I dont understand why are you comparing different model makers kits of different versions in order to reach a conclusion.

Takom's Merkava I kit is spot on in dimensions and details. The Tamiya kit is way off in dimensions, starting by the middle upper hull area around the turret ring and concluding to the rear upper hull stowage boxes and details.

Regarding MkIIIs the Hobbyboss kit has known front hull geometry issues as well as much lower height than it should. It is as if someone stepped on it and squashed it a bit.

Academy Mk4 is a pretty decent kit of the subject with correct dimensions and if you get the Lic version kit you can easily build 2 variant, a Mk4 early without loader's hatch and a Mk4 with loader's hatch (LIC version parts can be omitted). If I recall correctly the Academy kit is based on the Lnatrun museum exhibit.

The hull innacuracies of the Academy early Merkava kits continue on their Mk2D as well.

HobbyBoss Merkava IV has incorrect suspension setup (they modelleed the axles positions similar to the Mk3 which is not the case). This has been corrected on the Mk4D but they potatoed with the loader's hatch on thi sone.

The point is all the other kit makers have one hull lenght and Takom is 7mm bigger.
I dont even talk about details only hull lenght and comparing only upper hull part. When you see Takom model next to Meng, Academy, Tamiya and HB it looks like gigant in upper lenght hull part.
I dont believe that 4 kit makers made mistake in hull lenght.
If u compared Takom Merkava Mk1 lenght with real Merkava Mk1 than u can say it is spot on otherwise u cant!

Well someone did it for you, now please share the results of measuring the kit hulls of TAKOM and Tamiya. If I recall correctly the Tamiya/Academy Mki is 21 and the Takom 21.7. Multiply by 35 and I think Takom gets you the 760

https://armorama.kitmaker.net/forums/264745&page=1&ord=1

And by the way, all Legend Merkava III conversions are wrong both in dimensions and some details.

Of course they are wrong because they are for Academy Merkavas.
Looks like I need to sell all of my Academy and MENG Merkavas

Wait wait. The kits can be built into great looking modells with some love and care. Yes they have issues, yes there are better kits but I am still working on my tamiya MkI. The enjoyment is in the procedure more than in the accuracy.

How about MENG kits? I have mk3, mk3D and mk4M but they are all out of my reach right now. Mk4M seems like same hull lenght like Academys but mk4 have different doors and hull layout at the back

Nikos, in other tread the Merkava Mk1 dimensions are 7.45 meters and not 7,6 meters. Now I am confuzed about the size of Merkava Mk1 hull

The 15 cm difference is measurments is whether you measure thee rear mudflap attachment point or not.

This is the Merkava MkI Def models owner measured, if I recall correctly he measured including the mud flap.

Guys, Takom is right.
Tamiya/Academy Mk1 2 is 21cm and the Takom 21.7cm
I uploaded photos of model and Tamiya and Academy are 7mm shorter the should be.
Regarding MENG Mk3, I have them on stash and they looks like they are bigger than Academy Mk3
At the moment I can not compare them.
If someone have info on them would be much appreciated.
Hobby Boss Mk3 is same lenght as Academy so that means that they also got the lenght wrong.
MENG and Academy Mk4 are the same in lenght, but they are completely different tanks than Mk1 and 2 and at this moment I have not info are they the right lenght.
I am not rivet counter but 7mm is way off even for me!

the Meng MK3 and Mk4 are good kits , no need to sell these ones!

I am working on the info for the Mk4 and Mk3 hull length, will post anything useful as soon as possible.

I think the Mk4 is a bit shorter than the Mk3 and wider. I will keep you up to date

I've been doing the same. This is what I've found:

Hull length/width (w/o side-skirts)

Mk.1/2 - 7.45m/3.70m
Mk.3- 7.97m/3.70m
Mk.4 - 7.6m/3.72m

Nikos, do these match your findings?

The length of MkI, II equals 7.45 if you subtract the rear mudflap attachment point that has an outward inclination.

The width of the Mk4 could be 7.20 but I am waiting for authentication.

