M51 Isherman Review
If you have comments or questions please post them here.
Thanks!
Hosted by Darren Baker
REVIEW
DML's 1/35th M51 Isherman
jimbrae
Joined: April 23, 2003
KitMaker: 12,927 posts
Armorama: 9,486 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 18, 2007 - 11:35 PM UTC
Mike Land (Kelley) brings us a VERY comprehensive review of Dragon Models'' ''Premium Edition''kit of the Israeli M51 Isherman in 1/35th scale. The review, along with some invaluable notes as to ''tweaks'' can be seen:
M51 Isherman Review
If you have comments or questions please post them here.
Thanks!
M51 Isherman Review
If you have comments or questions please post them here.
Thanks!
james84
Joined: January 28, 2006
KitMaker: 1,368 posts
Armorama: 950 posts
Posted: Monday, March 19, 2007 - 12:19 AM UTC
Great!
I would like to have one once I finish my WIPs!
I would like to have one once I finish my WIPs!
Hawkeye
Joined: March 29, 2002
KitMaker: 701 posts
Armorama: 640 posts
Posted: Monday, March 19, 2007 - 12:39 AM UTC
Good review Mike, very informative. I do not like the DS vinyl tracks, so it will be a set of Fruils for mine i think
Regards from the Swamp
Eth
Regards from the Swamp
Eth
wbill76
Joined: May 02, 2006
KitMaker: 5,425 posts
Armorama: 4,659 posts
Posted: Monday, March 19, 2007 - 12:39 AM UTC
Great job on the review Mike, very thorough and with lots of helpful details on evaluating the latest "Premium" treated kit from DML. Too bad about the muzzle brake, one of the other problems in the old kit was the styrene brackets for the jerry cans, they wouldn't fit over the provided cans and still touch the hull like they should, any idea if this has been fixed in either the styrene or PE items?
RichardM
Joined: August 13, 2006
KitMaker: 383 posts
Armorama: 358 posts
Posted: Monday, March 19, 2007 - 12:51 AM UTC
Nice and informative review.
I was wondering about the muzzle break. How does the one from the Academy's kit compare to both the Dragon and AA ones?
Thanks for sharing
I was wondering about the muzzle break. How does the one from the Academy's kit compare to both the Dragon and AA ones?
Thanks for sharing
kevinb120
Joined: May 09, 2006
KitMaker: 1,349 posts
Armorama: 1,267 posts
Posted: Monday, March 19, 2007 - 01:30 AM UTC
Looks like a great kit. The brake in the build up photos on the box looks close enough for me, at least it comes with a canvas mantlet cover.
OldandSlow
Joined: August 09, 2006
KitMaker: 22 posts
Armorama: 19 posts
Posted: Monday, March 19, 2007 - 02:04 AM UTC
I appreciate Mikes review very much, and I`m sure is far more experenced in Armor Building then me.
However I have to wonder if the question of an " undersize and/or incorrect shaped kit " muzzle break is based on actual measurements from the real thing or offical plans ??
The reason I ask is this " error opinion ' has been repeated several times in various Forums, but as far as I can tell it`s based on opinions or previous kits or aftermarket parts rather then measurements of the actual tank gun.
Past that, I have Gannon`s book on the Israeli Sherman, as well as the Verlinden book on the upgunned M-50-51 Shermans and the many photos of the Break and gun in those books, including close -up `s of the break, and pictures with people nearby for reference on pages 102 - 105, seem to me to indicate that based on the pictures of the kit in the review both the size and shape are very, very close to the real thing IMO. ( I don`t have the kit yet )
Beyond that, it would be unusual for Dragon to get it that wrong again, and to that degree.
Having said that, and again based on photos, I would suggest that there _might_ have been several slight variations of the muzzle break , perhaps built by different makers used on the Guns, which could account for the differences people seem to find in the kit parts to actual parts.
Just a thought.
However I have to wonder if the question of an " undersize and/or incorrect shaped kit " muzzle break is based on actual measurements from the real thing or offical plans ??
The reason I ask is this " error opinion ' has been repeated several times in various Forums, but as far as I can tell it`s based on opinions or previous kits or aftermarket parts rather then measurements of the actual tank gun.
