Hosted by Darren Baker
DML M103A1 - disappointment
Konigwolf
Joined: November 06, 2009
KitMaker: 368 posts
Armorama: 321 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 01, 2014 - 10:03 PM UTC
Thanks Pawel, that turret/engine deck error seems like a real doozy LOL.
dylans
Joined: March 05, 2009
KitMaker: 394 posts
Armorama: 380 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 02, 2014 - 04:02 AM UTC
I wonder how much is fixable? just about all the major pieces need to be retooled. I can see a resin replacement for the engine deck, but even that will require a bit of surgery. Then the rear plate is still hosed up.
the turret would require so much rework that it might be better to carve a new one. don't get me started on the missing mantlet cover.
it looks like the only accurate parts came from the M48 kit.
having said all that...I bought one yesterday and I am planning to build it over the weekend. I will paint it green put the stickers on, and leave it on the shelf next to all my other stuff.
thanks again to Pawel for the very constructive review.
the turret would require so much rework that it might be better to carve a new one. don't get me started on the missing mantlet cover.
it looks like the only accurate parts came from the M48 kit.
having said all that...I bought one yesterday and I am planning to build it over the weekend. I will paint it green put the stickers on, and leave it on the shelf next to all my other stuff.
thanks again to Pawel for the very constructive review.
Tankrider
Joined: October 07, 2002
KitMaker: 1,280 posts
Armorama: 1,208 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 02, 2014 - 05:01 AM UTC
Thanks Pawel and Robert for the information, review, additional pictures, and measurements.
Where do we go from here? Based on this post here, the one on ML as well as Pawel's site my opinion for making lemonade out of this lemon is:
- Upper hull: this is going to be too a bit tough to easily fix, so I might just have to live with it as it is. The fenders might need some tweaking to allow the the suspension modifications. The exhaust outlet looks to be too tall and will have a date with the sanding stick
- Lower Hull: lower the sprocket hub on the final drive should be doable as well as potentially moving the idler forward - could have implication on the fender location or cause a modification. The rear of the hull, I will see if it can be massaged a bit to look like the real thing. I am planning on adding the Jettisonable Fuel Tank Kit with its frame, our 55 gallon drums and hoses.
- Turret: Shape will be left the way it is with the inaccuracies on the top and below the turret bustle I will hide the mantlet under a cover made of Epoxy-Sculpt. The guntube will probably get "an addition" probably around the bore evaluator/muzzle area. I have a M103A1 locally that I will get my own measurements from and make a decision from there.
Will it be perfect, no but hopefully it will look a bit more like a M103 in real life vice one on WOT.
What am I forgetting and/or your thoughts??
John
Where do we go from here? Based on this post here, the one on ML as well as Pawel's site my opinion for making lemonade out of this lemon is:
- Upper hull: this is going to be too a bit tough to easily fix, so I might just have to live with it as it is. The fenders might need some tweaking to allow the the suspension modifications. The exhaust outlet looks to be too tall and will have a date with the sanding stick
- Lower Hull: lower the sprocket hub on the final drive should be doable as well as potentially moving the idler forward - could have implication on the fender location or cause a modification. The rear of the hull, I will see if it can be massaged a bit to look like the real thing. I am planning on adding the Jettisonable Fuel Tank Kit with its frame, our 55 gallon drums and hoses.
- Turret: Shape will be left the way it is with the inaccuracies on the top and below the turret bustle I will hide the mantlet under a cover made of Epoxy-Sculpt. The guntube will probably get "an addition" probably around the bore evaluator/muzzle area. I have a M103A1 locally that I will get my own measurements from and make a decision from there.
Will it be perfect, no but hopefully it will look a bit more like a M103 in real life vice one on WOT.
What am I forgetting and/or your thoughts??
John
1.90E_31
Joined: December 24, 2004
KitMaker: 252 posts
Armorama: 154 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 02, 2014 - 05:44 AM UTC
Quoted Text
What am I forgetting and/or your thoughts??
John
I'd reduce the bulge under the turret overhang to allow for rotation. Angle it up from the turret ring toward the rear rather than having it parallel to the ground. Also, since it's looks to be only to the commander's side, you might want to reduce it so it's only on the right side rather than across the entire rear of the overhang...
Jon
210cav
Joined: February 05, 2002
KitMaker: 6,149 posts
Armorama: 4,573 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 02, 2014 - 05:53 AM UTC
Quoted Text
- Turret: The guntube will probably get "an addition" probably around the bore evaluator/muzzle area.
What am I forgetting and/or your thoughts??
John
John-- I have the model, what are you going to add to lengthen the barrel? And, where? In front or to the rear of the bore evacuator? Did you get the T-28 yet? A true Chinese torture, but it does look nice so far.
thanks
DJ
goldnova72
Joined: February 21, 2009
KitMaker: 627 posts
Armorama: 592 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 02, 2014 - 06:19 AM UTC
Oh well , the WOT guys will be happy with this . Kind of reminds me of 70s era Tamiya kits , lots of dimension mistakes and omissions , lots of room inside for the motor and battery pack 
Dosn't inspire confidence on the future M6 release does it ?
