Revell M48A2 Patton ARRIVED!!

The two sets are the only AFV accessory sets Academy makes in 1/35. I would just suggest using the US metal Water cans not the later plastic Israeli ones unless you will upgrade to a later Israeli Patton. The figures are not quite right for Israelis though being more Early Vietnam with M-14s and such type gear.

Rob Gronovius

RedCorvette:

I drive by a M60 parked in front of the VFW hall everyday on the way to work.  Maybe I'll stick my tape measure in the car one day this week.  ;)

Mark

 

 

It wouldn't do much good to the arguement, the M60 hull is different from the M48 hull so the measurements wouldn't be good basis for comparison.

I know they are different.  M60's had also been mentioned in the thread.  Just trying to lighten up the discussion a bit.

The subtle point I was trying to make was that it's silly to spend so much time comparing two models to each other to determine which one is "right" - at some point you need to compare them with the dimensions of the actual prototype.

Mark

That point's really moot because the 44 year old kit is virtually identical in size to the 30 year old kit. They both got it good enough (or wrong enough) to be basically the same size. The argument was that the kits were of different scale and that the Monogram one was bigger than the Tamiya one.

As shown in Stikpusher's photos, the kits are identical in size and both of them are listed as the same scale. You could probably make the argument that the Monogram kit that was argued to be the larger scale actually appears marginally smaller than the Tamiya kit which should have been smaller of the two.

Rob Gronovius

That point's really moot because the 44 year old kit is virtually identical in size to the 30 year old kit. They both got it good enough (or wrong enough) to be basically the same size. The argument was that the kits were of different scale and that the Monogram one was bigger than the Tamiya one.

As shown in Stikpusher's photos, the kits are identical in size and both of them are listed as the same scale. You could probably make the argument that the Monogram kit that was argued to be the larger scale actually appears marginally smaller than the Tamiya kit which should have been smaller of the two.

I wasn't making an argument about anything except  that the only way to verify the scale of any kit is to check its dimensions against the prototype.  It's faulty logic to assume that just because the two models are the same size that  they are both precisely 1/35 scale.  Chances are that they are, but the only way to confirm is to actually measure them.  I was not the one making the argument that the Monogram kit was 1/32.

Mark

I know you weren't the one. The basic argument is that the Monogram kit is bigger than the Tamiya kit because it was made in a larger scale. But they're both the same size, regardless of scale, which is why I said they were both good enough or both bad enough (in scale size). The fact is they are the same size and would therefore be the same scale regardless of what scale that turns out to be.

Kustommodeler, here's thelink to my M48 by Tamiya which I just finished. This might give you some ideas on weathering, detailing, and whatnot. Down in the middle of the post is the finished pics.

Doog's M48

I'm a bit late on this.  I have an original Monogram kit.  The old box with a copyright of 1959 on it.  There is an old catalog inside with all the neato vehicles Monogram made at that time.  The  M3 halftrack, the jeep, weasel, the figures and a couple of others.  It is indeed close to the Tamiya kit in size as others here have said and posted pictures.  Now the other competitor in the field back then, late 50's, early 60's was Renwall.  I still have a few of their old kits around.  Bigger for sure.  I'd assume they are 1/32 scale, as said before, compared to Monograms 1/35.  Even back then, we kids knew that Renwall and Monogram were on different paths.  I was somewhat surprised that Monogram went to 1/32 with their  Pzkfw IV and M4 and M3 and others in the late 60's and early 70's.  Tamiya was making inroads and we thought that 1/35 would be the standard scale.  Eventually it did.  Monograms brief flirtation with it was a dead end.  But I'm happy they are releasing even those, as they were nice kits to build, easy with some nice simple features.  And not too expensive.  Perfect for beginers .

A buddy of mine just built this a month ago as soon as it came out, just for fun.  We compared it to a Tamiya kit i had built up, and they were darn close to the same size.

Sometimes it is useful to be an old fossil with not only the memory, but the evidence in hand.

I'm happy that no one here collects on life bets.

The only thing I bet my life on is that some day it will end.

I am curious to compare not for the scale but for the detail and match them to pictures to see who got what right and wrong.

The only reason I bought the A2 was because I was going to use either for a M67A2 flame tank or eventually a scratch build M55 and/or M53. But I read that the 1/11ACR (of which I served in the early 1980s)used them when they ran out of A3 models around 1970. So you'll see a few army M48 A2s.....or was that A1s. I forgot...oh well. I have to check the books again.

