--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can anyone tell me how accurate the new Dragon 1/72 M4 Sherman hulls are (mainly the M4A3 and the newer M4A1 Cast hull)? They don't look 'right' to me--they look too long and narrow, compared to the Esci Sherman, which looks more correct (i.e., more of a 'box' shape). This is readily apparent when you place the Dragon and the Esci hulls, side by side. If their 1/72 hull shape is incorrect, then their bigger brother, the Dragon 1/35th scale Sherman, must also be wrong, as the 1/72 kit is just the 1/35th downsized, right?

If I am right about the 1/72 Dragon's Sherman's shape being wrong, I will then use the rest of the Dragon's kit parts (everything except the hull and chassis), to modernize and accuratize my fleets of Esci Shermans! I am asking this because it is well known that Dragon's 251C halftrack is not the correct dimensions, in both the 1/72 and 1/35th scales--one is just a scaled down version of the other. Thus, if Dragon made a mistake in its 1/35th model, it will carry on to its 1/72 cousin as well.

Finally, the hull of 1/35 Italeri Sherman is also 'not right' to me--the sides are not at a 90 degree angle (i.e., not perpendicular to the ground), but angled out ever so slightly. This is very noticiable from a head on view--the hull sides slope outward, instead of being at a 90 degree angle to the ground. The overall 'box' shape of the Italeri Sherman is correct, though

Hi Anthony,
You asked those same questions a while ago and you have been given all the answers you've asked for.
So why are you doing this again?

Greg

Anthony: Why don't you look at the earlier thread when you posted the same question about the Italeri 1/35 M4A1s. Someone took the time to post a URL to the definitive examination about the supposed 90degree hull walls of M4A1s.

They weren't 90 degrees so Italeri's hull is correct to depict such.

Is your post really a question to find different perspectives and search for other resources? One hopes people don't post remarks just to fish for "Wow! I totally agree!" replies.

I completely agree with both Grzegorz & Roy - this question was asked less than a week ago

I've done several reviews on the recent DML M4s and, in each one i've taken the time to scale them out with a variety of 1/72nd scale plans.

The verdict they're damned accurate, the verdict on this thread? The same as both Grzegorz & Roy

I responded to the earlier version of this as well. If you measure the Dragon 1/72nd scale Shermans, they match the actual dimensions of the real, life size Sherman. If you want to use Dragon parts to "update" your ESCI stuff thats up to you, but if you insist that the dragon dimensions are off, why would you use parts that you feel are inaccurate to update your kits?

The Dragon 1/72nd scale kits are not just downsized versions of their 1/35th scale cousins. In many cases they have been updated and in a few cases, like the 1/72nd scale M4A1, probably represent the most accurate rendering of their subjects.

You obviously like the ESCI kits, and thats fine, everybody is entitiled to their own opinions, but if you do the measurements and the math you will see that your claims about their accuracy, versus that of the Dragon offerings, is wrong.

John

Hi Greg,

I've actually been gone for quite a while from this website, since posting my original question. When I finally returned just the other day, I couldn't find any replies to my original question--thus, the reason for re-posting. Sorry for the confusion! I will search again for the replies. Thanks for the heads up!

Regards, Tony

Hi Roy,

Sorry for all the confusion! I have just replied to Greg, and explained what happened on my end. Either I am the dumbest guy out there when it comes to websites and forums, or something else must have happened, because when I finally came back to this great website the other day, I couldn't find any replies to my original question (and that's why I re-posted my question). Honestly, I don't know what happened or what I did wrong, but when I clicked on my question, there were no replies to be seen. I am sure now that it was "operator error" on my part, and I feel really stupid and embarrassed! (If it means anything, I am a retired Naval Aviator and fly for the airlines now--so maybe there is hope for me yet). I will apologize personally to everyone who took the time to answer my questions.

I just wanted to let you know, Roy, that I will be re-joining AMPS shortly. I let my subscription lapse a few years ago, when I felt that "Boresight" had gone downhill. I appreciate you guys sending me your latest (and 100% improved) issue of "Boresight" and the invitation to re-join. It worked!

Regards, Tony

Hi,

I have really done it now! I've managed, somehow, to even get the "Managing Editor" of "Armorama" involved. I am so sorry for all the confusion that I have caused for everyone. Sir, please accept my apology and thank you for your time and effort. I really do appreciate all that you and everyone else have done for me.

As Managing Editor, I would like to compliment you on your fine work--this is the greatest website on armor out there--bar none!

Sincerely,
Tony

Hi John,

Please accept my deepest apologiy for being so stupid (i.e., posting my questions twice). I honestly did not see any replies to my original question, and that was why I "re-posted" it.

John, thank you for your reply. I sincerely appreciate your time, effort and, most of all, your expertise.

By "using the Dragon parts to fix up the ESCI Shermans", I meant that I was going to use all the beautiful Dragon parts (i.e., the light guards, suspension parts, machine guns, etc, etc)--parts other than the hull and chassis--to update the "chunky" and grossly "inaccurate" ESCI parts. With the latest 21st century "slide mold technology, one can clearly see that those Dragon parts ARE much more crisp and accurate when compared to the anceint ESCI parts.

As far as my perception that the Dragon hull was incorrect, a lot of this also had to do with Dragon's 251 C halftrack. I built Dragon's 1/35th scale 251C when it first came out, only to find out that the hull was incorrect (i.e., AFV's 251C was more accurate). I also built Dragon's 251C in 1/72 scale when it first came out, and I saw that it, too, was "off'" (you couldn't even get a 1/72 figure to sit in the bench seats properly!). Thus, when I compared the Dragon's Sherman to the ESCI's, I figured it was the same thing all over again. But, now that I know that the ESCI hulls are incorrect, I obviously will not do this (swap parts, that is).

Once again, thanks so much for your reply, and sorry about all the confusion that I have caused.

Regards,
Tony

LOL! No need for any kind of apology - I can well understand how frustrating it is when you can't seem to get any response.

Oh, and just to clear it up, i'm only M.E: of the Network's News section...

Tony,

No problem. The difficulty, as I see it, is that for some of us, me included, we have become too used to seeing things portrayed incorrectly. I still can't get used to how thin wings on WW1 a/c (models) are now. They look too doggone delicate to fly!

John