This is measuring the hull without the storage bins on the back. Add them and it comes out fairly close but the width is still a problem.
Hosted by Darren Baker
S Tank Under Sized
salt6
Joined: February 17, 2002
KitMaker: 796 posts
Armorama: 574 posts
Posted: Friday, November 08, 2002 - 02:43 PM UTC
Just did some research to confirm what I read over at ML. I just measured the kit and it's about 2 scale feet short! It's also about a half foot to narrow. All this is from data and a conversion calculator on the web.
This is measuring the hull without the storage bins on the back. Add them and it comes out fairly close but the width is still a problem.
This is measuring the hull without the storage bins on the back. Add them and it comes out fairly close but the width is still a problem.
Tiger101
Joined: March 02, 2002
KitMaker: 902 posts
Armorama: 628 posts
Posted: Saturday, November 09, 2002 - 05:14 AM UTC
Why is this a problem? Is the kit molded well? Does it look like a 103? Will the 1/35th tank commander be upset that it is 6 scale inches to small? We had a thread about bashing kits for small stuff. The 103 seems to be fairly popular as a unusual kit. Trumpeter did a good job in filling the void. I'm sorry but can't we just be thrilled that a FAIR REPRESENTATION of a kit that no one else has done well is out? If people don't buy it because a small measurement is out of wack, will Trumpeter go out on a limb and find more unusual kits to create or will they just continue to copy everyone else? I have both the 103B and 103C they both fill a void in my collection. I would like to see more choices to build not less. Sorry if this sounds harsh but it drives me crazy that it MUST be a 100% working "tank, plane, car..." out of the box.
LIFER
Joined: September 04, 2002
KitMaker: 29 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Saturday, November 09, 2002 - 07:06 AM UTC
I have to agree with Tiger 101. By my calculations About a half a foot works out to .014 of an an inch. Most people I know would have a hard time seeing that much difference with glasses.Two feet shows up a little more to the critical eye but all in all if you think its okay go for it and enjoy, maybe the next guy will make a slightly more accurate one and so on. Just means more to build in the end
lifestyle
Joined: October 16, 2002
KitMaker: 340 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Saturday, November 09, 2002 - 07:40 AM UTC
I agree if it looks good Then Scale doesnt matter
This Hobby is suposed to be fun rite so we should all start haaving fun
Just My Two Cents
This Hobby is suposed to be fun rite so we should all start haaving fun
Just My Two Cents
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Saturday, November 09, 2002 - 10:51 AM UTC
We need to take bets to see how long it takes for a kit to hit our shores (US) before the critics rip it up. I wonder how they will treat the Tamiya T-55 when someone realizes that it is not as accurate as if you zapped a real tank with a shrink ray 
I just saw someone on Hyperscale taking a shot at the Tamiya M26 Pershing. Can't please everyone.
I just saw someone on Hyperscale taking a shot at the Tamiya M26 Pershing. Can't please everyone.
Folgore
Joined: May 31, 2002
KitMaker: 1,109 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Saturday, November 09, 2002 - 02:05 PM UTC
I don't think salt6 intended to rip this kit apart. I think it's good that people let us know the inaccuracies of a kit. Even though I am not a rivet counter, I like to fix certain errors if I can, but I need to know about them first. I agree that complete accuracy should definitely not mean everything when it comes to a model, but it's good for those of us who aren't loaded to the teeth with references to learn what's wrong with a kit.
Nic
Nic
salt6
Joined: February 17, 2002
KitMaker: 796 posts
Armorama: 574 posts
Posted: Saturday, November 09, 2002 - 04:48 PM UTC
Guys,
Read the post!
Its TWO scale feet short that almost 3/4 of an inch and only a HALF a foot too narrow. The thread on ML that got me to check has it at about 1/39 scale.
Now will I build the TWO I have? YES.
I just though you might like to know. Guess I'll just keep to myself from now on.
Read the post!
Its TWO scale feet short that almost 3/4 of an inch and only a HALF a foot too narrow. The thread on ML that got me to check has it at about 1/39 scale.
Now will I build the TWO I have? YES.
I just though you might like to know. Guess I'll just keep to myself from now on.
