Academy M60A2 vs Dragon M60A2 ? Differences?
California, United States
Joined: February 08, 2003
KitMaker: 776 posts
Armorama: 477 posts
Posted: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 - 11:07 PM UTC
Just wondering now that the M60A2 is out by 2 companies, unless you want to include the Tamiya version.
Which one of them is the better pick ?
What does one offer over the other ?
I know, accuracy will come into play, so on that subject, which one comes closer to the mark ?
Im not even talking about the AFV CLUB as its not even in the market yet. Thanks in advance for your input.
"Our job is not to forgive them, thats gods job. Our job is only to arrange the meeting." General Norman. Scharwzkopf
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: October 16, 2006
KitMaker: 3,374 posts
Armorama: 3,126 posts
Posted: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 - 11:12 PM UTC
I haven't been able to find any actually sprue shots of the Dragon kit, yet. I know the Academy lower hull is from its original M60 series, so it has the holes for the RC version in the bottom. Also, the suspension isn't exactly accurate, although MR Modelbau makes a white metal replacement for the suspension arms. I glanced at the new tool upper parts...they look OK. I didn't like that the tail lights were molded on as one piece, but that's just my own personal opinion. Can't speak for accuracy.
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 - 11:18 PM UTC
Dragon's hasn't seen the light of day yet either, so no way to compare them.
Field Artillery --- The KING of BATTLE!!!
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -- George Orwell
Showcase
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: October 16, 2006
KitMaker: 3,374 posts
Armorama: 3,126 posts
Posted: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 - 11:20 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Dragon's hasn't seen the light of day yet either, so no way to compare them.
That's going to change, as Squadron has them in stock
Warszawa, Poland
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 - 12:23 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text
Dragon's hasn't seen the light of day yet either, so no way to compare them.
So have Sprue Brothers.
Pawel "Vodnik" Krupowicz
Professional Certified Rivet Counter.
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: October 16, 2006
KitMaker: 3,374 posts
Armorama: 3,126 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 - 12:44 AM UTC
Well, I am going to be the guinea pig- I ordered one from Sprue Brothers. I have a resin M60A2 conversion started, so worst case, I'll mix and match parts.
Illinois, United States
Joined: February 20, 2015
KitMaker: 42 posts
Armorama: 36 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 - 08:38 AM UTC
Isn't the 'A2 Dragons first M60 type kit? Should be interesting to see what they put in the box.
Plain question and plain answer make the shortest road out of most perplexities.
-Mark Twain Life on the Mississippi
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: October 16, 2006
KitMaker: 3,374 posts
Armorama: 3,126 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 - 08:51 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Isn't the 'A2 Dragons first M60 type kit? Should be interesting to see what they put in the box.
Yes, it's the first. They also announced the M60 but it's not out yet
Florida, United States
Joined: October 21, 2013
KitMaker: 751 posts
Armorama: 751 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 - 11:19 AM UTC
I am very interested too because of a new M-60.
Missouri, United States
Joined: February 10, 2007
KitMaker: 23 posts
Armorama: 21 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 - 12:24 PM UTC
This was posted on another site.
"What a let down for me. This belongs in the Black Label group of let downs. Where to start? The hull doesn't look bad, but there are some screw ups on it. They use the rear engine doors from the M48A3 MOD B kit, wrong. It has the fuel filler caps of the M48 kits, wrong. There should be only 1 on the right side, not the 2 they would have you use. The aluminum finned road wheels look pretty nice. The sprockets are the same as in the M48 kits, no lightening holes. The give you the late armored top loading air cleaners when the should be the unarmored top loaders. The CBSS bulge looks a bit under sized, but I need to take a closer look at it. The turret, the big deal about the kit and has the biggest problems. No mantlet cover. gun tube looks a little too big. Smoke launchers look undersized. Turret has a squareish look to it. the turret hatches look a bit wonky. Bustle rack bars look way over scale. nice pe for the bustle rack. They use the undersized search light from the M48 kits. Seeing a trend here? Lots of M48 sprues in the kit. Same DS T97 tracks from the M48 kits. Verdict? WAIT FOR THE AFV CLUB KIT!!! I think the Academy A2 turret looks better than the DML. Seems DML is on a roll here, all down hill."
So guess Im not wasting my money on another turd DML kit.
What a shame, really thought this would have been a good kit.
Fire always makes it better
Warszawa, Poland
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 - 01:32 PM UTC
Quoted Text
The give you the late armored top loading air cleaners when the should be the unarmored top loaders.
Maybe because they think it is "exhaust muffler box"
http://216.119.96.90/d-m-propics/DIR_DRA/DRA3562/B_DRA3562_02.jpgLOL!
It shows the quality of research...
