Dragon is now offering a 1/35 scale plastic model kit of a Panther Ausf.G with an interesting set of add-on antiaircraft armor.
Read the Full News Story
If you have comments or questions please post them here.
Thanks!
Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
Hosted by Darren Baker, Mario Matijasic
News
Dragon: Panther with Anti-Aircraft Armor
varanusk
Managing Editor
Joined: July 04, 2013
KitMaker: 1,288 posts
Armorama: 942 posts
Posted: Monday, March 20, 2017 - 04:06 AM UTC
Dragon is now offering a 1/35 scale plastic model kit of a Panther Ausf.G with an interesting set of add-on antiaircraft armor.
Read the Full News Story
If you have comments or questions please post them here.
Thanks!
alanmac
Joined: February 25, 2007
KitMaker: 3,033 posts
Armorama: 2,953 posts
Posted: Monday, March 20, 2017 - 04:15 AM UTC
Is this not just 6267 with probably DS tracks. Maybe its a slightly different variant but how different.
thenorm
Joined: July 13, 2010
KitMaker: 125 posts
Armorama: 102 posts
Posted: Monday, March 20, 2017 - 04:40 AM UTC
6267 lacks the armor over the engine deck, only includes the extra plates over the turret roof.
thenorm
Joined: July 13, 2010
KitMaker: 125 posts
Armorama: 102 posts
Posted: Monday, March 20, 2017 - 04:43 AM UTC
Also that is an early Ausf G without the additional chin armor on the mantlet, the new one is one of the late production vehicles I believe
Cuny12
Joined: April 04, 2010
KitMaker: 378 posts
Armorama: 348 posts
Posted: Monday, March 20, 2017 - 06:55 AM UTC
Out of interest what was the colour of the additional armour plates, I sort of assume Dunkelgelb but I could be wrong.
Cheers Ben.
Cheers Ben.
Thirian24
Joined: September 30, 2015
KitMaker: 2,493 posts
Armorama: 2,344 posts
Posted: Monday, March 20, 2017 - 07:24 AM UTC
I'm excited about this.
TopSmith
Joined: August 09, 2002
KitMaker: 1,742 posts
Armorama: 1,658 posts
Posted: Monday, March 20, 2017 - 07:49 AM UTC
If they are offering it now, what is the kit number?
tatbaqui
News Writer
#040
Joined: May 06, 2007
KitMaker: 2,713 posts
Armorama: 2,451 posts
Posted: Monday, March 20, 2017 - 08:13 AM UTC
Kit #6897. It's on pre-order status at DragonUSA Online. Expected to arrive by May 2017. 
TopSmith
Joined: August 09, 2002
KitMaker: 1,742 posts
Armorama: 1,658 posts
Posted: Monday, March 20, 2017 - 10:20 AM UTC
I didn't see a cost. I'm guessing the same cost as the late G plus ten bucks for the PE.
varanusk
Managing EditorJoined: July 04, 2013
KitMaker: 1,288 posts
Armorama: 942 posts
Posted: Monday, March 20, 2017 - 04:24 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Out of interest what was the colour of the additional armour plates, I sort of assume Dunkelgelb but I could be wrong.
Cheers Ben.
Most likely, yes. Or camo if the tank had it.
Tojo72
Joined: June 06, 2006
KitMaker: 4,691 posts
Armorama: 3,509 posts
Posted: Monday, March 20, 2017 - 05:17 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I didn't see a cost. I'm guessing the same cost as the late G plus ten bucks for the PE.
DragonUSA lists it for $79.99 USD
ACESES5
Joined: April 04, 2010
KitMaker: 71 posts
Armorama: 26 posts
Posted: Monday, March 20, 2017 - 08:04 PM UTC
Griffon used to make a set of fan deck covers a few years back, I used them on my Tamyia panther kit. But I haven't been able to fiend any more of them did they stop making them?
Thatcanucklehead
Joined: January 09, 2017
KitMaker: 11 posts
Armorama: 11 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 - 01:52 AM UTC
Kind of an unusual variant.Suprising the Big T has never done a Berlin 45 variant of their own Panther kits.
