_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
Hosted by Darren Baker, Mario Matijasic
REVIEW
DML Sexton II
firstcircle
Visit this Community
England - South East, United Kingdom
Joined: November 19, 2008
KitMaker: 2,249 posts
Armorama: 2,007 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 - 06:09 AM UTC

Quoted Text

The perception I have, rightly or wrongly, is that DML don't put anything like as much thought or work into their Allied releases as they do to their Axis ones.

Anyone care to comment?


Well, I wonder if Dragon make a little rivet counter's rod for their own back, because for some vehicles, and it is mainly the WW2 German ones I guess, they go to town in producing very specific versions, with all of the Ausf. nos. and Early, Mid, Late, even Early / Mid etc. which builds the expectation that the kits are very, very specific. Then again, that isn't always the case, for example their little SdKfz 263 has features from virtually the entire 6 odd year production run all rolled into one, some of which should probably not appear on the same vehicle, but none of which are called out as options in the kit.

The problem here is the many decal options, as you say. Perhaps it would have been wiser to narrow the options down to what is known, and keep the possibility of another variant in their back pocket, without the risk of apparently contradicting themselves.

Anyway, we definitely don't need an apology from Jim for pedantry.
Vodnik
Visit this Community
Warszawa, Poland
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 - 07:58 AM UTC

Quoted Text


it is my believe that the configuration in the kit is inaccurate, and I will stand on my review.

Then you still have a lot to learn about writing good reviews... Learn from Terry Ashley. He never hesitated to correct mistakes in his reviews, when they were pointed out. I was also probably one of the most critical reviewers in the history of Armorama, but I never had a problem with correcting my reviews when something I wrote turned out to be inaccurate. Always remember the goal of publishinv a review: it is to let other modelers make informed decision about the purchase of the kit. Your review in its original form completely discourages anyone interested in accuracy from getting this kit, while in fact accurate model can be built from it. Yes, the most common, staandard configuration cannot be built out of the box and most decal options are wrong for the included configuration, so you can certainly list those as big negatives and lower the score accordingly, but what you wrote in your article is wrong.

Here is a photo to add to your research (source: British Armour in North-West Europe, Volume 1 by Dennis Oliver, Concord Publications):

18Bravo
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 20, 2005
KitMaker: 7,219 posts
Armorama: 6,097 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 - 08:33 AM UTC
I will be the first to admit I was wrong as well. However, I still find it odd that they would produce such a lesser known variant. Sometimes the cheaper route (using as many existing sprues as possible) is not the best way to go.
When all is said and done, if I didn't already own one, I'd probably get this one, and pony up the extra thirty bucks for new tracks, grumbling all the way...

Edit: In looking at Jim's photos (I like to post and then read, so a lot of what I said above has been said) it looks as if welds need to be added to the hull. No big thing even for a beginner, but damn - all other issues aside, this is one thing they could've gotten right.
c5flies
Visit this Community
California, United States
Joined: October 21, 2007
KitMaker: 3,684 posts
Armorama: 2,938 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 - 08:52 AM UTC
Pawel, you already made your point with Hannibal III which is a perfect CH single vehicle kit and one that DML got right in this kit. Possibly a few others too. Although, for the majority of the Sexton II's extra AM items will be needed. DML took the less expensive way out of this kit...understandable but not always forgivable, nor acceptable to all.

Kevin already stated in a previous post that he is willing to amend the review with the fact that the kit is more correct for the minority of Sexton II's produced or in the field.

As far as the rest of the review goes, Kevin did NOT rate it inappropriately low and/or state the kit was worthless. I read many high points of the kit in the review and feel that a small edit that the kit is suitable for the above mentioned will be fine.


Tom...thanks for the quick responses, much appreciated!

Tony...looks great so far, unfortunate that the rear requires so much work but it appears you did a fine job getting everything lined up and in place.

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, February 05, 2013 - 08:58 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Then you still have a lot to learn about writing good reviews...


The review was written based on the "majority" information that I had on hand, and information based on the country that build the vehicles from Government Archives.


Quoted Text


while in fact accurate model can be built from it. Yes, the most common, staandard configuration cannot be built out of the box and most decal options are wrong for the included configuration, so you can certainly list those as big negatives and lower the score accordingly, but what you wrote in your article is wrong.


