login   |    register
Яusso-Soviэt Forum: Cold War Soviet Armor
For discussions related to cold war era Russo-Soviet armor.
Shilka Build Compare: Hong VS Meng
Anonymous
Joined: December 15, 2001
KitMaker: 260 posts
Armorama: 35 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 19, 2016 - 12:50 AM UTC
Hello there:
It has been a while since Meng and Hong both released their Shilka and many have already finished their works. However I haven't seen any compare between these 2 shilkas.. I have to admit that Hong does have some issue on fitting of the parts but this issue is not that extreme as other modellers pointed out, at least me myself finished the build with no difficult: just some basic skills a modeller needs. So if this is the reason that no one like to make a compare between these 2 shilka...I just made a compare between these 2 kits in detail. I may have some problems with the references i used. So the comments is welcomed. I have marked the area I have doubt in the photos so I wont type more comments here. Anyway in my opinion.....Hong one is more accurate in this shilka from some perspective..not just the track links.














Klaus-Adler
Staff MemberCampaigns Administrator
MODELGEEK
Visit this Community
Scotland, United Kingdom
Joined: June 08, 2015
KitMaker: 1,351 posts
Armorama: 746 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 19, 2016 - 01:32 AM UTC
Thank you for taking the time and effort to show us all the differences
marcb
Visit this Community
Overijssel, Netherlands
Joined: March 25, 2006
KitMaker: 1,148 posts
Armorama: 1,132 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 19, 2016 - 01:39 AM UTC
Very interesting comparison. Thanks for posting!
hugohuertas
Visit this Community
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Joined: January 26, 2007
KitMaker: 1,024 posts
Armorama: 1,013 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 19, 2016 - 06:34 AM UTC
Nice to see both kits side to side, but I have to comments:
- Why is someone posting as "Anonymous"? I'm trying not to think this is a biased post...

- Not being myself one of the Meng fans usually found in this forums, I don't see the supposedly advantage of the Hong kit over Meng about accuracy, other than a few doubious details and bits...

I'll still go for Meng's kit when the time comes for me to build a new Shilka.
That said, its good to have this kind of visual comparison.
Anmoga
Visit this Community
Spain / España
Joined: November 18, 2004
KitMaker: 456 posts
Armorama: 333 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 19, 2016 - 02:45 PM UTC
Hi Hugo,

You should look when he joined and the number of posts he has.

Anonymous
Joined: December 15, 2001
KitMaker: 254 posts
Armorama: 31 posts

To me it doesn't seem he is linked to Hong Models. In fact he joined five years before you did and a few years before me.

Best regards,
Angel
Vodnik
Visit this Community
Warszawa, Poland
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,319 posts
Armorama: 3,915 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 19, 2016 - 03:24 PM UTC

Quoted Text

I don't see the supposedly advantage of the Hong kit over Meng about accuracy


Are we looking at these same images?...
ijozic
Joined: May 23, 2007
KitMaker: 100 posts
Armorama: 100 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 19, 2016 - 04:11 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Are we looking at these same images?...



Same here. I ordered a Meng kit as I've heard good things about their kits and it comes with a driving compartment, but if I have seen such an in-depth comparison before, I would have gone for the Hong one, even if it is more work and costs a bit more. They've clearly done their research properly.

Thanks for the comparison.
barra733
Visit this Community
England - South West, United Kingdom
Joined: January 03, 2015
KitMaker: 282 posts
Armorama: 255 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 19, 2016 - 05:45 PM UTC
I done an in depth review of the Hong Model here: http://www.armorama.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Reviews&file=index&req=showcontent&id=12117
The annotated instructions detail the areas lacking in the instructions and some areas for improvement. I stand by my conclusion that this isn't a model for novices; but am not able to make a comparison against the Meng as I don't have one.
Hellrabbit
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: June 28, 2015
KitMaker: 139 posts
Armorama: 139 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 19, 2016 - 07:31 PM UTC
After noticing the frontal face problems of Abrams from Meng.....this amounts of error doesn't surprise me in fact.....
Jacques
Visit this Community
Minnesota, United States
Joined: March 04, 2003
KitMaker: 4,628 posts
Armorama: 4,496 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 19, 2016 - 08:39 PM UTC
Considering how "volatile" comparing/contrasting two different manufacturers kits can be currently, I would consider posting as anonymous just to keep the hate mail to low levels. On the other hand, yeah, companies do love to have their PR dept. ahead and aggressive...

