The Panzer III Digital Library - Mid-War Panzer 200521

[Tracks]

We know that had been a lot of talking about our new Panzer III Digital Project.  Due to all the QC of new moulds, our staff just do not have the time or energy to work on the Panzer III drawings... until now.  This is what we have done so far... basic structure of the Panzer III based on the Ausf L.  We do have to start somewhere and the Ausf L is basically the best starting point as this variant can be "updated" both forward and backward for other variants.

This is a total redesign and redraw of the complete tank, not a modification of the old one!

* * RM picture of Panzer III Ausf.L removed * *

Yes, I agree with Rubicon Models. They have to start somewhere and the Ausf L is a good starting point.

However, I feel the need to toss out some words of caution. Why? Because I hope it will help RM and the gamer/modeller community as a whole. Also because Italeri already produces a nice Panzer III Ausf J/L/M/N in plastic - power to the plastic!. Probably not everyone  likes this kit, but I know many (including myself) that do like this kit.

Just like many other modellers and gamers out there, I already have several of these nice Italeri Panzer III models. I can't speak for everyone, but to be honest with RM, I know for certain when and if RM releases their a Panzer III Ausf.L, many will not be very interested because the Italeri Panzer III plastic kit does an very good job in meeting their needs. That being said, this is why many people I know (including myself) are excited to hear that RM is going to start the project with Ausf E/F versions first. RM also said, "Will definitely look into doing all the main wartime variants, including the Ausf G / H / J", and these version will also draw interest from the gamer/modeller community. However, then when RM said, "Then working on the late Panzer IIIs... Ausf K / L / M / N", and it was at that very moment my first thoughts were, "I'm so glad they plan to do these last."

Again, I can't speak for everyone, but I actually like the Italeri Panzer III Ausf.J/L/M/N plastic kit. Its a pretty good kit and I have no plans to replace them with RM model kits. I only say this to inform RM because I'm probably not the only gamer/modeller that feels this way, and I hope this additional information will be useful to RM. I also say this to try and encourage plastic model companies to work together rather to complete against each other. Yes, I know the latter statement is a "living in a dreamworld" statement, but it had to be said. The gamer/modeller has more to gain if model companies coordinated their projects better so they see far less duplicates of vehicles - I already know that its far more complicated than that.

It's fantastic that RM is planning to release a Panzer III Ausf.E to Ausf.N, but sometimes overlap is bad.



As a side note, I recommend to other gamers/modellers to buy the Italeri kit (pictured above) than the "Bolt Action" Warlord Games kit. It is exactly the same plastic sprues! However, the Italeri kits comes with better color painting examples, better assembly instructions, better decals, and what I think is a better box. Also, the Italeri kits cost less! At least for me the cost was less than the Warlord kits.

The flip side to this is that if we don't buy the Warlord "Bolt Action" kits, Warlord might stop asking Italeri to produce new 1:56 (28mm) scale plastic vehicle kits for them. The ones they have already produced for Warlord are pretty good.

[EarlyWarGamer]

I understand where you are coming from Tracks, and that is: gamer and modeller. And from that perspective, it would be nice if there was somehow a way for various companies to coordinate their efforts when releasing kits. We (the consumer) would get more stuff, more quickly.

And yes, it can be frustrating to hear that a kit is in development, and then you find out that one or two other companies also jumped on that same kit, and suddenly you get three releases of (for example) a German 88mm, instead of three separate kits.

But we would not get ANY toys, if these companies did not stay in business, and it makes more business sense (at least to me) to approach development the way Rubicon has.

I do not doubt that a company can decide to release a Pz III Ausf "X" and make a pretty good kit.

But approaching the Pz III as a family of kits, and researching the various models, and coming to certain conclusions (perhaps finding the best cut-off points between certain models due to major hull or turret or track changes) means that when they develop the Pz III, I think we will get even better kits in the long run.

A company that just focuses on the Ausf "X" might miss that a certain change took place very late in that series. All they see is a nice diagram or blueprint or photo and so they model that aspect because "it is there". And then people like us come along and criticize them because of the 1500 made in that model, only the last 80 had that feature. And now the kit has much more limited use.

