I just got the 1/48th Italeri Puma. It is extremely impressive in details and "crispness", so for most people it will actually rate equal or above what much of Tamiya's output has been in that scale... It is that nice-looking.

There is however an accuracy issue that is evident when comparing to Italeri's own kit in 1/35: The sides of the front plates are much more vertical in 1/35th, and this makes the 1/48th kit's front plates look "wider".

It definitely gives the 1/48th kit a different broader and less "tiptoe" look, and though I don't have good frontal photos of the real thing to post here, it does seem as though the 1/35th kit is much closer the real thing.

One thing for sure, the two kits do not agree with one another in this issue.

If anyone has good frontal photos of the real thing, it would be interesting to see which one of the kits is in fact closer.

http://www.ipmsdeutschland.de/Militaer/Arndt/Ita_SdKfz234-2/Ita_Puma_07.jpg

http://www.internetmodeler.com/1999/october/armor/puma-front-unpainted.jpg

Gaston

Would a SdKfz 234/3 walkaround be helpful

http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/14025188_dtYwu#1032049759_dhmSj

Frenchy

Not so easy unfortunately...

"Walk arounds" are usually shot from too close for general outlines (this is one of my main beef with most of those indoors walkarounds: Probably they can't help it with the limited indoor space)... But thanks anyway as it is a nice one!

None of the pictures here are of a straight frontal view, but they do sort of confirm the 1/35th scale kit is closer, especially in the slanting of the side edges of the driver's visor plate...

Gaston

Gaston

Why not use a decent set of plans to make your comparisons?

I'm sure that there are some out there that would help you with your dilemma.

Plans are unfortunately the root cause of many kit problems...

My impression so far is that the 1:48th kit is definitely less accurate than its larger cousin from the same maker...

Gaston

Gaston

Then explain to me how companies measure actual vehicles, to obtain measurements that they then use to make plans?

If they measure the actual vehicle isn't that then going to produce plans that are accurate?

Surely you aren't suggesting that companies should rely on photographs that are less than reliable due to their angle, number of times reproduced and maybe out of focus to create a pattern for a model?

I'm sorry to say that if you look back over this guy's previous threads/posts and some of the comments including those refering to his posts on other web sites and you start to wonder if its the actual kits that have problems or the problem is elsewhere.

Isn't he a regular Poster on Aeroscale where his threads have repeatedly caused minor disturbances?

Hi Matt, of course, I agree with you, scale drawings are fundamental to do a perfect kit, but I may understand what Gaston meant
I work as a designer and from my job experience I've learnt that an object drawn in 2d could look very different from the same rendered in 3d. These differences are larger if the depicted object has rounded shapes (such as for example an aircraft)
In 2d drawings you can't see the real "fillet" between the surfaces. You can't either see the real interpolation between the cross sections, so starting from the same 2d drawing, you could paradoxically produce many different 3d objects. It would be a matter of interpretation.
That's one of the reason why recent kits come from a 3d CAD model. But in any case the draftsman during the 3d modelling process has to interpretate the pics of real subject to depict it in a correct way

Cheers

Yes he is.

He is well known for picking the "flaws" out in kits sight unseen, then using photos to back up his point.

According to Gaston every kit is less than perfect and he is the only one who can point out the corrections to make them perfect.

I'd rather live with the small errors and get on with building something.

I think you scared him off.

Well, me too, I absolutely agree with you. I thinks that kits are just scale reproductions. They could be very close to the original vehicles but they'll never be "perfect".

Regards

I get what you mean Mauro but Gaston interpets things from photographs alone. Usually grainy repoductions of reproductions. He would rather trust his Mk 1eye ball than any plan in Panzer tracts for example.

There is no point trying to reason with him he is as stubbourn as a mule.

Gaston caused major problems on the Track48 and the Missing Links 1/48 scale forums until people stopped taking the bait and ignored him, he eventually went away. The general concensus is that he has Aspergers and cannot help the way he is so it is best to just politely ignore him.

It would be more helpful if instead of insulting people you disagree with, which speaks volumes about you personally, you would address the obvious diffrences between two same subject kits from the same maker...

As far as drawings being any better than photographs, It is true that the boxy or slanted flat shapes of armor are often quite deceptive in photographs, especially when the running gear is obscuring half of the hull profile... But expecting you to make such reasonned arguments could be asking for a lot...

Still. Tamiya's 1/48th Panther is said to match Panzertracks drawings to a T... Yet: The gun barrel is FOUR inches too long from the measurements I took off the real thing in a museum: Two inches in the tube and two inches in the forward muzle brake slot alone... The turret's long sides are also two inches longer on the real thing, while the real hull is two inches deeper. The real turret is also one inch taller in the rear and one inch shallower in the front, which compounds with the hull error, and gives a very different "look" to the whole thing (the front roof slope is a lot steeper)...

