Older Tamiya kits?

tigerman

The older Semovente is a nice kit, but definitely needs AM tracks. I also wish it had clear lenses for the lights.

 

get the re issue. They updated the tracks (link and length I believe) and crew figures... 

tigerman

The older Semovente is a nice kit, but definitely needs AM tracks. I also wish it had clear lenses for the lights.

 

The older Semovente is a nice kit, but definitely needs AM tracks. I also wish it had clear lenses for the lights.

Panzer Madness

Yep. Upon closer inspection I'll leave it alone, (the Tiger), and repair the diorama base. Too much work will have to go into it better spent on a newer kit with better details. Anyone has a suggestion as to what kit best reflects the first tigers from '43? (BTW, I havent built anything since 2009). 

 

Yep. Upon closer inspection I'll leave it alone, (the Tiger), and repair the diorama base. Too much work will have to go into it better spent on a newer kit with better details. Anyone has a suggestion as to what kit best reflects the first tigers from '43? (BTW, I havent built anything since 2009). 

Sometimes the cost of upgrading an outdated kit exceeds the price of a new kit. Tamiya's KV kit is ancient but decent, yet the tracks are the old motorized type with smooth inner face and only a token guide tooth detail. The cost of aftermarket tracks would about equal or exceed (depending on if you bought metal Fruils or plastic) the cost of the very nice Trumpeter KV kits.

As far as the ancient Tamiya Tiger I, I think the similar smooth inner tracks and the asymmetrical turret as well as a host of other inaccuracies that have long since been discovered and worked into newer kits.

I've often said it is unfair to compare a kit designed in the 1970s with one designed in the 2000s.

Phil_H.....Funny you should mention that kit. I'm digging out a damaged 22 year old diorama that is salvageable. The historical research on the topic, (Sicily Tiger tank 2/504), was flawed. I had used the classic Tamiya Kit 35056A for this build. I welcome any suggestions on kit defects that need correction. The tracks absolutely are vinyl junk. So that would be a good starting point. Any metal or plastic individual link track suggestions are also welcomed. However, I do not agree that it's a horrible kit. In fact it looks very good and builds very well. Nothing that cant be simply upgraded by today's standard. But then again I've researched up and down the www on kit flaws about this kit and cant find anything other than the same comment that it's a terrible kit. Perhaps some people can eleborate and share their reasons why they think this kit is so bad? I'll try to post a pic of what's left of it. My memory of building this kit is gone. But looking at it it really really has some nice detail and crisp parts, (not scratch built). Any ideas are much appreciated....

I have a bunch of old Tamiya armor kits that have followed me around for the past 30 years.  No, they are not up to current standards, but are fun to build.  

I just finished an out of print T-34/76 1942 production kit, and I think it looks pretty good (and yes, I used mud to cover up a mistake ).  Currently working on a KV-1 with a date printed on the bottom of the kit of 1972.  The build has been very straightforward, but detail is lacking.  You could spend some time and possibly $$ on improvements to make the kit better, but you are probably better off getting a newer kit. 

They are, however, fantastic as learning kits.  I am still cutting my teeth, so to speak, so they have been a lot of fun, and if I screw up the kit, it isn't a big deal.  The construction is not stressful, so you can learn the basics, and then go to town on weathering techniques.  

Rob Gronovius

 

stikpusher

Now the beauty of armor is that most goofs can be covered with mud weathering... 

 

or stowage...

 

 

 

 

Or as battle damage.

 

 

stikpusher

Now the beauty of armor is that most goofs can be covered with mud weathering... 

 

or stowage...

 

Now the beauty of armor is that most goofs can be covered with mud weathering... 

or stowage...

If you don't screw up once in a while then you're not trying hard enough lol. Part of modeling is learning how to correct those mistakes.

Dont give up on it just yet. Try painting over those bad scratches with a bit of sponge dabbed in the base color. Then dab it over the effected areas.

You might be surprised. ;)

[quote user="Rob Gronovius"Anyway, comparing what is regarded as one of the top Sherman tank kits today to a 40 yr old kit is harsh.[/quote]

I actually agree. I didn't mean to imply that the Type 97 was a bad kit, I simply thought it was interesting to see how far the hobby has come over the last few decades. The expectations among modelers have risen, leading to better kits.

Anyway, I painted it today and it looked quite good for an old kit. Then I screwed it up by attempting to simulate paint chipping. Looks terrible and smudgy.

