_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV: Modern - USA
Modern Armor, AFVs, and Support vehicles.
Hosted by Darren Baker
M103 Build blog
Shermania
Visit this Community
California, United States
Joined: January 30, 2013
KitMaker: 537 posts
Armorama: 531 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 - 07:17 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Hello everyone,

Recently I was asked by Mr. Jim Starkweather if I'd be interested in doing a build blog on a kit that had gotten a little of bit of a beating, Dragon's M103 "Black Label" kit.

Well, I said "Yeah, why not." Thanks Jim and Darren.

Received the kit today along with an overdue Father's Day gift from my nephew, a Tamiya King Tiger kit.

I should be starting the build shortly.
Should be interesting.


http://i356.photobucket.com/albums/oo6/BigfootV/M103A1%20Build%20blog/403.jpg" BORDER="0">


I find it more than a bit disingenuous to reduce what Pawel did on his 103 blog to "giving the kit a beating". DML did this to themselves.

I fail to see the point of this blog other than a veiled attempt at helping hobby stores move these things off their shelves but what about your fellow modelers? Have you honestly convinced yourself your doing us a favor?

Most disappointing is that you have chosen to use divisive loaded terms (i.e. "fun build") that pit modelers against one another.

I find it comical that you state you'll be receiving photo reference and then casually dismiss the guy that could write a book on not only DML's business practices but also humbly educated us on the intricacies of the 103 in his blog and backed it all up with photos.

I do feel bad for stores that might've gotten stuck with bunches of these on the shelves but I fail to see why we the modelers should bail them and by extension DML out. Perhaps a more conservative approach to DML products will help everyone out in the future.

CMOT
Staff MemberEditor-in-Chief
ARMORAMA
Visit this Community
England - South West, United Kingdom
Joined: May 14, 2006
KitMaker: 10,954 posts
Armorama: 8,571 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 - 08:50 AM UTC
Pedro he is doing a blog because a sample was sent to us for review purposes, It does not matter if something is good or as in this case bad it is still covered. as long as Brian does not say it is a brilliant and accurate model I do not see the issue.

Brian is building from the box and if he enjoys the build where is the issue. I am sure that when he has finished readers will be well aware of just what this model is like and how poor a job DML did on this occasion.
Spuds
Visit this Community
Georgia, United States
Joined: August 31, 2002
KitMaker: 393 posts
Armorama: 287 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 - 10:10 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Pedro he is doing a blog because a sample was sent to us for review purposes, It does not matter if something is good or as in this case bad it is still covered. as long as Brian does not say it is a brilliant and accurate model I do not see the issue.

Brian is building from the box and if he enjoys the build where is the issue. I am sure that when he has finished readers will be well aware of just what this model is like and how poor a job DML did on this occasion.

Well said, Darren. Personally, I've learned a lot about this kit through this thread. I appreciate one modelers attempt to build the kit as accurate as possible as well as another modelers "fun build" straight out of the box. Either way is fine with me. As they say, "whatever floats your boat." What I find "divisive" are comments such as those preceding yours which contribute absolutely nothing positive to this thread.
Shermania
Visit this Community
California, United States
Joined: January 30, 2013
KitMaker: 537 posts
Armorama: 531 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 24, 2014 - 07:53 PM UTC
Looking back at my post, it is very abrasive so I'd like to apologize to the OP and the previous posters for causing trouble. I normally don't shoot from the hip on these discussions and generally take time to think posts thru (unfortunately not here). What I posted was really just too emotional a thing for a hobby related forum and therefore inappropriate.

I typically adhere to the notion that if I've got nothing positive to contribute, I'd rather not post. Regrettably I broke my own rules this time. I just really admire and respect what Pawel did on his 103 thread. The time he took to illustrate the issues with this kit and then the skill he demonstrated in making chicken salad out of it.

I erroneously assumed there was a connection between the threads that there needn't be. It was me all along, sorry guys

Tail firmly tucked between my legs I'll get back to being a 'fun modeler' and a happy poster:)
BigfootV
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: December 24, 2005
KitMaker: 1,624 posts
Armorama: 994 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 27, 2014 - 05:02 AM UTC
Hello everyone,

Perdo,

No harm done. You voiced an opinion and I respect that.
And like Darren stated the build is out of the box, nothing fancy.

Yes, there are issues with the kit and those have been addressed by Pawel in his research of this kit and I respect him for that.

It's just not my cup of tea to take a kit and try to "rebuild" it to make it accurate or historical correct when the majority of the people that look at it won't know if its correct or not.

Now, if I was doing a commission piece of work or something a long those lines, then yes, I'd be more "anal" about the build. But for my own collection, that's different.

Tom, Darren

Thanks for the input.

Anyways, should have some more stuff soon. Not sure if paint will go on.

See ya in the funnies.....................