Past that, I have Gannon`s book on the Israeli Sherman, as well as the Verlinden book on the upgunned M-50-51 Shermans and the many photos of the Break and gun in those books, including close -up `s of the break, and pictures with people nearby for reference on pages 102 - 105, seem to me to indicate that based on the pictures of the kit in the review both the size and shape are very, very close to the real thing IMO. ( I don`t have the kit yet )
Beyond that, it would be unusual for Dragon to get it that wrong again, and to that degree.
Having said that, and again based on photos, I would suggest that there _might_ have been several slight variations of the muzzle break , perhaps built by different makers used on the Guns, which could account for the differences people seem to find in the kit parts to actual parts.
Just a thought.
Kelley
Joined: November 21, 2002
KitMaker: 1,966 posts
Armorama: 1,635 posts
Posted: Monday, March 19, 2007 - 03:21 AM UTC
Thanks for the kind words guys I appreciate it. Having never done this before (at least not in writing) I have to say I have a new found respect for the guys here and also Terry Ashley at PMMS who publish numerous reviews, sometimes several a week.
Eth, I understand where you're coming from as I'm somewhat of a "track snob" myself
. But if you pick up this kit definitely wait till you've seen them. Myself and a couple of the guys at my local club, where I took the kit so they could have a look see, were skeptical but ended up being impressed by the detail Dragon has been able to mold in. If you still decide to go with the indy links give the AFV Club set a look, they are nice.
Bill, I will try to check on this tonight or in the next day or so and post what I find here.
Richard, I don't have the Academy kit but by all reports the Academy muzzle brake is too big.
Hi Richard, I admit that I too was surprised that Dragon would get it wrong again. What I'm basing my statement on is a couple of things. The first one is that in numerous places Tom Gannon has posted that the old MB was too small. I'm not one to take just anyone's word, but if anyone knows I would think he would. The second thing is I have some good close up pictures of an actual M51 MB with measurements on them. I received these from Jim Carswell also. According to the measurements, as I said in the review, the old MB is closer to the correct size.
I would also agree with you that there may have been different variations in the MB's. In the pics I mentioned above the shape of the MB in the pics matches the new Dragon piece beautifully, but this same MB looks to be a little different than the old one, and the Accurate Armour piece (which I have been told was mastered by Mark Hazzard from measurements he personally took from an actual vehicle as well.) Chris "Toadman" Hughs has gotten pics and measurements of the M51 in the Littlefield collection, it will be interesting to see what he finds.
Best,
Mike
Quoted Text
I do not like the DS vinyl tracks, so it will be a set of Fruils for mine i think
Eth, I understand where you're coming from as I'm somewhat of a "track snob" myself
. But if you pick up this kit definitely wait till you've seen them. Myself and a couple of the guys at my local club, where I took the kit so they could have a look see, were skeptical but ended up being impressed by the detail Dragon has been able to mold in. If you still decide to go with the indy links give the AFV Club set a look, they are nice.Quoted Text
one of the other problems in the old kit was the styrene brackets for the jerry cans, they wouldn't fit over the provided cans and still touch the hull like they should, any idea if this has been fixed in either the styrene or PE items?
Bill, I will try to check on this tonight or in the next day or so and post what I find here.
Quoted Text
I was wondering about the muzzle break. How does the one from the Academy's kit compare to both the Dragon and AA ones?
Richard, I don't have the Academy kit but by all reports the Academy muzzle brake is too big.
Quoted Text
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I appreciate Mikes review very much, and I`m sure is far more experenced in Armor Building then me.
However I have to wonder if the question of an " undersize and/or incorrect shaped kit " muzzle break is based on actual measurements from the real thing or offical plans ??
The reason I ask is this " error opinion ' has been repeated several times in various Forums, but as far as I can tell it`s based on opinions or previous kits or aftermarket parts rather then measurements of the actual tank gun.
Past that, I have Gannon`s book on the Israeli Sherman, as well as the Verlinden book on the upgunned M-50-51 Shermans and the many photos of the Break and gun in those books, including close -up `s of the break, and pictures with people nearby for reference on pages 102 - 105, seem to me to indicate that based on the pictures of the kit in the review both the size and shape are very, very close to the real thing IMO. ( I don`t have the kit yet )
Beyond that, it would be unusual for Dragon to get it that wrong again, and to that degree.
