Panzer III & IV Revisited

[Rubicon Models]

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.



Please feel free to post your comments below...

Thanks!!

[Rubicon Models]

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!

[H0ffmn]

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.

[Pinky]

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.

[ripley]

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 . 

[Yaquir]

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 

[ripley]

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 

[Pinky]

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...

[H0ffmn]

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.

[stevepalffy]

A few earlier Pz III WOULD BE NICE

STUG IV !

BRUMBAR !

[ripley]

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 ?

[ripley]

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

[Rubicon Models]

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!

[Pinky]

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.

[stevepalffy]

Again ...keep it all simple...low part count.....good fit....good detail.....no one wants 1000 part kits