Pawel "Vodnik" Krupowicz
Professional Certified Rivet Counter.
New York, United States
Joined: May 02, 2013
KitMaker: 4,403 posts
Armorama: 4,078 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 - 02:54 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text
Quoted Text
Dragon's hasn't seen the light of day yet either, so no way to compare them.
So have Sprue Brothers.
And so does OMNI MODELS... Not that I'm going to jump at buying the DRAGON M60A2, now that I've read that there are numerous mistakes included. Maybe DRAGON transferred some of their BLACK PLAGUE "geniuses" into the M60A2 project. I WAS looking forward to this kit. I'm wondering now, if DRAGON has chosen to worsen their record by incorporating a lot of mistakes into the up-coming M60 and M48A1 kits..?
New York, United States
Joined: May 02, 2013
KitMaker: 4,403 posts
Armorama: 4,078 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 - 03:09 PM UTC
Quoted Text
This was posted on another site.
"What a let down for me. This belongs in the Black Label group of let downs. Where to start? The hull doesn't look bad, but there are some screw ups on it. They use the rear engine doors from the M48A3 MOD B kit, wrong. It has the fuel filler caps of the M48 kits, wrong. There should be only 1 on the right side, not the 2 they would have you use. The aluminum finned road wheels look pretty nice. The sprockets are the same as in the M48 kits, no lightening holes. The give you the late armored top loading air cleaners when the should be the unarmored top loaders. The CBSS bulge looks a bit under sized, but I need to take a closer look at it. The turret, the big deal about the kit and has the biggest problems. No mantlet cover. gun tube looks a little too big. Smoke launchers look undersized. Turret has a squareish look to it. the turret hatches look a bit wonky. Bustle rack bars look way over scale. nice pe for the bustle rack. They use the undersized search light from the M48 kits. Seeing a trend here? Lots of M48 sprues in the kit. Same DS T97 tracks from the M48 kits. Verdict? WAIT FOR THE AFV CLUB KIT!!! I think the Academy A2 turret looks better than the DML. Seems DML is on a roll here, all down hill."
So guess Im not wasting my money on another turd DML kit.
What a shame, really thought this would have been a good kit.
AGREED- I'm quite disappointed, too. I probably should have expected a poor showing from DRAGON. They are definitely on their way into the gutter, which is a shame, since they USED TO BE a premier model manufacturer...
Burgos, Spain / España
Joined: September 08, 2005
KitMaker: 117 posts
Armorama: 74 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 - 08:47 PM UTC
North Carolina, United States
Joined: November 26, 2003
KitMaker: 568 posts
Armorama: 398 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 28, 2016 - 12:47 AM UTC
I find it laughable that Dragon expects anyone to pay what the asking price is for this monstrosity. As said earlier they have fallen to the wayside with their current crop of armor releases.
Gyokusai-to seek death rather than dishonor,Artillery maybe the king of battle,but tankers shoot bigger loads!!!!
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 28, 2016 - 12:55 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I find it laughable that Dragon expects anyone to pay what the asking price is for this monstrosity.
I'm sure they will sell just fine. The old Tamiya dog still sells. Most modelers are not as discerning as those who frequent Armorama and some other sites. The average modeler will snatch these up and be happy with them since they look like an M60A2 and are better than the old Tamiya kits. The detail-oriented modeler will use this as a base to add to and correct and still have a much better model in the end, with less work than the Tamiya and Academy kits, or wait to see AFV Club's kit.
You are all forgetting that Dragon is mainly a toy company who also does models. I'm sure they have discovered through their market research that the lower quality, less accurate kits will sell just fine and are cheaper for them to produce. They are not really out to make everyone happy, but to make money. I doubt they really care how the detail-oriented modeler feels about their products since we are not their main buyers. That is the same reason they do Battle Barbies (1/6 figures), Star Wars stuff, etc., etc., etc...
Field Artillery --- The KING of BATTLE!!!
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -- George Orwell
Showcase
Colorado, United States
Joined: February 06, 2002
KitMaker: 1,526 posts
Armorama: 1,294 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 28, 2016 - 01:13 AM UTC
Sounds like we have a winner. Academy M60A2 - selling for $30 on Ebay with free shipping! That's cheap enough for some room to buy aftermarket stuff and improve it.
Happy modeling!
Warning: possible addiction may occur.
Currently on the bench: Maquette T-34/76
North Carolina, United States
Joined: November 26, 2003
KitMaker: 568 posts
Armorama: 398 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 28, 2016 - 01:49 AM UTC
Def update set can be had for another 25 bucks. Still cheaper than $84 MSRP on Dragons kit.
Gyokusai-to seek death rather than dishonor,Artillery maybe the king of battle,but tankers shoot bigger loads!!!!
