


As for the dimensions, the basic ones can be found here. The detailed dimensions could be worked out from a scale blueprint, in conjunction with these.

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/g ... ed_Car.php
As long as the basic dimensions are pretty much correct, it doesn't matter a whole lot so long as the finer measurements are consistent within the model itself. Ideally, a visit to a museum with a tape measureSon of a gun-ner wrote:I will say one thing about dimensions on that site, I noticed a mistake with the Matilda length as well as some other dimensions elsewhere. And there is no point checking the dimensions using Wikipedia, because either Wikipedia get their dimensions from the tank encyclopedia site, or the other way around, I've noticed the identical mistakes on both sites, so, if I was a teacher, I'd know one was cheating on the test.
Interesting, but I often wonder where makers of RTR models, and kits in 1/35 get their dimensions from. Tamiya do send reps out, to get the vital statistics on armoured vehicles from Museums, and armour collections;Tiger6 wrote:I have serious doubts about using sites like Blueprints - their publically available images seem to have been scanned in from books or instruction sheets from various models, and I doubt the paid content is any better (honestly I wonder how they are still functioning, given the sheer volume of copyright infringement on display?).
Even in trying to knock up the basic space claim model for the other thread, I found inconsitancies between views in George Bradford's 'so called AFV Plans'At least if you have the kit in your hands you won't have these problems - it might well be wrong when compared with the real thing, but at least you won't be scratching your head trying to reconcile 2D side and top views that simply do not line up...
Always good to get more than one source, especially if that one source is George BradfordTaking an average of all of these seems the best way to go, in my opinion.