login   |    register
Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
REVIEW
ZSU 23-4 Shilka
CMOT
Staff MemberEditor-in-Chief
ARMORAMA
#406
Visit this Community
England - South West, United Kingdom
Joined: May 14, 2006
KitMaker: 10,818 posts
Armorama: 8,498 posts
Posted: Sunday, June 05, 2016 - 05:21 PM UTC
Darren Baker takes a look at the Russian ZSU 23-4 Shilka Self-Propelled Anti-Aircraft Gun in 1/35th scale by Meng Model.

Link to Item

If you have comments or questions please post them here.

Thanks!
acebatau
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: February 10, 2008
KitMaker: 726 posts
Armorama: 612 posts
Posted: Sunday, June 05, 2016 - 07:44 PM UTC
Nice review, thanks
weesiep
Visit this Community
Drenthe, Netherlands
Joined: October 30, 2010
KitMaker: 134 posts
Armorama: 114 posts
Posted: Sunday, June 05, 2016 - 10:17 PM UTC
It seems you are being a little overly polite to me. Sure this is still a nice model worthy of a built but the competitor (a start-up no less) has provided us with a much better researched subject). It would have been fair to acknowledge that in clear wording.
HeavyArty
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,143 posts
Armorama: 13,329 posts
Posted: Sunday, June 05, 2016 - 10:39 PM UTC
Why? It is not a comparative review. There is no need to mention the competitor or your post at all. Also, no one knew who the author of the "faults" post even was since it was posted as "Anonymous". Lastly, have you looked at every singe example of ZSU-23-4 ever built to compare the kits to? I'm sure there were changes over the production run and differences in the vehicles over the years. The Meng kit may be correct compared to the example Meng based it on.

Great review Darren. Definitely a nice kit that will look very nice once completed.
weesiep
Visit this Community
Drenthe, Netherlands
Joined: October 30, 2010
KitMaker: 134 posts
Armorama: 114 posts
Posted: Sunday, June 05, 2016 - 11:24 PM UTC
It may be. But it isn't very likely. Reviews are never posted into a vacuĆ¼m, there are two new shilka's available at the same time making it only fair to potential buyers to mention that (like Darren has done) however the mentioning of pictures that may still arise raises an eyebrow with me, the forum post comparing the two was lavishly illustrated.
redcap
Visit this Community
England - East Midlands, United Kingdom
Joined: November 06, 2005
KitMaker: 681 posts
Armorama: 356 posts
Posted: Monday, June 06, 2016 - 12:07 AM UTC
Nice review Darren - thank you.

I have the MENG ZSU-23 kit and it looks fine to me in the box. I know little about the real machine and perhaps there are some 'issues' which the purists and even some of the self-appointed experts argue about but when it is built up, there will be no mistaking what it is.

Given the amount of cannibalisation what goes on to keep even peacetime armour serviceable in units, who is to say that the vehicle that Meng researched before tooling the kit up did not have components or parts from other variants?

Bottom line, build it, enjoy it.... or leave it and buy the other kit.

Gary
Hellrabbit
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: June 28, 2015
KitMaker: 139 posts
Armorama: 139 posts
Posted: Monday, June 06, 2016 - 12:29 AM UTC
The ultimate solution. buy 2 kits together. LOL
ULIX-VM
Visit this Community
Puerto Rico
Joined: February 22, 2016
KitMaker: 834 posts
Armorama: 649 posts
Posted: Monday, June 06, 2016 - 02:17 AM UTC
thge meng's 1/35th scale maybe is the photocopy of the dragon's/dml-1/35 "shilka" mod.-kit.no.3518. for the war records in this continent three(3) countries have the shilka system in their armies. peru,cuba,and venazuela.
HeavyArty
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,143 posts
Armorama: 13,329 posts
Posted: Monday, June 06, 2016 - 02:57 AM UTC

Quoted Text

...meng's 1/35th scale maybe is the photocopy of the dragon's/dml-1/35 "shilka" mod.-kit.no.3518.



Really??

