The photos I posted are a bit misleading. I think it is the second to last wheel that is 1-2 millimeters off - closer to the last wheel, when you align the front of the lower hulls (alignment is really difficult because of the different geometries of the hull parts). I am more bothered by the shape of the wheel mount (half cone vs. half cylinder), and I want to check if that was a production change or completely made-up.
For me, I think the bigger point so far is that it is not that critically throw-it-in-the thrash bad as I’d thought/read (especially the hull top and running gear) considering its price and when it came out. With that, I still didn’t get a chance to figure out the turret problems - I only have the IIID turret from Meng that has the flying saucer shape built as a single piece rather than as add-ons, which would have actually helped a lot with strength and alignment issues.
As an additional question, I am 3/4ths of going through the IDF photo thread here, and I am surprised by the distribution of the Merkava photos so far. I don’t follow the exact units involved or can’t say why some units might be more photographed in these series. But everything being equal, there seems to be almost half Merkava IV/IVMs and half Merkava IIIs in the field, with most surprisingly, almost a 10-1 ratio between older non-flying saucer Merkava IIIs (Bs - no engine armor, and Cs - engine armor all with turret-top armor, with a lot of them having Baz components) vs. new IIIDs. It almost feels like instead of upgrading the older IIIs with the new armor package of IIID, the production switched to IVs and the older IIIs only got the basic turret and engine armor. If that is the case, I will need to get more of Meng’s straight-turret kit and/or find ways to upgrade the Academy kits to create the many variations, especially the new rubber bands that seem to be glued on everything zimmerit-like.
Deniz
1 Like