Hi Folks,
a friend a mine owns Dragons new M60 AVLB. I took a glimpse inside the (big) box yesterday. To my surprise, it contains 2 (two) identical sprues for the hull. Tracks are DS styrene. To my surprise, sprue for the launch mechanism is labeled M48 AVLB. Will depend upon the price tag to get me one.
Hosted by Darren Baker
DML M60 AVLB
HermannB
Joined: October 14, 2008
KitMaker: 4,099 posts
Armorama: 4,067 posts
Posted: Saturday, September 14, 2019 - 02:52 PM UTC
Vodnik
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Saturday, September 14, 2019 - 05:53 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Will depend upon the price tag to get me one.
Don't waste your money, badly inaccurate crap.
HermannB
Joined: October 14, 2008
KitMaker: 4,099 posts
Armorama: 4,067 posts
Posted: Saturday, September 14, 2019 - 06:23 PM UTC
So what`s wrong with it?
The_musings_of_NBNoG
Joined: January 08, 2012
KitMaker: 520 posts
Armorama: 516 posts
Posted: Saturday, September 14, 2019 - 08:28 PM UTC
I smiled warmly at this post/log.
Check out https://vodnik.net/
You might need to trim down the scope of your question.
Check out https://vodnik.net/
You might need to trim down the scope of your question.
Quartercav
Joined: February 06, 2014
KitMaker: 64 posts
Armorama: 64 posts
Posted: Saturday, September 14, 2019 - 09:23 PM UTC
Good Morning! Guten Morgen Hans-Hermann!
I have the kit on my work bench. You are right, the kit contains two identical hulls. I was wondering and try to find an explanation, but I didn't. I think Dragon never built the kit before they sell it! Because otherwise they would have seen all the mistakes! Some examples
-only aluminum road wheels
-poor detailed lifting mechanism
-missing smoke grenade boxes
-poor detailed siccor bridge, same as the M48 AVLB
Check out Gino's M60 AVLB build blog, you can see more details. It is a good basic kit, but you have to do a lot of scratch work.
Have a good day!
Andreas
I have the kit on my work bench. You are right, the kit contains two identical hulls. I was wondering and try to find an explanation, but I didn't. I think Dragon never built the kit before they sell it! Because otherwise they would have seen all the mistakes! Some examples
-only aluminum road wheels
-poor detailed lifting mechanism
-missing smoke grenade boxes
-poor detailed siccor bridge, same as the M48 AVLB
Check out Gino's M60 AVLB build blog, you can see more details. It is a good basic kit, but you have to do a lot of scratch work.
Have a good day!
Andreas
Quartercav
Joined: February 06, 2014
KitMaker: 64 posts
Armorama: 64 posts
Posted: Saturday, September 14, 2019 - 11:00 PM UTC
By the way, I forgot to ask. I'm looking for pics from a M60 AVLB, 9th engineer battalion under command of the 172nd inf brigade. If someone can help, that would be great!
Andreas
Andreas
HeavyArty
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Sunday, September 15, 2019 - 12:07 AM UTC
I don't have the kit, so I can't comment on the hulls being identical or not. The two hulls are supposed to allow you to build either an early M60A1-based AVLB or a later M60A2-based AVLB. The AVLB mechanism, cupolas, bridge, etc. are the same on both the later M48 (M48A5-based) AVLB and the M60 AVLB, so that part is correct. It will need a lot of updating and correction, but is a workable kit as a starting point.
Here is my M60 AVLB build using the Dragon M48 AVLB parts and a Takom M60 hull.
Here is my M60 AVLB build using the Dragon M48 AVLB parts and a Takom M60 hull.
Quartercav
Joined: February 06, 2014
KitMaker: 64 posts
Armorama: 64 posts
Posted: Sunday, September 15, 2019 - 07:16 AM UTC
Gino, that's right what you say.
I don't really know the difference between a M60 and a M60A2 upper hull, but the kit parts are identical.
