You don't seem to understand that the ability to see shape and size discrepancies is not something that you can "turn off" and ignore to "just build"... For me it takes away all the fun of building the kit if I know that however well I will build it, it will still be very noticeably (FOR ME!) Inaccurate model in the end... I'm an engineer and I can assure you that no real vehicle can be 500mm off from the specified dimensions (unless it is something as huge as coal excavator that is 200 meters long)... A few centimeters, yes, maybe. But never half a meter!

(Slight) size discrepancies are something I can live with. However, when the shape is obviously incorrect, I can't. Nowadays the latter is pretty unforgiveable. The sources are there and the information is pretty widely available. When manufacturers cut corners or are simply sloppy with the information provided to them, there is no damned excuse. I think from your own experience Pawel, certain manufacturers do tend to take the 'easier' and less 'correct' route?

When the size in one dimension is incorrect, yest correct in the other two, guess what? You get incorrect shape as well. I never thought I'd say this, but I'm glad I got the Cromwell offering. Of course, THAT one I had a hand in.

Please speak for yourself, Gino. I can see the difference clearly without calipers or any other tools. Probably few people can notice it the way I do, but still...[/quote] I guess I should have said "most people" won't notice it. Like I said, they are both wrong. To me, the width error is not as noticeable as the length error. Personally, I have no interest I the vehicle, but I see where you are coming from.

Nope, Panda's is about 6mm too narrow and Meng's is about 10mm too long. Neither is correct. Check out this thread for more info.[/quote] I've seen it. To me 6mm to narrow and 10mm is negligible when it comes to especially considering Tank Fixers remarks about no two cougars being the same. A little to narrow or long by a few mm is better then what Dragon is giving us..[/quote] I'm assuming that you are talking about some of DRAGON's BLACK LABEL kits? Though I concentrate on WWII US/Allied AFVs and Soft-skinned vehicles and some modern US vehicles, I'll have to give DRAGON the prize for their WWII German stuff. I don't dwell on some of the "mistakes" when it comes to their older M4s. Their newer M4s and M7s, etc are pretty darned good. ASUKA/TASCA's M4s are better, but not by much. I prefer DRAGON's "DS" tracks to ASUKA/TASCA's, and I've successfully used them on my ASUKA/TASCA M4s. Yes, this thread is about present-day AFVs, but I have to take issue when the comment "A little too narrow or too long by a few mm is better than what DRAGON is giving us.." The questionable "DRAGON" stuff is coming from BLACK LABEL, specifically... 6mm too narrow on the PANDA kit, and 10mm too long on the MENG kit, ARE noticeable defects, even to my 62-year-old Mk.1 eyeballs... DRAGON's M1-series Abrams MBTs ARE THE BEST M1s that money can buy- I have TAMIYA's latest M1 kits, and you know what? DRAGON's M1s ARE better, and you can get them for less money than TAMIYA's... As for the crew at BLACK LABEL, I just shake my head in wonder. BLACK LABEL's SECOND M48 corrects some of the issues of their first M48. I understand that their SECOND M103 is better than the first. (?) I haven't read the review covering the second M103, so I will have to reserve judgement on that one. I haven't bought any of the BLACK LABEL kits precisely because of the bad things that I've read about them on this very site. I don't know much about BLACK PLAGUE's SECOND M6 (cast hull)either, so I'm going to reserve judgement on this kit as well until I know more. To me, it sounds like these new Cougars are possibly the results of both MENG and PANDA having taken on a few refugees from BLACK PLAGUE!!!

Thanks for that! This is the best proof that my nit picking attitude and good eye for shape discrepancies sometimes can bring something good to this hobby

Thanks for that! This is the best proof that my nit picking attitude and good eye for shape discrepancies sometimes can bring something good to this hobby [/quote] And THANK YOU Pawel! DRAGON has produced MANY, MANY EXCELLENT KITS, despite some of their BLACK LABEL kits... I just wish that DRAGON had gone ahead with the M3 Lee/Grant Mediums instead of shelving them. I wonder how they might have fared with an "all-new" series of M3/M3A1/M5/M8 HMC-line of kits. AFV CLUB sure let us down in letting their version of the M8 HMC slip away into a quiet death...

2 Amb variants were indeed deployed to Kabul.

Gents I want what some of you guys are Smokin!!! Yes I hope that all of us don't lose our goal of model accuracy. But let's please compare the right 1:1 vehicle pic with the right model kit representation. As far as the discrepancies go..... I would much rather prefer to start with a kit and with my modeling skills make needed corrections or modifications, then start with nothing and have to scratch build the whole model. This is what causes shelf queens,and the models we stash and never complete, because of the grief and time of making everything on our own. Yes we are all entitled to our own opinion, but we have become spoiled, and need to be grateful of the model industries years of improving kits and ability. We could still be stuck with Box scale.....which in my book doesn't represent anything in the 1:1 world of vehicles. All manufacturers keep producing kits...It's up to you..choose to purchase or not, it's called free will But you must accept what you choose without rebuttal. Just my .02 Todd