 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Models / February 2008ARM: Review - cyber-hobby.com (DML) 1/35 scale Tiger I - Gruppe Fehrmann
Kit Review: cyber-hobby.com (Dragon Models Limited) 1/35 Scale Kit No. 03 ('39-'45 Series Kit No. 6335); Pzkw. VI Ausf. E Sd.Kfz. 181 Gruppe Fehrmann Tiger I; 839 parts (651 parts in grey styrene, 168 etched brass, 8 white metal, 5 turned aluminum, 2 pre-bent wire, 2 DS track runs, 1 spring, 1 twisted steel wire, 1 pre-formed etched brass; pre- order price via Dragon USA $42.95 Advantages: amazing amount of optional parts for one kit; molds cleaned up and improved once more; DS tracks solve the tedium of single link track assembly; choice of detail parts Disadvantages: most confusing DML-produced kit yet for repetitive use of letters and sprue designators will give modelers fits sorting out parts Rating: Highly Recommended Recommendation: for all German Tiger fans I must confess that as I am not a Tiger afficionado I have no idea who "Gruppe Fehrmann" was or what made it different from other Tiger units. However, as this kit - like all cyber-hobby.com kits - is a "boutique" kit oriented at a small group of modelers with a very selective variant of a specific vehicle, it would appear that it does represent a specific vehicle and unit. The directions only indicate it was apparently involved in the defense of the Reich in 1945. This is now the sixth Tiger I to come out using DML molds, and is soon to be followed by the eagerly awaited Tiger I with zimmerit variant to make number seven. A recap: Kit Number Production variants Release Date Parts in kit Price 6252 Initial Jan 2005 756 $32 6253 Late Jul 2005 1,134 $45 6286 Initial - DAK Oct 2005 950 $45 6350 Early "Wittmann" Nov 2006 1,053 $100 (cyber-hobby.com) 6406 Late Jun 2007 720 $45 6336 Gruppe Fehrmann Feb 2008 839 $43 (cyber-hobby.com) Note that the pre-order prices are usually not the retail prices for cyber-hobby.com kits, and the actual price in a hobby shop may be up to 60% more; the StuG III with Ausf. M muffler was pre-ordered at US $42 and sold for US$67. This kit represents a steel wheeled Tiger I without zimmerit and with a lot of early features on it as well. To that end it mixes sprues from the Tiger I Early, Tiger I Late and Porsche Tiger kits. This makes the directions maddeningly confusing, as there are now two Cs, two Ds, two Ks, two Ps and a lot of other unmarked bits and sections of sprues to sort through to find the correct parts. There are also extra casting numbers on top of a few sprues and a bending jig for the etched brass components on one other, so even reading the directions is a challenge. This kit is typical for cyber-hobby.com kits as it includes a lot of etched brass details and add-ons. Happily, what DML giveth they taketh away, and it comes with the tracks provided as DS Plastic runs. Based on some complaints of bent or squashed guide teeth, this set comes packed in its own special tray and sealed in plastic to prevent damage. The guide teeth are hollow but may need a bit of enlarging to look satisfactory to purists. As noted, in order to reproduce this kit some 10 sprues were added or changed out from the last version of the Tiger I kit from DML. I am not sure if any of the specific details were modified or upgraded from past kits. There are a lot of leftover parts from what the "blue" do not use coloring in the sprue chart shows. The kit comes with a small sheet of targeted Cartograf decals for but one vehicle: Kompanie Fehrmann, Wietersheim, Germany, 1945. The tank is a blended paint scheme and as a result DML offers a suggestion for blending colors with an airbrush to get the right results. The goal is a fuzzy and less delinated version of the red-brown/green/sand scheme. Technical assistance and research for this kit came from David Byrden, Tom Cockle and Gary Edmundson. Overall, as it is a Tiger, it should be popular, but on occasion I wish someone would realize that a bit of historical information would be nice to provide for those who are not omniscient of such vehicles. Thanks to Freddie Leung for the review sample. Cookie Sewell Thanks for the review. As you have no doubt inferred yourself, the Gruppe Fehrmann was a small battlegroup that employed tanks used for evaluation and training. These were oddball hybrids, rebuilds of wrecks sent back from the front, which makes them interestingly different. Their combat career lasted a few days in 1945. AMPS...@aol.com wrote: > Kit Review: cyber-hobby.com (Dragon Models Limited) 1/35 Scale Kit No. > 03 ('39-'45 Series Kit No. 6335); Pzkw. VI Ausf. E Sd.Kfz. 181 Gruppe [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] > > Cookie Sewell > Thanks for the review. As you have no doubt inferred yourself, the > Gruppe Fehrmann was a small battlegroup that employed tanks used for > evaluation and training. These were oddball hybrids, rebuilds of > wrecks sent back from the front, which makes them interestingly > different. Their combat career lasted a few days in 1945. Gerald, Many thanks, figured somebody knew who these guys were. It did smack of a desperation rebuild at the end of the war when anything with armor and tracks seemed to get into the action. Cookie Sewell > Gerald, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Cookie Sewell > Rumor has it that even the Maus may have seen some combat when Soviet troops closed in. Has anyone ever made a kit of one of these?: http://www.achtungpanzer.com/articles/wanze.htm It would be great for a "Last Stand In Berlin" diorama. I know DML did the Borgward B-IV RC demolition vehicle in 1/35th scale as a combo with their Panzer III Ausf J kit: http://www.internetmodeler.com/2000/april/armor/borgward.htm Pat DML made a Maus kit years ago when they were getting started. I hear that it is rough but considering no production Maus (Mausen?) were built it's close enough, It was kit No. 6007. Cookie Sewell On Feb 11, 11:18 am, AMPS...