_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV: Modern - USA
Modern Armor, AFVs, and Support vehicles.
Hosted by Darren Baker
DML M 103 A2 opinions needed
Wierdy
Visit this Community
Ukraine / Україна
Joined: January 26, 2010
KitMaker: 570 posts
Armorama: 553 posts
Posted: Monday, December 15, 2014 - 04:22 PM UTC
Hi guys
Well, the question is in the topic title.You know what I mean...It's like M103 reloaded.Some of us had been waiting for their 'Black series' debut release with anticipation and it turned into a nightmare with opinions ranging from not so good to awful (yes,I've seen numerous concerns on inaccuracies/wrong angles/simplified parts/shortish gun barrel etc.)
And now, judging from what you can see here,is it any better now?
http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10285661

Cheers and thanks for your feedback in advance
Vodnik
Visit this Community
Warszawa, Poland
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Monday, December 15, 2014 - 08:28 PM UTC

Quoted Text


And now, judging from what you can see here,is it any better now?


IMO no, it isn't. They've put some lipstick on it, but it is still a pig...
Scipio2010
#401
Visit this Community
Washington, United States
Joined: December 08, 2013
KitMaker: 323 posts
Armorama: 221 posts
Posted: Monday, December 15, 2014 - 08:41 PM UTC
For any of you building the M103, I did a walk-around of one of these beasts on display at a museum. I have more pictures than what was eventually posted on the site, so if you would like them for reference material, send me a PM.
Bravo1102
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: December 08, 2003
KitMaker: 2,864 posts
Armorama: 2,497 posts
Posted: Monday, December 15, 2014 - 08:44 PM UTC
Sure it's a nice model but it is still a caricature of the shape of the real vehicle and not an accurate representation.


18Bravo
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 20, 2005
KitMaker: 7,219 posts
Armorama: 6,097 posts
Posted: Monday, December 15, 2014 - 09:39 PM UTC


I have photographed and measured them as well, at Ft. Lewis, Camp Shelby, and the 45th ID Museum. Also a walkaround of the earlier model at Ft. Hood.
I wonder why I did that?....
SEDimmick
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: March 15, 2002
KitMaker: 1,745 posts
Armorama: 1,483 posts
Posted: Monday, December 15, 2014 - 10:22 PM UTC

Quoted Text



I have photographed and measured them as well, at Ft. Lewis, Camp Shelby, and the 45th ID Museum. Also a walkaround of the earlier model at Ft. Hood.
I wonder why I did that?....


hallelujah!!!

Though I do want a M2A2 Bradley first...and maybe an MLRS
tankmodeler
#417
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: March 01, 2004
KitMaker: 3,123 posts
Armorama: 2,539 posts
Posted: Monday, December 15, 2014 - 10:52 PM UTC

Quoted Text

And now, judging from what you can see here,is it any better now?

No. No better.

They've taken the same, basic and incorrect hull and turret shapes and added the features of the M103A2 to them.

You still need to rebuild pretty much the entire hull and turret to get the shapes even mostly right. The gun is still too short.

Rubbish V2.0

Paul
Wierdy
Visit this Community
Ukraine / Україна
Joined: January 26, 2010
KitMaker: 570 posts
Armorama: 553 posts
Posted: Monday, December 15, 2014 - 11:14 PM UTC
Crap
Why on earth would they produce it? I just can't get it. Why people at Dragon screwed.After all those 'precisely replicated' Panzers, 'CAD/CAM' technologies and 'thorough research' of subjects this entire series looks to be PITA in terms of accuracy. No trust to their future 'BLACK' releases as well, although the Conqueror does look tempting....alas
Bravo1102
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: December 08, 2003
KitMaker: 2,864 posts
Armorama: 2,497 posts
Posted: Monday, December 15, 2014 - 11:46 PM UTC
Actually to hear the panzer folks talk those meticulously reproduced panzers aren't perfect either. I recall a 3 in 1 Pzkpfw IV ausf E that was all kinds of wrong. But Dragon corrected it.

Sometimes complex shapes and cross-indexed measurements and proportions escape the notice of the mold maker and CAD artist.

We ask is it that hard to get it right? And the answer is; obviously yes. Heck poor aircraft geeks are still waiting for an all kinds of kits of all kinds of aircraft that catch that oh so subtle shape just right.
uarkram
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: July 19, 2014
KitMaker: 22 posts
Armorama: 19 posts
Posted: Monday, December 15, 2014 - 11:48 PM UTC
We all know what the M103 kits are like.

My question is what can we do with them? I'm thinking doing something Panzer46/WOT-ish to my M103. I have an old Linberg 1/30 scale M46, and the turret is HUGE for 1/35, more like heavy tank size. I'm thinking of cutting it apart and making it bigger, but what do I arm it with? A 128mm, or 152mm?

