DML M103A1 - disappointment
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 20, 2005
KitMaker: 7,219 posts
Armorama: 6,097 posts
Posted: Friday, February 28, 2014 - 09:32 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text
Gun barrel, rear of bore evacuator to front of collar: 13' 7/8"
13' 7/8" = 3985 mm => 114mm in 1/35 scale
And the kit barrel length from the rear of bore evacuator to front of the collar is 100.4mm... So we are 13.6mm short in this part of the barrel. And my comparison with dimensions provided by Hunnicutt suggests that another 6mm is lost in the bore evacuator/muzzle area...
I'm glad you're putting the measurements to good use. Some of the errors are
almost understandable - trying to skimp and use as much M48A3 tooling as possible. But barrel length error of over 10% is not just a small thing, What did they do - find the only example anywhere in the country with its gun out of battery?
A strong man stands up for himself; A stronger man stands up for others.
Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counter-accusations.
He is not Khan who calls himself Khan. Afghan proverb
Warszawa, Poland
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Friday, February 28, 2014 - 09:44 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Its not like its such a scamp that you can tell serious inaccuracies when looking at it for the first time right away.
You apparently cannot. I can and it bothers me. Don't judge others by your own standards.
Pawel "Vodnik" Krupowicz
Professional Certified Rivet Counter.
Praha, Czech Republic
Joined: February 13, 2006
KitMaker: 674 posts
Armorama: 637 posts
Posted: Friday, February 28, 2014 - 09:53 AM UTC
Pawel, thank You for pointing out these issues. The barrel length is te biggest problem in my eyes. Is there a way to correct it without using a (not yet existing) AM barrel? This thing is already expesive.
Warszawa, Poland
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Friday, February 28, 2014 - 10:00 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Nose of hull to center of race: 112"
Rob, how did you manage to measure that?!... I have a problem to measure it in the kit and you somehow measured it on the real thing?
Anyway, 112 inches is about 81mm in 1/35 scale and in DML kit this distance is about 77mm. So some 4 mms short - almost exactly what my comparison of Hunnicutt's drawings (Dyer's actually) shows.
It means that DML kit hull is 4 mm too short in front of the turret and 11.5 mm too long behind the turret. In other words the hull is 7.5mm too long overall with the turret and the driver's hatch positioned 4 mm too far forward. Doesn't seem much, but it gives the model slightly cartoonish look - like it braked so hard that the turret moved forward
Pawel "Vodnik" Krupowicz
Professional Certified Rivet Counter.
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: October 16, 2006
KitMaker: 3,374 posts
Armorama: 3,126 posts
Posted: Friday, February 28, 2014 - 10:10 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text
Its not like its such a scamp that you can tell serious inaccuracies when looking at it for the first time right away.
You apparently cannot. I can and it bothers me. Don't judge others by your own standards.
I am not an expert by any means, but even I can see the errors in the kit when I built it.
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 20, 2005
KitMaker: 7,219 posts
Armorama: 6,097 posts
Posted: Friday, February 28, 2014 - 10:24 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text
Nose of hull to center of race: 112"
Rob, how did you manage to measure that?!... )
I'm just
that good.
A strong man stands up for himself; A stronger man stands up for others.
Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counter-accusations.
He is not Khan who calls himself Khan. Afghan proverb
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: October 16, 2006
KitMaker: 3,374 posts
Armorama: 3,126 posts
Posted: Friday, February 28, 2014 - 10:44 AM UTC
is someone else planning an M103?
Texas, United States
Joined: June 12, 2007
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,696 posts
Posted: Friday, February 28, 2014 - 10:55 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Hello, my name is Rick and i'm a rivet counter.
"hi Rick!"
I agree with Rob, it seems that the OOB builders like to quickly voice their opinion with regards to accuracy with staements like, it's just a kit, it's good enough for me, etc. quickly berating the ones that prefer to build replicas. If your an OOB builder and don't care for accuracy fine, just keep it to yourself on accuracy threads such as this one and we won't spoil your OOB build threads with how you should put together a kit.
cheers
I really didn't think I was "berating" anyone, but, okay.
Bye.
Warszawa, Poland
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Friday, February 28, 2014 - 11:46 AM UTC
Rob,
I verified the distances between return rollers and between road wheels using the measurements from your email and I must admit that these dimensions are almost spot on in DML kit - differences are all below 0.7mm, most below 0.4mm.
Quoted Text
Center of left idler to center of sprocket: 238.25"
Center of right idler to center of sprocket: 237.35"
Center of left idler to center line of turret race: 98"
The distances between idlers and sprocket are both too short in DML kit - between 1.25 and 1.9mm. This is probably caused by the wrong position of the sprocket wheel, which should be further back by about that amount.
