I have to say that all sides are poorly served with kit decals. How many German sheets only have one division insignia when the real tank most likely had two? Build Blitzkrieg armor you never get all three rhomboid with numbers or all the white crosses. And how many kits have that unknown unit, even Allied kits when the unit insignia is right there. It's like the kit is super researched but when they get to the markings they drop it in a guy's lap with two photos to have done the next day. I liked it better when they had those sheets with every unit ever on it, even though half the markings never appeared on the vehicle. A whole selection of numbers and insignia rather than a tiny sheet with two specific vehicles with certain markings missing. You know for US vehicles just provide a pile of numbers and letters and U.S.A. and I'll put it together myself.

A pet peeve of mine too. Unless there's an obvious side view photo serial or census numbers are all too rare in kits. It's also often due to something obscuring it in the reference photos used so throw some storage over there Just don't feel like looking it up for every Allied kit I build. [/quote] Ah-Haaa! See? This is EXACTLY the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say that WWII US/Allied modelers have been on the "short end of the stick", NOT ONLY as far as the vehicles, the men, and the equipment are concerned, BUT with the ATTENTION TO DETAIL, as well. I've been "cry-babying" about this stuff for years... ECHELON. should be able to help to correct this with their wide arraY OF DECALS. How is it that the "Panzer-Clique" can get even the most OBSCURE stuff, and we always have to go begging..? MENG's new M4A3 76mm (Wet) hasn't even made it out of their doors yet, and "our Eagle-Eyed" modelers caught several mistakes of theirs that had to be addressed... BTW- There is more new info from MENG over on "The MODELLING NEWS" site, regarding this new Sherman of theirs. I caught that at about 4:00 AM this morning...[/quote] Hi Dennis. As you know i fully support your arguments that Aliied armour is less well served by the major manufacturers, but really when it comes down to commenting about cap badges and markings we are running the risk of looking a gift horse in the mouth. As has been said german armour also has difficukties in that respect, with Dragons ^unknown Unit Eastern front 1945^, and that was for one of their Panther Ausf.D V2 prototypes which never went anywhere near a battlefield, and despite the number of Tigers on the market, David Bryden's Tiger 1 info site manages to find fault with almost every kit produced including the RFM kits. The answer is for as many people as possible to buy these kits and show that there is a market for them, and then we may well get others. Insofar as Tamiya is concerned they are one of the least guilty of ignoring us at least in respect of British Armour.

