login   |    register
Armor/AFV: Early Armor
WWI and other early tanks and armored cars.
Hosted by Darren Baker
YouTube of Tamiya's Mk lV
Biggles2
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Quebec, Canada
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
AeroScale: 121 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 18, 2014 - 02:57 AM UTC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe-1cw39Sq0
At least there's no remote control cable, but would be cheaper as a static model.
miniflea
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Virginia, United States
Joined: October 17, 2011
KitMaker: 237 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 18, 2014 - 05:18 AM UTC
I know a lot of people here were pooh-poohing the fact that this is motorized, but this looks like a lot of fun. Want!
Biggles2
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Quebec, Canada
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
AeroScale: 121 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 18, 2014 - 05:38 AM UTC
Yeah, you can get a bag of dollar store 'army men' and have fun running them over!
Beastmaster
_VISITCOMMUNITY
United Kingdom
Joined: January 27, 2009
KitMaker: 592 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 18, 2014 - 05:53 AM UTC
I've gone from thinking motorised = crap to thinking.........I want one now!
Beastmaster
_VISITCOMMUNITY
United Kingdom
Joined: January 27, 2009
KitMaker: 592 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 18, 2014 - 05:55 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Yeah, you can get a bag of dollar store 'army men' and have fun running them over!








Oh that's a must. Loads of those little geezers are gonna get squashed.
AJLaFleche
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Massachusetts, United States
Joined: May 05, 2002
KitMaker: 8,074 posts
AeroScale: 328 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 18, 2014 - 07:40 AM UTC
Being motorised makes it so much easier to explain to your significant other that it's not a toy.
Biggles2
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Quebec, Canada
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
AeroScale: 121 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 18, 2014 - 09:03 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Being motorised makes it so much easier to explain to your significant other that it's not a toy.



Yeah, it's a functioning miniature replica!! (Vroom, vroom)
armouredcharmer
_VISITCOMMUNITY
England - East Anglia, United Kingdom
Joined: June 09, 2009
KitMaker: 670 posts
AeroScale: 175 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 18, 2014 - 09:17 AM UTC
Why motorized ?,With Takom about to bring out versions of their own i know which i`d rather have,having bought (and binned!) the appalling Emhar version i`d still like one for the stash.
I just can`t bring myself to buy something that i consider a fancy toy.
AlanL
_VISITCOMMUNITY
England - East Anglia, United Kingdom
Joined: August 12, 2005
KitMaker: 14,499 posts
AeroScale: 42 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 18, 2014 - 09:22 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Why motorized ?,With Takom about to bring out versions of their own i know which i`d rather have,having bought (and binned!) the appalling Emhar version i`d still like one for the stash.
I just can`t bring myself to buy something that i consider a fancy toy.



There is nothing that says you have to motorise it. It looks to have the makings of a good static model too. The footage is interesting and the Infantry look good as well.

I'll be interested to see the comparison with the Takom kit when it come along.

Al
Beastmaster
_VISITCOMMUNITY
United Kingdom
Joined: January 27, 2009
KitMaker: 592 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 18, 2014 - 09:40 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Why motorized ?,With Takom about to bring out versions of their own i know which i`d rather have,having bought (and binned!) the appalling Emhar version i`d still like one for the stash.
I just can`t bring myself to buy something that i consider a fancy toy.







Why not? If it's accurate (and it does look pretty accurate and non toy like) then I think it's nice to have a MkIV that moves.

Also it moves at scale speed too which is pretty cool.
Beastmaster
_VISITCOMMUNITY
United Kingdom
Joined: January 27, 2009
KitMaker: 592 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 18, 2014 - 12:25 PM UTC
Here's more of it working as well as other new kits...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4xsYzSc4GY
AFVFan
_VISITCOMMUNITY
North Carolina, United States
Joined: May 17, 2012
KitMaker: 1,980 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 18, 2014 - 02:16 PM UTC
They need to put Roomba technology in it so you don't need to keep picking it up and turning it around.
Darson
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Victoria, Australia
Joined: June 14, 2005
KitMaker: 247 posts
AeroScale: 60 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 18, 2014 - 06:31 PM UTC

Quoted Text



There is nothing that says you have to motorise it. It looks to have the makings of a good static model too. The footage is interesting and the Infantry look good as well.

I'll be interested to see the comparison with the Takom kit when it come along.

Al



Al I would be quite happy to buy it and leave the engine out and have it as a static kit, it's just the premium I will have to pay for the motorization that bugs me. Why on earth Tamiya don't release a static (cheaper) version is beyond me.

I agree with you on the side by side comparison with the Takom kit, because both look to be great kits.

Darren
Biggles2
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Quebec, Canada
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
AeroScale: 121 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 18, 2014 - 06:44 PM UTC
Bummer! It's neither radio nor remote control. You just turn it on and let it run in a straight line until it either hits an obstacle or the battery dies. Can't even turn or steer. Even though it looks like a competent model, motorizing it really is just a silly toy-like gimmick. I can go to the dollar store and buy a toy that will do the same thing - it just won't look as nice. What was Mr. T thinking? (Although if it's cheaper than Takom I'll probably still get one)
Agamemnon2
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Uusimaa, Finland
Joined: February 01, 2006
KitMaker: 155 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 18, 2014 - 08:44 PM UTC
Looking at the sprue pictures, I think there's a pair of regular-plastic idlers and sprockets on the one with the wheels, so you don't have to put in the gears if you don't want to. I think the provisions for motorization leave the underside of the tracks unrealistic, so if you want to model one untracked or something, the Friul set might be required (and one might have to scratch-build things like the transmission). Though really, for those kind of things, waiting and seeing how the Takom looks might be even better.

