First developed by the Germans, today's modern armies can get along without fuel and water cans, usually in the 20 liter size. While the US military was slow to embrace the "jerry can," today it has two types:
USGI plastic military fuel can (MFC)
USGI plastic military water can (MWC)
The fuel variety has three parallel handles, while the water variety has a single one. The fuel can has both external and internal threads for pour spouts. The two cans have very different caps, with the water version sporting raised "nipples" on the cap, while the fuel version's spout is attached with a strap. The caps for the two varieties are no compatible, helping to prevent the accidental ingestion of gasoline.
One of the real challenges with modern US fuel or "jerry" cans is the "dimpled" base of many of them (the other variety have a tricky "notch" pattern). The last set of stowage I purchased from an Asian manufacturer who others has some of the better resin accessories out there had the cans attached to the "pour plug" at the base.
Sure enough, after removing the cans with a razor saw and sanding off the rough edges, some of the cans looked less than accurate. What's a mother to do?
Buy the new set of US fuel cans from Perfect Scale Modellbau, that's what.
the set
The set is pretty straightforward: a zip-loc baggie with ten sprues of two jerry cans (for a total of 20), and ten smaller sprues with the gas caps (two each) in a light-gray resin.
the review
It seems like it would be hard to say much about jerry cans other than they're either accurate or they're not (interesting, the package says "fuel cans," but if you search the word "fuel" on PSM's site, it won't come up because they're called "jerry cans" there). But actually there's quite a lot to say, since having the "right" fuel can will add a level of accuracy to your modern build. There's almost no vehicle in the Army's motor pool that isn't going to have at least 1-2 of these babies mounted somewhere on them.
The casting here is very crisp, with no flash or "fuzz." The words "US" and "Fuel 5 Gal" are also nicely-rendered. The set also adds another innovation I like: a separate gas filler cap. Usually resin jerry cans are all one-piece molds. That makes for a bit more work for the modeler, but also greater accuracy.
conclusion
This is the best set of US modern jerry cans on the market. If your cans are going to be mounted with the bases hidden, it might not matter to you, but the separate caps make for a superior item.
Thanks to Perfect Scale Modellbau for providing this review sample. Be sure to mention you saw it reviewed on Armorama when ordering from their website.
SUMMARY
Highs: Superb casting and what's more: the can bottoms are accurate and well-rendered.Lows: None I can detect.Verdict: The best modern US jerry cans on the market.
Our Thanks to Perfect Scale Modellbau! This item was provided by them for the purpose of having it reviewed on this KitMaker Network site. If you would like your kit, book, or product reviewed, please contact us.
No, I don't like it. On the other hand I don't think that there's that much compromise actually made. If it's a dog, it gets classified as such. We don't (unlike others) lay an editorial policy about the products of manufacturer 'X'.
Quite obviously the Site-User comes first. We've rarely (if ever) had a conflict with an advertiser over how their product was rated. There are exceptions obviously, but at the end of the day, the Review Editors can see an ambush coming and act accordingly.
I'll repeat it again, if we were to introduce Comparative Reviews, then it would need a degree of re-coding on the Site. Personally, I like them (sometimes) when it's examples like the Sd.Kfz 7 (faults on all sides) the Staghound advantages over the Italeri one regarding ease of construction compared to Bronco's and Bronco's higher accuracy in areas like the gun and IMO, turret.
There are examples when its a no-brainer. In fairness you couldn't put Tamiya's M3 H/T against DML's, you could though, put DML's Jeep against Tamiya's (the latter would win hands down).
A comparative Review on the best modern U.S. POL cans would be precisely the kind of material which should be given a comparative perhaps though as a Feature rather than Review?
It's not fair to the product, the review or the reviewer when these discussions take place in the review thread...if people want to talk about reviews in general then that should take place in it's own thread.
But I feel compelled to add a couple of quick points:
And you are concerned that this comparison would piss off the manufacturers because . . . Well just why exactly? I'm not talking about ill-informed guesses by half-wit "/reviewers", but comparisons that could actually be mute, with just arrows or balloons highlighting the differing depictions of features on several products compared to reality. I think all modelers would benefit from something like that. The manufacturers, well not so much, but what's the purpose of the review: To provide a service of value to the reader or sell ad space on the site or publication?
KL[/quote]
I am not concerned with who gets pissed off due to reviews, and we have already pissed off a few with the reviews we published. I am sure not going to brag about what vendors we pissed off, and who refuses to send us review samples. We will still review their products just like everyone elses since many of our reviews are purchased items and not dependant on review samples.
We are not set up for comparison reviews due to the format of the site and the amount of reviewers we have. What works for a one man show does not work for us, apples to oranges.
(and now I'm late for work...that pisses me off :-) )
Again, this should be discussed in a separate topic if needed and not in the discussion thread of a specific review.
Seb, there is no reason to apologize, your comments have engendered a very lively and I believe, useful dialogue about this set, fuel can accuracy, resin vs. styrene, etc. This is part of what makes Armorama a fun site to be at.
