I made some photos at work today...

Between gluing the parts yesterday and fitting them this morning, I made some MINOR modifications for better fit, though nothing really unusual or difficult. No heavy duty cutting, remodelling, etc.



I removed the "hook" from the rear mud flaps as well. This detail is thick and blobby anyway. The kit parts do not match the instruction sheet either... See the next photo as well...





Now with the lower rear hull in place, I can put it up and forward a millimeter or two. The arrows show where I modified those little filler parts.



The front joint snaps together (sand the inside of the front mud flaps there is a bad seam



The back fits okay. The parts are not glued just sitting (I have not glued the grills inside the top deck yet).



On the bottom there is a slight un-evenness from front to back my a mm or so but I dont think its hard to hide the step and the angle probably will not show on the finished model. I can trim those small filler parts down some more and add some sheet styrene back underneath the rear mud flaps.



The fit isnt stellar but its not the horror story other people have described. its no worse than say a typical Alan kit...

Hi Dave:)

Actually, the mod you made brings that part closer to what it should look like....

http://pblinov.narod.ru/galleries/tanks/3476/stz42/target48.html

One thing to note though, the rear diff covers are too small on the CH kit. They should be much "beefier".....

http://pblinov.narod.ru/galleries/tanks/3476/stz42/target38.html

The welds around this cover are also missing on the CH kit.

Best regards,

Scott

The most significant problem with the hull in #6388 is that the roof plate over the fighting compartment is 2.6mm too long. This extra length has been added between the turret race and front edge of the roof plate.

The resulting hull is flawed: the excess length (between the turret and front edge of the top plate) also affects the length and position of the welds joining top and side plates and the length and location of the fender panels.

Even if you force assembly by hacking away at the front and back of the hull, the turret still sits too far aft, by 2.6mm, and those welds and the fenders need to be rebuilt.

My comments, and my measurements, are based on a #6388 kit I bought shortly after release. If DML has tinkered with the moulds, it is news to me, but that is certainly the status of the kit as first released.

I would expand upon my comments regarding DML and their T-34s, but this is a family audience, and I would likely be banned for using bad words.

Regards
Scott Fraser

I will say, on my kits (I have a couple) that C1, C2, and rear fenders are not part of the problem. Even without them the hull parts don't fit together.
I'm floored that you were able of assemble the thing without serious heartache. lol

Still, I tried eight ways to Sunday to figure out how to fit the thing together without major surgery. Nothing I've tried has worked well.

I have been told that DML had agreed to re-do the hull but hadn't heard whether or not that's happened.


Mark

I have been told that DML had agreed to re-do the hull but hadn't heard whether or not that's happened.

Hi Mark, if true, this is good news --- first I've heard of it. I need some.

Cheers

I know the kit has various accuracy issues... I just was able to get the hull together without the huge hassle that a lot of people mention.

To be honest I am not super fussy and if I can build the kit up and paint it nicely, it will look fine with my Tamiya kits, etc. Now if i were making a show model, thats a different story... But I am not. It will sit on a shelf in my store to get eyed and fingered and to gather dust...

To each his own, David. It just strikes me that if this were a Sherman or any kind of German tank, the whole modelling world would be up in arms. But this is only a T-34...

Cheers

Bronco releases some esoteric (to me) British tank and some undefinable error on the engine deck is treated like the coming of the Antichrist.

...I have to agree!..I thought that this subject would get the same treat ment as the German subjects..however, I've been told that for example the worst sellling German Kits outsells soviet kits almost triple if more...so we know where the money is....sad!


Nick

A lot of Dragon's German stuff is FUBAR... just looking at their upcoming Ostwind shows its not the production tank but some permutation of the single prototype with fictional details added. Their Panther D with zimmerit was pretty cruddy too. It was actually the third generation of the same basic Panther D kit, but it was missing some necessary parts that somehow were omitted when they added the zimmerit parts !?! I don't know how many times they redid the suspension on the 251 halftrack kits. Each kit says "improved" and no two are the same, and they never did fix the upper hull angles on any of them...

"It just strikes me that if this were a Sherman or any kind of German tank, the whole modelling world would be up in arms. But this is only a T-34..."

and

"Bronco releases some esoteric (to me) British tank and some undefinable error on the engine deck is treated like the coming of the Antichrist."

