actually I found the Ostwind headed to my stash. Only problem is the turret dosn’t look right for some oddball reason
gary
Gary, that turret is correct, believe-it-or-not. It does look odd.
I wonder what the difference with this Marder and the previously released on is? Anyone?
Can’t tell much from just the box art but my guess is they corrected some of the problems that were in their original Marder III H attempt from an accuracy standpoint since those used a lot of parts from the 38(t) G chassis and this one claims to be on an Ausf E. Will have to see the sprues and/or poster details to be sure on what exactly is different though.
I have three or four photos of the Ostwind, and the turret in each one is assymmetrical. Did they also build a symmetrically shaped turret? Or is it just the way the picture on the box looks?
As for the Marder; I sorta wondered about the samething. I recently picked up a couple Marders (one from DML and the other is from Tamiya), and both of them look like nice kits in the box
gary
Without an overhead view, it’s difficult to tell, but I doubt symmetrical.
Bill, wasn’t the running gear a flaw on the earlier released H? Perhaps they corrected this. Has to be more to it though. Of course I have the older release. [censored]
Hard to say for sure what they changed…DML has a habit of correcting errors by releasing a new kit with a new kit # and different name instead of releasing the older kit with the fixes and the same # to address the problems. It does make it easier to tell which one you should get over time but can also lead to some interesting kit name gymnastics like we are seeing here. In truth there isn’t anything substantially different between an Ausf E and an Ausf H chassis as it would appear on the Marder III H…except that for it to be an “E” means that it’s a rebuilt gun-tank chassis sent back to the factory from the field for depot repair instead of one purpose built for the Marder as an “H” chassis since the Gs were the last gun-tank versions and the subsequent 38t chassis orders were referenced as “Ausf H, J, K, or M” only for order fulfillment purposes. The thing is, you wouldn’t be able to tell that from the external differences unless you knew the Fahrgestell number…so them calling it an E, so far as I can tell, is a little disingenuous. [;)]
Well this is a stretch even for Dragon as far as claiming a “new” variant…the only differences that are going to be readily visible are the thickness of the hull bow and superstructure front plates which were increased to 50mm homogenous plates on the G instead of the 25+25 bolt on plates of the E on both areas which you can see on the CAD drawings as two plates instead of just one part. That and the option for the standard or raised exhaust, both of which were featured on the E but only the raised was featured on the G/H…and that’s it…voila! you get a new kit release…and hopefully the error corrections to boot. Won’t be able to confirm that until someone does a review of the sprues though but it does look like they got the gun mount right this time around for the Pak 40/3 going by the CAD on the H and also retooled some of the parts on the engine deck to have the right bolt detail pattern. The real question of course will be the infamous “fender kink” and how or if they addressed that at all. [;)]