Just ordered teh kit today. had a lot of misapprehensions about it, but I've wanted a completed M103A2 for a long time. Since the A2 was going to mean chopping up the hull anyway, sectioning the hull even further to sort out the locations of the turret ring, nose and engine deck is not that much extra work. I can cast the suspension mounts if they need to move and the rest is just work with a razontr saw and putty.
If I get the hull proportions right, the turret is easy as I have a scratchbuilt one I did a long time ago. I'll double check the dimensions against Robert's and if it's reasonably good, I'll happily use that and bin the kit parts entirely.
If the turret is good, I might even go looking for someone to reproduce it as a resin upgrade...
Paul
Hosted by Darren Baker
DML M103A1 - disappointment
tankmodeler
#417
Joined: March 01, 2004
KitMaker: 3,123 posts
Armorama: 2,539 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 - 07:53 AM UTC
Vodnik
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 - 06:50 AM UTC
Quoted Text
If the turret is good, I might even go looking for someone to reproduce it as a resin upgrade...
I don't see how your turret could be worse than the kit one...
I decided to improve some of its shapes... This is what it looks now:
18Bravo
Joined: January 20, 2005
KitMaker: 7,219 posts
Armorama: 6,097 posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 - 06:52 AM UTC
Are you removing the gunner's periscope bulge completely and making a plain vanilla M103?
Vodnik
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 - 08:45 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Are you removing the gunner's periscope bulge completely and making a plain vanilla M103?
Nope, I will put it back in place once I give the turret top correct inverted V shape. I decided that it'd be easier to do without the bulge.
zedhol
Joined: December 01, 2009
KitMaker: 244 posts
Armorama: 160 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 06, 2014 - 05:02 AM UTC
Quoted Text
. MHO it is a form of disrespect towards their customers.
Carlo
It is more that disrespectful but potentially damaging in another way in that it is killing your local hobby shop. Kits like this are eagerly awaited by both consumers and retailers alike and in order to grab the "early adopters" that are so integral to a retailers survival LHS's need to order sufficient in stock to have them ready when the buyer comes in with cash in hand. With such a competitive market they have to be there otherwise the business is lost, but when they arrive and the poor (justified in the case of the M103) reviews come in, suddenly these expensive kits are sitting on the shelf like a white elephant. The money to buy them is now tied up until they sell, probably at a loss and so the profit required to stay alive is also lost. When this happens once, we can cope, but as often as this happens nowadays it is a real problem. How do I know, I look around the store that I work in and see 3 M103s, 2 T-28s and many other aircraft and tanks unsold, because of poor research and half assed work by the manufacture. I know that not everyone buys from a LHS and it is always a risky game, but when we try to service the customer as best we can and are getting the rug pulled from under our feet by the kit maker, it is no wonder there are less LHSs around. I know this is not the only reason but believe me is does not help. Don't get me started on the number of returned Meng kits with missing sprues. Rant over.
Graham
18Bravo
Joined: January 20, 2005
KitMaker: 7,219 posts
Armorama: 6,097 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 06, 2014 - 05:12 AM UTC
Whether those Meng kits were truly missing sprues or not, I certainly have no way of knowing. I will say that several years ago (well over 10) on another well known site, one poster actually suggested claiming that a sprue was missing, in order to gain a few sought after pieces without having to purchase the whole kit. Reprehensible practices like this don't help the hobby either.
zedhol
Joined: December 01, 2009
KitMaker: 244 posts
Armorama: 160 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 06, 2014 - 05:45 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Whether those Meng kits were truly missing sprues or not, I certainly have no way of knowing. I will say that several years ago (well over 10) on another well known site, one poster actually suggested claiming that a sprue was missing, in order to gain a few sought after pieces without having to purchase the whole kit. Reprehensible practices like this don't help the hobby either.
That is a good point and something that cannot be discounted, however, after a couple of times of it happening with regular customers we were inspecting the kits as they came in and found missing sprues several times before they were sold. Biggest problem is that although Meng admitted they had problems, they said get the replacement sprues from the distributor and the distributor says get them from Meng. So far, no problems with the new Bradley.
