What do you think of Revell's new tool? Is it something you think you'd pick up and build or is it a whimper in the wider modelling world? Let me know your thoughts in the comments below!
Already bought it. I wanted it to complement their Type VIIs. I/72 is just a bit too big for me and I think 1/350 is too small for this size boat. I wish someone would do RN boats (and das werk release u-9 in this scale too)
Great review. Thank you. I think this would be perfect for an N Scale dockside diorama. Larger panel lines hidden “under water”, redo the railings and there you go.
The fact you built this without the use of tweezers is admirable, and yes, those railings are awfully big, and definitely need changing. Nice job Alex.
Having sworn that I wouldn't build any more 1/72 scale kits, what with dimming eyesight etc, my grandson bought me a Revell U Boat at..... 1/350! This is pocket-money price and very good value. Of course I had to build it. Fiddly was not the word, but I just couldn't take the out-of-scale railings which gave the model a toy-like look. So despite the world of pain involved I went for aftermarket PE, and the difference was incredible, well worth the trouble. I would highly recommend the same with this kit.
Thanks for the review, I'll probably wait for another version, but definitely want a snorkel. It certainly looks like a U-boat even OOB and sometimes I get tired of too much PE, but maybe new railings and an antenna will be enough...and of course scraping down the hull. I built one of the ancient 144 Revell Type VIIs way back in the 90's and that looks good enough, especially with a CAM Hurricane attacking it mounted on a 0.3 mm piece of thin steel wire. I mostly do 1:35 boats and subs plus a quite a few 1:350 ships and subs, plus some 1:72 battleship turrets and landing crafts (and viking baots and sailing ships) to go with them for comparison LOL, even though I vowed no 1:72 when I came back to the hobby the first time in the 90's (aircraft too small and no 1:72 subs then). Came back to the hobby again in 2014 with 1:35 WW 1 kits. Earlier there was only Emhar and Tauro and a few white metal and resin armoured cars. Did I mention that i have afew 1:144 kits like the Ratte, so had to get a Type 2 sub for comparison and a few tanks. OK I admit any excuse to self will do to build a kit i like...But no 1:72 subs, too large (but maybe i need to get one to go with the DORA in my stash? 🤔
What you called the hydrodynamic shield on the sail was a wind deflector so that the birdge crew had a bit of an easier time when on duty in high winds.
I agree with your other commentators - top opening boxes please! Lift off the lid and you have two ready made 'trays' to keep your kit bits in, end openers are an unhelpful pain for the modeller. I have made Revell's 1:72 scale type VII, the bloody thing is HUGE! This scale is going to be easier to display when complete. The nice thing about subs is all the lovely weathering/rust etc you can do. They make a nice change from my usual aircraft kits I generally build.
This kit seems to be in keeping with the same theme & sales target demographic established with their 1/144 scale Type VII C/41 boat (05100). Similar number of parts (small parts count), ridiculously thick oversize railings on a very prominent Wintergarten, exaggerated raised detail, chunky but fiddly small parts like the radar aerial & 37mm & X2 Zwilling 20mm Flak - can't hold the fiddly against them though, as they are what they are considering the necessities of scale. To put things in context, I'm an armour and aircraft builder. 1/35 for the former, 1/48 & increasingly 1/32 for the latter. I built 05100 about three years ago, which was a first (boat) since my childhood for me. After initial inspection of the kit, I had to go with an aftermarket PE detail set to deal with the chunk & missing detail. In my case the comprehensive Griffon N144B003 even though I'm not a huge fan of laboriously fiddly PE. Nevertheless it was worth it, but of course, slowed down the build disproportionately. In the end, I was well pleased with the result. I feel the same way about this new Type IX kit. IMV the target demographic for the 1/144 kit is the casual builder & adolescents. Revell want to keep it affordable and simple enough for them both to build and come away with an aesthetically pleasing standoff scale result once scrubbed up in its warpaint. It's not meant for attention to detail pedants like me as supplied OOTB. For those looking for that, it really requires purchase of an aftermarket detail set similar to as I described with the Griffon for the Type VIIC. If I was to go shipbuilding again with Revell's Type IX C, personally I'd shift up to 05166 and do it in 1/72 scale & lash out on an Eduard Big aftermarket set -Ed BIG5355. Not sure I could abide all that PE in 1/144 again, kudos to the nautical guys who do it all the time!
