Just saw these at Squadron’s website. My apologies if these were posted here already.
For the modern British armor enthusiasts, do these look fairly accurate, or are they another mess by Trumpeter?
8 Likes
First I’ve heard of it! The CADs suggest new tooling rather than reworking of the Cr2 hull components - let’s hope they do new wheels that are actually round!
1 Like
Well, the test shot shows that every single track link will need a sink hole filled….
3 Likes
That’s right. They’re obvious. Why, in 2026, does a manufacturer release such incompetent molding? Didn’t anybody at Trumpeter see those? Don’t they care? And then charge $70 for it - rubbish.
2 Likes
Its a conspiracy by big tracks to get you to buy AM Resin or metal that costs as much as the kit.
8 Likes
Can’t see ejector pin marks on the tracks but can see sink marks on the rubber pads of this test shot, the production kit may have this sorted.
Saw the test build at the IPMS (UK) National back in November but I’m no expert so can’t comment on its accuracy.
2 Likes
I haven’t seen the kit in detail either, plus I’m no Challenger Ninja, but I think we should just be happy that yet another Cold War warrior has been produced, so that as modellers, we can choose between this one and the Tamiya effort. Most kits need tweaks here and there depending on how rigorous a modeller is perhaps, but a choice? Great news!
Of the few Trumpeter kits I’ve tackled, I haven’t come across a “mess” at all, but as I say, I’ve only tackled a small number.
4 Likes
Yes, it’s the sink marks we are talking about. Nothing to do with kit accuracy at all, so it doesn’t take an expert on the Challenger. Trumpeter releases publicity photos of a model with avoidable 1960’s style mold defects (sink marks). It defies logic and doesn’t say much for Trumpeter. So much for quality control. Lazy and careless.
Once the first person, on here grabs it, we will find out the pros and cons, I did put photos up from Telford 2024 with the CRARRV as well.
1 Like
That’s Funny, 
, you made remarks back in 2024, see my link above.
1 Like
I looked at the pictures from when you posted in 2024 on this kit. the sink marks are not as noticeable then. It is nice though to see something other than a Sherman, Tiger or Panzer III or IV.
3 Likes
It may be annoying, but unless you lift the skirts (a hobby of mine in days gone by) you’re only going to have to fix a few at the front and rear. My method for rubber bands tracks as well as individual ones – just give a few swipes on a piece of medium grit sandpaper on a counter top. If you swirl it a bit (the counterclockwise swirl) you get the added benefit of random scratch marks in the rubber pads. For hard plastic, if the sinkholes are deep, just add a drop of CA to each and hit with accelerator. Sanding each link takes about five seconds.
Multiply that what - 40? Less than four minutes and Bob’s your uncle.
7 Likes
I was going to say, that unless you wish to amend the underside of tracks that show, fixing such imperfections isn’t that big a deal as you identify!
5 Likes
That is a good point that you bring up, I was just pointing it out as they are right in the open, and you would think that with the price tag the kit will come with, Those would not be there…. Although maybe that is their thought, easy spot, annoying but relatively easy fix, so why bother fixing the sink mark created in the molding process.
1 Like
Did I? Oh dear - time for a Trumpian cognitive test for me! Then again, after a recent stash move I’ve started finding “new” kits in the boxes that I forgot about over the years…
Of all the things I’ve lost over the years, I miss my mind the most.
4 Likes
I’m just glad to see a new-tool Challenger 1 at last - it’s way overdue. Tamiya’s was a nice kit to build, but based on a very early-production machine IIRC, with atypical features like a ‘stepped’ glacis, a different pattern of turret stowage box and a host of other things to fix. Trumpeter’s kit doesn’t look perfect, but it does look like a big improvement.
2 Likes
As I’m not as familiar with the Challenger as some, what exactly is wrong with it? I might be willing to give it another go…
1 Like
With Trumpeter’s kit? I’ll reserve final judgement before I have it in my hands, but based on the photos I see some simplified/missing detail: The hull stowage box clasps look simplified; the ‘rods’ on either side of the bolted plate behind the cupola are molded solid while they should be undercut; I think there should be ‘castellated’ joins in the turret face where the cutouts for the sights are. Also I think the Mk.3 had reinforcements around the rear of the TOGS box and beefed-up hinges.
I suspect Trumpeter have actually given us a Mk.2 not a Mk.3 which might explain some of these, but doubtless somebody on this forum will have better info.
But overall, the ‘cons’ look pretty minor to me - compared to the Tamiya kit, you don’t need to hack the glacis; scratch-build a new turret stowage box; find extra mesh for the engine deck; and some other stuff. Although, many modelers enjoy all that, so whatever floats your boat…
2 Likes
Ah - the no undercuts underneath details thing. One of the drawbacks of injection molding. Of course, that could be solved by including those parts separately, but then some folks would complain about the kit being “too complex.”
The rest is small potatoes. I did quite a bit of work on the old Tamiya kits. Sounds like this one’ll be a better starting point.
4 Likes
I will be giving this one a hard miss and sticking with the Tamiya and working through less issues. To many soft detail issues, and silly things they got wrong with this kit. The only thing I can see that is a bit better than the Tamiya kit for a MkIII is they have the correct level sloping drivers glacis down to the splash plate.
2 Likes