But future builds will be M67A2 and the SPH/G models. Monogram is supposedly reissuing the M55 in 1/32 and I am going to use that with the A2 to scratch build a M55...or try.

I think I know why the Tamiya has the higher profile. If you look closely at the running gear of both the Monogram kit and the Tamiya kit the Monogram kit(M48A2) sits lower due to to the appearance of being wieghed down by armor and engine which is actually normal as by how the suspension arms sit. But on the Tamiya kit(M48A3) its suspension is riding too high which means that it is lacking that appearance of being weighed down and thus appears taller.  One thin I do notice about the tracks on both kits the monogram tracks actually look like the real thing with the monogram tracks being noticably thicker. The Tamiya tracks are very thin and  just don't look the part you would just be better off using the AFV club tracks on the Monogram kit and using the Monogram tracks on the Tamiya kit.

kustommodeler1,

I have Revell/Monogram classic 1/35 scale Patton on the way, and would like some ideas on accessories to dress it up a little if y'all don't mind.

Scratch built tarps, bed rolls, chain link fence, cables, ammunition boxes, stowage of all sorts and even wood stowage boxes.

To split hairs over the 'scale' debate is no dressing up your tank or answering the original question.

'If it looks right than it is!'

Look at pictures of your tank in action from combat photographs of Vietnam. It will give the best examples of how the crew decked out their tank and what sort of gear they needed to survive.

But on the Tamiya kit(M48A3) its suspension is riding too high which means that it is lacking that appearance of being weighed down and thus appears taller.

Yes, Tamiya based theirs on a tank w/out an engine in it.  It sits 3mm too high.  It is an easy fix though.  All you need to do is cut the tubular bar off the bump stops and lower them, allowing the suspension to be lowered 3mm.  You can see the correction on the Magach 3 I did a while ago.

I think that is what the Doog did on his M48 build. Now the Tamiya kit is ideal for making a dio of a power pack change out since the power pack is most of the weight of the tank.

Mikeym_us

I think that is what the Doog did on his M48 build. Now the Tamiya kit is ideal for making a dio of a power pack change out since the power pack is most of the weight of the tank.

Yes on both accounts.

Here is my M48A3 sans engine from the Tamiya kit.

Nice work....

As someone who is nowhere near in the class of the builders here, at least not yet.....ha ha. I feel that you have to have a concept first. In that concept I also feel you should put the vehicle in it's normal operating state.

What does normal operating state mean. As a person who was in the Army that could mean many things. As with the pictures above, that state could mean needing a new engine pack. it could be even a state of being used as a target or destroyed by a mine. Or in a specific time period.

For instance there are time periods or eras for the army or marines. The M48A2 was mostly used during the 1950s and briefly in Vietnam because of the attrition of the M48A3.

I think if you want to make a cool M48A2 you would do something in the mid 1950s. That means a semi gloss dark olive green color and little to no accessories. Maybe some duffel bags and that's it. That's not too exciting is it...nope. So how do you make it interesting. You could have it throw a track and have the crew repairing it. It had a crew of 4.

Or you could have the crew just hanging around drinking some excellent German beer during one of the many operations during the cold war. I know, I did it in the early 80s, we had M1A1s and I drove the ITV and M113 Dragon track, I drank a coke and smoked a Marlboro though. You could have them smoking and joking or covered in snow, I did that too.

Or you could do a Vietnam thing and make it an A3 without the light, they did take them off. Look online and you can find a bunch of pictures of M48s in various stages of action. use a picture or two to get some ideas.

You could even have the crew cleaning it or painting it. That's something you did all the time once you came out of the field even in combat. For every hour in the field you needed many more doing maintenance on them.

The M48A2 was used in movies a lot.

I recall one 'Battle of the bulge' film where the attacking German Tigers were all M48A2's! Not historically accurate yet something interesting and different.

BigDaddyBluesman

I am curious to compare not for the scale but for the detail and match them to pictures to see who got what right and wrong.

One is an A2, the other an A3. Major differences that I could see all relate to the engine differences on the back deck, lack of external armored aircleaners, etc. Other differences in the kits mainly pertain to to variations made to the tank throughout its lifespan. For instance, the headlights and guards are different; the Tamiya kit has the older style and the Monogram kit has the later style despite being an earlier model tank. The lower hull is also an earlier version with the 5 support rollers and the trailing roller between the #6 road wheel and the drive sprocket. The Tamiya kit has the later 3 support roller hull with no trailing roller.

This tank served in the US Army for 40 years from the 1950s until the late 1980s (I crewed one up to 1986 and I know it stayed in service after I moved to M1s).

