Takom, ICM, Amusing, Bronco , Miniart and IBG have yet to attempt a Tiger..though they don't do too much in the way of traditional Axis armour. Mirror, Riich, Panda, Tiger and Vulcan will doubtless not bother. I guess it makes sense for a company to have a stable seller in it's - erm - stable.. I guess there's a few problems with this one, too...like most of the others. Most are small like sideskirt bolt location but the incorrect barrel taper, undersized skirts and pseudo-early style mantlet (pointed out by D.Byrden) are probably errors that are not easy to fix without AM assistance. Probably more errors will arise as reviews and D. Byrden takes a look at it. Basically, it appears there are better options already available.

Wow, the tracks on the braille Tiger I look horrible on the box art. Odd that Trump's marketing team seem happy to always use such a mediocre build on their small scale kit box tops. At least it looks like that is a 1/72 model this time, and not a photo of a 1/35 model masquerading as 1/72... I guess a photo of the completed kit is the cheapest and in some ways the most honest box top art, but you can get too cheap! Shame of the tracks is that the rest of the plastic is probably quite nicely done for the price.

Never heard of the Germans experimenting with the L/71 gun on a Tiger I -or is this another Paper panzer come home to roost? Either way kind of pointless. Wonder how the detail is on the M-26. Probably could use an updated version of one of those.

Speilberger mwntions a proposal and there's a sketch of one but no prototype was ever made as far as we know. It would be too big for the Tiger I with too much recoil. Keep in mind the shells are about 30% longer! I think it's available in various wargames so that may explain the myth.

Part of the problem I see in that is they are pandering to the "What if?" crowd by creating those type of in-game prototypes, i.e. the never made ones. I get the Maus, or the E-50, or any of the others that at least were able to function as a tank during trials. You knew they at least worked, but maybe still weren't good enough. Designs that obviously weren't going to work, such as in this case do to issues of size constraint, don't accurately impact the game because the wow factor overrides the reality of how a vehicle with a gun that doesn't fit the turret is going to actually operate on the battlefield. But, since the majority of folks in most any endeavor are of the group that cares to know more beyond the surface they will see such paper phonies in the listings and simply assume that because it is in there, it must have been a real or very possible vehicle. Newcomers to the genre see a few familiar tank types from movies and make the false connection that a few truths automatically makes all things true by association, even when no such promise has been made. Working in retail we used this to advantage by grouping less popular items around a very popular one to force impulse buying based on a false assumption that the others were as good as the popular one simply because we put them together. It is same thing as high school cliques. All based on erroneous assumption. But, it is only a game run by a business and they are out to make money so if the people demand paper, then by gawd they will get paper and a plastic version to justify the $50 or whatever they spent on some pixels and bytes. It's not my business to run.

Yeh it's a bit annoying. Thankfully these forums can point out the fantasies..usually! I think the next release is "Renault UE Tractor with 75mm "Octopus Scheme"!!!

Already got that one, but mine used the 106 recoilless mounted three to the side. Or the Stryker with the 105 turret gun that some consider battlefield-viable...

I've got the Goliath mit L/71 it's pretty sweet

I'm hoping Hph will hurry up and release a resin kit of the Me423 Super Gigant air transport design Messerschmitt created to ship a Maus battalion to the Russian Front.