18Bravo
Joined: January 20, 2005
KitMaker: 7,219 posts
Armorama: 6,097 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 06, 2014 - 10:18 AM UTC
Well OOB builders, here's your chance!
https://armorama.kitmaker.net/forums/219481&page=1
At $40.66, that a full $26.00 less than I've seen anywhere else.
Even rivet counters might not be able to pass that up.
Anyone interested on a group buy like on AR15.com?
https://armorama.kitmaker.net/forums/219481&page=1
At $40.66, that a full $26.00 less than I've seen anywhere else.
Even rivet counters might not be able to pass that up.
Anyone interested on a group buy like on AR15.com?
CarloB
Joined: September 05, 2013
KitMaker: 10 posts
Armorama: 10 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 08, 2014 - 12:19 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text
. MHO it is a form of disrespect towards their customers.
Carlo
It is more that disrespectful but potentially damaging in another way in that it is killing your local hobby shop. Kits like this are eagerly awaited by both consumers and retailers alike and in order to grab the "early adopters" that are so integral to a retailers survival LHS's need to order sufficient in stock to have them ready when the buyer comes in with cash in hand. With such a competitive market they have to be there otherwise the business is lost, but when they arrive and the poor (justified in the case of the M103) reviews come in, suddenly these expensive kits are sitting on the shelf like a white elephant. The money to buy them is now tied up until they sell, probably at a loss and so the profit required to stay alive is also lost. When this happens once, we can cope, but as often as this happens nowadays it is a real problem. How do I know, I look around the store that I work in and see 3 M103s, 2 T-28s and many other aircraft and tanks unsold, because of poor research and half assed work by the manufacture. I know that not everyone buys from a LHS and it is always a risky game, but when we try to service the customer as best we can and are getting the rug pulled from under our feet by the kit maker, it is no wonder there are less LHSs around. I know this is not the only reason but believe me is does not help. Don't get me started on the number of returned Meng kits with missing sprues. Rant over.
Graham
I must say that your post has thrown a new light on the matter. This morning I went to the LHS and talked with the manager. Well, he confirmed word by word what you wrote. He said he is tired of having piles of unsold Dragon kits he is eventually forced to sell with a 40% discount to recover some money. He showed me a pile of unsold Dragon Sd.kfz 251 and told me that last year he ordered a mere six Dragon M-48, but he only sold two! (I confess that in spite of being a M-48 fan I am one of the lost buyers.) This way, he said, it is quite difficult to make any profit selling Dragon kits. Because of this he ordered only one M-103, just to say he has it in stock.
Now I am waiting for MBT-70 with little if any hopes.
Carlo
1.90E_31
Joined: December 24, 2004
KitMaker: 252 posts
Armorama: 154 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 08, 2014 - 02:38 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Now I am waiting for MBT-70 with little if any hopes.
Carlo
Well, first Dragon isn't producing an MBT-70, but rather a Kpz-70, which is the German version according to the picture on their website, here:
http://www.dragon-models.com/d-m-item.asp?pid=DRA3550
Now, if you look down this page, you'll see that the kit will be armed with the XM-150E3 gun, where the Kpz-70 was armed with the Rheinmetall 120mm smoothbore cannon. The picture shows an XM-150E3, with German troops around it. So, the announcement is already a mix of two vehicles...
Jon
DerGeist
Joined: January 21, 2008
KitMaker: 735 posts
Armorama: 707 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 08, 2014 - 04:11 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text
Now I am waiting for MBT-70 with little if any hopes.
Carlo
Well, first Dragon isn't producing an MBT-70, but rather a Kpz-70, which is the German version according to the picture on their website, here:
http://www.dragon-models.com/d-m-item.asp?pid=DRA3550
Now, if you look down this page, you'll see that the kit will be armed with the XM-150E3 gun, where the Kpz-70 was armed with the Rheinmetall 120mm smoothbore cannon. The picture shows an XM-150E3, with German troops around it. So, the announcement is already a mix of two vehicles...
Jon
Only a couple KPz-70's had the 120mm to test the armament for the Keiler, the rest had the 152mm.
On topic, the only upside I've found to my 103 build is the decals are rather nice. Got to love Cartograph.
