[chascbv]

I just had a look at the pictures in Hawk's site, and the models look very good. After a first glimpse I think the Centurion is a fine representation of the real thing, and so are the M10 and T55A, even though the rear lights on the M10 are in need of some refinement. I also am very happy that those unsightly blobs at the ends of the handles on the T55A turret are now gone, which also may mean that HM is willing to listen, at least sometimes. I presume production batches will be more refined, particularly regarding some of the finer details.

All in all, I really look forward to purchasing these three models by HM, who are to be commended for their choice of subject and their efforts to provide us with products ever increasing in quality.

[Cavtanker]

I've put all my planned purchases on hold for the next few months to see how good these HM releases are!

[Epapazian]

Originally Posted by planejunky

The Centurian looks the business! I had my dad's old Dinky Centurian when I was a kid, played with it for hours I think they did a Chieftain too but I never had that one.

I still have that Dinky, although it's a little worse for wear. Just pre-ordered all three of the new HM tanks.

[PickMattock]

Looks like all of the original concerns I voiced about the M10 have been addressed. When preview pics first went up on the site I grumbled about the name “Wolverine” being used but it’s nowhere to found on the M10 page anymore. I inquired about the “duck bill” counterweight on liveries they selected, but it’s been changed to the earlier type. Most importantly, I wanted to see grouser stowage racks on the sides of the hull, as they were present on most M10s in the ETO, so I’m THRILLED to see them added to the M10! That's outstanding!

My only concern is the track…It needs help. It looks like it falls completely between the drive sprockets, which looks mighty strange. (Throws the look of the whole model off.) They need to be wider (or the drive sprocket needs to be narrower) so that the track end connectors rest in the recesses of the teeth on the sprockets. As is pictured, the vehicle would be immobile! I’m hoping against hope that it’s only a problem peculiar to the proto model, because it really needs to be fixed...

Other than that, I’m really happy. Looks like we get a nice turret interior.

[hawkonevoodoo]

Originally Posted by PickMattock

Looks like all of the original concerns I voiced about the M10 have been addressed. When preview pics first went up on the site I grumbled about the name “Wolverine” being used but it’s nowhere to found on the M10 page anymore. I inquired about the “duck bill” counterweight on liveries they selected, but it’s been changed to the earlier type. Most importantly, I wanted to see grouser stowage racks on the sides of the hull, as they were present on most M10s in the ETO, so I’m THRILLED to see them added to the M10! That's outstanding!

My only concern is the track…It needs help. It looks like it falls completely between the drive sprockets, which looks mighty strange. (Throws the look of the whole model off.) They need to be wider (or the drive sprocket needs to be narrower) so that the track end connectors rest in the recesses of the teeth on the sprockets. As is pictured, the vehicle would be immobile! I’m hoping against hope that it’s only a problem peculiar to the proto model, because it really needs to be fixed...

Other than that, I’m really happy. Looks like we get a nice turret interior.

All your points were read and sent to Hobby Master and they obviously listened to your input, thanks. The sprocket and/or track has already been brought to their attention so hopefully it will be corrected. I'll keep a check on it with Hobby Master from time to time and try to let you know what I find out. If you want to make sure I see your concerns perhaps you can email them to me hawkonevoodoo@yahoo.ca and if you like you can also post them here. The reason I ask for the email is so I will be certain to read it where I might miss thge occasional post when I'm searching through 5 forums on a daily basis. Or at least I try to make it a daily basis.

[PickMattock]

I know everyone’s always telling you the same thing, but I just wanted to again acknowledge what you do around here. (As I’m sure Hobby Master values it as well.) It can’t be easy sifting through all the complaints and gripes and grievances, even the occasional praise. I post criticism (hopefully constructive) because I’m passionate about the hobby, so it’s phenomenal to know our inquires and suggestions are examined seriously, and I appreciate your role in that process. Hobby Master is building a heck of reputation for being much more open to input from it’s customers than others in the biz. So…Thanks again for helping our words fall on refreshingly attentive ears.

[dilligafocau]

I like the Centurion, though this Mk 3 pic is closer to the Mk 1 I think

[chascbv]

Originally Posted by PickMattock

I know everyone’s always telling you the same thing, but I just wanted to again acknowledge what you do around here. (As I’m sure Hobby Master values it as well.) It can’t be easy sifting through all the complaints and gripes and grievances, even the occasional praise. I post criticism (hopefully constructive) because I’m passionate about the hobby, so it’s phenomenal to know our inquires and suggestions are examined seriously, and I appreciate your role in that process. Hobby Master is building a heck of reputation for being much more open to input from it’s customers than others in the biz. So…Thanks again for helping our words fall on refreshingly attentive ears.

I most definitely second that!!!

Also, I've examined those T-55 pictures more in detail and found an almost negligible nit to pick. Both the Russian and Polish versions are T-55As fitted with the thicker turret cupolas, but the Iraqi tank is a T-55 or an early export T-55A version with the original turret cupolas. The thicker cupolas result from the addition of POV, a type of anti-radiation protection armour, and are associated to the flat appliqué armour panel seen between both cupolas from above. The Iraqi tank also has that panel between its turret cupolas, which is inconsistent with the standard cupolas fitted.

[Hornchurch]

Originally Posted by Juneau1

The M10 looks great!

I wonder when it will be in the US. It will be nice to have something other than a Sherman for US WWII tank/tank destroyers.
Eric

Yep, was thinking exactly that when I 1st saw those pix.........

That M.10 looks FANTASTIC !!!!!!!!! (I don't collect die-cast armour, but that's just SO Tempting !!!!!!!!)

......... An 'Achilles' (or M.36 Jackson) to follow ?

[dilligafocau]

Originally Posted by dilligafocau

I like the Centurion, though this Mk 3 pic is closer to the Mk 1 I think

Ok the Hobbymaster site has this listed as a MK6 Centurion, though it was advertised as a MK1.