...while waiting for the latest releases from FOV to appear on the shelves I have taken a fresh look at the last wave released and noticed some minor details... I was wondering if anyone else has taken notice as well.
T 34 simply stated, it rides too high on its suspension as a result of it's support arm assemblies having too great of a downward angle after exiting the hull... I have seperated the hull for closer examination and it looks fixable but would be a minor chore so I left it be... for now.
M 26 a minor curiousity and kinda funny, the stencling on the rear fenders states "LEFT HERE"... when I thought about it, it must historically be a reference ro the two large towing eyes adjacent on the hull and probably read "LIFT HERE". Modern armor is often lifted in this manner for embarkation on ship and I should think that was the case back then as well. As FOV is produced in China it is probably a small language oversight I imagine.
Bradley IFV my Desert Storm example came missing the "door" or front cover of the TOW launcher assy. I only noticed as more examples were released and I studied them closely for changes.
Pz IV G my example arrived with the stowage bin on turret rear quite crooked and needed fixing which was a pain with the turret shurzen being fixed in position. This was also not attatched uniformally around the turret and is out of sync (on mine anyway)...
StuG III, T 72 Main Gun assemblies are constructed in a manner which prohibits lowering elevation to anywhere near 0 degrees, a more realistic look for a direct weapon IMHO... these were fixable but the StuG was quite a pain and has, like, a bajillion small parts holding it to the upper hull which needed removing first...
I should state that I still think FOV is the best going for 1/32 armor, head and shoulders above 21st Century in that scale... including Cold Steel, though they do produce a good Panther... looking forward to the FOV Panther, though.
FOV inaccuracies
You make many valid points about the FOV stuff. I never noticed the missing door on the Bradley TOW launcher. Great observation on your part. The grammatical stuff with the M26 is a given, but not forgivable. They also put the wrong weight on the yellow bridge plate. It should be a 43 instead of a 34. The Panzer IVs suffer from many bits of tweeking to get the model to appear correct. Overall they are not bad just a bit too delicate. The Stug and T72 gun problems are repairable. I had fix both to achieve the proper travel. It was fairly easy, just disassembling and doing some minor cutting or filing. I have had problems with other FOV vehicles that required alterations to fix. The main gun on the M60 was a problem. It was too floppy so I took it apart and placed a bit of sandpaper in the socket to stiffen it up. My M60 also had one road wheel where the suspension was accidently glued in place at the factory. Overtime. the other sprung road wheels settled and the tank ended up being tilted. I couldnt budge to one wheel set loose, so I had to glue all of the sets to get the tank to sit level, losing the suspension effect.
Each vehicle seems to have problems unto itself. M26 with poor rolling gear, the Jagdpanther with the overdone weathering, T76 and Stug with the gun problems, the Tiger I with the wrong track cone pattern and so on. But then again, the King Tiger , schwimwagen, Paladin, M1 Abrams and AAVP are fairly fault free apart from minor details. Each new FOV piece is an adventure in what you can do to make it better or fix a fault. I kind of like doing that kind of work on them since they screwed together and fairly easy to disassemble. But then again, their cost should dictate a little better quality overall. FOV and 21st are two different animals in my opinion. To compare them really isn`t a issue since 21st`s goal is not really the same as FOV. They are all great in my opinion.
TJ
Each vehicle seems to have problems unto itself. M26 with poor rolling gear, the Jagdpanther with the overdone weathering, T76 and Stug with the gun problems, the Tiger I with the wrong track cone pattern and so on. But then again, the King Tiger , schwimwagen, Paladin, M1 Abrams and AAVP are fairly fault free apart from minor details. Each new FOV piece is an adventure in what you can do to make it better or fix a fault. I kind of like doing that kind of work on them since they screwed together and fairly easy to disassemble. But then again, their cost should dictate a little better quality overall. FOV and 21st are two different animals in my opinion. To compare them really isn`t a issue since 21st`s goal is not really the same as FOV. They are all great in my opinion.
