login   |    register

Scale Modeling Sponsors

See Your Ad Here!

Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
News
Monogram: Vintage M3A1
Bravo1102
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: December 08, 2003
KitMaker: 1,172 posts
Armorama: 1,032 posts
Posted: Friday, March 24, 2017 - 12:00 PM GMT+7

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

I'm currently starting to build an old Airfix 1/35 White Scout Car that I picked up at the old Argyle Model Dockyard in Glasgow back in 1980.



That old Peerless Max kit sure has been around a long time

https://www.scalemates.com/kits/185102-peerless-max-3507-white-m3a1



For 1976 its level of detail was amazing. Tamiya was doing one piece solid machine gun mounts and here they were doing multi-part units with full mounts. There was a really good Eduard photoetch set that made it a stunner.
highway70
Visit this Community
California, United States
Joined: November 27, 2004
KitMaker: 303 posts
Armorama: 254 posts
Posted: Friday, March 24, 2017 - 08:29 AM GMT+7

Quoted Text

I'm currently starting to build an old Airfix 1/35 White Scout Car that I picked up at the old Argyle Model Dockyard in Glasgow back in 1980.



That old Peerless Max kit sure has been around a long time

https://www.scalemates.com/kits/185102-peerless-max-3507-white-m3a1
mlb63
Visit this Community
Connecticut, United States
Joined: October 22, 2003
KitMaker: 347 posts
Armorama: 90 posts
Posted: Friday, March 24, 2017 - 02:04 AM GMT+7
I'm currently starting to build an old Airfix 1/35 White Scout Car that I picked up at the old Argyle Model Dockyard in Glasgow back in 1980.
Photoguy1
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: September 29, 2016
KitMaker: 77 posts
Armorama: 55 posts
Posted: Monday, March 20, 2017 - 01:31 PM GMT+7

Quoted Text

I last built the Monogram Halftracks in 1968. I was in the Army and bought three kits at the McGregor Range, New Mwxico PX and built them on a table in the snack bar. One was built stock and the second cut up and combined with parts from the third to make a (sort of) M1A1 Scout Car.

I also built the Monogram Patton Tank.



Small world, in the late 70s I was an Army Education Counselor filling in at McGregor.
Charleygnarlyp290
Visit this Community
California, United States
Joined: May 07, 2013
KitMaker: 73 posts
Armorama: 61 posts
Posted: Monday, March 20, 2017 - 12:28 PM GMT+7
Wow. I can't believe they are re-releasing these old kits... and I don't mean that in a bad way. I recently built the ancient M29 Weasel and did a bit of scratch building of parts for it. I had an absolute blast doing it. I sometimes get some of these old kits and build them as "nostalgia" builds. While not up to today's standards, they can be a lot of fun. And it is fun to see just what a little extra work can do to make them a little better.
highway70
Visit this Community
California, United States
Joined: November 27, 2004
KitMaker: 303 posts
Armorama: 254 posts
Posted: Friday, March 17, 2017 - 06:42 PM GMT+7
I last built the Monogram Halftracks in 1968. I was in the Army and bought three kits at the McGregor Range, New Mwxico PX and built them on a table in the snack bar. One was built stock and the second cut up and combined with parts from the third to make a (sort of) M1A1 Scout Car.

I also built the Monogram Patton Tank.
Photoguy1
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: September 29, 2016
KitMaker: 77 posts
Armorama: 55 posts
Posted: Friday, March 17, 2017 - 03:56 PM GMT+7
Well as for the why I can remember getting this kit at the Ft. Lee PX Annex back in the day when my Dad was alive and my biggest worry was that Math test on Thursday. I rode my bike there and spent my carefully husbanded allowance on it then rushed home, was greeted by my pet beagle, and soon it was off to build. That's why I might get one, to try to recapture a bit of that fun and also to see what I can do today as opposed to then.
Kevlar06
Visit this Community
Washington, United States
Joined: March 15, 2009
KitMaker: 955 posts
Armorama: 509 posts
Posted: Friday, March 17, 2017 - 01:44 PM GMT+7

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

I'm making an assumption the comment about "fictional company names" is referring to my labeling of the original kit as the "Monogram Four Star Plastikit".



Nope.

"American Harvester" was the fictional company I was referring to. I really didn't read most of this other stuff.




Kay! Gotcha, mute button is on! Thanks,
Very Respectfully, Russ
CDK
Visit this Community
Massachusetts, United States
Joined: September 24, 2006
KitMaker: 354 posts
Armorama: 335 posts
Posted: Friday, March 17, 2017 - 01:07 PM GMT+7

Quoted Text

I'm making an assumption the comment about "fictional company names" is referring to my labeling of the original kit as the "Monogram Four Star Plastikit".



Nope.

"American Harvester" was the fictional company I was referring to. I really didn't read most of this other stuff.

Kevlar06
Visit this Community
Washington, United States
Joined: March 15, 2009
KitMaker: 955 posts
Armorama: 509 posts
Posted: Friday, March 17, 2017 - 11:52 AM GMT+7

Quoted Text








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.




CDK and Other Armorama members,
Well, I lied I'll make this comment and THEN remain forever mute on the subject. I'm making an assumption the comment about "fictional company names" is referring to my labeling of the original kit as the "Monogram Four Star Plastikit". If that's the case, I assure you the original Jeep kit I have in my possession and released in 1957, has that exact label. In the upper left corner of the box, and on the advertising flyer inside (showing kits PM21, 22, 23 and 24), that's the exact Monogram label, with the "Monogram" at the top in white on a blue background, a white line beneath, and "Four Star Plastikit" on a red background-- not a fictional label. If I'm wrong just ignore this further dalliance and I'll go back to being mute once more!

VR, Russ
KurtLaughlin
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 1,654 posts
Armorama: 1,635 posts
Posted: Friday, March 17, 2017 - 11:44 AM GMT+7

Quoted Text

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.





Well, that's something. It's hard to imagine how Ordnance got the M3A1 drawing


the M4 drawing


and the M21 drawing


so wrong. Amazingly the drawing is still to scale, with the M3A1 height being only a wee bit smaller than the width over the mine racks which is 87 inches.

On top of that, the scale drawings of the M3A1 in both the Hunnicutt and Doyle half track books have the same proportions, that is the height from the ground to the top of the MG armor is just about the same as the width. Odd how they got it wrong as well.

You know, in the data section in the back of Hunnicutt the M3A1 is listed with an overall height of 106 inches, just as you wrote. The M9A1 is also just as you said, two inches taller at 108 inches: over .50 cal. MG. Since the M3A1 dimension is "to the top of the MG pulpit armor" while the M9A1 is over the MG, wouldn't that make the cal. .50 M2HB, in its cradle, only two inches tall? Seems to me it should be slightly more . . .

KL
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.

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
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.





Removed by original poster on 03/17/17 - 14:29:45 (GMT).
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.
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
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
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 - 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.


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
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
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!
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 - 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.