Wittman Tiger Comparison Part 2. (1 Viewer)

PanzerAce1944

PanzerAce1944

Colonel
Joined
Feb 27, 2011
Messages
8,632
Remainder of the comparison pics with dimensions. Included is a 1/30 scale soldier to compare size with the front glacis plates of both vehicles. Now if we can convert inches and centimeters into feet and or meters we have the solution.
 

Attachments

  • DSCN0594.JPG
    DSCN0594.JPG
    128 KB · Views: 434
  • DSCN0598.JPG
    DSCN0598.JPG
    134.9 KB · Views: 429
  • DSCN0595.JPG
    DSCN0595.JPG
    137.4 KB · Views: 423
  • DSCN0599.JPG
    DSCN0599.JPG
    134.5 KB · Views: 441
PanzerAce1944 said:
Remainder of the comparison pics with dimensions. Included is a 1/30 scale soldier to compare size with the front glacis plates of both vehicles. Now if we can convert inches and centimeters into feet and or meters we have the solution.
Click to expand...
Witch is {eek3}^&confuse^&grin
 
Just looking at the comparison shots with the figure, it appears to me that the CS Tiger is appropriately sized. The figure's head comes to the deck, not over it. Photo after photo of actual Tigers show men with their heads at about this level. If the head of the figure is above the level of the hull deck, then either the figure is too big for the Tiger or the Tiger too small for the figure. That is how it appears to me, without conversion of the numbers to get actual scale. -- Al
 
lancer said:
Just looking at the comparison shots with the figure, it appears to me that the CS Tiger is appropriately sized. The figure's head comes to the deck, not over it. Photo after photo of actual Tigers show men with their heads at about this level. If the head of the figure is above the level of the hull deck, then either the figure is too big for the Tiger or the Tiger too small for the figure. That is how it appears to me, without conversion of the numbers to get actual scale. -- Al
Click to expand...

Al,I agree with you.Looking at the pic of Frank standing right next to the front glacis plate of the Tiger in Bovington he pretty much matches up as does the figure pic next to the CS Wittman Tiger. Not scientific but it seems to me that a proper 1/30 scale Tiger is represented by this Collectors Showcase model. Look at the road wheels.They also give telltale clues as far as scale ! Hope this helps some folks.I do not care to argue with anyone further on this issue.I think it is just a matter of collectors who collect 1/30 scale WWII wanting 1/30 scale items....not 1/32.....the next 1/28.....so on ! I have sold my K&C WS070 winter Tiger as the size is no where near 1/30 scale.Probably replace it with a CS winter Tiger !!!! Cheers Friends :wink2:
 
Tiger E Technical Specifications by Henschel dated 9 February 1944
(I have added the 1/30 conversion rounded to the nearest mm)

Dimensions
Length (with gun forward) - 8450mm (282mm)
Length (with gun aft) - 8434mm (281mm)
Length (without gun overhang) - 6316mm (211mm)
Width (with track guards) - 3705mm (124mm)
Width (cross country tracks) - 3547mm (118mm)
Width (rail loading tracks) - 3142mm (105mm)
Height (overall) - 3000mm (100mm)
Height (to top of chassis) - 1800mm (60mm)

If we compare these to the measured dimensions we get a better idea.


PanzerAce1944 said:
Here are comparison pics and dimensions for the CS Wittman Tiger and the K&C WS151 Kursk Tiger: Both inches and centimeters

CS Wittman Tiger ... K&C WS151 Tiger

Frontal Width (side skirts) 5 3/16 " 13cm ... 4 14/16 " 12.5cm

Overall length Front muzzle 12 9/16" 31.5cm ... 12" 30.5cm
Break to rear exhaust shrouds

Bottom of Track to top of hull 2 10/16" 6.5cm .... 2 7/16" 6cm

Bottom of Track to top of 4 1/4" 11cm ... 3 15/16 " 10cm
CDR's Hatch Ring
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for the in depth shots i have one back ordered my dealer ran out of his 1st shipment but promised he will have one for me in about 3 weeks.the tank looks great and is i feel right scale.thanks mike b.
 
Based on the measurements provided scale of the two Tigers compared
......................CS Wittman Tiger..............K&C WS151 Tiger
Length..................1/26.8.............................1/27.7
Width....................1/28.5..............................1/29.6
Height (overall).......1/27.3..............................1/30
Height (chassis).......1/27.7..............................1/30


If my math is correct then the CS Tiger is considerably larger than 1/30 scale. If figures match up well with it then I attribute that to the figures being larger than 1/30 as well.

I agree with the guys who say the CS Tiger matches up best with the mainstream figures. Where I disagree is on the scale of both the tank and the figures.
 
