Many thanks Kevin for this first in-the-box review.

I was guessing Dragon boogie will be wrong and, unfortunatly Formations up-dating resin kits are not available on their website...

But on the other hand "chevron" tracks (DS) are okay for Sexton during WW2. Expecting this kit for a while, I had several looks inside Concord books (7027, 7028, 7069) and several wartime pictures show Sexton with metallic tracks like T54 E1 and what looks like T54 E2 "Cuff" or T62, difficult to tell. But for sure metallic chevrons are OK.
Shame we don't get a Canadian version...

But we will be many enjoying this Sexton for sure ! Mtbk

Many thanks Kevin for this first in-the-box review.

I was guessing Dragon boogie will be wrong and, unfortunatly Formations up-dating resin kits are not available on their website...

But on the other hand "chevron" tracks (DS) are okay for Sexton during WW2. Expecting this kit for a while, I had several looks inside Concord books (7027, 7028, 7069) and several wartime pictures show Sexton with metallic tracks like T54 E1 and what looks like T54 E2 "Cuff" or T62, difficult to tell. But for sure metallic chevrons are OK.
Shame we don't get a Canadian version...

But we will be many enjoying this Sexton for sure ! Mtbk

It would appear that Dragon had a touch more information than others have. The kit has a few minor niggles and thus is not perfect but it is an entirely appropriate version of this vehicle. The Sexton II was first built with standard Sherman bogies and Sherman tracks and some were built on Ram hulls. The early Ram/Lee/Grant suspension seems limited to the Sexton I.

As for paint, there is sufficient evidence that SCC2 Brown was indeed used on some of these early issued Sexton II. It is possible that the later ones with CDP track and heavy duty bogies were painted with olive drab/black or plain live. In fact there is evidence of at least one Sexton II that have the black camouflage painted over with olive to provide one solid shade.

Canadian markings were not provided as confirmed evidence of the field use of the early Sexton II with the Canadian Army could not be found before the kit went into production. The identification of the Essex Yeomanry markings is in error. The information I found led to that conclusion but it has since been pointed out that I was wrong. It should be the 90th Field Regiment (City of London).

My research leaves a great many questions about the development of the Sexton. It seems to be anything but linear
with many combinations of track, bogie, and transmission. One is best to use wartime photos for guidance.

FWIW,
Ron Volstad

The Sexton in Canadian Service. That should be a good reference.

http://www.servicepub.com/weapons.html

Kevin

The tracks and not reinforced VVSS bogies included in the kit are PERFECTLY ACCURATE at least for the HANNIBAL III marking options included in the kit. There is a good photo of this vehicle in one of the books in my collection (don't remember which one - probably one of Concord books) and it is clearly visible that bogies are standard Sherman type, not reinforced and T54E1 tracks are used.

Here is one such vehicle on the production line: http://www.jedsite.info/artillery-sierra/sierra/sexton_series/sexton-1/sexton1_003.jpg

So while I agree that it would be better to have reinforced bogies included, as they were much more common (as visible on all photos posted by Jim), this is NOT TRUE that kit includes inaccurate bogies and tracks!

In my opinion the review HAS TO BE EDITED, because currently it includes false information and the conclusion is based on it.

In my opinion the review HAS TO BE EDITED, because currently it includes false information and the conclusion is based on it.

Gents,
Please forgive my ignorance...have you guys noticed that Friul model has a new set of Track for Sexton?It looks like german track to me,any data,please?
Will

The tracks and not reinforced VVSS bogies included in the kit are PERFECTLY ACCURATE at least for the HANNIBAL III marking options included in the kit.

Quoted Text

---

The tracks and not reinforced VVSS bogies included in the kit are PERFECTLY ACCURATE at least for the HANNIBAL III marking options included in the kit.

---

Isn't that the key point? There are markings for 4 other vehicles in the kit, so, by logical inference, DML HAS in fact made a mistake? So, following this through Kevin should perhaps modify the Review SLIGHTLY to reflect this fact?

So, bouncing the ball back onto DML's court, what's the point of including markings which can't be used? Now THAT is considerably more worrying than any perceptions o inaccuracy on the part of Kevin's Review. Or, am I missing something here?

This isn't the first time that DML has seemed to cut corners in Allied releases.

This isn't a DML problem, it's an industry wide issue. AFVClub, Tamiya, Tasca, Academy, Trumpeter, etc etc...

Will this kit model more of the exception than the rule? Would it have been better as a CH white box kit of a specific vehicle such as Hannibal?

Does DML have the bogies and tracks that were more 'common' on this SPG in their arsenal? Or were these chosen to avoid new tooling?

If I'm reading this correctly, then I agree that Kevin's review should be edited to reflect that the kit can be fairly accurate for very specific vehicles, although not for the more "run of the mill" variety...if there was such a thing for the Sexton II.

My personal point of view, in general, is that I would rather have the more common/correct version of any model in the box and add the details myself to mimic a photo or more obscure version, not the other way around.

It's a good effort on DML's part, and with a little extra from the AM market it can be a great kit. No doubt the correct bogie castings will turn up shortly!

Tom

Looks like they could have taken the Sexton at the Firepower museum (Woolwich Arsenal, London) as their prototype - it has the standard bogies and T54E1 tracks.Tom