In my opinion, the old Dragon M3 and such are quite good. I own a few.
The reason so many people here want an M5 and M9 is because those old Dragon half tracks exist and they want things that do not exist. The M3 and M9 ended up with a lot of Commonwealth forces. Post war, they were used by many countries including a bunch acquired by Israel. Those soldiered on into the 1980s. Model builders are collectors. They want what is not already in the collection.
On the other hand, if you do not own those old Dragon models, if you are really into American stuff, new M2s and M3s are very welcome. I cannot recall if the old Dragon models have engines or not. Andyâs models will have engines. Andy will probably beat the price on the old Dragon models, perhaps significantly. Finally, I think Andy uses Takom for his stuff. I like Takom a lot.
I would say that Andys engine looks more complete than Dragons.
Hose from top of radiator to top of engine for instance, can only be seen if the hood is open and Dragon has the hood top as a single part. Canât see that the hose is missing without doing some plastic surgery âŚ
Another easily visible difference is that the front doors of the M5-series have the lower rear corner cut off at an angle while the M3-series doors are rectangular. The sliding shutters in the windscreen armours and upper door sections are on the outside on the M3-series but on the inside on the M5-series, which also means their windshield armour is spaced slightly further from the windshield.
In general? The M2/M3-series. In non-US service? The M5-series. If you want to build a British, Commonwealth, Polish, French, etc. halftrack, you âneedâ the latter. Yes, they used some M3-series too, but theyâre almost as rare as an M5-series in American service outside training units in the USA.
The Andyâs kit does look nice, and it will probably be a good build with some features that take advantage of the latest kit design and manufacturing processes. If I was in the market for an M3 halftrack, I be looking really hard at it. My personal modeling approach is to start with the best, most accurate and well detailed kit of the subject available. In all those respects, the Andyâs M3 will probably be a great kit.
However, I have to agree with the sentiments above and say that Iâm disappointed that this new US halftrack didnât break ground with a long over-due M5-series halftrack. So much potential for really fresh and new subjects, both WWII and post-war.
I wish Andyâs a lot of success with this new kit, but I do believe he missed the target. There are just so many M2/M3 kits already out there. The AFV Club kts are superbly detailed, the DML kits are really, really good while the old Tamiya kits still stand up well and are âbuilderâs kitsâ (as are all Tamiya kits). Halftracks are not âbread and butterâ subjects like Tigers, Panthers, T-34s and Shermans. They are more niche, and the market is saturated with M3 halftrack kits already.
Andy, Andy, Andy⌠in the words of Maxwell Smart, I feel like âYou missed it by that much!â
Andy did not miss the target. He had the drawings for the M2 and M3 ready to go. Converting those to 1/35 takes significant work, but no where near as much effort as researching and drawing a complex vehicle with an engine and interior from scratch. There are significant differences between an M3 and M5 when the plumbing is examined. Dragon is not currently pumping out M3s and such, so jumping in and selling to a new generation of modelers with an even more accurate model is a good bet. Allowing older modelers to upgrade what they have stockpiled is a good bet. Undercutting the competition on price is a good bet. If the people at Dragon decide to compete and dump a bunch of cheap half tracks, the situation could be very good for newer modelers.
I do not recall seeing anyone recently asking for a new M5 or M9 until this announcement. Maybe it was in one of the wish discussions and I missed it. I would certainly like an M5 and such but I do not see this as a mistake in any way. If I were in his position, I would have done the same thing.
Kinda funny. Maybe 20 years ago, when Dragon first released new M3s and such, I remember a bunch of happy people immediately asking for the M5 and such. Oh boy. New M3. Now letâs have the M5! Twenty years later, still no M5. I definitely understand the disappointment.
Maybe this will spur armor model builders to actively campaign for the M5 family of vehicles.
I donât see the risk. Fourteen members have responded to this thread. Nine of them liked this comment:
That doesnât necessarily mean the other five arenât down with it. Either way, a clear majority would like to see an M5. I donât care how good Andyâs new M3 is - I wonât buy it simply because I have three Dragon kits still to build, and a number of Tamiya iterations, including two M21s.
Put me down as #10 then. Iâd love to have a M5 half track in my collection as well. A 1/35 kit of one is long overdue. But again I will defer to my personal experience of knowing and working alongside the man. He will go for the sure thing in a M3 as opposed to the maybe in the M5. Depending upon how the M3 does, it is possible, but I wouldnât hold my breath. His 1/16 kits are not risk taking subjects. Each one is a very popular subject in 1/35, with plenty of room for options in AM.
Another visual ID feature is the sliding vision plates for the driver and a/driver. On the M2/M3 series, those plates are on the outside of the vehicle. On the M5/M9, those plates are on the internal faces of the doors and windshield armor
As mentioned earlier I would be a contender for one, and at least 3 of the guys in my model club would probably get 2 or 3 each.So now he has realistically nearly 20 kits âsoldâ, without doing a thing!! Most companies would love to sell products without doing an inch of marketing!!
And that they didnât mould the mounts for the jerrycan carriers to the cab sides, like Dragon did. Removing those is a pain, and since Dragon got them obviously wrong itâs something you need to do to correct even a vehicle that does have them, as well as for vehicles without.