I AGREE ON THE BOXING… Also, REVELL needs to keep the lettering graphics’s out of the BOXART … Just bought the REVELL ISSUE 1/720 ARK ROYAL Aircraft Carrier/ Destroyer… It’s just a reissue of the 1960s kit…. just thought I’d share….. CHRIS 🇺🇸
The box type Revell uses, keeps being an issue for most modelers. Other than that and the weird color guide they do, these 1/144 scale kits are real fun. I've build a few of them and think they have indeed a good price-quality balance. 💥👍💥
I would say it's all about cost. Without looking into it I think it's MUCH cheaper to print a single sheet of thin card than to produce a 2 piece sturdy box, customers be damned.
@@RMillerism My understanding is that the box has to comply with German standards for minimising packaging in products. Not going to change, so might as well stop the same complaints every time - it is what it is. The comment about taking a couple of pages in the instructions for the paint callouts seems to miss the obvious - the booklet format requires pages in multiples of 4 & the other content goes to the last page. Might as well have something spread over pages that have to be there anyway as leave them blank. I enjoy your reviews - nicely shot, clear, & a relaxing, measured commentary. The "fingernails screeching down a blackboard" moments come for me with the reference to moulded parts as "cast" - these are injection moulded kits, made in injection moulds so the parts are moulded ! But that could just be me !
Alex, great review and comments. Shame about the raised details but seems pretty good value for money and with the size of the box, will no doubt seduce some modellers on the vfm alone.
One thing that bugs me about this release - yet another German U-Boat! Anybody reviewing the Submarine kits currently on the market would think that it was only the Germans who used subs during WWII! Please can some kit manufacturer put out a decent kit of a British sub? They look fantastic with their bulged forward end over the bow, and generally Right Whale shape with the pointed rear end to the outer hull, very attractive in my opinion. If you are unaware of them, look them up, 'T' and 'U' class had this profile, the 'S' and 'V' were more of a straight design without that characteristic forward bulge. UK subs played an important part in the war and their crews deserve a good kit to represent and recognise their sacrifice and participation in that conflict.
I feel the same way about 'not ANOTHER Spitfire!' 🙄 Perhaps whine to Airfix and ask them why they haven't tooled a Brit boat!?? Even if they weren't the most famous and prominent submarines of the second world war which pretty much makes them the most important and significant subjects to cover, Revell AG doing German Type VIII and IX U-Boats sits fine with me just like Zvezda doing Soviet and Russian submarines.
David R Lentz, Columbus, Ohio, USA (Thursday, 10 October, 2024) I quite appreciate you for your review and build here. Were I to assemble this kit, I would place it in close proximity to Revell Germany’s model in the same scale of the Fletcher-class destroyer (most of the 175 built had served in the Pacific Theatre of Operations [PTO]; I had read of one assigned to convoy duty in the North Atlantic, however), the two engaged in close-quarters combat, the latter falling under the withering assault of five 127 mm (5”) guns as the crew strive to return fire with its solitary 105 mm (4”) deck gun (my maths may be in error here). I might include a replica in this scale of a Flower-class Corvette, too! I very much enjoy on different levels your content (our interests sometimes overlap), your professional presentation, your urbane delivery, your dignified manner. I see online so little of all these. I must note that round 25:00 of your video, I found the largely white image too painfully bright for my eyes (to compensate for this, I have configured my laptop’s screen for a black workspace, green text, etc.), and I had to withdraw.
Thanks for the review... The Box is just packaging - less is good for kit's cost, but the kit is less than good because of those sprue-sized panel-lines. No buy, here. Respect
I like this kit very much and will get it Alex. In particular, I’m attracted by its anti-aircraft guns and the Schnorkel unit. Aftermarket 3D printed AA guns would be highly appreciated though. And I’m tempted to replace the railings with brass rod. Does anyone make 3D printed U-boat crewmen? 😊
No using that box for a build tray. 60 percent of the joy of a kit goes out the window with the end opening box. The Gato sub is the same. The 1/144 scale is identical to the 1/72 sub.
Like Airfix with their side openers, 🙄Revell's boxing protocol SUX. It's obviously an all in one visual marketing and cost cutting solution. FMM, Zvezda currently have the best boxing protocol by far of the mainstream kit makers. A sturdy rigid flip top plain cardboard inner box to protect all the contents, with a glam side opening outer box shelf marketing their product pretty much the same as Revell's box. If not wanting to go to that expense, a conventional top opener like pretty much everyone has. e.g. Tamiya, Hasegawa, Eduard, Dragon, Academy, HobbyBoss, Trumpeter, et al.
