"Why can NO ONE make decent treads or tracks?" Topic

I mean NO one! Not Battlefront, not Old Glory, not Quality Castings…

I was just putting together some Old Glory T-34s last night. On every single VISIBLE part of the tacks or treads, the casting was melted and solid. I had to literally carve or whittle a semblance of tracks into a hunk of smooth solid lead. There was also a hunk of solid sprue or scuzz there.
Yet, the underside and the part that runs under the hull were perfectly cast and clear.

I had the same problem with some Battlefront Hummels, and von Luck's PzIV.

Every single 15mm tank that I have ever assembled, no matter the manufacturer, has this same stupid, inexcusable fault. Good treads in hidden areas, total where it is visible.

Cannot the mold maker figure out a better place to place his gate?
Cannot the Quality Dpartment (HAH!) see this, and make new molds?

There is no excuse for this.

I like Quality Castings track sections, and some of QRFs.

The Battlefront ones are competently sculpted, for the most part, buy they don't replace the molds often enough.

Old Glory/Command Decision/Skytrex seems to be seasonal.

Allen

Rhino Models used to do superb ones, in 1/72nd scale.

They looked like the real thing.

Sadly, I don't believe they still produce resin miniatures, and they are not in 15mm scale.

Still, it does show it is possible, if desired. My guess is they figure the customers don't really care.

Glad you brought the issue up to expose them. I too have had to file details on treads from various manufacturers.

I wonder if it's the limitation of the single metal models?
--
Tim

If that is the case, Tim, why is the underside perfect?

I thought Battlefront had switched to injection-molded tracks for some of their tanks.

I just paint the bad parts muddy and be done with it.

Some of them though are really muddy though.

If that is the case, Tim, why is the underside perfect?

Because the bits at front and back are "sideways" to the mould, perhaps?

Detail on top and bottom will not be stressed by pulling the mould apart. Material to the sides will have a lateral pull when the mould separates, causing detail to wear much faster.

Given that this is universal (I have to take your word for it), it would likely to a technical reason, not lack of interest.

Battlefront has injection molded tracks, wheels, and MGs for Shermans and M3 halftracks but they are sold as a separate pack.
They do not come with the model with the exception of the 105 version of the sherman, to the best of my knowledge.

I do have to agree with OFM re the metal tracks. Not to single out Battlefront but Im trying to finish off some of their T-34s and the stock tracks aren't symmetrical. If you place the track sections with the wheels facing each other on a flat surface you'll see that one end of one track section is higher than the other. You can compensate for this by adjusting the placement of the track during assembly (gives the vehicle an odd look though) or live with a very wobbly tank. Oddly enough, when you place the track section with the wheels facing the same way, they line up quite nicely. It seems to me that a single track section was sculpted first. Then the wheels for left and right sides were added later using the original track for both side.

The tracks in the track pack for the T-34 are much better.

Of course this may be different now since my box of T-34s is a year old. Yes I'm just getting to them now.

The metal models I have, the Skytrex T-35 and SHQ T-28 have separate pieces for tracks. The Skytrex model's track details are kind of atrocious. Mark's point is probably a valid one.

Battlefront has injection molded tracks, wheels, and MGs for Shermans and M3 halftracks but they are sold as a separate pack.
They do not come with the model with the exception of the 105 version of the sherman, to the best of my knowledge.

Actually I got the plastic track sprue with my M-10C Achiles tank destroyers. They are a verry nize. Salut y'all!

Bruce the Texas Grognard

"Battlefront has injection molded tracks…"

A step backwards. Because they have to be separated from an inflexible mold, they chose to go with a variant without chevrons, which looks very odd.

They're in at least the box sets now, and as you can see here, they don"t give the visual signature clearly shown on the box art (of course, you ought to be able to spot another obvious discrepancy, but that's another issue):

link

…or photos of the real thing:

link

Yes, flat tracks were made, too, but they weren't as common:

link

Unfortunate.

Allen

True, but I've seen plenty of allegedly accurately sculpted tracks with the detail obscured by huge lumps of flash. I'd rather have well-cast inaccurate tracks than well-sculpted ones rendered unusable by poor casting. Mind you, my 1943 British armoured unit has Sherman I, II, III and IVs in one company, so perhaps my priorities are different to Allen's.

