Help support TMP


"Battlefront AFVs: Resin vs Plastic" Topic


10 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the WWII Models Review Message Board

Back to the 15mm WWII Message Board



Areas of Interest

World War Two on the Land

1,256 hits since 16 Sep 2018
©1994-2019 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Achtung Minen16 Sep 2018 8:11 a.m. PST

I was wondering how the newer plastic Battlefront (FoW) AFVs stack up against their old resin models… do they have the same amount of detail? Do they l look good side by side? Is the loss of heft an issue? I am particularly looking at their Panzer IV's, but any experiences with FoW vehicles new and old would be appreciated.

Personal logo 28mm Fanatik Supporting Member of TMP16 Sep 2018 10:32 a.m. PST

I have no FoW vehicles, but speaking for TY I would say that BF's plastics are just as detailed if not more so than their resin-and-metal counterparts. As for the lighter weight, it's not a problem to me because the plastic is very durable made of hard plastic. Even the small bits like cupola AA machineguns don't break easily because they're thicker than they would appear IRL.

I admit I prefer plastics personally because they don't break as easily as brittle resin and the paint don't chip as easily as they tend to on metal. I've dropped plastic onto hard floors before without damage because they bounce.

McWong7316 Sep 2018 1:47 p.m. PST

Though the PzIV plastic kit may not be the best example, their plastics are much better. No miscasts, both left and right treads match in length and height (big issue with many of their Shermams), and the mounted turret AA mg guns have stronger barrels.

Issue with the IV was the original plastic kit was a Bleeped text to put together. Overall PSC are equal in quality, superior in price.

Beowulf Fezian17 Sep 2018 10:47 a.m. PST

I like plastics better. More detail, easier to add equipment. If heft is an issue, you can glue some metal scrap to the inside of the bottom hull while building it.

22ndFoot17 Sep 2018 3:28 p.m. PST

Their plastic kits are far superior to the resin versions. They have far greater details, do not suffer for tired molds and always fit together.

As McWong73 says, PSC are even better, but make sure that you can source any decals you may need (PSC do their own very good range) before hand as they don't come with them. This isn't an issue with WWII kit but the availability of modern decals in 1/100 is much more limited.

HairiYetie06 Apr 2019 3:00 p.m. PST

PSC are slightly but noticeably smaller than Battlefront.

VonBlucher07 Apr 2019 8:07 p.m. PST

Agree with 22ndFoot, Plastics much better and the irritating part was trying to glue the tracks on the resin model so they were flat on both sides. The molds were getting so bad that you need to be a surgeon to clean them up. I also heard a rumor that Battlefront was going to produce a Tiger II in plastic close to the end of the year.

mysteron Supporting Member of TMP16 Apr 2019 3:19 a.m. PST

The BK plastic kits are first rate IMO and assembly tends to be easier than the PSC plastics. The downside is the price but IMO worth it.

JD Lee Supporting Member of TMP18 Apr 2019 6:26 a.m. PST

I still like the old resin models.

specforc1218 Apr 2019 11:21 p.m. PST

Plastic models do not always have more detail than resin is a bit of a misnomer. With resin "molding-in" certain difficult to articulate detail can accommodate complex shapes which plastic injection molding cannot do in many instances without adding extra parts. This has everything to do with how the machined molds must be able to extract themselves from the product in straight line directions during the separation process. You can't build in "nooks and crannies" with injection molding process just not possible.

Now I will agree that resin molds tire easily over time and with repeated castings, this is the nature of latex molds. However, fresh new molds can have incredible minute details as good as anything. Yet, resin has pluses and minuses. With properly designed molds, when fitting isn't normally a problem, are just fine. But I have had horrible experiences with certain models fitting tracks as many have mentioned. Israeli Centurions (Sho't) by BF are notoriously badly fitted, it took me 1 hour per tank of sanding and fitting to make them work, plus the tracks were mismatched in length to the hull where nothing can be done to correct it! This was most vexing. On the upside, if the mold is of high quality, and many are, whereas some are not, this is not a problem. What I do like about assembling resin models (if there isn't "fitting" issues") is that there are far fewer parts, and they go together much faster as a result and are easier to assemble besides. Less parts, less gluing.

To give an example of an overly complex number of parts for a plastic kit is . . . try putting together a PSC M3 Halftrack a ridiculously complex, badly thought out assembly process and a ton of parts (pain in the neck!) compared to a BF resin M3 halftrack is a piece of cake to put together.

So, not all things are as absolute as some of the posters would have you believe in this thread. Just sayin' it just depends. Also many of the PSC AFV kits require the treads to be seperately glued to the bogies, etc. What knumbskull decided that was a good idea instead of just molding tracks and bogies as one thing?!? Go figure?!!

The heft issue is simply a personal preference. I prefer the heft, but to solve the problem with some plastic tanks is we've molded universal fitted chunks of lead to be glued in as someone mentioned to remedy the light plastic, cheap feel. But, this is a purely subjective issue and is trivial.

Also, things like pewter gun barrels are bit more robust, whereas plastic can just snap off. The metal ones can be straightened back to shape several times without harm.

Also, I'll stand up a bit for BF plastics over PSC. Of late, I have found some models by PSC to be quite off of the original or correct design of details on the tank. The one that stood out was the PSC US M-60A3 tank, at first glance I looked okay but then comparing it to the BF model, the BF version was far superior in accuracy of the surface detail. The back engine deck on the PSC was way out of proportion and just plain wrong. The bogie wheels plus the suspension detail was not only correct on the BF model but showed an incredible amount of detail to the integrated suspension into the track mold no contest there. Also, the BF model came with both a standard 105mm barrel and the later thermal-sleeved version for later models of the tank. Also, the BF model includes the Israeli modified or replacement to the MG turret (US config), with the unique Israeli Urda Cupola and .50 cal. over-the-barrel Ranging Machine Gun included. Pretty sweet attention to detail . . . yes, PSC are a lot cheaper, but I don't want 2nd-rate stuff at any of these prices, so to me it's worth springing for a more accurate model, if that's of any concern. The more I encounter both brands the less I'm impressed with PSC, but they do make a lot of things that are quite good, like the kit for Opel Blitz trucks, you can make the Maultier with its "half-track" config and you can have an Opel Blitz cab or a Mercedes-Benz cab! I like that the give you construction options for a fair price that's cool.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.