A question on the Testors/Italeri kits from long ago-

Want to post a reply to this topic?
Login or register for an acount to join our online community today!

A question on the Testors/Italeri kits from long ago-

  • When I was a child in the dark ages of modelling, I had two choices:

    (1) Tamiya, wonderful Tamiya, but a very limited range of products

    (2) Everything else. Lindberg, Revell, Airfix, etc.

     

    Then one day my local hobby shop had some kits by Testors/Italeri. They had an M4 Sherman, and a Hetzer. I'd built Testors kits and Italeri kits by themselves, and both were less than impressive. But the T/I kits seemed to be a cut above, and quickly became my favourites to build.

     

    Fast forward to now. I got my hands on two T/I kits, a Marder III and a Hetzer. The build quality isn't what my childhood memory thought it was, but it's still way better than Dragon/DML (my opinion only, I hate Dragon/DML kits, for the lack of quality in the parts fitment, and their instructions suck rocks.) and in the Hetzer at least, on par with some Tamiya I've built.

     

    But I'm curious where this teaming came from? I suppose these kits were nothing more than re-branded Italeri kits? Someone clue me in here please.

    [EDIT: Typos]

     

    Let's rattle the cage, crack the machine. Let 'em know who you are, shine to be seen.
    Replies to this thread are ordered from "newest to oldest".   To reverse this order, click here.
    To learn about more about sorting options, visit our FAQ page.
  • I suspect that is why there is an Italeri.  Sadly,  I enjoy there kits, but I don't enjoy the oob look they offer.  Most of the time they take more care to make an impression.
    Brian
  • Quality and detail of Italeri kits can be hit or miss(older kits seemed better), but yet they seem to do kits no one else will do(ie DUKW, LVT, etc)
  • ...Those two particular Zvezda kits are reboxed DML kits....

     

    Figures...I swear, it's going to be my curse, to buy a nice-looking kit, and find out it's a re-boxed DML one...

    Let's rattle the cage, crack the machine. Let 'em know who you are, shine to be seen.
  •  CarnivourousDonut wrote:

    I also recall doing the pries....errr......building the model kit of the priest. I also recall it was a good quality kit.

     Admittedly, I've only built 1 kit from Dragon, the StuG III with extra wide tracks, the directions were frustrating (vague in the extreme) and the individual track links will drive me to drink.

    Zvedya kits are identical (IMO), the parts fit better, but the directions are so vague as to be utterly useless. I speak for the BTR-70 and the StuG III Ausf. F (short barrelled 37 IIRC).

     I'd utterly hate to lose Tamiya, they are a top notch firm, which understand those of us who don't want to have a master's degree in physics to understand how the kit goes together.

    I'm going to try a Tristar kit soon, but currently I have enough on my bench (as do we all it seems)



    I haven't built a Tristar kit, but I've seen one of their Panzer IVs.  That had the most complex suspension I have ever seen on a kit.  It would have been insanely complex in 1/16 scale.  In 1/35, I don't think I could build it.  There were many, many parts that practically required a microscope to just see!

    I'm only exaggerating a very small bit here.  I think the construction of the suspension for each individual wheel was 15 parts.  That's per wheel.  I was slack jawed looking through the instructions.  I have never seen assemblies that complex in a plastic kit of any scale.

    Dragon kits have improved a lot over time.  The Stug IIIs were some of their first armor kits.  Some of their newer kits still have the individual track links and some have strips of injection molded track with a few individual links for the complex curves. 

    I built an Italeri Priest many moons ago.  I was in my early teens, so I wasn't as picky about a lot of things back then, but I recall it was a nice kit.

    Bill
  •  T26E4 wrote:
    Nice thread guys.  I'll add some thoughts here:

    To make a Sexton from the Italeri M7 kit would be asking too much.  The only thing that they shared in common was the suspension (and even here, the Priest has the upswept VVS).  The Sexton only looked somewhat like the M7.  Different gun (25pdr) different hull completely.  Although it would be welcome, I don't see Italeri doing it.

    "Doing an Academy M3 on a beach dio"  -- I'm not familiar with any beach landings with M3 Medium tanks.  Maybe there were some training excercises but M3s were delivered from the hulls of ships onto African or Pacific island shores.

    Recent Italeri: they did come with the SdKfz 231 (mixed reviews) but the Italian armored cars look to have been well received.



