The Panzer IV Digital Library - PzIV Ausf H Painted 190816

[Pinky]

I think you're right ripley. All nations would have old equipment to some extent. Although those under the greatest stress and lacking the massive production capability of the US would be more likely to be placed in this position.

The Germans did this a lot - especially in the final years.  So you see Tiger Is with mis-matched components, usually serving in scratch units.  But the US did it too - a lot of Sherman's were rebuilt, upgraded with later pattern gun shields, appliqué armour etc, and sent back into service.

It occurs to me games would be more interesting if they occasionally included a variety of the old and new. Particularly if historically correct. Unfortunately I think we tend to be driven by points values and the like and the need to get the greatest bang for the buck in the effort to win.

I agree entirely.  But it seems to be a minority who play miniatures games principally for the visual enjoyment of having interesting models on the tabletop.  This is an issue that I think Rubicon needs to keep in mind.  Most wargamers would prefer a fairly generic Sherman with fully swappable turrets.  With Rubicon's discontinued M4A3, there were more complaints about not getting 2 complete turrets than there were about the inaccurate 76mm turret.  By producing multiple Sherman kits, but with limited swappable options (i.e. you can only build the model one way), they risk appealing more to modellers - in a scale primarily identified with wargaming.  It's a difficult balancing act, because of course they are under constant pressure (including from many of us on this site) to provide better and better detail and accuracy.

[ultravanillasmurf]

You both make exceedingly good points.

As a "non gamer" (more due to other commitments than anything else) I tend to build what interests me (it also leads to long construction times as I have no dead lines). I do use army lists to add some structure to what I build.

If you build to game then there must be some reward to choosing to build stuff that is aesthetically pleasing but in game terms is pretty lame. I know that some competitions award points for both composition and authenticity.

In the old GDW rules Command Decision, the writer lamented the use of nicely painted Stuarts to locate the Tigers by blowing up.

On the options point, there is always a bit of annoyance over stuff left on the sprue after the model is built. Sometime there is nothing that can be done without reducing the options - all the left over running gear on the Tiger and the JPzr 38(t) are good examples.

The PSC kits leave almost complete hulls on the sprue.

On the other hand there are the bits of turret that Pinky mentions. The Sherman and T34 being good examples. Sometimes this can be a bit petty - another manufacturer's Churchill lacking a bin and three bits of detail (the Crusader does not count because there are bits to fully build two out of three turrets in the kit).

Manufacturers need to balance options, buildable options and accuracy.

They may gain kudos from a kit that builds a tank with two different turrets but lose the sale of a second kit. Okay, accuracy wise the finished model with the second turret is less likely to be accurate but the gamer is less likely to be bothered with that when the money can be spent on something else.

[tyroflyer]

There appears to be different camps within the hobby. At one extreme I remember listening to a podcast in which the host was lamenting the fact the plastic guns that came with the game looked like anti-tank guns and were being used as howitzers (or was it the other way around). His guest confessed to not knowing what the difference was and what's more didn't care. They were to him mere gaming tokens.

I think I am at the other end of the spectrum and I'm looking for something near Tamiya accuracy with concessions to parts count for ease of construction and robustness to enable constant handling on the wargames table. Hence my desire for a genuine 1939 Panzer IV.

I suspect I am in the minority but perhaps a large minority. I note there is a thriving small industry in providing quite expensive wargaming terrain. Including very specific items like Pegasus Bridge in Normandy. I can't imagine these companies producing these if the interest is small.

Fortunately Rubicon have a demonstrated interest in producing a high quality product. Their Panzer IV Digital Library is a case in point. I'm sure it would have been easy to continue producing their original Panzer IV but they think they can do better and they are to be congratulated for that. I think if Rubicon produce products near Tamiya quality there is no reason why they can't capture some of the top end of the market with more of their products ending up in dioramas and looking good in display cabinets.

[Pinky]

Tyroflyer - I'm pretty much with you.  I have always been a big fan of Rubicon's original philosophy, which was to provide simplified but accurate wargaming kits.  While (or perhaps because) I've been building armour kits for over 35 years, I don't want to glue on every single wheel - I really like the way Rubicon have simplified the tracks and other features.  But the simplified tracks seem to be the feature that makes some people choose Warlord over Rubicon; they tend to dismiss it as looking 'toylike' (the lack of crew figures is another factor, but Rubicon are including figures now).  Oddly, these same people are prepared to overlook the shortcuts that Warlord take (such as solid roadwheels) which arguably are just as noticable.   

