login   |    register

Scale Modeling Sponsors

See Your Ad Here!

Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
News
Monogram: Vintage M3A1
varanusk
Staff MemberManaging Editor
ARMORAMA
Visit this Community
Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain / España
Joined: July 04, 2013
KitMaker: 649 posts
Armorama: 459 posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 - 08:00 PM GMT+7


The classic M3A1 Combat Zone Armoured Vehicle from Monogram is available again through Revell.

Read the Full News Story

If you have comments or questions please post them here.

Thanks!
tigerproductions
Visit this Community
Tennessee, United States
Joined: November 13, 2006
KitMaker: 190 posts
Armorama: 156 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 16, 2017 - 12:58 AM GMT+7
Why?
Bravo1102
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: December 08, 2003
KitMaker: 1,172 posts
Armorama: 1,032 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 16, 2017 - 01:00 AM GMT+7
Really looks like they're reissuing one from this series every year or so. This will leave only the Jeep and M29 Weasel.

I wonder if they will restore the original 1950's figures to this one like they did with the M34 truck and M13 halftrack? That makes it doubly interesting since I only ever saw these in the white box issues of the 1970s when the figures had all been replaced with the later 1960s figures as in the M48 and Infantry combat Group sets.
TopSmith
Visit this Community
Washington, United States
Joined: August 09, 2002
KitMaker: 775 posts
Armorama: 727 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 16, 2017 - 01:04 AM GMT+7
Cool. I like building a kit once in a while from my childhood. It is a fun build not a model contestant. Hummm... Maybe I won't use gloss grass green this time....
Yankasippi
Visit this Community
Mississippi, United States
Joined: April 30, 2015
KitMaker: 36 posts
Armorama: 35 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 16, 2017 - 01:52 AM GMT+7
If I remember correctly this is a 1/32 scale kit. It does have opening doors and steerable wheels though. Fun toy.
iowabrit
Visit this Community
Iowa, United States
Joined: November 06, 2007
KitMaker: 487 posts
Armorama: 463 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 16, 2017 - 01:55 AM GMT+7
It says 1/35 on the box....?
TimStreeter
Visit this Community
Minnesota, United States
Joined: October 19, 2008
KitMaker: 89 posts
Armorama: 78 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 16, 2017 - 02:40 AM GMT+7
It's 1/35. I built this kit a few years ago for fun, scratchbuilding missing or improved items as Shep Paine might have, just doing good old-fashioned modeling. I've won several awards with it.
CDK
Visit this Community
Massachusetts, United States
Joined: September 24, 2006
KitMaker: 354 posts
Armorama: 335 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 16, 2017 - 03:20 AM GMT+7
Regardless of what the box says, they scaled out to 1/32 not 1/35


The built kit is over 7" long, compare that to the Dragon kit.


Removed by original poster on 03/16/17 - 08:44:16 (GMT).
Bravo1102
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: December 08, 2003
KitMaker: 1,172 posts
Armorama: 1,032 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 16, 2017 - 03:45 AM GMT+7
For the umpteenth and a half time. The 1950s Monogram armor; jeep, Halftracks, M34 truck, M29 Weasel and M48A2 were 1/35 scale. That was the US Army identification model scale. These were sized approximately to match that. Those of you who doubt Monogram made a real 1/32 snap tite Jeep and the glue together one and it were NOT compatible and clearly different scale. The Halftracks and truck parts can be interchanged with modern 1/35 kits. Compare the Afv-club cab with the old M34, versus the Renwal 1/32 scale and it's obvious.

However, the Japanese made a true 1/32 copy of some Monogram kits and they are obviously larger. The Monogram kits are really compatible with 1/35 rather than 1/32.

The REAL first 1/32 Monogram armor kits was the Panzer IV in the 1960s.

Funny how on that one site the individual releases of the Jeep and truck are said to be 1/32 but when the duo were released in the MASH set they morph to 1/35. They always were.

The Monogram Halftracks look wrong for 1/35 not because of scale but proportions. Like the Airfix 1/76 they are a strange configuration mixing M3 body with M5 fenders possibly for molding limitations. The M3A1 came second after the M13 anti-aircraft and Monogram probably also didn't want to tool the proper interior. But that being said the British converted M13 and M14 Halftracks into personnel carriers by removing the gun turret.
CDK
Visit this Community
Massachusetts, United States
Joined: September 24, 2006
KitMaker: 354 posts
Armorama: 335 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 16, 2017 - 03:53 AM GMT+7


The monogram kit measures 7 17/64 long while the Dragon kit measures just shy of 6 7/8 long

The Monogram kit measures 2 9/10 wide while the Dragon kit measures just shy of 2 3/16 wide

Umpteenth or not, doesn't make it right.

