_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
News
Hobby Boss: Sd.Kfz. 222 (Mid-Version)
tatbaqui
Staff MemberNews Writer
ARMORAMA
#040
Visit this Community
Metro Manila, Philippines
Joined: May 06, 2007
KitMaker: 2,713 posts
Armorama: 2,451 posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 - 10:31 AM UTC


Hobby Boss re-issues this kit of a WWII German armored reconnaissance vehicle under its label.

Read the Full News Story

If you have comments or questions please post them here.

Thanks!
AOS
Visit this Community
Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
Joined: September 29, 2005
KitMaker: 75 posts
Armorama: 74 posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 - 02:55 PM UTC
I have this kit already in stock (under Tristar label). I would like to see a Sd.Kfz.260 or 261 in 1/35 as ICM did in 72.
bill_c
Staff MemberCampaigns Administrator
MODEL SHIPWRIGHTS
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: January 09, 2008
KitMaker: 10,553 posts
Armorama: 8,109 posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 - 06:54 PM UTC
Instead of asking for what they aren't releasing, let's focus on this kit. Looks like a step up over the ancient Tamiya version.
Biggles2
Visit this Community
Quebec, Canada
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
Armorama: 6,110 posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 - 07:29 PM UTC

Quoted Text

I have this kit already in stock (under Tasca label).


Isn't that Tristar? I have the same kit with same box art under Tristar label.
RobinNilsson
Staff MemberTOS Moderator
KITMAKER NETWORK
Visit this Community
Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: November 29, 2006
KitMaker: 6,693 posts
Armorama: 5,562 posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 - 09:03 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

I have this kit already in stock (under Tasca label).


Isn't that Tristar? I have the same kit with same box art under Tristar label.



35043
27-1025
Visit this Community
North Carolina, United States
Joined: September 16, 2004
KitMaker: 1,281 posts
Armorama: 1,222 posts
Posted: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 - 02:24 AM UTC
Yep a re-box of the Tristar kit, And a very good one at that.
Biggles2
Visit this Community
Quebec, Canada
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
Armorama: 6,110 posts
Posted: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 - 03:43 AM UTC
Tristar is under-rated. They were very close competition for Dragon, and in some cases, even better. Just their particular construction style turned off some modelers, calling them "unbuildable", and "crap"!
Taeuss
Visit this Community
Manitoba, Canada
Joined: January 03, 2016
KitMaker: 3,791 posts
Armorama: 3,778 posts
Posted: Thursday, August 10, 2017 - 06:23 AM UTC
I've got one of these and they're really quite good. Looking forward to building it soon, along with a comparison build/upgrade on the Tamiya kit.
erichvon
Visit this Community
England - East Midlands, United Kingdom
Joined: January 17, 2006
KitMaker: 1,694 posts
Armorama: 1,584 posts
Posted: Thursday, August 10, 2017 - 02:53 PM UTC
Frank- That'd be good to see. I've only ever seen a parallel build done once and found it fascinating with the differences between the two kits. Really helpful if thinking of buying one.

I've never built anything by Tristar, although I have one of their early Panzer IV's in the stash, but looking at the contents of the box and the detail in there they look to be top notch. Their figure range,although small, I found to be better than Dragons for useability (not sure if that's a real word. Probably not lol)and the moulding was a lot sharper. I just wish they'd expanded it a bit.
I built the Tamiya version of this many years ago and could be tempted by this as it's an attractive little armoured car and having seen Tristars work like the detail on it.

I will admit though I don't see the sense in reboxes. Okay it's cheap for the 2nd company as they don't have to invest time in research etc but if there are mistakes then that's carried over to the new box. I've noticed Tamiya are doing a lot of Italeri reboxes, throwing in a couple of figures and charging 20 more! I'll stick to the Italeri issue if that's the case.
RobinNilsson
Staff MemberTOS Moderator
KITMAKER NETWORK
Visit this Community
Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: November 29, 2006
KitMaker: 6,693 posts
Armorama: 5,562 posts
Posted: Thursday, August 10, 2017 - 03:11 PM UTC

Quoted Text


... Their figure range,although small, I found to be better than Dragons for useability (not sure if that's a real word. Probably not lol)and the moulding was a lot sharper. I just wish they'd expanded it a bit.....




It is a real word:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/useability
alternative spelling for:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/usability#English

I used to use it a lot when discussing the usability of HMI's to computer systems/tools (HMI Human Machine Interface).
Never really bothered to check for the most correct spelling though
When the usability of the system was bad I used to say/write uselessability instead

/ Robin
Biggles2
Visit this Community
Quebec, Canada
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
Armorama: 6,110 posts
Posted: Thursday, August 10, 2017 - 07:40 PM UTC

Quoted Text

... Their figure range,although small, I found to be better than Dragons for useability ...


Later figure sets are better than earlier ones. My favorite is the Self-Propeller Gun Crew Vol. 2. Great for most open-topped German tank destroyers. Especially the loader, who's ramming the round home with clenched fist (the proper way) so he won't lose fingers in the breech! All figures have good expressions on their faces.
https://www.scale-model-kits.com/products/German-SPG-Crew-Vol.2-TS35007.html
bill_c
Staff MemberCampaigns Administrator
MODEL SHIPWRIGHTS
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: January 09, 2008
KitMaker: 10,553 posts
Armorama: 8,109 posts
Posted: Thursday, August 10, 2017 - 08:28 PM UTC
Tri-Star was not without problems, as my friend Georg Eyerman pointed out to me on one kit he built (Pz IV/70(A)).
Biggles2
Visit this Community
Quebec, Canada
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
Armorama: 6,110 posts
Posted: Friday, August 11, 2017 - 04:32 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Tri-Star was not without problems, as my friend Georg Eyerman pointed out to me on one kit he built (Pz IV/70(A)).


What was the problem with this particular kit? I just read a couple of build reviews on this kit and there were no problems noted, except that it might be a slightly complicated build, especially compared to Tamiya. After having built a few Tri Star kits I realize building up the hulls with the beveled edges (no butt joints) can be a little PITA, as a slight mis-alignment in edges will throw off the whole assembly. Vigilance is key!
urumomo
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Joined: August 22, 2013
KitMaker: 675 posts
Armorama: 667 posts
Posted: Friday, August 11, 2017 - 06:01 AM UTC
I just built the Hobby Boss 222 and will be building their 223 to accompany it in a dio .
Really comprehensive kit ,
But - there were some fit issues ,, especially with the gun mount ... and the hull .
I added a steel rod to the rear bulkhead to facilitate pulling it together .
No reason to believe this kit will have similar issues though .
The Tamiya is basically a toy -- ridiculous to compare it to these offerings .
Taeuss
Visit this Community
Manitoba, Canada
Joined: January 03, 2016
KitMaker: 3,791 posts
Armorama: 3,778 posts
Posted: Friday, August 11, 2017 - 07:14 AM UTC
Thanks for the comment Karl, but I've sworn off most Italeri kits as being either superficial or just simply long-of-tooth and dated. Ditto on the kits that Tamiya has disappointingly rebadged. The shame of it for Tamiya must have been considerable
 _GOTOTOP