Kansas, United States
Joined: April 11, 2005
KitMaker: 417 posts
Armorama: 118 posts
Posted: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - 08:06 AM UTC
Just got the Dragon 1/72 M4A1 Sherman "Normandy" last night from Sprue Bros.
All I can say is WOW.
This is one of the finest 72nd scale kits I've seen.
The PE fret has the usual detail pieces (light guards, grab handles, periscope guards, etc) plus are you ready for this - a hedgerow cutter.
There are not 1 but 2 sets of tracks (rubber chevron and T49).
The detail in this small kit rivals that of alot of 35th scale kits. It is truly a jewell!
Gary
The road goes on forever and the party never ends!
Better to have and not need than need and not have!
IPMS # 6640
spongya
Associate EditorBudapest, Hungary
Joined: February 01, 2005
KitMaker: 2,365 posts
Armorama: 1,709 posts
Posted: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - 10:28 AM UTC
There are kits you have to build even if you don't build that kind of stuff. The Dragon Flak88, the Tamiya 1/32 F-16, Trumpeter T-34 in 1/16... and now I guess, I'll have to buy a Sherman, too
Please visit me at my blog: https://butterfingeredmodelbuilder.wordpress.com/
Kansas, United States
Joined: April 11, 2005
KitMaker: 417 posts
Armorama: 118 posts
Posted: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - 06:17 PM UTC
Andras,
You won't regret spending $10 - $12 for this kit.
It's small in size but big in detail.
I finished an old ESCI M4A3 Sherman last year which is a 30 year old kit.
No comparison between the two. I wish I'd had and extra one of these kits just for the finely detailed add on parts and tracks to use on the old kit.
Best regards,
Gary
The road goes on forever and the party never ends!
Better to have and not need than need and not have!
IPMS # 6640
Victoria, Australia
Joined: May 07, 2003
KitMaker: 4,002 posts
Armorama: 2,947 posts
Posted: Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 02:10 PM UTC
Gday Gary
Things are a little slower down here... that hasn't arrived AFAIK...
I bought the just released M4a3(76) the other day, and not having built a 1/72 anything for 20+ years, have to say I was quite impressed... Bought it for the missus to build (her first attempt ever!) but she complained I kept taking over the build... Haven't gotten to the PE fret yet... Scaring the pants off me just looking at it... :-)
Cheers
Brad
"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
Benjamin Franklin
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 04:52 PM UTC
I just picked up a couple of the M4A1s yesterday. At $11.00, they are way superior to the old Esci rebox-ed by Italeri, and about the same price. Very nice kits.
spongya
Associate Editor Budapest, Hungary
Joined: February 01, 2005
KitMaker: 2,365 posts
Armorama: 1,709 posts
Posted: Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 09:21 PM UTC
These DML 1/72 kits are like candy
There's no limit on how many you can take.
The really-really nice thing is the faster buildtime and cheaper price: you can have all the AFVs you want on your shelve for little money and they don't take up all your room. Many times I'd prefer to build something in 1/72 -like a Jagdtiger, a specific 251 halftrack, etc, because I don't want it that much to spend a lot of money and time on it. (If I bougth everything I wanted in 1/35 I'd cap the 1000 dollar limit... and would never have the time to build all.)
Please visit me at my blog: https://butterfingeredmodelbuilder.wordpress.com/
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Friday, August 18, 2006 - 01:15 AM UTC
Not all Dragon 1/72 scale armor kits are created equal. Many of the earlier ones, especially those with diecast hulls, are not very good.
Kansas, United States
Joined: April 11, 2005
KitMaker: 417 posts
Armorama: 118 posts
Posted: Friday, August 18, 2006 - 09:41 AM UTC
This is an impressive kit.
The road wheels are molded in pairs and even show the gease zerks.
Wait till you see the T-49 tracks. I plan to save them for another project.
Both the turret and hull have a cast texture; the 75mm barrel is slide molded and pre-drilled;
the turret mounted 50 cal. is the best I've seen in a small kit.
Hats off to the group at Dragon!
Best regards:
Gary
The road goes on forever and the party never ends!
