Hi,

Many guys were talking about the length of chassis of DML Pz.Kfz IV Ausf.E,
See this link: http://homepage3.nifty.com/AFV_model/

He's comparing it to Tomioka-san's drawings. He says it's about 2.5mm too long, and the spacing between bogies is wrong. He's also worried about the shape of the turret and other things.

Thanks to Mayo for translating!

David

Well,
I'm a big fan of Kunihito-san but what I'm going to write will have me called all the names in the book and none of them will be bice and I should be the first one to keep it real shut,after having rebuilt a few kits with REAL issues myself,but my opinion here is that we're verging into "brain fartology"!
The hull of Dragon Panzer IV E's being (supposedly!) too short has been discussed in other threads before and I've tried to call myself out but, if I may express my humble opinion,I'm strongly convinced that people slamming this beauty should be sentenced to five(let's make twelve!) years of old Tamiya's "D"s forced rebuilding!
We've got a kit which not only oozes details from each and every nook and cranny...we've got a kit which at least looks like a real E and which,in my opinion,is second to none!I've seen old Tamiya Ds at contests which, albeit extensively rebuilt or turned into Es by seasoned modelers with hundreds of nice kits under their belts surely weren't on the same league as new Dragon D,still they were beautifully finished and were show-stoppers in their own rights!Now....since this model first hit the vendors' shelves we've started hearing people running to their mom and whine about the hulls,other running into the street,hands in the hair, screaming because the coax 34 is too high or too low and soon there will be legions of modelers ready to put up a Crusade against Dragon..and their emblem will be a Panzer IV E turret...with correct angles and measurements...almost each bloke who slams this kit is a Japanese modeler(nothing against Japan....I LOOOOOOVE Japan,I LOOOOOVE Japanese people,and many Japanese modelers are real maestros),hence....are we the witnesses of a new Japanese trend after Tamagochi and Karaoke here?This time focusing on nitpicking on each and every new kit which hits the market and which is labeled "Beautiful" or "Breathtaking" by the massses...the winner of the "spot the blunder" contest would be the guy who finds more wrong angles in 2 minutes or who reach a sum of wrong measurements equal to or higher than 2,37mm in one go...without using calipers and rulers of course,since they're the same guys who could easily tell from two yards if a hull is 3,009mm too long or short or if a angle is at 49,77876655° instead of 52,878787°!
I'm the first one who LOVES to superdetail his kits and who drops on his knees before the masterpieces built by some modelers before going back under his face stone,but I think that there's a limit to anything...and we're slowly(well....not so slowly actually!) going over the top!
I surely wasn't talking from the top of a D-turret-shaped, 34,78765567754" high soapbox and I beg you all pardon for my ranting but, for the first time that a manufacturer tries to treat us to a kit (try say that ten times real fast! ) which would look SUPER straight of he box we've got people cutting,shortening,moving,lowering,whining,crying,complaing and telling that this piece is 0,67mm too long or too high!As far as I'm concerned they have all the rights in this world to throw out the whole caboodle and start re-building each and every new kit from the ground up but.....they should also give us a break and get a life....building Dragon's new Es,for example !
Have a great weekend
Manuel

Hi Manuel - I have to agree with you, it seems that a lot of modellers have gone a little mad with this kit. But at the end of the day I don't think it really matters if some guys feel it necessary to cut the hull into 6 pieces in order to reduce the overall length by 2.5mm,etc,etc.. - After all, they did buy the kit to begin with, so they're still supporting Dragon financially. And I'm sure that for every modeller that whines about the dimensions, there's 1478 modellers out there who bought this kit and are happily building it, not caring about the minor dimensional issues. But while we're talking about the dimensions - What makes these guys so sure that Dragon has the wrong dimensions and that they have the correct ones? It seems that many reference books show conflicting measurements. If you ask me you'd want to be 110% positive that you're working from the correct plans before you go ahead and masacre your lower hull! But having said that, I'm sure I'll be checking Kunihito's website often to look for updates on his Dragon Pz. IV article!

Alex.

Alex,
you've perfectly got what I tried to say between the lines!Chris....I hear you mate......there's no point in cutting your feet at ankle eight and then putting them on your head to look taller..if you know what I mean...and I'm sure you do because you 123% hit the nail on the head with your post!
The front gear housing looked spot on to me actually,but......I think we should give Mr. Dragon a call and tell him that the cog ratio should be 1:34344343 instead of 1:34344344...have you seen that a sprocket has a tooth too much ?
I'm the one who has rebuilt several Tristar I As because the detail wasn't that sharp in places and because I enjoyed hurting myself fitting the Aber PE upper hull(a bitch to fold and solder!) intended for for the Historic kit on the Tristar one,but in my humble opinion,and I underline HUMBLE,Dragon's E merely DESERVES to be built(a few add-ons and details that cannot be rendered in injected plastic could and would be happily allowed though! ) and labeled as the very first kit that is gorgeous straight off of the box;look at that negative thread pattern on the reverse of the fenders for example!It only requires an interior (full or partial, depending on the skills of the modeler building it) to show thru the many open hatches and once you've done it....presto....a real gem that would shine big time with some skillful and imaginative/creative painting/finishing!
My two cents
Manuel

What I have come to understand is that the Japanese modelers consider the plans from Mr. Tomiokas in the "Ground Power" mag. as "OFFICIAL". I thought the only drawings that could be considered "OFFICIAL" would be the ones that came from Krupp. Oh well. Life goes on and anybody who thinks they wasted their money on this kit can send them to me. I'll even pay the postage.

