PDA

View Full Version : Pics For Set Iv Units

RommeL BombeR 77
06-01-2006, 02:49 PM
For those who were privelaged enough to recieve set IV units I am asking that you could post pics of units for size comparrison. Thankyou :)
RommeL BombeR 77
06-01-2006, 04:27 PM
C'mon Nobody!
AusDig
06-01-2006, 05:03 PM
Try this one.....


edit - sorry for small photo- trying to get a bigger one.
Kommandant
06-01-2006, 05:07 PM
Try this one.....

is that the spitfire there?(i'm pretty sure it is)
does it look like the 109?

man that destroyer looks amazing :D i have to get one this weekened,
even if i have to buy it on ebay :cool:
hornet69
06-01-2006, 05:19 PM
Try this one.....


edit - sorry for small photo- trying to get a bigger one.
nice pic .nice comparision shot
Dr_Strangelove
06-01-2006, 05:26 PM
I would like to report that the 88mm does NOT have a short, stubby little barrel. The barrel is actually the correct length contrary to what the official picture shows. On the other hand the barrel is probably a lot thicker in ratio than it should be. Of course this might offset some of the twisted barrel problem the 17 pounder had. I'm not so sure about the overall scale of the 88 compared to the armor miniatures; it is huge.
hornet69
06-01-2006, 05:30 PM
thanks i figured it might be
RommeL BombeR 77
06-01-2006, 06:52 PM
See thats what I was looking for. Do you happen to have an Amtrack? I heard they are huge and thnx :D
Muenchausen
06-01-2006, 07:05 PM
I would like to report that the 88mm does NOT have a short, stubby little barrel. The barrel is actually the correct length contrary to what the official picture shows. On the other hand the barrel is probably a lot thicker in ratio than it should be. Of course this might offset some of the twisted barrel problem the 17 pounder had. I'm not so sure about the overall scale of the 88 compared to the armor miniatures; it is huge.

Someone posted a picture in another thread and no , it does not have a short stubby barrel.
AusDig
06-01-2006, 08:07 PM
Don't have the Amtrack yet - it is one of the 3 missing figures from my case. Missing Amtrack, Jagdtiger and Churchill.
AusDig
06-01-2006, 08:11 PM
some more...
horacus
06-01-2006, 08:14 PM
Well, thanks AusDig. Now we only miss the Jagdtiger compared to a King Tiger.
RommeL BombeR 77
06-01-2006, 08:30 PM
too bad you dont have an AMTrack AUS., if you really want one check out the Trade forum they have some up for trade there
RommeL BombeR 77
06-01-2006, 08:31 PM
Man how is that Higgins even bagged?! It looks like it takes up half of the freakin booster box!
Lynx7725
06-01-2006, 09:00 PM
Hmm. 88mm's shooting at the ground.

Plenty of air in the booster for the Higgins, so not an issue there...
Kriegshund
06-01-2006, 09:07 PM
What are the real world dimensions of a Tiger I and a limbered 88? Im too lazy to look....


That 88 looks WAY too big......guess its on the same steroids as the PaK 40. Wish they would have saved some for the 3"..... :(
Lynx7725
06-01-2006, 09:08 PM
The 88 looks in scale with infantry. It's about right, based on what I remember from my 1/35 88mm.

Yes, it's a big gun.
Kriegshund
06-01-2006, 09:09 PM
Can 20 Midgets pile out of that Italian matchbox tank?
Lynx7725
06-01-2006, 09:10 PM
Nope, about 10 only.. it's only armed with machine guns, there's no real reason to make it that big.

Remember the Japanese tankette? I think it's more along those lines than an actual tank. Not too surprised; early tank doctrines (in the '20s and '30s) had some very wacky ideas.
AusDig
06-01-2006, 10:56 PM
As Lynx7725 said the Tanks and Soldiers are a different scale in all sets so the 88 looks crazy against a tank but OK against a soldier. The set looks pretty good as far as I can see but I don't have a huge issue with the quality of sculpts or painting - I figure I get what I pay for (except the Spitfire - that is a big issue!!!)