Hosted by Darren Baker
Dragon M103A1!!
santafeman
Joined: October 15, 2013
KitMaker: 2 posts
Armorama: 2 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 - 07:20 AM UTC
Also here is some information on the M-103 from Dragon's web site http://www.dragon-models.com/d-m-item.asp?pid=DRA3548
IrishGreek
Joined: October 17, 2010
KitMaker: 627 posts
Armorama: 571 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 - 07:36 AM UTC
Really am having a difficult time putting into words how happy I am about this announcement.
:)
:)
ninjrk
Joined: January 26, 2006
KitMaker: 1,381 posts
Armorama: 1,347 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 - 08:04 AM UTC
There's no way this can be out in October. Right?
Delta42
Joined: August 27, 2002
KitMaker: 616 posts
Armorama: 511 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 - 08:57 AM UTC
Guess what the Armor and Cavalry Museum just got......
Dave
Dave
18Bravo
Joined: January 20, 2005
KitMaker: 7,219 posts
Armorama: 6,097 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 - 09:45 AM UTC
For those of you worrying about the absence of the mantlet cover-don't. 
jwest21
Joined: October 16, 2006
KitMaker: 3,374 posts
Armorama: 3,126 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 - 01:55 PM UTC
Quoted Text
For those of you worrying about the absence of the mantlet cover-don't.
awesome!
IrishGreek
Joined: October 17, 2010
KitMaker: 627 posts
Armorama: 571 posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 - 02:04 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Guess what the Armor and Cavalry Museum just got......
Dave
Dave,
Are my eye's deceiving me, or is that a 2nd M103 in the distance in your 1st photo. Gun looks right, turret angles look right, same # road wheels?...
Delta42
Joined: August 27, 2002
KitMaker: 616 posts
Armorama: 511 posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 - 02:46 AM UTC
John,
Yep. Now they have a perfect set. One with the gasoline engine and one with the diesel
I'm hoping to get down and take some pictures of both after the 1st of the year or sooner.
Dave
Yep. Now they have a perfect set. One with the gasoline engine and one with the diesel
I'm hoping to get down and take some pictures of both after the 1st of the year or sooner.
Dave
SEDimmick
Joined: March 15, 2002
KitMaker: 1,745 posts
Armorama: 1,483 posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 - 04:08 AM UTC
Holy broken roadwheel arms!
M4A1Sherman
Joined: May 02, 2013
KitMaker: 4,403 posts
Armorama: 4,078 posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 - 07:56 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Saw this on PMMS and didn't see any news here.
Looks like no mantlet cover again.
Hi, All- Just wondering why DRAGON, or anyone else besides ITALERI hasn't done an M47... Just think of how many "HOLLYWOOD" GERMAN tanks we could build...
We could use an up-to-date M46, too... (Yes, I know about DRAGON's re-pop of the M46)
M4A1Sherman
Joined: May 02, 2013
KitMaker: 4,403 posts
Armorama: 4,078 posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 - 08:43 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Please do`nt get me wrong - i love Dragon kits but they`re pricing policy is absurd.
With most kits in the 40 - 50 GBP range they are beyond my purchasing ability,is it any wonder that the hobby is dying ?.
Dying? I don't think so. I've been building models since 1958, and BROTHER, let me tell you, we're seeing newer and better stuff all the time. I don't know what your financial situation is, but if you look at EVERYTHING that is being sold out there, (TVs, i-phones, you name it) the costs of living are pretty much in-line with what actual money is worth. Going back to about 1962-63, I can distinctly remember my Mom coming home from work, and telling my Dad all about the raise she got- She would ACTUALLY be making $1.40 an hour. She was ecstatic! My Dad was a butcher, so we weren't exactly rich... In today's world, you can buy a pack of chewing gum for just under $1.40...
Another thing- back when I first started modelling, the kits were very rudimentary, wildly inaccurate, with poor fit, etc- Compared to what we spend on an average kit, with today's technology, plus all the bells and whistles, I'd say we're getting a pretty good bang for our buck. Of course, who WOULDN'T want to pay less for what we get in the box? But all that premium plastic made with CAD, sophisticated engineering and slide-molding, plus metal barrel, PE and wire rope is also costly to produce. Today you go food shopping, drop a $100.00 bill, and you walk out WITH TWO BAGS!!!