Better to have and not need than need and not have!
IPMS # 6640
Wojewodztwo Pomorskie, Poland
Joined: May 26, 2003
KitMaker: 1,208 posts
Armorama: 1,023 posts
Posted: Saturday, August 19, 2006 - 01:49 PM UTC
Hi chaps, I was wondering how the suspension looks like on this one. In the Dragons previous braille Sherman suspension arms seemed to be mounted too low, so half of the mount/arm appeared below the bogie lower edge. Did they corrected that?
Cheers
Grzegorz
For those about to rock, we salute you!
Kansas, United States
Joined: April 11, 2005
KitMaker: 417 posts
Armorama: 118 posts
Posted: Saturday, August 19, 2006 - 08:13 PM UTC
Grzegorz,
Here is a quick look at the running gear.
I don't have the previous kit you're referring to, so maybe you can tell from this photo.
best regards,
Gary
The road goes on forever and the party never ends!
Better to have and not need than need and not have!
IPMS # 6640
Wojewodztwo Pomorskie, Poland
Joined: May 26, 2003
KitMaker: 1,208 posts
Armorama: 1,023 posts
Posted: Saturday, August 19, 2006 - 08:37 PM UTC
Hi Gary, many thanks for the photo!
It looks like they've left the suspension the way it was in the M4A3 kit
It should not be hard to correct that, just reposition the suspension arms up, leaving the same angle but you have to do that six times.
Cheers
Grzegorz
For those about to rock, we salute you!
California, United States
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 1,141 posts
Armorama: 950 posts
Posted: Saturday, August 19, 2006 - 09:56 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Hi Gary, many thanks for the photo!
It looks like they've left the suspension the way it was in the M4A3 kit It should not be hard to correct that, just reposition the suspension arms up, leaving the same angle but you have to do that six times.
There's nothing wrong with the M4A1 suspension. Unless you are building a rather late production M4A1(75), the kit parts with the flat return roller brackets are correct. As for the M4A3(76), I just bought one two days ago and the return roller brackets are correct as they are upswept.
Chris "toadman" Hughes
Toadman's Tank Pictures Chris "toadman" Hughes
http://www.toadmanstankpictures.com
http://toadmanstankpictures.blogspot.com/
Wojewodztwo Pomorskie, Poland
Joined: May 26, 2003
KitMaker: 1,208 posts
Armorama: 1,023 posts
Posted: Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 01:31 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text
Hi Gary, many thanks for the photo!
It looks like they've left the suspension the way it was in the M4A3 kit It should not be hard to correct that, just reposition the suspension arms up, leaving the same angle but you have to do that six times.
There's nothing wrong with the M4A1 suspension. Unless you are building a rather late production M4A1(75), the kit parts with the flat return roller brackets are correct. As for the M4A3(76), I just bought one two days ago and the return roller brackets are correct as they are upswept.
Chris "toadman" Hughes
Toadman's Tank Pictures
I have nothing to the return rollers or even there brackets. Just the suspension arms seem to be incorrectly placed. Even Jim Rae didn't noted that in his review of the M4A3 :
It looks wrong to me.
Nevermind the different return rollers brackets
Comparison made of Garys and Primeportal photos
Cheers
Grzegorz
For those about to rock, we salute you!
California, United States
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 1,141 posts
Armorama: 950 posts
Posted: Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 02:06 AM UTC
Okay, I see what you mean. I didn't read your original post clearly. It looks like they used unweighted bogie arms. Other than that, the suspension brackets measure dead on to the real deal. I'll measure the angle on a M4A1 next weekend.
Chris "toadman" Hughes
Toadman's Tank Pictures Chris "toadman" Hughes
http://www.toadmanstankpictures.com
http://toadmanstankpictures.blogspot.com/
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 06:40 PM UTC
Even a real display tank would be suspect unless it had the engine inside. That's one of the heaviest components to most tanks.
Wojewodztwo Pomorskie, Poland
Joined: May 26, 2003
KitMaker: 1,208 posts
Armorama: 1,023 posts
Posted: Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 09:27 PM UTC
I thought there's no way unweighted sherman suspension can look like dragon depicted. I thought it works like this:
( It's a quicky, sorry for simplification )
Cheers
Grzegorz
For those about to rock, we salute you!