Thank you for the video! If it isnt too much to ask, next time could you not have your mouse cursor visible? its just slightly distracting in an otherwise brilliantly filmed and narrated video. Excited to see more excellent content.
Then I guess you don't do British stuff either, 'cause they were the most brutal colonizers and slave traders for centuries? Or do you deem them as the "good guys" instead?
I realise that I am in a minority when it comes down to end opening boxes 📦, but I disagree with the arguments against this type of box, I am more concerned with the models in removable lids and finding that everything is in one or two plastic bags, and if the box is oversized then the bag containing the sprue’s can slop around in transit causing sprue’s to rub together and can cause scratching and parts detaching from their sprue, and whilst detached parts won’t get away from you in a sealed bag once opened it is easy, especially for small pieces, for bits to go on a walkabout, scratching of parts is not to big an issue as long as they are not to deep or long, yes it’s extra work but not to the extent of ruining my hobby, obviously clear parts are a different matter, any scratching is hard to polish out and not always easy depending on severity and scale. The only drawback with end opening boxes 🗃️ is that you can’t use the inverted lid to hold in use sprue’s or pieces of assembled items. Having an end opening box does mean that putting assembled components in it would be a little difficult but, personally, I don’t want to put things back in the box, I prefer to use plastic storage boxes, cardboard boxes (boxes that the kit might have been delivered in or empty sweet 🍬 tins etc) or anything that can hold things safely out of harms way, for example, grandchildren’s inquisitive hands and feet that don’t slow down for anything, especially grandads model boxes. But what do I know?, I’m only 61 years old and I’m still learning about modelling and stuff associated with the hobby. Okay, now I have finished my semi-rant I will put my soapbox away and watch what I actually came here for………….The review. Surely the fact that this particular submarine was operated by the Royal Canadian Navy it would have lost the “U” boat designation and renamed in the Canadian Navy designation?, but you still referred to as a “U” boat when looking at the colour scheme, please enlighten me, I don’t know what the Canadian Submariners would have thought if they were serving on a submarine that retained its wartime designation, knowing that their vessel might, or should I say did, sink Canadian shipping vessels and/or Canadian Naval ships, I don’t think I could write what they might possibly have said, TH-cam bots would probably remove my comment or worse block/demonitise the video, and that would be unacceptable, suffice to say I don’t think the Canadians would be very happy. I realise that there are certain rules/laws that preclude German 🇩🇪 companies from using/producing the Swastika for or on their products, but it could have been resolved by making decals with the Swastika included on overseas market kits and without for domestic markets, they could have not supplied decals at all and reduced the price of the kit accordingly and left it to the individual buyers to source aftermarket decals. In my opinion it seems like the German authorities are trying to erase the history associated with the Swastika, but that is sheer nonsense and a waste of time. History has and always will remain and the Swastika is an integral component in that history, and if we were to allow it to be forgotten then we would be fools, after all the Swastika has been used for centuries by different countries and religions as a symbol of peace, long before the Nazis used it, I just think that trying to censor history in the way Germany has with anything linked to the Nazis is no longer necessary. Obviously all model makers have their own opinion about panel lines and recessed details and personally I don’t get overly bothered about them, if a model maker wants a perfect example of the subject matter then they will be prepared to put in the extra work that level of authenticity requires, but conversely if they just want to have the enjoyment of building a kit to the best of their ability that is their option, what gets me though is the model makers who are usually referred to as “Rivet Counters”, they can spoil their review and/or build videos by going on and on about surface details and true configurations, yes, mention glaring flaws or inaccuracy but that’s all the information potential buyers of a kit need, if it is or is not the kit for them then they are informed enough to look for the best kit for them. Having said all that the raised detail on this kit does seem excessive to me, and obviously you as well. I am not interested in making naval vessels in any way, shape or form, however I don’t think I would want to buy this kit, and based on your observations and experience with it I think Revell has got this particular kit wrong by not being as accurate as they should be and the kit quality seems pretty poor with the bowed parts and over complexity of some of the subassemblies. Thanks for the review, very well presented and informative. 😀👍🇬🇧🏴🇺🇦🇮🇱
Well you are indeed in the minority, and I can tell you as a retail owner that there's no "disagreement" about the boxes being weaker - that's just a fact. Also the fact that you put things into another box during the build is very telling about the utility of an end-opening box....so I'm not sure what your disagreement with the point is? Also, U-190 was indeed operated as HMCS U-190 for the remainder of her life. As U-boat is short for "Unterwasserboot" or "unterseeboot" (literally "Under-water or sea boat"), it's hardly anything other than descriptive
