Dragon Bison II

.

The Axis WWII discussion group is hosted by Tom Cockle and is dedicated to Axis armour of the Second World War.

Dragon Bison II

Joined: October 13th, 2006, 10:12 pm

May 27th, 2012, 10:00 pm #1

Harald Fitz published a report about dragons Bison II. He writes that it is nearly 10mm to narrow. The 10 grenades were transverse to the forward facing.In dragons model that is not possible.
Anybody else who have facts about this?
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: October 18th, 2004, 6:49 pm

May 27th, 2012, 10:49 pm #2

Roland,

It scales off exactly at 8'-6" which agrees with the dimension stated in Panzer Tracts No.10. Where does he get his information?

Regards,

Tom

Tom Cockle
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: April 20th, 2005, 1:04 pm

May 28th, 2012, 1:41 am #3

Harald Fitz published a report about dragons Bison II. He writes that it is nearly 10mm to narrow. The 10 grenades were transverse to the forward facing.In dragons model that is not possible.
Anybody else who have facts about this?
10mm, that's a huge difference of 35cm in real life?
The kit matches the Panzer Tracts dimensions as Tom mentioned and also matches exactly in width to the 1:35 plans in the Tank Power #247 15cm sIG 33 (sF) auf PzKpfw I/II/III book so I don't know where that information came from?

Cheers
Terry A
Last edited by terry_ashley on May 28th, 2012, 1:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: October 10th, 2004, 8:44 am

May 28th, 2012, 6:57 am #4

... back in WW2, from my limited German, that is what I understood. It's all in an article in the latest June issue of German magazine Modell Fan.

The hull is said to be to narrow, and it throws all proportions out, including the large stowage box. Again if I understand the article correctly it says the width was misinterpreted from wartime (tech intell?) report.

I read that article recently and must make a comparison with photos (author says the proportion problems of some items can deducted from wartime photos). I'll also take out my old Alan kit to see if it's similar or not.

I paid 45 Euros for this kit (not including postage) to find out later that the sprockets don't fit the tracks and that the superstructure is way off, oh well live and learn...

By the way I'm getting really tired of the mantra "it's accurate because it matches the Panzer Tracts drawings" especially when we get (Ostwind) "it doesn't match the earlier Panzer Tracts drawings but does match the new ones which are the one to be trusted because of new research".

Cheers,

Christophe
Last edited by ChristopheJacquemont on May 28th, 2012, 7:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: October 13th, 2006, 10:12 pm

May 28th, 2012, 8:35 am #5

Roland,

It scales off exactly at 8'-6" which agrees with the dimension stated in Panzer Tracts No.10. Where does he get his information?

Regards,

Tom
Thank you Tom for responding. He wirtes that Lothar Limprecht spoke to a veteran on the construction of the vehicle was involved.
The veteran describes some details of the vehicle. For example, 10 granades were stored in the vehicle. The position was at the engine bulkhead - transverse to the direction.
On page 81 in Achtung Panzer No. 7 you can see a drawing of this.
There exists a German description which a chain of track of 2.6 m talking (Kettenspur 2,6m = 8`6")
Panzer Tracts talking about vehicle wide 2,6m.
With Kettenspur 2,6m in Model the vehicle wide would be 85mm instead of 75mm it would be possible to store 10 granades as told.
all others are more subjective observation, but when I see original photos he was probably right.

Don´t understood me wrong. Dragon is a fanstastic brand an I love the models.
But the press of the market is enormous. At the moment I'am writing at a report - also modell fan-, about the RSO with 5 cm Pak.
It is a nice model but the lack of the tarpaulin and the 5 cm Pak in the box is for me incomprehensible. I just want the best for Dragon - but must be able to discuss.

Best regards
Roland

http://rolandgreth.blogspot.de/
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: March 5th, 2009, 8:53 pm

May 28th, 2012, 8:45 am #6

... back in WW2, from my limited German, that is what I understood. It's all in an article in the latest June issue of German magazine Modell Fan.

The hull is said to be to narrow, and it throws all proportions out, including the large stowage box. Again if I understand the article correctly it says the width was misinterpreted from wartime (tech intell?) report.

I read that article recently and must make a comparison with photos (author says the proportion problems of some items can deducted from wartime photos). I'll also take out my old Alan kit to see if it's similar or not.