I can't speak for German modelers, but in the case of the Sherman, "the whole modelling world" who is vocal is probably about five or six guys, and the number of people reacting to the Bronco A13 demonically was one guy.

I guess I don't understand exactly what you folks think should be happening. Do you think people should be raising a ruckus about the problems with this kit? Why aren't you the ones doing the raising?

KL

At least three of the guys here, on this topic (myself included), are the ones who did "raise a ruckus" directly with DML (for what good it did).
As to what I expect,personally, is that a kit that costs as much as these do should at very minimum fit together properly and an added bonus would be at least moderately accurate detailing.
Don't really thinking that's asking too terribly much.

Mark

But that wasn't the thrust of the series of posts I cited.

Didn't you find the mention of "the whole modelling world" getting upset about Sherman errors (which is false) a bit odd? Is the implication that Sherman stuff always or regularly gets fixed (also false), or that the whole world should be upset about T-34s too? And how about the statement indicating that one man's outrage about the Bronco A13 was excessive (possibly true . . .). How would him NOT getting upset about the A13 have helped the T-34 situation? Was the preference that he get just as mad - but about the T-34 instead?

That's what I was asking when I wrote: "I guess I don't understand exactly what you folks think should be happening." The two posters I quoted don't appear to like reading squawks about Shermans or obscure British tank kits. Is the thinking that if those squawks went away the T-34 situation would improve? If not, why mention it? Just mindless venting?

KL

But that wasn't the thrust of the series of posts I cited.

Didn't you find the mention of "the whole modelling world" getting upset about Sherman errors (which is false) a bit odd? Is the implication that Sherman stuff always or regularly gets fixed (also false), or that the whole world should be upset about T-34s too? And how about the statement indicating that one man's outrage about the Bronco A13 was excessive (possibly true . . .). How would him NOT getting upset about the A13 have helped the T-34 situation? Was the preference that he get just as mad - but about the T-34 instead?

That's what I was asking when I wrote: "I guess I don't understand exactly what you folks think should be happening." The two posters I quoted don't appear to like reading squawks about Shermans or obscure British tank kits. Is the thinking that if those squawks went away the T-34 situation would improve? If not, why mention it? Just mindless venting?

KL


Kurt, nothing personal, but... please step back a bit and use the "seach" function for a few minutes. Start with "T-34" and then run "Sherman". By maybe fifteen or twenty to one, I never counted them. "The whole modelling world" is not that much of an overstatement. German tanks have their own bloody forum, eh?

Mark and Dmitry and Nick and Pavel Blinov, Pekka Toivonen, Christian Mulsow, Ian Sadler, Sergei Kirsanov etc. are among those who know what there is to know aout T-34s, and we correspond. We have factory drawings, okay? Some of us are engineers. Neskol'ko iz nas mozh' po-russki. What p***es us off is that DML knows that we have them, and doesn't want to use them. They've been invited.

They fix German tanks, like #6264, why not #6388? All it needs is a new top hull. So we suffer with our grievances, as do all modellers of Soviet armour. All three of us.

Cheers
Scott Fraser
Canada

Just because there are more generic "Sherman" posts than generic "T-34" posts does not mean that "the whole modelling world is up in arms" about Sherman kit errors. In fact, I think you'll find that a number of those "Sherman" posts are from people upset that Sherman modelers dare to complain at all!

The point being, it's not a zero-sum game. The fact that x number of people complain about Shermans (or German tanks, or airplanes, for that matter) does not mean that there are automatically x number less people to complain about T-34s. In other words, if those other subjects disappeared altogether, or had never been corrected at all, you still wouldn't get the changes the want. It makes no sense and helps you naught to snipe that some other subject always gets what they want (which is out-and-out wrong) while poor little you gets nothing.

The problem (as mentioned previously) is that Soviet tanks are just not as popular. No sensible company is going to invest in mold cutting (or re-cutting, in this case) without a reasonable expectation that there will be a return. As I could tell you myself, having complete and accurate data does not equate to making a profit.

Why fix 6264 and not 6388? I can't give you a definitive answer, but I am absolutely certain it had nothing to do with Bronco's A13 - So why bring it up?

KL

Kurt, I never commented on any Bronco kit. Modellers of British armour, like those of Soviet or French armour, have been just as neglected for just as long. If there are problems with the Bronco A.13, no doubt they are disappointed. This is the first model in fifty years, and will probably be the last for a very long time. This is their only chance to get it right. I hope they get what they desire.