Thanks for all the work on the measurements Frank and PA. From Frank's numbers, it looks like the CS TIger is a little larger than 1/30, but matches up with figures well, therefore the figures must be larger than 1/30 scale as well? I've thought this might be the case on some 1/30 figures for quite some time. I build lots of 1/35 scale armor and when you compare 1/35 scale figures (which I'm assuming they are accurate) to some of the 1/30 scale metal figures on the market, the 1/30 are huge compared to the 1/35, much more so than would be expected from the difference in scale. Anyway, I guess the thing for me is if the figures match up well with the tank (no matter the scale) and if a standing soldier's head comes up just to the top of a Tiger's hull, then that means they would look good together.
 
fmethorst said:
Tiger E Technical Specifications by Henschel dated 9 February 1944
(I have added the 1/30 conversion rounded to the nearest mm)

Dimensions
Length (with gun forward) - 8450mm (282mm)
Length (with gun aft) - 8434mm (281mm)
Length (without gun overhang) - 6316mm (211mm)
Width (with track guards) - 3705mm (124mm)
Width (cross country tracks) - 3547mm (118mm)
Width (rail loading tracks) - 3142mm (105mm)
Height (overall) - 3000mm (100mm)
Height (to top of chassis) - 1800mm (60mm)

If we compare these to the measured dimensions we get a better idea.
Click to expand...
Crikey, I'm getting a headache. If I read these measurements correctly (and have converted correctly), then it appears that the KC Kursk Tiger is almost spot-on to 1/30, with only the overall length being a little overscale (by 23mm). The other measurements on the KC tank are within 1mm. The CS Tiger is a tick bigger in all measurements than the KC Tiger, but not tremendously so; by 5mm width, 10mm length,and 5mm height to deck. This is all given that the hand taken measurements on the two models are accurate to the measurement points on the official dimensions. I will just buy and enjoy and be happy as they are all terrific models. -- Al
 
PanzerAce1944 said:
Remainder of the comparison pics with dimensions. Included is a 1/30 scale soldier to compare size with the front glacis plates of both vehicles. Now if we can convert inches and centimeters into feet and or meters we have the solution.
Click to expand...

Thank for taken the photos
 
fmethorst said:
Based on the measurements provided scale of the two Tigers compared
......................CS Wittman Tiger..............K&C WS151 Tiger
Length..................1/26.8.............................1/27.7
Width....................1/28.5..............................1/29.6
Height (overall).......1/27.3..............................1/30
Height (chassis).......1/27.7..............................1/30


If my math is correct then the CS Tiger is considerably larger than 1/30 scale. If figures match up well with it then I attribute that to the figures being larger than 1/30 as well.

I agree with the guys who say the CS Tiger matches up best with the mainstream figures. Where I disagree is on the scale of both the tank and the figures.
Click to expand...
Agree Frank. As I have now said many times, the "1/30" figures are bigger than 1/30. They are too large for the standard (correct) 1/30 models but appear to be perfect for the new, larger CS Tiger. Whatever. Time to retreat behind the old "buy what you like and like what you buy", which I will assuredly do.{sm3} -- Al
 
lancer said:
Agree Frank. As I have now said many times, the "1/30" figures are bigger than 1/30. They are too large for the standard (correct) 1/30 models but appear to be perfect for the new, larger CS Tiger. Whatever. Time to retreat behind the old "buy what you like and like what you buy", which I will assuredly do.{sm3} -- Al
Click to expand...

I agree with Frank and Lancer about the scale of K&C WWII figures and have had the opinion for quite some time that the K&C figures are close to 1:28 scale. The K&C figures appear to be the same size on older sets when the K&C AFVs were close to 1:32 (as in the Winter Tiger) and stayed the same size when K&C began scaling the AFVs at 1:30. All of the K&C models produced in the last few years at 1:30 which I have measured are spot on 1:30 (not including the main gun). The actual AFV dimensions are published so it is easy to scale an AFV. Estimating the scale of figures is quite subjective.

Terry
 
lancer said:
Crikey, I'm getting a headache. If I read these measurements correctly (and have converted correctly), then it appears that the KC Kursk Tiger is almost spot-on to 1/30, with only the overall length being a little overscale (by 23mm). The other measurements on the KC tank are within 1mm. The CS Tiger is a tick bigger in all measurements than the KC Tiger, but not tremendously so; by 5mm width, 10mm length,and 5mm height to deck. This is all given that the hand taken measurements on the two models are accurate to the measurement points on the official dimensions. I will just buy and enjoy and be happy as they are all terrific models. -- Al
Click to expand...

Party pooper!^&grin
 
Phantom Warrior said:
I agree with Frank and Lancer about the scale of K&C WWII figures and have had the opinion for quite some time that the K&C figures are close to 1:28 scale. The K&C figures appear to be the same size on older sets when the K&C AFVs were close to 1:32 (as in the Winter Tiger) and stayed the same size when K&C began scaling the AFVs at 1:30. All of the K&C models produced in the last few years at 1:30 which I have measured are spot on 1:30 (not including the main gun). The actual AFV dimensions are published so it is easy to scale an AFV. Estimating the scale of figures is quite subjective.

Terry
Click to expand...

Yes, it would make sense that K&C figures are roughly 1/28 scale if the newer AFV's are a true 1/30. The main thing I want is for the figures to look the correct scale up against the AFV's no matter what the scale might be. You can kind of get a sense or feel for what size the figures should be in relation to a vehicle from looking at wartime photos, and there are many old sets I have that the figures are just way too big for the vehicle they came with, IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2024 XenForo Ltd.
Back
Top