I'm on a limited income myself, so I have to watch every penny I spend- If there's enough left over at the end of the month, well then, yes I will buy that model. If I don't have the money to spend on that kit, well I just wait until I CAN afford it. My last couple of jobs before I became disabled paid decent wages, so I did manage to accumulate a pretty huge stock of stuff. I'm getting on in years, so I'm going to have to start liquidating a good portion of that stuff. I'll NEVER live to complete, or have the room to display it all anyway... I'll be listing on evilBay soon so watch out for some deals...
ericadeane
Joined: October 28, 2002
KitMaker: 4,021 posts
Armorama: 3,947 posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 - 11:12 PM UTC
The pronouncement of the hobby dying are a bit pre-mature. It's certainly changed since the days of our youth -- but do you suppose the # and quality of models and model companies that have emerged over the last 10 years is because the hobby is "dying"?
Dennis is spot on.
As to the M103 at Ft Benning's Armor and Cavalry Museum, I seem to recall there being about a half dozen sitting side by side along one fence when I was down there in April. Perhaps someone from Atlanta AMPS or other participants of the Ft Benning photography field trip associated with the 2014 AMPS convention can confirm?
Dennis is spot on.
As to the M103 at Ft Benning's Armor and Cavalry Museum, I seem to recall there being about a half dozen sitting side by side along one fence when I was down there in April. Perhaps someone from Atlanta AMPS or other participants of the Ft Benning photography field trip associated with the 2014 AMPS convention can confirm?
BootsDMS
Joined: February 08, 2012
KitMaker: 978 posts
Armorama: 965 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 17, 2013 - 01:02 AM UTC
I have to say that I don't really think Italeri's M47 could be bettered; of if it could, the necessity? I know it hasn't a mantlet cover but one can tackle that with either tissue paper (my first attempt), or, arguably, better - Milliput or similar. Of course, it all comes down to personal opinion (what doesn't?) but mantlet covers aren't really that much of a problem are they?.
I do have a Dragon M46 but have yet to engage; again, surely another good kit by Dragon - I'm really not convinced that we need another one - although of course I haven't built the thing!
I do have a Dragon M46 but have yet to engage; again, surely another good kit by Dragon - I'm really not convinced that we need another one - although of course I haven't built the thing!
Quoted Text
Quoted TextSaw this on PMMS and didn't see any news here.
Looks like no mantlet cover again.
Hi, All- Just wondering why DRAGON, or anyone else besides ITALERI hasn't done an M47... Just think of how many "HOLLYWOOD" GERMAN tanks we could build...
We could use an up-to-date M46, too... (Yes, I know about DRAGON's re-pop of the M46)
Delta42
Joined: August 27, 2002
KitMaker: 616 posts
Armorama: 511 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 17, 2013 - 01:24 AM UTC
Quoted Text
As to the M103 at Ft Benning's Armor and Cavalry Museum, I seem to recall there being about a half dozen sitting side by side along one fence when I was down there in April. Perhaps someone from Atlanta AMPS or other participants of the Ft Benning photography field trip associated with the 2014 AMPS convention can confirm?
Roy,
The museum only has the two M103s. The diesel version and the new gas version depicted above. The tanks you are thinking about were other versions of test vehicles, They are the T29, T29E2, T34, T39, etc.
Dave
rfbaer
Joined: June 12, 2007
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,696 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 17, 2013 - 03:32 AM UTC
Re: the soon to be released M103,
Happy, happy, happy!
Happy, happy, happy!
KurtLaughlin
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 17, 2013 - 03:45 AM UTC
Has anyone verified that the M103 and M48 series actually used the same engine deck parts? You wouldn't want a "looks the same from 30 feet away but are really different in dimensions and details" situation.
