Rubicon Models
Rubicon Models => General Discussions => Topic started by: Rubicon Models on September 15, 2016, 03:08:59 pm
-
To go in-line with us redesigning our M4 Sherman, we are also looking into redoing both our Panzer III and Panzer IV.
Research work had already begun, we would also like your input as well.
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Panzer%20III/PzIII-PzIV-160915-1_zps6xdmcc55.jpg)
Please feel free to post your comments below...
Thanks!!
-
Some background info for further discussion:
Panzer III
- The running gear design changed considerably during the developmental period.
- Ausf A to Ausf D had totally different lower hull design.
- Ausf E to Ausf G are using the same lower hull design.
- From Ausf H onward, there are some design changes, but had remained the same until the end of the variants (Ausf N).
Panzer IV
- The running gear design had been quite stable throughout development.
- Ausf A upper hull design is unique.
- Ausf B to Ausf E had a similar upper hull design and layout.
- Ausf F to Ausf H had minor layout changes with up-armoured modifications.
- Ausf F to Ausf H also had several up-gun changes as well.
- Ausf J had exhaust changes.
Comments welcome!
;)
-
I don't think that you should focus too much on the Panzer III A thru D too much.The E version was available from the invasion of Poland and on, and I don't believe numerically that there were too many A thru D versions produced. But definetly, I'd really like to see you redo your Panzer III and Panzer IV kits, especially the Panzer III and to add the option for at least the E model through an early J model.
-
Personally, I'd like to see earlier versions of these tanks rather than the usual focus on the Panzer III Ausf L - N and the Panzer IV Ausf F - J. But certainly in the case of the Panzer IV, most people seem to want the version with Schurzen.
Panzer III - I agree that the pre-Ausf F versions are less important. There was a significant hull redesign with the Ausf J, so the Ausf F - H would probably need to be a separate kit from later versions (however the turret was redesigned with the Ausf H, and it had wider tracks than earlier versions). The Ausf F - H were important versions - especially in North Africa and Russia. You could include the option to build a Panzerbefehlswagen Ausf H with the distinctive frame antenna, and optional parts like desert filters.
It's worth bearing in mind that Warlord's Panzer III Ausf J - N is a very good kit (apart from the track design, which has gaps around the idler and drive sprocket).
Panzer IV - the Ausf D is probably the first important version. I'd like to see a kit which builds the Ausf D - F2, with optional parts for desert versions. You'd need to include 2 different upper hulls, as the flat glacis didn't appear till the Ausf E [edit - this appeared in the Ausf F, not the Ausf E].
I think Warlord's Panzer IV is pretty poor (it's lines look wrong), so there's scope for Rubicon to do the later versions (Ausf G - J) as a separate kit.
-
Rubicon , your information is a little off . The Panzer IV A , D & E had the same off set crew compartment with machine gun . The B & C had a flat front compartment with a vision port instead . Of course the design of the machine gun mount , driver's visor , pistol and vision ports for the crew changed on each version . And don't get me started on the changes to the turret and tool layout ::) . Personally I think you should back date both the Panzer III & IV to early war versions . Would really like a IV D and III E with the 37mm gun and twin mgs in the turret in plastic :) The later war IV kit from BA is a pretty good kit (except for the single wide wheel sets ). And their III is a fantastic kit with the ability to create a half dozen versions with the parts in the box , if you have decent reference books ! Again the only visual let down is the wheel sets . And if you are going to retool the molds it might be nice to make all crew hatches separate pieces now ,some gamers don't care but modelers ( that's me >:() love putting crew in their vehicles .
-
Pz III A - D were only pre-production types and therefor from the commercial point of view of a modelling company probably not very usefull - wargamers would not buy very much of them ;)
In my opinion makes a StuG III earlier version (A-E) more sense - there is no comparable plastic kit on the market (as far as i know).