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 10, 2002 - 03:59 AM UTC
Read my post too. I never directed at anyone, certainly not at Salt6 who was just relaying info he saw at ML and researched on his own. I'm just pointing out that various kits we've been asking/waiting for that have come out in the past year have been attacked soon after they were released. Some deserved it others, no big deal. Here's the list of new armor that's been torn up (not on this site per se) since this site started in Dec 2001:
Skif T-55
Italeri DUKW
Academy Stuart
Tamiya Sherman M4A3 & 105mm Gun tank
Tamiya Pershing (just saw a post on HS, I relayed info, wasn't attacking it either)
and a few Trumpeter kits
Any others? And we wonder why companies have slowed new model production.
Guys, lighten up. We are becoming too much like other site where people are always think they need to be on the attack/defense. See it from my point of view or or consider it an attack. That's the old Track-Link way.
Skif T-55
Italeri DUKW
Academy Stuart
Tamiya Sherman M4A3 & 105mm Gun tank
Tamiya Pershing (just saw a post on HS, I relayed info, wasn't attacking it either)
and a few Trumpeter kits
Any others? And we wonder why companies have slowed new model production.
Guys, lighten up. We are becoming too much like other site where people are always think they need to be on the attack/defense. See it from my point of view or or consider it an attack. That's the old Track-Link way.
m60a3
Joined: March 08, 2002
KitMaker: 778 posts
Armorama: 396 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 10, 2002 - 04:09 AM UTC
Quoted Text
We need to take bets to see how long it takes for a kit to hit our shores (US) before the critics rip it up. I wonder how they will treat the Tamiya T-55 when someone realizes that it is not as accurate as if you zapped a real tank with a shrink ray
I just saw someone on Hyperscale taking a shot at the Tamiya M26 Pershing. Can't please everyone.
Sabot, given the proliferation of reviewers (as opposed to builders), I'll take that bet at NLT 48 Hours!
Tiger101
Joined: March 02, 2002
KitMaker: 902 posts
Armorama: 628 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 10, 2002 - 04:19 AM UTC
Salt6 this isn't a bashing. Did the measurements you got on the web include the stowage bins? This is measuring the hull without the storage bins on the back. Add them and it comes out fairly close but the width is still a problem.
All 103 photos I have ever seen include them. So I would figure that they are included in the overall length. Yes TWO FEET SHORT is significant, but 6 scale inches aren't. I dont think (I could be very wrong) that any Mfg could screw up by TWO FEET.
In your post you said that the width is still a problem, WHY?
All 103 photos I have ever seen include them. So I would figure that they are included in the overall length. Yes TWO FEET SHORT is significant, but 6 scale inches aren't. I dont think (I could be very wrong) that any Mfg could screw up by TWO FEET.
In your post you said that the width is still a problem, WHY?
Tiger101
Joined: March 02, 2002
KitMaker: 902 posts
Armorama: 628 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 10, 2002 - 05:09 AM UTC
I just finished measuring my 103B with calipers and a 1/35 scale ruler. Just the Hull is exactly as salt6 says. with the bins in place at the rear it is VERY close ( i would have to measure it after it was built) The six scale inches off the width are also correct straight off the hull only.
If you measure it after it is built with the "pole hangers" in place I'll bet it's damm close to dead on. To be sure I would have to know if the mesurements given for hull length and width given are with or without the bins and side stowage.
My guess is that they are included because all Strv 103's have these items and they are factory made not field produced.
It is very hard to measure a kit in it's boxed form, the best way is to build it first.
Salt6 I'm Sorry if you felt bashed but my pet peeve is bashing kits. Some eastern european kits are very sub par and warnings about fit and such are needed. Manufcturers such as Trumpeter have decent products and are trying to get out of copying other producers kits. This hobby is suposed to be fun and dealing with small problems makes it so.
If you measure it after it is built with the "pole hangers" in place I'll bet it's damm close to dead on. To be sure I would have to know if the mesurements given for hull length and width given are with or without the bins and side stowage.
My guess is that they are included because all Strv 103's have these items and they are factory made not field produced.
It is very hard to measure a kit in it's boxed form, the best way is to build it first.