So I applaud Rubicon for approaching a vehicle like the Pz III or Pz IV (or T-26, or ... etc) by researching the ENTIRE series, and then forming up kits that contain certain models.  I don't think the T-26 kit would be anywhere near as comprehensive as it is if they had just decided "Let's just knock out the T-26 M39" since that was the final one.

So I do understand that for those who already have a certain model, and they like it, that they will probably not replace what they have with a newer kit. Hobby time to build and paint a kit is hard to come by.  But I still approve of how Rubicon approaches an entire line of kits. I would NOT want them to skip a particular model in a series, just because (for example) Italeri already has a solid kit that represents that particular vehicle already.

[ripley]

The BA/Italeri III is an awesome kit . You can , with a little help from your library ( cause the instruction suck ) make a wide range of Panzer III J,K,L & M . Love that the vision ports on the turret sides and the hull escape hatches  are seperate pieces . Also their side skirt assembly is easy to modify to remove panels .

[Pinky]

The BA/Italeri Panzer III is a very good kit.  As is their StuG III.  Both kits rather showed up their Rubicon counterparts, in terms of accuracy and detail.  The only issue with both is the tracks, which don't quite sit properly on the idler and drive sprocket, and they messed up the spaced armour on the mantlet.  Rubicon's Panzer III Ausf L - N will have the advantage of Rubicon's (IMO) superior tracks and running gear, although I do wish they'd put the track detail on both ends and not just the front.  I think EarlyWarGamer has a good point about Rubicon producing the entire (or most of) the Panzer III series, rather than leaving out important variants because BA/Italeri do them.  However, that means I'm far more interested in the earlier variants.  The Ausf E/F would fill a big gap, providing a vehicle that saw important service in several theatres during the early period of the war.

[ripley]

I never built the BA Stug , but Rubicon's is great with the variety of options you can build . They probably could have just given the option of 75mm gun or 105 howitzer like BA did ( did you get the Saukopf mantlet ? ) But Rubicon gave you 3 roof options  2 types of machine gun mounts, two mantlets , 3 versions of the 75mm gun  muzzle break and the 105 , a real great kit for kit bashers .  Lower front nose panel angled wrong though . I guess its what part of the hobby you're partial to , the gaming part , or the modelling part . As a modeler I want more options in the kits I purchase .  Really there is no right or wrong kit , it's what ever kit gives you the tank / vehicle you want / need . Rubicon's Schurzen , while great for a game piece , leaves a lot to be desired as model piece .  So I just used their supports and made my own skirting . What works / looks good to me , might not to you . I still say the more variety we have in companies making 1/56 models the better . Just look at the  88mm Flak gun , we have 2 companies issuing the same kit with different crews ( metal or plastic ) and a lot more detailed kit ( with trailers ) from Rubicon . Yes price might sway some buyers , as might the 1st kit to hit the shops ( shiny shiny ) , and it also might be what you want the kit for , objective , scenery piece , or model for diorama . Personally I'm getting 2 , Rubicon's and Italeri's with the plastic crew . But I've gone  off topic 

[Pinky]

Really there is no right or wrong kit , it's what ever kit gives you the tank / vehicle you want / need .

I don't really agree with that, Ripley.  You're an experienced kit-basher; a kit for you is just the raw material.  More people want / expect an accurate model of the vehicle, and that's what kit manufacturers should be aiming for.  With the wealth of high quality resources available, there's really no excuse for mistakes - at least on basic details.  The Rubicon StuG III was ultimately rather disappointing because, despite the wealth of options, it had some quite noticable mistakes - principally the nose, but also the non-slip pattern on the trackguards.  The Warlord/Italeri StuG is, sadly, much better.  If Rubicon was just aiming for the wargaming market, then they could say that these details are comparatively unimportant; what matters is being able to field a reasonably accurate (and robust) representation of the vehicle without spending too long assembling it.  That's where they started, and that's why their tanks have simplified, Roco-style tracks.  But they're increasing pitching their kits as accurate scale models (to the extent that they're actually less suitable for wargaming, due to the number of fragile parts), and that means the details have to be right.  They don't get a pass on, for instance, the missing Pilze sockets on their new Panzer IV Ausf J. 

