SdKfz 251/1 Ausf D - Project CLOSED!

[Pinky]

I really like the /9 - looks great.  I assume it has some interior parts?

The /22 looks great too.  I think including the revised hull is a good idea, as it looks much better, but I can see it'll take up a lot of sprue space.

The Panzerbusche does look nice on the /7, and I see you added some boards between the footbridge supports.  Nice.  Any chance of adding some engineer stowage for the interior?

I think the flamethrowers on the/16 look rather crude - that variant maybe needs more research.  It's wirth doing, as flame throwing vehicles are popular in Bolt Action.

The /3 also looks a bit unconvincing.  The radio gear took up the whole right hand side.  Anyway, I suggest you make your /3 and /16 suitable for both the Ausf C and Ausf D versions - maybe release them later?

[Rubicon Models]

I really like the /9 - looks great.  I assume it has some interior parts?

Yes, it does.  We are also working on the SdKfz 251/9 "Stummel" with 7.5 cm KwK 37 L/24, the early production version on the Ausf D.

The /22 looks great too.  I think including the revised hull is a good idea, as it looks much better, but I can see it'll take up a lot of sprue space.

This is why we have two options at this point.  Will decide when the project is moved to mould making.

The Panzerbusche does look nice on the /7, and I see you added some boards between the footbridge supports.  Nice.  Any chance of adding some engineer stowage for the interior?

Not at this point.  Will see how the project goes...

I think the flamethrowers on the/16 look rather crude - that variant maybe needs more research.  It's worth doing, as flame throwing vehicles are popular in Bolt Action.

We have blueprints, photo and model references on the 251/16.  Basically the Germans had removed all the interior fitting, and added two gasoline tanks, a distribution pump, two single seats, and a rifle rack.  In fact, the cabin is quite crowded as you have a MG gunner and two crews operating the flamers.

The /3 also looks a bit unconvincing.  The radio gear took up the whole right hand side.  Anyway, I suggest you make your /3 and /16 suitable for both the Ausf C and Ausf D versions - maybe release them later?

Again, the 251/3 is based on available blueprints, photo and model references.  All radio equipment are basically rack mounted as shown on our prototype.  The other side of the vehicle remained unchanged as they are reserved for officers and radio crews during travel and operation.  Not shown is the retractable stern antenna on the rear side of the Ausf C.

As for the cross-availability of these expansion for both the Ausf C and D, here are some basic info:

251/1 with sPzB 41 - C & D and 250/11
251/1 Stuka zu Fuss - D only
251/2 Mortar Carrier - C & D and 250/7
251/3 Communications - C & D
251/7 Assault Engineer - C & D
251/8 Ambulance - C & D
251/9 Stummel - D only
251/9 with Kanone 51 - D and 250/8
251/10 with 3.7cm PaK 36 - C & D and 250/10
251/16 Flammpanzerwagen - C & D
251/22 with 7.5cm PaK 40 L/46 - D only

Will revise as the project progress!

[Pinky]

Regarding the /16, my comment was about the flamethrowers themselves.  Your interior detail looks pretty good.

On the /3, as I said the communication equipment appears to have taken up the right side of the interior.  Your prototype still has a seat on that side.  But I guess it's fine.  I'm still not convinced the Ausf D version of the /3 was actually produced with the frame aerial.

Your list of variants looks good.

[bull-nut]

Loving the /22, you can never have too many Heavy anti tank guns in Bolt Action. Just a thought though, how difficult would it be to produce a towed carriage for the PaK40? I admit its a bit late to put it in with the /22 upgrade, but maybe as a later kit, or bundled with a future Marder kit? it seems a shame to only use that lovely Pak40 for one model.

[Rubicon Models]

Loving the /22, you can never have too many Heavy anti tank guns in Bolt Action. Just a thought though, how difficult would it be to produce a towed carriage for the PaK40? I admit its a bit late to put it in with the /22 upgrade, but maybe as a later kit, or bundled with a future Marder kit? it seems a shame to only use that lovely Pak40 for one model.

It is no good if we only included a towed carriage for the PaK40 without gun crews!  We do have many plans... waiting for their turns!!   