@@MannsModelMoments , first I would like to thank you for answering my question about the designation of U-190 when it was operating under the Canadian 🇨🇦 flag/Navy, I thought that submariners, being superstitious (at that point in time), they might have felt that it was bad luck to have it still designated as a U-boat, so that is a little surprising to me that it was left as the same designation, thank you for taking the time to answer my question. Going back to the “end opening” versus “top opening” model box types I was trying to make the point that it doesn’t bother me what style box my model is in, what is important is how the contents are protected with during transit, and that I don’t do anything differently whatever box they are in, it is my personal way of dealing with my builds, and as I said I know I am in a minority but that doesn’t mean that I am wrong about the way I view the box types, and what you being a retail owner has got to do with it I don’t know, does that somehow make you superior to me?, and there is no disagreement about end opening boxes being a weaker construction, but that is down to the materials used by Revell, and other manufacturers, a slightly thicker material used by those manufacturers would give the boxes better rigidity and therefore more durable during transit or for end users, I don’t know why you had to write your reply in such a dismissive and derogatory manner, a disagreement about what type of box people prefer is just that, a disagreement or opposing opinion, and I wrote my opinion down in an open and honest way, I wasn’t disrespectful of anyone else’s opinion or belief, and tbh I could be the only person in the world who didn’t agree with your opinion and I would not change MY opinion, I thought that social media platforms that allow people to express their opinions are there for honest discord and discussion, whatever point of view you hold, as long as those opinions stay within the boundaries of channel rules and are not trying to insight violence etc, and I expected that to be the case on your channel, but I was obviously wrong, good luck with the channel but I won’t be subscribed anymore, well after you reply I won’t.
@@allandavis8201 I'm sorry you felt I was being dismissive or derogatory - I wasn't, unfortunately the typed word often lacks the nuance and physical cues that we often rely on for context - I was merely saying that any end-opening box made of the same thickness of material will be weaker than a top-opener, and was asking what your disagreement with the opinion on end-opening boxes was given you reformat kits from them anyway. "Social" media is not very social because it's open to a lot of interpretation, but no offence was intended on my part. I wish you well - whether you choose to subscribe or not, and wish you happy modelling in the future.
@@MannsModelMoments I’m sorry as well, not for my opinion but for misconstruing your reply, I do understand that the written word lacks the visual nuances of the spoken word, and your point and apology is very welcome, I really appreciate the videos you make and really did not want to unsubscribe, which I will not be doing, I would just be “cutting off my nose to spite my face” and at my age it’s bad enough having grey hair and wrinkles. I really don’t want to carry on trying to explain my opinion, I think that I have said what I wanted to say and feel that it is time to agree to disagree on the subject, everyone can’t always agree on a particular point or topic, and I hope that you accept my apology for being a bit slow in realising that your reply was not meant to offend me, sorry for that. Having made my apologies I was wondering if you could put your experience with Naval Vessels to expert use, obviously there were many many naval vessels that were used by the axis forces during WWII that fell into Allied hands at the time of the signing of the declaration’s of surrender, I was wondering how the distribution of those vessels between the allies was agreed upon and by whom?, I have tried researching the subject of how the airborne assets were dealt with but I cannot find much information about it, it seems that it was a first come first served policy, and led to “operation paperclip” which seems to have favoured the United States 🇺🇸 more than any other allied country, was it the same for Naval and Army assets?. Once again sorry for misconstruing your reply, I hope that I have not offended you too much, and I look forward to watching more of your content and your build’s, that is if you don’t block me for being a troublesome viewer.
What do you think of Revell's new tool? Is it something you think you'd pick up and build or is it a whimper in the wider modelling world? Let me know your thoughts in the comments below!
Already bought it. I wanted it to complement their Type VIIs. I/72 is just a bit too big for me and I think 1/350 is too small for this size boat.
I wish someone would do RN boats (and das werk release u-9 in this scale too)
i build 1/350 scale ships so this is kinda in my wheelhouse, that being said...naw, ill stick stick with Tamiya
@@nickbrough8335 Definitely want the U-9
Great review. Thank you.
I think this would be perfect for an N Scale dockside diorama.
Larger panel lines hidden “under water”,
redo the railings and there you go.
The fact you built this without the use of tweezers is admirable, and yes, those railings are awfully big, and definitely need changing. Nice job Alex.