If you want to have it more or less in an operating condition, the job looks pretty simple, even covering the switch hole on the bottom is probably not required, given how small and out of the way it is. Light years ahead of the Emhar, too.
ironhull
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Venezia, Italy
Joined: November 23, 2013
KitMaker: 134 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Monday, May 19, 2014 - 02:47 AM UTC
You are right.
See on bottom left sprue

http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/image/10271341b9/30/9

Bye
Pierantonio
jimbrae
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Provincia de Lugo, Spain / España
Joined: April 23, 2003
KitMaker: 12,927 posts
AeroScale: 291 posts
Posted: Monday, May 19, 2014 - 03:03 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Bummer! It's neither radio nor remote control. You just turn it on and let it run in a straight line until it either hits an obstacle or the battery dies. Can't even turn or steer. Even though it looks like a competent model, motorizing it really is just a silly toy-like gimmick. I can go to the dollar store and buy a toy that will do the same thing - it just won't look as nice. What was Mr. T thinking? (Although if it's cheaper than Takom I'll probably still get one)



Motorizing anything inevitably means a compromise with the scale and accuracy - far too gimmicky IMO....
Beastmaster
_VISITCOMMUNITY
United Kingdom
Joined: January 27, 2009
KitMaker: 592 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Monday, May 19, 2014 - 04:39 AM UTC

Quoted Text

You are right.
See on bottom left sprue

http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/image/10271341b9/30/9

Bye
Pierantonio





So it is and hadn't noticed that before.
Beastmaster
_VISITCOMMUNITY
United Kingdom
Joined: January 27, 2009
KitMaker: 592 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Monday, May 19, 2014 - 04:43 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Looking at the sprue pictures, I think there's a pair of regular-plastic idlers and sprockets on the one with the wheels, so you don't have to put in the gears if you don't want to. I think the provisions for motorization leave the underside of the tracks unrealistic, so if you want to model one untracked or something, the Friul set might be required (and one might have to scratch-build things like the transmission). Though really, for those kind of things, waiting and seeing how the Takom looks might be even better.

If you want to have it more or less in an operating condition, the job looks pretty simple, even covering the switch hole on the bottom is probably not required, given how small and out of the way it is. Light years ahead of the Emhar, too.







Can't say the underside of the tracks look unrealistic to me (from the pictures I've seen anyway).
Agamemnon2
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Uusimaa, Finland
Joined: February 01, 2006
KitMaker: 155 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Monday, May 19, 2014 - 09:00 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Can't say the underside of the tracks look unrealistic to me (from the pictures I've seen anyway).



You might be right there, I can't find a good enough of a photo now to back up that earlier hunch, and certainly the sprocket they use for the gearbox and motor looks geometrically pretty similar to the real one, so it could be that the Tamiya tracks are accurate on that front as well.
KurtLaughlin
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Monday, May 19, 2014 - 11:04 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Motorizing anything inevitably means a compromise with the scale and accuracy - far too gimmicky IMO....



So does replicating a riveted and bolted metal object in plastic at 1/35 size in a kit form that can be assembled by solvent cement without breaking apart before it is finished. So, when we find an axle that is too large, a section that isn't square, or a plate that is too thick, what are people going to say? My guess is that in the case of this kit some folks will ascribe EVERY departure from true fidelity to "gimmicky motorization" . . . Because that's what they want to believe.

KL
Biggles2
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Quebec, Canada
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
AeroScale: 121 posts
Posted: Monday, May 19, 2014 - 06:28 PM UTC
The motorization is gimmicky, although the model may well be (within acceptable tolerances) accurate and in scale. The thing is, back in the early seventies, Tamiya had some inexpensive cable remote control kits, but those had two motors - one for each track, and you could forward, reverse, and turn. You were tethered to the tank, but at least it was more fun than switching on the motor and just letting the tank run away from you.
jimbrae
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Provincia de Lugo, Spain / España
Joined: April 23, 2003
KitMaker: 12,927 posts
AeroScale: 291 posts
Posted: Monday, May 19, 2014 - 08:16 PM UTC
Couldn't Tamiya market the kit with small demons inside who would follow your shouted instructions?
The_musings_of_NBNoG
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Oregon, United States
Joined: January 08, 2012
KitMaker: 518 posts
AeroScale: 1 posts
Posted: Monday, May 19, 2014 - 08:44 PM UTC
What was really cool is
Testor's No.103 104, 105...
got to screen capture a couple of cool shots of the BMPT

there is one place where you can see all the sprues, laid out...
and there is a lot of difference between the new BMPT and their T-90.

good to see... !
barkingdigger
Staff MemberAssociate Editor
ARMORAMA
#013
_VISITCOMMUNITY
England - East Anglia, United Kingdom
Joined: June 20, 2008
KitMaker: 3,976 posts
AeroScale: 4 posts
Posted: Monday, May 19, 2014 - 10:08 PM UTC
Methinks some bright sparks will indeed fit twin motors, with servos and radio gear, in order to get a 1:35 tank that CAN be steered! Shouldn't bee too hard.

Now we need to see the plastic reach the hands of a competent reviewer who can check all the vital measurements...