The Tiger I is arguably the most built or at least purchased tank type when it comes to models. Academy have announced a late Tiger I in the works in 1/35th scale. I await to read the views of those that know the Tiger Better than I.

Read the Full News Story

If you have comments or questions please post them here.

Thanks!

That yellow band around the barrel is interesting, haven't seen that before?

Well, it looks OK, but not great.

It doesn't have the turret roof that was used for about 2 months in the middle of the "late" period. So that excludes about one third of Lates you might want to build.

There's a roof part in the kit, S3, that looks like perhaps it was MEANT to be this turret roof; but it has the raised ring around the loader's hatch, so it's just wrong and unusable for any purpose.

I can't evaluate the kit in detail until I get a copy. That problem just leaped out at me.

David

the turret escape hatch has bevelled edges
The gun has a the large muzzle brake but the turret roof is the 40mm version with Pilze sockets and the gun mantlet has 2 holes for a binocular gunner's sight
Tracks with solid guide horns
oversized track pulling cable
the jack looks like the 15-ton type
etc...

Very 'impressive' effort !
Could someone tell Academy this is 2015, not 1975 !

The kit does seem to have both kinds of muzzle brake. Tiger "312" did have the large brake, as depicted.

However, Tiger "312" did not have the 2 part roof or the Pilze, as depicted. In fact you cannot build an accurate "312" from this kit; it requires the turret roof that wasn't provided.

The kit is not 1975 quality; it's 1995.

Can anyone say whether the kit lets you build a Befehlstiger? Because there are decals for "007".

David

Hey there David What about the recent Zvezda offering? Can you provide us with any comments on their kit?

IMHO, Academy can not be called a KIT (that is, a scaled-down copy of an actual subject) manufacturer at all. What they make is intended to 'look like' Tiger, KT, T-34 etc. at a certain distance, but when it comes to proportions,dimensions and sharpness of detail...alas...all of these aspects are underresearched and underdeveloped.

The Zvezda Early Tiger? Again, I don't have a copy. Look to other reviewers.
It does have unrealistic Feifel tubes and the turret chin shape is the wrong type.

David

To David Byrden: were any of Dragon's Tiger l's the "Ultimatly Perfect 100% Accurate" kit? Just musing that if anyone else made one just as good, or as accurate, they would be accused of copying it!

If you find any errors in a Dragon kit that I haven't already listed, I'd be glad to hear about them.

I don't think anyone would be accused of copying Dragon unless they actually did so. It becomes obvious when someone doesn't really know what they are doing.

David

I didn't mean to suggest that there were inaccuracies in Dragon's Tiger l's...just inquiring if there were any. I guess Academy should have asked for your consultation! On occasion, if one kit resembles the quality of another kit (sometimes even though a different scale!), one is suggested, or accused, of copying the other!

That is mostly when a styrene kit resembles a resin kit, or
maybe resembles the real subject in the same way as the resin kit ....

I'm looking a little more closely now...

There are sprocket wheels with the wrong alignment on one sprue (arms lined up with the teeth). Sprocket wheels with the correct alignment exist on the steel-wheel sprue. I don't know why the bad ones are included; are they from a previous kit? In any case, they are useless.

The rear hull wall has the welded frames for the mudguards, molded on to it. These would be appropriate in an Early Tiger but you'll have to sand them off. It seems to have holes and bumps for the Feifel system; they must be concealed also.

The loader's hatch from a Tiger B is included, and it's a waste of space, it has no business being in this kit. But the loader's hatch that you would need for the missing roof, is itself missing.

As Yann pointed out, the turret side hatch is the Early type, and it's not easy to fix this problem.

The kit does provide the major part that you need to build "007"; the antenna tube. I can't see whether the small parts, e.g. the extra antenna bases, are provided. There is no dedicated mantlet for "007" but perhaps there is a means to plug up the standard mantlet? And if the sunken base for the star antenna is there, I can't find it.

The cutout in the turret bin runs all the way to the bottom; that is wrong but relatively easy to fix.

The rear mudguards, with their cross-shaped hole, are suitable for an Early Tiger only.

David

oh,dear me what ever happen'd too building a model out the box,if you don't like it then don't buy the kit,i can predict that academy will sell thousands of this production run,and as i beliveve the pricing point will nullify the rivet counters,and we will see decent models made by the buyer's of this kit,let's see some comment about who would not purchase the kit,seem to think there were some who slagged recent italieri offering's bet those that did had one or two in their stash,still it's only my opinion,if it's priced right then most will buy it,and do their best with it after all who can afford too buy dragon,and then leave half of the styrene in the box, at forty quid plus,best regards too all allan

In fairness all that is being pointed out is the weaknesses in the model for those that persue perfection as regards accuracy rather than as a model. For those who want to build a model none of the accuracy issues being raised should matter.

Hi Allan; does your keyboard have "period" and "capital" keys? Would be easier reading with them!

I know there's been more than a little debate recently about commenting on kit's unseen, but even for me (and I'm a builder/painter) Tiger 1s are like Shermans, there's so much information around about them if you're going to release one you need to get it right.

This is probably just a case of "filling in the range" and not a real attempt to get it right, after all everyone has to have a late Tiger on offer.

>> "if you don't like it then don't buy the kit"

But I never said that I didn't like it. Why are you answering a question that I did not ask?

Maybe you're talking to the readers? In that case, I agree, they need not buy it if they don't like it; and I was helping them to decide whether they like it.

These sorts of discussions are vital for AM manufacturers to know when corrective parts are needed, too. One may still purchase an imperfect kit and "fix" the problems.

While it's an airplane, my build of Wolfgang Schnaufer's final Bf-110-G4 show that a flawed kit can be improved on. The ancient Revell kit required some major surgery and corrections, but did not fix all the kit's problems. Nevertheless, it allowed me to build a treasured airframe at a time when Dragon had not yet released their fine kits.

Mr. Byrden, you are always one of the most helpful guys, with no hesitation to share your knowledge, and most of the modellers who care about accuracy are grateful for that.

But there is always people who don't get the point, and question any critic to new models...
I guess they asume that everybody should be a "whatever" builder, caring nothing about how the real things are.
If anyone is happy with the "looks like a duck" parameter, good for them, but leave other people to look for doing things better... and consider keeping silent in that process.

I for one thank you very much for pointing out all those wrong parts of this Academy's kit.

Hugo;

Thank you, I hope the comments are useful.

David

A big Thanks to mr Byrden from me too :-)

I already have a few Tiger I's, probably a few ducks among them so I can ignore this fowl by Academy.
Saves some space in the stash ;-)
/ Robin

All depends on what this "fowl" is going to cost, including any necessary corrections, time spent doing them, etc. compared to, for instance, DML 3 in 1 Tiger l, which is pretty well complete.