Just a couple of links if you are interested Folgore:
Here's a small page on the crew positions in the T35 - it must have been hell to co-ordinate: http://www.battlefield.ru/t35_3.html
A couple of (not very good) pics of a restored example: http://www.tankmuseum.ru/p1.html
Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
Hosted by Darren Baker, Mario Matijasic
nicest ww II tank
brno465
Joined: August 23, 2002
KitMaker: 87 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Saturday, August 24, 2002 - 06:22 AM UTC
Folgore
Joined: May 31, 2002
KitMaker: 1,109 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Saturday, August 24, 2002 - 07:06 AM UTC
Thanks brno. You were right about the mold release agent. That stuff is all over the parts. They're just drying from their rinse now. A few of the parts (a couple machine guns and two hooks) were so delicate that they were broken when I took them out of the bags. Fortunately, I found the missing pieces. The hull is definitely warped, but I think you are right, it should be easy to fix. Maybe I'll take a picture of all the sprues and post it here or in a new thread. The amount of parts for this model is incredile!
Nic
Nic
generalzod
Joined: December 01, 2001
KitMaker: 3,172 posts
Armorama: 2,495 posts
Posted: Saturday, August 24, 2002 - 07:15 AM UTC
DJ,I do like the Sherman,but on this post I gotta go with the Soviet IS 2 To me that is one mean lookin mother This bad joke goes out to all the Tiger and Panther fans
What does an IS 2 say? Here kitty kitty kitty #:-)
Chad
What does an IS 2 say? Here kitty kitty kitty #:-)
Chad
KFMagee
Joined: January 08, 2002
KitMaker: 1,586 posts
Armorama: 1,225 posts
Posted: Saturday, August 24, 2002 - 08:10 AM UTC
Okay - I'll go the extra mile... here are my top Ten, based on "Looks" alone...
1) US - M26 Pershing - looks like a REAL tank
2) UK - Cromwell - the 95mm royal Marine model used in the d-day landing is clean!
3) GM - Panzer IV
4) US - M-24 Chaffee
5) GM - Lynx - the "sports car" of german armor!
6) GM - Tiger I - it just looks like the ultimate evil empire machine
7) US - M41 Walker - yeah - nifty looking
8) GM - Panzer III
9) GM - Jagdpanther - yeah - I know it's a tank destroyer, but it's cool
0) US - M18 TD - ditto!
1) US - M26 Pershing - looks like a REAL tank
2) UK - Cromwell - the 95mm royal Marine model used in the d-day landing is clean!
3) GM - Panzer IV
4) US - M-24 Chaffee
5) GM - Lynx - the "sports car" of german armor!
6) GM - Tiger I - it just looks like the ultimate evil empire machine
7) US - M41 Walker - yeah - nifty looking
8) GM - Panzer III
9) GM - Jagdpanther - yeah - I know it's a tank destroyer, but it's cool
0) US - M18 TD - ditto!
Tiger101
Joined: March 02, 2002
KitMaker: 902 posts
Armorama: 628 posts
Posted: Saturday, August 24, 2002 - 08:36 AM UTC
Folgore, On the T35 the best aftermarket item to get is the Fruli tracks for the beast. When I built my T35 I attempted to move it and the tracks exploded off of the hull (200 + links get kind of heavy no matter what glue you use). the Fruli tracks are perfect for the kit. It Builds very well. If you like it try the T28 (three gunned medium tank) or the IL28 (bridge layer). Both are good ICM kits. 
Have fun building the Monster.
Have fun building the Monster.
Folgore
Joined: May 31, 2002
KitMaker: 1,109 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Saturday, August 24, 2002 - 01:37 PM UTC
Might I ask where you can get Fruil tracks? My favorite store doesn't seem to sell them 
Nic
Nic
Josenhans
Joined: August 13, 2002
KitMaker: 46 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Saturday, August 24, 2002 - 01:56 PM UTC
Russian IS-3 which may have been in the battle for berlin is the ultimate tank of the period. Anyone seen a kit for it?
http://www.battlefield.ru/is3.html
http://www.battlefield.ru/is3.html
brno465
Joined: August 23, 2002
KitMaker: 87 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Saturday, August 24, 2002 - 02:52 PM UTC
Tamiya makes a JS-3 Stalin Josenhans. I haven't built it, but I have seen a finished model and it looks good.
http://www.tamiyausa.com/product/plastic/135militaryminiatureseries/35211.html
http://www.tamiyausa.com/product/plastic/135militaryminiatureseries/35211.html
cdave
Joined: June 08, 2002
KitMaker: 545 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Saturday, August 24, 2002 - 05:56 PM UTC
OK Guys,
I had to chime in here as everyone was chiming in on the Sherman's, Chaffee's, and the numberous German feline clankers.
Mind you, I am an American and love the more modern tread movers, but, for the best, punch for punch, the vote goes for the IS-II! It could knock out a Tiger or Panther in one hit. True, the Russian tankers were not as trained as their German counterparts, but as the story goes, who was at Brandenburg Gates!
Zverdoy - "Here kitty, kitty, kitty........"