Tamiya's Hetzer also is based on Panzertracts drawings, and is even more pathetic: Comparing it to Eduard's outstanding 1/35th Hetzer (of which Eduard had 8 real ones available to measure), it is no closer than two inches on all the dimensions, and THREE inches off on the glacis length...

If the Panzertracts drawings really do match those two Tamiya kits, then they suck, plain and simple... This is because you can bet many of those errors combine with one another to create a "domino effect" which makes things look worse... I can tell you putting the Tamiya 1/48th Hetzer kit next to the Eduard is pretty shocking...

Mind you, the Puma by Italeri is a lot more refined in the crispness of detail than most of what Tamiya puts out, but you have to wonder why they didn't bother examining their OWN 1/35th scale Puma...

Tamiya did the exact same with their 1/48th Kubelwangen, whose windshield dimensions I got from an owner, as being 1/43rd scale, among a myriad other nonsense like the nose being two inches too wide (and unfixable because of the way the parts interact).

Guess what...: Tamiya's 25-30 years OLDER 1/35th Kubelwagen is completely different and quite accurate in appearance...

Gosh, what a precision hobby we enjoy: They can't hold a tape measure on STRAIGHT lines within 50 mm of the real thing...

Worse: They can't even reproduce the outlines of their OWN antiquated (and more accurate) kits correctly...

My guess is the root cause is they look at pictures less and less, perhaps measure the real things less and less, and rely more and more on "scientific" drawings...

In the old days, I'll bet they looked more at actual pictures, the real thing if they could, and made unscientific "judgement calls" on those...

Something called "craftmanship"...

Gaston

P.S. And for the dumb argument that I lambast all kits, here are the kits that, if you can find major outline faults with them, I would like to know:

Tamiya's: -Crusader series
-Steyr 1500
-Marder III
-Pershing
-Jagdtiger
-Tiger 1
-Sdkfz 250

Hobby boss: Whole KV series.
Whole T-34 series

Skybow/AFV: Sdkfz 251
Sturmtiger

Accurate Armour: Coles crane truck

Bandai: M30 ammo carrier.

And many others I forget or never saw...

G.

This guy should start his own company: " Mr. Marty's Miraculous Models", which have all been personally researched by him, and are to an Nth of a millimetre correct in all respects - even to the scale thickness of armor plates used, etc. On the other hand, maybe if we just ignore him, he'll go away (at least for a little while).

Do I detect this thread descending into cyber-bullying? It is sickeningly reminiscent of the savage way a German-armour knit-picker was hounded off the site last year by a pack of angry school-bullies simply because he was "annoying" to them. I thought this sort of thing was supposed to be policed by the Staff, so this site wouldn't lower itself to the Wild-West standards of the lawless internet.

I don't know Gaston from anywhere else (since I don't tend to visit other modelling sites too often), but it seemed to me that he started with a fairly simple observation that two models of the same vehicle in different scales looked to scale out to difgferent dimensions. Surely some of the folk throwing abusive accusations of a personal nature could have the decency to actually check the kits in question and address the topic, rather than use it as an excuse to abuse the poster? Methinks the Staff need to step in as Moderators on this one...

Tom

Tom

There is a big difference between criticising kits that are wholly inaccurate and pointing out small problems that are easily corrected.

I have no problems with people pointing our serious errors as that at least leads to the majority knowing about them prior to purchasing a kit.

Gaston on the other hand feels the need to pass judgement on kits that have small correctable errors and makes them out to be kit killers.

That's true - there are degrees of nit-picking, and maybe this guy has crossed the line in the past on other forums. (I've only seen this thread and another one here at the Big A about Panther barrel-length.) However, in trying to silence him folks here are definitely stepping over the line themselves by accusing him of having aspergers etc simply because they aren't as bothered about the issues he raises. I agree that folks can hold rational debates about the degree of acceptable inaccuracies and whether it is a problem for them, but nobody has a right to get abusive and personal. After all, if his posts bother folks, they can easily be ignored just by not replying.

The thing I find most odd about the way this thread has gone is that nobody has actually taken the time to measure the kits to confirm or deny the differences he is going on about...

Tom

PS: When that other guy was hounded off he managed to delete a lot of his forum posts before he quit. The pity is they had a lot of useful info in them about the details of Tigers...

Tom

With the greatest of respect I don't think or see it quite as you've described it as per the quote above and your other post here.

Clearly you are talking about Herbert Ackerman who whilst very knowledgeable on his chosen interests had a attitude which overshadowed this.

There are plenty of other people who contribute to this site with as much, if not more, knowledge than he but manage without doing so in a confrontational or pedantic manner as HA.

