First, a T34 is an American prop driven training aircraft. The T-34 is a Soviet tank and the subject of our discussion.
I don't think anyone here was blaming M4 fans (at least I hope not 'cause I'm a Sherman enthusiast myself) for the situation with the T-34.
Instead, I think the point was that M4 and other Allied fans seem to get more respect and have a more listened to voice when it comes to their favorite subjects than do us T-34 buffs.
There are certainly reasons for that; there are fewer of us for one. Another, more generally, being the tendency of many who build Allied kits to take the "it looks like a T-34 (or Sherman, or whatever)" and be done with it.
Over the last few years as a larger number of hard core M4 experts have become more vocal they've also been given better product (certain failures by DML excepted, but heck, look at Tasca).
We on the T-34 side by comparison have only just started to get more involved in the subject of the quality of models on the market. We're obviously not listened to for a damn but there ya go.
What really burns our toast, rains on our parade, pisses in our Chreerios, is that DML had everything they needed to do a good job. I know that first hand.
They just ignored it, and put out something that really wasn't good enough to send out the door.
I mean, DML uses CAD/CAM technology to make their kits, same as everyone. They had to know the parts would not fit (at least if they had bothered to check!). They had all they needed to tell them the detailing was poor. They so easily could have done better.
As for me, personally, I don't expect a kit with detail at the level of, say, DML's PzKpfw IV H, or their new Panthers (I mean, I'd love to see one but don't "expect" it). But, honestly, does it really cost more to cut a mold with a properly sized hull or correctly sized/shaped details than it does to cut a clunker? I kind of doubt it.
Mark