I paid 45 Euros for this kit (not including postage) to find out later that the sprockets don't fit the tracks and that the superstructure is way off, oh well live and learn...

By the way I'm getting really tired of the mantra "it's accurate because it matches the Panzer Tracts drawings" especially when we get (Ostwind) "it doesn't match the earlier Panzer Tracts drawings but does match the new ones which are the one to be trusted because of new research".

Cheers,

Christophe
Thanks Christophe! As it happens the text you refer to is online (click "online blättern" ):

http://www.modellfan.de/

Regards,

Arjan
Last edited by ArjanWiskerke on May 28th, 2012, 10:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: January 23rd, 2006, 7:58 pm

May 28th, 2012, 9:37 am #7

Hello Guys
I have a scan of this plans how the storage was. Email me, if you want it.
It´s from an older german magazins in the 90´s, which came out here, as Alan did their model.
A scaleplan can always be so good, as the creator has knowlegde.
This vehicle didn´t survive. So mistakes can happen.
I don´t have the Dragon one. And it seems i will hold my Alan
best regards
Joerg
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: October 18th, 2004, 6:49 pm

May 28th, 2012, 12:11 pm #8

... back in WW2, from my limited German, that is what I understood. It's all in an article in the latest June issue of German magazine Modell Fan.

The hull is said to be to narrow, and it throws all proportions out, including the large stowage box. Again if I understand the article correctly it says the width was misinterpreted from wartime (tech intell?) report.

I read that article recently and must make a comparison with photos (author says the proportion problems of some items can deducted from wartime photos). I'll also take out my old Alan kit to see if it's similar or not.

I paid 45 Euros for this kit (not including postage) to find out later that the sprockets don't fit the tracks and that the superstructure is way off, oh well live and learn...

By the way I'm getting really tired of the mantra "it's accurate because it matches the Panzer Tracts drawings" especially when we get (Ostwind) "it doesn't match the earlier Panzer Tracts drawings but does match the new ones which are the one to be trusted because of new research".

Cheers,

Christophe
Christophe,

I imagine that anything is possible relating to the Bison II. It was also based on the most current research data available to us at the time. Regarding the Ostwind, are you suggesting the most current research by Jentz and Doyle should not be trusted? Since most other publications such as Nuts & Bolts cite their 14 year old Panzer Tracts No.12 as a reference source, it seems most logical to me that they must have come across more information that contradicted their original data since it was not repeated in the most current publication. I have also had some personal correspondence with Hilary Doyle that leads me to put more faith in the most current publication.

Regards,

Tom

Tom Cockle
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: June 4th, 2011, 7:09 pm

May 28th, 2012, 12:58 pm #9

Harald Fitz published a report about dragons Bison II. He writes that it is nearly 10mm to narrow. The 10 grenades were transverse to the forward facing.In dragons model that is not possible.
Anybody else who have facts about this?
It could be true, but there are no photographs of that part of the vehicle.

http://roman-bizarre.blogspot.com/
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: January 29th, 2006, 7:01 pm

May 28th, 2012, 1:05 pm #10

... back in WW2, from my limited German, that is what I understood. It's all in an article in the latest June issue of German magazine Modell Fan.

The hull is said to be to narrow, and it throws all proportions out, including the large stowage box. Again if I understand the article correctly it says the width was misinterpreted from wartime (tech intell?) report.

I read that article recently and must make a comparison with photos (author says the proportion problems of some items can deducted from wartime photos). I'll also take out my old Alan kit to see if it's similar or not.

I paid 45 Euros for this kit (not including postage) to find out later that the sprockets don't fit the tracks and that the superstructure is way off, oh well live and learn...

By the way I'm getting really tired of the mantra "it's accurate because it matches the Panzer Tracts drawings" especially when we get (Ostwind) "it doesn't match the earlier Panzer Tracts drawings but does match the new ones which are the one to be trusted because of new research".

Cheers,

Christophe
"By the way I'm getting really tired of the mantra 'it's accurate because it matches the Panzer Tracts drawings' especially when we get (Ostwind) 'it doesn't match the earlier Panzer Tracts drawings but does match the new ones which are the one to be trusted because of new research'."

Isn't this really saying: "It's accurate based upon the most current research", or that older books were "the best available at the time"? Maybe we expect that information about machines from 70 years ago should be static, but it appears that new stuff is still being found.

KL



Reply
Like
Share