By the way, is this something common across periods, or is it just that WW2 minis tend to have more track exposed than more modern tanks, so the problem only occurs there?

"Yes, flat tracks were made, too, but they weren't as common"

Actually Allen it depends. The type 51 non-reversible track replaced the prewar type 41 solid rubber block track. The T51 was very common on the M4, M4A1/75, early models of the M4A2 and on the M7 Priest for example. The T51 had the advantage of excellent performance and speed on hard surfaces (primarily roads) while doing no or minimal damage to those surfaces. However its off road performance suffered especially when taking on any inclines. Early war you will see the T51 extensively.

The type 48 rubber chevron track became the standard track for most US tanks but the T51 was still found throughout the war. It was really a compromise with the chevron providing better traction yet its all rubber construction minimizing damage to roads. It is interesting to note the Russians far and away desired the all steel treads (the hell with roads, for that matter what roads) over any of the rubber tracks. Dmitriy Loza goes as far to say in his book "Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks" that his unit wrapped barb wire around the track pads of early track sets (possible T48 but more likely T51) for better traction!

This is not to excuse the poor track representation on many models or the fact some use the fact that pictures exist of the T51 track on about every VVSS suspension Sherman.

Nobody seems to have mentioned PeterPig 15mm afv's which I have never seen with anything other than perfect tracks…

I was, and am, a fan of BF's plastic tracks.

Are they really the best option, historically? No.
Do chevrons look better than flats? Absolutely.

Do I have better things to do than re-sculpt the metal tracks I get in every tank kit from every manufacturer? You better believe it. I like the weight of the metal, and most of the time you can look at a given track part and see some part of it that looks stunning. If the entire thing looked like that, no one would bother with plastic.

But, alas, no matter how well sculpted the metal tracks always look like crud. I could really care less about the casting difficulties involved, that's not my problem until I start, ya know, casting my own. So long as its a product, its their problem.

And thus, we've arrived at plastic tracks as the best compromise, and I think they probably are with all the real-world factors included. It really doesn't matter if the best 15mm track in the world is in metal if you can only achieve that track 1 time in 100 under laboratory conditions.

Plastic tracks may not look quite as good (though, compared to Old Glory's crap I think they are flat-out superior in every measurable category) but they are far more consistent. I'm not interested in potential quality, ya know? I gotta roll with the quality I "end up with," and plastics are just more consistent.

That said, Battle Front went to them, in part, to correct their gawd-aweful quality control problems. All the MGs, hatches, and tracks are on one sprue, and its easier for the packers to say, "Yes, I added the plastic bit," than to say, "Yes, I added one right track, one left track, one commander's hatch, one driver's hatch, a loader's hatch, a hull MG, a .30 cal AAMG, a .50 cal MG, an early production 75mm gun, a late production 75mm gun, and a 76mm gun."

I stand corrected; from the FoW forum:

"As a company matures, its access to tools and technologies get increasingly sophisticated. As a result, its products get better -- more precise, more accurate, etc. It's like the Shermans; a few years ago we are still dealing with lead treads and guns, now the US got access to plastic threads and guns which are better in general."

I must not have had my Kool-Aid the other day. I apologize.

Allen

In the "its never too trivial for TMC" arena I present the following.

On August 15th 1944 the 53rd Ordnance Group issued a report of track useage on all types of vehicles in use by 5th US Army. At the time 5th Army was resting and regrouping making the count possible. Now this is Italy which did impose somewhat different requirements on mobility then Northwest Europe but still some interesting numbers.

For the M4, M4A1 and M4A3 441 tanks were operational and 420 of them were checked:

Steel Tracks (primarly T49 and T54E1) 128
Rubber Chevron (T48) 245
Flat Rubber Tracks (T51) 47

M7 Priests 84 of 99 checked
Rubber Chevron 51
Flat Rubber Tracks 33

M10 TD 139 of 144 checked
Rubber Chevron 111
Flat Rubber Tracks 28

Thank you!