@aol.com wrote: > DML made a Maus kit years ago when they were getting started. I hear > that it is rough but considering no production Maus (Mausen?) were > built it's close enough, It was kit No. 6007. I was under the impression (could be wrong) that there are a couple of 1/72nd Maus kits; I know Dragon did one, not sure about the others (if they exist) ... Trumpeter? Or is the 1/72nd Dragon the one you're referring to? A 1/35th Maus would be freakin' enormous! Bruce Melbourne, Australia >On Feb 11, 11:18 am, AMPS...@aol.com wrote: >> DML made a Maus kit years ago when they were getting started. I hear [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Bruce >Melbourne, Australia i have the 1/35 dragon maus and it is a honker. the 75mm gun looks like a mg next to the main gun. > i have the 1/35 dragon maus and it is a honker. the 75mm gun looks like a mg > next to the main gun. > Yeah, and the main gun looks like something off of a light cruiser. The thing seriously needs some machine guns on it though. You can shoot at people through the small pistol ports in the turret, but the overall machine looks like you could just walk up to it and put around a 100 pound charge of plastic explosives on it without much problem. Here's a article on souping up the DML kit: http://freespace.virgin.net/shermanic.firefly/maus.htm Here's a article from the WW II Intelligence Bulletin on it, with cutaways: http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/maus/index.html The interior of the hull had masses of machinery converting rotational engine power into electricity and then back into rotary motion again around five feet away from the dynamo, which if you ask me is completely cracked as far as efficiency and weight go. Pat : The interior of the hull had masses of machinery converting rotational : engine power into electricity and then back into rotary motion again : around five feet away from the dynamo, which if you ask me is completely : cracked as far as efficiency and weight go. Weight probably was not a problem, given the 188 tons to start with. And, in something that large, where torque is very important, it is hard to better electric motors - that system works very well in railroad locomotives for the past 60 years. What was questionable was designing something so absurd in the first place. I do not believe europe is renown for their copper mines, and dedicating so much of a critical resource to armored vehicle production has to be of questionable judgement. Not to mention to problems of moving the vehicle around, when railroad bridges are about your only option. Bruce  Signature------------------------------------------------------------------------ "I like bad!" Bruce Burden Austin, TX. - Thuganlitha The Power and the Prophet Robert Don Hughes > What was questionable was designing something so absurd in > the first place. I do not believe europe is renown for their [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > railroad bridges are about your only option. > Compared to the Ratte, the Maus looked completely rational: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landkreuzer_P._1000_Ratte As to the electric drive on the Maus, take a look at the size of the generator lurking behind the Bf-109 engine: http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/maus/fig1_german_superheavy_tank_mouse_maus_d iagram.jpg Not only would that be gawdawful heavy - think of all the copper that would have ended up in the generator and the tread drive motors. Copper was a strategic material for Germany, an any plans for mass production of the Maus would have demanded a lot of it. It's surprising the Porsche persisted with the electromechanical approach to tank propulsion after the failure of the Wehrmacht to adopt his Tiger prototypes using the same concept. At both changes of the energy form: mechanical - electrical - mechanical energy was being lost in the conversion process, while weight was being added to the system. Pat :> What was questionable was designing something so absurd in :> the first place. I do not believe europe is renown for their [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] : : Compared to the Ratte, the Maus looked completely rational: The difference is that, in my opinion, everybody knew that the Ratte was a pipe dream, an exercise is pointlessness. The Maus was actually built, with three known hulls constructed. : Not only would that be gawdawful heavy - think of all the copper that : would have ended up in the generator and the tread drive motors. Copper : was a strategic material for Germany, an any plans for mass production : of the Maus would have demanded a lot of it. I think I mentioned that when I commented about copper being a critical resource. :-) : It's surprising the Porsche persisted with the electromechanical : approach to tank propulsion after the failure of the Wehrmacht to adopt : his Tiger prototypes using the same concept. Being a high ranking NAZI member frees you from trivial concerns regarding how you are perceived by the rabble, even if said rabble are deciding on what design to choose, apparently. : At both