The Meng kit is not a copy of the old Dragon kit. That would be a silly move for them. It is a totally different, much more detailed and updated kit.
weesiep
Visit this Community
Drenthe, Netherlands
Joined: October 30, 2010
KitMaker: 134 posts
Armorama: 114 posts
Posted: Monday, June 06, 2016 - 03:38 AM UTC
I have the old dragon kit and of course the meng kit is way ahead (allthough even the old dragon kit can still be built into a very nice replica I feel). Nowadays we have two new kits, of which the meng kit isn't the most accurate of the two, but it does seem more easy to built though. If you must brake a Lance for the meng kit then that would seem a better argument then some hypothetical variant it could be based on, it is just somewhat less accurate, less detailed then the competitors new kit. I can't see why we may not simply acknowledge that.
hugohuertas
Visit this Community
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Joined: January 26, 2007
KitMaker: 1,024 posts
Armorama: 1,013 posts
Posted: Monday, June 06, 2016 - 04:46 AM UTC

Quoted Text

I have the old dragon kit and of course the meng kit is way ahead (allthough even the old dragon kit can still be built into a very nice replica I feel). Nowadays we have two new kits, of which the meng kit isn't the most accurate of the two, but it does seem more easy to built though. If you must brake a Lance for the meng kit then that would seem a better argument then some hypothetical variant it could be based on, it is just somewhat less accurate, less detailed then the competitors new kit. I can't see why we may not simply acknowledge that.



Please elaborate the specific points and details where the Meng kit is worst or less accurate than "the other" manufacturer's kit.
I still don't buy the majority of the alleged inaccuracies listed in other post -yes, I see that a couple of Meng's parts are clearly wrong, but the rest of the supposed mistakes are doubtful to say the least-, knowing the significant differences between any two different actual vehicles.

Again, I'm not one of the biggest fans of Meng, but I feel this forced comparisons with Hong's kit quite biased -or just personal opinions-
hugohuertas
Visit this Community
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Joined: January 26, 2007
KitMaker: 1,024 posts
Armorama: 1,013 posts
Posted: Monday, June 06, 2016 - 04:47 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Why? It is not a comparative review. There is no need to mention the competitor or your post at all. Also, no one knew who the author of the "faults" post even was since it was posted as "Anonymous". Lastly, have you looked at every singe example of ZSU-23-4 ever built to compare the kits to? I'm sure there were changes over the production run and differences in the vehicles over the years. The Meng kit may be correct compared to the example Meng based it on.

Great review Darren. Definitely a nice kit that will look very nice once completed.



+1
CMOT
Staff MemberEditor-in-Chief
ARMORAMA
#406
Visit this Community
England - South West, United Kingdom
Joined: May 14, 2006
KitMaker: 10,818 posts
Armorama: 8,498 posts
Posted: Monday, June 06, 2016 - 05:00 AM UTC
I provided a link to the thread listing all the supposed inaccuracies of the Meng Model offering and highlighting how accurate the other version is, but unless you are trying to tell me that the other model is a perfect replica I feel the post is likely biased. Now I can see from the post that some of the Meng Model detail may be off, but I also take into account that the Meng Model offering has been designed to allow the building of one of four types; the other model offering is I believe a kit based on two very similar variants and as such I will accept that the other offering may be more accurate than the Meng Model if building one of those two particular variants. I am also willing to believe that the other model offering is a very good model with some fit issues from all accounts, but I do not have that model in my hand and so I only have the word of someone who posting as anonymous that the other product is perfect in every way.
exgrunt
Visit this Community
Massachusetts, United States
Joined: December 17, 2013
KitMaker: 275 posts
Armorama: 275 posts
Posted: Monday, June 06, 2016 - 05:10 AM UTC
I'd give "Anonymous" points for a well researched article that highlights multiple issues with the Meng kit. Would it really have made a difference if he signed his name as "Joe Smith" instead?

You feel that the Meng kit is accurate in those areas? Back it up with pics to prove your points like Anonymous did. Otherwise, at this point, I'd give the nod to the Hong kit.

It's not a that big of deal either way, plenty of folks liked the original Eduard 1/48 Bf-109G-6. It had proven issues with it's dimensions but it had nice detail and it still looked like a Bf-109. Same goes for Meng's Shilka. It still looks like a ZSU, so build it and be happy. The Meng kit has some positive attributes as well so even if they missed a few areas, it's still going to turn out nicely.



The_musings_of_NBNoG
Visit this Community
Oregon, United States
Joined: January 08, 2012
KitMaker: 514 posts
Armorama: 510 posts
Posted: Monday, June 06, 2016 - 09:56 AM UTC
I really like the 3D cad construction video... One can see the type of complexity you are buying.

