_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
Hosted by Darren Baker, Mario Matijasic
News
Dragon: IDF M60
varanusk
Staff MemberManaging Editor
ARMORAMA
Visit this Community
Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain / España
Joined: July 04, 2013
KitMaker: 1,288 posts
Armorama: 942 posts
Posted: Friday, May 05, 2017 - 02:05 PM UTC


Dragon continues rolling out Israeli armoured vehicle subjects in its 1/35 scale plastic kit range, with the latest being the M60 w/ERA.

Read the Full News Story

If you have comments or questions please post them here.

Thanks!
jasegreene
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: October 21, 2013
KitMaker: 751 posts
Armorama: 751 posts
Posted: Friday, May 05, 2017 - 02:50 PM UTC
Does look a lot better than the old Academy kit.
GTDeath13
Visit this Community
Attica, Greece / Ελλάδα
Joined: June 12, 2015
KitMaker: 921 posts
Armorama: 919 posts
Posted: Friday, May 05, 2017 - 03:10 PM UTC
The Academy kit is supposed to be something between a Magach 6B and a 6B Gal.

The Dragon kit is supposed to be a Magach 6M? Then you need a new turret basket and new tracks.

You can do a 6R but you need a barrel without the thermal sleeve and leave the wind sensor off too.

Anyway, you will need a new manlet, a better barrel, cause even this one looks too thin and tracks.

And this is the part where Legend productions chime in to bring us the update-upgrade set with all the goodies...

Still better than nothing, I am just complaining that with a little bit of research the could have given us a superb kit.
nakpadon
Visit this Community
England - North West, United Kingdom
Joined: November 21, 2005
KitMaker: 86 posts
Armorama: 75 posts
Posted: Friday, May 05, 2017 - 04:08 PM UTC
What a shame they did not take the time to look at info, and ask about the correct tank they wanted to do, instead of throwing this at us. It's not like there are no walk rounds of this version on the internet!!!!!
The Baltan blocks on the hull front are the wrong shape. The smoke pots look to small as does the barrel. It looks more like a toy than a scale model.
We may see companies release correction sets for it, but we should not have to spend extra money (and you'll need to, to make this turkey looks good) when the kits it's self will not be cheap.
I'm hoping AFV Club will release this in due course, within their M60 range.

Paul.
GTDeath13
Visit this Community
Attica, Greece / Ελλάδα
Joined: June 12, 2015
KitMaker: 921 posts
Armorama: 919 posts
Posted: Friday, May 05, 2017 - 04:37 PM UTC
Not to mention the shape of the cupola... I could use a flying saucer though.
SWATdoc
#503
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Joined: June 29, 2006
KitMaker: 147 posts
Armorama: 138 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 06, 2017 - 06:21 AM UTC
This M60 sure looks good from here. Thank you for the information.
Petition2God
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: February 06, 2002
KitMaker: 1,526 posts
Armorama: 1,294 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 06, 2017 - 07:01 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Does look a lot better than the old Academy kit.


No, it does not.
Petition2God
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: February 06, 2002
KitMaker: 1,526 posts
Armorama: 1,294 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 06, 2017 - 07:48 AM UTC
Two wrong things stood out to me when I compared the Dragon's photos with reference photos (like Nikos and Paul pointed out).
1. The barrel looks too thin and small. Maybe it was the angle of how the photos were taken but they are suspect:




Dragon's



2. Urdan cupola looks like it would need some serious surgery to resemble the real thing:




I hope it's not another Black plague mess...
junglejim
Visit this Community
Alberta, Canada
Joined: February 18, 2003
KitMaker: 1,728 posts
Armorama: 1,629 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 06, 2017 - 08:18 AM UTC
I think some people are confusing M60 with M60A1...
Academy never made an M60...
Photos of Magach 6B Gal which is M60A1 turret...not M60 which looks more like M48 turret.

Jim
Petition2God
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: February 06, 2002
KitMaker: 1,526 posts
Armorama: 1,294 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 06, 2017 - 08:35 AM UTC

Quoted Text

I think some people are confusing M60 with M60A1...
Academy never made an M60...
Photos of Magach 6B Gal which is M60A1 turret...not M60 which looks more like M48 turret.