Having sworn that I wouldn't build any more 1/72 scale kits, what with dimming eyesight etc, my grandson bought me a Revell U Boat at..... 1/350! This is pocket-money price and very good value. Of course I had to build it. Fiddly was not the word, but I just couldn't take the out-of-scale railings which gave the model a toy-like look. So despite the world of pain involved I went for aftermarket PE, and the difference was incredible, well worth the trouble. I would highly recommend the same with this kit.
I've built 2 of those, once every year, just to compare how my skill improves
Thanks for the review, I'll probably wait for another version, but definitely want a snorkel. It certainly looks like a U-boat even OOB and sometimes I get tired of too much PE, but maybe new railings and an antenna will be enough...and of course scraping down the hull. I built one of the ancient 144 Revell Type VIIs way back in the 90's and that looks good enough, especially with a CAM Hurricane attacking it mounted on a 0.3 mm piece of thin steel wire. I mostly do 1:35 boats and subs plus a quite a few 1:350 ships and subs, plus some 1:72 battleship turrets and landing crafts (and viking baots and sailing ships) to go with them for comparison LOL, even though I vowed no 1:72 when I came back to the hobby the first time in the 90's (aircraft too small and no 1:72 subs then). Came back to the hobby again in 2014 with 1:35 WW 1 kits. Earlier there was only Emhar and Tauro and a few white metal and resin armoured cars. Did I mention that i have afew 1:144 kits like the Ratte, so had to get a Type 2 sub for comparison and a few tanks. OK I admit any excuse to self will do to build a kit i like...But no 1:72 subs, too large (but maybe i need to get one to go with the DORA in my stash? 🤔
What you called the hydrodynamic shield on the sail was a wind deflector so that the birdge crew had a bit of an easier time when on duty in high winds.
Thanks for the info
I agree with your other commentators - top opening boxes please! Lift off the lid and you have two ready made 'trays' to keep your kit bits in, end openers are an unhelpful pain for the modeller. I have made Revell's 1:72 scale type VII, the bloody thing is HUGE! This scale is going to be easier to display when complete. The nice thing about subs is all the lovely weathering/rust etc you can do. They make a nice change from my usual aircraft kits I generally build.
I made this one a couple of weeks ago and was my first submarine. I thoroughly enjoyed it and it is a bargain.
This kit seems to be in keeping with the same theme & sales target demographic established with their 1/144 scale Type VII C/41 boat (05100). Similar number of parts (small parts count), ridiculously thick oversize railings on a very prominent Wintergarten, exaggerated raised detail, chunky but fiddly small parts like the radar aerial & 37mm & X2 Zwilling 20mm Flak - can't hold the fiddly against them though, as they are what they are considering the necessities of scale.
To put things in context, I'm an armour and aircraft builder. 1/35 for the former, 1/48 & increasingly 1/32 for the latter. I built 05100 about three years ago, which was a first (boat) since my childhood for me. After initial inspection of the kit, I had to go with an aftermarket PE detail set to deal with the chunk & missing detail. In my case the comprehensive Griffon N144B003 even though I'm not a huge fan of laboriously fiddly PE. Nevertheless it was worth it, but of course, slowed down the build disproportionately. In the end, I was well pleased with the result.
I feel the same way about this new Type IX kit. IMV the target demographic for the 1/144 kit is the casual builder & adolescents. Revell want to keep it affordable and simple enough for them both to build and come away with an aesthetically pleasing standoff scale result once scrubbed up in its warpaint. It's not meant for attention to detail pedants like me as supplied OOTB. For those looking for that, it really requires purchase of an aftermarket detail set similar to as I described with the Griffon for the Type VIIC.
If I was to go shipbuilding again with Revell's Type IX C, personally I'd shift up to 05166 and do it in 1/72 scale & lash out on an Eduard Big aftermarket set -Ed BIG5355. Not sure I could abide all that PE in 1/144 again, kudos to the nautical guys who do it all the time!
I AGREE ON THE BOXING…
Also, REVELL needs to keep the lettering graphics’s out of the BOXART …
Just bought the REVELL ISSUE 1/720 ARK ROYAL Aircraft Carrier/ Destroyer…
It’s just a reissue of the 1960s kit….
just thought I’d share…..
CHRIS 🇺🇸
Cool model. 👍 Have a great paint job. 🖌
Thanks 👍
The box type Revell uses, keeps being an issue for most modelers. Other than that and the weird color guide they do, these 1/144 scale kits are real fun. I've build a few of them and think they have indeed a good price-quality balance. 💥👍💥
I would say it's all about cost. Without looking into it I think it's MUCH cheaper to print a single sheet of thin card than to produce a 2 piece sturdy box, customers be damned.
