Porsche Production, 1944
This model work was completed in 2006
Hosted by Darren Baker
JAGD TIGER Fgst.Nr.305003
RochmCheng
Joined: October 16, 2006
KitMaker: 17 posts
Armorama: 15 posts
KitMaker: 17 posts
Armorama: 15 posts
Posted: Saturday, December 25, 2010 - 08:18 PM UTC
sd.kfz.186 JAGD TIGER Fgst.Nr.305003
Porsche Production, 1944
This model work was completed in 2006
Porsche Production, 1944
This model work was completed in 2006
Braille
#135
Joined: August 05, 2007
KitMaker: 1,501 posts
Armorama: 1,485 posts
Posted: Sunday, December 26, 2010 - 10:35 AM UTC
RochmCheng,
Beautiful . . .
Thanks for posting and sharing your build.
-Eddy
Beautiful . . .
Thanks for posting and sharing your build.
-Eddy
redcap
Joined: November 06, 2005
KitMaker: 753 posts
Armorama: 378 posts
Posted: Sunday, December 26, 2010 - 02:44 PM UTC
I really like your J.T. and think the choice of very restrained weathering is just right. After all, these large AFV's often had a combat life span measured in days or hours by the end of the war ...or even a single tank full of fuel! As such, to see model 1/35 heavy tanks with more rust/weathering on them than an old car sitting in a scrapyard for 10 years is just plain wrong.
Thanks for sharing the pictures!
Gary
Thanks for sharing the pictures!
Gary
RochmCheng
Joined: October 16, 2006
KitMaker: 17 posts
Armorama: 15 posts
KitMaker: 17 posts
Armorama: 15 posts
Posted: Sunday, December 26, 2010 - 04:53 PM UTC
Quoted Text
rear mudflaps should have zimmerit on them like 305004.
you also ignored all the little tied down loops around the top.
Judging by 305004, the perforations for the command antenna mounting should be present, regardless whether it's a command vehicle or not.
Why is the headlamp black? Looked like someone had torched it. There are some other coloring issues. Cable ends are rubber, not metal. And tow cable shouldn't be rusted, or they're dangerous to use.
You used sideskirts for standard henschel, Porsche Jagdtigers had their own configuration of skirts.Which brings out another issue. The rear edge of the rearmost skirt isn't zimmerited, and yours covered the entire piece.
In my opinion, your model looked a bit weird. Everything is so clean and tight, but there are rusts all over the vehicle. Were you trying to depict the vehicle new? Or after heavy usage?
Maybe some larger pictures next time? Looked like you also ignored the rifling in the barrel? Pictures are too small, can't really tell.
badger66
Joined: April 09, 2005
KitMaker: 251 posts
Armorama: 232 posts
Posted: Monday, December 27, 2010 - 06:02 AM UTC
Nicely done
panzerdoc
Joined: August 22, 2010
KitMaker: 147 posts
Armorama: 81 posts
Posted: Monday, December 27, 2010 - 06:52 AM UTC
Brian,
I have to admit these same things jumped out a me on my first look at this model. Then I realized the vehicle number. 305003 was the first training vehicle and had a number of unique features. Well, since there were only 11 Porsche vehicles and they were all made during a time a time when production was changing, few of the porsche vehicles are identical. The Porsche vehicles required that the henschel track guide horns be removed by a torch to allow them to run on this suspension. However, this process weakened the links. 305003 was actually modified by addition of a 21- tooth sprocket and the rear idler to allow use of Ferdinand tracks. Additionally, from my review of the photographs. 305003 had an odd an MG Ball mount in the front, no rear antenna mount, and for whatever reason lacked the mounts for the rain tarp. Also for some strange reason the hand crank for engine is mounted on the roof of this vehicle. As far as I can tell, these unique features are pretty faithfully rendered in this model. I know what the pictures seem to show but I still have hard time convincing myself that the headlight is actually that dark.
Regardless, thanks to RochMCheng for posting an unusual vehicle and something NOT built from the box.