I agree that Rubicon could be the 1/56 equivalent of Tamiya.  I think they struck almost the perfect balance of options, detail and ease of assembly in the JagdPzr 38t and Crusader kits (and the simplified tracks don't result in any real loss of detail).  I think these are the best plastic kits in 1/56 scale available (I know they don't include crew or stowage, but Rubicon will soon have all of that covered with separate sets).  They are detailed enough for a modeller, and accurate, versatile and easy enough to build for most wargamers.  The forthcoming M4A3 is a bit more of a compromise - lots of features for modellers (and personally I'm very happy that it includes the extended end connectors and the HVSS suspension), but less options that are useful to wargamers.  Rubicon slightly fudged the tracks by adding more detail to the front, but not the back.  I don't think that's going to appease the modellers.  I'm not sure what the answer is here - it will be interesting to see what they do with the tracks on the forthcoming Panzer IV range.  If the detail could be enhanced (perhaps by slide moulding) then these kits will be enormously popular on both sides of the fence.

We seem to have come full circle, and are thus back on topic...

[ripley]

I don't think any company making kits in a game scale will ever satisfy every camp , but Rubicon , IMO , comes pretty close . As a model builder I would like more kits of  tanks  I like , weather they be a single version  kit or  a 2 in 1 with alternate turrets . Even a 3 ( maybe 4 ) in one kit like Rubicons Tiger , Stug , Hetzer and Crusader kits . Yea , lots   of " useless " bits left over maybe  , but then again , who knows which kit in the future might get up graded by steel wheel Tiger tracks , the Crusader 1 turret or an early Stug roof . Keep up the good work Rubicon .   If I want a version bad enough , I kit bash it my self 



 Plastic Warlord Panzer IV G/H turned into a D . Still haven't got the turret side doors figured out , but I'm working on it 

[Rubicon Models]

Thank you for all the comments - had taken notes and some being followed up by our studio team.

Being a design studio, it is difficult to please everyone, including the bossman!  While we have the freedom to create what we wanted to a certain degree, we do have a lot of constraints throughout the whole process.

Design Phase - With the available references and data, trying to consolidate components from several variants into a single "vehicle".  Also need to check historical photo with museum/collector vehicles.  Sometimes (which is rare) we have to omit features or try to fake it to make the kit multi-variant.

Prototype Phase - Depending on the number of sprues per kit, we have to make good use of limited space to fit everything onto these sprues.  Some parts needed to be combined or simplified for mould making.

Mould Making Phase - Mould release angle is our biggest enemy.  All parts are designed with mould release angle in mind.  Facing of parts played an important role on how fine details each part can be.  Making figures require a totally different approach and mould making process.

Other factors affecting production or alterations include:
- overall production cost per project
- extra cost to amend design
- extra cost to change/modify mould
- importance of making amendments
- time to market

For example, a multi-slide mould is an excellent solution to create very nice one-piece track; but that will increase our total production cost by over 30%... just for that two particular parts!  Then come the critical decision - should I have better tracks or an extra sprue for all the other variants?  Truck cabin is a totally different story, a multi-slide mould improve assembly experience and model integrity; but to keep cost down, accompanying sprues had to be limited to one or two at max.

This is the type of design & production considerations we faced everyday.

[tyroflyer]

Thank you Rubicon for your post. I hope you forgive us for attempts to nudge you in the direction we want as individuals. I recognise I don't know the cost of certain decisions and you can't please everyone. Hopefully as time goes on more and more kits will become available and the gaps will be fewer.

[Pinky]

For example, a multi-slide mould is an excellent solution to create very nice one-piece track; but that will increase our total production cost by over 30%... just for that two particular parts!  Then come the critical decision - should I have better tracks or an extra sprue for all the other variants?  Truck cabin is a totally different story, a multi-slide mould improve assembly experience and model integrity; but to keep cost down, accompanying sprues had to be limited to one or two at max.