[ripley]

All pictures of 251/3 I've seen have the radio rack replacing the right rear seat . The under seat stowage box still appears in most photos . The front right seat was either folded  up and the space used for typewriters , enigma machines  or removed completely as the seat was just a wood or canvas / leather covered metal  spring frame ( depending when made ) ,it seemed to be held in by the soldiers sitting on it . Almost like some modern day cheap lawn chair .( Actually the driver seats in the Tiger were the same kind of system , hitting a large pot hole could bounce the seat off its track making it very uncomfortable and dangerous for the driver .) Like most military vehicles , even todays , not the kind of seats g you'ld want to spend hours sitting on while driving cross country in a tracked vehicle

[Pinky]

All pictures of 251/3 I've seen have the radio rack replacing the right rear seat . The under seat stowage box still appears in most photos . The front right seat was either folded  up and the space used for typewriters , enigma machines  or removed completely as the seat was just a wood or canvas / leather covered metal  spring frame ( depending when made ) ,it seemed to be held in by the soldiers sitting on it . Almost like some modern day cheap lawn chair .( Actually the driver seats in the Tiger were the same kind of system , hitting a large pot hole could bounce the seat off its track making it very uncomfortable and dangerous for the driver .) Like most military vehicles , even todays , not the kind of seats g you'ld want to spend hours sitting on while driving cross country in a tracked vehicle

Good points.  It looks as though the right front seat was replaced with a bench for Enigma machines etc.  There also seem to have been batteries positioned there.  I've only found photos of the early /3 interior.  Maybe it was more extensively modified?  The approach with the Ausf D was to make it easy to switch between variants.

[ripley]

I think part of the problem is that the vehicles where modified so much by either the staff officers who used it or by changing technology as the war went on . Some had the back of the seat and the wall storage bin still installed with the lower seat removed . Some had it all stripped out and tables or metal racks installed for crew use . There were at least 9 variations of the 251/3 , based on the combination of radios , ground to air , division to artillery , division to panzer , etc , etc   .Remember back in WW2 most radios only worked on one channel , that's why command tanks had 2 or 3 . One for tank to tank , one to talk to HQ and another , say for artillery or ground troop support  .In fact in the  late 30s most vehicles just had a receiver with the command vehicle having a transmitter , that's why the tanks had signal flags to talk to each other ...but I'm a little off topic      So IMO most picture captions really don't give us the whole story . The only captions I trust are those of vehicles used by named figures , Rommel or Guderian for example . The propaganda corp / Signal Magazine  went mad photographing their every move so their vehicles are well documented inside and out

[Rubicon Models]

Since there is a 251/3 discussion going on, we might want to add onto it.  The current prototype is basically based on blueprints of Ausf C and photos of both Ausf C & D, plus some Ausf B.  We tried to keep part counts down so that we can fit 3 variants into a single sprue, but minor changes are still possible.  The front bench beside the radio rack is a new part (it is shorter than the original one because of the rack), we have seen various configurations including stowage box, table, and additional equipment from photos which we believed were field modifications in place of the just the seats.  We'd decided to keep to the original blueprint for simplicity and let the modeler to convert based on their preferences.

Of course, there is still room to make changes now as long as we are still in the prototyping stage.  Any suggestion is welcome!

[bull-nut]

It is no good if we only included a towed carriage for the PaK40 without gun crews!  We do have many plans... waiting for their turns!!   

I'd be quite happy to see just the carriage and gun actually. It isn't that hard to convert plastic infantry into gun crew, and it lets me exercise my creative muscles a bit. However  I see your point of view, not everyone has spare infantry lying around or the will / ability to convert them.

[elcee]

could you post a side by side shot (in different angles) of the /22 based on the normal hull with the "extra" part on top and the "new" hull?

The current images are somewhat hard to compare.

[Rubicon Models]

could you post a side by side shot (in different angles) of the /22 based on the normal hull with the "extra" part on top and the "new" hull?
The current images are somewhat hard to compare.

There are line drawings showing the differences under this post.  Here is the link:
http://forum.rubiconmodels.com/index.php?topic=35.90

[Rubicon Models]

Latest addition (probably the last one) for the current 251 Expansion project...



The two SdKfz 251/9 compared...

[Pinky]

I can't check the accuracy of the internal details right now, but they both look great.  I'd suggest you don't bother with the early version of the Ausf D "Stummel" - if you're going to provide an alternative hull top for an Ausd D variant then it's probably better to do that for the /22.

[Pinky]

Incidentally, I see Warlord have rushed out an Ausf D of their own.  It's basically just their Ausf C with some replacement parts, and looks distinctly inferior to Rubicon's.  And there are no alternative versions.