login   |    register
Armor/AFV
For all ground-operating modelling subjects.
Review
Dragon: King Tiger with Zimmerit 1/35t
CMOT
Staff MemberEditor-in-Chief
ARMORAMA
#406
_VISITCOMMUNITY
England - South West, United Kingdom
Joined: May 14, 2006
KitMaker: 10,650 posts
AeroScale: 266 posts
Posted: Saturday, September 30, 2017 - 10:34 PM UTC


Karl Flavell reviews and builds the Dragon Models King Tiger Henschel Turret with Zimmerit s.PZ Abt 505 Russia 1944 in 1/35th scale and shares his thoughts.

Read the Review

If you have comments or questions please post them here.

Thanks!
TopSmith
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Washington, United States
Joined: August 09, 2002
KitMaker: 1,320 posts
AeroScale: 14 posts
Posted: Saturday, September 30, 2017 - 10:55 PM UTC
Thanks for the honest review. I am looking for a KT and the Dragon 6303 looks to be a better choice.
Grizzly2860
_VISITCOMMUNITY
England - East Anglia, United Kingdom
Joined: September 18, 2017
KitMaker: 4 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Sunday, October 01, 2017 - 03:29 AM UTC
very well written review thank you for taking the time to do it i for one dont think ill be buying till the problems are sorted thanks again for the cracking review
easyco69
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Ontario, Canada
Joined: November 03, 2012
KitMaker: 2,275 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Sunday, October 01, 2017 - 07:51 PM UTC
lol 20%?? if it's that bad, why build it at all???? I think your FOS myself. Dragon has the best zim parts in my opinion. What the heck is 1/35t????
http://amps-armor.org/SiteReviews/showReview.aspx?ID=3908&Type=FB
Biggles2
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Quebec, Canada
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 6,985 posts
AeroScale: 116 posts
Posted: Sunday, October 01, 2017 - 08:10 PM UTC

Quoted Text

lol 20%?? if it's that bad, why build it at all???? I think your FOS myself.


Naughty...naughty! Let's be civil. Even though Dragon has produced some nice kits, and I agree that their zim treatment is probably the best, but they've almost always spoiled what could have been an excellent kit with some sort of stupidity, whether in fit, inappropriate parts, or instruction errors.
j76lr
_VISITCOMMUNITY
New Jersey, United States
Joined: September 22, 2006
KitMaker: 1,017 posts
AeroScale: 6 posts
Posted: Sunday, October 01, 2017 - 08:26 PM UTC
Oh Boy ....another tiger
Tojo72
_VISITCOMMUNITY
North Carolina, United States
Joined: June 06, 2006
KitMaker: 4,514 posts
AeroScale: 221 posts
Posted: Sunday, October 01, 2017 - 08:50 PM UTC
It's strange how the AMPS reviewer made no mention of the front tow hooks problem,or fit issues with the roadwheels.How can it be he had no issues with these as karl did.

I ponder this as I stare at this kit sitting in my stash,while thinking about all the issues karl bougjt up.
Biggles2
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Quebec, Canada
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 6,985 posts
AeroScale: 116 posts
Posted: Sunday, October 01, 2017 - 09:11 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Oh Boy ....another tiger


Yeah...but it's not like it was just released! This one's been around for at least 5 years.
erichvon
_VISITCOMMUNITY
England - East Midlands, United Kingdom
Joined: January 17, 2006
KitMaker: 1,692 posts
AeroScale: 8 posts
Posted: Monday, October 02, 2017 - 05:05 AM UTC
David- We're all entitled to opinions but until you've built this kit you're not qualified to comment on it so please feel free to go out and spend roughly 50 on it and let us know how your kit builds up. By all means go out and buy one and share your experience with us. I have built it and my comments are all backed up by photographic evidence or did you not look at the photos showing the tow hooks attached. You can see how small they are attached to the tank and the huge gaps that they leave. You can also see just how small they are when compared to the Tamiya part. Or did you not look at those either. I do not take it lightly when reviewing a kit and any observations that I make are backed up by evidence as that's the only way to deal with it fairly hence I took photographs at each stage and when I encountered a problem (of which there were many) I detailed it and photographed it. I have no issues with the zimmerit, in fact I've actually praised it. My problem with the kit was fit issues and incorrect parts all of which are illustrated quite clearly. It's a shake and bake kit with inappropriate sprues included which to me is unacceptable. A bit like your inappropriate comment. I am not as you put it "full of [auto-censored]" and if you feel like that don't read my reviews. There is no need to be abusive. If you read the blog, on page two someone else had the same sort of problems with this kit and even commented that I was being too kind to it and described it as a pigs ear which in the UK is a complete mess which this kit is.Anthony commented that he'd bought the same kit and it had PE side skirts so there's obviously more than one issue of this kit. Maybe they've corrected it, I don't know. I can only go on what's in the box of the kit on my desk which is what I built and reviewed.

