Panzer III & IV Revisited

[ripley]

 "no one wants 100o part kits " - NO not in this scale  . 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 !

[H0ffmn]

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.

[Pinky]

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. 

[Ballardian]

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.

[H0ffmn]

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?

[Pinky]

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.

[H0ffmn]

Totally. I agree completely.

[Rubicon Models]

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?

[Pinky]

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.

[H0ffmn]

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

[ultravanillasmurf]

If you do free up space from the Schutzen you can add the different bolt on and built in armour.

[Pinky]

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. 

[H0ffmn]

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.

[Pinky]

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. 

[ripley]

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 .