The Panzer IV Digital Library - PzIV Ausf H Painted 190816

[Tracks]

These are Winterketten, not cleats.  They were basically extensions to the tracks.  Cleats attach to the face of the track.  These are appropriate for 1942-43.

Anyway, another good idea.  I hope they are reasonably robust though.

Pinky is correct. They are Winterketten and not cleats/grousers. On American tanks these would be called "Track Extenders" but also nicknamed "Duckbills" for obvious reasons.

[Rubicon Models]

These are Winterketten, not cleats.  They were basically extensions to the tracks.  Cleats attach to the face of the track.  These are appropriate for 1942-43.

If you looked carefully, you will see the H-shape cleats on the tracks...

[ripley]

The Germans had 2 types of winter track , WinterKetten and OstKetten . The WK was developed first , and while it worked , the extensions , ( which were part of the track link not add-ons like duck bills ) tended to snap off on hard turns . OstKetten which was a much more robust track link , almost shaped like a Tiger track link . The Germans also had add on ice cleats , in fact most modern tanks have them in a bin or like the German Leopard , mounted on the hull


[   

[url=https://postimg.org/image/suiolcclz/]

[Pinky]

I can't see the cleats, but then I'm old and using a small screen to view this site.

I'm interested in whether these resin Winterketten will 'snap off on hard turns'.  They will obviously be great for modellers, but are they up to the rigours of the wargaming table?  Maybe I'll wait for the Ostketten.

[ripley]

If they did snap of it would be very realistic . most photos show missing ends on well used tracks , just like Sherman Duckbills

[Rubicon Models]

Thought someone was asking for this...

This piece is just too large to fit onto the plastic sprue, but should be an excellent upgrade piece in resin!




Enjoy!

[H0ffmn]

 Or could you possibly make the two vented rear air intakes as separate pieces ,and add them onto your plastic spruce?? That shouldn't take up much space at all.

[Rubicon Models]

Or could you possibly make the two vented rear air intakes as separate pieces ,and add them onto your plastic spruce?? That shouldn't take up much space at all.

Too late to do that now as all the plastic sprues for the early Panzer IV had been done.  We had looked into something similar to your idea but felt the structure would be too weak as a wargaming kit.

[Pinky]

Too late to do that now as all the plastic sprues for the early Panzer IV had been done.  We had looked into something similar to your idea but felt the structure would be too weak as a wargaming kit.

You’ve done exactly the same thing very successfully before (like the engine deck insert in the M10/M36 kit).  And this option was suggested a while ago...

[Rubicon Models]

The final version of our photo-etch Thoma wire-mesh hull side armour skirts for the Panzer IV Ausf J...



Enjoy!

[ultravanillasmurf]

I did not get to see them in detail at Salute, are they stainless steel?

[Ballardian]

 They look fantastic, please tell me I'll be able to get my hands on them soon (along with the resin tracks)

[ripley]

They look fantastic

[Rubicon Models]

Moving these post back to the correct topic...

I am right there with you tyroflyer!  Would love to have a proper Pz IV suitable for the invasion of Poland in 1939.

The difference being, with the BA armored cards, they already have the turret for the BA-3 and BA-6. Looks like they could add 12 tires to the T-26 sprue (along with that turret). So they may be one "body" sprue away from having a kit that does double-duty (if they allow for the slight differences in those three locations.  One sprue, and they have a kit that serves for two vehicles.

The early Pz IVs are a bit more problematic. The same hull would mostly do for all four early models (Pz IV A thru D). But there are enough differences that they would likely need multiple sprues to cover the turret and superstructure changes:

Pz IV A = Angled front plate for driver and gunner. wider superstructure, two-piece hatches for driver and gunner, circular bullet-splash ring around turret base, rectangular ports on turret front and rear,

Px IV B = Straight front plate, no MG, narrower superstructure, single-piece hatches for driver and gunner, angular bullet splash ring around turret base, rectangular ports on turret rear, circular ports on turret front and rear, cupola changes

Pz IV C = Straight front plate, no MG, narrower superstructure, single-piece hatches for driver and gunner, angular bullet splash ring around turret base, circular ports on turret front and rear,

Pz IV D = angled front plate, with MG, narrower superstructure, single-piece hatches for driver and gunner, angular bullet splash ring around turret base, circular ports on turret front and rear, gun mantlet changes, rear deck side changes

Looks to me like it would take three different turrets (one for A, one for B and C, and a third for D models). Also three different front plates (again, one for A, one for B and C, and a third for D models). Probably two different muffler-area configurations (one for A, one for B, C and D models), three different sets of track guards (one for A, one for B and C, and one for D models).

