_GOTOBOTTOM
Яusso-Soviэt Forum: Cold War Soviet Armor
For discussions related to cold war era Russo-Soviet armor.
Hosted by Jacques Duquette
Shilka Build Compare: Hong VS Meng
ejasonk
Visit this Community
Baden-Württemberg, Germany
Joined: October 14, 2007
KitMaker: 314 posts
Armorama: 226 posts
Posted: Monday, May 23, 2016 - 12:40 AM UTC

Quoted Text

After noticing the frontal face problems of Abrams from Meng.....this amounts of error doesn't surprise me in fact.....


Could you please describe what the problems with the frontal area are? Thx
Hellrabbit
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: June 28, 2015
KitMaker: 139 posts
Armorama: 139 posts
Posted: Monday, May 23, 2016 - 01:21 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

After noticing the frontal face problems of Abrams from Meng.....this amounts of error doesn't surprise me in fact.....


Could you please describe what the problems with the frontal area are? Thx

Since the data and measurement from another post. I wont post it here. if you have interests.. you can find the post about RMF field Abrams build to check for detail.Somebody in China made a compare between Dragon, Meng, and RMF field turret frontal armor compare. the result is quite interesting. We have discussion in an FB research group.Pawel is there too. But as the group is closed group. I wont post their comments here too. If you want to see.. join the group.
Hellrabbit
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: June 28, 2015
KitMaker: 139 posts
Armorama: 139 posts
Posted: Monday, May 23, 2016 - 01:35 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

After noticing the frontal face problems of Abrams from Meng.....this amounts of error doesn't surprise me in fact.....


Could you please describe what the problems with the frontal area are? Thx



in case you cant find them. here is the album of those pics we discussed in that group
ijozic
Joined: May 23, 2007
KitMaker: 109 posts
Armorama: 109 posts
Posted: Monday, May 23, 2016 - 01:44 AM UTC


What happened here (I marked it with red circles)? Are these parts assembled upside down? It looks like the left and right sides are misplaced.
hugohuertas
Visit this Community
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Joined: January 26, 2007
KitMaker: 1,024 posts
Armorama: 1,013 posts
Posted: Monday, May 23, 2016 - 05:27 AM UTC
I suggest to take a look at the walkarounds available in Primeportal site, and many other references easily found online -like this : http://192.185.143.17/reviews-and-news/222-walkarounds/798-shilka-zsu-234-in-warsaw.

The glaring differences between different vehicles are quite apparent and noticeable, so taking a single vehicle or a single shot from a given angle as a base to judge accuracy might lead to some mistakes -or misleading?-.
This side by side picture from Primeportal illustrates what I mean
zsu-23-4_17_of_18

Also these two different vehicles and slightly different angles for the photos

zsu-23-4_03_of_34

zsu-23-4_22_of_76


Again, I'm not a fanatic advocate of Meng's kits, nor denying their kit has flaws -the photoetched engine deck grill is an evident example, as is the lack of some details also-.
But I still don't find Hong's one that better, and knowing about its "buildability" issues, let me prefer Meng's anyway...

On a side note, I'm still not convinced at all about the "Anonymous" thing, and keep finding the initial post of this tread "a bit" biased.
Hellrabbit
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: June 28, 2015
KitMaker: 139 posts
Armorama: 139 posts
Posted: Monday, May 23, 2016 - 07:24 AM UTC

Quoted Text

I suggest to take a look at the walkarounds available in Primeportal site, and many other references easily found online -like this : http://192.185.143.17/reviews-and-news/222-walkarounds/798-shilka-zsu-234-in-warsaw.

The glaring differences between different vehicles are quite apparent and noticeable, so taking a single vehicle or a single shot from a given angle as a base to judge accuracy might lead to some mistakes -or misleading?-.
This side by side picture from Primeportal illustrates what I mean
zsu-23-4_17_of_18

Also these two different vehicles and slightly different angles for the photos

zsu-23-4_03_of_34

zsu-23-4_22_of_76


Again, I'm not a fanatic advocate of Meng's kits, nor denying their kit has flaws -the photoetched engine deck grill is an evident example, as is the lack of some details also-.
But I still don't find Hong's one that better, and knowing about its "buildability" issues, let me prefer Meng's anyway...

On a side note, I'm still not convinced at all about the "Anonymous" thing, and keep finding the initial post of this tread "a bit" biased.

your comments bring me a big confuse about the different vehicle setting....meng released the Shilka as 4in1 version...which means..you can build 4 version from 1 box......so..if the basic structure is not the same as you post above..how can they build a 4in1 kit?????
hugohuertas
Visit this Community
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Joined: January 26, 2007
KitMaker: 1,024 posts
Armorama: 1,013 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 - 02:45 AM UTC
I might have been unclear in my comment, so I'll rephrase it:
I'm not saying that the basic structure is that different from one vehicle to another.

My point is that sometimes -I may say usually, when it comes to Soviet/Russian AFV's- there are noticeable differences in measurements, details and other stuff, even within the same unit -company/platoon or combat group-.

I did not see Meng's kit "in flesh", so I cannot be of help or give an opinion about how they dealt with the possibility to build different versions with the same kit.
 _GOTOTOP