@@RMillerism My understanding is that the box has to comply with German standards for minimising packaging in products. Not going to change, so might as well stop the same complaints every time - it is what it is. The comment about taking a couple of pages in the instructions for the paint callouts seems to miss the obvious - the booklet format requires pages in multiples of 4 & the other content goes to the last page. Might as well have something spread over pages that have to be there anyway as leave them blank.
I enjoy your reviews - nicely shot, clear, & a relaxing, measured commentary. The "fingernails screeching down a blackboard" moments come for me with the reference to moulded parts as "cast" - these are injection moulded kits, made in injection moulds so the parts are moulded ! But that could just be me !
Those things you called flanged hatches are water proof ammo containers.
Alex, great review and comments. Shame about the raised details but seems pretty good value for money and with the size of the box, will no doubt seduce some modellers on the vfm alone.
One thing that bugs me about this release - yet another German U-Boat! Anybody reviewing the Submarine kits currently on the market would think that it was only the Germans who used subs during WWII! Please can some kit manufacturer put out a decent kit of a British sub? They look fantastic with their bulged forward end over the bow, and generally Right Whale shape with the pointed rear end to the outer hull, very attractive in my opinion. If you are unaware of them, look them up, 'T' and 'U' class had this profile, the 'S' and 'V' were more of a straight design without that characteristic forward bulge. UK subs played an important part in the war and their crews deserve a good kit to represent and recognise their sacrifice and participation in that conflict.
or Italian, Japanese, Russian....
@@Mike-mm4mx Yup, a bit more representation for the other nations involved please!
I feel the same way about 'not ANOTHER Spitfire!' 🙄 Perhaps whine to Airfix and ask them why they haven't tooled a Brit boat!?? Even if they weren't the most famous and prominent submarines of the second world war which pretty much makes them the most important and significant subjects to cover, Revell AG doing German Type VIII and IX U-Boats sits fine with me just like Zvezda doing Soviet and Russian submarines.
I would like to see a 1/72 scale model of the U-47.
David R Lentz, Columbus, Ohio, USA (Thursday, 10 October, 2024)
I quite appreciate you for your review and build here. Were I to assemble this kit, I would place it in close proximity to Revell Germany’s model in the same scale of the Fletcher-class destroyer (most of the 175 built had served in the Pacific Theatre of Operations [PTO]; I had read of one assigned to convoy duty in the North Atlantic, however), the two engaged in close-quarters combat, the latter falling under the withering assault of five 127 mm (5”) guns as the crew strive to return fire with its solitary 105 mm (4”) deck gun (my maths may be in error here).
I might include a replica in this scale of a Flower-class Corvette, too!
I very much enjoy on different levels your content (our interests sometimes overlap), your professional presentation, your urbane delivery, your dignified manner. I see online so little of all these. I must note that round 25:00 of your video, I found the largely white image too painfully bright for my eyes (to compensate for this, I have configured my laptop’s screen for a black workspace, green text, etc.), and I had to withdraw.
Thanks for the review... The Box is just packaging - less is good for kit's cost, but the kit is less than good because of those sprue-sized panel-lines. No buy, here. Respect
I like this kit very much and will get it Alex. In particular, I’m attracted by its anti-aircraft guns and the Schnorkel unit. Aftermarket 3D printed AA guns would be highly appreciated though. And I’m tempted to replace the railings with brass rod. Does anyone make 3D printed U-boat crewmen? 😊
There are certainly STL files for U-boat crews
@@MannsModelMoments will need to get them printed somewhere. Or dive into getting and operating a 3D printer myself. 🤔
Been wanting to do a sub for the first time... for the money... may as well. I would like fo mod it. But not photo etch...
The two pages cost nothing, if you cannot reduce the brochure by 4 pages / one stapled sheet.
No using that box for a build tray. 60 percent of the joy of a kit goes out the window with the end opening box. The Gato sub is the same. The 1/144 scale is identical to the 1/72 sub.
Like Airfix with their side openers, 🙄Revell's boxing protocol SUX. It's obviously an all in one visual marketing and cost cutting solution. FMM, Zvezda currently have the best boxing protocol by far of the mainstream kit makers. A sturdy rigid flip top plain cardboard inner box to protect all the contents, with a glam side opening outer box shelf marketing their product pretty much the same as Revell's box. If not wanting to go to that expense, a conventional top opener like pretty much everyone has. e.g. Tamiya, Hasegawa, Eduard, Dragon, Academy, HobbyBoss, Trumpeter, et al.
