Have you measured the two kits?  I've never heard of any dimensional flaws in Tamiya's JS-3 kit.  The Pz IVD is an older (and perhaps less accurate) kit.  But the JS-3 isn't huge and actually sits lower than a Pz IV.

Its dimensions are:

Length 9.90 m (32 ft 6 in) (28.3cm in 1/35)

Width 3.09 m (10 ft 2 in)  (8.83cm in 1/35)

Height 2.73 m (8 ft 11 in)  (7.80cm in 1/35)

A typical Pz IV is:

Length 5.92 metres (19 ft 5 in) (16.94cm in 1/35)

7.02 metres (23 ft 0 in) gun forward (20.06cm in 1/35)

Width 2.88 m (9 ft 5 in)  (8.23cm in 1/35)

Height 2.68 m (8 ft 10 in)  (7.66cm in 1/35)

Yes, I do not have the models at reach.. Im at work...

Let me get home  and will post the photos with differences.

Thanks for the technical specs. I will measure them

Per this site:

http://ww2drawings.jexiste.fr/Files/1-Vehicles/Allies/2-USSR/04-HeavyTanks/IosefStalin/Data/IS-3.htm

JS 3 Hull length ( no main armament ) is 6.7 m; overall with armament is 10.0 m

http://ww2drawings.jexiste.fr/Files/Site.htm

Pz. Kpfw IV D Hull length is listed as 5.87 m ; no armament overhang

Yeah the JS/IS series weren't very large tanks. Always impressed me the Soviet engineers could cram a tank pretty close to as powerful as a Tiger into a hull not too much bigger than a T-34. It did have some flaws like poor gun depression and lack of safety features for the crew though.

Tamiya's older, 1970's vintage kits, such as the Mk.IVD had a tendency to be "bigger" than their newer retooled/newly tooled kits. The figures as well. Tamiya started making them more petite (shorter & leaner) when compared to many of their earlier works. While their older kits were not 1/32 in appearance, they did not look so underscaled next to a 1/32 build, compared to their more recent stuff. But the IS series tanks are not that big when compared to other "heavies" of the era.

Many of Tamiya's older tanks like the Pz IV D were designed to be motorized and the hull had to be adjusted to fit their standard sized motorized gearbox AND hold a pair of C cell batteries side by side. The sprockets, running gear and tracks had to resemble the real thing but more importantly be able to run under the battery operations.

What is not acceptable is comparing a kit designed when a constant scale was not very important to a modern kit produced during an age when modeler's standards are much higher than they were 40 years ago.

That's like trying to compare safety standards or gas efficiency of a 1970 era sedan with its 2010 counterpart.

Tamiya's original plastic models were more or less motorized toys that you assembled yourself. Fragile detail was designed oversized and sturdier or molded onto the hull so it wouldn't break off when you removed the top of the hull to replace the batteries or fall off when the vehicle ran into a chair leg or living room wall.

Today's kits are more refined with parts designed in scale. They would not handle being motorized.

Ok, so here's a pic comparison of the figures, as you can see the Russian figure is much smaller, thinner.

Now, getting scientific:

So, in fact we have a very short Russian commander!!.

Now, I did bought both models at the same time, same store. So I'm in fact unsure why the difference??

Finally, and for any other thing if they label it as 1/35 it should be 1/35, otherwise is misleading advertisement... not that I want to start a political / legal matter of this, but found interesting why the difference on sizes....

Unfortunately it isn't always that simple. While you may have bought the Pz IV kit at the same time as the IS, as already mentioned, it is a very old kit. Even kits which are not altered to accommodate batteries may not always be the same. I built a 72nd MiG a couple of years ago and added a PE set designed for a different brand of kit. Clearly that other brand was bigger than the ones I was building.

As for the figures, maybe the Pz IV crew man was made bigger to keep it in line with the tank. I would also imagine that the advance in tech over the years means that companies can make there models to a far more accurate level than they could 20 or 30 years ago.

Rob Gronovius

Many of Tamiya's older tanks like the Pz IV D were designed to be motorized and the hull had to be adjusted to fit their standard sized motorized gearbox AND hold a pair of C cell batteries side by side. The sprockets, running gear and tracks had to resemble the real thing but more importantly be able to run under the battery operations.

What is not acceptable is comparing a kit designed when a constant scale was not very important to a modern kit produced during an age when modeler's standards are much higher than they were 40 years ago.

That's like trying to compare safety standards or gas efficiency of a 1970 era sedan with its 2010 counterpart.

Tamiya's original plastic models were more or less motorized toys that you assembled yourself. Fragile detail was designed oversized and sturdier or molded onto the hull so it wouldn't break off when you removed the top of the hull to replace the batteries or fall off when the vehicle ran into a chair leg or living room wall.

Today's kits are more refined with parts designed in scale. They would not handle being motorized.

You could always set the Russian guy in the background.

There is also the problem that plagues all designers of hot-moulded items.  You have to cast them larger than the final desired size, so that, as the cool, they will shrink to the desired final dimension.

And the amount of change is only semi-precise.  So, there is a possibility that post-moulding QC may have passed a run they should not have.  Or, it could be that, if they use a measuring jig to test the sprues, that could have been off.

Sadly, the only way to test that involved buying another of both kits, to see if they are the same size.

And, if we want to address scale accuracy, the average Soviet was smaller than this counterpart in the west.  The Soviet Tank Corps also selected their troops based on certain maximum sizes, so that they would better fit the cramped confines of Soviet armor.

So, an argument could be made that the figure size is entirely accurate.

Whether the vehicles are depends on how they measure up.

CapnMac: I've not run into any measurable shrinkage in plastic injection kits -- at least the ones I've built the last few years.  The finesse of parts in Tasca, DML and AFVClub is simply amazing.  I know that resin casters face some shrinkage.  I'm not sure that current polystyrene injection molding has anything discernible -- it doesn't match my personal experience.

Thanks all for your point of views, if this was a result of plastic shrinking then they have to consider that for final results, meaning adding more plastic knowing that when it "cures" it will shrink to right size.

The only thing that will bother me, will be  trying to explain family members and friends why a Russian tank commander is smaller  than his German counterpart...

Also, found in another forum that a guy had his Grandparent who drove an IS-3 with a height of 6' or 1.82mts... so I guess there was no height restriction.

Have a great day!

garzonh

......will be  trying to explain family members and friends why a Russian tank commander is smaller  than his German counterpart...

  You're lucky, most of those folks don't know or care, they usually consider it a toy.

"Oh, that's pretty", is what I usually get.

Yeah, I can relate.

My wife and kid (10yo) are very supportive and interested, they will make questions like, "why is this different from this?, why is the cannon bigger?" etc..

But my friends are more like "c'mooon, where did you buy it?"

And my wife friends are like "Oh it soooo cute.."

T26E4

  CapnMac: I've not run into any measurable shrinkage in plastic injection kits -- at least the ones I've built the last few years.

Ah, you mistake my meaning.  Any such shrinkage occurs immediately after casting.  it is well and complete well before the sprues are boxed.

When casting molten and semi-molten products, there is a delicate balance of how long in the press, how much (if any) cooling on the moulds, and a few such similar details.  In starting up a run, the shots will have to measured carefully for adherence to final dimensions.  Once a run is "on spec" the output will be uniform and identical to an impressive degree.

All of which could be undone if, possibly, some one mixed in "close enough" shots by error or design.

It's a great long stretch, but, it's the only way i can imagine a company putting out a 1:35.5 or 1:36 scaled kit in this day and age short of a rebox.