KL
KL
tankmodeler
#417
Joined: March 01, 2004
KitMaker: 3,123 posts
Armorama: 2,539 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 17, 2013 - 07:01 AM UTC
Kurt,
Frankly no. I don't have access to a parts list to verify that the two configurations use the same parts. Would have been noce, though.
I also didn't measure the M103A2 in Rochester when I took the photos for mine. That said, at the time I compared the two (M48 and M103) and I couldn't find any differences. There might be differences in how they attach, below the waterline, so to speak, that makes them a different part number, but I couldn't see a difference from the outside. The shapes might be similar but elonged in one axis or another, but comparing the drawings in Hunnicut and using the Tamiya M48 kit parts as a doner, everything fit snugly enough amd matched the Hunnicutt M103 hull drawings.
Paul
Frankly no. I don't have access to a parts list to verify that the two configurations use the same parts. Would have been noce, though.
I also didn't measure the M103A2 in Rochester when I took the photos for mine. That said, at the time I compared the two (M48 and M103) and I couldn't find any differences. There might be differences in how they attach, below the waterline, so to speak, that makes them a different part number, but I couldn't see a difference from the outside. The shapes might be similar but elonged in one axis or another, but comparing the drawings in Hunnicut and using the Tamiya M48 kit parts as a doner, everything fit snugly enough amd matched the Hunnicutt M103 hull drawings.
Paul
M4A1Sherman
Joined: May 02, 2013
KitMaker: 4,403 posts
Armorama: 4,078 posts
Posted: Monday, October 21, 2013 - 05:48 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I have to say that I don't really think Italeri's M47 could be bettered; of if it could, the necessity? I know it hasn't a mantlet cover but one can tackle that with either tissue paper (my first attempt), or, arguably, better - Milliput or similar. Of course, it all comes down to personal opinion (what doesn't?) but mantlet covers aren't really that much of a problem are they?.
I do have a Dragon M46 but have yet to engage; again, surely another good kit by Dragon - I'm really not convinced that we need another one - although of course I haven't built the thing!Quoted TextQuoted TextSaw this on PMMS and didn't see any news here.
Looks like no mantlet cover again.
Hi, All- Just wondering why DRAGON, or anyone else besides ITALERI hasn't done an M47... Just think of how many "HOLLYWOOD" GERMAN tanks we could build...
We could use an up-to-date M46, too... (Yes, I know about DRAGON's re-pop of the M46)
Wait a second! Please don't take this the wrong way- Not to open up a big argument, but how can you say that ITALERI's M47 doesn't need an upgrade and/or there's NO need for an entirely newly tooled CAD and Slide-Molded kit of the M47?
If that's the case, there are a multitude of modellers out there that don't need a new M48 or all of those new Pz.Kfw.IIIs, Tigers, Panthers, Sd.Kfz.10s, etc that DRAGON has been throwing at us, either! Look what TRUMPETER has been doing with their Soviet T-62s. How many kits of the Russo-Soviet T-90s are we seeing from different manufacturers since ZVEZDA released theirs? Where would the hobby industry be today if the model manufacturers didn't keep coming out with new, improved (?) kits of the same subjects? There are guys out there that will spend a fortune buying Tiger Is, Panthers or Shermans just because that's their favorite tank. So what's wrong with wanting a new M47, or a new M46, for that matter?
At this point, the ITALERI/TESTORS M47 is the only show in town. I'm sure that CYBERHOBBY/DRAGON, or TAMIYA, HOBBY BOSS, BRONCO or TRUMPETER could show us a much-improved kit of an M47, an entirely new M46, or even an MBT-70 to boot.
In my opinion, DRAGON could have come out with any number of different US/Allied WWII and/or Post-War vehicles. They chose to do an M103. Well and good. I can see how DRAGON arrived at that decision, as the M48 and M103 share quite a few common parts. As I am in the midst of creating an "Evolution of US Tanks and Vehicles, WWI to the Present" collection, the M103 will be a welcome addition to this endeavor.
I still think that DRAGON could have come out with a US M3 Lee and British M3 Grant. Since many modellers prefer the TASCA M4 and related vehicles, I doubt that DRAGON will ever produce an M3. The door is wide open for TASCA on this one- Will they ever follow through?
