login   |    register
Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
Review
Ammo of Mig: King Tiger by AMMO
barkingdigger
Staff MemberAssociate Editor
ARMORAMA
#013
Visit this Community
England - East Anglia, United Kingdom
Joined: June 20, 2008
KitMaker: 3,567 posts
Armorama: 3,041 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 07, 2017 - 05:39 PM UTC


Mitko Nikitov takes a look inside the Ammo of MIG King Tiger in 1:35.

Read the Review

If you have comments or questions please post them here.

Thanks!
Taeuss
Visit this Community
Manitoba, Canada
Joined: January 03, 2016
KitMaker: 2,953 posts
Armorama: 2,943 posts
Posted: Friday, September 08, 2017 - 05:54 AM UTC
Like the 2 in 1 kit idea as the July 45 idea is always thought-provoking and to model it revealing. Looks nicely-detailed too, with a few noted exceptions. Shame it doesn't have a complete interior like the Takom offering.
hugohuertas
Visit this Community
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Joined: January 26, 2007
KitMaker: 1,022 posts
Armorama: 1,011 posts
Posted: Saturday, September 09, 2017 - 03:58 AM UTC
Even being a what-if, the proposed "July 1945" turret is completely inviable.
The regular Tiger II turret should have been significantly redesigned not only to accommodate the larger main gun, but also the stereoscopic rangefinder system.
There would be no way to place it in the space available under the "standard" Tiger II turret roof.
A "cheap" shortcut from the manufacturers to throw something "new" into the box, beside the decals...
Jupiterblitz
Joined: December 30, 2007
KitMaker: 878 posts
Armorama: 794 posts
Posted: Saturday, September 09, 2017 - 04:21 AM UTC
I don't understand why the reviewer has rated this kit that high (95%) even though he'd pointed out that one of the most
significant feature (the turret) hasn't been realised properly at all.

A verdict what is anything but convincing.

But still a helpful review only because Mitko saved potential buyers from misleading by mentioning the turret's issues (in relation with Hugo's notification).
brekinapez
Visit this Community
Georgia, United States
Joined: July 26, 2013
KitMaker: 1,915 posts
Armorama: 1,624 posts
Posted: Saturday, September 09, 2017 - 06:20 AM UTC
I could have sworn someone reviewed this when it first came out and all the stuff about the turret was discussed then.
Uruk-Hai
Visit this Community
Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: January 31, 2003
KitMaker: 795 posts
Armorama: 472 posts
Posted: Saturday, September 09, 2017 - 02:27 PM UTC
Mine is more or less finnished buildwise.

-The "tub" is warped and poor fit to the superstructure both front and backplate.
-The ring for the commanders cupola does not sit flush to the turret roof. After no luck with hollowing out I finally used wood working clamps to press it down.
-There is no MG-42 supplied with the kit.
-No parts so one can choose to display the drivers and radiooperators hatch in open position.
-The late enginedeck is a very tight fit. I had to sand down the outer borders on each side and rescribe panel line.

I found out about the turret roof to late and decided to let it go.

Cheers
hugohuertas
Visit this Community
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Joined: January 26, 2007
KitMaker: 1,022 posts
Armorama: 1,011 posts
Posted: Sunday, September 10, 2017 - 01:30 AM UTC

Quoted Text

I could have sworn someone reviewed this when it first came out and all the stuff about the turret was discussed then.



I know I myself had pointed this matter out on a previous post.