New York, United States
Joined: May 02, 2013
KitMaker: 4,403 posts
Armorama: 4,078 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 28, 2016 - 03:10 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Sounds like we have a winner. Academy M60A2 - selling for $30 on Ebay with free shipping! That's cheap enough for some room to buy aftermarket stuff and improve it.
Let's see if AFV CLUB will blow the other -A2s into the weeds once (if?) it reaches the market. I'm not holding my breath- I have 2 un-built TAMIYA -A2s with every conceivable upgrade that was ever made to fit. The only reason I've been holding off on actually building them is that I was waiting for the DRAGON -A2, (now vetoed) and AFV CLUB's, which has as yet not seen the light of day... Who knows if it ever will? AFV CLUB never delivered on their M8 HMC, so I'm a little bit skeptical as regards to their M60A2...
Rhode Island, United States
Joined: May 10, 2002
KitMaker: 3,581 posts
Armorama: 2,782 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 28, 2016 - 03:27 AM UTC
As for the aircleaners, I think D27 / 28,(unused) would work for the early production versions.You may have to slice and dice the sides to cover any opening, if those 2 parts are side loading for an M48 series.
I will buy this and do a side by side build, to compare and contrast the kits. Also,if Dragon's torsion bar anchor points are good, I do have mold making rubber, and can "repair" Academy's attempt.
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: October 16, 2006
KitMaker: 3,374 posts
Armorama: 3,126 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 28, 2016 - 04:56 AM UTC
Did the A2 use both air cleaners through it's life? I was doing one with the later barrel, so the armored ones would be oK?
Skåne, Sweden
Joined: May 14, 2010
KitMaker: 749 posts
Armorama: 743 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 28, 2016 - 10:28 AM UTC
Quoted Text
This was posted on another site.
"What a let down for me. This belongs in the Black Label group of let downs. Where to start? The hull doesn't look bad, but there are some screw ups on it. They use the rear engine doors from the M48A3 MOD B kit, wrong. It has the fuel filler caps of the M48 kits, wrong. There should be only 1 on the right side, not the 2 they would have you use. The aluminum finned road wheels look pretty nice. The sprockets are the same as in the M48 kits, no lightening holes. The give you the late armored top loading air cleaners when the should be the unarmored top loaders. The CBSS bulge looks a bit under sized, but I need to take a closer look at it. The turret, the big deal about the kit and has the biggest problems. No mantlet cover. gun tube looks a little too big. Smoke launchers look undersized. Turret has a squareish look to it. the turret hatches look a bit wonky. Bustle rack bars look way over scale. nice pe for the bustle rack. They use the undersized search light from the M48 kits. Seeing a trend here? Lots of M48 sprues in the kit. Same DS T97 tracks from the M48 kits. Verdict? WAIT FOR THE AFV CLUB KIT!!! I think the Academy A2 turret looks better than the DML. Seems DML is on a roll here, all down hill."
It will be interesting to see an objective review of this kit. I see the words "looks big, looks undersized, looks wonky" etc, and this immediately gets everyone pounding the kit into the ground.
I am not saying that the guy on the other site is wrong, just that there isn't terribly much objectivity in the "/review". Some of the comments following that post aren't terribly objective either, but we do seem to enjoy trashing kits based on initial drawings, CAD's, boxarts and quick looks a sprues. Sadly, a growing trend these days.
I'll wait for the review before I make a final judgement. There are obviously a number of experts here who could give us that objective view on this particular kit.
Warszawa, Poland
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 28, 2016 - 11:20 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I am not saying that the guy on the other site is wrong, just that there isn't terribly much objectivity in the "/review". Some of the comments following that post aren't terribly objective either, but we do seem to enjoy trashing kits based on initial drawings, CAD's, boxarts and quick looks a sprues.
Gary has the kit in his hands. And while he certainly isn't a diplomat, he knows his stuff and I trust his opinions.
Pawel "Vodnik" Krupowicz
Professional Certified Rivet Counter.
Texas, United States
Joined: June 12, 2007
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,696 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 28, 2016 - 10:49 PM UTC
[/quote]
Gary has the kit in his hands. And while he certainly isn't a diplomat, he knows his stuff and I trust his opinions.[/quote]
Well said.
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Joined: January 26, 2007
KitMaker: 1,024 posts
Armorama: 1,013 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 28, 2016 - 11:03 PM UTC
Gary has the kit in his hands. And while he certainly isn't a diplomat, he knows his stuff and I trust his opinions.[/quote]
Well said.[/quote]
Agree.
I don't like Mr. Owsley's manners, but no one can say he talks about what he doesn't know.
So I usually ignore his attitude but take in consideration the core of his opinions and information.
It's not too much, but it's all we got...