Salt6 I'm Sorry if you felt bashed but my pet peeve is bashing kits. Some eastern european kits are very sub par and warnings about fit and such are needed. Manufcturers such as Trumpeter have decent products and are trying to get out of copying other producers kits. This hobby is suposed to be fun and dealing with small problems makes it so.
Tanks46
Joined: June 02, 2002
KitMaker: 113 posts
Armorama: 98 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 10, 2002 - 05:22 AM UTC
Hello everyone Tanks46 here. I just thought I would weigh in on this thread. I think those of us that get into researching accuracy for the various kits do offer everyone else a service. If someone is using a particular vehicle for a diorama or as a comparison to various other scale vehicles it may present a problem for them. Or if they are that particular about the dimensions. I work primarily in smaller scales (1/72nd or smaller0. It is my opinion that dimensional errors are more noticeable in these scales. However through scratch building they are correctable in most cases. I like the information put out by other modelers that the kit may be off, but I am still more inclined to purchase a kit particularly if it fills a gap in my collection. I believe that the information put out by the membership here and at various other sites allows me to build good detailed models and correct the imperfections (both mine and the kits) to some degree. Our hobby is a "representation" of the piece. It is not the real thing. If that is what one is looking for maybe Beltring would be more appropriate - just kidding. It's a hobby. Research, detailing and correcting little imperfections are all part of the hobby. 35 years ago there weren't that many kits and those that were available in any scale - well, I don't think some of them would pass muster for accuracy today, but I would sure like to have a few that I remember building (and then blowing up 
). Are there companys whose quality and accuracy is less than perfect - no doubt. Are some a lot better than others - of course. I believe that most of the companys offer kits that are good to excellent and some others whose kits need work but can be corrected. Anyway those are my thoughts. Have fun first off, get into the subject, practice stress relief, and research to your needs. It's your subject, enjoy it. 
Butch Cassidy Tanks46.
). Are there companys whose quality and accuracy is less than perfect - no doubt. Are some a lot better than others - of course. I believe that most of the companys offer kits that are good to excellent and some others whose kits need work but can be corrected. Anyway those are my thoughts. Have fun first off, get into the subject, practice stress relief, and research to your needs. It's your subject, enjoy it. Butch Cassidy Tanks46. Quoted Text
He who can look death in the face? - The soldier alone is a free man.
The_Swede
Joined: March 03, 2002
KitMaker: 327 posts
Armorama: 259 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 10, 2002 - 05:56 AM UTC
Maybe it's not such big deal but how hard can it be to get the correct measurements of the tank?
I have not yet recieved my kits but according to some that have the Trumpeter hull is 184mm.
The correct lenght is 201.14 mm
The hull is 94 mm wide and it should be 97.71 mm.
Here are the measurements for the real vehicle:
Lenght with gun: 8990mm
Without gun: 7600mm
Without gun and equipment boxes: 7040mm (hull lenght)
Width: 3420mm (without floating equipment)
3630mm with floating equipment
Height: 2140mm (with TC cupola) 2430mm (with cupola and MG)
Height of gun with tank horizontal: 1700mm
Distance between tracks: 2590mm (centre of tracks)
Trackwith: 635mm
These measurements are for Strv103C but the hull dimensions are the same for both B and C versions.
The information comes from the Strv103C manual.
Thord
I have not yet recieved my kits but according to some that have the Trumpeter hull is 184mm.
The correct lenght is 201.14 mm
The hull is 94 mm wide and it should be 97.71 mm.
Here are the measurements for the real vehicle:
Lenght with gun: 8990mm
Without gun: 7600mm
Without gun and equipment boxes: 7040mm (hull lenght)
Width: 3420mm (without floating equipment)
3630mm with floating equipment
Height: 2140mm (with TC cupola) 2430mm (with cupola and MG)
Height of gun with tank horizontal: 1700mm
Distance between tracks: 2590mm (centre of tracks)
Trackwith: 635mm
These measurements are for Strv103C but the hull dimensions are the same for both B and C versions.
The information comes from the Strv103C manual.
Thord
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 10, 2002 - 08:41 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Maybe it's not such big deal but how hard can it be to get the correct measurements of the tank?