California, United States
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 1,141 posts
Armorama: 950 posts
Posted: Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 09:49 PM UTC
Interesting drawing. It seems to me that the arms in your "weighted" sketch are a little too flat. I took the following pic last year. The Sherman that it is attached to was fueled up and running. It only needed ammunition and a breech block. It almost appears that the Dragon parts maybe okay. As I said in my previous posting, I'll see about measuring the angles, etc. on a M4A1 next week.
Chris "toadman" Hughes
Toadman's Tank Pictures Chris "toadman" Hughes
http://www.toadmanstankpictures.com
http://toadmanstankpictures.blogspot.com/
Wojewodztwo Pomorskie, Poland
Joined: May 26, 2003
KitMaker: 1,208 posts
Armorama: 1,023 posts
Posted: Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 10:05 PM UTC
I don't get it. I know it may be too flat I eyeballed the angles from a wartime photo of an M3 Medium, but angles are not the point. Just the arms are placed incorrectly in the bogey. C'm on guys I don't belive you don't see it. Those dragon parts just CAN'T be ok.
For those about to rock, we salute you!
California, United States
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 1,141 posts
Armorama: 950 posts
Posted: Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 10:27 PM UTC
LOL!!! I see it now!! I think some of us, myself included, were looking at the wrong thing. Nice catch. Oh well. I guess I'll have to give in to a little bit of AMS on this kit now. :-)
Stupid Dragon!
How could they screw something up like this?
Chris "toadman" Hughes
Toadman's Tank Pictures Chris "toadman" Hughes
http://www.toadmanstankpictures.com
http://toadmanstankpictures.blogspot.com/
Kansas, United States
Joined: April 11, 2005
KitMaker: 417 posts
Armorama: 118 posts
Posted: Monday, August 21, 2006 - 02:24 AM UTC
If I'm reading this right, a little thinning on the lower edge of the arms and then adding three small bolt heads might go along way to disguise (correct?) this minor problem.
It took me awhile to figure out what you guys were seeing.
Gary
The road goes on forever and the party never ends!
Better to have and not need than need and not have!
IPMS # 6640
Wojewodztwo Pomorskie, Poland
Joined: May 26, 2003
KitMaker: 1,208 posts
Armorama: 1,023 posts
Posted: Monday, August 21, 2006 - 02:35 AM UTC
I'd say that you should cut the arms off and move them up a bit so it'd match the appearance of the real thing. By thinning the lower edge you'd only make things worse. However I wouldn't bother with the three bolts on the bottom, in 1:35 yes, I'd add them but in 1:72... nope. But hey, it's your kit and it's me who's insane :-) I mean if you can live with the flaw, build it the way you would have most fun. (I shortened all the bogeys by 2 mm each in my M3 Lee by academy, hence the insanity comment
)
Cheers
Grzegorz
For those about to rock, we salute you!
Kansas, United States
Joined: April 11, 2005
KitMaker: 417 posts
Armorama: 118 posts
Posted: Monday, August 21, 2006 - 06:28 AM UTC
Personally, I've always been a fan of playing "horse shoes" in which "close" sometimes is adequate for a winner. In this particular instance, for me anyway, based on the photo comparison, the horseshoe rule works just fine - close enough is good enough.
Like I said - the kit (with any faults that it might have) is a real jewell; so much so that I just ordered the Dragon 72nd M4A3.
I need a cousin for the ESCI kit that i did last year. :-) :-) :-)
Gary
The road goes on forever and the party never ends!
Better to have and not need than need and not have!
IPMS # 6640
New South Wales, Australia
Joined: February 28, 2006
KitMaker: 1,605 posts
Armorama: 1,565 posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 04:21 AM UTC
If you look closely at the pic you can see where they went wrong. The distance from the "pins" holding the arms to the Bogie is too great. They seem to have replicated this gap twice (the picture will explain better than I can - the red boxed area):
Still in this scale i don't think it is a killer and I hope they fix it in future releases.
CHeers
Al