Still waiting for Mk3 length and width

OK, so let me see if I can summarize the points being pushed, here: It looks like some kits appear to differ slightly in hull length when compared against other maker's kits. And maybe there were somewhat different measuring techniques or approaches used by different kit (and reference) designers / researchers / authors.
And maybe the original tanks differed slightly in hull dimensions between marks.

Is that pretty much the gist of what folks are working over?

I have a couple of questions: 1) What is your REAL goal in this debate? 2) Do you actually go and measure the different builds on show or contest tables to see whether each conforms to your understanding of "exactly" what a 1/35 scale Merk hull should be in terms of length and width? 3) Do you do this among the many Merk builds you have in your own display? 4) Can you actually tell whether any Merk build has the "correct" hull dimensions (as you understand or BELIEVE that to be) WITHOUT having either another, different maker's kit build for direct comparison OR a measuring instrument on hand?

I'm a Merk fan (of the subject). It's a cool-looking tank, aside from being a fairly unique expression of armor design from a tiny foreign country which mostly avoids selling its armor hardware to any and all comers. It is, IMHO, a great armor modeling subject. I ahve a Takom 2B almost done, and anticipate getting and building at least one more Merk - maybe a Meng, maybe an Academy... who knows? I anticipate that I will 1) end up with a couple on my shelf, and 2) win at least a prize or 2 at some show for the quality of my builds. I am pretty technically versed in many of the type's detail features and look to represent these visually-apparent details on my builds. I do the research, and I go to some length to get a reasonably accurate-looking build when I model. Ultimately, I am happy when my builds look pretty much like miniatures of the "real things", including the visual details, paint schemes, and overall ambiance of the subject as used in real life - so count me in as sort of historically accurate-minded and vaguely "rivet-conscious".

All that said, it has never occurred to me to worry about how well any maker has actually captured every dimensional aspect of a vehicle. Short of doing careful visual comparison among different kits of a given subject (say 3 Sd.Kfz. 251 builds side by side, which do reveal slightly different hull geometry and dimensions when one has 3 different maker's kits), or short of actually measuring the build using some good instrument and using a standard measurement approach and method in all particulars, I simply CANNOT KNOW which even really differs from some in-my-mind's-view "standard, let alone discover which may be "more accurate in that detail" as compared to some external reference.

In other words: To me, this is a Hobby. These are MODELS. Each is actually quite INACCURATE in many ways when compared at a fine-enough level to the "real things". Each is an expression of how I see the "real thing" and how I try to depict it. I do not ever tell anyone that "MY build is the MOST ACCURATE on that table". Let alone that any of mine on my shelves are the "Most" anything, other than that they are MY interpretation and I'm pleased with the outcome!

A plastic Merk that looks pretty much like a Merk, has pretty much captured the general geometry and "dimensionality" and visual details, is pretty satisfying, to me. Measuring the build simply doesn't matter.

My heart-felt and sincere suggestion to folks here is "Gee! Give it a rest! Arguing over something which you cannot likely personally actually assess is just noise and excitement for no reason! Go enjoy the many Merk kits you can choose from, get the one which best satisfies your expectations concerning details and general form, and FORGET ABOUT whether it is actually exactly "right" (whatever that may be to you in practical terms) in hull length versus width. Go, focus on doing your best job on it and ENJOY the task and eventual outcome involved in nicely modeling a very cool tank!".

Of course, just my personal opinion and suggestion, friends!

Cheers! Bob

Bob, your opinion is heard loud and clear.
Just as you have your opinions, we have our opinions and would like to judge and discuss the degree of accuracy in different kits. We want our kits to be as good of replica as possible.
What is your REAL goal of posting something that sounds judgmental to our discussion?
If you don't want to get into the accuracy discussion and don't care about it then you don't have to read it and don't have to rant. Could you please leave us alone so we can carry on?

Hey, James, GLAD you responded!

Yes, it is my OPINION, and so I stated. I am genuinely and honestly curious as to why this matter is apparently so "worthwhile" to debate among a set of obviously interested modelers. I LOVE accuracy - it's a core and even obsessive matter for, oh, the past 55 years or so of my life - by personal inclination, by training, by professional involvement as a developer, builder, researcher and trainer in the biz of trying to accurately assess things.