A Pz II would be more nice then revised Pz III and IV and would be a nice basic for variants as Marder and Wespe - and the only plastic Pz II Kit ;)
-
Relating to the track width changes on the Panzer III . Early track - 36 cm wide plus 1 cm each side for track pin for a total width of 38 cm . Called 38 cm track . Late track - 38 cm wide plus 1 cm track pin each side for a total width of 40 cm - called 40 cm track . With the change in track width the road wheels also received wider rubber tires 95 mm versus old 75 mm . These could be used with both sizes of track. Also the drive sprocket got a spacer ring of 20 mm to fit the new track . The rear idler wasn't changed . Really don't think this small change would be that visible in 1/56 scale , although there are guys out there who would get out their calipers and check ::)
-
Really don't think this small change would be that visible in 1/56 scale , although there are guys out there who would get out their calipers and check ::)
If you compare photos of tanks with the different track widths, it is noticeable. But maybe not enough to warrant providing 2 different sets of tracks.
The point about an early StuG is a good one. I wonder if it would be possible to provide the parts for one as well as a normal Panzer IIIM. Probably a bit of a stretch...
-
You would have to model two sets of tracks,to make both the Panzer III E through G model, and the H model through N model,due to Rubicon's one piece track/road wheels combination. The drive sprocket, rear idler wheel and the positioning of the return rollers are different between the III E through G models and the H through N versions.
-
A few earlier Pz III WOULD BE NICE
STUG IV !
BRUMBAR !
-
While the Rubicon way of molding wheels and tracks might be great for molding the kit and ease of building , it causes a problem with lack of track detail and the need to have numerous wheel and track pieces for every design variation . On the other hand , guys are having trouble with the Warlord 2 and 4 piece track . ::) I wonder if there will ever be a happy medium in this scale ?
-
You can kit bash a Stug IV . Just use the BA Panzer IV lower hull and add the Rubicon upper Stug III hull . The only real modelling work is the drivers compartment . That's what the Germans actually did , when Panzer III hull production was interupted by allied bombing . Its the next project on my bench once I finish my 2 SU-122/85 kits
-
While the Rubicon way of molding wheels and tracks might be great for molding the kit and ease of building, it causes a problem with lack of track detail and the need to have numerous wheel and track pieces for every design variation.
With most upcoming new kits, we will be moulding details onto the front end of the tracks which is most visible to the eyes. Hope this will resolve the issues!
-
I prefer Rubicon's approach to tracks - Warlord/Italeri/upscaled PSC tracks tend not to sit properly. But I'm not sure about the ideal of adding detail just to the front end. It seems an unsatisfactory compromise. I don't think the rear of a tank is any less interesting than the front. Also - in a wargame context you're usually looking at the back of your own tanks rather than the front. I'd want to see the detail there as well.
-
Again ...keep it all simple...low part count.....good fit....good detail.....no one wants 1000 part kits
-
"no one wants 100o part kits " - NO not in this scale :o . But I'll take the high parts count kits in 1/35 th . Although , one I looked at has over 800 pieces in just the tracks alone .... yikes !
-
Why couldn't Rubicon have the best of both worlds and take an idea from Warlord? They could have the one piece track/roadwheels section, and similar to Warlord's four piece track sections, make seperate detailed front and rear track sections ? Rubicon has stated before that the detail on the top and bottom runs of track aren't visible, which is pretty much true, but the front and rear sections are most definetly visible. I believe that is why Warlord/Italeri went to the four piece track instead of two piece tracks. Just look at the difference between Warlord's Stug III and their Panzer III tracks.
-
I would rather Rubicon went all the way and put detail on the front and rear ends of the tracks. I gather there are moulding issues with this, but I'd hope they'd solve them.
-
While my preference would be, like Pinky, to keep the one piece tracks with detailed front & rear ends, if it sped up the process of improvement, I'd be happy with HOffman's suggestion of the front/rear ends being seperate pieces. Seeing what happened with WG/Italeri's kits, I'm sure Rubicon could come with better places to put the joins.
-
I would rather Rubicon went all the way and put detail on the front and rear ends of the tracks. I gather there are moulding issues with this, but I'd hope they'd solve them.
Pinky, I'm sure that everyone, including me, would like to see Rubicon be able to make detailed track surfaces on all four sides. This was discussed on another thread when Rubicon showed pictures of a prototype Sherman tank with steel tracks. Even with slide molding techniques, Rubicon said that they are unable to put detail on the front and rear surfaces of any track.
Maybe Rubicon could simplify this even more than what I suggested earlier, and make one piece track assemblies, using slide molding to capture detail on the front of the tracks and a seperate length of track piece for the rear track?
