Matilda II in Braille scale - any good?

[KRK4m]

Yes, I know the answer - the ESCI/Polistil/Hasegawa/ERTL/Italeri/Revell one... But the problem is the availability - last time I've seen its latest incarnation (Italeri 7035) on the shelves was some 2010-11...

And since then we are left with toy-like S-Model, the Airfix (variously declared as 1:72 or 1:76) and the ancient 1:76 Fujimi kits. I don't hesitate to include these two here as the difference in hull lenght for the (properly scaled) 1:72 and 1:76 tanks is less than 4mm (and sometimes the one called "1:76" is bigger than another labelled as "1:72").

So my question is whether any of you has any experience with these four abovementioned Matilda kits? Is web-hunting for the Italian kit really the only way of getting the decent Matilda kit in Braille scale or can any of the other trio be substituted there with not-so-much difference in general appearance quality?

Cheers

Michael

 

[Graham Boak]

I had the Airfix one when it first appeared and thought it rather nice.  I didn't have the ESCI one because I held and still hold that 1/72 kits are decidedly bulkier than 1/76 - remember to cube the difference in scales when dealing with 3D objects!  (I agree that you have to be careful about just what scale is claimed for a model, but have found that that kits labelled as 1/72 are more likely to be  1/68th rather than 1/76.)  In the "good old days" of course you had to bend the rules a little for softskins, or your army would be totally without support.  Even then, just try fitting Opel Blitx conversion parts to an ESCI kit when they are designed for the Airfix - presumably vice versa would be even more odd in appearance. 

[Seahawk]

Both the Fujimi and Airfix kits are, or were initially claimed to be, 1/76.  Anything about the Airfix kit being 1/72 is just recent labelling confusion (they have had similar silly problems labelling the Sherman - it is not a M4A2, it is and always has been an M4 Sherman I).  Anyway, I had both kits long ago.  I though the Airfix kit had the edge on sharpness of moulding and delicacy of details.  However even on my newly-minted one, the turret MG was a shapeless blob (replace with one from an AX Crusader II) and, compared with the Fujimi kit, the turret was rather bare (no AA ammo boxes, no signal flag holder, no vane sight).  My inclination back 30 years ago was to buy Airfix using the Fujimi kit to pattern the missing details (and they were not always present on the real thing).  Now I think about it, the treatment of the tracks is also very different: Fujimi has a sort of dished-box style track link while the Airfix one has plain track links with raised treads over the actual link joins.  Flicking through Brian Perrett's The Matilda (Ian Allen, 1972), both styles are seen in the desert but the Fujimi pattern is more common whereas Australian Matildas in New Guinea are most often seen with the Airfix pattern.

 

With the track complication it becomes quite a close call, especially since I don't know how much flash there is on Airfix's perishable soft plastic tracks nowadays, but I might still just give the nod to the Airfix kit.

Edited March 23, 2019 by Seahawk

[Graham Boak]

I didn't have the Fujimi Matilda, but as I remember the Fujimi tracks were fairly poor, even by the standards of the time.

[KRK4m]

OK - so both are poor, but Airfix a very little less. But are they really in 1:76 or something like 1:73-75?

And nobody can compare them to the Chinese S-model?

I understand that Esci (Italeri/Revell/Hasegawa) is light years ahead...

Cheers

Michael

[Graham Boak]

The ESCI tanks weren't significantly better than the Airfix ones of the same generation, which includes the Matilda.  I believe that the Airfix Matilda was indeed 1/76, Airfix generally being a lot better at keeping close to scale than Hasegawa, for example.

[Seahawk]

2 hours ago, KRK4m said:

And nobody can compare them to the Chinese S-model?

Never heard of them.  Nowadays there are plenty of manufacturers out there, often from that neck of the woods, catering for people who evidently neither know nor care what the real thing looked like.  Can't fritter away money on them all.

2 hours ago, KRK4m said:

I understand that Esci (Italeri/Revell/Hasegawa) is light years ahead...

For all I know your source may be right.  I don't know: I've never seen one.

[Steve190]

KRK4m said,

"And since then we are left with toy-like S-Model,'

 

Have you been over to "Henk of Holland's" website and seen how detailed this kit builds up?    Far from toy-like. No link to link  tracks but that will give you something to detail. 

 

A quote from Henks site by Will Ward:'  
"Well done once again to S Model. At first glance I thought "not another Matilda", but they have chosen well to improve the modelling options, including with a CS version too. As with most of their models, they still manage to produce a quality model even taking into account the quick build compromises. )- Will Ward"

 

Here the link to S-Model kits:

 

https://henk.fox3000.com/sModel.htm

 

Hope this helps,

 

Steve

[KRK4m]

On 4/3/2019 at 1:19 AM, Steve190 said:

Have you been over to "Henk of Holland's" website and seen how detailed this kit builds up?    Far from toy-like. No link to link  tracks but that will give you something to detail. 

 

A quote from Henks site by Will Ward:'  
"Well done once again to S Model. At first glance I thought "not another Matilda", but they have chosen well to improve the modelling options, including with a CS version too. As with most of their models, they still manage to produce a quality model even taking into account the quick build compromises. )- Will Ward"

 

I don't condemn the S-Model kits as whole. I have built some of them (BMD, BMP, M113, Renault UE) but both Glen Porter at Missing-lynx and Simon Barnes at On-the-way praise the Italeri kit very high. A question remains (as I wanted to build a Mk.IV) whether the S-Model kit is the Mk.IV OOB. If so maybe it will be wiser to use it than to modify the (presumed to represent the Mk.III) Italian kit. 

Are the external differences between Mk.III and Mk.IV really difficult to be introduced?

Cheers

Michael   

Edited April 4, 2019 by KRK4m

[Nocoolname]

I thought 1/144 was 'braille scale'? 

[KRK4m]

11 hours ago, Nocoolname said:

I thought 1/144 was 'braille scale'? 

AFAIK in AFV modelling the term applies to 1:72 and ALL scales smaller than it (i.e. 1:76, 1:87, 1:100, a.s.o.).

In aviation modelling the 1:72 is called variously "one true scale" or "gentleman's scale" - maybe there "Braille" could be started from 1:144 down, but I haven't met such a name there yet.

The name (Braille) has been introduced some 20 years ago by the owners of Missing-Lynx web forum. Others have taken a liking to the phrase since then, and incorporated in their own websites 

Cheers

Michael 

 

[Ed Russell]

Isn't Braille Scale for people with impaired vision? Sort of implies 1/12 or 1/18 in AFVs.

Probably a term best left behind in the modern world lest you cause "outrage".

[Graham Boak]

I agree with you Ed.  I think Missing Lynx got it the wrong way round.  Just look at the number of posts from aging modellers saying how they can't do 1/76 or 1/700 any more because of failing eyesight.   I think we should be calling 1/48, 1/35, 1/350 as the Braille Scales, but I fear we are stuck with their mistake as it is now a common term.

[gamevender]

If you can find it, ESCi released a version of their Matilda with length and link tracks. They look much better than the rubber band ones.