Hope it's something new and not just another MAZ variant



Hisham

It looks to be the same one used for the SCUD launcher. Now I believe I have seen hints to them doing a fire truck on that chassis.

This is it, I think.

They already announced the fire truck - Here ... so I guess this will be another variant of the MAZ trucks.

Hisham

I can guarantee you one thing, coming from Trumpeter its definitely something Soviet/Russian!!!

I agree, this looks much like the Scud chassis so it might be another MAZ. I soooo hope it's the tank transporter

Hold on... TRUMPETER has also been doing some damned-fine US HEMTT-series vehicles, but his particular photo is probably the Russian Fire Engine discussed earlier...

I wonder if they would announce the fire truck, and a few days later show it's chassis and ask people what that could be?!

Hisham

I doubt it's a new IS-3 ,unfortunately.

That is definitely a MA3 chassis. (Scud type)

It is perfect for the Firetruck but I doubt they would announce that model and then turn around and do a teaser ad on the exact same kit.

It looks to be a full length frame so it is probably NOT for the semi tractor which they have already teased us with.


As far as other MA3 vehicles possibilities - there are still two more trucks to the complete Bereg Coastal Gun set, a Smerch service truck with crane, an Airport Tug, a Recovery Vehicle, probably any number of other missile systems as well as a fuel truck, dump truck, heavy crane and a general cargo truck.

Yes Roy (Chow) it is a GREAT time to be a modeler!

Armorama threads on alternative uses for the Scud kit: (Image heavy)

https://armorama.kitmaker.net/forums/229433&page=1

https://armorama.kitmaker.net/forums/157911&ord=&page=1

Oh, and I forgot about several radar truck variants that utilize this chassis!

These four have already been released or announced, plus the fire truck.. so I guess it's something else on this chassis.



Hisham

Hi;

Sometime ago, I saw some Images that I think were CAD images of the SMERCH resupply vehicle with the rockets in the rear, and it also had the lifting crane for the rockets.
At the time I thought that this would be the appropiate vehicle to go along with the SMERCH. The only thing I have to Ask; Is Who can Afford these Monster's or have the Room to Display them !

CHEERS; MIKE.

I hope it is this one (or the other variant of it)


Dreaming is free, right

I hope that Trumpeter rides the MAZ-chassis for as long as humanly possible

/ Robin

Well, lets see now. In my favourite web-shop the Trumpeter Smerch costs around 80 Euros and a Tiger tank from Dragon costs between 60 and 79 Euros (depending on which kit I choose to compare with and ignoring the Smart Kit versions).
So,

or a handful of Euros in this case I get a model which takes about roughly twice the shelfspace as a Tiger II, or a JagdTiger if that is more interesting.

If I was counting dollars/shelfspace I would say that the Smerch is a better deal since it covers more of that ugly shelf in the display cabinet than the Tiger II

What I'm saying is that the MAZ-variants are a little more expensive than some tank kits and take twice the space.
If I could afford a Tiger I + a Tiger II then I could definitely afford a Smerch (money and space-wise)

/ Robin

Ah yes, but your Tiger would have to have a full interior before it would equal the level of detail/parts contained in the new MAZ kits. (for a fist full of Euros!)

Maybe we should start pricing them by model weight?

or start pricing them by how many hours and minutes of modeling joy we get for the money
Maybe we could call it 'bang for the buck'

Counting detail level et.c. puts a whole new twist on the simple comparison I suggested above. Maybe the MAZ is an even better deal than I first thought ...

I say 'modeling joy' because there are some models which deliver huge amounts of frustration time instead of joy and I don't want any of those ...
/ Robin

Amen to that

Hisham

I should get a 1/35 Dora

Robin, I think that is why I like heavy truck models - all that detail on the outside where it can be seen rather than hidden behind armor plate.

Same reason I like steam locomotives better then diesel!

Considering the fire truck announcement, I wonder if they go for the civilian variants now with a heavy load truck or the wrecker...

Kind of "off topic", but here goes:

Like Mike, I'm a DEDICATED Steam Locomotive FAN!!! The more detail, the better. SO MUCH MORE to look at, especially when the Steam Locomotive is MOVING! All of that Valve Gear-motion, the Cross-Heads, Main and Connecting Rods "pistoning" back and forth, Steam issuing out of Safety Valves, Generators, Bells clanging and Whistles blowing, the "bark" of the "Stack-Talk", the whole bit! So much more interesting than a Big multi-colored BRICK-on-Wheels with a Diesel-stinking exhaust with a blatting Air Horn! NO CHARACTER!!!

I am a "Detail Freak", so my HO Steam Locomotive collection is mostly "high-end" (read; "high-dollar"), Plastic, (such as Broadway Limited's, Proto 2000, Athearn Genesis) Brass-Hybrid, (such as Broadway Limited's), and Brass, (Key, Ajin, Precision Scale, Gem, NJ Custom Brass, Westside, Sunset Limited, and a host of others). Most of these Steam Locomotives are already detailed to the "Nth-degree", which makes them so "interesting-to-the-eye". Where a certain extra detail is not present, I DO buy the details which are made in "lost wax" Brass Castings, from several manufacturers that cater to the "Detail Nuts" in the scale Railroad hobby. I've liquidated A LOT of my Brass Steam Locomotives, because I've decided to concentrate on my two favorite Railroads: the New York Central, and the New York, Ontario & Western... And yes, I properly paint & weather these HO Steam Locomotives. I also have a rather large collection of Steam-era Rolling Stock, mainly Passenger Equipment, plus a sizable amount of Freight Cars, as well...

I AGREE with Mike; I much prefer the Soft-skins, when one is going to go "all-out" with kit-bashing/conversions, scratch-building, enhancing detail with expensive and very involved PE sets, resin updates & backdates, plus stowage and/or cargo.

With Armor, on the other hand, if you don't want to detail the Interior to the "Nth-degree" so that you can "crack the model open" every 5 minutes to ogle all the detail, IMO, spending the extra time and money spent on a REEEALLY super-detailed Interior is a bit of a waste. That doesn't mean that I won't buy a Tank kit that already includes an Interior- I just won't go nuts in detailing the Interior, that's all. In the cases of "open" Armored Vehicles, then YES, I'll spend a small fortune on detail enhancements.

I DO however, like to go "all-out" with detailing the Exteriors of my Armor, and I mostly just super-detail whatever can be seen of the Interior through an "open" Hatch, and only to the extent of what can be seen of the Interior if there is a Figure placed IN this "open" Hatch. When I build a Tank that is to be displayed as being fully "buttoned-up", then I don't bother with the Interior at all- What's the point? But that's just ME; you guys that like the extra Interior details in your Tanks, MORE POWER TO YOU!!! ENJOY!!!

WOW Dennis I really triggered something with my brief remarks didn't I?

I would never fault any modeler who wants to add unseen detail to an armor model. I have certainly been guilty of that wonderful sin myself.

It is each modeler's personal choice!

Like you, I just like those big military trucks with all that visible detail.

To each his own in this great hobby!

p.s. Love your comment; "a brick on wheels". Never heard that one before!
(I'm a Southern Pacific/Western Pacific fan myself and also crazy about geared locomotives.)









(All photos Copyright Michael Koenig)

More of my loco photos at:

http://s1061.photobucket.com/user/165thspc/library/Railroads/My%20Railroad%20Photos?sort=3&page=1

Even more off topic, and with the music
City of New Orleans
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZe0R5aVDoM
for the intro talk by Johnny Cash

Wabash Cannonball
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZiQ89_s67Q
/ Robin