TJ
Well said about FOV and 21st century differences... kinda like apples and oranges. Now that you mention it I took your advice on the M 60 and fixed the same problem on mine a few weeks ago. I also had my "Kanonewagon" halftrack completely apart to fix the gun mount and hull attachment... lots of screws on that one. All in all I am a big fan and have 31 at this point and 1 on the way. I am really impressed with the quality of figures in the 2nd series over the 1st. Another observation was the high quality of the IFOR Hummer in the Action series... all it lacks is a trading card and is every bit as good as other Enthusiast series kits in terms of detail. Another small bit of useless trivia, the Marine M 60 is called a "Patton" in the kit but I distinctly remember the Marine Corps called it the "Blazer's" and the reactive armor version labled an M 60 "RISE", this being an acronym which I have since forgotten... As for the newly released AAVP7A1, we crews called them Tractors and unofficially "Hogs"... a Jeep could also be driven into the troop compartment when configured properly for movement to the beach during landings and the vehicle was designed with this in mind, this feature being lost when we switched to the Hummer around 1988...
in regards to the "Blazer" thats a name given by the Israelis to their reactive armor and the nickname stuck to the tank in general. The Israelis also referred to their M60's as "Pattons" and "Upgraded Pattons", don't think I ever heard a Marine Corps tanker refer to his 60 as either, but rather just a "60" regardless of variant (A3 being the common variant shortly before being phased out).chesy wrote:Well said about FOV and 21st century differences... kinda like apples and oranges. Now that you mention it I took your advice on the M 60 and fixed the same problem on mine a few weeks ago. I also had my "Kanonewagon" halftrack completely apart to fix the gun mount and hull attachment... lots of screws on that one. All in all I am a big fan and have 31 at this point and 1 on the way. I am really impressed with the quality of figures in the 2nd series over the 1st. Another observation was the high quality of the IFOR Hummer in the Action series... all it lacks is a trading card and is every bit as good as other Enthusiast series kits in terms of detail. Another small bit of useless trivia, the Marine M 60 is called a "Patton" in the kit but I distinctly remember the Marine Corps called it the "Blazer's" and the reactive armor version labled an M 60 "RISE", this being an acronym which I have since forgotten... As for the newly released AAVP7A1, we crews called them Tractors and unofficially "Hogs"... a Jeep could also be driven into the troop compartment when configured properly for movement to the beach during landings and the vehicle was designed with this in mind, this feature being lost when we switched to the Hummer around 1988...
FOV
And don't forget the undersized gun barrels! I have issues with both the barrel on the Jagdpanther, and the one on the T-34.
I don't have the jagd, but from pics it appears that there is little or no taper to the barrel, and it seems to be way to skinny to represent an 88. Also, the T-34 is supposed to sport an 85mm, but the end of the gun is again too skinny to be that size.
I also noticed that the T-34 seems to "ride high," but then noticed when compared with pics it is mostly an effect of the tracks not lying on top of the road wheels. There should be a gap between the track and the superstructure, not the roadwheels and the track the way the model comes. Still a problem, but not as bad for me as it would have been if the entire vehicle sat up too high.
For laughs - put you t-34 or pz IV driver next to the sherman tanker. Guess we grow 'em big over here!
Still great vehicles - I look forward to getting the rest
I don't have the jagd, but from pics it appears that there is little or no taper to the barrel, and it seems to be way to skinny to represent an 88. Also, the T-34 is supposed to sport an 85mm, but the end of the gun is again too skinny to be that size.
I also noticed that the T-34 seems to "ride high," but then noticed when compared with pics it is mostly an effect of the tracks not lying on top of the road wheels. There should be a gap between the track and the superstructure, not the roadwheels and the track the way the model comes. Still a problem, but not as bad for me as it would have been if the entire vehicle sat up too high.
For laughs - put you t-34 or pz IV driver next to the sherman tanker. Guess we grow 'em big over here!
Still great vehicles - I look forward to getting the rest
....good input by Klaus on the 60's nicknames, etc. The details were kinda fuzzy for me as we phased them out after Desert Storm and I only only personally knew a few tankers back then and few of the newer guys were around to even see an M 60 exept the one parked in front of the chow hall at 29 Palms. I still wonder about the "RISE" acronym which I am sure I heard back in 1988 during a class given at Camp Lejeune... anyone know? The other shortcomings are noted on the T34, Jagdpanther, etc... but I guess we all agree the new windfall in 1/32 diecast is a good thing and, what the hell, it keeps me out of the bars though it's just as expensive. Have any of our forum readers been to Aberdeen, MD to the US Army tank museum? I am debating a stopover this spring when I visit Antietam and Gettysburg and was wondering if it's worth the drive...