What I wrote in my article I still believe is correct, while it seems that there are some ODD occurrences of the vehicle in other configurations, my review is based on the standard vehicle. There are odd occurrences of every vehicle, and thus using your logic, all review are wrong. If you go read the other reviews on the internet for this kit, they all say the same thing, the bogies and tracks are incorrect for the vehicle as it was built.

I can post a dozen or more photographs that show the vehicle in the standard configuration, and a couple more that show some other oddities. But as for the standard Sexton II as it was built, the Dragon kit is incorrect. While they may have made the kit that matches a very few of the vehicle, in my opinion Dragon lucked out, as based on the reality, Dragon did not do complete research on the vehicle.

I apologize if you believe what I wrote in my article is wrong, well that is your opinion based on one photograph against 100 showing it the other way.

You are allow to make your opinion on what you take from the review, but remember a review is one persons opinion, maybe you should read some other review, and then make an educated decision as to what YOU think of the kit.

Vodnik
Visit this Community
Warszawa, Poland
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 - 09:26 AM UTC
Kevin,

My point is that everything you wrote in the post above should be included in your article. I absolutely agree with it all! The problem is that you refuse to add these comments there. I simply don't agree with the idea of leaving the article with a conclusion about "inaccurate tracks and bogies" and without pointing out that they are in fact correct for a limited number of vehicles and decals for one of them are included in the kit. Note that the production line photo suggests that at least some vehicles have left the factory in this configuration. I find it hard to believe that e.g. Hannibal III has left the factory with reinforced bogies and CDP tracks and then for some reason someone decided to replace all bogies, sprocket wheels and tracks! I'm pretty sure that this vehicle simply left the factory configured like that for some reason. My hypothesis is that a number (maybe very small) of earliest Sexton IIs were built like that, then quickly afterwards the reinforced bogies where introduced (but still with T54E1 tracks) and later the CDP tracks and sprockets. But I don't have any real evidence to prove it, so it is just that: my hypothesis...
CMOT
Staff MemberEditor-in-Chief
ARMORAMA
Visit this Community
England - South West, United Kingdom
Joined: May 14, 2006
KitMaker: 10,954 posts
Armorama: 8,571 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 - 09:32 AM UTC
I was surprised that they have not gone to the effort of doing some improvements on the breach of the 25pdr and the way that the barrel connects to the breach which means the breach cannot be shown in an open position as it is blocked by the back of the barrel, I also cannot be sure but it is possible that the muzzle brake while looking accurate may make the barrel too long due to the method of attaching it unless they have shortened the barrel from their 25pdr release.
KurtLaughlin
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 - 12:26 PM UTC
Rather than summarizing that the kit has "inaccurate bogies and tracks" I think it is more appropriate and indicative of the kit to say that the suspension configuration is rare/uncommon/lesser known (as the case may be) and that the decals are inaccurate for the version represented.

This variation in wording may seem to be a distinction without a difference, but it clearly illustrates how the same data can be presented either positively or negatively.

KL
junglejim
Visit this Community
Alberta, Canada
Joined: February 18, 2003
KitMaker: 1,728 posts
Armorama: 1,629 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 - 12:27 PM UTC
Do you have the links to these 'other reviews'? Could it be that they are...wrong?

Jim
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, February 05, 2013 - 12:55 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Do you have the links to these 'other reviews'? Could it be that they are...wrong?

Jim


There is a review on ML, and there is lots of discussion on Network54 about the issue.

Kevin
gcdavidson
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: August 05, 2003
KitMaker: 1,698 posts
Armorama: 1,563 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 - 02:15 PM UTC
This reminds me of the time I bought the Italeri Leopard 1A4 kit. I wanted to make it into a Canadian C1, but the correct parts to do so were not included in the box. What an inaccurate kit.

c5flies
Visit this Community
California, United States
Joined: October 21, 2007
KitMaker: 3,684 posts
Armorama: 2,938 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 - 02:57 PM UTC

Quoted Text

This reminds me of the time I bought the Italeri Leopard 1A4 kit. I wanted to make it into a Canadian C1, but the correct parts to do so were not included in the box. What an inaccurate kit.


Yeah, except the other way around


Quoted Text

the suspension configuration is rare/uncommon/lesser known (as the case may be) and that the decals are inaccurate for the version represented.


If that's the case then DML missed out and should have branded this under CH, charged $20 more and only included the Hannibal III decals. For a first release DML should have opted for a more mainstream version and left the uncommon ones for other releases.



Quoted Text

I also cannot be sure but it is possible that the muzzle brake while looking accurate may make the barrel too long due to the method of attaching it unless they have shortened the barrel from their 25pdr release.