SuppressionFire

The M48A2 was used in movies a lot.

I recall one 'Battle of the bulge' film where the attacking German Tigers were all M48A2's! Not historically accurate yet something interesting and different.

The Battle of the Bulge used M47 Patton tanks as King Tigers. Here is a shot of the scene where they watch them through binoculars.

And a screen shot of where they discuss a model of their new "King Tiger." Clearly an M47 and not a KT.

Rob, your breaking my heart, I believed for years as a kid it really was KT, now I have one comming (Italeri M47) from Santa to make into a "KT" (key manical laugh).

Serious though I was very dissapointed to find out the truth, I think real KT's are rather ugly.

Andrew

This thread has me thinking about picking up another Monogram A2 for conversion into a Bundeswehr M48A2G... The M67A2 sounds tempting as well...

This model brings back a lot of memories of my early modelling days. Thanks for sharing it.

Here is a link to good info on the M48 series tanks and modeling it.

http://www.patton-mania.com/M48_Patton/m48_patton.html

Konigwolf13

Rob, your breaking my heart, I believed for years as a kid it really was KT, now I have one comming (Italeri M47) from Santa to make into a "KT" (key manical laugh).

Serious though I was very dissapointed to find out the truth, I think real KT's are rather ugly.

Andrew

One of our older members, J-Hulk (aka Brian Keaney), built this very tank using the Italeri M47 tank (arguably Italeri's best 1/35 scale tank kit and thier high water mark). It takes a few moments for the photos to load, but his build is outstanding and worth the wait. He works for Hobby Link Japan and they use his kit as an ad for the kit.

http://www.hlj.com/product/ITA6447 

I also believe that the German tanks used in Audie Murphy's movie to Hell and Back were M47's

stikpusher

OK, I have too much time on my hands before work. Don't laugh too hard at the quality of the builds as they are all over 25 years ago and were hand painted... No airbrush in those days... The green Monogram M48 was built OOB, as was the Tamiya. The Sand M48 had some mods done- replaced cupola, added handholds from stretched sprue on turret, up gunned to 105mm main gun.

Tamiya M48 TC along with other Tamiya TC figure and Monogram TC

Tamiya M48 between Monogram M48s. The Tamiya is just a bit shorter lengthwise...

Tamiya and Monogram M48s side to side and back to back.Tamiya has a taller profile

 

Ok... I've read everything, again and again, pulled the Monogram and Tamiya hulls out again,  looked over mine and Stik's, and will concede, based on the following... Both kits are 1/33.5 scale...

  t$t]

We cool?

Thanks for the heads up Rob

"Cool"

Andrew

stikpusher

some things you may want to consider:

File off the "steps"on the turret sides and scratch build the rails that belong there from stretched sprue, styrene or brass rod.

remove the molded on pioneer tools and replace them (and the jerry can) with ones from Academy's AFV Accessory sets. Also the packs in that set are more appropriate than the modern era ALICE packs in the Tamiya sets.

 

Well, I have this accessory set on the way. I have also been scouring the net for lots of photos, and I got a vision in mind.........

To my eye the Tamiya kit is less correct on height and turret. The Tamiya turret looks wrong. I think people that fix it don't do it right. It's not the height it's the angle and the gun height in terms of were it is on mantel. The Revell kit has the rear of the turret angle right and the ride height too.

It's the angle of the bottom of the rear of the turret. It's sharper going upward. The Revell kit has it right and the Tamiya kit wrong from my eye. Also the Tamiya kits gun is too low on the mantel and that might make modelers think the turret height is wrong, but the actual height maybe correct.

So the Revell kit has the ride height and turret more correct but lacks details. I have been comparing the 2 built ones in the pictures with dozens of pictures of real ones I got off the internet.

It looks like the Revell kit is fine, in some ways better. It just needs a little upgrade in terms of detail.

Unless I am mistaken,the Tamiya kit is a bit tall because the research vehicle had no engine in it.Threw off the measurements a bit.

Yes that's the story I've read. It seems plausible. I have so many pictures of m48s and some ride a little high. The ones that don't are running models or ones in combat. Some museum tanks seem to be riding high. I have also seen a few different angles on the track coming from the first roller wheel down to the first  wheel.

I guess a combat loaded M48 is much different then a M48 out for maneuvers in peacetime and one that's empty in a museum or on display. I know the Vietnam loaded up M113s road real LOW compared to the almost empty ones I drove.

i plan on building a vn era dio w/ it along w/ tamiya's 'us armored troops'. makes for a great dio from 1969 time frame.