This is what gets me too. It can't be too hard to either get measurements out of Jane's or to have contacts in that particular country or arms manufacturer PR dept. to get accurate info.
salt6
Joined: February 17, 2002
KitMaker: 796 posts
Armorama: 574 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 10, 2002 - 08:50 AM UTC
I just don't understand. I thought I was clear in my first post that I was measuring the HULL of the kit as compared to the real vehicles HULL. Yes I have been wanting this kit for years. I also want to display it with other kits of the same scale. That's why a small error is not a problem but such a large error in length is a problem. Kind of like the guys that detail the interior of a model that will never be seen, but he knows it's there. I'll know there is a problem even if 99% of the people who look at it will never know.
If I was reporting about a couple of inches or a few nut or bolts missing, it won't be a big deal. We're talking about 3/4 of an inch in length, that's significant. What standard do we hold the kit manufactures to? Should we give them a pass just because they produce something we've been wanting, even though it's junk( and I'm not writing of the Strv 103)? Feed back from the consumer, good or bad, will result in better products. Unfortunately it's easier to give feedback that is critical or not at all. Seems it the same for posts.
Linz
Joined: March 18, 2002
KitMaker: 181 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 10, 2002 - 06:50 PM UTC
Go for it Steve, I'm certainly saving all of your posts about the Strv 103 and I hope you continue to carry on like you have been. Personally I like to build examples that are as accurate as possible, and hence a large error like the length in this case is importaint. Sorry if that upsets the delicate sensabilities of some people who think that I should just build it, but this is how I build for my enjoyment. Why are there those who think people like myself who complain about a 3/4" difference aren't having fun in the manner with which we conduct our hobby? Hell, this is my stress relief!
The Skif T-55 was a failure and had multiple things wrong with it.
The DUKW had fairly balanced reviews, in all of them that I saw (and take notice of, ie Cookie Sewell's) were quite positive, pointing out a couple of small things for consideration.
Ditto for the Stuart, although these were a bit nastier. Still, there were a couple of large faults (the turret basket) and hence should be called out on it.
From what I've read on the Shermans (M4s to me are rather boring and hence I don't build them) most of the ladying was based on the fact that they were old kits with minimal updates. Fair enough.
You cannot call the post on HS on the M26 ripping into it surely? Ok, a lady on a very nice kit, but ripping into it? Compared to others on this list, this kit has got off free.
Trumpeter's kits are a mixed bag, the ones called out have generally been done for specific reasons.
Like I said, I only pay attention to certain reviews. If references can be pointed out that I can check on then that's better than just saying something. At the same time though, depending on the reviewer I'll take their word straight away. From all of this I can then make my own opionion. And in this case I won't be getting a Strv 103, it's too small.
Reviews are essential, as are pointing out errors should they exsist. It's the case with cars, movies, everything. And for those out there who enjoy correcting every little thing, then let us have our fun.
Cheers,
Linz
Quoted Text
Here's the list of new armor that's been torn up (not on this site per se) since this site started in Dec 2001:
Skif T-55
Italeri DUKW
Academy Stuart
Tamiya Sherman M4A3 & 105mm Gun tank
Tamiya Pershing (just saw a post on HS, I relayed info, wasn't attacking it either)
and a few Trumpeter kits
The Skif T-55 was a failure and had multiple things wrong with it.
The DUKW had fairly balanced reviews, in all of them that I saw (and take notice of, ie Cookie Sewell's) were quite positive, pointing out a couple of small things for consideration.
Ditto for the Stuart, although these were a bit nastier. Still, there were a couple of large faults (the turret basket) and hence should be called out on it.
From what I've read on the Shermans (M4s to me are rather boring and hence I don't build them) most of the ladying was based on the fact that they were old kits with minimal updates. Fair enough.
You cannot call the post on HS on the M26 ripping into it surely? Ok, a lady on a very nice kit, but ripping into it? Compared to others on this list, this kit has got off free.
Trumpeter's kits are a mixed bag, the ones called out have generally been done for specific reasons.
Like I said, I only pay attention to certain reviews. If references can be pointed out that I can check on then that's better than just saying something. At the same time though, depending on the reviewer I'll take their word straight away. From all of this I can then make my own opionion. And in this case I won't be getting a Strv 103, it's too small.
Reviews are essential, as are pointing out errors should they exsist. It's the case with cars, movies, everything. And for those out there who enjoy correcting every little thing, then let us have our fun.