But, having read and re-read this thread, hoping to actually LEARN where the "meat" is, and whether I, as a modeler actually interested in ACCURACY in his builds, should be concerned about some kits I am contemplating adding to my pile and maybe my shelves, I am so far pretty convinced that little useful info has been added. So I AM mighty curious - as I asked in previous, DO YOU actually measure your builds and those done by others? At the end of the day, THAT answer bounds how one interprets the factoids being tossed around. If you are NOT actually going to MEASURE things, then what you are doing is simply taking sides and making decisions based on the OPINIONS offered by others. Fine as that goes - we all do that - but no worth getting excited about!

You react to MY "being judgmental". But I'll offer that it's folks who seem to suggest that somehow a slightly shorter or slightly longer hull makes a kit being more worthwhile to buy and build - in the name of an "accuracy" which it appears is actually not very easy to assess, AND most likely actually a "rhetorical" question when viewed from any practical perspective - who are being "judgmental".

I'm all in favor of striving for as much accuracy as I can practically achieve, and greatly appreciate the sometimes astounding work done by others who are concerned with achieving accuracy in their modeling.

My POINT in posting here is that there has been a lot of opinion - slinging and about what? Something that you most likely WON'T actually measure nor let really "inform" your building decisions?

I LOVE arguments and op-slinging at least as much as the next fan thereof! But I don't see much value in doing such about something which appears to have little resolution that matters, let alone any growing meaningful consensus!

So, IF someone said, for example, that the Tamiya kit was just plain wrong in how it depicts the complex Merk hull form - wrong shapes of features, wrong relative positions of hatches, detail points, etc., wrong in visible and readily-seen geometry... While a Takom kit got those things "right", why, THAT would be a useful guide to folks considering Merk kits. That hypothetical COLLECTION of errors would easily dissuade me from it. IF someone said that the detail molding was soft and poorly-done... That, too, would be useful. I can elect to replace detail or not. I MAY find it worthwhile to try to fix one erroneous hatch. But what about the hull simply being too long or too short by a few mm? I'm not personally going to worry about that. I won't measure it - not because I cannot, but because I CANNOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT, and I cannot actually really even SEE that issue WITHOUT MEASUREMENT and reconciliation with some technical info that it appears is not actually truly clear and available! In other words, as the Bard said way back... "Much ado about nothing"!

I read these discussions because they are often interesting and sometimes quite amusing and often offer useful info. I always hope that I'll learn something - I'm a dedicated life-time learner and a glutton for new tidbits. And I'm an avid student of how people think...

So, please, by all means, debate along! It's interesting and maybe something compelling will emerge. In the meantime, I'm hoping that the posters don't take what-all has been said too seriously. After all, we ARE talking about model kits, NOT shrunken versions of the real thing as done by some fictional shrink-ray. As for kit accuracy... I'm sure that all here KNOW that NO Merk kit actually accurately depicts the nearly-ubiquitous non-skid (non-slip) that appears on the real thing, right? By me, getting THAT somewhat "right" is a matter much more important to accurately depicting this warrior than is the question of whether one's plastic Merk is maybe too long or too short. It's certainly something which we can all SEE without aid of comparative devices!

Of course, all THIS is MY OPINION! And this IS an open-to-all discussion where folks get to express and share their opinions, right? I would sincerely hope that my questioning the "why" and the POINT of the discussion is at least as valid as my saying something in support of one hull-length OPINION over another.

Cheers! Bob

Hello Nikos and Israel,
Thanks for your info!
So we are waiting on the Mk4's actual length so we can evaluate Meng and Academy Mk4 kits' accuracy.

" I won't measure it - not because I cannot, but because I CANNOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT, and I cannot actually really even SEE that issue WITHOUT MEASUREMEN "

Actually Bob,
U can SEE if u put Tamiya Mk1 next to Takom Mk1 it is that BIG difference.
Regards,
Sasa

Well, Sasa, I'd just ignore these comments that are not constructive and ramble on and on about how this discussion is pointless, etc. There are always some folks who have strong adverse reaction to "rivet counting."
There are too many words and he could have made his point in one concise sentence? This discussion is useless?