-
This was discussed on another thread when Rubicon showed pictures of a prototype Sherman tank with steel tracks. Even with slide molding techniques, Rubicon said that they are unable to put detail on the front and rear surfaces of any track.
Yes - I was referring to that discussion. I don't think having the detail on one end is a very good compromise. I hope they can come up with something better.
-
Totally. I agree completely.
-
RE: Panzer IV... just some thoughts
1. Will start with Panzer IV Ausf E as the differences between the E and F (and thereafter) are minor.
2. The Asuf E will take care of early war into Poland and Norway (206 produced / Oct 40 to Apr 41).
3. Differences with Ausf D is just too many to be included (248 produced / Oct 39 to Oct 40).
4. Ausf F1 (471 produced / Apr 41 to Mar 42).
5. Ausf F2 - temporary designation with 7.5cm KwK40 L/43 main gun, later renamed as Ausf G.
6. Ausf G with 7.5cm KwK40 L/48 gun (1,927 produced / Mar 42 to June 43).
7. Ausf H (2,324 produced / Jun 43 to Feb 44).
8. Should be able to do a single kit to include Ausf E / F1 / G / H.
9. Will include improved Schürzen design.
10. Will probably include crew.
11. Will include single piece track design with front track details (no rear track detail due to mould limitation).
12. Ausf J, probably a separate kit because of major design differences (3,160 produced / Feb 44 to Apr 45).
Any comments?
;)
-
The Ausf E didn't see service until after the Battle of France, so it's not really right for the early Blitzkrieg period. But if including an earlier version is too difficult then starting with the Ausf E seems fine.
Doesn't it make more sense to do the versions with Schurzen as a separate kit? That basically means the late Ausf G, Ausf H and Ausf J. The biggest changes (including Schurzen) were introduced gradually starting with the late Ausf G; the Ausf H represented the culmination of these modifications. The Ausf J was just a more simplified Ausf H.
-
I'm at work and on break, so I can't double-check my references, but the Panzer IV Ausf. D and Ausf. E were very similar, the only differences were the turret cupola, driver's visor and added armor on the hull.The major changes started with the Ausf. F versions, not between the Ausf. D and Ausf E
I also agree with Pinky as far as the schurzen, it takes up a lot of space on a sprue, include it on the later kits
-
If you do free up space from the Schutzen you can add the different bolt on and built in armour.
-
I guess from Rubicon's perspective providing a pre-Ausf E version means including a different turret and upper hull [edit - that should be "pre-Ausf F version", as the Ausf E had a different glacis design to the Ausf F]. These are substantial components. But, as UVS said, if the Schurzen aren't included, there ought to be enough space on the sprues for these. The Ausf E to (early) Ausf G would involve relatively few additional parts - engine deck with 'tropical' filters, revised muffler and auxiliary motor, revised idler and drive sprocket, two-piece side turret hatches, later style glacis with revised driver's visor, spare wheel stowage and of course the long-barrelled gun for the Ausf F2 (which some writers say was actually the Ausf G anyway). And maybe some armour plates for the armour upgrades if there's space.
-
If that is true, i don't understand.
I guess from Rubicon's perspective providing a pre-Ausf E version means including a different turret and upper hull. These are substantial components. But, as UVS said, if the Schurzen aren't included, there ought to be enough space on the sprues for these. The Ausf E to (early) Ausf G would involve relatively few additional parts - engine deck with 'tropical' filters, revised muffler and auxiliary motor, revised idler and drive sprocket, two-piece side turret hatches, later style glacis with revised driver's visor, spare wheel stowage and of course the long-barrelled gun for the Ausf F2 (which some writers say was actually the Ausf G anyway). And maybe some armour plates for the armour upgrades if there's space.
The Panzer IV Ausf. D and Ausf E have the same turret and the same hull. The only differences between the two are the commander's cupola , driver's vision slit, and additional 30mm armor.The hull and turret from the Ausf. F and up, which Rubicon already make, are different than the Ausf D and Ausf E.
-
The Panzer IV Ausf. D and Ausf E have the same turret and the same hull. The only differences between the two are the commander's cupola , driver's vision slit, and additional 30mm armor.The hull and turret from the Ausf. F and up, which Rubicon already make, are different than the Ausf D and Ausf E.