As for the distance between the idler center and the turret race center... Well, things get interesting here. The difference is 8.6 mm! I would say this actually was to be expected: the nose of the kit is 4 mm too short and the idler on M103 should be closer to the nose tip than it is on M48 - my estimate here is that by another 4 - 5 mm, so indeed the total difference is above 8 mm. And as the difference from the idler to the first road wheel and to the first return roller look fine in the kit, it means that all road wheels and return rollers are over 8 mm too far forward in relation to the turret position.
Pawel "Vodnik" Krupowicz
Professional Certified Rivet Counter.
Warszawa, Poland
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Friday, February 28, 2014 - 08:05 PM UTC
Quoted Text
it means that all road wheels and return rollers are over 8 mm too far forward in relation to the turret position.
Oups, I meant too far backward - sorry!
Pawel "Vodnik" Krupowicz
Professional Certified Rivet Counter.
Tasmania, Australia
Joined: November 06, 2009
KitMaker: 368 posts
Armorama: 321 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 01, 2014 - 01:37 AM UTC
@Pawel (and helpers), as always excellent work.
To those that say "Who cares?" and "Stop being a RC", if I was going to pay $70 plus dollars for a 1/35 kit, I'd like a little more reality and a little less fantasy. I'm not asking for perfection as I'm not a rivet counter but please don't ask me pay Dragon price for early Trumpeter accuracy.
Virginia, United States
Joined: February 05, 2002
KitMaker: 6,149 posts
Armorama: 4,573 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 01, 2014 - 02:12 AM UTC
Wait until Pawel starts counting the errors on their T-28 Heavy Tank. Wow, for the money you would think they would at least get the instruction sheet right.....
DJ Judge
COL (R), USA
"Tanker Boots do not a Tanker Make."
Indiana, United States
Joined: June 10, 2005
KitMaker: 6,188 posts
Armorama: 5,960 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 01, 2014 - 02:46 AM UTC
I understand the cost VS errors but really, after it's built it'll look like an M103 and these measurements I have been reading are far too small to notice after it's built.
Yeah, they are still errors but it's the best so far in plastic so enjoy!
Jeff
Texas, United States
Joined: March 08, 2010
KitMaker: 2,465 posts
Armorama: 2,383 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 01, 2014 - 03:06 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Hello, my name is Rick and i'm a rivet counter.
"hi Rick!"
I agree with Rob, it seems that the OOB builders like to quickly voice their opinion with regards to accuracy with staements like, it's just a kit, it's good enough for me, etc. quickly berating the ones that prefer to build replicas. If your an OOB builder and don't care for accuracy fine, just keep it to yourself on accuracy threads such as this one and we won't spoil your OOB build threads with how you should put together a kit.
cheers
Dude, you totally missed the point with Russ. He totally loves to build with accuracy, thats his prerogative, thats what he enjoys....as is yours to build OOB or with accuracy Rick, You scolded him for no reason. I myself build OOB and only add minor scratch bit here and there cause i enjoy it. Ive only built one Accurate project...a Jagdtiger and it turned out awesome, but it was a pain in the ass! Will i ever build another accurate Tank.....maybe, if i dont....thats ok too.
Good gawd guys...its a model. Build it OOB, somewhere in the middle or ultra accuracy....it matters not. Isnt it about having fun and sharing with the Modeling community and your best modeling mates. Did you have fun with it? Are you personally satisfied with it?
Build What ya like, When ya like, How ya like....as long as your having fun doing it....its that simple!
Virginia, United States
Joined: February 05, 2002
KitMaker: 6,149 posts
Armorama: 4,573 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 01, 2014 - 04:08 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I understand the cost VS errors but really, after it's built it'll look like an M103 and these measurements I have been reading are far too small to notice after it's built.
Yeah, they are still errors but it's the best so far in plastic so enjoy!
Jeff
I agree with you, I have started the model and she looks good so far
DJ Judge
COL (R), USA
"Tanker Boots do not a Tanker Make."
Armed Forces Europe, United States
Joined: January 01, 2009
KitMaker: 1,036 posts
Armorama: 1,033 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 01, 2014 - 05:13 AM UTC
Gary me too !
Not that I am particularly interested in this kit but to be honest there are very very few kit that fully keep up to our expectations ... and part of the game is to fiddle around and get all excited about all the things the manufacture missed and shouldn't have.
Me ... if I would build the M103 I would set in one of those winter scenes published in the TANKOGRAD mag. ... stuck in the mud with white wash ...
and I believe it would still make a great project to build.
I can't see this kit being a total disasters as being transported here.
Cheers
Christopher
" He who seeks to defend everything, defends nothing " Frederick the Great
Texas, United States
Joined: March 08, 2010
KitMaker: 2,465 posts
Armorama: 2,383 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 01, 2014 - 05:56 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Gary me too !