I have to admit these same things jumped out a me on my first look at this model. Then I realized the vehicle number. 305003 was the first training vehicle and had a number of unique features. Well, since there were only 11 Porsche vehicles and they were all made during a time a time when production was changing, few of the porsche vehicles are identical. The Porsche vehicles required that the henschel track guide horns be removed by a torch to allow them to run on this suspension. However, this process weakened the links. 305003 was actually modified by addition of a 21- tooth sprocket and the rear idler to allow use of Ferdinand tracks. Additionally, from my review of the photographs. 305003 had an odd an MG Ball mount in the front, no rear antenna mount, and for whatever reason lacked the mounts for the rain tarp. Also for some strange reason the hand crank for engine is mounted on the roof of this vehicle. As far as I can tell, these unique features are pretty faithfully rendered in this model. I know what the pictures seem to show but I still have hard time convincing myself that the headlight is actually that dark.
Regardless, thanks to RochMCheng for posting an unusual vehicle and something NOT built from the box.
JeffVV
Joined: March 11, 2011
KitMaker: 2 posts
Armorama: 1 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 10, 2011 - 04:53 PM UTC
Quoted Text
rear mudflaps should have zimmerit on them like 305004.
you also ignored all the little tied down loops around the top.
Judging by 305004, the perforations for the command antenna mounting should be present, regardless whether it's a command vehicle or not.
Why is the headlamp black? Looked like someone had torched it. There are some other coloring issues. Cable ends are rubber, not metal. And tow cable shouldn't be rusted, or they're dangerous to use.
You used sideskirts for standard henschel, Porsche Jagdtigers had their own configuration of skirts.Which brings out another issue. The rear edge of the rearmost skirt isn't zimmerited, and yours covered the entire piece.
In my opinion, your model looked a bit weird. Everything is so clean and tight, but there are rusts all over the vehicle. Were you trying to depict the vehicle new? Or after heavy usage?
Maybe some larger pictures next time? Looked like you also ignored the rifling in the barrel? Pictures are too small, can't really tell.
I am new to this site but would like to comment on the above post. I do not know what you are referring to when you say the cable ends are rubber not metal? Surely you are not talking about the tow cable ends as they most certainly are metal. It does not seem you have ever been around heavy equipment. How long do you think that a rubber end would last pulling on a 70 plus ton vehicle? As far as rusty tow cables not being possible another load of rubbish. Cables left the factory usually in bare metal with painted ends. Bare metal quickly forms a coating of rust on the outside which has absolutely no effect on the cable itself to do its job. I find posts like yours very detrimental to the hobby. Speak only if you know what you are talking about is a good rule of thumb. I like the model in question and think he did a very nice job on the build and finish.
jeff
ppawlak1
Joined: March 14, 2006
KitMaker: 1,973 posts
Armorama: 1,843 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 10, 2011 - 05:36 PM UTC
Quoted Text
rear mudflaps should have zimmerit on them like 305004.
you also ignored all the little tied down loops around the top.
Judging by 305004, the perforations for the command antenna mounting should be present, regardless whether it's a command vehicle or not.
Why is the headlamp black? Looked like someone had torched it. There are some other coloring issues. Cable ends are rubber, not metal. And tow cable shouldn't be rusted, or they're dangerous to use.
You used sideskirts for standard henschel, Porsche Jagdtigers had their own configuration of skirts.Which brings out another issue. The rear edge of the rearmost skirt isn't zimmerited, and yours covered the entire piece.
In my opinion, your model looked a bit weird. Everything is so clean and tight, but there are rusts all over the vehicle. Were you trying to depict the vehicle new? Or after heavy usage?
Maybe some larger pictures next time? Looked like you also ignored the rifling in the barrel? Pictures are too small, can't really tell.
Looking forward to seeing your work Brian ....
I see your Gallery is empty however
Cheers
Paul
DutchBird
#068
Joined: April 09, 2003
KitMaker: 1,144 posts
Armorama: 526 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 10, 2011 - 06:15 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Looking forward to seeing your work Brian ....
I see your Gallery is empty however
Cheers
Paul
That does not even begin to mention the basic fact that where German armour is concerned, a whole lot is possible as far as the more detailed aspects of vehicles goes, considering the German tendency implement field modifications which could be unit-specific or even vehicle specific, and factury modifications at almost random points during a production run... Hence the many debates about the features of specific vehicles, some here, but especially on M-L, to the point where it becomes extremely academic. Likewise the near constant revision of 'series' specific features, or the regular redefinition, subdivision, creation or scrapping of vehicle type designations - see the whole Pz. IV saga and DML's catalogue....
