login   |    register
Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
Review
Dragon: M67A2
CMOT
Staff MemberEditor-in-Chief
ARMORAMA
#406
Visit this Community
England - South West, United Kingdom
Joined: May 14, 2006
KitMaker: 10,774 posts
Armorama: 8,469 posts
Posted: Sunday, October 08, 2017 - 11:08 PM UTC


Federico Collada shares with us a review of the M67A2 from Dragon Models in 1/35th scale.

Read the Review

If you have comments or questions please post them here.

Thanks!
Taeuss
Visit this Community
Manitoba, Canada
Joined: January 03, 2016
KitMaker: 2,884 posts
Armorama: 2,874 posts
Posted: Monday, October 09, 2017 - 02:20 AM UTC
Wow, talk about inexpensive kit variants! They had to replace (?) the barrel.
HeavyArty
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,053 posts
Armorama: 13,252 posts
Posted: Monday, October 09, 2017 - 02:47 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Wow, talk about inexpensive kit variants! They had to replace (?) the barrel.



It's a few more pieces than just the barrel, but not many more. One new sprue. It is an interesting version though.

JSSVIII
Visit this Community
Massachusetts, United States
Joined: March 28, 2007
KitMaker: 1,168 posts
Armorama: 1,066 posts
Posted: Monday, October 09, 2017 - 05:00 AM UTC
I don't really care for link and length tracks, but for this kit I think I would rather have them than the DS. At least you would be able to clean them up.
Vodnik
Visit this Community
Warszawa, Poland
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,272 posts
Armorama: 3,869 posts
Posted: Monday, October 09, 2017 - 08:50 AM UTC
The gunner's sight and housing are wrong for M67...
Kevlar06
Visit this Community
Washington, United States
Joined: March 15, 2009
KitMaker: 3,032 posts
Armorama: 1,705 posts
Posted: Monday, October 09, 2017 - 09:16 AM UTC

Quoted Text

The gunner's sight and housing are wrong for M67...



Vodnik,
Can you elaborate a little more-- I can't really tell from the sprue shots what you are talking about. The real M67 has the range finder blisters and a gunners periscope--- and so does this kit, so I'm not sure what you are referring to.
VR, Russ
Vodnik
Visit this Community
Warszawa, Poland
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,272 posts
Armorama: 3,869 posts
Posted: Monday, October 09, 2017 - 11:18 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

The gunner's sight and housing are wrong for M67...



Vodnik,
Can you elaborate a little more-- I can't really tell from the sprue shots what you are talking about. The real M67 has the range finder blisters and a gunners periscope--- and so does this kit, so I'm not sure what you are referring to.
VR, Russ


I'm referring to the gunner's sight, not range finders. M67 didn't have the sight and large housing like the 90mm gun tank, but had just a small and simple periscope with its own unique guard. You can see the guard in this photo:
GTDeath13
Visit this Community
Attica, Greece / Ελλάδα
Joined: June 12, 2015
KitMaker: 806 posts
Armorama: 804 posts
Posted: Monday, October 09, 2017 - 01:50 PM UTC
It is the M28 periscope, you can find the TM online TM 9-1240-239-35.

The engine bay doors should be changed too. The M67A2 is based on the M48A3, not on the mod B.

j76lr
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: September 22, 2006
KitMaker: 1,028 posts
Armorama: 1,014 posts
Posted: Monday, October 09, 2017 - 04:27 PM UTC

Quoted Text

I don't really care for link and length tracks, but for this kit I think I would rather have them than the DS. At least you would be able to clean them up.


Maybe they should package both ? I have no problem with them .
Kevlar06
Visit this Community
Washington, United States
Joined: March 15, 2009
KitMaker: 3,032 posts
Armorama: 1,705 posts
Posted: Monday, October 09, 2017 - 10:15 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text


Quoted Text

The gunner's sight and housing are wrong for M67...