Cheers,
Linz
Tiger101
Joined: March 02, 2002
KitMaker: 902 posts
Armorama: 628 posts
Posted: Monday, November 11, 2002 - 04:08 AM UTC
Then have fun with this list. Trumpeters releases for the next year or so.
No they are not Tamiya or DML in quality but they are not copies any more.
All 1/35 scale
05101 Mil Mi-4 Hound Helicopter
05102 Mil Mi-8/17 Hip Helicopter
05103 Mil Mi-24W Hind E Helicopter
00201 Chinese 50-Ton Tank Transport
00202 Chinese DF-21 Ballistic MissileLauncher
00203 German Faun Elefant Panzer Transport
00204 Soviet SA-2 Guideline Missile with Loading Cabin (based on Russ.SAM II)
00206 Soviet SA-2 Guideline Missile with Launcher
00302 Chinese Type 96 MBT
00305 Chinese 152mm Type 83 Self-Propelled Howitzer
00306 Chinese 120mm Type 89 Anti-Tank Gun
00307 Chinese 122mm Type 89 Multi-Rocket System
Yes two scale feet short is a problem!
Six scale inches is not!
I just would hate to see another company stop producing diverse kits if it was
over just six inches.
No they are not Tamiya or DML in quality but they are not copies any more.
All 1/35 scale
05101 Mil Mi-4 Hound Helicopter
05102 Mil Mi-8/17 Hip Helicopter
05103 Mil Mi-24W Hind E Helicopter
00201 Chinese 50-Ton Tank Transport
00202 Chinese DF-21 Ballistic MissileLauncher
00203 German Faun Elefant Panzer Transport
00204 Soviet SA-2 Guideline Missile with Loading Cabin (based on Russ.SAM II)
00206 Soviet SA-2 Guideline Missile with Launcher
00302 Chinese Type 96 MBT
00305 Chinese 152mm Type 83 Self-Propelled Howitzer
00306 Chinese 120mm Type 89 Anti-Tank Gun
00307 Chinese 122mm Type 89 Multi-Rocket System
Yes two scale feet short is a problem!
Six scale inches is not!
I just would hate to see another company stop producing diverse kits if it was
over just six inches.
salt6
Joined: February 17, 2002
KitMaker: 796 posts
Armorama: 574 posts
Posted: Monday, November 11, 2002 - 04:28 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Yes two scale feet short is a problem!
Six scale inches is not!
I just would hate to see another company stop producing diverse kits if it was
over just six inches.
Let me state this again, I'm not a nut and bolt counter but when something is just plain wrong it's wrong.
Let's stop looking at the six inches and focus on the real problem, the kit is TWO scale feet short. Tha't about 3/4 of an inch. I only mentioned the width problem because I found it while checking. I can live with that but TWO scale feet is just a big plain mistake that should not have been made.
You really think Trumpeter is going to stop copying kits?
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Monday, November 11, 2002 - 04:48 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Same here. I rely on reviews to ensure that the kit I want to buy isn't a reissue or re-box of a previous kit. Or if it's a reissued, it's a kit I want (Italeri M60 Blazer for instance). The S Tank looks like a cool little tank (from the pictures posted in another thread). I may get one since I do mainly modern armor (and the occasional US/Allied WW2). I still tend to be wary of Trumpter kits since I got taken with their M60A3 though. While I like an accurate kit, I also like a well engineered kit (read: buildable). As long as I can correct the inaccuracies that matter to me....Like I said, I only pay attention to certain reviews. If references can be pointed out that I can check on then that's better than just saying something. At the same time though, depending on the reviewer I'll take their word straight away. From all of this I can then make my own opionion. And in this case I won't be getting a Strv 103, it's too small.
Reviews are essential, as are pointing out errors should they exsist. It's the case with cars, movies, everything. And for those out there who enjoy correcting every little thing, then let us have our fun.
Cheers,
Linz
As far as the kits I listed, "Some deserved it others, no big deal. " I did enjoy Cookie's review on the DUKW and I have nothing against Italeri kits (see my article on their HMMWVs). In fact, I have all the kits that I listed except the DUKW (just haven't had a chance to see on in stores yet).