A pet peeve of mine too. Unless there's an obvious side view photo serial or census numbers are all too rare in kits. It's also often due to something obscuring it in the reference photos used so throw some storage over there Just don't feel like looking it up for every Allied kit I build. [/quote] Ah-Haaa! See? This is EXACTLY the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say that WWII US/Allied modelers have been on the "short end of the stick", NOT ONLY as far as the vehicles, the men, and the equipment are concerned, BUT with the ATTENTION TO DETAIL, as well. I've been "cry-babying" about this stuff for years... ECHELON. should be able to help to correct this with their wide arraY OF DECALS. How is it that the "Panzer-Clique" can get even the most OBSCURE stuff, and we always have to go begging..? MENG's new M4A3 76mm (Wet) hasn't even made it out of their doors yet, and "our Eagle-Eyed" modelers caught several mistakes of theirs that had to be addressed... BTW- There is more new info from MENG over on "The MODELLING NEWS" site, regarding this new Sherman of theirs. I caught that at about 4:00 AM this morning...[/quote] Hi Dennis. As you know i fully support your arguments that Aliied armour is less well served by the major manufacturers, but really when it comes down to commenting about cap badges and markings we are running the risk of looking a gift horse in the mouth. As has been said german armour also has difficukties in that respect, with Dragons ^unknown Unit Eastern front 1945^, and that was for one of their Panther Ausf.D V2 prototypes which never went anywhere near a battlefield, and despite the number of Tigers on the market, David Bryden's Tiger 1 info site manages to find fault with almost every kit produced including the RFM kits. The answer is for as many people as possible to buy these kits and show that there is a market for them, and then we may well get others. Insofar as Tamiya is concerned they are one of the least guilty of ignoring us at least in respect of British Armour. [/quote] Hello, dsjohn! Please understand that I'm NOT arguing against you, but that I am only AGREEING with you and adding some of my own thoughts to what you've written... I'm going to go a little bit backwards, here: Re: TAMIYA and British Armor- We could use an all-new tooling Crusader Mk.I, a Covenanter Cruiser Mk.V, and a readily available Light Tank Mk.IV, could we not. Also, if TAMIYA can re-release an M3 Stuart with all-new tooling, could we not use a full-on British version? TAMIYA COULD have improved on their M10, which naturally would have led to a better Achilles. OK. So now, that brings me to their Cromwell and Centaur kits- THESE two kits should be re-tooled, as I find that when knowledgeable and experienced British & Scottish modelers go to build these two, they nearly always have to do some conversion & correction work. TAMIYA's little Universal Carrier could ALSO stand some extensive re-tooling, or better yet, an entirely new kit, with LINK & LENGTH TRACKS, rather than those antediluvian VINYL THINGS. Their Churchill/Crocodile? I don't have to go into detail here, either. Re-tool it or come up up with a brand-new one. The AFV CLUB Churchills are GREAT kits, but I think that AFV CLUB didn't necessarily have to make these kits so complex. While I'm at it, we all could use a series of Morris Commercial Lorries, could we not? Also, TAMIYA COULD come up with better 1/35 Periscopes, Handles and tie-downs, couldn't they? Replace ALL of their 1/35 Tanks' vinyl Tracks with PLASTIC Link & Length Tracks, and I'm not just talking about WWII US/Allied Tanks and Tracked Vehicles, either. And now, I'm going to say it AGAIN- Give us a brand-new, all-new tooling M8 75mm HMC (Howitzer Motor Carriage). If TAMIYA can manage to give us an all-new M3 Stuart, they can also serve us well with an all-new M3A1, an M5A1, AND an M8 HMC. Their M3 Lee/Grant Medium Tank kits are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. NEW ONES, PLEASE... Yes, I realize that TAKOM has done the M3 Lee/Grants. MINIART HAS YET to deliver their versions of the same. What's the hold-up??? So, if not TAMIYA, then I WISH that someone else would produce all of the above... Re: David Bryden's Tiger I info site- A wonderful thing. But I think that Mr. Bryden is expecting to see 100 or more different Tiger I kits in order to represent all of those different, little niggling details. That's NOT GONNA HAPPEN... Maybe I'm nuts, but I think that modelers in general, are becoming so spoiled and lazy that they just want to shake the box, and out pops a perfect model of whatever they choose to "build". I came up in the 1950s and '60s, when serious modelers were building GOOD, ACCURATE models out of JUNK, and accomplishing this was a SKILL, not just something to pass the time with. In those days, we SCRATCH-BUILT our OWN details, Interiors, and many times, the entire model was a custom-built effort. Re: DRAGON, and their "oddball" WWII German vehicles, such as that Panther Ausf.D V2. How many of those things did German WWII Industry produce..? The ONLY REASON that DRAGON came up with that kit was to capitalize on another Panther model, hoping that its obscurity would make it a big seller. Right... I'm SURE that that DRAGON Panther Ausf.D V2 kit broke ALL SALES RECORDS... And DRAGON's "BLACK PLAGUE" kits..? Please... Their "BLACK PLAGUE" design and production crew needs a serious "talking-to"... Re: The cap Badges and a few markings- I agree with you 100%!!! More and more, modelers ARE "looking a gift horse in the mouth", as you said. If modelers are looking for PERFECTION over cap badges and a few markings, they are also "NOT SEEING THE FOREST FOR ALL THE TREES". The dimensions and some of the shapes in the basic M10 kit, from which this new Achilles is derived, ARE OFF. Then there are other details, besides. Their M10/Achilles NEEDS a MAKE-OVER. DITTO, their M4A3E8 "Easy Eight" kit... That's all I'm going to say about TAMIYA and their US/British Armor. Let the other modelers moan and "cry-baby" about TAMIYA's German and Russian stuff. And TO BE SURE, I'm sick and tired of "cry-babying". But remember folks, I"M the one who said that this would be a welcome kit, in the FIRST response to its announcement on this site. It is YOU people that came up with all of the aforementioned criticisms of this new TAMIYA Achilles kit, not I...