Dave
I had to chime in here as everyone was chiming in on the Sherman's, Chaffee's, and the numberous German feline clankers.
Mind you, I am an American and love the more modern tread movers, but, for the best, punch for punch, the vote goes for the IS-II! It could knock out a Tiger or Panther in one hit. True, the Russian tankers were not as trained as their German counterparts, but as the story goes, who was at Brandenburg Gates!
Zverdoy - "Here kitty, kitty, kitty........"
Dave
Tiger101
Joined: March 02, 2002
KitMaker: 902 posts
Armorama: 628 posts
Posted: Saturday, August 24, 2002 - 11:44 PM UTC
Folgore Try Baseline models. Don (the owner) does mail order. Here is the info http://www.panzer-world.net/secondary%20pages/baselinemodels.htm
otto
Joined: June 30, 2002
KitMaker: 72 posts
Armorama: 50 posts
Posted: Sunday, August 25, 2002 - 07:56 AM UTC
I have been reading the posts and something popped into my mind.......there seems to be a common thing......well tank "x" could knock out a Tiger ......or tank "y" could kill a Tiger. What was it about that one piece of German engineering that made it become the Benchmark by which almost all other WWII tanks are STILL judged? .......just a thought..... 
....Otto
....Ottocdave
Joined: June 08, 2002
KitMaker: 545 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Sunday, August 25, 2002 - 11:28 AM UTC
Otto,
Well, why do Ford, Pontiac, GM, Chysler, Toyota, Mazda, Nissan and a half dozen other car companies compare their car to the Mercedes Benz.
German engineering is fantastic. Preices, accurate, and well thought out. For the most part. Guess this is the main reason, for the constant comparison.
Dave
Quoted Text
What was it about that one piece of German engineering that made it become the Benchmark by which almost all other WWII tanks are STILL judged? .......
Well, why do Ford, Pontiac, GM, Chysler, Toyota, Mazda, Nissan and a half dozen other car companies compare their car to the Mercedes Benz.
German engineering is fantastic. Preices, accurate, and well thought out. For the most part. Guess this is the main reason, for the constant comparison.
Dave
cfbush2000
Joined: December 01, 2001
KitMaker: 1,796 posts
Armorama: 1,207 posts
Posted: Sunday, August 25, 2002 - 11:41 AM UTC
I gotta go with the Chaffee. Looks cool, I think.
Linz
Joined: March 18, 2002
KitMaker: 181 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Sunday, August 25, 2002 - 01:04 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I have been reading the posts and something popped into my mind.......there seems to be a common thing......well tank "x" could knock out a Tiger ......or tank "y" could kill a Tiger. What was it about that one piece of German engineering that made it become the Benchmark by which almost all other WWII tanks are STILL judged? .......just a thought.....
Simply due to a combination of propoganda, emotion and similarity in design.
Propoganda is self explanitory. After inital success in Tunisia and Russia (having just been introduced) the Tiger was shown in propoganda as invincible. Even though British and Soviet systems (and later American) could defeat it.
Emotion - due to the fear and confusion caused by fighting, every enemy tank was a Tiger (as a result of the propoganda). This has occoured in mulitiple cases over time, just look at some later-war combat reports where Allied airmen had been told that something was in service (He 219 + turbojet as an example), even when it didn't exsist, yet they still reported it. Add in the fact that if you weren't sure if you had just killed a PzKpfw IV or Tiger you'd want to claim the later (a better kill) or vis-versa, if your mate had just been killed by a PzKpfw IV or Tiger you'd want them to have been killed by this huge mean machine, not a little PzKpfw IV. Not the case all the time, but human emotions are funny things.
Similarity in design - the PzKpfw III / IV looks similar to the Tiger, especially when you add in distance, fighting, smoke and split second viewings. The III / IV (especially the later in 1944-45) were the most common German tanks by far, meaning there were a lot around.
Overall the Tiger was a failure. Good gun and good armour do not make a good tank. Reliability, engine power, manouverability, enough fuel, all of this is needed too.
Cheers,
Linz
SS-74
Joined: May 13, 2002
KitMaker: 3,271 posts
Armorama: 2,388 posts
Posted: Sunday, August 25, 2002 - 02:10 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextI have been reading the posts and something popped into my mind.......there seems to be a common thing......well tank "x" could knock out a Tiger ......or tank "y" could kill a Tiger. What was it about that one piece of German engineering that made it become the Benchmark by which almost all other WWII tanks are STILL judged? .......just a thought.....
Simply due to a combination of propoganda, emotion and similarity in design.
Propoganda is self explanitory. After inital success in Tunisia and Russia (having just been introduced) the Tiger was shown in propoganda as invincible. Even though British and Soviet systems (and later American) could defeat it.
Emotion - due to the fear and confusion caused by fighting, every enemy tank was a Tiger (as a result of the propoganda). This has occoured in mulitiple cases over time, just look at some later-war combat reports where Allied airmen had been told that something was in service (He 219 + turbojet as an example), even when it didn't exsist, yet they still reported it. Add in the fact that if you weren't sure if you had just killed a PzKpfw IV or Tiger you'd want to claim the later (a better kill) or vis-versa, if your mate had just been killed by a PzKpfw IV or Tiger you'd want them to have been killed by this huge mean machine, not a little PzKpfw IV. Not the case all the time, but human emotions are funny things.