"Zero-sum"? I don't know where that came from, nor how it is relevant even if it were true.

The problem (as mentioned previously) is that Soviet tanks are just not as popular. No sensible company is going to invest in mold cutting (or re-cutting, in this case) without a reasonable expectation that there will be a return. As I could tell you myself, having complete and accurate data does not equate to making a profit.


If that is the case, why do a T-34 at all? Clearly, if Soviet tanks are not popular, there is no market, no why go there in the first place?

DML did go there. We are forced to dine on the fruits of their incompetence today. I konw quite a bit about these kits, clearly more than you do.

DMLs T-34s are based on a mould for a T-34-85 they purchased from Gunze years ago. All of their T-34-76 kits prior to #6388 included a T-34-85 lower hull and suspension swing-arms (corrected in #6355). They have been adding new sprues for turrets and roadwheels etc. to their same basic parts without concerning themselves with the details of what combination of features were accurate. It drives us nuts, but we live with it. They are still better than the Tamiya kits.

If you follow their progress, 6096-6205-6418-6355-6388-6452-6479-6424 they are getting better, but they still skip too many steps, their information is confused, and they make very simple and obvious mistakes. I can name eight books published in Russia since 2006 that have greatly expanded the knowledge of T-34s, and DML has declined to use this information. I guess their research budget doesn't extend to hiring someone who can read Russian, although it has also been offered in translation by some members here, including individuals who have posted in this thread.

DML is a big company now. I met the guy who owns it twenty years ago, when he was a model wholesaler in Canada. I sold him vacuform kits and decals. He has done well. He's only ever been in it for the buck, and I say that without prejudice. He's a businessman, not a modeller, and a damn good one. Credit where its due.

So our businessman has sunk money into T-34s. THey are not superkits, but they are not too bad. Even the most anal T-34 fans will build it happily because it is so much better than what else is out there. We suffer with detail errors, fix them ourselves, swap ideas back and forth, and some of us make T-34 parts. We mutter, but we mutter quietly between one another, usually in English.

Then along comes #6388, arguably the most important variant of early T-34s, perhaps more than the KhPZ standard or later Sormovo tanks, and it's hopelessly botched. The single most important part, the upper hull with its unique joints, is useless. And I do mean useless.

I like T-34s. I build T-34s. Ever since I saw it, I have wanted to build the one that Don Greer illustrated for the front of Steve Zaloga's landmark monograph, Squadron/Signal No.20, ca. 1973. It is an STZ-built T-34 from one of the January 1942 production batches, one of 200 tanks built there with appliqué armour, part of which were issued to 130 Tank Brigade, Southern Front, and was lost when the unit was destroyed for the first time around Voronezh in May 1942. (The brigade was reformed with later STZ tanks, wiped out again in July-August, and not reformed.) Other similar tanks were delivered to 3 Gv.TkBde, Kalinin Front. Those are the ones (with) s ekranami.

Modellers building German tanks examine the provenance of their models minutely. If you enter an AMPS contest, that's expected. Work from a photograph, and know what the crew ate that day. Why can't modellers of Soviet tanks do the same thing? Because there are no easy kits...

So along comes #6388. It's screwed. Hue and cry (faint) and we wait. And mutter. And hope.

DML released #6264, a German tank, the Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf E. Everybody bitched because the drive sprocket was in the wrong place. Badda-boom, along comes #6300, the Vorpanzer IV E, and there's a new lower hull and mounting tabs. DML quietly slips these new parts into #6264. I bought the kit after they had done this, and was baffled by the fuss until I saw Terry's photos. Frankly, it impressed the hell out of me that a manufacturer cared enough about their customers to do that. Well done, Freddie!

That was before I had been back into tanks for very long. Three years later, I am more cynical, and impatient with DML for how they have handled their T-34s. I am not alone, either: witness the tenor of this thread, and many others like it.

So, what do you build, Kurt?

I build Soviet armour, and don't know a hell of a lot about Shermans, except the Red Army used about 5000 M4A2s, both guns. I heard a rumour that since DSML released their M4A2 #6188, they released another M4A2 that had corrected intake grilles on the top of the engine compartment. Have you heard anything about that?

