Track Mud (1 Viewer)

[Thompyt]

The one thing that bothers me about K&C tracked vehicles.......There is dmud and debries between the road wheels. Granted the part touching the ground is always going 0 MPH/KPH, the mud would cause the tracks to pop off. I find this unrealistic, and other manufacturors have found ways to alleviate this issue. Yes there are static display replicas, but even real static vehicles don't have this. I don't think it conveys movement either, nor does it help a lot to meld the vehicle into the diorama. A TC would give his crew a beating for leaving the tracks in such a condition.

Any tread-heads want to chimne in?

 

[vividgraphx]

My opinion is that the purpose of all that mud is just to get out of having to better detail the model

 

[Guy]

the only reason I can think of is to make the track stronger and so avoiding breakage of the wheels. There are product enough out there that are ideal to imitate mud with far better results . There should not be so much mud between the wheels but much more on the hull of the tank
guy^&confuse

 

[Mitch]

The track issue is one that always bothered me also. however, K&C has explained that its two fold realism and, track strength. Not sure its an attempt to avoid the better defined tracks that has been mentioned. K&C use the mediums they do others do differently. Look at any winter war AFV and the tracks are caked in mud so, in that respect apart from summer AFV's you can just get away with it.

I have seen many broken tracks on a variety of other manufacturers who offer supposedly better track detail but, have not fixed many really broken bits of K&C (well, apart from bits chipped of from the outer edges) As a dio builder its not hard to incorporate these AFV's into dios you have to use a bit of imagination but it can be done. Its harder for the folks who use the industry matts as ground cover.

Its something I could easily be happy with if they changed but, its here to stay or, it would have changed by now so, I accept its part of the manufacturing process of K&C.
Mitch

 

[PanzerAce1944]

the only reason I can think of is to make the track stronger and so avoiding breakage of the wheels. There are product enough out there that are ideal to imitate mud with far better results . There should not be so much mud between the wheels but much more on the hull of the tank
guy^&confuse

This is my interpretation too of the track / roadwheel design. Durability was the intent. Looking at some of the newer
Tank releases such as the new T-34 to me appear to have less of this mud in the design.

 

[cnq]

yes this mud track thing from K&C AFVs is one of the reasons I stop buying tanks from K&C.
The last tank I bought was the Snow Tiger. I hope they change their process and start making
realistic tank track for the money collectors paying for these tanks.

 

[Panzer ace]

I think K&C constantly strive to improve their products and if you look at their linage, the tanks and tracked armor vehicles have consistently improved. As far as mud goes, I found this quote:

John Collins, author of Military Geography: For Professionals and the Public, describes one reason why no general or historian has sunk his or her teeth into the significance that mud has had on military history. “Commanders, staffs, and subordinates from the highest to the lowest of every armed service need to know how geology and soils affect combat and support operations, but most are bored to tears by those technical subjects.”

Mud: A Military History, CE Woo, Potomac Books Inc, 2006

 

[Mitch]

I am not so sure that they have improved in this area like some have mentioned. Some examples mentioned are the new T-34's well, they do have a lot more mud/support whatever on their entire track base than the last two T-34's the 34/85 and the captured 34/76 thats rather obvious from a cursory glance.

If one means all the full mold around the wheels like, the older tanks from DAK panzer III and Panzer IV or, BOB motar half track then, yes they have improved but, many don't like the stuff around the wheels for whatever reason its put there but, its still present.

I look back at the products and can pick out some really good examples where there was pure, clear, definition early on with hardly any of the stuff splattered around the tracks. the WSS jagdpanther was one, the newer Tigers only have it around the drive and rear sprocket so, its hardly track support on them similarly, with the new panther it was almost clear. If they can do this as early as that and on some others why not on all their models?

Does this mean a Konigstiger, panzer IV, shermans etc are more prone to damage than a panther et al? It would be interesting to know
Mitch

 

[Guy]

I am not so sure that they have improved in this area like some have mentioned. Some examples mentioned are the new T-34's well, they do have a lot more mud/support whatever on their entire track base than the last two T-34's the 34/85 and the captured 34/76 thats rather obvious from a cursory glance.

If one means all the full mold around the wheels like, the older tanks from DAK panzer III and Panzer IV or, BOB motar half track then, yes they have improved but, many don't like the stuff around the wheels for whatever reason its put there but, its still present.

I look back at the products and can pick out some really good examples where there was pure, clear, definition early on with hardly any of the stuff splattered around the tracks. the WSS jagdpanther was one, the newer Tigers only have it around the drive and rear sprocket so, its hardly track support on them similarly, with the new panther it was almost clear. If they can do this as early as that and on some others why not on all their models?

Does this mean a Konigstiger, panzer IV, shermans etc are more prone to damage than a panther et al? It would be interesting to know
Mitch

Mitch , you mention the Jagdpanther , well I was able to buy one at 50% discount from my dealer simply because the two tracks were broken off of the tank ( but very simple to restore)
So you see the problem is strenght of the track which has to support the weight of the tank hull .
guy

 

[Mitch]

Guy...

I don't really know why its there but, one would, if its for strength, have to look at all the other companies who don't do such things and, K&C are the only one and, see what % they have in terms of broken tracks. I have probably fixed a lot more figarti than any other manufacturer but, to me, the whole figarti model feels fragile.

As for strength of track I think HB models were some of the heaviest AFV's and they did not have any track added strength. When a set has damage though the price falls hugely anyway but, I wonder how many Jagdpanthers ever suffered track damage?

I think and have always said that K&C from hull up make some of the best AFV's on the market with detail comparable at least with everyone else its just the tracks that kind of let them down. It has got better but, my use of the jagdpanther was to show a very good clear wheel base from some years back only.