Math is math, it scales closer to 1/32 regardless of what the Brits did with their M14's lol

.

Actual 1:1 half track is 249.63 long
Monogram 7.265625 X's 35 = 254.296875
Dragon 6.875 X's 35 = 249.625

Monogram kit doesn't scale to 1/35.
Because math.
GeraldOwens
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: March 30, 2006
KitMaker: 3,332 posts
Armorama: 3,294 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 16, 2017 - 06:39 AM GMT+7

Quoted Text



The monogram kit measures 7 17/64 long while the Dragon kit measures just shy of 6 7/8 long

The Monogram kit measures 2 9/10 wide while the Dragon kit measures just shy of 2 3/16 wide

Umpteenth or not, doesn't make it right.

Math is math, it scales closer to 1/32 regardless of what the Brits did with their M14's lol

.

Actual 1:1 half track is 249.63 long
Monogram 7.265625 X's 35 = 254.296875
Dragon 6.875 X's 35 = 249.625

Monogram kit doesn't scale to 1/35.
Because math.


They were trying for 1/35th, but this kit doesn't represent anything real, as it mixes elements from M5/M9 American Harvester half tracks (flat fenders) with the M13 antiaircraft half track (square rear body panels and folding top edge) built by White Motor Company. Their other kits from the period are 1/35th, or near to it, though some were reissued as 1/32nd, when that scale was deemed more popular. 1/35th was visually compatible with the wartime recognition model scale of 1/36th, but wouldn't seem so odd to customers who use the metric system. Conveniently, a 5'10" man is exactly two inches tall in 1/35th.
CDK
Visit this Community
Massachusetts, United States
Joined: September 24, 2006
KitMaker: 354 posts
Armorama: 335 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 16, 2017 - 06:59 AM GMT+7

Quoted Text

They were trying for 1/35th, but this kit doesn't represent anything real, as it mixes elements from M5/M9 American Harvester half tracks (flat fenders) with the M13 antiaircraft half track (square rear body panels and folding top edge) built by White Motor Company. Their other kits from the period are 1/35th, or near to it, though some were reissued as 1/32nd, when that scale was deemed more popular. 1/35th was visually compatible with the wartime recognition model scale of 1/36th, but wouldn't seem so odd to customers who use the metric system. Conveniently, a 5'10" man is exactly two inches tall in 1/35th.



Gerald, it's International Harvester that made the half tracks, I don't know who American Harvester is...

and this kit doesn't have anything to do with White Motor Companies M13 or International Harvester M5/M9 half tracks since it shares parts with their "Armored Halftrack" kit #8215, which is an M14 halftrack, which was also manufactured by International Harvester and has those 'flat fenders'.

This kit is *trying* to represent an M3A1, they were built by Diamond T Motor Car Co. and Autocar Co.
(there were also over 2,000 converted from White Motor Co. M3's)


I don't know what the rest has to do with what I said, which was simply...


*This kit doesn't scale to 1/35.
GeraldOwens
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: March 30, 2006
KitMaker: 3,332 posts
Armorama: 3,294 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 16, 2017 - 01:31 PM GMT+7

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

They were trying for 1/35th, but this kit doesn't represent anything real, as it mixes elements from M5/M9 American Harvester half tracks (flat fenders) with the M13 antiaircraft half track (square rear body panels and folding top edge) built by White Motor Company. Their other kits from the period are 1/35th, or near to it, though some were reissued as 1/32nd, when that scale was deemed more popular. 1/35th was visually compatible with the wartime recognition model scale of 1/36th, but wouldn't seem so odd to customers who use the metric system. Conveniently, a 5'10" man is exactly two inches tall in 1/35th.



Gerald, it's International Harvester that made the half tracks, I don't know who American Harvester is...

and this kit doesn't have anything to do with White Motor Companies M13 or International Harvester M5/M9 half tracks since it shares parts with their "Armored Halftrack" kit #8215, which is an M14 halftrack, which was also manufactured by International Harvester and has those 'flat fenders'.

This kit is *trying* to represent an M3A1, they were built by Diamond T Motor Car Co. and Autocar Co.
(there were also over 2,000 converted from White Motor Co. M3's)


I don't know what the rest has to do with what I said, which was simply...


*This kit doesn't scale to 1/35.


Quite right! Thanks!
KurtLaughlin
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 1,654 posts
Armorama: 1,635 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 16, 2017 - 05:06 PM GMT+7
There wasn't a halftrack built with that front end (M5/M9 type) and that body (squared off M3 or M14 type). Given that fundamental configuration error, it's hard to say that it is 1/32 size of the real thing when then was no "real thing".