Hi Dennis Absolutely accept you are not arguing against me, nor am I with you. With regard to the Panther, the answer is 2, one with a turret, and one without. I think we will see a retooled M3 from Tamiya. One of the trends I have noticed lately is for Lease lend vehicles to be produced with Soviet markings/crews. That is certainly the case with the Valentine, the Stuart, the re issued Matilda, and the M3A1 Scout car. This also explains Miniart's Valentine, and their proposed M3. I also think they will issue an M36 Jackson based on the M10, as on the face of it this would be "easy". Thunder models do a Scammell in various forms, and a Morris gun Truck, but again a Quad and some Bedfords would be nice. I wholeheartedly agree with your list of omissions and required retoolings. To it I would add a retooled Comet, as the Bronco one is now several years old, and difficult to find, (and we did make over 1000 of the things), and a Challenger. Funnily enough,not so fussy about the Matilda Mk 1 other than as a curiosity

The Tamiya M10 and Achilles are less "off" than their predecessors. And the Achilles has a better interior than the Afv-club which has no ammo for the hull storage racks. The revised Academy kits still have suspension problems in that the bogies are not weighted for a loaded vehicle. The beret badges I think are a matter of marketing. Tamiya wants to make generic British tankers so they have the RTR badge. Be nice if they included alternative heads with RAC helmets, but there's already plenty of aftermarket. And the extra gear is the same bit from the Crusader III that was originally in an issue of the Universal carrier? So it's recycled as generic British gear sprue. Again plenty of aftermarket. Most vehicle specific resin gear sets include enough storage for multiple vehicles. And honestly we need a new Crusader I/II and other Cromwell variants. And it's time for Tamiya to take their new Sherman VVSS suspension with the new M4A3 hull with revised 75 mm and 105 mm turrets to replace that 1980s Sherman. If Tamiya updated their older Sherman kits they'd own it just on name recognition.

So then, my Friends, we are in agreement over about 95% of what has been discussed here. When I said that the TAMIYA M10/Achilles kits are "off", I was talking about their width and a few other things. I was not comparing them to AFV CLUB's M10 kit AT ALL. That kit is better left in the hobby shops which may still have it in their stock. I have had one of those since AFV CLUB first released it; it is STILL UN-BUILT, and it's going to stay that way- I don't want to bother with it AT ALL. Every time I see that damned thing sitting on one of my storage shelves, I get a headache...

I agree 100% here, and they could add also make the VVSS 76mm gun tank as well. All those years they had the old late hull 75mm tank, and never did the 76mm turret!

I agree 100% here, and they could add also make the VVSS 76mm gun tank as well. All those years they had the old late hull 75mm tank, and never did the 76mm turret![/quote] Unless you'd want to "hijack" the 76mm Turret from TAMIYA's "Easy Eight" kit, which would be an expensive proposition. You can get a complete RESIN 76mm Turret with all of the right casting marks, etc cheaper on Ebay...

I agree 100% here, and they could add also make the VVSS 76mm gun tank as well. All those years they had the old late hull 75mm tank, and never did the 76mm turret![/quote] Unless you'd want to "hijack" the 76mm Turret from TAMIYA's "Easy Eight" kit, which would be an expensive proposition. You can get a complete RESIN 76mm Turret with all of the right casting marks, etc cheaper on Ebay...[/quote] Actually right now what you do is get the Tamiya E8 and the 105 mm howitzer tank and switch turrets. And I read somewhere a piece by someone who had measured the turret on the real thing, compared it to existing kits and quote the manufacturer specifications and tolerances. The turrets are supposedly within tolerance for production. Someone also did it to several different Matilda's and found each one was different by several inches. Then there's the infamous Academy M3 Lee "mismeasure" . The first reviewers used a set of plans and measurements and said the Lee was totally off. A resin company did a whole new resin hull based on it. Then someone went to the archives and got the actual production specifications and design drawings. Academy was right and all the experts were wrong. I don't trust measurements and micrometers. Production tolerances mean things will vary, even things that aren't supposed to like castings. Temperature and humidity does stuff like that. Things have to be grossly wrong like the Black Death M103. But I'll still build it just like my Afv-club Achilles.