I've heard that, but do you have a link or whatever FB uses? KL

I'll send you a PDF (assuming you're not on FB). Cheers, Christophe

Thanks. I am, but a search didn't find anything that looked like a model group. KL

LINK Cheers, Christophe

goes to login page...

Yes you won't go far without an account... Cheers, Christophe

javascript:PasteSmiley('[email protected]') I unfortunately do tend to presuppose a certain level of understanding of the tank and all its bits and pieces. Ideally, I should use more photos and drawings to illustrate the points, then that moves into the "effort" side of things. But also knowing that most folks actually know dip about it I try to make sure I always invite questions. OK, as far the ICM kit worst failures: The main gun blisters (the "cheeks" on either side of the main gun) are way off and only vaguely similar in shape to the real thing. The engine deck covers aren't even in the ballpark, a cross between earlier and later variations (but representing neither very well) and the intake grills are badly represented. The glacis MG blister looks misshapen and maybe slightly small (to me) and the five bolt heads around that ring on the face of the blister look like little rivets. On some earlier tanks these are "bullet proof" conical head hex-bolts, regular flat headed hex bolts, or on later tank flush fitting slotted head "screws". The wheels, or more accurately the tires on the wheels, are not well represented. The perforations and slots are much too big. Most of the molded in detail seems more than a little sloppy. There are details (such as the 4 suspension tower covers on the turret ring plate) that are represented as being "proud" of (above) their surroundings when they should be flush. Though not really a problem of "detail" the way the upper and lower hulls are assembles (with the track guards attached to the lower) is just a really bad idea. There will be a lot of tedious filling and sanding needed if you don't just choose to lop them off and fill the resulting gap with stock. Overall, I personally get a "toyish" feeling from this one. Who knows? Maybe when I have one in my hands I'll have some nice things to say about it but I kind'a doubt it. The DML kit is by far the better choice even if it does have its own, though generally much smaller, problems. (The two most readily noticeable to a fanatic are the early style engine deck covers [theoretically possible but unlikely for a UTZ tank] and the fact that the driver's hatch is about .80" too far to the right [fixable with a razor saw and some plastic stock]. I have more than a few photos of this if you want to email me directly.) Mark

Thanks. When I get to making that T-34 I'll look you up. KL

I'll go along with that- At least DRAGON gets most of the details, dimensions and shapes of things right most of the time, especially when it comes to their T-34s, Japanese and German kits. Wish I could say that about some of their US/British/Commonwealth kits, especially their BLACK LABEL offerings... If only DRAGON had put their "A" teams to work on their M4-series tanks, their Jeeps and their US Half-Tracks, the modelling world would be a better place. Good thing we at least have ASUKA/TASCA producing their Sherman kits...