From Yoshiyuki Satou's FB page
Hisham
Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
Hosted by Darren Baker, Mario Matijasic
Some closeup pics of Tamiya's new M10
Hisham
Joined: July 23, 2004
KitMaker: 6,856 posts
Armorama: 6,363 posts
Posted: Friday, May 20, 2016 - 03:43 PM UTC
barkingdigger
Associate Editor
#013
Joined: June 20, 2008
KitMaker: 3,981 posts
Armorama: 3,403 posts
Posted: Friday, May 20, 2016 - 04:51 PM UTC
Looks good, but it'll be a bear trying to load that upside-down .50cal! 
hanb7323
Joined: October 06, 2014
KitMaker: 408 posts
Armorama: 407 posts
Posted: Friday, May 20, 2016 - 05:21 PM UTC
Is the turret of this kit the most accurate one ever built of injection kit?
ivanhoe6
Joined: April 05, 2007
KitMaker: 2,023 posts
Armorama: 1,234 posts
Posted: Friday, May 20, 2016 - 05:27 PM UTC
Good eye Tom ! Can't tell about the .30 cal. Is it the same ol' Tamiya one? Or, could it hopefully be the Tasca MG?
Anyway, the figures look really good as does the rest of the kit. Looks like Tamiya has another winner !
Anyway, the figures look really good as does the rest of the kit. Looks like Tamiya has another winner !
easyco69
Joined: November 03, 2012
KitMaker: 2,275 posts
Armorama: 2,233 posts
Posted: Friday, May 20, 2016 - 05:36 PM UTC
I like the idea that it comes with figures..to use in my AFV Club M 10 lol. Looks like everything's molded on, even the engine doors.
m4sherman
Joined: January 18, 2006
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,808 posts
Posted: Friday, May 20, 2016 - 05:53 PM UTC
There are rivets on the rim of the road wheels like there should be. Molded on or add ons?
Looks like the old Tamiya 50 cal. Hard to load, and since the shell casings drop out the bottom, it jams easily too.
Looks like the old Tamiya 50 cal. Hard to load, and since the shell casings drop out the bottom, it jams easily too.
vikingtanker
Joined: August 23, 2002
KitMaker: 43 posts
Armorama: 43 posts
Posted: Friday, May 20, 2016 - 07:24 PM UTC
Quoted Text
There are rivets on the rim of the road wheels like there should be. Molded on or add ons?
Looks like the old Tamiya 50 cal. Hard to load, and since the shell casings drop out the bottom, it jams easily too.
I think this is a pilot correct? Anyway the tread plate looks very nice
Biggles2
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
Armorama: 6,110 posts
Posted: Friday, May 20, 2016 - 07:59 PM UTC
Is it possible to check the dimensions and proportions of the turret? That's where AFV really got it wrong, and Academy got it a bit closer. 
27-1025
Joined: September 16, 2004
KitMaker: 1,281 posts
Armorama: 1,222 posts
Posted: Friday, May 20, 2016 - 08:54 PM UTC
Thanks for sharing this. Looks great and will be buying a couple of these. Love the fact they included the pop rivets on the wheel rims (wonder if they did the backsides too 
)
)Removed by original poster on 05/21/16 - 16:04:01 (GMT).
ericadeane
Joined: October 28, 2002
KitMaker: 4,021 posts
Armorama: 3,947 posts
Posted: Friday, May 20, 2016 - 08:59 PM UTC
Knowing injection plastic molding technology, the "rivets" on the stamped road wheel inner rims must actually only be a protrusion from the hub itself -- giving an illusion that of the rivet. There's no way to injection mold a true rivet there. Only RTV molds could capture that undercut detail between the rivet and the hub. Still -- it's a nice idea.
Me? I'm still crazy. I add the sliced rivets to the Asuka roadwheels one by one...
Me? I'm still crazy. I add the sliced rivets to the Asuka roadwheels one by one...
RLlockie
Joined: September 06, 2013
KitMaker: 1,112 posts
Armorama: 938 posts
Posted: Friday, May 20, 2016 - 09:12 PM UTC
The resolution on the photos isn't great but I think I see the extensions that imply that they are indeed moulded in place, which is also consistent with Tamiya's usual approach. I see why they did it but it does mean that the sad and tragic among us not only have to add all the rivets to each wheel but also to remove cleanly the moulded ones first.
Assessing how accurate the dims are is best left until someone can measure it, I'd imagine. I measured an upper hull years ago but was too short to tackle the turret too.
Anyway I still have a resin one in the attic to build....
Assessing how accurate the dims are is best left until someone can measure it, I'd imagine. I measured an upper hull years ago but was too short to tackle the turret too.