Vodnik,
Can you elaborate a little more-- I can't really tell from the sprue shots what you are talking about. The real M67 has the range finder blisters and a gunners periscope--- and so does this kit, so I'm not sure what you are referring to.
VR, Russ


I'm referring to the gunner's sight, not range finders. M67 didn't have the sight and large housing like the 90mm gun tank, but had just a small and simple periscope with its own unique guard. You can see the guard in this photo:



There are actually two versions of the M67 as developed by the US Army Chemical Corps-- the purpose built M67 from the factory, and the T89 replacement system which was used to convert a normal M48 to an M67.

I did some research, and this is what I learned-- the M67 as purpose designed for use by the US Army and had the armored gunner's cover. But the Army didn't use the M67 in VN. The subsequent use of the M67A2 in Vietnam was by the USMC, and those appear to have the smaller unarmored periscope sight. Also, the M67 and most M67A2s used the earlier commander's coupula without the riser-- not sure what this kit comes with. But I think the issue with the gunner's sight armored cover is between the M67 and the M67A2. It would be interesting to see if any of the USMC tanks were T-89 conversions, or purpose built. I'm going to check my copy of Vietnam tracks to see if there is any info there.
VR, Russ
GTDeath13
Visit this Community
Attica, Greece / Ελλάδα
Joined: June 12, 2015
KitMaker: 806 posts
Armorama: 804 posts
Posted: Monday, October 09, 2017 - 10:44 PM UTC
Regarding versions of the M67:

M67 based on M48A1 with Flame Thrower M7-6



M67A1 based on the M48A2 hull with the M7A1-6 flame thrower.This is the only version used by the US Army. This is the only photo I have found:



M67A2 based on the M48A3 hull or brought to M48A3 standards. The best photo you can find online is this:

Kevlar06
Visit this Community
Washington, United States
Joined: March 15, 2009
KitMaker: 3,032 posts
Armorama: 1,705 posts
Posted: Monday, October 09, 2017 - 11:58 PM UTC
It's as I thought--- the original Army version of the M67 retained the gunner's armored periscope cover found on the standard M48-- but the Army never deployed the M67 in combat operations in VN. The T-89 conversion kit could be applied to an M48 to convert to an M67 after 8 hours of work at the depot level (turret and 90mm gun had to be removed to place the flame weapon and fuel tanks). Therefore, the US Army did not see the need to use the M67 or the subsequent M67A2 because of the logistics involved to convert, transport, supply, and mix the flame fuels. On the other hand, the USMC saw the need for flame weapons based on WWII and Korean War experience. For this reason, 9 each M67A2's were allocated to USMC tank battalions (on paper anyway). The USMC only assigned two tank battalions to VN, between 65' and 72', which means there were only a total of 18 M67A2s deployed in Vietnam. They used the earlier (smaller) commander's cupola, the smaller gunner's sight, and the lowered headlight frames. The Armored cover Vodnik and I discussed earlier was only found on the earlier Army M67, not the M67A2, so Vodnick is correct about this kit. Depending on the period you want to depict, it would also be correct to leave the cupola riser off this kit, as the M67 and M67A2 apparently didn't use it. The Flame Fuel tanks were located in the turret, and took up the space normally occupied by the loader, making the loaders hatch unusable for exit/entry. Depending on nozzle adjustments, flame fuel "rods" (what a flame burst was called) were shot from the thrower in 10-20 second bursts, out to a maximum distance of 250 yards, but were most effective at 100-150 yards. However there was only enough fuel for a 60 seconds of these "rods", making the system pretty unwieldy to use in combat for a sustained period. Vietnam Track's comment on the system was the M67A2 just became a large MG carrier after the fuel was expended. If anyone is interested in further reading, I got this info from The Chemical Journal and Vietnam Tracks.
VR, Russ
GTDeath13
Visit this Community
Attica, Greece / Ελλάδα
Joined: June 12, 2015
KitMaker: 806 posts
Armorama: 804 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 - 12:37 AM UTC
Nice info, thanks for sharing.

I have this photo showing the cupola riser. So one can do both.