That aside, thank you for the side by side comparison.
Karl187
#284
Visit this Community
Northern Ireland, United Kingdom
Joined: October 04, 2006
KitMaker: 3,094 posts
Armorama: 2,942 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 19, 2016 - 09:16 PM UTC
I must say a real 'well done' to 'Anonymous' for doing this comparison. I'm sure it took some time and effort but it is excellent and you should be commended for such a thorough job.

Personally speaking I bought the Meng kit over the Hong one, if I had read this before-hand I would definitely have thought twice about it. Going for the Meng kit was, for me, a case of choosing a more established brand over a relatively unknown/new one.

The lack of an interior in the Hong Shilka would also perhaps sway people toward the Meng kit- which also has detailed ammunition feed areas in the panels just to the rear left and right of the barrels on the turret.

However, it is really fantastic to see that Hong model have done their homework on many of the details although as Ian points out there is room for improvement in some areas. I would think that various PE and Aftermarket parts companies will be releasing stuff for the Meng and Hong models soon so some problems may be corrected in those. I'll sure be looking forward to seeing what Hong Model come up with next!
Hisham
Visit this Community
Al Qahirah, Egypt / لعربية
Joined: July 23, 2004
KitMaker: 6,856 posts
Armorama: 6,363 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 19, 2016 - 09:26 PM UTC

Quoted Text

I'll sure be looking forward to seeing what Hong Model come up with next!





Hisham
Jack_Turmoil
Visit this Community
Michigan, United States
Joined: February 09, 2016
KitMaker: 80 posts
Armorama: 78 posts
Posted: Friday, May 20, 2016 - 02:40 AM UTC
Thank you very much for doing this comparison. Great information and a great presentation.
brian638
Visit this Community
England - West Midlands, United Kingdom
Joined: July 24, 2004
KitMaker: 309 posts
Armorama: 254 posts
Posted: Friday, May 20, 2016 - 02:55 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Hi Hugo,

You should look when he joined and the number of posts he has.

Anonymous
Joined: December 15, 2001
KitMaker: 254 posts
Armorama: 31 posts

To me it doesn't seem he is linked to Hong Models. In fact he joined five years before you did and a few years before me.

Best regards,
Angel



The Anonymous is just that it does not refer to a single person but to all those members wh would wish to have a forum/article post listed as an anonymous user.
RobinNilsson
Staff MemberTOS Moderator
KITMAKER NETWORK
Visit this Community
Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: November 29, 2006
KitMaker: 6,189 posts
Armorama: 5,171 posts
Posted: Friday, May 20, 2016 - 12:34 PM UTC
Thanks for a good comparison
It certainly makes it easier for me to choose between these two kits (I'm not interested in the interior since I almost always build with all hatches closed, saves a lot of effort when building ...)

/ Robin
Karl187
#284
Visit this Community
Northern Ireland, United Kingdom
Joined: October 04, 2006
KitMaker: 3,094 posts
Armorama: 2,942 posts
Posted: Friday, May 20, 2016 - 03:23 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

I'll sure be looking forward to seeing what Hong Model come up with next!





Hisham



Thanks Hisham , I forgot they announced this recently!
Hammerton
Joined: May 25, 2007
KitMaker: 13 posts
Armorama: 12 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 21, 2016 - 03:47 PM UTC
I'm finding this fascinating, especially as I have both kits.

There is no dispute in the differences between the images and the kit parts.

I do have two questions however.

Was the Shilka built in more than one facility during its manufacturing life?

Did the Production Build Standard change during the manufacturing period of each variant?

Understand that I'm not looking to discredit the photographic evidence, but as someone who worked in the Defence Industry I know that these questions do have bearing.