[ultravanillasmurf]

I can understand your view Pinky, as someone with a not particularly broad knowledge of WW2 vehicles, I do hope that kit manufacturers do get things right. As they are human (unless the evil robot overlords are trying a new tack to take over the world ^__^) they do make mistakes and the good ones do something about it.

One of the many reasons why my BA Stug has remained on the shelf unfinished are the horrible wheels.

[ripley]

What we need is a hybrid Rubicon / Italeri kit , great wheels , better detailed track , etc . Both companies do miss things on their respective kits though . Some gamers / modellers  I know don't care , they just want tank X in their force or on their shelf  . Others look at the kit as a starting point for additional detailing and kit bashing . I think its something that Rubicon / Italeri will always have trouble with as they both have a variety of customers who want different things from their kits , historical accuracy , ease of build , looks the part for game play , etc .  Will the fact Rubicon missed the Plitze sockets worry most gamers , probably not , but  will most of them even realize they are missing ?  I don't think so . Will it worry most modellers , some it might , but others will just add the parts . We've been doing that to kits for years . Even the latest and greatest Takom or Meng 1200 piece kit has bits added to it , just look up any build on the scale modelling sites . And no , Rubicon shouldn't get a pass for leaving off the Plitze sockets . But its not a make or break omission IMO . Hopefully , there is still time for them to add them . If not this kit , then maybe they'll be a little more careful on the next kit . I really can't see them or anyone producing a kit that 100% of the customers are going to be happy with , we always find something wrong or missing 

[Tracks]

First, I applaud Rubicon Models for approaching a vehicle like the Pz III. I'm confused and and not sure where you got the idea I was against this project after reading my post above.

http://forum.rubiconmodels.com/index.php?topic=614.msg10262#msg10262

In fact, I'm really excited at the prospect of seeing some of the early versions like the E/F/G/H. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if their future Panzer III Ausf E/F and G/H kits are big sellers.

However... RM has mentioned on multiple occasions that the cost for developing and making of new molds is very expensive, which is true BTW. So what happens if RM releases a Panzer III Ausf J/L/M/N plastic model kit - competing with the Italeri kit - and it just doesn't sell?

What would be a better choice ("I'm just saying").
1) RM releases a Panzer III Ausf J/L/M/N plastic model kit - competing with the Italeri kit.
or
2) RM releases something new (Sdkfz.10 for example) that no other model company offers/has.

[Tracks]

Getting side-tracked by Stug III.

There is some talk about the Stug III. To be more specific, the difference between the Rubicon Models and Italeri kits. I have both and I can tell you that both are very good kits. They are not exactly the same! I agree with almost everything that was mentioned above about these two different kits. In short there are some good points and bad points to both kits.

My RM StuG is not painted, so here is a picture of one of my StuG III plastic models by Italeri. I hope this does not get me into too much trouble with RM. Anyway, I like the Italeri kit very much.



As I said before, all my 1/56 scale plastic kits are painted for the purpose of gaming only, and not the highly detailed work you would see for competition or static display. So nothing fancy. Just good enough for the gaming table.

Missing TC and MG
I need to make one note. I forgot to put the tank commander and the MG on the Stug before I took the picture. Both the TC and MG are removable. In fact, the only thing keeping the tank commander from falling out is the ND magnet. The TC has the magnet while the tank has a metal plate. The metal plate is added during assembly by drilling out the inside of the opening and permanently attaching a square piece (or any shape really) of metal from below. Of course I do this before I glue the upper hall to the lower hull.

Tracks
Oh, and as for the comment about the tracks on the Italeri Stug III, well, I have build a few of these kits and I had no issues what-so-ever, but I did remove those guide tabs and made sure the pieces fit perfectly before gluing. That wasn't difficult at all.