Jim


Right but that does not resolve the suspect barrel size and Urdan cupola shape...
Petition2God
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: February 06, 2002
KitMaker: 1,526 posts
Armorama: 1,294 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 06, 2017 - 10:23 AM UTC
Here's the right vehicle from Primeportal.net.
Notice the cupola shape and gun size:
SWATdoc
#503
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Joined: June 29, 2006
KitMaker: 147 posts
Armorama: 138 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 06, 2017 - 10:33 AM UTC
Hey Petition, until I know more, it looks good from here. If it turns out to be below your expectations, then adjust fire, i.e., craft things yourself, use aftermarket bits, design and manufacture parts of your own so others can criticize the heck out of them or do not make a purchase. My thanks to the gentleman who was considerate enough of the group to make us aware of this new model.
GTDeath13
Visit this Community
Attica, Greece / Ελλάδα
Joined: June 12, 2015
KitMaker: 921 posts
Armorama: 919 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 06, 2017 - 05:16 PM UTC

Quoted Text

I think some people are confusing M60 with M60A1...
Academy never made an M60...
Photos of Magach 6B Gal which is M60A1 turret...not M60 which looks more like M48 turret.

Jim


Only the first, the fourth and the fifth photos are of a Magach 6B Gal. The others are of a Magach 6M, which are M60 based.

You are correct that Academy (and Italeri/Esci) provide parts for a Magach 6B, based on M60A1
GTDeath13
Visit this Community
Attica, Greece / Ελλάδα
Joined: June 12, 2015
KitMaker: 921 posts
Armorama: 919 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 06, 2017 - 05:19 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Hey Petition, until I know more, it looks good from here. If it turns out to be below your expectations, then adjust fire, i.e., craft things yourself, use aftermarket bits, design and manufacture parts of your own so others can criticize the heck out of them or do not make a purchase. My thanks to the gentleman who was considerate enough of the group to make us aware of this new model.


No it does not look good. The manlet is so huge that makes the smoke grenade launchers look out of scale. And of course it is below expectations, especially for the price asked. If the kit was priced at about 35$ I would have no high expectations, but at twice that money, at least, I have high expectations.
JSSVIII
Visit this Community
Massachusetts, United States
Joined: March 28, 2007
KitMaker: 1,169 posts
Armorama: 1,067 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 06, 2017 - 05:25 PM UTC
[quote]Two wrong things stood out to me when I compared the Dragon's photos with reference photos (like Nikos and Paul pointed out).
1. The barrel looks too thin and small. Maybe it was the angle of how the photos were taken but they are suspect:



Dragon's

[quote]

Is it me or does the bore evacuator on the kit look like it is centered on the barrel, where the barrel should actually pass through the lower part of the evacuator?
GTDeath13
Visit this Community
Attica, Greece / Ελλάδα
Joined: June 12, 2015
KitMaker: 921 posts
Armorama: 919 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 06, 2017 - 05:43 PM UTC
The barrel and other shape and size problems start from the original kit, the M60, which Gino P. Quintiliani [ HEAVYARTY ] provided us with a great review.
https://armorama.kitmaker.net/review/12592

The new barrel was propably sculpted/molded on the sleeveless barrel of the M60 kit, and that is why it looks thin and out of shape.

And indeed the bore evacuator is centered, which makes it even more funny...

I have no problem with needing after market stuff for my builds, but at least the Academy Magach 6B Gal Batash and the Magach 7C were not in the price ranger Dragon kits are.
hugohuertas
Visit this Community
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Joined: January 26, 2007
KitMaker: 1,024 posts
Armorama: 1,013 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 06, 2017 - 06:18 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

Hey Petition, until I know more, it looks good from here. If it turns out to be below your expectations, then adjust fire, i.e., craft things yourself, use aftermarket bits, design and manufacture parts of your own so others can criticize the heck out of them or do not make a purchase. My thanks to the gentleman who was considerate enough of the group to make us aware of this new model.


No it does not look good. The manlet is so huge that makes the smoke grenade launchers look out of scale. And of course it is below expectations, especially for the price asked. If the kit was priced at about 35$ I would have no high expectations, but at twice that money, at least, I have high expectations.


