In a strange kinda way, It's good that Dragon made such a dogs dinner of this kit, because now we get to see Pawel cutting it into a hundred pieces and then putting it back together, which is huge fun and makes for a very interesting build log.

It's good fun to watch this Pawel, I'm looking forward to more epic kit reconstruction.

Quoted Text

---

In a strange kinda way, It's good that Dragon made such a dogs dinner of this kit, because now we get to see Pawel cutting it into a hundred pieces and then putting it back together, which is huge fun and makes for a very interesting build log.

It's good fun to watch this Pawel, I'm looking forward to more epic kit reconstruction.

---

Instead of cutting it to hundreds of pieces, maybe it would be easier to simply melt it down and cast it into the right shape with a new mold?

I tend to agree very much with what Carlo Bellandi said back on page 4, I think it would of been just as easy to get this right, as it was to get it so badly wrong.

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?

Until someone comes out with a metal barrel couldnt you just splice some evergreen into it to bring it up to the accurate lenght?

Quoted Text

---

I tend to agree very much with what Carlo Bellandi said back on page 4, I think it would of been just as easy to get this right, as it was to get it so badly wrong.

---

I totally agree. A company is spending several hundred thousand bucks for a new model project. Yes, you can save a couple bucks by shorting the research and tooling, but if your project bombs because it's both expensive (limiting the market to the cognoscenti) and poorly executed (so those same cognoscenti don't buy it) how wise was that saving?

Academy is the king of this business practice, but Dragon occcassionally drops the ball badly as well. This is about as bad as I've ever seen Dragon botch a kit, though.

Paul

you are still one of the few people with an accurate M103

The prototype in Koblenz seems to have the 152mm gun ... at least that is what the description at the display tank reads.
So we probably have a mix of the KPZ 70 from Munster and Koblenz ... Munster one sporting the 120mmm gun I believe ... the hull in Koblenz differs from the CAD drawings.

Cheers
Christopher

Hunnicutt "Abrams" pg. 125 mentions that the XM150 gun didn't need a bore evacuator with the installation of a breech scavenging system in prototype #2. As for the differences with the Munster and Koblenz vehicles, the one with the XM150 is a MBT-70, which the one with the 120mm gun is the Kpz. 70. If the Koblenz one has the different rear hull and the XM150, it is a MBT-70.

Jon

Hunnicutt "Abrams" pg. 125 mentions that the XM150 gun didn't need a bore evacuator with the installation of a breech scavenging system in prototype #2. As for the differences with the Munster and Koblenz vehicles, the one with the XM150 is a MBT-70, which the one with the 120mm gun is the Kpz. 70. If the Koblenz one has the different rear hull and the XM150, it is a MBT-70.

Jon

Pawel, any updates on your build?

Chris,



In digging around some of the stuff I have, the Deutsches Panzermuseum Munster vehicle is an MBT70. The Wehrtechnische Studiensammlung Koblenz vehicle is the only Kpz.70, which would mean it has the 120mm gun.

Jon

My above post was a subtle way of steering it back on track. Perhaps too subtle...