Dosn't inspire confidence on the future M6 release does it ?Tankrider
Joined: October 07, 2002
KitMaker: 1,280 posts
Armorama: 1,208 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 02, 2014 - 08:54 AM UTC
Quoted Text
John-- I have the model, what are you going to add to lengthen the barrel? And, where? In front or to the rear of the bore evacuator? Did you get the T-28 yet? A true Chinese torture, but it does look nice so far.
thanks
DJ
DJ,
No, I do not nor plan on getting the T-28, as it doesn't interest me.
On the M103A1, I am not sure where I will be making my "adjustments", I am thinking about potentially lengthening the Bore Evacuator (BE) itself as well as the part of the barrel between the BE and the muzzle. I will need to take some measurements of the M103A1 at the 45th ID Museum in OKC OK next Saturday.
Jon,
Thanks for the idea about the turret. Looking at your scratchbuilt/resin conversion, your explanation makes sense.
John
210cav
Joined: February 05, 2002
KitMaker: 6,149 posts
Armorama: 4,573 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 02, 2014 - 09:13 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text
John-- I have the model, what are you going to add to lengthen the barrel? And, where? In front or to the rear of the bore evacuator? Did you get the T-28 yet? A true Chinese torture, but it does look nice so far.
thanks
DJ
DJ,
No, I do not nor plan on getting the T-28, as it doesn't interest me.
On the M103A1, I am not sure where I will be making my "adjustments", I am thinking about potentially lengthening the Bore Evacuator (BE) itself as well as the part of the barrel between the BE and the muzzle. I will need to take some measurements of the M103A1 at the 45th ID Museum in OKC OK next Saturday.
John
John-- I would appreciate your sharing the photos and measurements you take on the vehicle. I will send you some shots of the T-28 which I am impressed with as far as its uniqueness. I recall the one that was in front of the Patton Museum and it seems to me there was another on Post. We had one variant of the M103 in front of Skidle Hall and then there was the one in Radcliff...I am searching for some photos of both.
Let you know how I make out
Thanks again
DJ
18Bravo
Joined: January 20, 2005
KitMaker: 7,219 posts
Armorama: 6,097 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 02, 2014 - 09:20 AM UTC
I can save you a little time. I obviously took many more than this, but don't have them with me right now. (like the missing ones my wife sent)
Vodnik
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 02, 2014 - 09:39 AM UTC
Errr... Did I mention that the mantlet is over 5 mm too narrow?...
The distance shown on Rob's picture as 666.75mm is 19.05mm in 1/35. But in Dragon kit it is only 13.7mm... 5.3 mm too narrow...
Oh, and I think that the turret is at least 3mm too long...
The distance shown on Rob's picture as 666.75mm is 19.05mm in 1/35. But in Dragon kit it is only 13.7mm... 5.3 mm too narrow...
Oh, and I think that the turret is at least 3mm too long...
210cav
Joined: February 05, 2002
KitMaker: 6,149 posts
Armorama: 4,573 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 02, 2014 - 09:39 AM UTC
Bob-- you guys can be scary sometimes! Do you know which variant mounted a Xenon searchlight? I think it is the same model as the M-48 mounted.
thanks
DJ
thanks
DJ
18Bravo
Joined: January 20, 2005
KitMaker: 7,219 posts
Armorama: 6,097 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 02, 2014 - 09:49 AM UTC
This A2 below certainly did. Some museum pieces are missing details like this. The M2 .50 mount is missing on many as well, and needs to be added.
Vodnik
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 02, 2014 - 10:01 AM UTC
I decided to fight this kit, until I make a reasonable M103A1 model out of it...
Some progress today:
engine deck panels modified to "M48A3 kit size", taking the correct rear plate into account:
Obviously I will have to move the turret race backward to meet this shortened deck and then remake the entire nose area...
And work on the turret has started:
Some progress today:
engine deck panels modified to "M48A3 kit size", taking the correct rear plate into account:
Obviously I will have to move the turret race backward to meet this shortened deck and then remake the entire nose area...
And work on the turret has started:
Arizonakid
Joined: October 03, 2012
KitMaker: 89 posts
Armorama: 55 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 02, 2014 - 10:46 AM UTC
About all I can say is "WoW". I am normally someone that is not to overly concerned about dimensional errors. But this kit is just off in soooooo many areas. Some of them are really fairly small, but when you begin to add them they begin to compound on each other. And then there are the clearly, blatantly obvious misses like almost every part of the turret, it just makes me say "no thank you" to this kit. There are just way to many other kits out there that I can build without so many extremely minor, and enoumous misses. This is a kit I would build if it were given to me as a gift, or if I found it somewhere for $20. But otherwise, it's not gonna happen for me.
Thank you Pawel.
Gary
Thank you Pawel.
Gary
Tiger_213
Joined: August 10, 2012
KitMaker: 1,510 posts
Armorama: 1,443 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 02, 2014 - 10:49 AM UTC
You've got a lot of work ahead of you Pawel! 