Prototypes seem to have been cobbled together on occasion, or incomplete - especially the non-essential parts (like side skirts) because the specifically designed elements were not yet available (or that particular feature was being redesigned), and when rushed into production.
And he must have missed the often used statement that it is almost impossible to say that certain modifications of German armour did not exist... and could therefore not be modelled.
But in general I found it rather rude in his initial post to say nothing of the skill displayed itself which IMHO is quite good (to put it mildly). Whether you might agree or not with some of the choices made (muddy/not muddy, for instance) or see flaws/oddities in how it is applied, is one thing.
Likewise there is obvious personal taste - clean or dirty - and sometimes one simply works better than the other. Personally, I like models to be rather clean - if I ever finish them...
Just the euro 0.02 from a modeller who has yet to finish a model of his own, yet has given his opinion on occasion concerning some models - and who tries to phrase his critiques in a more constructive manner.
mmdm4
Joined: April 30, 2006
KitMaker: 38 posts
Armorama: 22 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 12, 2011 - 03:47 PM UTC
Did you use Fruil's on the Panther? It looks as if they have been mounted on the wrong side. I always thought you mounted the side that you inserted the pins in next to the hull. Looking at the Panther on the AM Works site it appears that you can see the side with the pins away from the hull.
mmdm4
Joined: April 30, 2006
KitMaker: 38 posts
Armorama: 22 posts
Posted: Monday, March 14, 2011 - 03:01 PM UTC
NOT!!!
mmdm4
Joined: April 30, 2006
KitMaker: 38 posts
Armorama: 22 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 - 07:56 AM UTC
I'm pretty sure the set I have is. Why would they put them in separate bags if they were all the same? I read all the arguments for and against separate tracks but I really think at least the Panther tracks are right and left fitting.
CMOT
Editor-in-Chief
Joined: May 14, 2006
KitMaker: 10,954 posts
Armorama: 8,571 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 - 08:28 AM UTC
Sorry Mark I did a review on a set of Panther tracks and they were not handed and could have all been packed in the same bag.
mmdm4
Joined: April 30, 2006
KitMaker: 38 posts
Armorama: 22 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 - 08:51 AM UTC
Just walked down in the basement and checked the set I purchased and they are right and left! This is all I'm going to say on this subject so have a good day!
ColHogan
Joined: March 10, 2011
KitMaker: 3 posts
Armorama: 2 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 - 08:48 PM UTC
Hi RochmCheng,
I liked the build. I thought the rusting was fairly restrained - and came out well. Coming from someone who has worked on Heavy Vehicles all of his working life, I can tell you 1st hand unpainted/chipped paint leads to rust overnight - especially with overnight rain & condensation. Whether the vehicle is new or not is irrelevant - all tanks rust. As for the tow cables- Did the germans have access to rust preventatives, would they have bothered keeping them rust free? unless the cables were some grade of stainless, they rust quickly - try getting a strand in your thumb!
Some interesting replies on this one........I look forward to more opinions....
Glad you shared your build with us.
Harv
I liked the build. I thought the rusting was fairly restrained - and came out well. Coming from someone who has worked on Heavy Vehicles all of his working life, I can tell you 1st hand unpainted/chipped paint leads to rust overnight - especially with overnight rain & condensation. Whether the vehicle is new or not is irrelevant - all tanks rust. As for the tow cables- Did the germans have access to rust preventatives, would they have bothered keeping them rust free? unless the cables were some grade of stainless, they rust quickly - try getting a strand in your thumb!
Some interesting replies on this one........I look forward to more opinions....
Glad you shared your build with us.
Harv
mmdm4
Joined: April 30, 2006
KitMaker: 38 posts
Armorama: 22 posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 - 02:47 AM UTC
Don't take it personally but I think you are the one who fired off a reply about the original posting of the Jagdpanther with a list of errors in your opinion. You know what they say about opinions!
CMOT
Editor-in-ChiefJoined: May 14, 2006
KitMaker: 10,954 posts
Armorama: 8,571 posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 - 03:02 AM UTC
I have to agree I really like the look of the this Jagd Tiger, accuracy I will leave to those who know better than I.
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.