Cheers

Scott Fraser

I share your pain regarding flawed kits. it is truly dissapointing to wait for a kit of something you desire and see it totally botched. We have seen Bob's (justified) anguish and we have seen many a Shermaholic vent his/her spleen over stupid errors by DML. If you haven't guessed by now that DML don't seem to care overly about non German stuff then I'd have to ask where you have been. The non German Suff gets updated but not to the same degree as the German stuff which still gets botched like our beloved subjects.
As for DML's new Engine deck hatches in the M4A2 line, yes they did redo them but it isn't a conspiracy against just the Russian fans , they didn't upgrade other M4A2's either including a US and Brit one. It's just that they upgrade as they go, sometimes they go back over older subjects but that tends to be the really older subjects regardless of subject. The Fact that DML are still making Shermans and for that matter T34's is that they are selling. The fact that they just piecemeal update does sho a lack of care but I think you nailed it earlier. The owner prefers German stuff and thats what gets the resources. The Shermans and T34's are stretched out using as much existing tooling as possible to maximise returns.
The fact that they don't have much competition in the T34 line (about to change) is also a reason for minimal effort like it was with the Shermans until Tasca decided to test the water and got them out to prove how good they were. I can tell you as a diehard Sherman fan that even when they are trying to compete with Tasca they still cut corners badly as is the case with the M4A2 DV.
Lets face it, whether it is a T34, Sherman , A 13, Matilda or Pz III we will get what the manufacturers give us, warts and all. By all means vent your spleen but please don't drag we modellers who don't happen to like T 34's in to this as the bad guys. Vent it at the manufacturers
Al

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

KL

Kurt,
You are, of course, correct. Thanks for keeping me straightened out.

Mark

Geez, guys, get it right. A T-34 (Cyrillic T) is a tank. A T-34 (with a Latin T) is an airplane.

Mark,The T34 vs T-34 is pissing in the wind AFAIAC but the rest of your post highlights the same problem the Sherman modellers have exactly. Your perception is they continually improve but in reality sometimes they go backwards or they use the wrong parts that are avail to them. It is frustrating to the max and I share your grief but the throw away line in the post about the modelling world would be in an uproar is just that a throw away line and the inference that only russian kits get treated that way is just so far from the mark as to be laughable. Even German subjects get the same snafus - even from DML.
CHeers

Hi Guys,
I'm just another sherman guy. But after reading this thread I am beginning to see how frustrated you Soviet guys must be. Especially when every week we get something new and cool coming down the pipeline.

I see that AFVClub is releasing some new soviet kits....isn't that call for guarded optimism? How do THEY look as far as accuracy?

Wayne (kind-hearted but dumb) Killeen

I see that AFVClub is releasing some new soviet kits....isn't that call for guarded optimism? How do THEY look as far as accuracy?

That describes it very well.

It strikes me that much of the problem is that people generally don't know enough about T-34s to understand the problem, and a quick primer on T-34s may be in order. Very briefly, there are at least nine different unique T-34 sub-types just with the flat turret. {Separate post.)

Briefly, from what I see and am told, the tooling is based on the same drawings used by Trumpeter and HobbyBoss. As such, they are basically a known quantity ---generally accurate, some detail errors (esp. inside) but with useful features.

Cheers
Scott Fraser

Moi? Living in a place that can get very windy indeed I learned long ago to avoid that behavior. Plays hell on the shoes for one thing. Everything else washes easily.

Mark

They don't fix things (at least in a reasonable way). They might improve one detail in a subsequent variant kit, but then they usually introduce new errors. It is maddening too when they come out with some corrected parts but then omit good parts from the subsequent kits and reintroduce older/poorer parts. A detail will be corrected only to have the issue reemerge in the future when the new part isnt re-used. Aparently a lot of people provide a lot of time, information and assistance to Dragon, but the product result is still a let down or even an embarassment. At least Eduard ponied up to the FUBAR canopy in their new Bf. 109 kit, while Dragon just blasts critics via their puppet online blog.

If they really cared they would sit down and make kits from scratch instead of trying to re use as many parts as possible (to save money) while raising the cost of their kits (to make more money) to unreasonable levels considering often the overall quality is mediocre. As in the STZ kit, the buildability issues stem largely from re using so much of existing kits (T-34/85, model 1940, etc.) and not saying ok this is a unique tank and we can't re use so much...