+1
Another mediocre modern kit from Dragon...
hugohuertas
Visit this Community
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Joined: January 26, 2007
KitMaker: 1,024 posts
Armorama: 1,013 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 06, 2017 - 06:20 PM UTC

Quoted Text

The barrel and other shape and size problems start from the original kit, the M60, which Gino P. Quintiliani [ HEAVYARTY ] provided us with a great review.
https://armorama.kitmaker.net/review/12592

The new barrel was propably sculpted/molded on the sleeveless barrel of the M60 kit, and that is why it looks thin and out of shape.

And indeed the bore evacuator is centered, which makes it even more funny...

I have no problem with needing after market stuff for my builds, but at least the Academy Magach 6B Gal Batash and the Magach 7C were not in the price ranger Dragon kits are.


Agree
The main gun barrel is a pain for the eyes...
hugohuertas
Visit this Community
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Joined: January 26, 2007
KitMaker: 1,024 posts
Armorama: 1,013 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 06, 2017 - 06:36 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Hey Petition, until I know more, it looks good from here. If it turns out to be below your expectations, then adjust fire, i.e., craft things yourself, use aftermarket bits, design and manufacture parts of your own so others can criticize the heck out of them or do not make a purchase. My thanks to the gentleman who was considerate enough of the group to make us aware of this new model.



Sorry, but NO, it doesn't look "good" from anywhere.
If your like it -and perhaps that's what matters in the end-I'm happy for you.
But it shows so many glaring mistakes that some people here -me included- cannot be such generous with this new release.
warmonger
Visit this Community
Oklahoma, United States
Joined: November 08, 2006
KitMaker: 217 posts
Armorama: 117 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 06, 2017 - 07:13 PM UTC
Another thing I noticed in the above photos are 2 different types of track, neither match what is on the kits photos.
GTDeath13
Visit this Community
Attica, Greece / Ελλάδα
Joined: June 12, 2015
KitMaker: 921 posts
Armorama: 919 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 06, 2017 - 07:30 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Another thing I noticed in the above photos are 2 different types of track, neither match what is on the kits photos.


Assuming that Dragon wanted to depict a Magach 6M the kit tracks are correct, although very rarely seen on this vehicle.

I added some photos so as to show the turret basket, which is wrong for this version...







And notice the armor blocks on the glacis that on the model are positioned wrong and do not look correct in shape, especially the lower ones...
vettejack
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: November 23, 2012
KitMaker: 1,277 posts
Armorama: 1,254 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 07, 2017 - 04:48 PM UTC
I'm not an M60 kinda guy, but just reading the comments has me wondering about what these manufacturers (Dragon, et al) are thinking. With all the museum examples abound, 3D imaging being available, etc., why can't these guys get it right??
Pave-Hawk
Visit this Community
Western Australia, Australia
Joined: May 05, 2006
KitMaker: 900 posts
Armorama: 510 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 07, 2017 - 04:55 PM UTC

Quoted Text

With all the museum examples abound, 3D imaging being available, etc., why can't these guys get it right??


Cost/benefit. How much money and time they think they need to spend to get it perfect, versus how many extra they might sell to the few people who will care about all the errors.
Petition2God
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: February 06, 2002
KitMaker: 1,526 posts
Armorama: 1,294 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 07, 2017 - 10:15 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

With all the museum examples abound, 3D imaging being available, etc., why can't these guys get it right??

Cost/benefit. How much money and time they think they need to spend to get it perfect, versus how many extra they might sell to the few people who will care about all the errors.


That and Dragon is too lazy (or too cheap) to correct the preexisting error and simply reuse the existing designs. Disregarding the accuracy and wanting to charge an arm and a leg.
m4sherman
Visit this Community
Arizona, United States
Joined: January 18, 2006
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,808 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 07, 2017 - 11:35 PM UTC
quote]

That and Dragon is too lazy (or too cheap) to correct the preexisting error and simply reuse the existing designs. Disregarding the accuracy and wanting to charge an arm and a leg.[/quote]

As an IDF armor buff, and a fan of the M48 and M60 I had high hopes for the M60 and this version, but I agree. As stated above at 35 to 40 bucks I would get them, but at 60 plus, no way. Once they reach the discount bins I'll have another look.

Maybe one of the 3D printer people can make us a good Urdan cupola.
 _GOTOTOP