The Rubicon approach works brilliantly for the truck kits.  I don't think anyone has any issue with the level of simplification.

Where you have a range of kits which have virtually identical tracks and running gear (like the Panzer IV - and any spin-offs, like the JagdPanzer IV and Wirbelwind), would it perhaps be worth the additional cost to use slide moulding?  Any differences in detail can be covered by providing different outer wheels/sprockets/idlers.  [Edit - on second thoughts, this is probably getting too far into Rubicon's internal costing etc, which really isn't something they should feel they need to debate on a website! ]

[Pinky]

Going back to the discussion about upgraded early model Panzer IVs, I found this photo of a row of refurbished Panzer IV Ausf Ds.  Apparently, starting from July 1942, these early models received the L/48 gun, Ausf G wheels and tracks, and turret Schurzen.  Some ended up in Italy and one was captured in Normandy.

[tyroflyer]

Pinky, I'll forgive Rubicon if they don't include this one in their kits!

Is there any book you know of that includes details of upgraded tanks, ie what was done to them and to how many. In your example my reference simply says 'Later in 1943, several Ausf D were refitted with 7.5cm KwK L/48 for use with training and replacement units.' Potentially several could mean a substantial number (or not).

[Pinky]

I don't know if this information exists.  According to Spielberger, "all vehicles that were sent back to Germany to be repaired during the war were always brought up to the latest technical level.  It was quite possible to install improved assemblies, additional armour and more powerful weapons in these older vehicles.  A precise technical identification was thus made considerably more difficult.". I take it from this that the available records don't distinguish between new and rebuilt tanks.

Apparently  21 unmodified early model Panzer IVs served with 21st Panzer in Normandy [edit: but see below].

[tyroflyer]

21 Panzer Div appears to have accumulated a lot of old equipment including French vehicles from 1940. When you say it had 21 old unmodified Panzer IV's do you mean Ausf A to E? Is the composition of the 21 known?

[Pinky]

Panzer Regiment 22 initially had 70 unmodified Hotchkiss tanks in I Abteilung and 54 up-gunned Somuas in II Abteilung.  The Hotchkiss were replaced with Panzer IVs.  Most of the Somuas in II Abteilung were replaced with 21 Panzer IVs but 23 Somuas were retained (it was supposed to get Panthers but they hadn't arrived).  It is these 21 replacement Panzer IVs that we're talking about.

Some sources say that all of these Panzer IVs were old models (hence my earlier post).  Jentz's 'Panzertruppen 2' says there were "21 PzIV(kz)" in June 1944.  But I did some more digging.  According to Lefevre's 'Panzers in Normandy Then and Now', "there were around half a dozen ancient Ausf Bs or Cs in II Abteilung of Panzer Regiment 22 which were most likely used for training or as OP tanks but were nonetheless sent into action.".

Panzer Regiment 22 also had Panzer IIIs serving in HQ units - according to Jentz there were "4 PzIII(75)", although Lefevre says there were 6.  Presumably they were Ausf Ns.  21st Panzer also included Sturmgeschutz Abteilung 200, which fielded self-propelled 75mm and 105mm guns based on Hotchkiss and Lorraine chassis.

Overall, I'm inclined to believe Lefevre's numbers because Jentz doesn't mention any French tanks in service with 21st Panzer Division, which seems wrong.  Also, Lefevre references a contemporaneous organisational chart - but maybe the French vehicles were dropped by June?  Perhaps someone else has more info.  I've only found photos of 2 of these old Panzer IVs, including the ones I posted above.

[Rubicon Models]

Thanks for the comments and discussion on the Panzer IV.  Had been interesting read.  Will definitely take them into considerations!

After a long silence on updates, here is the latest drawings on the Ausf D turret...





Enjoy!

[Pinky]

So the Ausf D is going to be part of the Panzer IV range?  That's great!  Along with the forthcoming Rubicon SdKfz 222, it's another reason to think about doing some Afrika Korps vehicles.

The turret looks very nice - I really like the separate side doors.  The AA mounting wasn't introduced until later, however, so it wouldn't appear on an Ausf D.  There were some quite prominent bolts on the cupola, although maybe these were omitted for moulding reasons.