Vodnik
Visit this Community
Warszawa, Poland
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 27, 2014 - 05:35 AM UTC
I'm actually glad this blog is here. Hopefully a lot of good quality photos will be taken of the finished model and posted here, so that I could use them (with permission I hope) to illustrate differences between my modified model and the OOB one.
Spuds
Visit this Community
Georgia, United States
Joined: August 31, 2002
KitMaker: 393 posts
Armorama: 287 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 27, 2014 - 08:18 AM UTC

Quoted Text

I'm actually glad this blog is here. Hopefully a lot of good quality photos will be taken of the finished model and posted here, so that I could use them (with permission I hope) to illustrate differences between my modified model and the OOB one.


Great idea, Pawel. I'd like to see that as well.
barkingdigger
Staff MemberAssociate Editor
ARMORAMA
#013
Visit this Community
England - East Anglia, United Kingdom
Joined: June 20, 2008
KitMaker: 3,981 posts
Armorama: 3,403 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 27, 2014 - 08:35 AM UTC

Quoted Text

The tracks supplied with the kit aren't too bad. They are flexible enough to put on without busting the running gear up. Kind of like the Tamiya tracks do because of their tight tolerances.


Hi Brian,

Just stumbled across this blog - looks interesting! (So far you've had more "bear traps" in your kit than I've found in the KPz70...)

One thing I learned long ago with centre-guide tracks is to leave the outer half of the idler wheel off until after the tracks are fitted - that way they don't need to be over-stretched to get them in place. (Bent many a guide horn in my time...) This is especially important with fragile suspension arms, since they don't take well to the stress of forcing the tracks over them. The old Italeri M47 was the poster-boy for this problem!
BigfootV
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: December 24, 2005
KitMaker: 1,624 posts
Armorama: 994 posts
Posted: Monday, July 28, 2014 - 08:06 AM UTC
Hey gang,

I've done some work on the 103, not as much as I'd hope to do, but its moving forward. Will post photo's later today.

Pawel,

Feel free to use any photos. I'll try to get them as clear as I can for everyone. Using a Cannon Power Shot A540 digital with a tripod.

Tom C.,

Thanks for tuning in. I know you've been lurking.

Bear traps you say?

The tracks. I can put them on with the fenders in place without doing too much damage to the running gear. Very flexible tracks with a lot of give. Unlike the Tamiya tracks.

Anyways,

See ya in the funnies....................
BigfootV
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: December 24, 2005
KitMaker: 1,624 posts
Armorama: 994 posts
Posted: Monday, July 28, 2014 - 09:08 AM UTC
Damn, sounding like a broken record with the tracks.

Anyways, got the turret half's put together. Gun ready for install. Put on the vision ports and other small detail stuff.

Parts on "F" sprue for the turret are small and are perfect for the "carpet monster" to consume. Take great care in installing them.



















My apologize for the last two photo's. I wanted to show the rear deck in a better light.

Anyways, I hope to have a complete run down, a summary if you will, in the next few days a long with final photo's of the build.

See ya in the funnies..........................
BigfootV
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: December 24, 2005
KitMaker: 1,624 posts
Armorama: 994 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 - 05:36 AM UTC
Hey gang,

Did a little work last night. First photo here.



I wanted to show the gap with the fenders in the front. Not sure if it came out to where you can see it.




I talked about this earlier in the build. Red marker and notes seen here.







Photo below shows gun cradle instructions and notes. These are another carpet monster favorite food.








During the work last night I spent about 20 minutes looking for parts that had fallen. Luckily, I find all of them. It helps when you have a light colored carpet.

See ya in the funnies................
TankSGT
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: July 25, 2006
KitMaker: 1,139 posts
Armorama: 946 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 - 10:06 AM UTC
How did you handle the turret hitting the exhaust issue? I have the kit to build as well.

Tom
djohannsen
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Joined: June 24, 2005
KitMaker: 364 posts
Armorama: 355 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 - 10:25 AM UTC

Quoted Text

How did you handle the turret hitting the exhaust issue? I have the kit to build as well.

Tom


On page 2 he mentioned that he did some cutting to lower the exhaust.


Dave
TankSGT
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: July 25, 2006
KitMaker: 1,139 posts
Armorama: 946 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 - 11:14 AM UTC
Thanks, must have missed it in the commentary. Just ordered 2 RB barrels, one for the A2 when it comes out. When its all said and done it does resemble an M103.

Tom
pespada
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: June 13, 2014
KitMaker: 65 posts
Armorama: 60 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 - 11:36 AM UTC
Great build blog--changed my opinion of the kit! Only real problem is the exhaust height--easily fixable. Good looking vehicle in the end. I'll be looking for my kit at the IPMS Nats next week!
djohannsen
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Joined: June 24, 2005
KitMaker: 364 posts
Armorama: 355 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 - 11:53 AM UTC

Quoted Text

When its all said and done it does resemble an M103.


