Sunday, 6 April 2014

Four T-34 'quick build' models compared - Part 7

Number of parts: 17

Above: Plenty of parts but note the detail on the hull bottom, in particular the
rear drive housing. A nice touch.
First off, well done Pegasus for being the first quick build so far that's spot on scale! According to my measurements (based on George Blandford's ' Allied Armoured Fighting Vehicles') The Pegasus T-34/85 hull is - like their turret - 1:72.

It also takes the prize for most hull components, they have gone to town with many of the smaller surface items like very nicely done tow hooks, spare track links and much more including a two handed saw!

Quality of detail…
Ah, well - yes there is plenty of detail - including seams and panel lines - but the quality is a bit vague. Some panel lines are quite rough and faint and the one-piece fuel tanks - although they managed to get the right number for a T-34/85 (3) - are chunky tubes which have been given dents in them which - at scale - are more like great chunks bitten out of them (where's my filler)!

Then there is my biggest bug-bear - the engine deck! Yes, I have more complaints in this area. Pegasus have dodged the whole 'mesh vent' issue by not including any texture at all on in the five rear vent covers. There are just five rectangular outlines! Furthermore, the side vents are nothing more than featureless indentations in the side of the deck area.

Above: The rear deck - oh dear! Oh well, I like the exhaust pipes!
So, what was gained with the inclusion of all the nice little extras was lost in bad execution of the quality of those parts and surface detail.

One area I should comment though was the inclusion of detail on the hull bottom, which included axels. Now while you might debate the necessity of this on a 'quick build' part of this is the drive axel housing at the rear - this is something that is clearly visible at the rear and is easy to include. I wish Armoufast had done this (on their T-34s and their M4 Shermans).

Above: The business end - and yes there are lots of 'bits', and at least it's better than the
rear. Closed driver's hatch I'm afraid.
In conclusion, while I appreciate all the little extra touches I kind of lean toward having less detail rather than badly done detail. Besides this I guess that war gamers who these quick builds are aimed at will not want too many parts to have to put together and paint. And so, because of this, and despite the over-scaling I do rate the cleaner Armourfast T-34 over the Pegasus rendition…

I'd rather have a nicely done base onto which I can add my own extra detail...BUT...I concede that some might prefer having the 'extras' and won't want to bother with fiddling about adding their own. So you have to admit you get your money-worth with Pegasus.

No comments:

Post a Comment