Thought i’d share some shots of 2 recently completed GB projects as not everyone looks in there.
1/72 Dragon Sd.Kfz.251 Ausf.C for Kursk GB
1/72 Dragon Tiger E Late version for Panzer Aces GB
Any comments or suggestions welcome
Beautiful camo on the Tiger. Is that the AFV one?
Its the 1/72 dragon one, built straight from the box - http://www.dragonmodelsltd.com/html/7203webpage1.html
wowza!!! I swear, I thought they were 1/35! Just more proof of how advanced 1/72 has gotten these days!
These are bee-yoo-ti-ful!!! [#toast][yeah]
Seriously, a tremendous jobon both! I recognize the camo on the Tiger there form the directions, and you did a bang-up job on it! Ditto that on the halftrack!
SUPERB!!! [:D]
I wrongly assumed they were 1/35 as well.Damn nice work.
Nice work! I recently returned to building 1/72 kits as well and when I opened up my Dragon 1/72 kit, I was just shocked to see so many well detailed parts!
That painting looks great too! Airbrushed or hand painted?
Now both models are very nice indeed. Particularly the Tiger. I love the camo scheme on it.
How did the build up of both go? I am considering the Dragon Tiger with the moulded Zimmerit as a future purchase.
cheers
Mike
Thanx for posting your pics. If I may offer a contrarian opinion about the Tiger I scheme:
I agree that it looks nice. However, as miniaturists we need to be conscious of the “Giant Hand From Above” syndrome when it comes to painting camouflage schemes. What I mean is this: imagine how difficult it would be to actually paint your Tiger scheme on a REAL 1:1 Tiger.
A simple point is that soldiers are lazy and want to do as little “grunt work” as possible. Your scheme seems simply too complex to be a likely scheme for a soldier, hauling around an sprayer and air hose. Who would bother to paint a 10meter long snaking camouflage? Yes we see it on some IJA or French armor but it was the rarity, in my opinion.
My advice: put the model at eye level and imagine a 1/72 figure with a paintbrush or paint sprayer. What would he do? I think it’s important to consider form and function when it comes to AFV modelling. I hope this makes sense
ROy, great points, but I’m pretty sure that the historical accuracy of this particular paint scheme is backed up in one of Jean Restayn’s fine books on the Tiger? It’s called out and depicted as such in the DML directions; I have the kit. I also think that the FSM review (or another I had seen) sported this camo, not that that confirms anything of course…
Thanks for the comments.
Both kits were airbrushed with detailing and weathering done by hand.
The Dragon Tiger kit is not bad and the only sensible option in 1/72 for a late zimmeritt model. It does have some draw backs though:
-Instructions a bit vague in places, i wouldn’t recommend this kit to a beginner.
-No cable on the side of the hull
-No spare tracks for the turret (I used some of the Trumpeter kit on this model)
-Wheels and tracks are a real pain to assemble, Dragon have recognised this is poor and have changed the design on thier later Tiger E Mid-production kit.
Ideally this needs to be cross-kitted with the Revell late tiger kit to make the definative model.
The Trumeter is the best Early Tiger kit, the Revell ones best for non-zimmeritt mid and late models and the Dragon the best for zimmeritt mid and late models.
Roy, while I totally agree with your sentiments this model IS historically accurate. It is a well known tank, being Panzer Ace Will Feys mount in Normandy:
Its also worth remebering that this tank operated in Normandy, where the allies had total air supremacy, even the laziest tanker would make the effort to disguise his tank as much as possible if his life depended on it. There is evidence of far more elaborate schemes than this in use and its often the case that truth is stanger than fiction…