Link to Item
If you have comments or questions please post them here.
Thanks!
Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
Hosted by Darren Baker, Mario Matijasic
NEWS
DML's New Marder III - Image Report
jimbrae
Joined: April 23, 2003
KitMaker: 12,927 posts
Armorama: 9,486 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 25, 2007 - 02:04 PM UTC
Just posted, details and images of DRA 6331 - Marder III Ausf.H (Smart Kit) which is one DML''s scheduled releases for February 2007. The full story can be seen:
Link to Item
If you have comments or questions please post them here.
Thanks!
Link to Item
If you have comments or questions please post them here.
Thanks!
mark197205
Joined: November 10, 2003
KitMaker: 1,593 posts
Armorama: 1,465 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 25, 2007 - 04:57 PM UTC
As with the Tristar/AFV Club version of this kit i am very interested, waiting for a side by side comparison to see which comes out on top, of course I may just get one of each anyway..... :-)
Teacher
Joined: April 05, 2003
KitMaker: 4,924 posts
Armorama: 3,679 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 25, 2007 - 06:11 PM UTC
I have one in front of me and writing a review as we type. It's very nice! :-) I've also a new Premium figure set for tomorrow.
Vinnie
Vinnie
Alpenflage
Joined: May 21, 2003
KitMaker: 1,120 posts
Armorama: 1,002 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 25, 2007 - 06:21 PM UTC
Even more good news on a Friday morning 
Looks like this "Smart Kit" thing is a continuing trend, and its all good.
I pre-ordered these Marder III Ausf H kits a while back, and I cant wait to get them in !
Thanks for posting, Jim !
Cheers !!
Robert
Looks like this "Smart Kit" thing is a continuing trend, and its all good.
I pre-ordered these Marder III Ausf H kits a while back, and I cant wait to get them in !
Thanks for posting, Jim !
Cheers !!
Robert
Clanky44
Joined: September 15, 2005
KitMaker: 1,901 posts
Armorama: 553 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 25, 2007 - 06:29 PM UTC
I'll echo Robert's comments above, You're full of great news this morning, Jim.
Frank
Frank
wbill76
Joined: May 02, 2006
KitMaker: 5,425 posts
Armorama: 4,659 posts
Posted: Friday, January 26, 2007 - 02:07 AM UTC
Vinnie,
Any idea on whether or not it uses the same hull as with the Aufklarungs 140/1? PMMS review indicated that hull had a problem with the side hull fender channels that negated the ability to "bend' the fenders and am curious if that carried over to this kit or was corrected. Look forward to seeing your review!
Any idea on whether or not it uses the same hull as with the Aufklarungs 140/1? PMMS review indicated that hull had a problem with the side hull fender channels that negated the ability to "bend' the fenders and am curious if that carried over to this kit or was corrected. Look forward to seeing your review!
exer
Joined: November 27, 2004
KitMaker: 6,048 posts
Armorama: 4,619 posts
Posted: Friday, January 26, 2007 - 02:34 AM UTC
Quoted Text
As with the Tristar/AFV Club version of this kit i am very interested, waiting for a side by side comparison to see which comes out on top, of course I may just get one of each anyway..... :-)
I may do the same
Teacher
Joined: April 05, 2003
KitMaker: 4,924 posts
Armorama: 3,679 posts
Posted: Friday, January 26, 2007 - 02:39 AM UTC
Although a Smart kit, there is an awful lot of PE in this one, more than in any Smart kit so far, so it would seem reduced PE is not a pre-requisite! :-)
Vinnie
Vinnie
Plasticbattle
#003
Joined: May 14, 2002
KitMaker: 9,763 posts
Armorama: 7,444 posts
Posted: Friday, January 26, 2007 - 03:29 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Any idea on whether or not it uses the same hull as with the Aufklarungs 140/1? PMMS review indicated that hull had a problem with the side hull fender channels that negated the ability to "bend' the fenders and am curious if that carried over to this kit or was corrected.
According to Michael Rinaldi on Missing links, who is showing images of the build in progress, the bend does happen as dragon advertised, when the upper hull is pushed into place.