Erik
Vodnik
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 08, 2014 - 07:19 AM UTC
A little update on my work on improving the kit. I have focused on the turret. And it is HORRIBLE... About every thing about it is wrong. Whoever designed that thing had no understanding whatsoever of the shape of the real thing. And obviously had no good drawings or photographs either. I have no idea what this thing is based on?... Someone described the turret to him on the phone and he designed it based on that description? Looks like it...
Here you can see "minor" widening of the gun mount required to bring it to correct width.
And here corrected angle and shape (except for the very edge that still requires reshaping) of the turret bottom. The turret has also been shortened by a couple of mm's - you can see the vertical cut line. The turret "roof" is partially corrected and still requires a lot more work.
Whatever I do, I will only improve the turret, not correct it fully, as that would practically mean scratchbuilding a new one, because the kit turret roof a few mm's too wide...
Here you can see "minor" widening of the gun mount required to bring it to correct width.
And here corrected angle and shape (except for the very edge that still requires reshaping) of the turret bottom. The turret has also been shortened by a couple of mm's - you can see the vertical cut line. The turret "roof" is partially corrected and still requires a lot more work.
Whatever I do, I will only improve the turret, not correct it fully, as that would practically mean scratchbuilding a new one, because the kit turret roof a few mm's too wide...
urumomo
Joined: August 22, 2013
KitMaker: 675 posts
Armorama: 667 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 08, 2014 - 07:33 AM UTC
Quoted Text
.. I have no idea what this thing is based on?... Someone described the turret to him on the phone and he designed it based on that description? ...
MikePowell
Joined: March 19, 2010
KitMaker: 22 posts
Armorama: 17 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 08, 2014 - 09:27 AM UTC
I admire what you're doing and am using your blog on the kit's problems to great advantage. I've been hacking at the turret myself but am basically confining it to reworking the bottom of the bustle at the moment.
Do you know if the under-bustle heat shield was formed around the right-hand side bottom bulge? Pictures seem to be thin on the ground and in one I saw it appeared the shield might be cut away around the base of the bulge. This doesn't make sense to me from a view of reducing heat into the bulge.
Do you know if the under-bustle heat shield was formed around the right-hand side bottom bulge? Pictures seem to be thin on the ground and in one I saw it appeared the shield might be cut away around the base of the bulge. This doesn't make sense to me from a view of reducing heat into the bulge.
Removed by original poster on 05/14/19 - 00:48:46 (GMT).
Buzz
Joined: December 22, 2005
KitMaker: 58 posts
Armorama: 57 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 08, 2014 - 10:10 AM UTC
I have had 3 MENGAchzarit kits that came into my shop and a D9 Dozer missing the clear parts. I had to get them from the distributor and they delivered. I'm hoping this is a simple mistake and is caused by MENG kits selling very well and maybe they are behind or can't keep up with the demand.
Chuck4
Joined: November 13, 2013
KitMaker: 403 posts
Armorama: 401 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 08, 2014 - 04:04 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text
Now I am waiting for MBT-70 with little if any hopes.
Carlo
Well, first Dragon isn't producing an MBT-70, but rather a Kpz-70, which is the German version according to the picture on their website, here:
http://www.dragon-models.com/d-m-item.asp?pid=DRA3550
Now, if you look down this page, you'll see that the kit will be armed with the XM-150E3 gun, where the Kpz-70 was armed with the Rheinmetall 120mm smoothbore cannon. The picture shows an XM-150E3, with German troops around it. So, the announcement is already a mix of two vehicles...
Jon
Not really. The dragon model seem to be an accurate representation of the actual German kpz70 displayed in the panzer museum at Munster.
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 08, 2014 - 07:06 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text
. MHO it is a form of disrespect towards their customers.
Carlo
It is more that disrespectful but potentially damaging in another way in that it is killing your local hobby shop. Kits like this are eagerly awaited by both consumers and retailers alike and in order to grab the "early adopters" that are so integral to a retailers survival LHS's need to order sufficient in stock to have them ready when the buyer comes in with cash in hand. With such a competitive market they have to be there otherwise the business is lost, but when they arrive and the poor (justified in the case of the M103) reviews come in, suddenly these expensive kits are sitting on the shelf like a white elephant. The money to buy them is now tied up until they sell, probably at a loss and so the profit required to stay alive is also lost. When this happens once, we can cope, but as often as this happens nowadays it is a real problem. How do I know, I look around the store that I work in and see 3 M103s, 2 T-28s and many other aircraft and tanks unsold, because of poor research and half assed work by the manufacture. I know that not everyone buys from a LHS and it is always a risky game, but when we try to service the customer as best we can and are getting the rug pulled from under our feet by the kit maker, it is no wonder there are less LHSs around. I know this is not the only reason but believe me is does not help. Don't get me started on the number of returned Meng kits with missing sprues. Rant over.