Anyways, with those measurements, I am going to do something about the ones I have not built yet - either try to extend the hull with Evergreen stuff or do some kit bashing to make them accurate.

James, where would you add Evergreen extensions or reduce the hull length that would not increase the error in the geometric shape? Bob was right in that adding detail or fixing a hatch is relatively simple and improves the accuracy of the basic kit. Changing the hull dimensions can be quite complex, altering the various hull angles or creating further inaccuracies by shifting parts of the hull more forward or rearward than the actual vehicle. I remember when we use to chop and channel model car bodies. It took a lot of measuring and work to get it right. Any error and it looked wrong to the point of not fixing it.

Sasa, could you tell the difference between the Takom and the Tamiya Mk 1 if they were not near each other? That was Bob's point. I agree with you that I want to start with as dimensionally correct kit as I can. Most kits are inaccurate in one way or another. If you are unaware of the inaccuracy, you are nice and happy. If you are aware of all the inaccuracies in all the kits available then you will have to choose where you are willing to compromise and realize that there inaccuracies in your kit. I do that all the time. Rubberband VS indy link, softer molding VS sharper molding. Correct hull length but the turret is asymmetrical when it should be... It is always a compromise if you truly know the exact measurements/ geometry.

I have some ideas as to how to improve the accuracy but will try to figure it out as I go. That's a fun/pain, love/hate part of this hobby.

@ SASA: I will gladly accept your word that the 2 kits differ! NOT my point at all! I actually covered this before - and YOU quoted me on it!. IF you place any two kits side by side, you ARE MEASURING them. Measurement is simply to COMPARE something to a selected "reference standard" (in this case, the other kit). It does not itself imply "accuracy" regarding the observed dimension. The observed difference says nothing as to whether either is "accurate".

TopSmith has recognized what I am getting at. Sadly, James has clearly missed my points and elected instead to disparage the messenger (me).

FAIK, EVERY model kit ever produced has inaccuracies. It's up to us modelers to decide how to treat this reality, as TopS noted.

I greatly appreciate that someone will find out and reveal which Merk kit(s) offer "more accurate" hull length. I LOVE "accurate" kits. I'm a bit "rivet-counter" myself. But hull length happens to be likely truly difficult to fix, and won't be seen by any build-viewer unless there is another different-length build near by. Length is but one parameter to judge "kit accuracy" by. Other errors are likely much more amenable to correction, IMHO. But each must choose for him or her self which is important and which to fix!

PS: As a long-time IPMS show judge, I've seen many dimensional differences between kits of a subject from different makers. Differences are visible because the kits are side by side. It NEVER MATTERS in judging the builds. I, like other viewers, accept that kits from different makers WILL vary in many ways. Frankly, if some exhibitor were to say to me that his build was actually the "most dimensionally-accurate one on the table", I would shrug. You see, short of having a measuring instrument and reference info on hand, I could not begin to KNOW whether that claim was in any way justified!

OK... Can you distill your point into one concise sentence instead of writing on and on?
To me, what you wrote here doesn't come across as constructive or efficient at least.

I fully agree with the notion that I could have been blunt and "concise" - maybe by saying those words that you put into my mouth... quote[This discussion is useless?]quote. That, friend, would be both rude and insulting to all, and of course be simply rejected out-of-hand for what that statement is - a rude and insulting comment. Not for me. I try not to be rude. People rightly discard and ignore such jabs.

I'm much more interested in engendering and perhaps seeing some thoughts among the participants about what they may want to use the purported resolution for. Everyone is free to read or not my questions and comments, and free to consider and respond - or not- to them as they see fit. Someone (you, perhaps?) may well wish to somehow correct a misshapen hull. THAT would be an interesting task and discussion - and IF someone actually reasonably solved that job... Hey! I, too, WANT my builds to be accurate, and I'm in no way afraid to do complex fix-it work if such appears actually reasonably "doable". So we may all learn a thing or 2!

I'm sincerely sorry that my writing style and approach so bother you, James. NOT by intent. Pax!