Quoted Text
And finally the fenders - well credit goes to Dragon, they do what they say and when the upper hull pieces are pressed down on the fender it creates the very noticeable kink that the 38(t) shows. How this will work on future 38(t) models from Dragon remains to be seen - but it does work on this kit. Just make sure H4 & H5 are mounted at the correct height (mine are a little too low and will be repositioned).
See full thread here
Teacher
Joined: April 05, 2003
KitMaker: 4,924 posts
Armorama: 3,679 posts
Posted: Friday, January 26, 2007 - 03:45 PM UTC
Got to agree.
I've read all the posts. The engineering of that kit is superb. Although I'm not happy about the profile of one of the sprues.........it needs to be 'rounder'.
Vinnie
I've read all the posts. The engineering of that kit is superb. Although I'm not happy about the profile of one of the sprues.........it needs to be 'rounder'.
Vinnie
JohnByng
Joined: September 25, 2005
KitMaker: 36 posts
Armorama: 32 posts
Posted: Friday, January 26, 2007 - 03:51 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Vinnie,
Any idea on whether or not it uses the same hull as with the Aufklarungs 140/1? PMMS review indicated that hull had a problem with the side hull fender channels that negated the ability to "bend' the fenders and am curious if that carried over to this kit or was corrected. Look forward to seeing your review!
Bill, on Missing Links Michael Rinaldi is building the sdkfz 140 and he says that when the upper hull is fitted it causes the kink in the fenders so it looks like that is not so much of a problem.
Regards,
Roger
Oops, sorry Frank I didn't see your post about this!
JohnByng
Joined: September 25, 2005
KitMaker: 36 posts
Armorama: 32 posts
Posted: Friday, January 26, 2007 - 03:59 PM UTC
moose
Joined: January 03, 2003
KitMaker: 99 posts
Armorama: 95 posts
Posted: Friday, January 26, 2007 - 05:21 PM UTC
With respect guys, may I suggest you have a look at the images that accompany Mike’s build in regards the fenders as they clearly show that the proposed solution doesn’t actually represent the straight fender kink seen in many photos but is more a “dent” where there is a pronounced deforming of the outer edge of the fender while leaving the inner edge straight in the hull side channel.
The real fender has a straight line from the back to the kink and then another straight line from the kink to the front of the fender, the images clearly show this is not what happens when forcing the outer edge of the fender down with the superstructure but leaves a distinct dip in the fender line.
With the straight hull side fender channel it is physically impossible to force the whole fender down to form the kink and so with respect there is an issue here as acknowledged by Cookie Sewell in his review of the Marder III kit.
Cheers
Terry A
The real fender has a straight line from the back to the kink and then another straight line from the kink to the front of the fender, the images clearly show this is not what happens when forcing the outer edge of the fender down with the superstructure but leaves a distinct dip in the fender line.
With the straight hull side fender channel it is physically impossible to force the whole fender down to form the kink and so with respect there is an issue here as acknowledged by Cookie Sewell in his review of the Marder III kit.
Cheers
Terry A
wbill76
Joined: May 02, 2006
KitMaker: 5,425 posts
Armorama: 4,659 posts
Posted: Friday, January 26, 2007 - 10:21 PM UTC
I read the post/thread on M-L yesterday after digging around and while it's a "workaround" solution (a common occurrence in model kits and part of the hobby, right?) that Michael Rinaldi came up with in respect to the 140/1, I don't know that the III-H hull structure would or wouldn't lend itself to the same type of work-around solution, hence my question to Vinnie who has the actual kit to hand and is planning a review. I'm not bashing the DML III-H, just wondering if the fender question is something to be aware of as a carry-over from the 140/1 since the Tristar 38(t) hulls use a different approach to the fenders and their III-H would conceivably maintain that approach vs. the DML design approach. I've no doubt the DML III-H is up to the usual standard of DML design engineering with their latest kits, just reading about the rear basket being made out of pre-formed metal parts is intriguing all by itself, and every kit regardless of the manufacturer, will always have their own quirks/differences. As mentioned in Jim's thread about diversity/competition, it's all good in promoting higher quality and choice for the modeller/buyer in the end. 
SGTJKJ
#041
Joined: July 20, 2006
KitMaker: 10,069 posts
Armorama: 4,677 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 08:23 PM UTC
This looks like a really nice kit that is accurate and looks like the original. The fender issue is not really that important to me. I would definently be ready to invest in one despite a big stash already
 |
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.