Let’s take Kurt’s statement that Commanders forced 1.9” of width into 1.5” of space. If that were the case, then the obsession with the fact that a Tamiya M5 was used in the construction of the T82 kit would have some merit. Also, let’s assume that the belief that the T82, two pilot vehicles, were just M5 units pulled off the assembly line and modified into T82's. Then, the missing driver’s escape hatch on the bottom (which, according to Kurt’s missive, can be easily added, but that’s another discussion) might be an issue. Let’s even assume that Tamiya “notoriously short” engine deck was left in place, and so the kit is fatally flawed and should be ridiculed and remanded to the dust bin. Hey, the “experts” have spoken from on high, and we’re good to go. However, there are some issues with the “expert” position. Let’s start with the actual vehicle. The T82 pilots were manufactured by the Heil Company of Milwaukee (Hunnicutt, "Stuart", pg. 333). Interestingly enough, they weren’t involved in M5 tank production: LINK So, are we looking at a stock M5 hull? Nope. Next, the T82 was based (key word here…) on the M5A1 without an upper hull. So, what we have is a company who doesn’t make M5A1 tanks making a pilot based on the M5A1. Explains why there were no hull stiffeners on the bottom (found by looking at photos). Next, the bottom escape hatch, and why there isn’t one. Three points. Not a stock M5 hull (i.e. we’d have to remove that from a "more accurate" starting point), the pilot not made by a producer of M5A1 tanks (as well as having been a pilot vehicle), and how many open top vehicles have a bottom escape hatch that has to be accessed by going through ammo lockers on the floor over the location of the hatch? Finally, the “experts” have chosen to ignore a comment made by someone who actually has the kit. The T82 kit dimensionally matches the D.P. Dyer drawings (which were used to make the kit…). Besides it being unusual (I assume for the “experts") for us to use drawing to make a kit, are the “experts” stating that the D.P. Dyer drawings are inaccurate, therefore making the kit inaccurate? Well, if you read their analysis, that’s what they’re calling into question. Because a Tamiya hull was used, the kit is fatally flawed, the D.P. Dyer plans are flawed, and by inference, all the kits made are fatally flawed. Consider this statement: “But out and out starting off wrong? For people like Paul and me, that just lessens the value of the kit, and causes us to look closer at the rest of it. After all, if that wasn't caught in the kit research, what else is wrong?” So, because of the starting point, regardless of what has been stated about the actual T82 kit, what else is wrong? So the kit is less “valuable” because of where we started? So, since we can say the starting point was flawed, we can ignore whatever was done to correct the starting point, we can ignore the research that was done (see above), and we can ignore the results as related to us from people who actually have the kit. Then, because we ignore all of this, we can apply this globally, and we can call into question the entire body of work done by this company. Yeah, that works. Oh, but you’re not saying that? They why make this statement: “Yeah, the hobby is supposed to be fun. That's why we shy away from expensive kits that we know only approximate the prototype, or "more or less" look like what they are supposed to: They aren't fun.” Nice global statement.