Me ... if I would build the M103 I would set in one of those winter scenes published in the TANKOGRAD mag. ... stuck in the mud with white wash ...
and I believe it would still make a great project to build.
I can't see this kit being a total disasters as being transported here.
Cheers
Christopher
Christopher, That does sound like a good potential poject...would be fun.
My nephew just bought this kit and knows full well of its shortcomings, but hes gonna build OOB to have fun with it as a kind or novelty Tank. Me, im not really interested in building it now, but cant say never as its kinda cool to my eyes.
Cheers,
Gary
Warszawa, Poland
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 01, 2014 - 06:20 AM UTC
I finished my "article". Some interesting "discoveries" included...
http://vodnik.net/pages/M103A1/m103a1.htmPawel "Vodnik" Krupowicz
Professional Certified Rivet Counter.
Wojewodztwo Pomorskie, Poland
Joined: May 26, 2003
KitMaker: 1,208 posts
Armorama: 1,023 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 01, 2014 - 09:11 AM UTC
Thanks for the review, even though the conclusion is really sad... I could only wish that Takom or MENG would step up and produce something that is more like the actual M103
For those about to rock, we salute you!
New York, United States
Joined: May 02, 2013
KitMaker: 4,403 posts
Armorama: 4,078 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 01, 2014 - 09:36 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Thanks for the review, even though the conclusion is really sad... I could only wish that Takom or MENG would step up and produce something that is more like the actual M103
Go ahead and tell me to shut up right up front!
All of this arguing back and forth isn't going to get DRAGON to produce a "dead-on" US Tank!
They are firmly committed to expending their best efforts (?) to World War II German stuff, period. And even THAT is open to question. If you like your Doctor, you can...
I think DRAGON meant "BLACK-LIST" instead of "BLACK LABEL"...
Like it or not, that's my opinion...
Removed by original poster on 03/01/14 - 21:40:23 (GMT).
Niedersachsen, Germany
Joined: December 02, 2006
KitMaker: 147 posts
Armorama: 142 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 01, 2014 - 10:15 AM UTC
Hello,
please allowe me one positive aspect.
Based on this superb review we can hope that they produce a M103A2 where all the errors were corrected, thanks to Pawel`s research!!!!
I cannot understand, how they research on a subject. I was never so easy to take measures of a tank. There is no Cold War, the accesses are free (archives...digital order option or museums) and the companies can hire an expert for a project or cooperate with the forums like this.
Based on their errors there research is either optimised for co-production with their M48 kit or on beliefs.
best wishes.
Texas, United States
Joined: August 22, 2013
KitMaker: 675 posts
Armorama: 667 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 01, 2014 - 11:00 AM UTC
... maybe their drawings got wet ...
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 20, 2005
KitMaker: 7,219 posts
Armorama: 6,097 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 01, 2014 - 11:14 AM UTC
My wife sent me a some missing files. Perhaps Pawel will want to compare these as well:
A strong man stands up for himself; A stronger man stands up for others.
Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counter-accusations.
He is not Khan who calls himself Khan. Afghan proverb
Torino, Italy
Joined: September 05, 2013
KitMaker: 10 posts
Armorama: 10 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 01, 2014 - 09:31 PM UTC
First of all I want to congratulate with Pawel and Robert. It’s thanks to the work of people like them that in 2014 we have the possibility of building reasonably accurate kits and painting them with reasonably accurate colours.
Coming to Dragon’s M103A1, the thing that puzzles me most is that they could have done it right with exactly the same effort in terms of work and money spent they made to get it terribly wrong! Worse it took them probably more effort to made it wrong than right because they have to adjust it trying to compensate in some (wrong) way the initial mistakes. Nothing clarifies this point better than the turret bustle-exhaust issue: they made the turret wrong, then, when they realized that it wouldn’t rotate because of the exhaust presence, they made the bustle bottom concave to accomodate the exhaust itself. The turret won’t rotate but who cares? It’s not a panzer after all! I call it cheating and a very bad one. Even worse they damage themselves because, as Pawel points it is impossible to swap engine decks with their M 48 kit, not to speak of the lost sales.
Dear OOB builders, I have the greatest respect for your opinion, but please note we are not speaking of a row of missed rivets or of a 1 mm error here and there, but of serious dimensional mistakes that could have been avoided if someone did his homework correctly. I think that you would prefer having a more correct kit at the same price. Dragon M 103 is flawed not because they decided to cut some corner, make some compromises and simplify it to keep the price down on a kit that wouldn’t sell like a Tiger, but because they did not measure it properly! IMHO it is a form of disrespect towards their customers.
Greetings, happy modeling to everybody and thanks again to Pawel and Robert.
Carlo