Initially, when I started buying AFV's I was put off by the track design especially on the earlier stuff like the sherman 105 and similar. I have kind of gotten past that not completely but, it does not stop me buying AFV's. would it be nice if it stopped ? Yes but, that would incur that thing called extra cost I am sure and, thats not really an option anyone wants
Mitch

Mitch , you mention the Jagdpanther , well I was able to buy one at 50% discount from my dealer simply because the two tracks were broken off of the tank ( but very simple to restore)
So you see the problem is strenght of the track which has to support the weight of the tank hull .
guy

 

[The Military Workshop]

Mitch,
Regarding :

I am not so sure that they have improved in this area like some have mentioned. Some examples mentioned are the new T-34's well, they do have a lot more mud/support whatever on their entire track base than the last two T-34's the 34/85 and the captured 34/76 thats rather obvious from a cursory glance.

I am no expert but could the reason for more mud on the new T34's compared to the previous ones be that they are Winter vehicles ?

Regards
Brett

 

[Mitch]

Brett...

If one looks they are exactly the same no matter whether they are winter white or the three green ones. They are molded in that way extra has not been placed onto the tracks because they depict a winter setting. The mold is made and they are then painted. That does not take an expert to view the exactness of a model. The point was not a knock just highlighting the obvious that some older models have had considerably better track detail than some of the newer models.

I have quite a few so, in this respect I am able to discuss with knowledge what I was saying. It may not be tasteful to your ears but, in a collectors term I disagreed with the comment in the terms I stated. No more no less.
Mitch

Mitch,
Regarding :

I am not so sure that they have improved in this area like some have mentioned. Some examples mentioned are the new T-34's well, they do have a lot more mud/support whatever on their entire track base than the last two T-34's the 34/85 and the captured 34/76 thats rather obvious from a cursory glance.

I am no expert but could the reason for more mud on the new T34's compared to the previous ones be that they are Winter vehicles ?

Regards
Brett

 

[Phantom Warrior]

Brett...

If one looks they are exactly the same no matter whether they are winter white or the three green ones. They are molded in that way extra has not been placed onto the tracks because they depict a winter setting. The mold is made and they are then painted. That does not take an expert to view the exactness of a model. The point was not a knock just highlighting the obvious that some older models have had considerably better track detail than some of the newer models.

I have quite a few so, in this respect I am able to discuss with knowledge what I was saying. It may not be tasteful to your ears but, in a collectors term I disagreed with the comment in the terms I stated. No more no less.
Mitch

Several years ago, a number of K&C collectors complained to Andy about the muddy track issue. The reason ffor it was to eliminate track breakage on production and shipping. However some later models had noticeably less mud on the tracks. More recent models seem to have gone back to more mud on the tracks.

Given the strong argument for less mud/clean tracks and considering how prominent the collectors were who were asking for this, I doubt that K&C will now produce clean tracks.

Terry

 

[Mitch]

Terry..

I have not read that and will try to find the threads. Its, as you say, unlikely that they would change as collectors are buying them and, I suppose you could say its almost a trademark of a K&C AFV now somewhat like the thrown track of CS.
Mitch

Several years ago, a number of K&C collectors complained to Andy about the muddy track issue. The reason ffor it was to eliminate track breakage on production and shipping. However some later models had noticeably less mud on the tracks. More recent models seem to have gone back to more mud on the tracks.

Given the strong argument for less mud/clean tracks and considering how prominent the collectors were who were asking for this, I doubt that K&C will now produce clean tracks.

Terry

 

[Phantom Warrior]

Terry..

I have not read that and will try to find the threads. Its, as you say, unlikely that they would change as collectors are buying them and, I suppose you could say its almost a trademark of a K&C AFV now somewhat like the thrown track of CS.
Mitch

I don't think it was in threads. The discussions were face to face and by PMs.

Terry

 

[Mitch]

Cheers saves me a trawl through them
Mitch

I don't think it was in threads. The discussions were face to face and by PMs.

Terry

 

[Blowtorch]

Any tread-heads want to chimne in?

Be careful what you wish for, because you, the consumer will pay for it. Are you willing to pay an extra $50 per vehicle to drop the mud? I'm fine with the mud

 

[PanzerAce1944]

Mitch , you mention the Jagdpanther , well I was able to buy one at 50% discount from my dealer simply because the two tracks were broken off of the tank ( but very simple to restore)
So you see the problem is strenght of the track which has to support the weight of the tank hull .
guy

Exactly, simple as that. !

 

[Mitch]

Nothing is ever that simple. The tracks don't support the AFV per se. the wheels of it do the track is flat so, unlikely to break as a result of a heavy AFV. the pins holding the track section into the hull of the AFV are the real weight bearers. Having taken these apart many times they are attached to the wheels usually the drive sprockets but, not always and hold the whole track and wheel section to the AFV. I think there may be some confusion over track strength in terms of fragility to break when handling and in transit and weight tolerance which, are two different issues.
Mitch

Exactly, simple as that. !

 

[PanzerAce1944]

Nothing is ever that simple. The tracks don't support the AFV per se. the wheels of it do the track is flat so, unlikely to break as a result of a heavy AFV. the pins holding the track section into the hull of the AFV are the real weight bearers. Having taken these apart many times they are attached to the wheels usually the drive sprockets but, not always and hold the whole track and wheel section to the AFV. I think there may be some confusion over track strength in terms of fragility to break when handling and in transit and weight tolerance which, are two different issues.
Mitch

The so called mud is done to strengthen the track....preventing breakage.....SIMPLE AS THAT