[WeRT]

Many good points on your previous post @Tracks but it might be too late for this.
Warlord will lunch 2 campaigns this year (Africa and France in November) and they might review their old kits (like resin Pz.IV Ausf. D ) and / or release early war Pz.III (at least Ausf. F).

[Pinky]

There is some talk about the Stug III. To be more specific, the difference between the Rubicon Models and Italeri kits. I have both and I can tell you that both are very good kits. They are not exactly the same! I agree with almost everything that was mentioned above about these two different kits. In short there are some good points and bad points to both kits.

The Warlord/Italeri StuG is fine straight out of the box.  The Rubicon StuG needs the nose re-modelled, and you can't really fix the trackguard pattern (although Rubicon are revising the kit to deal with this point).  Little details, like the smoke dischargers, are inferior to the other kit's.  That said, I'm quite fond of my Rubicon StuG.

Oh, and as for the comment about the tracks on the Italeri Stug III, well, I have build a few of these kits and I had no issues what-so-ever, but I did remove those guide tabs and made sure the pieces fit perfectly before gluing. That wasn't difficult at all.

I tried that (on the Panzer III), but had a small gap around the idler and drive sprocket.  In the end, I just prefer Rubicon's approach to the tracks and running gear, even if there's a loss of detail on the tracks.

Many good points on your previous post @Tracks but it might be too late for this.
Warlord will lunch 2 campaigns this year (Africa and France in November) and they might review their old kits (like resin Pz.IV Ausf. D ) and / or release early war Pz.III (at least Ausf. F).

Warlord seem to be a bit random about this.  They don't put out plastic kits when they would support a new campaign book. 

[ripley]

All the BA tank kits I've built do have a slack fit to the track around the sprocket / idler . I usually just bend the track a bit to give it more sag , you might have to trim a little off a track guide tooth though . And while BA's wide wheels look OK on T-34s and Panther/Tigers , Rubicons wheels look much better on the wheel set types with return rollers ( Panzer III , IV and Shermans )

[Tracks]

Many good points on your previous post @Tracks but it might be too late for this.
Warlord will lunch 2 campaigns this year (Africa and France in November) and they might review their old kits (like resin Pz.IV Ausf. D ) and / or release early war Pz.III (at least Ausf. F).

In plastic or resin?

I have to agree with Pinky on this one in that they don't support the new campaign books very well with new plastic kits. I'm still actually surprised Warlord never replaced their resin Matilda II with a superior plastic model. That resin kit is pretty bad, but there it is.

I tried that (on the Panzer III), but had a small gap around the idler and drive sprocket.  In the end, I just prefer Rubicon's approach to the tracks and running gear, even if there's a loss of detail on the tracks.

Italeri is known for their four piece track sections. Warning, sometimes a little care and skill is needed to make it fit perfectly. In some cases they fit well, but in other cases not. I found its best to remove those guide tabs. Also, sometimes while assembling I have to file away some plastic to get a better fit. Only removing a tiny amount, but if given a choice, I would rather have track pieces that are a tiny bit longer than a tiny bit shorter. 

In conclusion, in a few cases those four piece Italeri tracks require some extra skill and care whereas Rubicon's one-piece tracks are easy and ready to go. Everyone knows by now that the only disadvantage is a loss of track detail because of how the molds need to be made. As for that extra track details, I guess some modellers might prefer this on bigger tracks like the Tiger. I wonder if that's the reason why Rubicon is going to release highly detailed resin replacement tracks for their Tiger kit.

[Pinky]

All the BA tank kits I've built do have a slack fit to the track around the sprocket / idler . I usually just bend the track a bit to give it more sag , you might have to trim a little off a track guide tooth though . And while BA's wide wheels look OK on T-34s and Panther/Tigers , Rubicons wheels look much better on the wheel set types with return rollers ( Panzer III , IV and Shermans )

That's a good summary, Ripley.  Warlord / Italeri's track design is particularly bad for narrow tracks - I had to use greenstuff to get a smooth join on their M3 Stuart.  By contrast, Rubicon's M5A1 tracks are a joy to assemble and look great (despite the missing inner guide teeth).