Why not just leave it at that then… why go the next step to post unsolicited technical data and pictures on the modeler’s post. I’d say let this feedback post(s) follow the usual media cycle and die within 24 hours of posting…
3 Likes
Merki, thanks for your very clear answer:+1:
1 Like
All things considered, I think it’s easier to get the different versions of the Abrams than those of the Bradleys, correct me if I’m wrong
1 Like
Well, we have almost everything from OG to A4 Bradleys - easy enough to do M2 or M3 variants by swapping parts. You’ve got the BFIST, the M2A2 SA, and parts are available to do the Linebacker. (make sure you get the updated ones that are accurately proportioned) You can even build the notional M-SHORAD version. There are also a number of upgrade parts from a few of our members, among them Jacques Duquette and Neuron, which are quite good.
AMPV versions are on their way. What else would you like?
I’m not sure about the Abrams as I quit building them years ago. Although I seem to recall recent builds where folks are still trying to cobble together accurate earlier versions. Still no accurate road wheel by any plastic manufacturer…
2 Likes
Hello!
@Merki4 - congratulations on a very nice model! Like they say, only those who don’t do nothing make no mistakes…
Just goes to show how important research is, especially on a tricky subject like this.
And Gino takes his precious time to help with such research - maybe Merki4 can’t use it anymore, but other modellers can benefit from that. And instead of thanking him, people complain - I don’t get it. If it was my post I’d like to have such detailed, factual comments in it.
Have a nice day!
Paweł
3 Likes
You are absolutely right, I usually do thorough research on the models I build just to avoid mistakes, in this case, and we are talking about several years ago, a bit for the rush and a bit for carelessness (the photo of the magazine unfortunately did not help me much) I threw myself headlong into the coloring, I had already built the kit previously, and as I was saying, I looked at a couple of details and said to myself “yes, it’s him”. Unfortunately I was wrong, but @HeavyArty is absolutely right, I have used him for years by contacting him via email to get info, that time I did not do it and… I was wrong. In fact I did not criticize him for his clarifications, I only asked to delete the topic. Anyway thanks again for the appreciation
4 Likes
Hello!
You’re right, I really appreciate your work and that’s why I think it would be a pity to delete this topic. Not only is your model a pleasure to look at, but the discussion here is, thanks to the commenters, a valuable source of knowledge for other people who might want to build a model of a Bradley. So I hope this topic stays if you don’t mind.
Good luck with your modelling projects and have a nice day
Paweł
3 Likes
The chocolate chips and the face of the BC just pins this to the deck.
I can recall my experiences with US Army units and receiving “new” equipment, or drawing a replacement.
I had two different models of M551 in my first Scout Platoon. And because my unit was the Armor Center school support unit, MWOs and updates got applied whenever the vehicle went in for something like an annual service. I had some LRFs, some w/ bore scavenging systems, and 152mm barrels with and without a bore evacuator.
The only time you are likely to see an entirely similar (chosen word) group of vehicles is when you get a new or zero-hour refurb. When I NETT’d (New Equipment Training) my Cav Troop from M113 slicks to the Regimental Abrams and Brads, I got nine brand new identical zero-hour Abrams, and thirteen brand new zero-hour Brads. It is the only time I can recall getting such a thing.
On my several trips to the NTC, we invariably drew slightly different vehicles at the dust bowl, even though they might all be (ostensibly) a unit set. The maintenance turnover at the NTC and within high op-tempo units is ferocious, and so differences crept in.
I am studying how to judge for AMPS shows (not a judge yet). My local (Atlanta ) chapter has some extraordinary builders, and you have done as-well or better. My first big lesson is: reality is nice, but we judge the quality of the build. So, if I were to think it’s important (no stowage on top of Abrams blow-off panels), I’d write a note on the score sheet. But there would not be a deduction.
Well Done: be justifiably proud of your skills and presentation.
6 Likes
Thank you a lot 
1 Like
I wish these maker companies would cater to us old soldier that want the older stuff. M992’s, M2/3A1’s, M60 series, M1IP’s all with interior. M800 series vehicles. For the ones of us that don’t have great scratch building skills.
8 Likes
I concur! We could use more of the Post War/Cold War items, from USA and other nations - more so than another Tiger or a Panzer III. Takom does release some nice post war items, from time to time, but I’d invite Tamiya to do the same.
5 Likes
@ttwells / Ted
@ skyshark
There’s a reason I build few WW2-era things. 50 years ago, I built everything WW2 and modern available. I continued building for about 20 years, and then ran out of everything I wanted to do. Once I’d built as many as existed, I grew weary of the minor deviations. I scratch-built what now is common, such as the SdKfz 251/?? with the PaK 40 7,5cm gun.
NEO Dragon kit
Today I look for the oddities, and 3DP is providing a lot of opportunities in both new and old. An Abrams AGDS (see my build thread), or an Abrams CATTB (soon to be a build thread) are literally prototypes or concepts that didn’t get off paper, but were well and truly “system engineered” and ready to print/build.
I think you can kit bash styrene to resin and 3DP, along with PE, to build just about anything. It takes a little searching on the web (see my RWS for the CATTB below), but that can be lots of fun, and sometimes frustrating!
5 Likes
The Bradley looks great.
2 Likes