Cuny12
Joined: April 04, 2010
KitMaker: 378 posts
Armorama: 348 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 - 03:27 AM UTC
Carlos's thanks for that info mate, this one might be worth a look but I wonder if I can do the whole thing cheaper with one of my late G kits and some Aftermarket add ons.
Cheers Ben.
Cheers Ben.
Blackstoat
Joined: October 15, 2012
KitMaker: 568 posts
Armorama: 561 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 - 12:34 PM UTC
I did something similar on a Dragon Panther kit a few years ago. I wanted to make what I thought was the best tank of WWII (contentious I know). So I did a Panther G with full AA armour and IR.
Chuck4
Joined: November 13, 2013
KitMaker: 403 posts
Armorama: 401 posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 - 12:39 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I did something similar on a Dragon Panther kit a few years ago. I wanted to make what I thought was the best tank of WWII (contentious I know). So I did a Panther G with full AA armour and IR.
Best mobile bunker for an anti-tank gun, perhaps. Not the best tank, not even a particularly good one.
Taeuss
Joined: January 03, 2016
KitMaker: 3,791 posts
Armorama: 3,778 posts
Posted: Friday, March 24, 2017 - 06:49 AM UTC
This has got to one of the lamest and most bare-faced grabs for cash ever! Wow! A piece of plastic and a few PE plates! Enough to make overlay jaded as to so-called "new releases"! And if the Panther G wasn't a particularly good tank which one exactly was? Oh I'm looking forward to this one!
Chuck4
Joined: November 13, 2013
KitMaker: 403 posts
Armorama: 401 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 25, 2017 - 10:20 AM UTC
Quoted Text
This has got to one of the lamest and most bare-faced grabs for cash ever! Wow! A piece of plastic and a few PE plates! Enough to make overlay jaded as to so-called "new releases"! And if the Panther G wasn't a particularly good tank which one exactly was? Oh I'm looking forward to this one!
I think the comet has the strongest claim to being the best overall medium tank of the war, with good overall balance of weight, height, armor, fire power, tactical and strategic mobility, and fits well into logistic constraints.
But T-34, comet, and even the Sherman firefly were all substantially better War fighting tanks overall, as opposed to theoretical one-on-one dueling tanks overall, compared to the panther.
The panther was a sheer brute force approach to surpassing the spec table attributes of the t-34. It may have surpassed the t-34 in armor and gun power, and roughly equaled it in tactical mobility, but it completely failed to match t34 in strategic mobility, and completely failed in its choice of weight and size to account for the then current logistic reality even in 1943. It was an engineer's tank, not a strategic planner' s tank. As such, it was a fail.
Taeuss
Joined: January 03, 2016
KitMaker: 3,791 posts
Armorama: 3,778 posts
Posted: Monday, March 27, 2017 - 08:21 AM UTC
Not to really argue the point, as you do bring up a few interesting ones, but what, exactly, is your background to wield the word "strategic" so devastatingly (and repeatedly) Fireflies were nothing more than a good gun on a truly mediocre tank, Comets were interesting but quickly supplanted by the superlative Centurian, and nothing says "yesterday" so well as being replaced. TheT-34, while a truly well-balanced AFV, was crude and limited which is why the T-54 so quickly replaced it in front-line service. I wonder at your last sentence as to the Panther being "an engineer's tank, not a strategic planner's tank." I think I know what you mean but would enjoy hearing more from you on this. I could truly care less what anyone thinks about any particular tank, but I would like to know more on the "why" side rather than merely the expression of a personal preference bias.
Chuck4
Joined: November 13, 2013
KitMaker: 403 posts
Armorama: 401 posts
Posted: Monday, March 27, 2017 - 07:19 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Not to really argue the point, as you do bring up a few interesting ones, but what, exactly, is your background to wield the word "strategic" so devastatingly (and repeatedly) Fireflies were nothing more than a good gun on a truly mediocre tank, Comets were interesting but quickly supplanted by the superlative Centurian, and nothing says "yesterday" so well as being replaced. TheT-34, while a truly well-balanced AFV, was crude and limited which is why the T-54 so quickly replaced it in front-line service. I wonder at your last sentence as to the Panther being "an engineer's tank, not a strategic planner's tank." I think I know what you mean but would enjoy hearing more from you on this. I could truly care less what anyone thinks about any particular tank, but I would like to know more on the "why" side rather than merely the expression of a personal preference bias.