FOV Inaccuracies
On a slightly different vein, the FOV AH-64 Blackhawk is a thing of beauty but (as usual for FOV) they had to make a silly error. They didn't paint the white interior which looks completely bogus. I painted everything but the front cockpit through the rear door opening, and then tried to disassemble it in order to complete the job. To be brief, I couldn't get the blasted thing apart. It looks like the front clip would come apart (giving me access to the cockpit) but no dice, . Anybody else tried this?
This is true. We tend to forget their attemps in the aircraft area. The helicopters are great and the jet fighters are good as well. I didnt know that the interiors were white. I have seen real Blackhawks up close but never noticed too much in detail. How to get them apart-that is a good question. Doesn`t look easy...
TJ
TJ
Re: FOV Inaccuracies
Speaking of silly errors, "AH-64 Blackhawk"?corpbob wrote:On a slightly different vein, the FOV AH-64 Blackhawk is a thing of beauty but (as usual for FOV) they had to make a silly error.
I obviously dont post much but have been visiting this site for a long time. Just to play on the other side of the fence these things are toys! While they may have tiny inperfections who cares? For detailed perfect accuracy build a kitt.
I have seen Winkys stuff set up in pic's and I remember what it was like to open the Battle Ground set from Marx on a birthday and play for hours. They are first and foremost and only toys!
I would have cried at the detail these things posses when I was a kid. A German toy tank that looks just like a Tiger in place of a piece of plastic done over in the color gray?
Lastly I would imagine that for every collector who gripes about a detail there are a hundered tanks sold at wal mart that will end up trashed in a week. Its first and formost a toy business, that itself is a numbers game. So while some can say they are innacurate or imperfect I say your crazy. 21st century and FOV have redefined the toy soldier industry. More correct resurected it.
I have seen Winkys stuff set up in pic's and I remember what it was like to open the Battle Ground set from Marx on a birthday and play for hours. They are first and foremost and only toys!
I would have cried at the detail these things posses when I was a kid. A German toy tank that looks just like a Tiger in place of a piece of plastic done over in the color gray?
Lastly I would imagine that for every collector who gripes about a detail there are a hundered tanks sold at wal mart that will end up trashed in a week. Its first and formost a toy business, that itself is a numbers game. So while some can say they are innacurate or imperfect I say your crazy. 21st century and FOV have redefined the toy soldier industry. More correct resurected it.
-
ltcbj
- Officer - Brigadier General
- Posts: 3835
- Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 4:58 pm
- Location: Here, there, everywhere
- Contact:
While it is certainly true that it requires imagination to play with toys such things as tracks constantly running off the road wheels is very annoying. On the other hand thes FoV are beautiful 'replica' toys and were presented as accurate- not just pretty.
the Stug cannon can be fixed by CAREFULLY popping it out of it's position and then shaving or sanding it off at the bottom of the mantle. It is just a ball in socket (the socket on the gun, the ball in the chassis) set up. I have five and had to do it to every one of them, and learned to be very careful....[/url]
the Stug cannon can be fixed by CAREFULLY popping it out of it's position and then shaving or sanding it off at the bottom of the mantle. It is just a ball in socket (the socket on the gun, the ball in the chassis) set up. I have five and had to do it to every one of them, and learned to be very careful....[/url]
"The only constant is change. Often short change. Learn to accept.": Noah Vaile www.dinosaur-toys-collectors-guide.com
[img]http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c315/photbug/image6.jpg[/img]
On your mark! Get set! Lunch....
Want your own website? PM me!
[img]http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c315/photbug/image6.jpg[/img]
On your mark! Get set! Lunch....
Want your own website? PM me!
FOV Errors
Ooops, of course that would be UH-60 Blackhawk. Not proofreading is a danger at all times, especially when in a hurry.
Yes, regardless of the flaws these are by far the best affordable military machines ever produced IMHO. I'll take my Blackhawk, white interior and all, for $30 and run like the wind. But I'll still gripe.....
Yes, regardless of the flaws these are by far the best affordable military machines ever produced IMHO. I'll take my Blackhawk, white interior and all, for $30 and run like the wind. But I'll still gripe.....