Having said that, and again based on photos, I would suggest that there _might_ have been several slight variations of the muzzle break , perhaps built by different makers used on the Guns, which could account for the differences people seem to find in the kit parts to actual parts.
Just a thought.
Hi Richard, I admit that I too was surprised that Dragon would get it wrong again. What I'm basing my statement on is a couple of things. The first one is that in numerous places Tom Gannon has posted that the old MB was too small. I'm not one to take just anyone's word, but if anyone knows I would think he would. The second thing is I have some good close up pictures of an actual M51 MB with measurements on them. I received these from Jim Carswell also. According to the measurements, as I said in the review, the old MB is closer to the correct size.
I would also agree with you that there may have been different variations in the MB's. In the pics I mentioned above the shape of the MB in the pics matches the new Dragon piece beautifully, but this same MB looks to be a little different than the old one, and the Accurate Armour piece (which I have been told was mastered by Mark Hazzard from measurements he personally took from an actual vehicle as well.) Chris "Toadman" Hughs has gotten pics and measurements of the M51 in the Littlefield collection, it will be interesting to see what he finds.
Best,
Mike
toadman1
Vendor
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 1,141 posts
Armorama: 950 posts
Posted: Monday, March 19, 2007 - 03:53 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Chris "Toadman" Hughs has gotten pics and measurements of the M51 in the Littlefield collection, it will be interesting to see what he finds.
I hope to have my pics and measurements posted in the next 24-48 hours. The "honey-do" list at home has been brutal lately so I haven't had time to edit my pics in a timely manner.
Chris "toadman" Hughes
Toadman's Tank Pictures
Grumpyoldman
ConsigliereJoined: October 17, 2003
KitMaker: 15,338 posts
Armorama: 7,297 posts
Posted: Monday, March 19, 2007 - 08:50 AM UTC
Nice review Mike.
SGTJKJ
#041
Joined: July 20, 2006
KitMaker: 10,069 posts
Armorama: 4,677 posts
Posted: Monday, March 19, 2007 - 06:53 PM UTC
Very nice review with a lot of usefull information. Nice added value that you include online reference links and some background information in the start nof the review.
This kit could lure me away from my usual German WWII subjects
Thanks for your time and effort
This kit could lure me away from my usual German WWII subjects
Thanks for your time and effort
Kelley
Joined: November 21, 2002
KitMaker: 1,966 posts
Armorama: 1,635 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 04:56 AM UTC
Quoted Text
one of the other problems in the old kit was the styrene brackets for the jerry cans, they wouldn't fit over the provided cans and still touch the hull like they should, any idea if this has been fixed in either the styrene or PE items?
Hi Bill, I'm back. I got a chance to check the fit of the jerry cans to the racks a little while ago and I can tell you the fit is fine with the plastic ones. Just a little snug but the rack still touched the hull. I checked the PE pieces in a very unscientific way
...I left them on the carrier sprue and put the styrene racks and then the jerry can on top of them. The bottom of the PE rack is almost the identical size as the plastic one, and the jerry can sat on it with a very little room too spare. the sides look to be about the same size as well. Mike
gcdavidson
Joined: August 05, 2003
KitMaker: 1,698 posts
Armorama: 1,563 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 10:31 AM UTC
Muzzle Brake
jimbrae
Joined: April 23, 2003
KitMaker: 12,927 posts
Armorama: 9,486 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 05:14 PM UTC
Slightly 
here, but all debate aside about muzzle brakes etc. , I really have to congratulate Mike on this review. It's exactly the kind of review the site needs - informed, detailed and, above all, constructively critical.