Besides that, I would not put any value in the catalog dimensions. Who knows what they included in the length and width? Who knows what sort of accuracy it includes? The Ordnance general arrangement drawing gives a width over the mine racks of 87 inches. If the Monogram kit is 2.9 wide and that's what that dimension represents, that means it is 1/30 scale. If the DML kit is 2.18 then it is 1/40 scale. The body width, however is 77.25 wide. If that's what the kit width dimensions represent then the Monogram kit is 1/27 and DML is 1/35. The overall length of an M3A1 w/winch, excluding the drop-down racks and towing pintle but including the bumperettes, is 243.62 inches. That makes the Monogram kit 1/34 and the DML kit 1/35. The official height of the vehicle (top of the MG ring was 85 inches and the Monogram catalog lists the kit at 3.078. Do you really think it is 1/27 scale, or did they include the MG and make it something much smaller?

KL
CDK
Visit this Community
Massachusetts, United States
Joined: September 24, 2006
KitMaker: 354 posts
Armorama: 335 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 16, 2017 - 10:01 PM GMT+7

Quoted Text

There wasn't a halftrack built with that front end (M5/M9 type) and that body (squared off M3 or M14 type).




The M14 'type' had rounded rear corners, like all International Harvester Corp. half tracks.


The M13 had the 'squared off type' rear body.





Quoted Text

Besides that, I would not put any value in the catalog dimensions.



I'm measuring the actual kits so there's that...

I posted the photo for a visual aid in an attempt at keeping this simple, and nothing more really.

I'm also well aware of the ordnance general arrangement drawing width over the mine rack but I'm measuring the top of the crew compartments simply for the sake of comparing the two kits sizes to *each other* to show their differences, so they have nothing to do with the ordnance drawing dimension including the mine racks and that's why you don't see me comparing those numbers to the 1:1 numbers...


The only measurement I compared to the ordnance measurements is the length. From the front of the winch bumper to the rear of the vehicle.
*(M3's don't have bumperettes)


Do I really think anything about this kit is any particular scale?


No. Not really, saying it scaled closer to 1/32 was again, an attempt at simplification to quickly point something out without having to go into all of this other crap but as I said and what has been my point this whole time, is that the kit does not scale to 1/35

I don't care if it was supposed to, if they meant to, if they tried, if they hoped, if they mixed stuff up, if it's their proportions, if they slept like crap the night before...

*The kit does not scale to 1/35
CDK
Visit this Community
Massachusetts, United States
Joined: September 24, 2006
KitMaker: 354 posts
Armorama: 335 posts
Posted: Friday, March 17, 2017 - 12:03 AM GMT+7
Oh and BTW Kurt


Quoted Text

The official height of the vehicle (top of the MG ring was 85 inches

KL




Yeah, no.


The height of an M3 was 89" and the height of an M3A1 to the top of the MG pulpit armor (because the actual MG ring was below that) was 106"

International Harvester vehicles were two inches taller at 108".



The only relevance I know of with the number 85, is that it was the year I started high school.


Bravo1102
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: December 08, 2003
KitMaker: 1,172 posts
Armorama: 1,032 posts
Posted: Friday, March 17, 2017 - 02:30 AM GMT+7

Quoted Text



The monogram kit measures 7 17/64 long while the Dragon kit measures just shy of 6 7/8 long

The Monogram kit measures 2 9/10 wide while the Dragon kit measures just shy of 2 3/16 wide

Umpteenth or not, doesn't make it right.

Math is math, it scales closer to 1/32 regardless of what the Brits did with their M14's lol

.

Actual 1:1 half track is 249.63 long
Monogram 7.265625 X's 35 = 254.296875
Dragon 6.875 X's 35 = 249.625

Monogram kit doesn't scale to 1/35.
Because math.



Using those measurements the Airfix, Nitto and Bandai halftracks are all mis-scaled and mis-labeled. This is an old error. They all used the same set of measurements and proportion and are all mis-scaled in overall length and width.

But the intended scale and actual scale are different in so many kits. The hood, doors and windshield are the same size between the Dragon and Monogram kits. The body panels parts are more similar than 1/32 versus 1/35 would allow. The kit has the wrong overall measurements but right sized bits so it ends up mis-proportioned and resemble a halftrack rather then be an accurate replica. So they intended 1/35 but ended up with a mixed up mess. And yes it's a mix of M3 and M5 features for one reason or another. I say it's molding limitations and budget limitations of the 1950s. Back then it just didn't matter.