Thank you for the video! If it isnt too much to ask, next time could you not have your mouse cursor visible? its just slightly distracting in an otherwise brilliantly filmed and narrated video. Excited to see more excellent content.
if it was a good guys submarine I'd consider it
Then I guess you don't do British stuff either, 'cause they were the most brutal colonizers and slave traders for centuries? Or do you deem them as the "good guys" instead?
Surely that thing can't be an original Revell moulding.......
And yet...it is!
for a 2024 new tool, i expected much much better quality in terms of detail.
not as good as typeVII of revell
Unsubscribed
Why ? Its just a box opening
I'm happy to have someone calling themselves "The Hate Speech Channel" removing themselves from me.
@@MannsModelMomentslol i can understand that
@@MannsModelMoments Exactly. I found this interesting and enjoyable 😊
I realise that I am in a minority when it comes down to end opening boxes 📦, but I disagree with the arguments against this type of box, I am more concerned with the models in removable lids and finding that everything is in one or two plastic bags, and if the box is oversized then the bag containing the sprue’s can slop around in transit causing sprue’s to rub together and can cause scratching and parts detaching from their sprue, and whilst detached parts won’t get away from you in a sealed bag once opened it is easy, especially for small pieces, for bits to go on a walkabout, scratching of parts is not to big an issue as long as they are not to deep or long, yes it’s extra work but not to the extent of ruining my hobby, obviously clear parts are a different matter, any scratching is hard to polish out and not always easy depending on severity and scale.
The only drawback with end opening boxes 🗃️ is that you can’t use the inverted lid to hold in use sprue’s or pieces of assembled items. Having an end opening box does mean that putting assembled components in it would be a little difficult but, personally, I don’t want to put things back in the box, I prefer to use plastic storage boxes, cardboard boxes (boxes that the kit might have been delivered in or empty sweet 🍬 tins etc) or anything that can hold things safely out of harms way, for example, grandchildren’s inquisitive hands and feet that don’t slow down for anything, especially grandads model boxes. But what do I know?, I’m only 61 years old and I’m still learning about modelling and stuff associated with the hobby.
Okay, now I have finished my semi-rant I will put my soapbox away and watch what I actually came here for………….The review.
Surely the fact that this particular submarine was operated by the Royal Canadian Navy it would have lost the “U” boat designation and renamed in the Canadian Navy designation?, but you still referred to as a “U” boat when looking at the colour scheme, please enlighten me, I don’t know what the Canadian Submariners would have thought if they were serving on a submarine that retained its wartime designation, knowing that their vessel might, or should I say did, sink Canadian shipping vessels and/or Canadian Naval ships, I don’t think I could write what they might possibly have said, TH-cam bots would probably remove my comment or worse block/demonitise the video, and that would be unacceptable, suffice to say I don’t think the Canadians would be very happy.
I realise that there are certain rules/laws that preclude German 🇩🇪 companies from using/producing the Swastika for or on their products, but it could have been resolved by making decals with the Swastika included on overseas market kits and without for domestic markets, they could have not supplied decals at all and reduced the price of the kit accordingly and left it to the individual buyers to source aftermarket decals. In my opinion it seems like the German authorities are trying to erase the history associated with the Swastika, but that is sheer nonsense and a waste of time. History has and always will remain and the Swastika is an integral component in that history, and if we were to allow it to be forgotten then we would be fools, after all the Swastika has been used for centuries by different countries and religions as a symbol of peace, long before the Nazis used it, I just think that trying to censor history in the way Germany has with anything linked to the Nazis is no longer necessary.
Obviously all model makers have their own opinion about panel lines and recessed details and personally I don’t get overly bothered about them, if a model maker wants a perfect example of the subject matter then they will be prepared to put in the extra work that level of authenticity requires, but conversely if they just want to have the enjoyment of building a kit to the best of their ability that is their option, what gets me though is the model makers who are usually referred to as “Rivet Counters”, they can spoil their review and/or build videos by going on and on about surface details and true configurations, yes, mention glaring flaws or inaccuracy but that’s all the information potential buyers of a kit need, if it is or is not the kit for them then they are informed enough to look for the best kit for them. Having said all that the raised detail on this kit does seem excessive to me, and obviously you as well.
