GHQ Models Forums

The picture looks odd to me.

I'm well aware that the M60 is tall, but the mini looks like it's been compressed from front to back and stretched from top to bottom, for lack of a better way to phrase it. Looks like the aspect ratio is off. Barrel looks too short again like the recent M48.

Whaddaya think panzergator?

I don't think they have the turret seated in the photo.
Looks to be sitting a little to the back so the pin is on the deck still!

Panzer will know.

I think you've hit the nail on the head.

Can't believe I didn't notice the disk that shows and that would cause both of the problems I described.

At least the turret wasn't on backwards as a couple have been in recent years.

I agree, it looks like the turret is not seated properly. Also, what is going on on the front of the turret, between the main gun and the slat armor. It looks way too ruff

The turret is not seated on the hull, which several of you have already noted. This distorts the view we get. I really wish they wouldn't put all the crap on it. Rather have add-on kits like they did for Stryker. There may be armor added to front.

This is a mess. The loader's hatch is blocked by the cupola add-on. The space between the bar armor and the turret front apoears as though it was not cleaned out. pics have to be better. Dont get too fancy. Turret on, facing forward, three-quarter view, UNPAINTED because camo-painted stuff HIDES DETAILS! A second, painted pic, is ok, but SAME VIEW.

Sorry, Folks. I'm not buying this one. Too messy. Would love to have an M60 with the 120mm gun, but not this one. I have to study some real life pics and see what I can find out.

And just another nit to pick... the "TTS" stands for Tank Thermal Sight," which indicates a standard M60A3 which has received the upgraded sights which it was intended to have. That was back in 1980! It has nothing to do with the model fielded by Taiwan with all the modifications on GHQ's model. Better to designate it M60A3(120) or something. Otherwise, the nomenclature generates confusion.

I agree with Panzer, some bits need to be left off and give the modeler the choice of adding it on. I don't like the flub with the loaders hatch. I think they should set these turrets up so that you can have the option of what you want to add. Its like the M1A2 Sep Tusk II. The Remote gun mount is in the middle of the two hatches and everything I see had it in front of the hatch. So why not set up up so that you can either add the remote gun station or the hatch with the gun shields??? I looked close to the other picture they have on there and it does appear they did forget to clean up the turret.. The other picture, that has a turret, looks cleaner. I will probably buy a pack at some point, just to give it an honest evaluation.

Were I to buy them, the first thing I would do is clip off the thingy on the cupola. It may be an ammunition tray. It's possible the M85 has been switched for an M2. The front of the cupola appears to have been extended to make room. The clippers would also be taken to that wart to the left of the driver. I don't like the sponson boxes and the air cleaners appear to have been shoved to the rear - interesting change.

In general, don't find the tank very appealing, not that that is any criteria for an effective tank.

I like te idea of the M2 replacing the M85 50cak. M85 had its drawbacks. The cupola would require modification to do that and a low profile remote weapons station would be preferable to the standard cupola.

There is really no good way to bring the tank up to standard A. That must be an important consideration in how te tank is employed. Crews must train intensively and constantly in order for the tank to be useful.

Looked again at the cupola and I'm convinced it has been modified to use the M2 and that thing along the port side cupola is an ammunition feed tray for it. That's a cradle at the front if the cupola.

If I can just get over the air cleaner boxes being on the rear fender...

My next purchase will definitely include one pack and maybe a full company. RPNW needs tanks that are non US.. I would suspect that the US is not going to get over the loss of two states and equipment for the foreseeable future.

Hoth,
Those tanks do look beastly!!
“ RPNW needs tanks that are non US.. I would suspect that the US is not going to get over the loss of two states and equipment for the foreseeable future.”
Sure use the build up M60. Regarding states, RPNW has 2 states. PG has one in the middle of the US. Eski has the “tail” of Alaska. Few years ago NC invaded Alaska, then turned around.

Yea, they are Beast Chris. I am with Panzer, I wish they would have left the side slat armor off and had it as an add on like the strikers. Speaking of which, I think I want to get some slat armor for some of my strykers.. which would be very cool.

As for the other things you said.. .Not sure what you were trying to say.

Changing gears slightly, has anyone bought the slat add-on armor and tried putting it on other vehicles? Not sure if it's even possible, but might be fun to try!

I've played around with photo-etch armour add-ons at 1/72, and that was enough of a pain! I couldn't imagine trying at 1/285?