I did not state that at all. I said it is a logical question: "I'd have to wonder if everything wasn't squished and distorted such that even [using the innards on an AFV Club hull] was impossible." Actually it is page 332, but there's no need to quibble. The fact that Heil converted these vehicles doesn't mean that they were built by them from scratch. Look on page 343. It says that the T27 MMC was built by Chevrolet, but it is a modified M5A1 hull (originally RN 304_699). Or page 377, showing a flame tank made under contract to Standard Oil. Or 383, the T8 vehicles converted by Marmon-Herrington. None of these companies built M5s either. They didn't have to. In other words, a stock lower hull. The Tamiya M5A1 uses the same lower as their M3. A bit of a problem considering that the space between the idler arm pivot and rear bogie was different. Really? That's an interesting observation. Can you post the photo view that lead you to that conclusion [compared to a similar M5 view]? So, are you saying that it was impossible for a plate to be welded in place in the floor closing off the unneeded and unusable escape hatch? Is that why this obvious explanation is dismissed? This is the argument? No company reports, no Ordnance documents, no original data? Which drawings would those be? There are no T82 drawings in Hunnicutt's Stuart book. There are drawings of a standard M5 and M5A1 though (albeit in 1/48 not 1/35). So what this fellow has reported is that the kit matches the drawings of a standard M5 hull. But wait, didn't you just say that the T82 didn't use a standard M5 hull? The Dyer drawings in the Hunnicutt books are in many cases tracings of the Ordnance general arrangement drawings. They are known to be incorrect in many details because the Ordnance drafters did not update the drawings (tracings themselves) completely when making revisions and later models. For example, on page 179 the tool stowage arrangement isn't that of an M5 (pg 183 top, showing SN 2, 3, or 4; pg 185 bottom, or pg 187 middle), but of the M3E3 and the first M5 which was a one-off production pilot. (Now before you say that the drawing shows SN 1, where is the center glacis MG? Why does it have the stepped transmission housing joint that wasn't introduced until SN 52? Why does it have a hull ventilator that wasn't introduced until SN 501? In short, if it is SN 1, why doesn't it look like SN 1?) Umm, more or less, yeah. It's not like it would be the first time: Look at all the Sherman Jumbo turrets that were made to the wrong shape based on the incorrect turret top profile added by Dyer when he made the drawings for Hunnicutt's Sherman. Yup. Again, yup. Just because someone says they like the kit doesn't mean the kit is accurate. You want to talk about corrections? You want to talk about research? Look at the kit suspension compared to the real T82. The T82 used special 16 inch wide tracks. The kit doesn't include tracks but says to use the standard 11.6 inch wide track from AFV Club. The wider tracks required the use of a special sprocket with a deeply recessed hub. The kit has a standard M3/M5 sprocket. The T82 had an M5 idler housing. The kit has an M3 housing. The T82 has a rubber-tired idler wheel. The kit has an all steel idler wheel. I saw this just by looking at six pictures in Hunnicutt. How come the research didn't catch that? How come it wasn't corrected in the kit? I never said that at all. In fact, I specifically emphasized in my first sentence that I was talking about this kit in particular. However, I will say now that what I see in this kit is not much different from what I've seen in the ten or so kits from this company that I have examined in person on sale at shows or that friends have bought, nor is it much different from the two or three that I've seen covered in detailed articles on the web. The company makes models of interesting, desirable, subjects. Unfortunately the execution, in my opinion, includes compromises I would've expected - and gladly tolerated - in a late 80's resin kit but which diminish the value of the kits in 2013. It's simply a matter of all of us being more sophisticated modelers and demanding better kits these days. It is a global statement. That's what I think regardless of who makes the kit. It states exactly why I didn't buy the DML T28, the Trumpeter BTR-40, the later DML Shermans, and others. KL

I'm not trying to fan a fire here but, Jon, a quick look at the real thing, here: will show that there are noticable differences between the kit and the actual prototype. The deep sprocket is plainly visible as is the rubber tire idler. The definition on the AFV-Club bogie components is simply miles ahead of the ancient Tamiya/Academy equivalents. And where would we get those tracks? The point that the prototype was not made by one of the main production shops actually pretty much guarantees that the basic hull was a stock M5A1 hull. Building a working tank hull is not at all a simple task. For it to be right, it would have needed jigs and fixtures, all of which would have been at the production shops and not at Heil. The Heil prototypes would have been used to develop the T82 production jigs & fixtures for the eventual production shop if it had gone into production. Jon, I have made masters for kits before(several for the old incarnation of Commanders). While they were good at the time, the masters I made years ago would not cut it today and I would have to do better. The market demands better. I made a T82 back in the late 80s. I built the best hull I could at the time and it looks almost exactly like this kit. It used the Tamiya M5A1 and its inadequate suspension. I didn't fix the sprocket or the idler and didn't correct the bogie units. All of that was acceptable in 1990. It isn't OK anymore. Times change and the basis of this kit is stuck in the early 1990s. Does that make it less valuable to _me_? Yep, every time. I value accuracy and, as Kurt said, if I can see inaccuracies from a distance, I then worry about those things I can't see immediately. If I pay the money, I want the kit to be right. And this one simply isn't. Kurt, there are Dyer drawings of the T82, they are in an old Bellona Prints issue. I don't have the issue, but do have a copy of the drawing. It also means that they are 45+ years old and, as you said, were probably traced when created back in the 1960s. Paul

Thinking about it and looking at the tracks, it appears that they used extended end connectors on T55E1 (IIRC) metal chevron tracks, ala the E9 modification to the Sherman. This also provides an explanation for the recessed sprocket hub, namely that the suspension is spaced out from the hull, again like the E9, not that the sprocket, bogie wheels, idler wheel, return rollers, or track blocks themselves are wider. Even so, I don't know of anyone making T55E1 tracks or the possibly unique end connectors. KL

