One of the things I find the most interesting about modeling armour of the same scale is seeing the actual size comparisons between armoured vehicles from WW II and also between those vehicles and modern armour. I put a new Bradley M2A2 beside a Panther G and it the size difference is interesting to say the least. Then put an M1A2 beside the same panther and notice how much lower the Abrams is than the Panther. Also, notice how much wider and lower modern tanks are than their earlier versions. I wasn’t aware of how big a Bradley actually was. It is also interesting to note the difference in size between a Tiger and a Wespe or a Marder III. Those things just look like toys. I am trying to find a 1/35th scale Hetzer as I believe that would be interesting to see sitting beside a new piece of armour. Photos are one thing, but actually seeing scale models together kind of puts things in perspective. [tup]
On the Bradley thing, I think it’s so big because it carries troops in it. But on the other note yeah it’s amazing. I built a King Tiger and a Panzer II and the KT looked like it could just go over the Pz.II.
Here’s one to ponder.
A WWII M3 Stuart will fit entirely inside the dimensions of an M1A1/A2 turret, length and width wise (not height obviously).
Cheers
TA
Never payed that much attention to armor, but have done the same thing with a/c
Putting a King Tiger next to Abrams has them being about the same size. Of coarse the KT is taller. Both make my favorite Sherman look tiny.
On my shelf I have a King Tiger sitting between a T-55 and a T-72. The KT is taller and wider than the two russian tanks. I’ve also compared a Panzer II with the KT. It would probably feel like a speed bump if the KT was to run over a Panzer II. Place a Maus or a E-100 next to modern and ww2 vehicles for an interesting comparison.
I was looking at my 1/72 Sherman compared to Dragon’s Challenger 2, the size difference is amazing. The Challenger 2 is easily twice the size of the Sherman but not as tall. It does help with stability though, a side hit on a Sherman from a modern tank would send it over on its side pretty quick.
I think the most interesting comparison for me is the difference between the Tiger 1 and the Panther. I had always assumed that the Tiger would be bigger, but I was wrong (it’s just heavier).
Steve
For a laugh, I placed my little Italian 1/35 Semovente M40 alongside a same scale Tiger. Let’s just say that the word ‘intimidating’ doesn’t even begin to describe the mismatch between the two.
I remember watching one of the ‘Tank’ docos and the historian described how these little tanks literally disassembled themselves when struck by a round on account of their steel plate rivet construction. Sucks to be them!
I recently found out that a Tiger 1 is just as wide as a Challenger 1, but the Chally is longer…
I have a Semovente between a Firefly and a Churchill VII on my shelf, and it still looks tiny. Can’t imagine going to war in one of them. A coffin on wheels.
If you get lucky enough to see the real things in close proximity to each other it is amazing. Where Im stationed they have the division museum. Co-located are a Sherman, a Stuart, a Hetzer and a T-55 and T-72.
The progress of technology is amazing, and they still perform the same basic function.
How about a KV-2 for sheer size & ungainly profile? For me, one of the greatest and most interesting contrasts was seen towards the end of the war when one compared the German Panthers and the higher profile King Tigers against the sleeker, lower and more rounded lines of the JS3.
My Panther is bigger than my IS-2 except for length of the Stalin’s barrel.
Theres a picture I see from time to time with a Japanese light tank sitting on the rear deck of a sherman. I always liked the contrast.
On the topic of relative tank size, it’s facinating to compare some of the WW I British tanks, especially the late war ones. In the Bovinton museum, there’s one of the Mark series that was built as a cargo carrier for front line troops. Don’t remember the dimensions, but inside the cargo compartment there was enough room for a man of slightly-less-than-average height to stand up and walk around.
Also at Bovington are some facinating examples of the bigger-is-better philosophy to be seen in the tanks from the twenties and thirties. Those behemoths, with their multiple turrets, must have been the product of frustated naval architechs who secretely wanted to design battleships!
Just wish there were more kits for early armor.