With the Ausf E, the cupola was moved forward, so the rear turret shape is also different). You're right about the upper hull being the same - I thought the Ausf E had a single-piece glacis, but that came with the Ausf F1 (oops!). I've edited my earlier post. So if Rubicon are prepared to do an Ausf E, an Ausf D is an easy addition.
-
To me it looks like the cupola was moved to the rear and the rear turret plate was made flatter , removing the center bump that the D had . From pictures it looks like there is more space between the turret side door and rear plate on the E than D . No matter , slight changes were made . And if you add a the stowage box which became standard on the E ,but was retro fitted to Ds its hard to tell from some angles what version your looking at . And IRC the turret side door opening was the same size for both the early ( single ) and late ( double ) door , its an optical allusion that makes them look to be different in size ::) Hopefully we get early war versions of both the III and IV .
-
To me it looks like the cupola was moved to the rear and the rear turret plate was made flatter , removing the center bump that the D had .
Right. Spielberger has some photos of a stripped down turret which show the changes.
And IRC the turret side door opening was the same size for both the early ( single ) and late ( double ) door , its an optical allusion that makes them look to be different in size ::) Hopefully we get early war versions of both the III and IV .
The opening for the single door was a different shape.
-
The rear plate of the Ausf E was one piece,with the new cupola. I went and looked it up. I thought that the turret design was changed on the Ausf. F. My bad!!
-
The rear plate of the Ausf E was one piece,with the new cupola. I went and looked it up. I thought that the turret design was changed on the Ausf. F. My bad!!
Well we all got some details confused. It's not surprising - like the Sherman, there are a lot of subtle changes through the versions.
-
A picture tells a thousand words...
Ausf D
(http://s9.postimg.org/uoejhgdyj/IMG_20160921_2245133.jpg) (http://postimg.org/image/uoejhgdyj/)
Ausf E:
(http://s14.postimg.org/btn2dywd9/IMG_20160921_2245517.jpg) (http://postimg.org/image/btn2dywd9/)
-
Ausf E turret details:
(http://s13.postimg.org/rl66ux2s3/IMG_20160921_2242292.jpg) (http://postimg.org/image/rl66ux2s3/)
Turret hatch details:
(http://s11.postimg.org/4p0prgl3z/IMG_20160921_2244315.jpg) (http://postimg.org/image/4p0prgl3z/)
-
Rubicon,
Are you going to post your plans for
your revised PanzerIII??RE: Panzer IV... just some thoughts
1. Will start with Panzer IV Ausf E as the differences between the E and F (and thereafter) are minor.
2. The Asuf E will take care of early war into Poland and Norway (206 produced / Oct 40 to Apr 41).
3. Differences with Ausf D is just too many to be included (248 produced / Oct 39 to Oct 40).
4. Ausf F1 (471 produced / Apr 41 to Mar 42).
5. Ausf F2 - temporary designation with 7.5cm KwK40 L/43 main gun, later renamed as Ausf G.
6. Ausf G with 7.5cm KwK40 L/48 gun (1,927 produced / Mar 42 to June 43).
7. Ausf H (2,324 produced / Jun 43 to Feb 44).
8. Should be able to do a single kit to include Ausf E / F1 / G / H.
9. Will include improved Schürzen design.
10. Will probably include crew.
11. Will include single piece track design with front track details (no rear track detail due to mould limitation).
12. Ausf J, probably a separate kit because of major design differences (3,160 produced / Feb 44 to Apr 45).
Any comments?
;)
-
Are you going to post your plans for your revised Panzer III??
We have decided to first drawn out a criteria for Panzer IV first as it seems to be less complicated than the Panzer III.
Panzer III will come later...
-
Before further discussions on our Panzer IV revision project, think we should let you know the references we are using (besides online references).
Most referenced publications are:
PzKpfw IV in action - Squadron/Signal Publications, Armor No 12, by Bruce Culver
Panzerkampfwagen IV and its variants 1935-1945, Book 2 - Schiffer Military History, by Walter Spielberger, Hilary Doyle, Thomas Jentz
plus a few others.
Also ordered Panzer Tracts No 4-3 Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf H and Ausf J, 1943 to 1945 - Hilary Doyle, Lukas Friedli, Thomas Jentz
but not delivered yet.