Graham
kind of a rant, and some parts still leave a sour note in my stomach.
* I build mostly armor and aircraft. I prefer subjects of historical importance (to me anyway). I never had an issue with any kit, unless I simply screwed the kit up (we all have!). In one years time I receive four very nice aircraft kits for my birthday from my sons.
* Trumpeter 1/32 F14d. No instructions or decals! I called Stevens International as the kit was bought 250 miles north of me and the receipt was long gone. They blew me off, and refused to send me the decals or instructions. I could live without the decals, but had to have the kit instructions. I've said it a hundred times now that Stevens should be put out of business for the way they've screwed over so many other folks. I later traded the kit for an AV8B from Trumpeter, and rest assured I checked that kit very closely! The other three kits were from revel and Academy, and were perfect.
About the sametime I buy two Tamiya BF109's. Kits were sealed and bagged. Inside the bags you could see that someone had neatly clipped off the props and spinners on both kits! I sent Tamiya an email requesting the parts with an explanation. Three years later and four or five emails I'm still waiting. The Fujimi kit was better anyway at less than $10 a piece! Then we move to my Tamiya Horch. The kit came with out the bottom half of the body (the frame half). Another email, and I'm still waiting. Why pay the Tamiya premium tax when they won't back up what they sell?
Now we move much later and see the GW Hobby F15. The kit has several errors, and guys were moaning and groaning about them as they should. I have one or two GWH kits and they are fantastic. Low and behold GWH makes a correction to the F15 kit and offers the corrected parts for free to the people that bought the original kit. That's they way it should be!
Now with the example I presented of GWH and the F15 kit, can we expect Dragon to do the same? I wouldn't hold my breath
gary
1.90E_31
Joined: December 24, 2004
KitMaker: 252 posts
Armorama: 154 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 09, 2014 - 12:06 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Not really. The dragon model seem to be an accurate representation of the actual German kpz70 displayed in the panzer museum at Munster.
Confused myself. You are correct that the box art does correctly reflect the Kpz70 at Munster. That being said, the Kpz70 is armed with the 120mm gun, not the XM-150 in the description of the kit below. They are advertizing an MBT70, but selling a Kpz70, if the boxart and CAD reflects what will be in the box.
Jon
M4A1Sherman
Joined: May 02, 2013
KitMaker: 4,403 posts
Armorama: 4,078 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 09, 2014 - 01:28 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextSeriously? What's wrong with you guys? It's a great kit. For those of you that don't rivet count and actually build kits. Ignore this guy,
While Pawel and I have butted heads on several occasions over the years, personally, i've learnt that ignoring Pawel when he makes a comment on accuracy is somewhat short-sighted.
While I have little personal interest in this as a subject, it does highlight some interesting (and continuing) contradictions from Dragon. From what i've seen in Reviews and Build-logs here, it seems as if there are some extraordinary recent releases out there - a Little jump in the 'evolutionary process'?
So, simply put why, does it seem (again) that DML when, one assumes, given all the information required to produce an accurate model, they drop the ball?
We saw it before with the T34s and with several of their M4s, but don't see such a prevalence amongst their core catalog - Axis?
They seemed to do a decent job with Abrams. Why this?
Probably because DRAGON seems to prefer to put their best (?) efforts into the WWII German stuff, so get used to it. Their #3535 and #3536 M1 Abrams kits are anomalous- We haven't seen any new M1 variants from DRAGON, have we? An M1 ABV would be a logical follow-on to their excellent M1A1 AIM and M1A2 SEP, but nooooo...