By the way the "Armored Halftrack" kit is an M13 not an M14. It lacks the bumperettes and other features like the rounded rear panels that distinguish an M13 and M14 despite the front fenders. I built a ton as M5A1 and M3A1 for wargaming back in the day. I went over the differences for that commission. The "Armored halftrack" has all the distinguishing features of the M13 except the front fenders. Replace the fenders with ones sourced elsewhere (like a Max M3A1 scout car which are a drop fit) and you have an M13 as opposed to numerous mods you have to make to do the M14. Never want to have to do that again.
CDK
Visit this Community
Massachusetts, United States
Joined: September 24, 2006
KitMaker: 354 posts
Armorama: 335 posts
Posted: Friday, March 17, 2017 - 02:55 AM GMT+7

Quoted Text


By the way the "Armored Halftrack" kit is an M13 not an M14.



That depends on perspective, since it technically isn't an accurate depiction of either one it isn't an M13 or an M14 and I just chose to view it from the cab.

The cab on the kit also has the clipped corner doors and headlight brush guard style of an International Harvester half track, not just the fenders.




Through all this back and forth, the one constant?

*The kit does not scale to 1/35
Kevlar06
Visit this Community
Washington, United States
Joined: March 15, 2009
KitMaker: 955 posts
Armorama: 509 posts
Posted: Friday, March 17, 2017 - 07:50 AM GMT+7

Quoted Text

Through all this back and forth, the one constant?



This is an amusing discussion for an old timer like me. "The one constant" is the Monogram "Four Star Plastikit" series was never a 1/32 or 1/35 scale kit. It was a box scale kit very loosely based on the old US Army 1/36 ID scale as mentioned above. I still have the PM 21 issue of the Jeep and 37mm gun in the original boxing which my brother-in-law gave me in 1959. No where on or in the box does it allude to any "scale" except to identify it, along with kit PM22, the "Eager Beaver" kit PM23 the "Half Track,, and PM 24, the "Weasel" that they are Identi-Scale kits-- whatever that means today, is different in what it meant in 1959. These were box-scale kits designed to fit into standard sized model boxes. The Jeep and Weasel fit the small box, half track and truck the larger box. These came at a time when Revell and Monogram were competitors for your allowance. My Brother-in-law paid $.98 for my Jeep, a princely sum in 1959. The discussion of scale only comes later in these kit's history, when US manufacturers were forced to compete with Mr. Tamiya' new 1/35 scale, and were hence forced to put something on the box to do so. If you take that 5'10" "commander" soldier in the Jeep kit, and compare him to the " identi-scale" driver in the Weasel kit or the Half track, you'll note that the driver is about 5'1 in height. There really was no constant in the scale. They didn't have to worry about scale or accuracy much when these kits were released. So the argument of wether it's 1/32 or 1/35 is rather amusing. That argument only comes later as the kits hit a more sophisticated market. I have to agree with the first comment in this thread-- Why? It's because there is a "Graying population "trying to recapture thier youth", and that's the whole purpose of the SSP program at Monogram-- it's been going on for a few years now. These kits appeal to folks who bought them as kids, and want them for nostalgia. Soon these kits will have no meaning at all to the younger crowd, more interested in accuracy than nostalgia. They may have some use to those who are just starting the hobby too because they are cheap. But that's about it. So discussing scale is mute when we talk about this old stuff, because we never really worried about "scale" or accuracy much back when the originals were released.
VR, Russ
Bravo1102
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: December 08, 2003
KitMaker: 1,172 posts
Armorama: 1,032 posts
Posted: Friday, March 17, 2017 - 08:48 AM GMT+7

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

Through all this back and forth, the one constant?