OK Kurt, I guess we’re not going to get your Seal of Fun for our kit, but your rebuttal does leave me with a few questions. First is your comments (and confirmations of my conclusions from those comments) bring up another interesting point to which I would like your answer for. You state that D.P Dyer’s drawings are based on Ordinance drawings, and that a lot of those Ordinance drawings are inaccurate. Now, applying your own standards, that would then bring into question D.P. Dyer’s work, since, as you say, if the starting point for a project is wrong, “What else is wrong?” So, knowing this, we add into the equation that Hunnicutt relied on flawed drawings (your standard) to illustrate his books. Therefore, under your standard, we need to ask about Hunnicutt’s work, “What else is wrong?” That would then lead us to believe, under your standard, and you agreed this was the standard, that Hunnicutt’s Stuart is fatally flawed, correct? To continue with the “What else is wrong?” standard you have set, let’s consider the dimensions issue you have been very persistent about. Your posts have made it sound as if the dimensions of the Tamiya kit are so far off that details of the interior of the T82 would have to be compressed (or “squished”) in order to fit into the hull. However, the only issue I can find with the Tamiya hull (besides it being more an M3 rather than an M5 hull) is that it is too short and the location of the suspension is incorrect (not properly spaced). Nothing I can find mentions an improper width for the hull tub. Well, both of those are very easily fixed as the first step in making a pattern. We did it with the M37 kit, the combat cars, as well as the M2 Light Tank series kit. You have also stated that adding missing details is not an issue for you personally, so whether or not an escape hatch or stiffeners are present is irrelevant, by your standards. To assume that we used the lower hull straight out of the box is to assume we do not do research, which is incorrect. So, since your argument began with a false assumption, and applying your standard, “What else is wrong?” with your argument? Next we move to the following statement, made by you: “Which drawings would those be? There are no T82 drawings in Hunnicutt's Stuart book.” That you reference the Hunnicutt book, which by your standard is fatally flawed, once again asks the question, “What else is wrong?”, but I digress. As we have seen, two people have confirmed that Dyer did make a set of T82 drawings. You may not have been aware of them, but as you have confirmed, that does not matter since your statement stems from a flawed premise. So, once again, by your standard, you have made a false statement which calls into question the remainder of your argument, and we all must ask, “What else is wrong?” Now, we get to a detail. You state: “The T82 used special 16 inch wide tracks.” Now, by your standard (and I know this is from a flawed source), Hunnicutt states that the T82 used 14” T55E2 track, not special track as you say. So once again, a flawed statement by you, which, by your standard, leads to the question “What else is wrong?” But, you continue and claim the following: “namely that the suspension is spaced out from the hull” Well, it doesn’t seem this is the case, since the photos at the top of page 332 of Hunnicutt doesn’t show grousers on the inside of the tracks (two photos show standard T55E2 track with a steel idler wheel). So, taking false or incorrect information, and basing a statement like this on that information once again makes the statement fatally flawed, and begs the question, by your standard, “What else is wrong?” Finally, I would like to ask you for an opinion on a statement you made. You state the following: ” Just because someone says they like the kit doesn't mean the kit is accurate.” My question for you is the converse of that statement: “Just because someone says they dislike the kit doesn’t mean the kit is inaccurate.” Is this also true?

I said Ordnance drawings, but again, I won't quibble. Also, my statement about the "bad starting point" for this kit was in reference to the Tamiya M5A1 kit, not any document. Are the Hunnicutt books - or any other text that uses Dyer drawings "fatally flawed"? Not by a long stretch. First off, the illustrations are not a key part of his books, the text and photographs are. To the best of my recollection, I don't think there is a single reference in the text of any of the ten books to the Dyer (or Duplessis) illustrations. It is as if they were inserted as an afterthought. So, whatever errors are are present in the Dyer drawings really don't reflect on the quality of the information in the books at all: they aren't Hunnicutt's work. Second, I don't think the Dyer drawings are uniformly "fatally flawed". Like any other collection of works, some are better than others. However given the errors that can be identified in a close (or in some cases even casual) comparison of the drawings and the photographs in the Hunnicutt books, anyone intending to use the Dyer drawings as a reference must ask themselves, "What else is wrong with these?" Nothing. You say you did research. Why is the suspension so different than that shown in the photographs of the T82? Was that error caused by a lack of research or a desire to cut corners in mastering the kit? The kit suspenion is clearly wrong. There must be a reason, eh? Again this is simply an issue of Dyer drawings and their known problems. It does not matter where they are published. They need to be examined in great detail before using them as a primary reference for such a project. They should have key features and dimension checked against known quantities and photographs. If you did all this great research why does the kit have an M3 suspension when the real vehicle didn't? Just what do you expect people to think about the kit based on that? I'll tell you what's wrong - your whole statement. Page 332 notes that the original pilot for the 105mm HMC built at APG used 14 inch tracks, but that's not what the Commanders kit represents. The kit is the vehicle that was converted by Heil and designated the T82. Pg 332 also states that the T82 differed from the APG pilot in several ways, including "new 16 inch tracks". The differences in the tracks and the vehicles themselves are readily apparent by glancing at the two photos on the top of 332 and the two at the bottom. Is this indicative of the "research" that went into this kit? Really? It's like you didn't even read the text. Sheesh. The caption of those photos is "Above is the original pilot of the 105mm howitzer motor carriage T82 as converted from a light tank M5A1 at Aberdeen Proving Ground." This vehicle doesn't have a spaced suspension. It doesn't have a recessed sprocket hub either. You know why? This isn't a T82 and it isn't the subject of the kit! It doesn't even LOOK the same! Why would you even bring it up?!? That last part is certainly true. But when people show that in multiple ways that the kit is PLAINLY inaccurate, you can bet that it really is! Look: You are wrong. You don't know you're wrong, you won't let yourself see that you are wrong, but you're wrong. The "points" that you've posted here just make you look worse, because you weren't able to even tell the which portions of the text (four whole paragraphs . . .) applied to the subject of your kit. You did all this "research" and you can't even tell that what pertains to your kit subject rather than an altogether different vehicle?!? If I were you, I would just let it go. You aren't helping yourself. If people want to buy your kit, good for you and swell for them. I don't care. Don't try to make the situation to be something it is not. KL