'Strategic' the way I meant it means whether the tank design takes proper account of existing resource and logistic constraints while also possessing adaquate military characteristics so it is well prepared to execute missions which the country's strategy would call for given the realities the country faces.
The notion that Sherman is mediocre is nonsense. It is mediocre in its gun power in the original configuration yes. But that is rectified by fitting the 17 pounder. It's tactical mobility is good, and its strategic mobility is excellent. It's armor is quite adaquate considering it is a 30 ton, not a 45 ton, tank. But good weight control contributed to its outstanding strategic mobility by allowing it to operate with existing river crossing equipment, fit well into existing strategic shipment pipeline.
The notion that centurion overshadowing comet makes comet less adaquate is very odd. The comet remained in British frontline service to the late 1950s. The face that British tank design continued apace and was making rapid progress does not make each individual step less good relative to its peers.
The same also applies to t-34. Yes, t-54 succeeded the t-34 in soviet service shortly after the war, but like the comet, the t-34 remained in soviet service to the end of 1950s. What is not pointed out is the fact the t-54nis also vastly superior to a'ny variant of the panther. The fact that t-34bis succeeded by something vastly superior to the panther hardly suggest t-34 itself was not equal or superior to the panther upon the final analysis.
Mongo13
Joined: December 02, 2012
KitMaker: 130 posts
Armorama: 57 posts
Posted: Monday, March 27, 2017 - 07:57 PM UTC
So to get bach on subject I will be looking for this release. I can upgrade the old night fighting ones I have in the stash with this one.
firstcircle
Joined: November 19, 2008
KitMaker: 2,249 posts
Armorama: 2,007 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 - 03:15 AM UTC
Couldn't you just make the armour plates from a sheet of styrene, standing off from the tank with plastic rod? Looks pretty easy. 
KurtLaughlin
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 - 03:50 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Couldn't you just make the armour plates from a sheet of styrene, standing off from the tank with plastic rod? Looks pretty easy.
Perhaps, but it probably wouldn't look as "clean" (that is, as if made by a machine or at least to 1:1 tolerances that appear to be perfect in scale) as these parts. I could give it a try, but I already have a large stock of plastic sheet, brass and plastic rod, and nut and bolt details; a NWSL Duplicutter, Chopper, and True-Sander; and full sets of small Imperial and metric drill bits. If you were start from nothing I would say you are looking at about $20 worth of materials and another $150 - $200 for tools if you want everything square, uniform, symmetrical, and straight.
Most importantly, doing it yourself doesn't make money for DML. THAT fact, and that alone, is why they made the kit.
KL
Taeuss
Joined: January 03, 2016
KitMaker: 3,791 posts
Armorama: 3,778 posts
Posted: Saturday, April 22, 2017 - 08:09 AM UTC
You really do like pontificating, don't you? End of the day I'd rather be sitting in a late Panther G than anything else offered in WW2 that you mentioned. Personal survivability seems to loom large on that one. Either way, the point was that this Dragon kit release offers a pretty minor feature for fairly weighty cash. The rest is all "he said -she said" in terms of the actual AFVs mentioned.
smorko
Joined: March 11, 2013
KitMaker: 94 posts
Armorama: 89 posts
Posted: Saturday, April 22, 2017 - 08:06 PM UTC
Just to chime in, as an engineer, saying the panther was an engineers tank couldn't be further from the truth. Bad engineering was the reson for the unreliable transmision, and other problems. Just by looking at it it is clear it was designed by a comitee that was trying to shoehorn as many different interests into the design. Which is why it needed several iterations to mature into the ausf G.
If anything the T-34 was the engineers tank, a purpose built machine for the battlefield of the time, maximizing all aspects with the resources available, and with very little regard for crew comfort.
Overengineering things is bad and engineers are taught not to do it. So overengineering is usually a sign someone who is not an engineer did it.
If anything the T-34 was the engineers tank, a purpose built machine for the battlefield of the time, maximizing all aspects with the resources available, and with very little regard for crew comfort.
Overengineering things is bad and engineers are taught not to do it. So overengineering is usually a sign someone who is not an engineer did it.
 |
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.