I've got the Estes book on the way, and I'm mulling this over (just got a few too many things in the works right now to order another kit).


Dave
BigfootV
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: December 24, 2005
KitMaker: 1,624 posts
Armorama: 994 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 - 01:21 PM UTC
Thanks guys.

Thomas,

Here's the photo that I hope explains how to deal with the exhaust height issue. First photo is the "Oooopps, it don't fit." moment.







And the fix as marked on the instructions.



The red shaded area needed to be removed is about 1/8 +/-inch. HTH.

See ya in the funnies....................
TankSGT
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: July 25, 2006
KitMaker: 1,139 posts
Armorama: 946 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 - 02:57 PM UTC
Thanks Brian, It makes sense. The only thing I'll add is the RB gun tubes. Already ordered them today one for the A2 which is on the way. Are you making an Army or Marine tank?

Tom
BigfootV
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: December 24, 2005
KitMaker: 1,624 posts
Armorama: 994 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 - 06:12 PM UTC
Hello Thomas,

Not a problem, glad to help.

As far as Army or Marine type, I'm not too sure at this point.
I'm still doing some background checking.

See ya in the funnies................
pespada
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: June 13, 2014
KitMaker: 65 posts
Armorama: 60 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 31, 2014 - 04:11 AM UTC
For additional information on how to improve (if not accurize this kit) I recommend looking to Cookie Sewell's review article on the kit that is listed in missing-lynx.com. (http://www.missing-lynx.com/reviews/usa/dml3548reviewcs_1.html) He talks about the lack of turret machine gun travel mounts, a thermal shield on the underside of the turret bustle, and a problem with the appearance of the gun travel lock on the rear of the tank-- all features that apply to U.S. Army (and probably USMC) M103A1 production vehicles, but none other. He also has very good photos that show these features on an existing M103A1. These items are easily addressed.
BigfootV
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: December 24, 2005
KitMaker: 1,624 posts
Armorama: 994 posts
Posted: Monday, August 04, 2014 - 04:28 AM UTC
Hello everyone,

Peter,

Thx for the post. I'll take a look at that.

Anyways, I'm getting down to the last bit of the build. Putting finishing touches on the kit. Hope to have pix and final thoughts posted later day.

Hope you've enjoyed this blog. It was rough going at first with trying to post the progress, but I finally got it, again, to work.

Thanks everyone.

See ya in the funnies..................
Kenaicop
#384
Visit this Community
Nevada, United States
Joined: August 23, 2005
KitMaker: 1,426 posts
Armorama: 1,316 posts
Posted: Monday, August 04, 2014 - 04:36 AM UTC
Here's mine, strait from the box. Still need to do the periscopes, paint headlights and install antennas. The only thing I added were the attachment points for the lifting shackles on the turret top and I moved the turret side rails up a bit to match photos and aid in placing the decals. I knew this kit was a turkey when I got ot so I didn't go too crazy at all with it

Vodnik
Visit this Community
Warszawa, Poland
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Monday, August 04, 2014 - 07:15 AM UTC

Quoted Text

For additional information on how to improve (if not accurize this kit) I recommend looking to Cookie Sewell's review article on the kit that is listed in missing-lynx.com. (http://www.missing-lynx.com/reviews/usa/dml3548reviewcs_1.html) He talks about the lack of turret machine gun travel mounts, a thermal shield on the underside of the turret bustle, and a problem with the appearance of the gun travel lock on the rear of the tank-- all features that apply to U.S. Army (and probably USMC) M103A1 production vehicles, but none other. He also has very good photos that show these features on an existing M103A1. These items are easily addressed.

There is no such thing as "existing M103A1". Not a single M103A1 survived. The tank on Cookie's photos is a M103. The machine gun travel lock was only associated with early commander's cupola with remotely controlled machine gun. It was eliminated from later tanks, when the MG mount was simplified. M103A1 had that simplified mount, so the MG travel lock is not needed in the kit. The tank shown by Cookie is a weird "patchwork", as it has M60 tank fenders attached to it.
cbear55
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: October 23, 2007
KitMaker: 3 posts
Armorama: 3 posts
Posted: Monday, August 04, 2014 - 09:09 AM UTC
Pawel

How are your mods coming along? Looking forward to seeing the results.

Chuck
BigfootV
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: December 24, 2005
KitMaker: 1,624 posts
Armorama: 994 posts
Posted: Monday, August 04, 2014 - 11:05 AM UTC
Hello everyone.

Pawel,

I've find this that you might be interested in.

www.preservedtanks.com/Types.aspx?TypeCategoryId=1870

It states there is an M103A1 at Ft. Polk, however I've not been able to confirm or deny this.
I plan to place a phone call when I can to see if this information is correct.

See ya in the funnies................
 _GOTOTOP