Anthony- I've read the same review and can only assume it was a corrected kit that they've been given. As you can see from the photographs the sizes of the tow hooks are completely different with the DML pair grossly underscale. You followed the blog and saw these things as they appeared and the steps I had to take to rectify the problems and you also saw that Graham had had the same problems as I had.
Tojo72
_VISITCOMMUNITY
North Carolina, United States
Joined: June 06, 2006
KitMaker: 4,514 posts
AeroScale: 221 posts
Posted: Monday, October 02, 2017 - 05:16 AM UTC
Karl,no doubt you did a fine job on your blog and review,I appreciate that.No criticism of you in any way,my comments just reflect frustration with Dragon,as you say we spend a good buck on a kit and expect good value,not a frankenstein kit.by the the way I believe my PE fenders were a bonus by the seller.

I have 2 projects lined up,but I really got to get into my kit and see what I have in the box.
erichvon
_VISITCOMMUNITY
England - East Midlands, United Kingdom
Joined: January 17, 2006
KitMaker: 1,692 posts
AeroScale: 8 posts
Posted: Monday, October 02, 2017 - 06:14 AM UTC
Anthony, thanks for that. With every kit we buy there's always a bit of a gamble but on this one I couldn't believe it. I'm a big fan of Dragons Sdkfz251 range which in my opinion are the best ones out there having built AFV Club, Tamiya, Zvezda but they're not perfect. I built the 251/9 out of their 3 in 1 kit and had to cut out the radio ops seating area as it was removed for this version so why didn't they put in a seperate floor to correct it? I've had a few that have had additional floors included with no real difference but a big difference and no alternative floor? I don't mind putting small things like that right but when it's simple things one after another that are wrong it gets a bit much after a while. I think what made it all the more disappointing was I was really looking forward to building it as I was expecting great things compared to the old Tamiya King Tigers I built years ago but when basic things like no detail on the main armament, no shell racks, nothing for figures to stand on it does take the edge off things before you even get onto the main part of the kit and encounter the big problems. If it was a 25-30 kit perhaps I could understand the empty turret but at a premium price I do think we expect and deserve a bit more from a build. When you compare it to the Meng and Takom offerings pricewise they seem much better options. I've not built any of their kits so can't comment on how they build up but from reviews I've read they appear to be very good. It just seems I got the problem child lol. The issue with the front towing hook arms was really unforgivable. How they could release a kit with that sort of error is nothing short of incredible.
Taeuss
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Manitoba, Canada
Joined: January 03, 2016
KitMaker: 2,607 posts
AeroScale: 2 posts
Posted: Monday, October 02, 2017 - 08:25 AM UTC
While it is a nice touch including two different turrets it is hardly much of a two-in-one kit offering. Wonder how this kit is otherwise different than 6303 that I have sitting on my shelf and otherwise appears the same (except for extra turret & accompanying decals, that is) Flaws and all I still enjoy building them and am looking forward to getting the Meng with full interior. I kit-bashed one a decade or so ago and wonder what I might have missed.

Blade48mrd
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Washington, United States
Joined: September 03, 2004
KitMaker: 1,185 posts
AeroScale: 14 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 - 02:29 AM UTC
Karl - a thorough and professional review that is very much appreciated. I've learned a lot and have been able to apply much of the valuable critic to my build of Dragon #6232 "KINGTIGER Late Production" that I'm doing as an Ardennes sSS Pz.Abt 501 KT using the 9 tooth sprocket and magic tracks from an extra Dragon #6254 kit (Friuls went on it). Anyway, I ran into the same problems with the wheels,arms, etc. on BOTH of these kits also. Frustrating to say the least. I plan on using the Euraka cables you mentioned and the Tamiya fix for the tow hooks. Yes, they were problems on BOTH my Dragon kits also. Thanks for a great review. It has been highly informative and a valuable reference.
Jupiterblitz
Joined: December 30, 2007
KitMaker: 877 posts
AeroScale: 6 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 - 02:56 AM UTC
Karl, I have taken a look at your pictures and text of both
your blog and review.

About the problems of the front glacis/upper hull plate vs. front tool hooks I can say the following:

The glacis plate should have slided beneath the weld lines of parts C1/C2 which work as guide bars, either.



It's a bit tricky, cause the front fenders bump against the tracks around the sprocket wheel.