Ok, I'm gonna weigh in here. What I'm adding is strictly from comparing the photographs on Hunnicutt, p.332-333 and the photos of the kit. The one dimensional issue I'm seeing is the angle on the front superstructure armor plate. It looks like it should be roughly 60-degrees and on the kit it looks about 75-degrees (using my Mk1 eyeball). Jon, if you'd like, send me the kit hull dimensions and I'll compare them to the M8 down in the FA museum. The idler needs a tire (easy enough to add), the drive sprocket needs to be deepened and widened, and it needs new tracks. Fatally flawed? Hardly. Will it take some work? Sure, but what beginning modeler is going to know what a T82 is, much less want to build one. Guys, criticize a kit's shortcomings, suggest improvements, but don't say a kit's "fatally flawed" and not worth building. That does nothing but kill kit sales. When it's the only game in town and the fixes are fairly straightforward, don't badmouth the producer's effort. We need to support the companies that are putting these kits out, otherwise they're not going to be around for very long. Getting down from the soapbox. Jon

And what experienced modeller is going to want to spend 110 bucks for a vehicle that he has to rebuild the lower hull and scratchbuild new tracks for? Not many I know, that's for sure. Actually, if you look closely at the statements above, it is only Jon from Commanders who is using the phrase "fatally flawed". The kit certainly is seriously flawed and you need a a fair bit more than just the suspension upgrade to fix it properly, but neither Kurt nor I have used the phrase fatally flawed. As long as buyers know the maker has not really done their research in fairly obvious ways, then buyers will go into the deal with open eyes and more power to them. The fixes are not minor. Fixing the lower rear hull issues are a serious pain, the rear idler mount is completely new and the basic shapes of the suspension units were fine 30 years ago, but simply don't cut it now that better is readily available. The new sprocket will need a lathe to make and don't even start on the tracks. And the fact that it is the only kit in town of a vehicle type is no justification for cutting corners, charging normal prices and declaring that an obviously inaccurate model is accurate. I feel no _requirement_ to support any company who cuts corners on masters. In the same way that I feel no need to support AEF & their frequently crappy products, I feel no need to support a company who can not perform the basic research or use a readily available kit as a starting point for a new model. If I was to buy the kit not knowing what I happen to know about Stuarts and then read these comments regarding the inaccuracies, I'd be seriously p!ssed. If I know about the problems and buy it anyway, that's a different story and then one might buy it for the challenge. I want my models to be accurate representations of the real thing and I strive for it on all my models. I'm not saying everyone should build with the same things in mind as I do, but everyone who wants to should know about the problems of any kit and then make up their own minds based on that. If it means the marketplace doesn't want to lay out $110 for a kit with fundamental flaws, whose problem is that? Who made the decision to use a sub-par starting point for their master? Not the customer, that's for sure. Making mistakes is not limited to this or any other manufacturer. DML's recent T28 has a major flaw in the suspension and the shape of the hull sides because they decided to use incorrect suspension components. Many people are buying it anyway. I might, but I have to say that this revelation has made me think twice, and even a third time, as to whether I want the kit or not. But at least I know and can make a rational decision. Argueing with the people who point out the flaws doesn't make the model any more accurate either. It simply isn't accurate in the lower hull and it's obvious looking at the few available photos of the T82 and looking at the many photos of a stock M5A1 hull. I don't know what else to say past that. Knowing that, buy it if you want with a clear concience. Paul

Guys you have made your point but some of these replies are now beginning to look like baiting.