At the end I hope, I get a complete M60A3 together with the remaining parts.
I don't really know the difference between a M60 and a M60A2 upper hull, but the kit parts are identical.
At the end I hope, I get a complete M60A3 together with the remaining parts.
HeavyArty
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Sunday, September 15, 2019 - 10:54 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I don't really know the difference between a M60 and a M60A2 upper hull, but the kit parts are identical.
The upper hulls are the same on an A1/A3 and an A2. The difference is in the rear on the lower hull. The A2 has an added extension to hold a compressor for the CBSS (Clear Breech Scavenger System).
M60A1/A3 rear
M60A2 rear
Vodnik
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Sunday, September 15, 2019 - 05:47 PM UTC
Quoted Text
So what`s wrong with it?
Honestly it is difficult to find anything that is right in this kit....
Let's begin with the fact that Dragon M60 hulls are inaccurate with very poorly (i.e. incorrectly) shaped bottom front. This is actually the only advantage their M48 AVLB kit has over this one, as at least their M48 hull is decent.
Then the crew "plug" as I call it, i.e. the platform that replaced the tank turret is very inaccurate in shape and details. So are two "cupolas"
So is the launcher structure - wrong shape and extremely simplified.
The support frame on engine deck is attached in wrong place (Dragon in their wisdom decided to mount it in such way, that accessing some of the panels would be impossible).
The "feet" that rests on the ground during launching is much too wide (it is wider that the bridge itself, while in reality should be narrower than the tank hull...)
The bridge itself is too narrow (the tank itself barely fits on it!!!), very inaccurate in side profile (the angles of the sections are all wrong), many details missing or inaccurate.
TankManNick
Joined: February 01, 2010
KitMaker: 551 posts
Armorama: 543 posts
Posted: Monday, September 16, 2019 - 02:08 AM UTC
Oh dear. Black label in all but name...
HermannB
Joined: October 14, 2008
KitMaker: 4,099 posts
Armorama: 4,067 posts
Posted: Monday, September 16, 2019 - 03:54 AM UTC
Glad I didn`t bought it. 
HeavyArty
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Monday, September 16, 2019 - 03:58 AM UTC
I didn't find the bridge and erector parts too bad. With some extra TLC they can come out great. The hull is usable, but not perfect, see my Dragon M60 build review. Again, with some TLC, it can come out nicley as well. Is it prefect, no. Will it look like an M60 AVLB when done, yes. Can it be improved upon with some actual modeling work, as opposed to falling together with a shake of the box, absolutely. It actually takes some model building skill, not just assembling a kit, oh my! 
GulfWarrior
Campaigns AdministratorJoined: January 05, 2010
KitMaker: 1,051 posts
Armorama: 1,029 posts
Posted: Monday, September 16, 2019 - 04:15 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I didn't find the bridge and erector parts too bad. With some extra TLC they can come out great. The hull is usable, but not perfect, see my Dragon M60 build review. Again, with some TLC, it can come out nicley as well. Is it prefect, no. Does it look like an M60 AVLB when done, yes. Can it be improved upon with some actual modeling work, as opposed to falling together with a shake of the box, absolutely. It actually takes some model building skill, not just assembling a kit, oh my!
Blasphemer!! Heathen!! INFIDEL!!!
HermannB
Joined: October 14, 2008
KitMaker: 4,099 posts
Armorama: 4,067 posts
Posted: Monday, September 16, 2019 - 04:16 AM UTC
Can the aluminum roadwheels be use or have we stick to steel roadwheels?
HeavyArty
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Monday, September 16, 2019 - 04:42 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Can the aluminum roadwheels be use or have we stick to steel roadwheels?
The aluminim roadwheels were used on early M60 AVLBs based on M60A1 chassis. During the mid-late '70s, the aluminum road wheels were replaced with steel ones when the aluminum ones were found to be inferior and failing early.
Early M60 AVLB in Vietnam w/aluminum road wheels.