Any idea's will be appreciated.
C_JACQUEMONT
Visit this Community
Loire-Atlantique, France
Joined: October 09, 2004
KitMaker: 2,433 posts
Armorama: 2,325 posts
Posted: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 - 12:29 AM UTC

Quoted Text

No trust to their future 'BLACK' releases as well, although the Conqueror does look tempting....alas


For that one you should have an alternative : Amusing Hobby announced it as well...

Cheers,

Christophe
CowboyfromHell
Visit this Community
Illinois, United States
Joined: September 18, 2014
KitMaker: 69 posts
Armorama: 68 posts
Posted: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 - 02:26 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text


And now, judging from what you can see here,is it any better now?


IMO no, it isn't. They've put some lipstick on it, but it is still a pig...



Could you be more specific about that "lipstick"? I guess the turret has been slightly modified, since there's a little "bulge" right above the mantlet which was missing on the previous M103A1.
Wierdy
Visit this Community
Ukraine / Україна
Joined: January 26, 2010
KitMaker: 570 posts
Armorama: 553 posts
Posted: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 - 04:43 PM UTC
Hello Guys!!!

To Pawel Krupowicz:
I've seen your blog on correction of their original M103 release, and the job you've done is outstanding, but I'm not ready to put so much effort into a single kit (for many reasons). Are you thinking on putting your improved turret into production?

To Shawn and Robert:
I think I'm not the only person who admires people like you two guys for time and patience put into measuring the real things for your fellow modelers. Thanks for that!

To Stephen:
Yes, they improved their Panzer IV (it appeared as 'Vorpanzer', didn't it?)and it wasn't cheap, so why couldn't they do the same with M103?
Complex shapes you say? Maybe, but too short gun barrel, undersized mantlet and closed loader hatch - no excuses here!!!

To Christophe:
I know Amusing are planning the release, almost sure it is going to be better just because they don't use DS tracks (ha-ha ).Seriously though,their very first kit is superior to what two other far more experienced manufacturers proposed.

To CowboyfromHell:
Here is Pawel's blog if you wish (and if I am allowed, Pawel):
https://armorama.kitmaker.net/forums/219229&page=1

Anyway, let us all be happy with what we do and what we get from our hobby, cheers
Vodnik
Visit this Community
Warszawa, Poland
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 - 07:29 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Could you be more specific about that "lipstick"? I guess the turret has been slightly modified, since there's a little "bulge" right above the mantlet which was missing on the previous M103A1.

I've only seen those sprue pictures and have not spent too much time analyzing them, but indeed the only thing I can immediately see is that they've changed the turret top shape a bit. It doesn't really change the fact that the entire turret is still messed up in many ways...
Bravo1102
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: December 08, 2003
KitMaker: 2,864 posts
Armorama: 2,497 posts
Posted: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 - 07:56 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Hello Guys!!!


To Stephen:
Yes, they improved their Panzer IV (it appeared as 'Vorpanzer', didn't it?)and it wasn't cheap, so why couldn't they do the same with M103?
Complex shapes you say? Maybe, but too short gun barrel, undersized mantlet and closed loader hatch - no excuses here!!!



I theorize the undersized barrel and mantlet was that the guy doing those measurements submitted the wrong scale conversion. Basic math, what he didn't get his coffee that morning?

And it seems the guys doing the turret messed up all around; loader's hatch, shapes, size. Must have been those tequila shots they did the night before. Then gotta meet the deadline for the turret; screw the loader's hatch.

I have a couple of Roco 1/87th scale ones I went to town on back when I did braille and it seems those tiny things will have to suffice.
tankmodeler
#417
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: March 01, 2004
KitMaker: 3,123 posts
Armorama: 2,539 posts
Posted: Thursday, December 18, 2014 - 02:12 AM UTC

Quoted Text


I theorize the undersized barrel and mantlet was that the guy doing those measurements submitted the wrong scale conversion. Basic math, what he didn't get his coffee that morning?


Actually this isn't how one would normally generate the CAD model for such a subject. Engineering CAD packages all have the ability to scale a 3D model once it's complete, so, to eliminate this sort of scaling error, you build the CAD model full scale to a certain point and then scale the entire thing the right factor and then detail it for tooling. That way you don't get sopme parts the right scale and some parts the wrong scale.


Quoted Text

And it seems the guys doing the turret messed up all around

It's not just the turret! The hull is just as badly mucked up as well. If you have a corrected turret, the crappy hull doesn't look so bad, granted, but it _is_ mucked up.

Paul
 _GOTOTOP