When a few of these "flawed" T 34 kits were released with fit issues there was quite a bit of fluff created and many posts on the subject. At least you got a turret lower...
Al

When a few of these "flawed" T-34 kits were released with fit issues there was quite a bit of fluff created and many posts on the subject. At least you got a turret lower...

Al

I don't know what you are referring to.

When the T-34 "STZ Model 1942" #6388 was released, several people, including Dmitry and Mark and myself, were very critical. That hasn't changed.

As far as I know, DML has never made any attempt to correct or replace the upper hull in #6388.

There are many T-34s. STZ T-34s, particularly with that hull, bore the brunt of the fighting in the south during 1942 and are therefore very significant. They are also very distinct from most other T-34s. Not having one sucks.

Anyway, if you have news of a replacement hull, please advise. I need some.

Cheers
Scott Fraser

Sent you a PM the other day..did you recieve it?
thanks,
Nick

"It just strikes me that if this were a Sherman or any kind of German tank, the whole modelling world would be up in arms. But this is only a T-34..."

There have been many posts regarding fit and accuracy of DML T34 kits so I don't get why you think if they stuffed up Sherman or German that those that like those subjects wouldn't compalain. DML regularly stuff up both those lines and my other post above highlights some of this. Obviously there are more vocal (possibly just more) modelelrs of those subjects. In the case of the Shermaholic we are vocal but despite your implication DML still don't always fix those . They are improved piecemeal and at minimal effort.
By all means be angry at DML - I know how you feel every time they repeat well catalogued errors with the Shermans. Vent at them and not "the whole modelling world"
Al

Al, I keep telling you; it's a T-34 not a T34. Jeesh! Some people's kids.

Mark

SCOTT,

I hear ya brother... I'm in your Corner. As a Germ-a-holic I'm disscusted with th Fact that Dragon's Price VS. Accuracy ! not just on Authentication, but simple fit !! If your gonna Charge a Premium $$ why not justify it by Goin th X-Tra mile & make sure it simply Fits well ?? With that SAID.....

SCOTT : I own both of C.H./DML's STZ kits (6355) & (6388) and have Put off building both because of posts & reviews such as this one... So... I too an eager to Know if they've revised th Hull/Lower Hull fit !! ala Their Pz IV E debackle !!

Also... with CyberHobby/Dragon's recent announcement of their T-34 Flak Vierling Kit...

http://www.dragonusaonline.com/item_detail.aspx?ItemCode=CHC6569
is this kit based on Th same Hull/Lower Hull kits ?? Is this what i have to look forward too?? It REALLY Is dishearting to get geared up to build a Kit only to find out half way into th Build that you now Must Devote Countless hours into simple research of th Construction of th Real Tank...(above the Regular Research WE all put into a Model before We build it) to find that DRAGON has Fu#@ed you !!!

But th real reason for MY Post is.. are th 2 STZ kits that I have Contain th Same Problems ??


and KURT ... Man... you live for th Argument don't you.... you should've become a Lawyer !

Yeah i Said T-34 ... i don't Care If there is An American Trainer Plane with that Designation.... Thats not What We're talking about here ... so I think WE All know what we mean when we say T34 or T-34 !! or even Tee Thirty-Four .....

Scott...thanx for you input to My delima !!! Thanx in Advance !!

ERIK



WHAT DO YOU CALL THE ASSASSINS THAT ACCUSE THE ASSASSIN???

Erik,
Kurt wasn't the one who brought up the correct nomenclature for the tank, that was me.
The proper way of writing it out is T-34. T34 is no more right than writing M-4 when you mean a Sherman (M4).
I'm just having a bit of fun wif' y'all.

Mark

Erik, the short answer is I don't think so...

From the CAD images posted, it appears this kit is based on a later UVZ hull (Nizhnii Tagil = Zavod No.183). If you junk the German crap you have a nice hull with late stamped roadwheels, suitable for a hex turret or earlier T-34-85 turret.

This hull (I suspect common with #6424) is okay, if not great as a standard UVZ hull. They were abundant, and therefore fair game for German improvisation.

The STZ tanks were important in the development of the T-34, and critical in 1942 in the context of the war, but in truth STZ only built a small fraction of T-34s. DML's kit #6388 is typical of maybe 2000 tanks from some 30,000 76mm T-34s built. Odds that your Beute would be on an STZ hull are slim.

HTH
Scott

nt