PS- I've built DRAGON's M26, which is very similar to their M46, but here's the rub- I've also built the TAMIYA AND HOBBY BOSS M26 kits. Guess what? None of them are identical, neither dimensionally, in execution nor in detail- So what do we compare the ITALERI M47 to? Answer: The real thing, and that has shown the ITALERI M47 to be wanting...
BruceJ8365
Joined: December 25, 2012
KitMaker: 441 posts
Armorama: 441 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 - 05:00 AM UTC
Quoted Text
ERIK has got it right! The reason that we don't see any mantlet covers on our armor is that the manufacturers feel that an "elevating" main gun is a desirable feature- meaning that (some) modelers like to play with their gun...
Don't they know that some of us older guys are lucky our gun isn't falling off - actually elevating it would be a good day! Shooting it is a whole other problem.
Plasticat
Joined: September 03, 2003
KitMaker: 448 posts
Armorama: 245 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 - 06:29 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text
ERIK has got it right! The reason that we don't see any mantlet covers on our armor is that the manufacturers feel that an "elevating" main gun is a desirable feature- meaning that (some) modelers like to play with their gun...
Don't they know that some of us older guys are lucky our gun isn't falling off - actually elevating it would be a good day! Shooting it is a whole other problem.
LOL
KurtLaughlin
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 - 06:37 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I still think that DRAGON could have come out with a US M3 Lee and British M3 Grant. Since many modellers prefer the TASCA M4 and related vehicles, I doubt that DRAGON will ever produce an M3. The door is wide open for TASCA on this one- Will they ever follow through?
No. You will not see anything else Sherman-related from Tasca/Asuka beyond combinations of existing parts.
KL
sherman-vc
Joined: September 13, 2005
KitMaker: 254 posts
Armorama: 205 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 - 06:44 AM UTC
Quoted Text
again with the missing mantlet cover.
I am in for a kit but I will be grumbling to myself about having to spend extra money to add stuff that should have come in the kit.
its a great subject and I am looking forward to building it
Gee everyone seems to like to jump on this like Dragon is the only one to not include a mantlet cover. Take a look Guys, AFV club did not include Mantlet covers on thier Centrions, M41s,etc.
Yet when Tamiya included it on thier T55 I remember people complaining that they didn't give you the option to not have the cover.
You guys are just splitting hairs go back 20 years when you got 4 or 5 new releases a year from all manufactures. This is a great time to be a modeler so many interesting subjects coming out.
So if all you can do is complaint keep your pie hole shut please.
MMMM I like pie.
SEDimmick
Joined: March 15, 2002
KitMaker: 1,745 posts
Armorama: 1,483 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 - 08:17 AM UTC
Quoted Text
No. You will not see anything else Sherman-related from Tasca/Asuka beyond combinations of existing parts.
KL
I know there has been some changes, but outside of reading inbetween the lines on what they are doing, do you have anything to back this up?
tankmodeler
#417
Joined: March 01, 2004
KitMaker: 3,123 posts
Armorama: 2,539 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 - 10:14 AM UTC
Quoted Text
No. You will not see anything else Sherman-related from Tasca/Asuka beyond combinations of existing parts.
KL
Kurt,
You have information on this, perhaps? It sounds like a bit of a stretch unless it's been posted by Asuka somewhere or you have a "high placed source that wishes to remain nameless".
Paul
corsair924
Joined: August 11, 2008
KitMaker: 403 posts
Armorama: 322 posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 - 11:20 AM UTC
"The museum only has the two M103s. The diesel version and the new gas version depicted above. The tanks you are thinking about were other versions of test vehicles, They are the T29, T29E2, T34, T39, etc."
!!! WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE SEND THE DESIGNER CREW FROM A MAJOR MANUFACTURER TO THIS LINE UP AND MAKE THESE TANKS IN 1/35 !!!!
!!! WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE SEND THE DESIGNER CREW FROM A MAJOR MANUFACTURER TO THIS LINE UP AND MAKE THESE TANKS IN 1/35 !!!!
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.