I'm very much a newbie in the area of modelling the modern-era, so I don't have the relevant information. But I hope that someone might have the answers, not speculative assumptions.

Both kits are great, although my example of the Hong Shilka is taking a ridiculous amount of time as each part is requiring serious fettling to get it to fit. I have yet to start the Meng Shilka, but based on my experience of their kits I don't expect it to take nearly as long.

Simon
CMOT
Staff MemberEditor-in-Chief
ARMORAMA
Visit this Community
England - South West, United Kingdom
Joined: May 14, 2006
KitMaker: 10,909 posts
Armorama: 8,552 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 21, 2016 - 05:52 PM UTC
Simon: That is a very good question that I would also be interested in hearing an answer too. This vehicle having been produced in large numbers and being in service with many countries has likely lead to changes being present in some cases, especially as most of the identified changes are minimal. I also do have to admit that some of the details pointed out do look like errors rather than alterations.
Hammerton
Joined: May 25, 2007
KitMaker: 13 posts
Armorama: 12 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 21, 2016 - 06:40 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Simon: That is a very good question that I would also be interested in hearing an answer too. This vehicle having been produced in large numbers and being in service with many countries has likely lead to changes being present in some cases, especially as most of the identified changes are minimal. I also do have to admit that some of the details pointed out do look like errors rather than alterations.



Indeed. Plenty of updates/modifications get into the build stream at the factory level.
That situation gets somewhat out of control at the end-user. Field mods to prevent fuel leaks on early Chieftains is just one that springs to mind.

But way back up the manufacturing line, modifications or even shortcuts to get it "out the door" are far more common than you might think.
Jennings
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Joined: April 30, 2016
KitMaker: 73 posts
Armorama: 69 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 21, 2016 - 08:29 PM UTC
Random ZSU-23-4 question: According to Wikipedia, Czechoslovakia has never operated this vehicle. I'd have thought all the WARPAC member states would have had them. I've Googled it, and can't find any reference to Czech Shilkas.

Anyone know for sure?
andymacrae
Visit this Community
Scotland, United Kingdom
Joined: September 01, 2005
KitMaker: 409 posts
Armorama: 402 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 22, 2016 - 01:15 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Random ZSU-23-4 question: According to Wikipedia, Czechoslovakia has never operated this vehicle. I'd have thought all the WARPAC member states would have had them. I've Googled it, and can't find any reference to Czech Shilkas.

Anyone know for sure?



Yeah, noticed that too. I assume they stuck with the M53/59?
vettejack
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: November 23, 2012
KitMaker: 1,126 posts
Armorama: 1,103 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 22, 2016 - 05:17 PM UTC
If this kit is purchased, then HONG it shall be. These reviews do influence my decisions. Thanx!

MENG: large clue dudes...get your detailing accuracy act together!
CMOT
Staff MemberEditor-in-Chief
ARMORAMA
Visit this Community
England - South West, United Kingdom
Joined: May 14, 2006
KitMaker: 10,909 posts
Armorama: 8,552 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 22, 2016 - 05:53 PM UTC
I finally worked out what it is that has made me question the initial post being impartial. There is not a single fault pointed out by the poster and unless someone finally managed the perfect model that cannot be right.
Jennings
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Joined: April 30, 2016
KitMaker: 73 posts
Armorama: 69 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 22, 2016 - 11:58 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Yeah, noticed that too. I assume they stuck with the M53/59?



I'd have sworn I'd seen a photo of a Shilka with a Czechoslovak roundel on it though...
HeavyArty
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,418 posts
Armorama: 13,529 posts
Posted: Monday, May 23, 2016 - 12:08 AM UTC

Quoted Text

I finally worked out what it is that has made me question the initial post being impartial. There is not a single fault pointed out by the poster and unless someone finally managed the perfect model that cannot be right.



Kind of what I was thinking too. If you look up the profile, there are all sorts of Features and posts attributed to it that are all different people as Anonymous. Apparently there is a glitch or back door where the "Anonymous" user comes up often. They all have the same Joined date and number of Kitmaker and Armorama posts too. Something looks very fishy to me.