SEDimmick
Joined: March 15, 2002
KitMaker: 1,745 posts
Armorama: 1,483 posts
Posted: Monday, November 11, 2002 - 06:49 AM UTC
Another point to consider is that we now have a very nice, yet "underscale" STRV103 kits out in plastic that retail for about $20 bucks, where as you could go out and spend $100 bucks on resin verison that might be "in scale" yet a hell of a lot hard to build to the 90% of the modelling public out there and introduce other headaches that you might run into. I personally don't mind this since there isnt much in the way of 1/35 S-Tanks out there that my Trumpter STRV103C might be sitting next to that would scream out that its underscale. I'm building mine OOTB save some Tamiya Leopard 2 Tracks that I'm using on it and I'm very impressed by the detail of the kit and how far Trumpter has come.
There has to be a blanance between having a totally in scale model (which might be impossible since angles and what not cannot be totally the same when in smaller scale) and having a half baked model like the Skif T-55 come out and be a total distaster.
What it boils down to is this...how anal do you want to get with the hobby...I'll be anal when I can be anal (aka a good kit that needs some work done to it) but if its too much "work" its not worth the effort since I'm doing this for my own enteranment and share my work with others.
There has to be a blanance between having a totally in scale model (which might be impossible since angles and what not cannot be totally the same when in smaller scale) and having a half baked model like the Skif T-55 come out and be a total distaster.
What it boils down to is this...how anal do you want to get with the hobby...I'll be anal when I can be anal (aka a good kit that needs some work done to it) but if its too much "work" its not worth the effort since I'm doing this for my own enteranment and share my work with others.
GunTruck
Joined: December 01, 2001
KitMaker: 5,885 posts
Armorama: 3,799 posts
Posted: Monday, November 11, 2002 - 07:31 AM UTC
Quoted Text
As far as the kits I listed, "Some deserved it others, no big deal. " I did enjoy Cookie's review on the DUKW and I have nothing against Italeri kits (see my article on their HMMWVs). In fact, I have all the kits that I listed except the DUKW (just haven't had a chance to see on in stores yet).
DUKW's are cool - I began mine last Friday and lovin it so far. I sent Cookie a nice note on his review too. I've begun uploading notes on what I've encountered with the model so far at:
Gunnie's DUKW
Biggest model truck I have next to the Dragon Wagon - hard to get it all in a digital camera's Macro frame
Tamiya's M36 Weapons Ring was a cinch to attach to the model, and I'm cutting Wheel Pants today - just in case I decide to add them later on. The only thing I lament about the model kit so far was not having four hands to put a couple of the assembly steps together. Thank God for superglue and accelerator I think you'd enjoy putting the Italeri DUKW together.Gunnie
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Monday, November 11, 2002 - 07:50 AM UTC
Looks good Gunnie. Did it come in Italeri tan? I seem to recall seeing the test shots as dark green. Looks interesting. There's a restored one here in the Quartermaster Museum. Lee Holland dug it out of the beach and has restored it to running order, but not amphibious capability. It is a big truck.
GunTruck
Joined: December 01, 2001
KitMaker: 5,885 posts
Armorama: 3,799 posts
Posted: Monday, November 11, 2002 - 08:25 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Looks good Gunnie. Did it come in Italeri tan? I seem to recall seeing the test shots as dark green. Looks interesting. There's a restored one here in the Quartermaster Museum. Lee Holland dug it out of the beach and has restored it to running order, but not amphibious capability. It is a big truck.
No Tan - it's in Italeri Olive Drab
. I like the color, for some reason it reminds me of childhood and playing with Little Green Army Men. It would have been great to have a DUKW back then during the Backyard Wars. It makes working with the kit even more fun, for me, somehow.There's another interesting characteristic about the model. For some reason, I feel satisified with it. Though it is huge and has plenty of room for superdetailing, I don't feel compelled to do any more to it than to model a vehicle in the time period I desire. I don't even feel the need to fill the cargo bed with "stuff". I think many modelers would be quite happy with it straight OOB.
Gunnie
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Monday, November 11, 2002 - 08:39 AM UTC
Desert amphibian? Used to cross mirages and the occasional oasis? I'll have to add it to my buy list.
 |
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.