I agree with mostly everything that has been discussed in this blog, whether positive or negative. True, the DRAGON M103A1 kit leaves a lot to be desired, but to date, it is THE ONLY M103A1 out there that's been done in PLASTIC. Then again, DRAGON touts their "accuracy", "meticulous research", and "attention to detail". That may be true in DRAGON-LAND, but meticulous modellers such as Pavel, have proven this to be as just so much hooplah. Pavel- GOOD FOR YOU for deciding to make the effort to improve this model. As to myself, I had hoped, initially, to include this kit in my "Evolution of US Tanks" collection. Now, I'm not so sure...
Vodnik
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 09, 2014 - 01:37 AM UTC
Some preparation work done on the hull.
Chop... chop... chop...
Chop... chop... chop...
Chuck4
Joined: November 13, 2013
KitMaker: 403 posts
Armorama: 401 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 09, 2014 - 02:03 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text
Not really. The dragon model seem to be an accurate representation of the actual German kpz70 displayed in the panzer museum at Munster.
Confused myself. You are correct that the box art does correctly reflect the Kpz70 at Munster. That being said, the Kpz70 is armed with the 120mm gun, not the XM-150 in the description of the kit below. They are advertizing an MBT70, but selling a Kpz70, if the boxart and CAD reflects what will be in the box.
Jon
Mbt70 would be an accurate literal translation of Kpz70. Dragon's box actually says MBT70, followed by Kpz70 in brackets. I think they have their bases covered.
I've never seen photos of any actual Kpz70 prototypes actually armed with 120mm guns. Maybe the west Germans intended to procure some 120mm gun armed version, but they certainly also intended to procure the 152mm version.
1.90E_31
Joined: December 24, 2004
KitMaker: 252 posts
Armorama: 154 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 09, 2014 - 04:10 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Mbt70 would be an accurate literal translation of Kpz70. Dragon's box actually says MBT70, followed by Kpz70 in brackets. I think they have their bases covered.
I've never seen photos of any actual Kpz70 prototypes actually armed with 120mm guns. Maybe the west Germans intended to procure some 120mm gun armed version, but they certainly also intended to procure the 152mm version.
First, from my research into looking at creating a Kpz70 kit from our MBT70 kit, the way you determine a 120mm gun versus the XM150 is that the 120mm gun has a bore evacuator, whereas the XM150 does not need one, and doesn't have it. The Munster Kpz70 has the bore evacuator, and is therefore armed with the 120mm gun.
As for the translation, you are technically correct, but since there are other differences between the Kpz70 and MBT70, such as the engine deck, rear plate, turret fittings, etc., these are two unique vehicles rather than one vehicle with two armaments. The better way to look at "covering the bases" in this fashion would be this similar to this. The kit is marketed as an M6 Heavy (with T1 Heavy in parentheses), but the box art shows a T1 Heavy, the CAD work shows parts for a T1 Heavy, but the description of the parts is for an M6 Heavy. Many details are different, but in general it is technically correct...
Jon
tankmodeler
#417
Joined: March 01, 2004
KitMaker: 3,123 posts
Armorama: 2,539 posts
Posted: Monday, March 10, 2014 - 03:46 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Do you know if the under-bustle heat shield was formed around the right-hand side bottom bulge?
Yes, the bulge does protect the gunner's-butt bulge. One of the main reasons for the shield was to protectt he gunner's arse.
The edges of the bulge were flame cut and the bottom appears to be a plate welded into the hole. What you might have been seeing was a turret without a heat shield and looking at the edges of the flame cut actual bulge??
Maybe?
Paul
Kenaicop
#384
Joined: August 23, 2005
KitMaker: 1,426 posts
Armorama: 1,316 posts
Posted: Monday, March 10, 2014 - 05:08 AM UTC
Picked one up in Anchorage AK. this weekend, $77.00. Have to say I have not come across any issues yet. Already got the hull, running gear and turret built. No flash, short shots or warping of any kind at all. The only fit issues were the hinge points along the engine compartment but after a little sanding and fudging that went on good. It was a tough call, this or the Bronco Buffalo with slat armor. I’m glad I got this kit, it fits into my life-long goal to build all the M48/M60 series (it fits in there somewhere). Even with all the countless problems mentioned above and elsewhere it looks like an M103 and it looks very impressive once you start building it up. The freaking turret is almost as big and the entire hull!
 |
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.