I need to learn when to leave well enough alone. 

I find that the older kits still build up nicely with a ton of TLC.

I have picked up the new Easy 8, but haven't started it yet. It looks like a phenominal kit even in the box. :)

Tamiya kits are always a treat for me.

Up until about 10 years ago, this was one of the better IJA tank kits. Fine Molds and Dragon have put out nicer versions since, but for $10, it can't be beat. Tamiya was notorious for having hollow sponsons (the area under the upper hull above the tracks). Many modelers "blank" off this area with sheet styrene to cover the gap.

This kit was updated in 1987 and released as the Shinhoto with a new turret and upper hull.

Anyway, comparing what is regarded as one of the top Sherman tank kits today to a 40 yr old kit is harsh.

An update:

I found an old Tamiya Type 97 Chi-Ha for $10 at my LHS, and decided to give it a go. The hull is stamped 1975. I thought it would be interesting to compare this old kit to the new Easy Eight I had recently built. 

My impression so far is that the Type 97 is not bad for an old kit, probably better than most of what was available in 1975. The fit is OK, not great. There are noticeable gaps between the top and bottom parts of the hull. The structure immediately under the turret (sorry, don't know what it's called) has gaps where it meets the upper hull. Not terrible, but noticeable. As compared to the new kit, well...there really is no comparison.

The main difference is that details are somewhat simplified. Again, not terrible, but far less detailed than the newer kit. 

Overall, not a bad kit and definitely worth $10! As compared to the newer kit, however, it seems somewhat simplistic and dated. 

The Churchill MKVII builds into a decent model.  

Thinking of Blasts From The Past, I see that Tamiya have re-released their Centurion MkIII.  That kit is nearly as old as the real thing!  With a new MkI incoming from AFV Club, one might have thought a re-tool was in order for the MkIII.

Phil_H

 

 

stikpusher

Oh yes... and their Kfz 250’s, 221, and 222 are fun kits.

 

 

 

IIRC, the 250's were Tamiya's first kits with link and length tracks. Both are nice kits of early '80's vintage.

 

That sounds about right... the Rommel 250 “Greif” was my first link and length track build when it was a new release. i did not build the other one until many years later. 

I think that you're right, Phil. I want to say that my first encounter with link and length tracks was Tamiya's 250/3. The kit came with decals for Rommel's "Grief" and a number of DAK figures, including one of the field marshall himself. That was a great kit that I still have very fond memories of building!

stikpusher

Oh yes... and their Kfz 250’s, 221, and 222 are fun kits.

IIRC, the 250's were Tamiya's first kits with link and length tracks. Both are nice kits of early '80's vintage.

Oh yes... and their Kfz 250’s, 221, and 222 are fun kits.

Motorcycle with sidecar, Kettenkrad, 4x2 Opel Blitz and 6x4 Protze truck. Plus the various towed 2cm and 3.7 cm weapons. 

The Pak 40 7.5 cm anti-tank gun is a classic.

But my real favorite:

Their older T-34 and KV family kits are also decent. But like many of the others mentioned, they have been surpassed by newer kits. If you can find one for a good price, they are worth it. Also the Marder II, SAS Jeep, and LRDG Chevy are still good kits to build.

Roald

 

 

Rob Gronovius

You also have to clarify by what you considered "older". I was thinking about their kits from the 1970s and 1980s that were often designed to be motorized.

 

 

Yes, I was referring to the old 70s kits that you can pick up for very cheap. The old Tigers, Hanomag, etc. 

The Easy Eight that I built is the newer 2015 release. It was excellent. I assume, however, that level of fit and finish is only available on the newer more expensive kits. 

 

I assume you had just completed the very new Easy 8. They are reissuing it as a Korean War version with some updated parts appropriate for that era. Generally speaking, any of their 1990s, 2000s, 2010s kits are very good. Some may not be the best model of that particular subject (the late war M1A2s jump to mind), but others are quantum leaps beyond, like the M10 tank destroyer.

While they are not the super complicated kits like many Dragon kits and other newcomers' kits, they all build easily and are well-engineered.

Ahh, the question makes sense. Generally no, any kit from the 70's will not be up to that. Can't hurt to try a few and see what you think. 

Other options less expensive and difficult to build than Meng, Dragon, AFV etc. try Revell. Italeri made some nice models back when.