Regarding comparative reviews, I think they're just not who we are here. While some might think it's part of our job to piss off manufacturers, that's not really germane to the discussion. First of all, a kit I think is inferior might be just fine for a whole legion of modelers based on a variety of evaluation points, including price, availability, ease-of-assembly, etc. Hey, Tamiya's done very well with kits I find below today's standards and requiring MAJOR fixes.
I CAN say that I've never told a reviewer to raise a score, soften a critique or otherwise avoid "telling it like it is." As James alludes to, this doesn't sit well with some companies, who either can't see the faults of their products, or feel that supplying a review sample entitles them to a rave. We don't work that way here, and if we did, I'd quit. My integrity is important to me.
I also have never upped the score of a review to aid a manufacturer, even ones I work with regularly. Every item you release can't be a winner, life just doesn't work that way.
But finally, I think it's important to keep in mind THIS ISN'T ROCKET SCIENCE. Reviews are subjective, and no two reviewers will react the same. That's why it's vital to read LOTS of reviews and get as much information as you can before making a purchase decision. Don't let the reviewer think for you.
As this site is now almost 10 years old we are not exactly *new* to this sort of thing. In fact we have probably produced more internet content (news stories, reviews, features, etc) than any other site and perhaps even all the major sites combined. Sorry if this sounds like me touting the site, but as a matter of fact, this site is actually the product of all these folks, not a handful of people.
As for site policy, etc. we did indeed adopt an informal policy not to do comparative reviews after we had a bit of a debacle with one about 5 years ago. The infamous Etch-mate vs. Hold and fold article. Ironically this was done as a feature and not as a review. Mainly because as James pointed out, our review system is designed to do products individually and not as comparative or grouped items.
That all said if someone wants to submit an article that is a comparative study of different kits of the same subject, I would take a look at it honestly and, unless there was an obvious bias towards one kit or manufacturer, publish it.
Jim
Once again I have to look at this thread with some amusement
The reason why--- I can hear you all asking!
Well, it's very simple really.
On EVERY REVIEW PAGE there is a button that clearly states "YOU REVIEW THIS ITEM" yet over the years I have rarely ever seen another review of an item by another reviewer. And I really do wonder why.
Since at least 98% of the reviews I've done, were purchased by my wallet, my reviews are honestly MY OPINION of that item, and yes I do try to inject a little humor in each one. But again it's MY OPINION, and we all know about opinions--- everybody has one.
So the perfect solution is --- (If there is ever a perfect solution or kit) is for members to simply click on that magic button "YOU REVIEW THIS ITEM" and there is your somewhat comparisons review. Same item, two different view through two different sets of eyes, and perhaps knowledge levels.
OH--- but that would require participation-----
Do any of you actually think for a minute, that when I do a review, I would be upset if someone more knowledgeable than myself on that subject also wrote a review of the same kit or item? I truly believe that any member that writes a review is doing his best and giving his honest OPINION on the item. I truly believe they are doing it to help fellow members and modelers.
Remember the "YOU REVIEW THIS ITEM" button.
What a novel idea.
WOW....all this on the review of jerry cans....
A quick comment....
no one here is perfect...
everyone here has his own niche in the hobby....
opinions are like a-------, everyone has one but they are all different...
Lastly and most important, this is supposed to be fun
In this world where time is almost as valuable as money (and as you get older time is worth even more), someone takes the time to photograph, write and submit a review should be applauded. This thread should be used to ask questions of the reviewer or just thank him. If you disagree with the review, like Grupy states, poney up to the bar and write your own review. And remember a review is an opinion, not a statment of fact.
An educated consumer is the best customer....if you are worried about shelling out $XX for something, read as many reviews as you can. If the subject is more important, than screw the review, its what you want.
Lastly, on the comparitive review....why. Unless 2 compaines put out the excat model in the same year it is like comparing a 2005 Ford to a 2011 Chevy. The technology changes make the compaison useless.
To the staff and ALL who contribute here....thanks, don't change a thing
OK...thats my 2 cents
Rounds Complete!!
No one is looking for or expecting that sort of obvious mismatch. Rather than the example you give, people want to see is a comparison of Company A's 2006 kit of a 1940 Ford vs Company B's 2009 kit of a 1940 Ford vs. Company C's 2011 kit of a 1940 Ford. Or Pz IVD, or M4A1 direct vision, or 105mm howitzer, or jerry can.
I don't see many companies - well, any, actually - changing the contents of a kit while keeping the same stock number. There are plenty of "old" items for sale in shops, at shows, and by individuals. People what to know if the kit is worth getting. And sometimes, the older item is better than the new one. So, a comparison of various brands of kits of the same subject would be useful, I'd think. Maybe Armorama/Wargaming.net doesn't want to do it, but there is a lot of value in it, and people will seek them out.
KL
P.S. The saying is, "Opinions are like [auto-censored]s: Everyone has one and most of them stink." Without that last bit, one might as well say opinions are like noses, or belly buttons, or xiphoid processes. Everyone has one of those as well. There's a reason the word "asshole" was used . . .
There you go again Kurk, using those big words again that I had to look up.
"xiphoid processes"
My xiphoid processes has been out of alignment ever since my last, and third open heart operation.
Comments