who only saw the outside of these "Beasts" as they did humanitarian support here in Manitoba during flooding season, I say that is great that the kit is offered, and that as builders it is ours to improve them while doing so!
 _GOTOTOP