Figarti King Tiger Henschel Turret as it could be. (1 Viewer)

[OzDigger]

I think you meant my name Matt but i'll take your thanks anyway! ^&grin

No worries fellas, happy to post and Kat, I was thinking of asking the museum blokes if I could borrow one of there Jerry helmets and also jump up into the KT commanders hatch but I think they would have told me to leave! ^&grin

Tom

Sorry Tom, yes I did mean you. Who's that Wayne guy anyway :wink2:

 

[katana]

I have been told on good authority that the TCS and K&C BBG016 are virtually the same size; but the BBG016 is slightly larger. Probably mold variations, as I stated before. I have never stated the FL Panzer IV was 1/32. I said it was undersized and I still contend that it is; it is substantially smaller than the Figarti Panzer IV and about equal to the FOV panzer IV; but smaller than the 21st century Panzer IV; which measures 1/30 scale.

I think the differences of sizes between some King Tiger models is a function of the disparity in the actual size data. Long before Jentz and Dole the acknowledged expert on German WWII armor was Uwe Feist. His dimensions for the King Tiger published in Aero Armor Series #1 1966 was:
Hull Length 7.260 Meters, Hull Width 3.75 Meters, Hull Height 3.09 Meters. These dimensions are cited in multiple sources today. The Jentz and Doyle dimensions for the King Tiger as cited in the Osprey New Vanguard #1 1993 King Tiger Heavy Tank 1943-1945 are: Hull Length 6.400 Meters, Hull Width 3.75 Meters, Hull Height 3.09 Meters. The decrepancy between the two data sets lies in the Hull Lengths which differ by 860mm; a very substancial difference. I have found more cites of the Feist data than the Jentz and Doyle data. I have also determined by actual measurements that several manufacturers models of the King Tiger are based upon the Feist data; which would clearly account for discrepancies if measured utilizing the Jentz and Doyle data. The big question is how did a difference in measurement of 860mm between the two data sets occur? The Hull Width and Hull Height data agree in both data sets as does the overall length. the disparity occurs only with the length of the hull.

Obviously remeasurement of a King Tiger's Hull Length needs to be done and documented to resolve this issue. Models produced with the erronious data will always be in conflict. I can state that at least three quality models by different manufactures are only accurate in Hull Length using the Feist Hull Length of 7.260 Meters. The Hull length is overscale using the Jentz and Doyle Hull Length of 6.400 Meters.

Please advise the actual scale difference between the TCS and K&C BBG016. Also if you have measured the K&C WS067, what did you determine the scale to be? Thanks in advance fo your help.

Well, for one thing the the K&C BBG016 is smaller than the TCS King Tiger, so your digital calipers missed something there.




The above is just nonsense. I never accused Jentz/Doyle of being inaccurrate, just your measurements. Kind of like the one where you asserted the First Legion Panzer IV was 1/32, then Matt from FL came on with photo of the actual digital caliper measurement and it was spot on for 1/30.


Why not just post a picture of this 21st Century King Tiger next to the Figarti Steel Wheeled Tiger I that you also own? The wheels should be the exact same size and the deck height, overall height, and width comparison would be easy to see. Why the continuous refusal?