Anyway I still have a resin one in the attic to build....
russamotto
Joined: December 14, 2007
KitMaker: 3,389 posts
Armorama: 2,054 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 21, 2016 - 12:27 AM UTC
I am very impressed by the molding and also the figure details. Based on the M4A3E8 kit, I expect there will be a lot of small details that are hard to pick up in general photos. I'll pre-order one of these.
tatbaqui
News Writer#040
Joined: May 06, 2007
KitMaker: 2,713 posts
Armorama: 2,451 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 21, 2016 - 03:37 AM UTC
Hello,
Am considering a future project. Are there any glaring visual differences between a Wolverine and say, a typical M10?
Cheers,
Tat
Am considering a future project. Are there any glaring visual differences between a Wolverine and say, a typical M10?
Cheers,
Tat
MikeyBugs95
Joined: May 27, 2013
KitMaker: 2,210 posts
Armorama: 1,712 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 21, 2016 - 03:44 AM UTC
Isn't "Wolverine" just a nickname given to the M10 by the British? If so then there wouldn't be any differences, right?
tatbaqui
News Writer#040
Joined: May 06, 2007
KitMaker: 2,713 posts
Armorama: 2,451 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 21, 2016 - 03:56 AM UTC
Thanks, I read that as well. But knowing close to nil on US armor I thought of asking openly to those who would know better. Cheers
Bravo1102
Joined: December 08, 2003
KitMaker: 2,864 posts
Armorama: 2,497 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 21, 2016 - 03:59 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Thanks, I read that as well. But knowing close to nil on US armor I thought of asking openly to those who would know better. Cheers
The radio would be different. But I don't think that would be visible on this kit unlike the Academy one which has a full driver's compartment.
tatbaqui
News Writer#040
Joined: May 06, 2007
KitMaker: 2,713 posts
Armorama: 2,451 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 21, 2016 - 04:34 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextThanks, I read that as well. But knowing close to nil on US armor I thought of asking openly to those who would know better. Cheers
The radio would be different. But I don't think that would be visible on this kit unlike the Academy one which has a full driver's compartment.
Great -- thanks!
Biggles2
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
Armorama: 6,110 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 21, 2016 - 07:40 PM UTC
Slightly 
, but I've often wondered why the British didn't try to mate a Sherman Firefly turret on the M10 (or M36) chassis. It would at least have a lower profile than a Sherman.
, but I've often wondered why the British didn't try to mate a Sherman Firefly turret on the M10 (or M36) chassis. It would at least have a lower profile than a Sherman. Me109G
Joined: December 12, 2007
KitMaker: 170 posts
Armorama: 138 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 21, 2016 - 09:19 PM UTC
I will definitely be getting one of these! Maybe a couple!! 
ericadeane
Joined: October 28, 2002
KitMaker: 4,021 posts
Armorama: 3,947 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 21, 2016 - 10:13 PM UTC
@Tat Baqui. This M10 version is of an earlier turret. The M10s that the Brits converted to 17pdr Achilles had the later turret where the rear walls were vertical -- to allow sufficient space for the larger 17pdr QF breech. We have to keep our fingers crossed. It's definitely a possibility since Tamiya produced a 1/48 M10 IIC Achilles.
m4sherman
Joined: January 18, 2006
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,808 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 21, 2016 - 10:34 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Slightly
The M36 was a US Army TD. I don't recall the British getting any.
The M4 Sherman turret used on the Firefly had a turret basket that would have to be adapted to the M10 hull. It was much easier to add the 17pdr to the M10 turret which was done as Roy explained.
It's odd that the M4A2 Sherman hull was deemed unfit to covert to the Firefly, but they put the gun on the later M10 chassis, which was based on the M4A2.
ericadeane
Joined: October 28, 2002
KitMaker: 4,021 posts
Armorama: 3,947 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 21, 2016 - 11:58 PM UTC
I don't think that the M4A2 was deemed unfit to convert to Fireflies. By the time that Fireflies were being planned, M4A2 availability was diminishing whereas M4A4s and M4 Composites were plentiful.
Biggles2
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
Armorama: 6,110 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 22, 2016 - 02:50 AM UTC
Quoted Text
The M4 Sherman turret used on the Firefly had a turret basket that would have to be adapted to the M10 hull.
You mean the turret basket of a typical Sherman was too deep to fit into an M10 hull?
tatbaqui
News Writer#040
Joined: May 06, 2007
KitMaker: 2,713 posts
Armorama: 2,451 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 22, 2016 - 04:21 AM UTC
Quoted Text
@Tat Baqui. This M10 version is of an earlier turret. The M10s that the Brits converted to 17pdr Achilles had the later turret where the rear walls were vertical -- to allow sufficient space for the larger 17pdr QF breech. We have to keep our fingers crossed. It's definitely a possibility since Tamiya produced a 1/48 M10 IIC Achilles.
Thanks Roy. Prior to the Achilles, did the Brits get to have the M10 as depicted by this upcoming Tamiya kit? Cheers, Tat
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.