Which would that be?
Incidentally, would Dragon’s new snap fit track fit Tamiya’s Tiger II?
I have built Tamiya’s Tiger II, and it seemed like it was an ok kit. Mine went together just fine. I don’t know about the tracks though, as I have never built dragon’s new style. The vinyl tracks that were provided, were a bit to small for the model though.
Probably Dragon’s premium Porsche Tiger II with aluminum barrel, pe this and that and magic tracks. Tamiya’s is an easy build, but those tracks are terrible and the kit cost more than Dragon with none of the goods.
For once i can actually say ive built something. The Tamiya King Tiger Ardennes version is good fit but the vinyl tracks are small. I have not tryed any of the Dragon King Tigers.
The Dragon King Tigers are far superior to the Tamiya kit - there are many small details missing from the tamyia kit like the front hatch panel brackets, front mud flap retainers, little ring thingy on the right exhaust, plus some others. These are all present an the Dragon King Tigers, plus the various PE and figures that come with each different release. Kit #6254 is probably the best of the Dragon Tigers I have built, and definitely the best value. Don’t know where in the world the “you can’t improve on a Tamiya kit” saying came from but you most certainly can. I built monogram kits about as often as Tamiya[:)]
Both Dragon and Tamiya kits are god, but in terms of value for money the Dragon kits would take the price.
I used a Tamiya Ardennes kit for my model of “222” but I had to spent a lot of money on extra detailing.
Oh, and if you wanted you use the Dragon magic track on the Tamiya tiger like you mentioned before - don’t bother - the Dragon track does have faint pin marks on the interior faces that show up as soon as you start weathering. If you don’t want to spend $30 on Fruil or MK, you could try Hobby Boss injection track sets - I’ve used them, and they are definitely nicer than what’s in the box.
DML King Tigers are far better…no contest really.
Chuck, this site has some info on Dragon’s kits. If you scroll through the 1/35 WW2 Armor list, you will see some of the Tigers they offer. Tamiya’s will be an easier build, but Dragon’s are superior in detailing, accuracy, extras, price and variation.
Thanks to everyone for the detailed reply. I think I will go with Dragon. I am thinking of using the premium edition Porsche turret version as basis, and add a henshel turret from the Ardenne Tiger II kit. I want to build a Tiger II circa Ardenne. Please bear with me for a couple of more questions.
-
Are the commander’s copula on Porsche turrets the same as the ones on the Henshel turret? Dragon’s Porsche turret kit has far superior cupola which I am thinking of grafting onto a Henshel turret.
-
Are the ammunition doors at the back of the turret interchangiable between Henshel and Porsche? Again Dragon did a much better job with the Porsche turret and I want to build a Henshel.
-
Is there any important differences between the hulls of Porsche and Henshel Tiger IIs that I should be aware of?
-
Yes the cupola’s are the same. How ever I used the aftermarket cupola from Mori on my model, it’s a real gem.
-
No they are not interchangeable, the rear hatches on the 2 types of turret is very different, and it’s not an amunition door as much as it’s a service door to replace the gun and an emergency escape hatch.
-
Yes especially the roof. The so-called Porsche turret versions had an armored ring around the base of the turret mounting, this you would have to remove to even fit the production turret to the hull.
The early versions had 18 tooth drive sprockets and Gg24/700/800 tracks, later versions had Gg26/700/800tracks and 9 tooth drive sprockets.
Around the time of the ardenne the Tiger II’s were fitted with 4 fuel vent lines as opposed to 1.
thats all I can remember right now, though Im sure there is more, but I’d have to look in my reference books.
No, no & yes.
A little history first: when Henschel & Porsche built their Tiger II prototypes, Krupp was to be the sole supplier of the turrets. Krupp managed to produce about 50 of the so-called “Porsche” turrets before they found out the order went (again) to Henschel. The “Porsche” turrets were more streamlined, but they had a bad shot-trap under the mantlet, and the side of the turret, where the commander’s cuppola was molded in, was a weak spot in the turret. A new turret design was submitted by Krupp that eliminated the shot-trap under the mantlet, used thicker armor, had more interior room, and was easier & cheaper to produce. Therefore, the “Henschel” turret and the “Porsche” turret are totally different; other than both mounting the KwK 43 L/71 gun & the commander’s cuppola being on the same side of the turret, they were totally different.
As for the chassis, it depends on what you’re talking about when you say “Porsche hull” and “Henschel hull”; the “Porsche hull” was never used on a Tiger II. The few Porsche chassis that were produced with the Porsche suspension ended up being completed with a fixed superstructure and a 128mm gun, and became the first “Jagdtigers” (after that, the rest of the Jagdtigers were built on Henschel hulls & suspension). The Porsche suspension was actually more efficient, but harder to produce, so production of the Porsche suspension was discontinued.
Interesting fact I discovered while “researching” this question: No evidence has ever been found to indicate that a Tiger II was ever knocked out by a shot to the front of the tank; the front armor of the Tiger II was virtually impenetrable by Allied tank guns except at very close range.
I understand Porsche turrets were very different from Henshel turrets, and that the commander’s station probably has to be different due to the shape of the turret’s side wall. But is the cast steel periscope copula itself different? They look very similar, and also very similar to the copula on late production Tiger I. Do Porsche and Henshel turrets use the same casting for the copula?
I use the term Porsche hull very imprecisely, I am afraid. What I meant was the hull of an operational Tiger II that mounted a Porsche turret. I understand that operational Tiger IIs all had the same basic hull design regardless of the turret. But I didn’t know if there were any detailed differences that would allow one to identify the hull as being meant for a Porsche turret from those meant for the production turret. The armored ring is a one difference.
Also, I don’t believe you were right when you said actual Porsche designed Tiger II hulls ended up as Jagdtigers. I believe all Jadgtigers uses the same Henshel designed hull, but a few were modified to take Porsche designed suspension. I believe there was a separate Porsche designed Tiger II hull that looked somewhat like a Elephant (or Tiger I (P)) hull, but with sloping side armor. I don’t know if any prototype of the Porsche designed tiger II hull ever saw the light of day.
You’re probably right about that; my “research” on this subject was, obviously, incomplete. I do know that the first few Jagdtigers were built with the Porsche suspension, so I assumed (incorrectly) that they were in a Porsche hull. Here’s two pictures of Jagdtigers, the first one with the Henschel (“production”) suspension, and the second one with the Porsche suspension.
I would have to vote the new DML kit. I just compleated it.
it comes with 8, figures PE, brass 88mm shels, and a metal barrel
Ok I’ll try again.
The cupola’s are almost the same, with one little exception. The “Henschel” cupola’s has 3 small rain gutters, the “Porsche” doesn’t. And thats all the difference there is.
On the hull there is difference between the hull extensions on the early Tiger II’s and some of the later models, I would have to find a picture to clearly demonstrate this.