And does anyone know if this is correct?

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, February 05, 2013 - 03:03 PM UTC

Quoted Text



Quoted Text

I also cannot be sure but it is possible that the muzzle brake while looking accurate may make the barrel too long due to the method of attaching it unless they have shortened the barrel from their 25pdr release.


And does anyone know if this is correct?



I can't really say for sure, there is a new barrel in the kit, I sent the intruction copy to Darren (CMOT) as he knows alot more then me on the specifics of the 25pdr. So maybe he can comment.

Kevin
CMOT
Staff MemberEditor-in-Chief
ARMORAMA
Visit this Community
England - South West, United Kingdom
Joined: May 14, 2006
KitMaker: 10,954 posts
Armorama: 8,571 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 - 04:11 PM UTC
Kev I will measure various aspects of the 25pdr barrel with the muzzle brake including the brach and provide you with the data, you will then be in a position to answer this question.
jimbrae
Visit this Community
Provincia de Lugo, Spain / España
Joined: April 23, 2003
KitMaker: 12,927 posts
Armorama: 9,486 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 - 07:42 PM UTC
In respect to using a Formations VVSS Suspension the owner o the company, John Rybak, has just posted on that subject on ML:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/47208/thread/1360116132/Formations+Sexton+Suspension

The company Website can be seen:

http://www.formationsmodels.com
SgtRam
Staff MemberContributing Writer
AEROSCALE
#197
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: March 06, 2011
KitMaker: 3,971 posts
Armorama: 2,859 posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - 12:09 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Kev I will measure various aspects of the 25pdr barrel with the muzzle brake including the brach and provide you with the data, you will then be in a position to answer this question.


Darren

Thanks, that will work.

Kevin
Vodnik
Visit this Community
Warszawa, Poland
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - 03:41 AM UTC
Remember how I wrote that I have no problem with correcting my mistakes? Well, I just realized that I made one and I owe Kevin an apology!
Take closer look at Hannibal III photo... It's Sexton I, not Sexton II !!! The same for the production line photo - this one is obviously also a late production Sexton I. This means that I don't have any proof now that any Sexton II was ever built or used in combat with non-reinforced bogies!
What is worse, it actually means that Hannibal III marking option is actually the least accurate for this kit, not the most...

I still believe that Kevin's article deserved a correction (which Kevin already included) because T54E1 track certainly were used in many early Sexton IIs and were not really inaccurate, but it is likely that Kevin was correct about the bogies...
Vodnik
Visit this Community
Warszawa, Poland
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - 07:11 PM UTC
Just a bump to put the topic on the "recent posts" list again, as I believe my discovery (described above) deserves more visibility.
Nylonathatep
Visit this Community
Australia
Joined: September 27, 2007
KitMaker: 58 posts
Armorama: 56 posts
Posted: Friday, February 08, 2013 - 07:20 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Kev I will measure various aspects of the 25pdr barrel with the muzzle brake including the brach and provide you with the data, you will then be in a position to answer this question.


I can give a few rough measurements. The gun in question is outside the Yeronga RSL club. It is fitted with both the muzzle brake and counterweight. It appears to have had a life postwar but the barrel appears unaltered.

From the rear face of the breech ring to the front face of the gun securing strap, 1420mm. From the front face of the gun securing strap to the rear face of the muzzle brake, 888mm. Length of the muzzle brake, 408mm. Total 2716mm plus or minus a bit. In 1/35 77.6mm. Irritatingly my digital callipers tell me the Bronco braked barrel is 79.5mm, which is too long, although the standard barrel is right at about 70.4mm. The manual says 97.473" or in our case 70.74mm, but that probably includes non removable parts of the striker system which I didn't measure.

I think the problem is the way the muzzle brake attaches to the barrel, at first glance it might appear that the rear face of the brake only just covers the threaded section of the barrel. A drawing in the manual suggests that it actually engulfs quite a bit more than that and that the crown of the muzzle sits only a little way behind the rear gas port of the brake.

I'd be interested to see what you come up with, and whether I've made a mistake somewhere.
SgtRam
Staff MemberContributing Writer
AEROSCALE
#197
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: March 06, 2011
KitMaker: 3,971 posts
Armorama: 2,859 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 10, 2013 - 05:02 AM UTC
It is difficult to get a measurement unbuilt, but I will see what I can come up with.

 _GOTOTOP