Similarity in design - the PzKpfw III / IV looks similar to the Tiger, especially when you add in distance, fighting, smoke and split second viewings. The III / IV (especially the later in 1944-45) were the most common German tanks by far, meaning there were a lot around.
Overall the Tiger was a failure. Good gun and good armour do not make a good tank. Reliability, engine power, manouverability, enough fuel, all of this is needed too.
Cheers,
Linz
Don't think the Tiger was a failure though, tank is about fire arm + mobility + armor protection, Tiger had 2 out of 3, it's better than most its enemies at the time.
avukich
Joined: April 11, 2002
KitMaker: 760 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Sunday, August 25, 2002 - 07:33 PM UTC
AM stuff for the ICM T-35:
If you don't want to mess with the single link plastic non-workable tracks (which are nice, but I prefer workable myself) you can get the brand-spanking new Friulmodel T-35 tracks. Also Jordi Rubio does the 3 barrels (2 45mm and 1 KT-28 76.2mm) individually or they sell a set for the T-35 that has all 3 barrels. Finally, Eduard makes a beautiful PE set for the monster. You should look into other ICM kits if you like the T-35. All of their kits that I have seen are beautiful (T-35, T-28, IT-28, and Panzer II L 'Luchs'). They are by far the best Eastern European manufacturer that I have ever seen.
If you don't want to mess with the single link plastic non-workable tracks (which are nice, but I prefer workable myself) you can get the brand-spanking new Friulmodel T-35 tracks. Also Jordi Rubio does the 3 barrels (2 45mm and 1 KT-28 76.2mm) individually or they sell a set for the T-35 that has all 3 barrels. Finally, Eduard makes a beautiful PE set for the monster. You should look into other ICM kits if you like the T-35. All of their kits that I have seen are beautiful (T-35, T-28, IT-28, and Panzer II L 'Luchs'). They are by far the best Eastern European manufacturer that I have ever seen.
otto
Joined: June 30, 2002
KitMaker: 72 posts
Armorama: 50 posts
Posted: Sunday, August 25, 2002 - 08:16 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Don't think the Tiger was a failure though, tank is about fire arm + mobility + armor protection, Tiger had 2 out of 3, it's better than most its enemies at the time.
I agree...That is why it is MY favorite tank......Otto
210cav
Joined: February 05, 2002
KitMaker: 6,149 posts
Armorama: 4,573 posts
Posted: Sunday, August 25, 2002 - 08:35 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextDon't think the Tiger was a failure though, tank is about fire arm + mobility + armor protection, Tiger had 2 out of 3, it's better than most its enemies at the time.
I agree...That is why it is MY favorite tank......Otto
Profound thought to start a Monday. "The quality of the tank matters, but a tank is only as good as its crew!"
Wow, heavy, very heavy for the start of the work week.
DJ
Linz
Joined: March 18, 2002
KitMaker: 181 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Monday, August 26, 2002 - 08:35 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Don't think the Tiger was a failure though, tank is about fire arm + mobility + armor protection, Tiger had 2 out of 3, it's better than most its enemies at the time.
No, I don't believe the Tiger was a failure initally, even with its design faults. Come 1944-45 though, it had had its time. At that stage, Germany needed reliable tanks that did not require large amounts of fuel and maintenance. Also, the lack of sloped armour meant that once Allied anti-tank weapons that were put on heavy tanks (the 17pdr on the Firefly and the 122mm on the IS-II for example) came into use, the Tiger was really not that well protected.
The sheer size of the Tiger meant that it had to have special attributes. Too wide to travel on standard German railway, So two types of track are needed. Too eavy to cross bridges, so wading is nessesary (which was dropped after the first 495 for being too expensive). Poor mechanical reliability meant specialised maintenance capabilities were required, and finally the sheer weight mean that if one broke down, three FAMO's were required to move it. Hand cranked turret, meaning poor traverse rates. All up, this is very poor for tatical flexability.
Furthermore, due to the complexity of the beast, only 1350 were completed, and no conventional weapon could make a large enough difference with only 1350 made over 23 months.
Add in poor crew training (apart from some exceptions), and like DJ Judge said, it's the crew that makes it. Like the Luftwaffe, the poor training given to tank crews led to high losses.
Personally, I believe that the Tiger was a failure. Apart from a few successes, like the KV-1, it was not balanced enough in its attributes, especially for a country as economically tight as Germany. I believe that the Panther - even with its mechanical weaknesses and poor fuel consumption (but better than the Tiger's) was better than the Tiger, and the introduction of the Panther II would have spooked the M-26 and JS-III crews as well.
By not building the Tiger at all, instead pouring those resources into the Panther, most, if not all, of the Panther's problems would have been ironed out - as was the case with the T-34.
A pretty tank? To some. A useful tank? Occasionally. The best tank? Not a chance.
Cheers,
Linz
 |
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.