I am not interested in making naval vessels in any way, shape or form, however I don’t think I would want to buy this kit, and based on your observations and experience with it I think Revell has got this particular kit wrong by not being as accurate as they should be and the kit quality seems pretty poor with the bowed parts and over complexity of some of the subassemblies.
Thanks for the review, very well presented and informative. 😀👍🇬🇧🏴🇺🇦🇮🇱
Well you are indeed in the minority, and I can tell you as a retail owner that there's no "disagreement" about the boxes being weaker - that's just a fact. Also the fact that you put things into another box during the build is very telling about the utility of an end-opening box....so I'm not sure what your disagreement with the point is?
Also, U-190 was indeed operated as HMCS U-190 for the remainder of her life. As U-boat is short for "Unterwasserboot" or "unterseeboot" (literally "Under-water or sea boat"), it's hardly anything other than descriptive
@@MannsModelMoments , first I would like to thank you for answering my question about the designation of U-190 when it was operating under the Canadian 🇨🇦 flag/Navy, I thought that submariners, being superstitious (at that point in time), they might have felt that it was bad luck to have it still designated as a U-boat, so that is a little surprising to me that it was left as the same designation, thank you for taking the time to answer my question.
Going back to the “end opening” versus “top opening” model box types I was trying to make the point that it doesn’t bother me what style box my model is in, what is important is how the contents are protected with during transit, and that I don’t do anything differently whatever box they are in, it is my personal way of dealing with my builds, and as I said I know I am in a minority but that doesn’t mean that I am wrong about the way I view the box types, and what you being a retail owner has got to do with it I don’t know, does that somehow make you superior to me?, and there is no disagreement about end opening boxes being a weaker construction, but that is down to the materials used by Revell, and other manufacturers, a slightly thicker material used by those manufacturers would give the boxes better rigidity and therefore more durable during transit or for end users, I don’t know why you had to write your reply in such a dismissive and derogatory manner, a disagreement about what type of box people prefer is just that, a disagreement or opposing opinion, and I wrote my opinion down in an open and honest way, I wasn’t disrespectful of anyone else’s opinion or belief, and tbh I could be the only person in the world who didn’t agree with your opinion and I would not change MY opinion, I thought that social media platforms that allow people to express their opinions are there for honest discord and discussion, whatever point of view you hold, as long as those opinions stay within the boundaries of channel rules and are not trying to insight violence etc, and I expected that to be the case on your channel, but I was obviously wrong, good luck with the channel but I won’t be subscribed anymore, well after you reply I won’t.
@@allandavis8201 I'm sorry you felt I was being dismissive or derogatory - I wasn't, unfortunately the typed word often lacks the nuance and physical cues that we often rely on for context - I was merely saying that any end-opening box made of the same thickness of material will be weaker than a top-opener, and was asking what your disagreement with the opinion on end-opening boxes was given you reformat kits from them anyway.
"Social" media is not very social because it's open to a lot of interpretation, but no offence was intended on my part. I wish you well - whether you choose to subscribe or not, and wish you happy modelling in the future.
@@MannsModelMoments I’m sorry as well, not for my opinion but for misconstruing your reply, I do understand that the written word lacks the visual nuances of the spoken word, and your point and apology is very welcome, I really appreciate the videos you make and really did not want to unsubscribe, which I will not be doing, I would just be “cutting off my nose to spite my face” and at my age it’s bad enough having grey hair and wrinkles. I really don’t want to carry on trying to explain my opinion, I think that I have said what I wanted to say and feel that it is time to agree to disagree on the subject, everyone can’t always agree on a particular point or topic, and I hope that you accept my apology for being a bit slow in realising that your reply was not meant to offend me, sorry for that. Having made my apologies I was wondering if you could put your experience with Naval Vessels to expert use, obviously there were many many naval vessels that were used by the axis forces during WWII that fell into Allied hands at the time of the signing of the declaration’s of surrender, I was wondering how the distribution of those vessels between the allies was agreed upon and by whom?, I have tried researching the subject of how the airborne assets were dealt with but I cannot find much information about it, it seems that it was a first come first served policy, and led to “operation paperclip” which seems to have favoured the United States 🇺🇸 more than any other allied country, was it the same for Naval and Army assets?.
Once again sorry for misconstruing your reply, I hope that I have not offended you too much, and I look forward to watching more of your content and your build’s, that is if you don’t block me for being a troublesome viewer.
@@allandavis8201 No problem, no offence taken at all from my side - I hope you continue to enjoy the channel!