Have to agree with Jupiterblitz that the high rating given to this kit seems a bit exaggerated, but we all know that any rating is a subjective matter.
bill_c
Staff MemberCampaigns Administrator
MODEL SHIPWRIGHTS
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: January 09, 2008
KitMaker: 10,413 posts
Armorama: 7,998 posts
Posted: Sunday, September 10, 2017 - 10:59 PM UTC
Mitko is obviously very fond of the KT and wants to convey that enthusiasm in his review. When I was still an editor here, it was often difficult to persuade reviewers (especially those who purchased the kit with their own hard-earned money) that if you give a flawed kit you love a 95%, it doesn't leave you any margin for going higher for a really outstanding kit later on.
Removed by original poster on 09/12/17 - 09:36:54 (GMT).
dnikitov
Visit this Community
Nevada, United States
Joined: April 06, 2017
KitMaker: 2 posts
Armorama: 2 posts
Posted: Monday, September 11, 2017 - 02:29 PM UTC
Hey guys! Thank you for sharing your thoughts and I trust that you are absolutely correct with your own point of view. I gave 95% to this kit for two main reasons: First one is that this is a Limited Edition version. As such, it is a precious gift or collection piece by itself. For example, Starfighter from Eduard is gorgeous kit, 98% in my opinion. The plane itself is flawed and even the best kit so far is not so close to the original. The best kit as a plastic piece can be 100%, but the best replica is something different. If we are talking Starfighter for example, the whole thing can be rated with not more than 60%. That goes for every kit and here, I do not compare the What If with the original KT. Instead, I rate it as a kit solely - boxing, options, quality of plastic. Second reason that I had was the fact that the kit is simplified. Simplicity is the future in modeling, not the over-crowded kits with tons of interior parts. Simple reason for that - so many new subject coming out, that a life won't be enough for us to enjoy each and every one of them. So if one wants to build more, one should work faster. In general I am very fond of the KT, that is true. But I truly believe that this is one of the best kits on the market today. I liked it more compared to the others available and What If version in my opinion cannot be criticized because it is still: What if. It never happened, so nobody can speculate more than any other, how exactly this would've looked like. That was MIG's perspective, and I am glad to accept this view as much as any other.
I do appreciated the comments you made of course!
Thank you!
ninjrk
Visit this Community
Alabama, United States
Joined: January 26, 2006
KitMaker: 1,328 posts
Armorama: 1,294 posts
Posted: Monday, September 11, 2017 - 06:07 PM UTC
The turret really is a shame on this kit as the production line was planned when the war ended and engineering drawings had been produced for production. To me, MiG's response on this on-line about there's no way to know is a dodge of high degree to an oversight. More importantly to me, you get a copy of the fine Takom kits with a mix of new parts that often don't quite fit, a flawed turret, and no interior for the same cost as the Takom kit WITH interior. I accept the cost to an extant as we do get a new rear deck and as a limited run I don't expect the kit to cost the same. The fact that to be accurate to the finalized design requires modifying the kit roof or buying a resin replacement is kind of shoddy though.
hugohuertas
Visit this Community
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Joined: January 26, 2007
KitMaker: 1,022 posts
Armorama: 1,011 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 - 03:05 AM UTC

Quoted Text

I gave 95% to this kit for two main reasons: First one is that this is a Limited Edition version. As such, it is a precious gift or collection piece by itself.



Fair enough. Any review is to some degree a matter of the point of view of the reviewer.
I'm not so sure about the value of this kit as a collector subject, at least for the people who usually visit this forums.
I may be wrong but I believe that most of us are modelers, even the most lazy -like me myself- or "slow builders", instead of collectors like those people who'll never open an action figure blister -a la "The Big Bang Theory"-.
But again, this is just my point of view.
By the way, neither I think that Takom's Tiger II's are the best out there... just fine kits.


Quoted Text

Second reason that I had was the fact that the kit is simplified. Simplicity is the future in modeling, not the over-crowded kits with tons of interior parts.



Let's agree to disagree.
There is still an increasing trend to develop new kits with insanely high parts' counts, even inflating them with more and more complex tracks or redundant PE parts.
Of course there will always room for simplified kits aimed to not-so-fanatic modelers, but yet again I cannot see Takom as the easier choice, nor easier buildability for newbies or ocassional modelers -I may be biased because I don't like at all Takom's plastic-.

My last comment is related to the matter of the post-1945 option being a what-if, and so supposedly not a subject to questioning its eventual accuracy.
In this particular case it is not a matter of a what-if approach, but a fact of physical impossibility since there should be no way to accommodate the larger gun AND the rangefinder under the standard turret roof.
Of course, unless we accept that a fantasy or completely fictional model can be considered the same that what-ifs.
If so, OK, a jet-turbine powered E-100 can be a what-if too...

This is not intended to start a battle about your review.
Just sharing a different point of view and pointing out some noticeable things of the kit that are not as good as it can seem.

Just my last 0.02
hugohuertas
Visit this Community
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Joined: January 26, 2007
KitMaker: 1,022 posts
Armorama: 1,011 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 - 03:07 AM UTC

Quoted Text

The turret really is a shame on this kit as the production line was planned when the war ended and engineering drawings had been produced for production. To me, MiG's response on this on-line about there's no way to know is a dodge of high degree to an oversight. More importantly to me, you get a copy of the fine Takom kits with a mix of new parts that often don't quite fit, a flawed turret, and no interior for the same cost as the Takom kit WITH interior. I accept the cost to an extant as we do get a new rear deck and as a limited run I don't expect the kit to cost the same. The fact that to be accurate to the finalized design requires modifying the kit roof or buying a resin replacement is kind of shoddy though.



+1
It is not a minor thing, since the what-if version is one of the main marketing points of this release.
varanusk
Staff MemberManaging Editor
ARMORAMA
Visit this Community
Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain / Espaņa
Joined: July 04, 2013
KitMaker: 1,062 posts
Armorama: 759 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 - 03:28 AM UTC
The rating is probably the most subjective part of a review, so while I may or may not agree with it, the text is the key to form my own opinion.

Thanks for your review Mitko.