210cav
Joined: February 05, 2002
KitMaker: 6,149 posts
Armorama: 4,573 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 02, 2014 - 12:46 PM UTC
Bob-- thanks for the photo.
D J
D J
Tankrider
Joined: October 07, 2002
KitMaker: 1,280 posts
Armorama: 1,208 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 02, 2014 - 03:22 PM UTC
Rob,
Thanks for the images. I am really looking for the gun measurements, which you will probably have ot get once you get home. I have a Sooner AMPS meeting at the 45th next Saturday, so I will tahe a series of M103A1 pics and take some gun measurements anyhow...
DJ,
The tank in front of Skidgel Hall was a M103A2 in USMC colors and markings. The one in downtown Radcliff is an M103A1, which Jon Bernstein AKA Cobra Historian took a bunch of pictures of and are someplace her eon Armorama
Thanks for the images. I am really looking for the gun measurements, which you will probably have ot get once you get home. I have a Sooner AMPS meeting at the 45th next Saturday, so I will tahe a series of M103A1 pics and take some gun measurements anyhow...
DJ,
The tank in front of Skidgel Hall was a M103A2 in USMC colors and markings. The one in downtown Radcliff is an M103A1, which Jon Bernstein AKA Cobra Historian took a bunch of pictures of and are someplace her eon Armorama
Tankrider
Joined: October 07, 2002
KitMaker: 1,280 posts
Armorama: 1,208 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 02, 2014 - 03:26 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I decided to fight this kit, until I make a reasonable M103A1 model out of it...
Pawel,
Please take more pics as you go, this build could be quite entertaining. So far, it looks pretty good.
John
1.90E_31
Joined: December 24, 2004
KitMaker: 252 posts
Armorama: 154 posts
Posted: Monday, March 03, 2014 - 01:38 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Thanks for the idea about the turret. Looking at your scratchbuilt/resin conversion, your explanation makes sense.
John,
No problem. A picture always works better than a lenghty description. BTW, that's our full kit of the A2, built by Tom Murphy. Did a great job on it.
Talking with my partner, who casts the barrel, he's seeing that the missing section of the barrel is at where the barrel enters the mantlet. He sees a short "step", almost like a recoil section on an M3 3" AA gun. Go about 2/3 of the way down Pawel's review, and you can see that the kit part is too short, but the bore evacuator looks to be the correct length.
Jon
Vodnik
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Monday, March 03, 2014 - 07:56 AM UTC
Hey, look! The DML kit mantlet is almost perfectly the same width as on drawing in Hunnicutt's book!!!
Just one, teeny tiny problem... The drawing is in 1/48 scale...
Just one, teeny tiny problem... The drawing is in 1/48 scale...
Konigwolf
Joined: November 06, 2009
KitMaker: 368 posts
Armorama: 321 posts
Posted: Monday, March 03, 2014 - 10:55 AM UTC
LOLz @ Pawel
Tankrider
Joined: October 07, 2002
KitMaker: 1,280 posts
Armorama: 1,208 posts
Posted: Monday, March 03, 2014 - 11:08 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text
Thanks for the idea about the turret. Looking at your scratchbuilt/resin conversion, your explanation makes sense.
John,
No problem. A picture always works better than a lenghty description. BTW, that's our full kit of the A2, built by Tom Murphy. Did a great job on it.
Talking with my partner, who casts the barrel, he's seeing that the missing section of the barrel is at where the barrel enters the mantlet. He sees a short "step", almost like a recoil section on an M3 3" AA gun. Go about 2/3 of the way down Pawel's review, and you can see that the kit part is too short, but the bore evacuator looks to be the correct length.
Jon
Good point on the step Jon. Again, I was going to let my measurements guide my cutting and pasting.
JC
Taylornic
Joined: January 10, 2005
KitMaker: 337 posts
Armorama: 332 posts
Posted: Monday, March 03, 2014 - 02:31 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Thank you so much for your critique, Pawel. I am glad that I did not buy this kit. It is truly sad that DML produced an expensive piece of junk, while promoting it as "black label"- whatever that means. We'll again hear their excuse that the modern armor market is so small compared to German WWII armor and they do not give a damn. Disappointing, indeed.
Agreed, but if they would put the same effort into the modern projects, they might just open the market for themselves.
Tiger_213
Joined: August 10, 2012
KitMaker: 1,510 posts
Armorama: 1,443 posts
Posted: Monday, March 03, 2014 - 02:50 PM UTC
Quoted Text
yep. Maybe DML plans on doing a /48th kit? Or maybe they're just really lazy.....LOLz @ Pawel
CarloB
Joined: September 05, 2013
KitMaker: 10 posts
Armorama: 10 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 - 05:14 AM UTC
Talking about Dragon M-103, 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 invested to get it terribly wrong! Worse it took probably more effort to made it wrong than right because they had to adjust it trying to compensate in some (wrong) way the initial mistakes. 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! We care not complaining because of a row of missing rivets or a 1mm error here and there, but because of serious dimensional and shape mistakes. MHO it is a form of disrespect towards their customers.
Carlo
 |
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.