_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
Hosted by Darren Baker, Mario Matijasic
REVIEW
M10 Wolverine - Mid Production
orange_3D
Visit this Community
British Columbia, Canada
Joined: July 28, 2005
KitMaker: 602 posts
Armorama: 469 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 29, 2016 - 10:51 AM UTC
Thanks Grant!
I also noticed in period photos that the mantlet for the Achilles is different in the area where the gun meets the mantlet. Though strangely there's a YouTube video of an Achilles in a museum that had a mantlet that looked just like an ordinary M10. I wonder if it's a restoration error or it really existed in WW2?

Also with regards to the gun travel lock, the original M10 had a short stubby one in the rear, while Achilles has the longer one that looks like those on Sherman's?

Also how common were duckbill extenders on the tracks?

Thanks for indulging me
ALBOWIE
Visit this Community
New South Wales, Australia
Joined: February 28, 2006
KitMaker: 1,605 posts
Armorama: 1,565 posts
Posted: Monday, May 30, 2016 - 02:12 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Thanks Grant!
I also noticed in period photos that the mantlet for the Achilles is different in the area where the gun meets the mantlet. Though strangely there's a YouTube video of an Achilles in a museum that had a mantlet that looked just like an ordinary M10. I wonder if it's a restoration error or it really existed in WW2?

Also with regards to the gun travel lock, the original M10 had a short stubby one in the rear, while Achilles has the longer one that looks like those on Sherman's?

Also how common were duckbill extenders on the tracks?

Thanks for indulging me


Duckbills were seen however the crew or maintenance personnel had to cut away the lower hull skirt where it slopes back inward as it would foul any extenders. You just need to find photos and you will see what I mean.
Al
GeraldOwens
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: March 30, 2006
KitMaker: 3,736 posts
Armorama: 3,697 posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 - 03:35 AM UTC

Quoted Text

I am looking forward to this release. I have the Academy 70th Anniversary kit of the M10.Were there any problems with it?

Only some of the kit was corrected. The upper hull has been revised, though I haven't checked the dimensions at this point. The turret is now the correct width, but Academy didn't budget to replace the overly narrow gun mantlet, so they made the turret sides taper in more sharply to fit inside the too-small mantlet part.
The suspension is the original tooling, but Academy must have photographed a gutted museum or monument vehicle, and the missing weight of the engine and other internal bits made the spring arms sit too high. Academy corrected this on their later Sherman kits, if you want to kit bash. Italeri suspension arms should also work. Personally, I'll probably just buy the Tamiya kit rather than spend time and money fixing a kit that shouldn't have needed fixing.
phantom8747
Visit this Community
Alabama, United States
Joined: March 09, 2015
KitMaker: 281 posts
Armorama: 273 posts
Posted: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 - 04:28 AM UTC
While working on my Academy 70th Anniversay kit last week I noticed a big gap, when joining upper and lower hull, between the transmission housing bolt strip and upper hull.So I am waiting for the Tamiya kit also.I think the new upper hull is a little shorter to cause a gap like that.
Removed by original poster on 05/13/19 - 22:51:03 (GMT).
treadstone
Visit this Community
California, United States
Joined: April 29, 2006
KitMaker: 83 posts
Armorama: 45 posts
Posted: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 - 09:57 AM UTC
Why did Tamiya go with the early style Turret rather than the later style Turret?
orange_3D
Visit this Community
British Columbia, Canada
Joined: July 28, 2005
KitMaker: 602 posts
Armorama: 469 posts
Posted: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 - 07:40 PM UTC


Quoted Text

Why did Tamiya go with the early style Turret rather than the later style Turret?


By earlier style turret, do you mean the rear counterweights? Or was their some other distinct feature that distinguish early from late style turrets?
ericadeane
Visit this Community
Michigan, United States
Joined: October 28, 2002
KitMaker: 4,021 posts
Armorama: 3,947 posts
Posted: Thursday, June 02, 2016 - 01:06 AM UTC
Sonny: the upper rear turret walls came in two configurations. The first one (which is in Tamiya's kit) have them inclined in, towards the top. The later version had them vertical. Those held the later "duckbill" counterweights. Also, that was the type of M10 that the Brits upgraded with the 17pdrs.

If you look at Tamiya's 1/48 M10 and Achilles IIC, they made the two turrets. Hopefully they plan to replay that with the 1/35 configuration.
M4A1Sherman
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Joined: May 02, 2013
KitMaker: 4,403 posts
Armorama: 4,078 posts
Posted: Thursday, June 02, 2016 - 02:44 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Would like to see a dimensionally correct Hellcat😀


What's needed is an ALL-NEW M18 with slide-molded parts, ESPECIALLY the Drive Sprockets, Rear Idlers, and a way more comprehensive Interior. Ditto for an all-new PLASTIC M8 HMC... (The New TMD's resin M8 Conversion is BEAUTIFUL, but out of some modellers' league, financially speaking...)
gmat5037
Visit this Community
Hawaii, United States
Joined: November 24, 2008
KitMaker: 103 posts
Armorama: 102 posts
Posted: Thursday, June 02, 2016 - 03:27 PM UTC
Saw an ad here in Tokyo that says early Aug release for the M10 kit.


Grant
tanknick22
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: February 19, 2009
KitMaker: 1,139 posts
Armorama: 1,100 posts
Posted: Friday, June 03, 2016 - 03:01 PM UTC
a nice kit like that but no interior so why bother
ericadeane
Visit this Community
Michigan, United States
Joined: October 28, 2002
KitMaker: 4,021 posts
Armorama: 3,947 posts
Posted: Friday, June 03, 2016 - 05:25 PM UTC
Gosh Nick. I guess most 1/35 kits aren't "worth bothering with" since very few are produced with full interiors. And those that are, certainly are aimed at very experienced modelers. I suppose if you limit yourself to soft-skins and some SPGs, your interior delight can be sated -- but to simply say this kit isn't worth bothering b/c it lacks a driver's compartment is a head shaker.

As has been described, very little if any of the drivers compartment is visible. For those inclined, there are many options.
tanknick22
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: February 19, 2009
KitMaker: 1,139 posts
Armorama: 1,100 posts
Posted: Friday, June 03, 2016 - 05:43 PM UTC
yeah if i was to waste money on academy's M10 just for the interior so i can throw out the rest of the kit
orange_3D
Visit this Community
British Columbia, Canada
Joined: July 28, 2005
KitMaker: 602 posts
Armorama: 469 posts
Posted: Saturday, June 04, 2016 - 10:27 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Sonny: the upper rear turret walls came in two configurations. The first one (which is in Tamiya's kit) have them inclined in, towards the top. The later version had them vertical. Those held the later "duckbill" counterweights. Also, that was the type of M10 that the Brits upgraded with the 17pdrs.

If you look at Tamiya's 1/48 M10 and Achilles IIC, they made the two turrets. Hopefully they plan to replay that with the 1/35 configuration.


Ah, thanks for clarifying Roy. So wedge shape counterweights should have the sloped rear turret wall, while duckbill counterweights should have straight rear turret wall.

I just got the Tankograd M10 book, so I should be able to do a more detailed research.
 _GOTOTOP