But with some efforts it works fine and fitting is excellent. Thus there's no underscaling of the front hooks, either.
TigerFan182
_VISITCOMMUNITY
United Kingdom
Joined: June 07, 2014
KitMaker: 45 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 - 03:49 AM UTC
Guys, look at image 32 (lower hull belly up) from Karl's review, all looks fine. Then look at image 34 (lower hull before wheels, sprocket etc). It is clear that the part is too short, hence the large gap near the top. It is also a strange shape, unlike any I have seen in previous Dragon KT kits. Where's the weld detail seen in all the other kits?

I think Karl got a dodgy sprue in his kit which would also explain why the crew periscope covers were missing. Usually this sprue is included in one form or another (sprue containing the upper hull)

https://www.super-hobby.com/products/Sd.Kfz.182-King-Tiger-Henschel-Turret.html#
Jupiterblitz
Joined: December 30, 2007
KitMaker: 877 posts
AeroScale: 6 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 - 04:19 AM UTC
Good catch Matthew.

Dragon's previous KT kits contain two sprues with the
front hook parts.

Sprue "C" and "D".

On sprue "D" the parts D1 (and D2) show the weld lines.

6840 doesn't provide the "D"-sprue anymore.
tetleyteaman
_VISITCOMMUNITY
England - North, United Kingdom
Joined: December 27, 2003
KitMaker: 14 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 - 12:11 PM UTC

Quoted Text

I think Karl got a dodgy sprue in his kit



If only that were the case Matthew but sadly Dragon made a total hash of the box contents with this one. As I pointed out in Karl's excellent blog, the CAD on the box bottom shows the bits that should be in the box but which are not.

This kit is a re-box of 6400 and Dragon should have used Sprue 'D' from that kit. If you have the Cyberhobby kit 6349 (King Tiger Initial Production) then you have a spare Sprue 'D' to get the correct parts from. If not, you are up the proverbial creek without a paddle.

The parts that Dragon give us are from a sprue that was originally in the JagdTiger kits. I can only assume that they had the molds out following the previous release of the upgunned Jagdtiger so decided to crank out a few thousand more for this release. The correct Sprue D isn't shown on the sprue guide so it isn's a missing sprue but a concious decision not to include it. Poor research & preparation on Dragon's part I am afraid.

Instead of simply re-releasing an existing very good kit they mysteriously decided to screw it up by mixing incorrect sprues from other kits and then tried to meld it all together with instructions that are not fit for purpose.

Sadly, that is what you get from Dragon these days. You buy at your peril.

Jupiterblitz
Joined: December 30, 2007
KitMaker: 877 posts
AeroScale: 6 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 - 03:46 PM UTC
Just to save other KT and JT stashers from being terrified
about possible fit issues:

1. The "D"-sprue is being provided in many other KT kits,
too (e.g. King Tiger 6312).

2. The front hooks of the "C"-sprue of the Jagdtiger kits fit properly and without any problems, either.
Today I would have built and painted this JT in a more atttractive way...

3. My Initial KT (6349) came with other front hook parts (sprue "P")- and they fit excellently.


To get me right: Dragon is always good for disappointments.
bill_c
Staff MemberCampaigns Administrator
MODEL SHIPWRIGHTS
_VISITCOMMUNITY
New Jersey, United States
Joined: January 09, 2008
KitMaker: 10,284 posts
AeroScale: 1,149 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 - 07:34 PM UTC
Brutal review, Karl, but I'm glad to see an honest assessment of the kit. Too often we gloss over problems because we love the subject matter when in fact the modeler is left holding the bag of stinking poo.
erichvon
_VISITCOMMUNITY
England - East Midlands, United Kingdom
Joined: January 17, 2006
KitMaker: 1,692 posts
AeroScale: 8 posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 04, 2017 - 01:04 PM UTC
Bill it had to be done lol. I can't see the point in reviewing something if it's not going to be a truthful report at the end of it. I've bought kits on the strength of reviews before that have sung a kit's praises only to find it's completely crap when I open the box. Like most of us I have a limited budget and don't appreciate the wool being pulled over my eyes when buying something therefore I go for the warts and all style of writing. If I think a kit is good I'l praise it but if it's a box of pooh like this one was then it gets a negative review. If I'd lied and said it was great and the best kit I'd built this year I'd have felt terrible knowing that people had gone out and bought a box of rubbish and overnight become modellers enemy number one lol. It's reassuring when others,like Graham and Mike have had the same problems with the kit when they built it and back me up. Naturally they have my sympathy having bought a pig of a kit "Dragon King Tiger 6840 Veterans" Despite suicidal thoughts we lived to tell the tale..