-
This is a comparison diagram between the Panzer IV Ausf D and Ausf E.
Red circles on the Ausf E marked the differences.
(http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag377/RubiconModels/Panzer%20IV/PzIV-DampE-01s_zpsmsdesprt.jpg)
Comments?
-
Same comments as before. It should be possible to provide the parts for the Ausf D as well as the Ausf E, through to the early Ausf G, if you don't try to include Schurzen.
-
Same comments as before. It should be possible to provide the parts for the Ausf D as well as the Ausf E, through to the early Ausf G, if you don't try to include Schurzen.
Even without the Schurzen, you need a new sets of sprocket and road wheels, a new turret with cupola, frontal applique armour, the rear exhaust...
From a design perspective, the two variants are very similar, but the subtle differences are so obvious, you need a lot of small parts to make it work. That will defeat our basic principle of easy-to-assemble as a wargamer kit. Of course, for modelers, that's another story.
There are always ways to make this happen; just need more time to digest all the information before we proceed to do the 3D drawings.
One possible solution is to split the Panzer IV into 3 products with two common sprues and a third specialist sprue; thus:
1) Panzer IV Ausf D & E
2) Panzer IV Ausf F / G / H
3) Panzer IV Ausf J
Any comments?
-
I see the point. I'm not sure an Ausf D/E kit would be a great idea. Maybe the Ausf D isn't worth trying to include. It would mean you didn't have an early Blitzkrieg era Panzer IV variant, but arguably that's not a big deal. The alternative would be to take a few shortcuts. You've done that before (like the M10/M36).
-
Some early Es had D style Drive sprockets , and some late Ds in Africa got the add on side and front armor as well as the rear stowage box . So a combo late D / early E kit would use E running gear . And need - D/E transmission plate , D/E driver - MG plate , D/E turret roof & cupolas . Both versions had a smoke candle box sometime mounted over the exhausts , you don't have to include it . You could also add the two different rear turret plates if you brain stormed it . Really not too many extra pieces compared to the late IVs with side skirts , I think the tricky part will be making it easy to assemble for gamers ;D
-
For the Ausf D., the only major component would be the turret. You've included alternate turrets before with your T-34, M4A3 and Crusader.
The applique armor was also used on upgraded Ausf D's.
The rear exhaust is the same,the smoke discharges, which you have circled are different, one is armored and the one you show on the Ausf D isn't.
The cupolas are different, but are the same ones that you would make for your Panzer IIIs when you upgrade it.
I think you should make an early war Panzer III and Panzer IVs, but I would be happy with just the upgraded/reworked kits.It wouldn't take much work to backdate/scratchbuild parts to
turn an Ausf F to an Ausf E
-
I am really wanting to get hold of a decent Panzer IV ausf J.
I am painting up a platoon of panzer IV ausf H for a mate and i was tempted to get another to convert but i am very happy to wait if you are planning to do one.
Tim
-
Although the popularity of late marks with high production numbers is understood, I'd like to submit a contrarian point of view. Panzer IV A, B & C were the only ones to participate in the Polish campaign and at least in the case of B & C remained operational during the French, Balkan and Russian campaigns until withdrawal during 1943. One source I've looked at suggests the B was being operated by 21 Panzer Division in Normandy. Now I'm not suggesting these early Panzer IV's should take precedence over more numerous later marks but I think they can add interest to games over a reasonable number of years. I just hope they remain on a Rubicon to do list, even if no time soon.
-
tyroflyer, welcome to the forum!
We have basically studied all variants. The Ausf B & C is indeed of interest subject.
We might not be able to produce them in plastic for quite a while, but it is not difficult
for us to do something about them in the short term.
In fact, we are do some feasibility studies on short term solutions to release some of
our ongoing projects in a faster manner. Stay tuned.
-
Thanks Rubicon
The same principle applies to the Panzer III but is even more problematic. Variants A, B, C, D & E served in Poland but most in small numbers. A, B & C had been withdrawn in February 1940. D continued into the Norwegian campaign. Of the Polish veterans only the E continued for some years so far as I am aware. Nonetheless anyone fighting the Polish campaign I'm sure would like a variant that existed at the time. E is the obvious candidate as the most produced of these early versions with the longest service life and therefore useful for later conflicts. One day perhaps.