This is an amusing discussion for an old timer like me. "The one constant" is the Monogram "Four Star Plastikit" series was never a 1/32 or 1/35 scale kit. It was a box scale kit very loosely based on the old US Army 1/36 ID scale as mentioned above. I still have the PM 21 issue of the Jeep and 37mm gun in the original boxing which my brother-in-law gave me in 1959. No where on or in the box does it allude to any "scale" except to identify it, along with kit PM22, the "Eager Beaver" kit PM23 the "Half Track,, and PM 24, the "Weasel" that they are Identi-Scale kits-- whatever that means today, is different in what it meant in 1959. These were box-scale kits designed to fit into standard sized model boxes. The Jeep and Weasel fit the small box, half track and truck the larger box. These came at a time when Revell and Monogram were competitors for your allowance. My Brother-in-law paid $.98 for my Jeep, a princely sum in 1959. The discussion of scale only comes later in these kit's history, when US manufacturers were forced to compete with Mr. Tamiya' new 1/35 scale, and were hence forced to put something on the box to do so. If you take that 5'10" "commander" soldier in the Jeep kit, and compare him to the " identi-scale" driver in the Weasel kit or the Half track, you'll note that the driver is about 5'1 in height. There really was no constant in the scale. They didn't have to worry about scale or accuracy much when these kits were released. So the argument of wether it's 1/32 or 1/35 is rather amusing. That argument only comes later as the kits hit a more sophisticated market. I have to agree with the first comment in this thread-- Why? It's because there is a "Graying population "trying to recapture thier youth", and that's the whole purpose of the SSP program at Monogram-- it's been going on for a few years now. These kits appeal to folks who bought them as kids, and want them for nostalgia. Soon these kits will have no meaning at all to the younger crowd, more interested in accuracy than nostalgia. They may have some use to those who are just starting the hobby too because they are cheap. But that's about it. So discussing scale is mute when we talk about this old stuff, because we never really worried about "scale" or accuracy much back when the originals were released.
VR, Russ



Right after I typed my last comment I realized all that and did a face palm. You're right. I'm going to get one, dress it up a little and put it next to my M13.5. (Now Calling it a M13.5 as it's halfway between a M13 and an M14)

It's some kind of scale somewhere in-between Renwal's mal proportioned 1/32 and Revell's petite 1/40.
Removed by original poster on 03/17/17 - 14:29:45 (GMT).
CDK
Visit this Community
Massachusetts, United States
Joined: September 24, 2006
KitMaker: 354 posts
Armorama: 335 posts
Posted: Friday, March 17, 2017 - 09:27 AM GMT+7

Quoted Text

If I remember correctly this is a 1/32 scale kit.




Quoted Text

It says 1/35 on the box....?



;)






Quoted Text

the Monogram "Four Star Plastikit" series was never a 1/32 or 1/35 scale kit.



This is what takes place here, discussions, some of us like to have them.

Some of us like to walk down memory lane and just say random things; fictional measurements, company names that don't exist, statements that don't adhere to reality. People certainly aren't required to keep coming back and checking on each update if it's not their thing.


Quoted Text

So discussing scale is mute when we talk about this old stuff, because we never really worried about "scale" or accuracy much back when the originals were released.
VR, Russ



Maybe when YOU discuss this stuff, but you weren't.



And I Think you mean moot; but that's subject to debate.





Kevlar06
Visit this Community
Washington, United States
Joined: March 15, 2009
KitMaker: 955 posts
Armorama: 509 posts
Posted: Friday, March 17, 2017 - 09:48 AM GMT+7

Quoted Text



Maybe when YOU discuss this stuff, but you weren't.



And I Think you mean moot; but that's subject to debate.






Never said I was discussing this stuff, I said I was amused by the discussion. I did mean moot, but spell check didn't. The point is that discussing this stuff (meaning the kit's in this series), in relation to fidelity of scale OR accuracy is like mixing apples and oranges. Which is why I think the guy leading off the topic said "Why?" in the first place. And on that note I will return to being "mute" on this topic.
VR, Russ
Bravo1102
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: December 08, 2003
KitMaker: 1,172 posts
Armorama: 1,032 posts
Posted: Friday, March 17, 2017 - 11:40 AM GMT+7

Quoted Text


Quoted Text



Maybe when YOU discuss this stuff, but you weren't.



And I Think you mean moot; but that's subject to debate.






Never said I was discussing this stuff, I said I was amused by the discussion. I did mean moot, but spell check didn't. The point is that discussing this stuff (meaning the kit's in this series), in relation to fidelity of scale OR accuracy is like mixing apples and oranges. Which is why I think the guy leading off the topic said "Why?" in the first place. And on that note I will return to being "mute" on this topic.
VR, Russ



Don't worry there are those of us who understand and appreciate your remarks. I realized I was slipping into a debate akin to Medieval Scholasticism as famously lampooned by the phrase "Angels dancing on the heads of pins" and your post pulled me back to a semblance of reality.

In reference to this kit none of this really matters any more than those proverbial angels on pin heads. It's a vintage fun build for those of us with fond memories of the kits from a simpler time.

On another forum someone was trying to track down the configuration that inspired the Airfix M3A1 halftrack which is identical to the Monogram. It was decided it was an M14 converted to a personnel carrier with a rear door panel added from an M3? It never existed and is actually a conflation of features to create a halftrack model. The concept of M3 versus M5 or M9 didn't enter into the creation of the model. It was a representative model of a halftrack not a specific model of a specific version. That came later. It was always Armored Halftrack and Personnel Carrier Halftrack.