changes of the energy form: mechanical - electrical - mechanical : energy was being lost in the conversion process, while weight was being : added to the system. But, realistically, if you do not use electric drive, your other choice is hydraulic and - what? How long do you realistically think a mechanical connection (ie, clutches and gears) would last in this application? We know the Germans were short of machine tools in critical applications like helical gear cutters, hence the use of a straight cut spur gear in the Panther final drive. If that one gear was a continual issue through the life of the Panther design, what hope would you have for straight cut gears in the Maus? If you look, all of the heavy earth moving equipment in use today, from monster bucket loaders to monster stripping shovels to monster excavators use either electric motors or diesel hydraulic as their power transmission choice. The Germans experimented with a hydraulic drive Pz IV - it sits at Aberdeen Proving Ground today, and probably had some diesel- hydraulic railroad engines, but that system never made it into tanks during WWII - perhaps for the same reason DB never managed to get their diesels into German tanks - Maybach was too protective of "their" territory and fought tooth and nail to keep DB out of that market segment. Railroads use diesel-electric (and some use diesel-hydraulic) because, despite the weight penalty, it is the most robust method of transmitting a lot of torque in a reliable, and simple, manner. The development of inverters to allow A/C power to be used on diesel- electric in the late 70's/early 80's only made things that much better, because it was now possible to stall your traction motors under load and not burn them up, something impossible to do with D/C motors. So, anyway, I do not fault Dr. Porsche for using petroleum-electric drives in his monster, because I think it was the most elegant solution possible. I can, however, fault the logic chain that allowed such an idiotic design to be created in the first place. But then, given Hitlers' mania regarding "heroic weapons for a heroic people", and the rather obvious problem that none of the leaders of the "Aryan race" were even close to the "Aryan race stereotype", it is hardly surprising that time and resources were spent on these dead ends. Bruce Signature------------------------------------------------------------------------ "I like bad!" Bruce Burden Austin, TX. - Thuganlitha The Power and the Prophet Robert Don Hughes : I was under the impression (could be wrong) that there are a couple of : 1/72nd Maus kits; I know Dragon did one, not sure about the others (if : they exist) ... Trumpeter? Planet - resin, from the Czech Republic. Planet also makes the Maus rail transport car. The 1/72 Maus is larger than a 1/35 Pz I when both are assembled. And, yes, the "Maus" book by Jentz would seem to substantiate that Maus #2 did see some brief action before the crew set self destruct charges prior to abandoning it, leading to speculation that the Maus in Kubinka is a composite - the Maus #1 hull with the war turret salvaged from Maus #2 (Maus #2 has the starboard side armor peeled back like a banana, w/the turret lying in the ruins). Hmmm, did Dragon do a 1/72, or are you thinking of the 1/144 that Dragon released? Bruce Signature------------------------------------------------------------------------ "I like bad!" Bruce Burden Austin, TX. - Thuganlitha The Power and the Prophet Robert Don Hughes > And, yes, the "Maus" book by Jentz would seem to substantiate > that Maus #2 did see some brief action before the crew set self [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ruins). > The Wikipedia article says the Kubinka one is a composite of the two the Soviets got: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_VIII_Maus. DML did a 1/72 scale one also - Cookie reviewed it: http://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/kits/dml/kit_dml_7255.shtml Pat Pat > Or is the 1/72nd Dragon the one you're referring to? A 1/35th Maus > would be freakin' enormous! > It was indeed freakin' enormous. The tread links alone were 1&1/4 inches wide. It went together well though, and had nice detail on the weld seams. One fun bit of trivia was the cover art that showed Hitler examining it. His face had been blacked out with a magic marker on the boxtop and end panel art. Turn the turret around 180 degrees and it looked like some near relative of the TOG II tank. DML came out with a 1/35th scale E100 at around the same time. Pat > DML made a Maus kit years ago when they were getting started. I hear > that it is rough but considering no production Maus (Mausen?) were > built it's close enough, It was kit No. 6007. > It was okay; I had one. The tank itself was basically just a giant mass of armor plate, so it really didn't need to have all that many details on it. One thing that would have been a definite improvement in the kit would have been at least some sorts of inserts to sit under the the radiator and engine grills on the forward upper hull, as you can see straight to the bottom hull plate of the tank through them. One oddity of the design was that the crew had almost no way to see out of it. A few well-placed rifle bullets in its four periscopes and it would be completely blind. The one I was referring to in kit form though was the manned version of the Borgward B-IV with the six-barreled Panzershreck launcher mounted on the port side of the vehicle. Pat |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.