This one, which is probably in Germany, appears to have mixed road wheels and later T142 tracks.
Quartercav
Joined: February 06, 2014
KitMaker: 64 posts
Armorama: 64 posts
Posted: Monday, September 16, 2019 - 04:44 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I didn't find the bridge and erector parts too bad. With some extra TLC they can come out great. The hull is usable, but not perfect, see my Dragon M60 build review. Again, with some TLC, it can come out nicley as well. Is it prefect, no. Does it look like an M60 AVLB when done, yes. Can it be improved upon with some actual modeling work, as opposed to falling together with a shake of the box, absolutely. It actually takes some model building skill, not just assembling a kit, oh my!
I have to agree with your opinion, Gino, and thank you for the pictures! But I can understand if someone says the kit is too expensive for this quality.
TankManNick
Joined: February 01, 2010
KitMaker: 551 posts
Armorama: 543 posts
Posted: Monday, September 16, 2019 - 09:33 AM UTC
Yup Gino agree with you there. I built the BL Saladin which at least was dimensionally sound. So never say never, but it is wise to know what's in the box before you start!
Vodnik
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Monday, September 16, 2019 - 03:55 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I didn't find the bridge and erector parts too bad.
We have very different expectations regarding accuracy.
Quoted Text
Can it be improved upon with some actual modeling work, as opposed to falling together with a shake of the box, absolutely. It actually takes some model building skill, not just assembling a kit, oh my!
Oh, so now there is a suggestion that if I complain about lack of accuracy, then I'm a kit assembler and may lack or not be willing to use "some model building skills"?...
That's a good one there... I plan to build Dragon M48 AVLB and fix its biggest errors (which will probably require scratch building of most of that thing...) this year and then I'll will show in details how awful it is out of the box, particularly the bridge itself. I see that it's M103 situation all over again - until I build it and show what I mean, there will always be those who claim that it's fine and gloss over its obvious flaws...
In the age of many new (or newish) companies (RFM, Border, Takom, Meng etc) who really try their best to give us accurate kits (with mixed results sometimes, but there is no denying of the effort), any form of tolerance for the crap that Dragon gives us these days is IMHO inexplicable and hurtful for those who give us quality kits. But then again, today in some cultures "participation trophies" are more important than those for actual achievements
Funny that you suggest to read your article to see how usable the hull is, while in that article you quote my own comments about the hull accuracy issues
Vodnik
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Monday, September 16, 2019 - 06:31 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Yup Gino agree with you there. I built the BL Saladin which at least was dimensionally sound. So never say never, but it is wise to know what's in the box before you start!
Saladin was one of the very few Dragon kits released in last few years that was actually decent and with relatively minor improvements could be built into a reasonably accurate model. Unfortunately it was an exception
HeavyArty
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Monday, September 16, 2019 - 11:53 PM UTC
Yes, Pawel, we have always had different views on how good or bad kits are and their build value. Simply dismissing a kit as junk and telling people not to buy it is a bit much, in my opinion. I believe we should present what we think is wrong with it and let others decide if they want to buy/build it.
I was not addressing you at all in any of my comments, so stop being so defensive. It is not all about you. Yes, I did credit you with the ups and downs in the M60 kit review. It is good info to help people decide on their own if they want to fix any of it or not. I personally don't think the M60 looks that bad when built and many of the issues you list are easy fixes. Others, I can live with. So be it.
My point is that some people have gone away from actually building models and are looking to assemble the perfect kit straight out of the box. Many have become spoiled by some of the newer kits coming out. I still see a new release that is somewhat accurate of a vehicle we have not had before as a good thing, even if it does need some work to build it well.
I was not addressing you at all in any of my comments, so stop being so defensive. It is not all about you. Yes, I did credit you with the ups and downs in the M60 kit review. It is good info to help people decide on their own if they want to fix any of it or not. I personally don't think the M60 looks that bad when built and many of the issues you list are easy fixes. Others, I can live with. So be it.