    Yes there were many differences between the Priest and Sexton, but at least the lower hull would be a good starting point. Or if they could backdate it to an early production M-7 with the M-3 style bogies and 3 piece transmission cover and other detail differences.

    M-3 Mediums were used in the assault at Makin in Nov '43. I dont know at what point they came ashore during Operation Torch in Nov 42. In either case, Italeri's LCM would do nicely for  delivery craft. LVT-1's were used in Torch, and at Makin, where the LVT-2 was used also.

    F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

    U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

    N is for NO SURVIVORS...

           - Plankton

    LSM

     

  •  CarnivourousDonut wrote:

    Zvedya kits are identical (IMO), the parts fit better, but the directions are so vague as to be utterly useless. I speak for the BTR-70 and the StuG III Ausf. F (short barrelled 37 IIRC).

    Those two particular Zvezda kits are reboxed DML kits.
  • I also recall doing the pries....errr......building the model kit of the priest. I also recall it was a good quality kit.

     

    Admittedly, I've only built 1 kit from Dragon, the StuG III with extra wide tracks, the directions were frustrating (vague in the extreme) and the individual track links will drive me to drink.

    Zvedya kits are identical (IMO), the parts fit better, but the directions are so vague as to be utterly useless. I speak for the BTR-70 and the StuG III Ausf. F (short barrelled 37 IIRC).

     

    I'd utterly hate to lose Tamiya, they are a top notch firm, which understand those of us who don't want to have a master's degree in physics to understand how the kit goes together.

    I'm going to try a Tristar kit soon, but currently I have enough on my bench (as do we all it seems)

    Let's rattle the cage, crack the machine. Let 'em know who you are, shine to be seen.
  • Nice thread guys.  I'll add some thoughts here:

    To make a Sexton from the Italeri M7 kit would be asking too much.  The only thing that they shared in common was the suspension (and even here, the Priest has the upswept VVS).  The Sexton only looked somewhat like the M7.  Different gun (25pdr) different hull completely.  Although it would be welcome, I don't see Italeri doing it.

    "Doing an Academy M3 on a beach dio"  -- I'm not familiar with any beach landings with M3 Medium tanks.  Maybe there were some training excercises but M3s were delivered from the hulls of ships onto African or Pacific island shores.

    Recent Italeri: they did come with the SdKfz 231 (mixed reviews) but the Italian armored cars look to have been well received.



    Roy Chow 

    President, AMPS

    http://www.amps-armor.org

     

     

  •  MortarMagnet wrote:
    Even making sure every kit has plastic around the parts trees would be a nice improvement.Smile [:)]  I do like their kits though.  I don't think they have the same value as the others though.
    I agree, that's why I said they peaked in the 80s. Their newer kits like the HEMTT, 5 tons, M113/901/163, M1A2, are not as good quality as their 1980s kits. Great subjects though.
  • I highly reccomend the LVT's. I have built the -4 completely and loved every moment of it! I have almost completed the -1A and it is just as neat of a kit! For a diorama idea with new Academy Lee, maybe a 8th Army Crusader meeting a II Corps Lee in Tunisia? The LVT's would go great with Academy's M4A2...

    F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

    U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

    N is for NO SURVIVORS...

           - Plankton

    LSM

     

  • I'll echo the comments on the Crusader series. Really nice bit of plastic. Ditto with the Valentine. Every time I go to one of my many LHS', I keep casting an eye at their LVT 1 or 4. But something keeps dragging me away... I've got a gut feeling, I should drop some coin for one of them & give it a bash, & I'll be a really happy camper. Maybe do up a beach dio with Academy's forthcoming updated Lee?
  • Italeri still does some decent kits that other folks seem to ignore. Top of the list are their WWII Amtracs and DUKW! The different recent releases of the Crusader, Mk I, Mk II, and the AA variant are also great additions to any collection. And their re-issue of the M-24 with the WWII style tracks is another great gap filler. Now if they would only re-issue the M-7 as a Sexton, and an initial production variant. I sure hope they don't fade away...

    F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

    U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

    N is for NO SURVIVORS...

           - Plankton

    LSM

     

  • We should tell the powers that be.
    Brian
  •  MortarMagnet wrote:
    Oh.Sad [:(]  We keep talking back and forth in semi-real-time.

    Would be nice if FSM had a real time live chat room