Wish they had done one of those vids for
the M1070, or the Scud-B Launcher of 9K72 ,,,hehehe

Hellrabbit
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: June 28, 2015
KitMaker: 139 posts
Armorama: 139 posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 - 06:36 AM UTC
I'm not going to say anything about how good is hong model is or how bad meng is...nor going to talk about the detail issue of both kit. Here is just some cents from myself: I checked this anony review,actually this mister always used words "in my opinion", "personal idea" and "more accurate". This kind of statement is OK to me and the mister who posts this is also welcome any comment below. BUT I didn't see any point he said like "this kit is perfect" since he also pointed out the fitting issue of the "better kit" in his post....for these two kits, they both have their own highlights and soft spots, to chose which one is not based on what we think he should get. it based one how much money he got and which he prefer more.
Sure. Meng model seems give us more surprise in many ways especially their promotion method on products and that fancy 3D illustrator preview which drives many other brand follows this style.....but Doesn't any of us feels like...This hobby is heading to a complicated direction? For now some modellers are even taking more emotional actions to each other... especially when Tamiya announce their F-14(this is another story).......Are we really dealing with a hobby? Or you are just used by brands as tools?
overall, it is a hobby, what you build is what matters yourself. you think one article is biased? let it go..... For models, If you dont paint it and finished it. It is just a box of plastic..no matter how fancy it is how many accessories it has nor whether it gives you a suspension or tracks working like real one or a shinny metal barrel....Just back to the bench and grab your cutter/airbrush...do something...This is why I see more and more post now are in constructive feedback....
Personal thoughts. don't take your seat. and have a good day.
Oh yes..it is weird that we can always see various news post about same products in THESE TWO YEARS...
qnb1968
Visit this Community
Hong Kong S.A.R. / 繁體
Joined: April 05, 2016
KitMaker: 12 posts
Armorama: 9 posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 - 08:53 AM UTC
Personally - I think you are all taking things FAR too seriously; what is like to build vs how much does it cost vs how enjoyable was it vs did the manufacturer do a good job overall - or was the product itself questionable? Let's keep things in perspective since the world won't end because of any of it...Hellrabbit is right - THIS IS A HOBBY people...get over yourselves...
exgrunt
Visit this Community
Massachusetts, United States
Joined: December 17, 2013
KitMaker: 275 posts
Armorama: 275 posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 - 05:13 PM UTC
Wait- so this isn't a forum to discuss models and how well they replicate the real thing? Kinda like kids soccer today, everyone gets a trophy because they showed up and all models are great because they generally look like their subject?
HeavyArty
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,143 posts
Armorama: 13,329 posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 - 05:28 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Wait- so this isn't a forum to discuss models and how well they replicate the real thing? Kinda like kids soccer today, everyone gets a trophy because they showed up and all models are great because they generally look like their subject?



Yup, gotta love when the "Can't we all just get along" crowd comes swooping in to save us all; telling us it's just a hobby, nothing matters, don't say anything to offend anyone.....blah, blah, blah. Here is your trophy.

If this is the sentiment, why do reviews at all? We should just be thankful that the great model companies are generous enough to make models for us and build them as they are. None are any better than others and all are great. How about we go hug some rubber trees too to thank them for providing part of the model?
billflorig
Visit this Community
Hawaii, United States
Joined: January 20, 2015
KitMaker: 152 posts
Armorama: 146 posts
Posted: Sunday, June 12, 2016 - 09:22 AM UTC
Darren, great post! I look forward to getting this kit soon.
acebatau
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: February 10, 2008
KitMaker: 726 posts
Armorama: 612 posts
Posted: Sunday, June 12, 2016 - 07:13 PM UTC
Good one
hugohuertas
Visit this Community
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Joined: January 26, 2007
KitMaker: 1,024 posts
Armorama: 1,013 posts
Posted: Monday, June 13, 2016 - 05:06 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

Wait- so this isn't a forum to discuss models and how well they replicate the real thing? Kinda like kids soccer today, everyone gets a trophy because they showed up and all models are great because they generally look like their subject?



Yup, gotta love when the "Can't we all just get along" crowd comes swooping in to save us all; telling us it's just a hobby, nothing matters, don't say anything to offend anyone.....blah, blah, blah. Here is your trophy.

If this is the sentiment, why do reviews at all? We should just be thankful that the great model companies are generous enough to make models for us and build them as they are. None are any better than others and all are great. How about we go hug some rubber trees too to thank them for providing part of the model?



LOL, I fully second that...