My point is that some people have gone away from actually building models and are looking to assemble the perfect kit straight out of the box. Many have become spoiled by some of the newer kits coming out. I still see a new release that is somewhat accurate of a vehicle we have not had before as a good thing, even if it does need some work to build it well.
RobinNilsson
TOS Moderator
Joined: November 29, 2006
KitMaker: 6,693 posts
Armorama: 5,562 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - 12:53 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Yes, Pawel, we have always had different views on how good or bad kits are. And I was not addressing you at all in any of my comments, so stop being so defensive. It is not all about you. Yes, I did credit you with the ups and downs in the M60 kit review. It is good info. I also don't think it looks that bad when built and many of the issues you list are easy fixes. Others, I can live with. So be it.
My point is that some people have gone away from actually building models and are looking to assemble the perfect kit straight out of the box. Many have become spoiled by some of the newer kits coming out. I still see a new release that is somewhat accurate of a vehicle we have not had before as a good thing, even if it does need some work to build it well.
It's easier to start a scratchbuilding project from a half decent base kit instead of starting with some sheets of white styrene and some styrene profiles ....
TankManNick
Joined: February 01, 2010
KitMaker: 551 posts
Armorama: 543 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - 01:54 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextYup Gino agree with you there. I built the BL Saladin which at least was dimensionally sound. So never say never, but it is wise to know what's in the box before you start!
Saladin was one of the very few Dragon kits released in last few years that was actually decent and with relatively minor improvements could be built into a reasonably accurate model. Unfortunately it was an exception
..and thanks to reviews by yourself and others I have yet to 'take the plunge' with any others. Waited for Amusing Hobby Conqueror - but still had to reshape and detail the turret front
Vodnik
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - 06:09 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Simply dismissing a kit as junk and telling people not to buy it is a bit much, in my opinion.
We have to agree to disagree on this. I believe that companies like Dragon, who in recent years consciously and intentionally lowered their quality (incl. accuracy) levels while at the same time increased their kit prices do not deserve modelers' money for the below par stuff they sell. By buying their crap we just give them our permission to continue such practices, while at the same time other companies who give us excellent quality for better price lose any motivation to continue to do so...
So I will continue to discourage other modelers from buying bad quality overpriced kits every time. Go get some new RFM, MiniArt or Takom stuff instead. Only get those Dragon kits that are actually worth it, and yes there are many, just not the newer ones... This one certainly isn't.
mligthart
Joined: July 07, 2015
KitMaker: 46 posts
Armorama: 44 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - 09:16 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextSimply dismissing a kit as junk and telling people not to buy it is a bit much, in my opinion.
We have to agree to disagree on this. I believe that companies like Dragon, who in recent years consciously and intentionally lowered their quality (incl. accuracy) levels while at the same time increased their kit prices do not deserve modelers' money for the below par stuff they sell. By buying their crap we just give them our permission to continue such practices, while at the same time other companies who give us excellent quality for better price lose any motivation to continue to do so...
So I will continue to discourage other modelers from buying bad quality overpriced kits every time. Go get some new RFM, MiniArt or Takom stuff instead. Only get those Dragon kits that are actually worth it, and yes there are many, just not the newer ones... This one certainly isn't.
Agree with this. when you buy a Revell Lit of app 25 EUR then you can expect some flaws and the need to make improvements (for example their recent Leopard kit) One might say it adds a bit of charm to them?
But when you pay app 95 EUR for a model then you should have a near perfect kit without the need to make large improvements, cut and saw away parts, etc.
I was very interested in some recent kits from Dragon, like the AVLB and their IDF M113's. but when I saw in their instructions that you have to remove a large part of the hull and cut away on many other parts then I made the decision not to purchase.
other manufacturers mould new parts, Dragon recycles them and instructs you to cut into them and charges much more then their competitors who make the extra effort to provide correct parts.
Some might not have an issue sawing part of a hull but for me that is not "the fun of modelling".
rgds
Michel
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.