So, the message to all this, with the policy which is NOW in place, YOUR reviews are welcome. We're also particularly short on material related to Modern AFVs...
here, but all debate aside about muzzle brakes etc. , I really have to congratulate Mike on this review. It's exactly the kind of review the site needs - informed, detailed and, above all, constructively critical. So, the message to all this, with the policy which is NOW in place, YOUR reviews are welcome. We're also particularly short on material related to Modern AFVs...
wbill76
Joined: May 02, 2006
KitMaker: 5,425 posts
Armorama: 4,659 posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 12:58 AM UTC
Mike,
Thanks for the response, it's good to hear that's no longer an issue. I built the original kit a while back and it was very disconcerting to find that the brackets didn't fit the cans properly to allow for attachment to the hull. Nothing like having a 0.5mm gap to produce a "floating" set of jerry cans to ruin your day. Attached fine at the base but the upper arms of the brackets wouldn't "touch" to produce the proper stand-off that Gary mentions, at least not on my kit.
Thanks for the response, it's good to hear that's no longer an issue. I built the original kit a while back and it was very disconcerting to find that the brackets didn't fit the cans properly to allow for attachment to the hull. Nothing like having a 0.5mm gap to produce a "floating" set of jerry cans to ruin your day. Attached fine at the base but the upper arms of the brackets wouldn't "touch" to produce the proper stand-off that Gary mentions, at least not on my kit.
FuNsTeR
Joined: October 19, 2005
KitMaker: 273 posts
Armorama: 243 posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 01:13 AM UTC
i wouldn't mind having 1 in 1/72 scale hopefully i won't have to wait that long 
PantherF
Joined: June 10, 2005
KitMaker: 6,188 posts
Armorama: 5,960 posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 01:44 AM UTC
Nice write up on a interesting subject, surely I have to add to my Sherman collection.
In an effort to understand some of the terminology (SP), the word 'DS plastic' ... does it mean that this is a flexable track piece that can be glued as well?
I never liked the individual track links DML had and the plastic vinyl units Tamiya had, well they were not the answer either.
Thanks!
Jeff
In an effort to understand some of the terminology (SP), the word 'DS plastic' ... does it mean that this is a flexable track piece that can be glued as well?
I never liked the individual track links DML had and the plastic vinyl units Tamiya had, well they were not the answer either.
Thanks!
Jeff
Kelley
Joined: November 21, 2002
KitMaker: 1,966 posts
Armorama: 1,635 posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 02:33 AM UTC
Quoted Text
In an effort to understand some of the terminology (SP), the word 'DS plastic' ... does it mean that this is a flexable track piece that can be glued as well?
Jeff, in short, yes they are glueable. To elaborate on that, from what I understand DS plastic is some sort of combination of vinyl and styrene (but don't quote me on that
). Whatever the case the end result is a material with some of the properties of vinyl, in that it is very flexible, and some of the properties of styrene, it takes details better than vinyl and you can use regular model glue on it. The DS plastic tracks that come with the new M51 kit are what most would refer to as "rubber band" tracks, but they have hollow individual styrene guide teeth that you glue on to enhance the detail. So you get a little of both worlds here.Mike
PantherF
Joined: June 10, 2005
KitMaker: 6,188 posts
Armorama: 5,960 posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 02:54 AM UTC
Thanks for the explanation and the write-up!
Jeff
Jeff
wbill76
Joined: May 02, 2006
KitMaker: 5,425 posts
Armorama: 4,659 posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 04:35 AM UTC
That's what I was getting at Gary, if the rod is needed then the gap is still there in the parts. It may have been designed that way deliberately given the actual vehicle for the kit, but since the rod or posts aren't provided as parts or molded on the hull, it's an issue that was there on the original kit that may or may not have carried over to the new one.
It's not a hard thing to fix either way, just some styrene rod to fill the gap. Here's a photo of what it looks like without any correction done to it:
It's not a hard thing to fix either way, just some styrene rod to fill the gap. Here's a photo of what it looks like without any correction done to it:
hellbent11
Joined: August 17, 2005
KitMaker: 725 posts
Armorama: 340 posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 01:18 PM UTC
Great review,
I heard that the M51's gun is essentially re-worked from a Panther and it is the same gun with minor mods. Is this Correct?
What did the white stripes on the barrel signify? Why do many of the pics seem to show the marks in three's?
I heard that the M51's gun is essentially re-worked from a Panther and it is the same gun with minor mods. Is this Correct?
What did the white stripes on the barrel signify? Why do many of the pics seem to show the marks in three's?
 |
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.