Not only was Herbert intolerant of anybody not seeing the importance of what he believed in to the same level, he would often take it upon himself to post criticising modellers builds but at the same time when invited to show examples of his highly accurate builds never came through. One member asked him to show examples of how accurate his models are and it seems this request,repeated a few times, was the thing that made HA do what he did.

I don't think anybody objected to his depth of knowledge although to my mind much of it was just repeating parrot fashion from a handful of reference books he had rather than any meaningful research he'd actually done himself. It was more in the manner in which he gave that information and his responses to others who didn't share his "dedication" to the subject that caused his unpopularity with certain members. Which would be the same for any of us.

Take Gerald Owens as an example. Ever since I've been a member I have seen him post information, knowledge, corrections etc. but has always managed to do it with causing offence.

This is for about 99% of us, a hobby, a pastime, a means of getting away from life's troubles and worries. The last thing we need is someone taking an "attitude" and spoiling it merely because we don't share the same level of enthusiasm as them.

Sure, I'm very grateful and appreciative of the help and knowledge so generously given by fellow members on this site, as I'm sure you are, but its up to me if I choose to act upon that knowledge or not and shouldn't be judged or criticised if I choose, for whatever reason, not to.

regards

Alan

Hi Alan,

Indeed, I agree that Herbert really seemed to get up people's noses, and I fully understand why they turned on him. However, it was the fact that so many folk felt it was ok to be abusive in their "public" posts (rather than just ignoring his irritations altogether or countering him with facts) that disgusted me. It turned what I thought was a civilised forum into nothing better than a childish fight in the playground.

And while I happily post my own builds here, I resented the attitude taken by some during the "Akermans Incident" that somehow anyone who didn't display models was a lesser member who had better shut up and keep out of the way. The Big A is a very broad church...

I was raised with the idea that two wrongs don't make a right, and sinking to the level of public name-calling just wasn't acceptable among adults. After all, we're not locked in a room with these guys, and don't have to even acknowledge them if we don't feel like it! And I just was concerned that this thread about Gaston was looking to turn ugly rather than informative.

Regards,

Tom

Gaston,

Two inches is used a lot in your arguments that the Tamiya Panther and Hetzer kits are "junk."

Lets do some math for some perspective: 2" divided by 48 = .041". Let's say you are right, and the Tamiya folks, the Panzer Tracts folks, and others are wrong. Still, there is not really an issue here. Most people cannot even see .041", it is about the length of a few strands of human hair. And plastic models have compromises and tolerances. You are building a 1/48 replica - an extremely small size. Plastic is not metal, and injection molding is not welding or casting.

I have built the Hetzer and there is no doubt whatsoever that it looks like a Hetzer in 1/48. I have also seen Hetzers in real life and photographed them and touched them and measured them. The fact the kit is engineered so well helps out as well. I also have the Panther and will happily build it into a beautiful replica of a Panther, which again, I have seen, touched, and photographed in real life also.

With regards to your example of the Eduard Hetzers, I have had them and sold them off. Eduard did so well with them they got out of armor kits all together as they did not sell.

You are of course entitled to your opinions, but we are also entitled to disagree with you. Back to the original topic of your thread, not sure what you are trying to accomplish with photos, but you can always scratchbuild a hull rather than using Italeris' hull, then use Italeris' detail parts, such as fenders, grilles, etc... Just a suggestion. I am glad Italeri is offering this vehicle in 1/48. I like the shape myself but not so much other details like the jerry cans, width indicators, length of the barrel, wheels, etc..

Best regards,

Scott Gentry

Hi

I'd just like to correct something I've just noticed in my last post but can't now edit.

It reads
"Take Gerald Owens as an example. Ever since I've been a member I have seen him post information, knowledge, corrections etc. but has always managed to do it with causing offence."

Of course I meant and it should have said "WITHOUT causing offence" apologises to Gerald if he reads this, slip of the keyboard, and word blindness when reading it through Gerald has always been most helpful without having "attitude".

Alan

I've built plenty of 1/35 Italeri models in the past and I've never seen one without issues - especially their 234 series armored cars. I wouldn't be surprised if both 1/35 and 1/48 scale Pumas are incorrect in different ways, which puzzles me because I thought they would just re-scale their original measurments. They should have re-scaled the DML Puma to 1/48.

I built the 1/35 Italeri Puma a long time ago and did quite a bit of research at the time- none of which I still have.

There used to be a very good article by Barry Crook on ML which is gone now and another good article by Mari Eens (?) on WW2 Modelmaker- unfortunately that site is now gone.

What I remember from both articles is that both had tweaks list for the Italeri kit-the only available Puma at the time. One thing they both noted was that the fenders were too narrow. There was also a problem with the placement of the turret hatches and the vision slots.

Still a good kit to build though

Mario Eens

Here his Italeri Puma model:














That's true and it's quite a pity

Anyway with the latest products it's been getting better in my opinion