And as I look back over having typed up all of that (after a close examination of the blueprints and notes I have taken of the first four models), I am struck by the idea that the B and C models were very, very close in appearance.  The A has different track guards, a wider superstructure, a different enough turret (hatches, gun ports and cupola) to require its own, and a slightly different muffler area.

So I can easily see making a B/C kit easy.  I can even see making a B/C and D kit.  But to make an A/B/C/D kit would require a lot of effort, with many sprues to cover all the changed bits that the Model A has all by itself.

I would be super happy to have a B/C kit. Both models served in Poland (as did the A). The D did not, but it served in France (as did the A, B and C models).  In terms of numbers made, we are looking at 35 As, 42 Bs, 134 Cs and 232 Ds.

It was the Pz IV Model D that had 48 converted to Tauchpanzers (submersible) versions, for the planned invasion of England.  Also, many of these early models (A, B, C and D) were later converted (back-fitted) with improved weaponry, and sent off to places like North Africa. So in terms of optional pieces, I can see the sprues needing different turret weapons thus increasing the usability of the kit.

Buy one and build for Poland, another to paint for France, and a third to serve in North Africa.  All from one kit!

I don't want to hijack the BA-6 topic so will keep this short. EWG, your list includes many commonalities between the C and D Pz IV variants and Rubicon are going to give us a D. I remain to be convinced the differences can't be overcome with relatively few resin parts. The case for the C revolves around it's importance in the Polish campaign where it can't be substituted for without the use of a time traveller. In the WWII context the BA-3 is not so important as the BA-6 is a legitimate non time travelling alternative.

Nothing against the BA-3 though.

Indeed, the C and D are very similar to each other. Other than what appear to be mostly small differences, the main big difference is that front panel. It is straight across on the C, and the driver and radio operator hatches line up on top. There is no MG for the radio operator to use.  On the D, the front panel is "crooked" for lack of a better word, with the driver still forward (same spot) but the front plate then angles back a bit before continuing across where the radio operator sits. The two hatches do not line up on top. And on the D model the front MG returns.

Could Rubicon give us a kit that covers C and D models? Without needing many new parts? I think they could.  And the B and C models are nearly identical, so really, if they give us a C they might as well give us the B as well. Which would give us a B/C/D combo kit.

It is the A model I don't think we will ever see. Lots of parts are different between the A and the other three models.

[Rubicon Models]

Thanks for the input, we have split the Panzer IV project into 3 plastic products:

(1) Panzer IV Ausf D/E
(2) Panzer IV Ausf F1/F2/G/H
(3) Panzer IV Ausf J

The splitting is based on the major features of the upper hull and the turret.


RE: Ausf C & D Design Notes

It might be true about the minor feature differences quoted by EWG regarding the C and D:

Pz IV C = Straight front plate, no MG, narrower superstructure, single-piece hatches for driver and gunner, angular bullet splash ring around turret base, circular ports on turret front and rear

Pz IV D = angled front plate, with MG, narrower superstructure, single-piece hatches for driver and gunner, angular bullet splash ring around turret base, circular ports on turret front and rear, gun mantlet changes, rear deck side changes

The main reason for not including the C into the D/E product is the difference between the "straight" and "angled" front plate.  This will require two different upper hulls being included in the sprue, taking away valuable space for other smaller parts.  Design and cost efficiency is very important in our trade, one extra mould would mean a big difference in our breakeven calculation.  This is why we spend so much time to "design" common sprues for each project.

Mind you we also have to consider the parts layout of the "common" sprues for the other two Panzer IV kits.  Taking away the Ausf C will make the design process much easier for us to handle this project.  BUT that does not mean we will not tackle the Ausf C at a later stage given the differences are so minor.  The grouping of these Panzer IV variants is based on small feature differences.  The major shape of the chassis, hull, and turret had to remain roughly the same in order for our design to work.

We already have a plan for the Ausf C, so don't be disappointed.