Roy

Well, I think nobody, Japanese or not, said Tomioka's drawings were "OFFICIAL"...

It should also be noted that Tomioka's drawings are found in Achtung Panzer book. Not in Ground Power Magazine.

Kazutaka-san,
it doesn't mean a thing if my cat's eaten my steak while I was washing my hands or slicing the bread...he's eaten my steak and that's what counts!
Regards
Manuel

as those in the Ground Power relative to the spacing between the pairs of roadwheels. If this basic dimension is incorrect, then why should the rest be considered correct over the Hilary Doyle drawings?

Mr. Kunihito and Mr. Ogino are free to slice, dice and correct every real or imagined error in the kit. This should not diminish the enjoyment of the other 99% of modellers who just want to build what is the best representation of this version of the Panzer IV ever released.

Tom

the Japanese modelers consider those drawings as "OFFICIAL". Now I am sure he dosn't speak for all the modelers over there. I did make one error though. He said the Mr. Tomiokas based his drawings off of the GP drawing not that his drawings were the GP drawings. But here is the kicker, you take a Dragon Pz. IVE, build it straight OOB than take one and make all the corrections to it than magically enlarge them both to 1/1 scale and set them side by side. The difference would be so miniscule that you could not even notice which one is the longer one with the naked eye. I hope that the rest of Dragons newly released kits are this nice. I'll buy them all.

Roy

A BIG amen to that Roy !

Manuel

Hi all , i had a chance in the past to talk to H.L Doyle regarding the Panther and he informed me that there was an "allowance" of +/- 5 to 10% when actually building a real vehicle.
The "official" drawings were to be used as a guide to building the vehicle and human nature being what it is "variations" from official plans / measurement could and would creep into the production vehicle.

The plans that our Eastern model brothers are swearing by might be correct for "THAT" particular Pz IV that was used as a basis for the scale plans , but that should not take away from the DML kit in anyway which i assume is using "official" Krupp production material.

Nice kit... hope to get one soon.

Best regards

Paul

....that would be 5 to 10 millimiters.

David

Correct David , that is what i meant but my flu riddled mind and body made me do it

Regards

Paul

Puzzled.

And what was wrong with the final drive area??

Chris

What is up with this kit? I've had it out of the box drooling over the beautiful parts about ten times now. When I go to put it back into the box, all the parts fit! I no longer have to take hours trying to get it to fit. Did Dragon make the box walls thinner? I really miss stuffing that box. I may never buy another Dragon kit again?

I'm kidding of course, I'll pick up a few more Pz IV at Saturdays Devilcon.
I'll build it out of the box and ignore any 2.5 mm differences.

Owen

cries out in the wilderness.

Very well said, Manuel.



Mr. Ogino has posted a picture on T-L showing how he has raised the final drive. This is a photo from 'Tanks in Detail' from Ian Allen Publishing. There is no space below. Looks like he has corrected something that didn't need correcting after all.



He has claimed the splash angle at the 8:00 position is incorrect. This is the Ground Power drawing. It follows the small cutout on the corner of the engine deck side louver.



This is the APG Panzer IV D. It does not follow the angle of the cutout, just like Doyle's drawing and the DML kit.



This is the GP drawing. Note how the spaces between the roadwheels are the same. The overall center to center dimension on the GP drawing is 100mm. And what's with that sci-fi fuel filler? And where are all the conical bolts fastening the applique armor on this 'correct' drawing?



This a photo of the roadwheels on the APG Panzer IV D. Note how the space between the roadwheel pairs is two times the distance between the individual pairs. The overall center to center dimension on Doyle's drawings is 103mm, the same as the DML kit.

It looks to me like Hilary Doyle are more correct.

As for the rear of the turret, I simply dismiss this because the GP drawings are not accurate.

Tom

I think Mr. Ogino tried to move the drive sprocket wheel upwards. Here is a photo of DML kit I am currently working on. I too wonder if the drive wheel is positioned too low in the kit.



This is Doyle drawing in Panzer Tracts No.4.



As for the turret splash guard, it looks to me that the kit does not exactly match Doyle drawing.



I agree that the drawings in GP vol.109, June 2003 are not correct in many ways. But, Mr Ogino appears to be relying on Tomioka drawings found in "Achtung Panzer No.3 Panzerkampfwagen IV, DAINIHON KAIGA, ISBN 4-499-22621-X", rather than these GP drawings. Tomioka drawings are much better than GP drawings. For example, the splash guard in Tomioka drawings look like this (it matches Doyle drawings).

I understand what Mr. Ogino is trying to accomplish but he is creating one problem to solve another. I have seen this discrepancy on my own model.

The DML drive sprocket should be 1mm larger in diameter to the outside of the teeth (like the Tristar and Tamiya kits which also matches the Doyle and Tomioka drawings) and if the front segment of the housing is changed to 16mm and back segment 17.5mm in diameter, this would raise the drive sprocket 1mm which would look better.

The splash angle should be relocated as well.

These discussions are being closely followed by DML and corrections, where required, will be eventually made to the Ausf.E and will be used to ensure the Ausf.C and Ausf.D are correct.

Tom

Tom,

I know that some modelers get irritated that DML has released some kits with small errors and then corrects them in later varients after the modeler has purchased the first kit (King Tiger being a recent example).

I for one am very happy that we have a major manufacturer that actually listens to its customer base and responds when there is justifiable criticism. Unfortunately most kit producers have a "take it or leave it," attitude.

I for one couldn't be happier with DML's latest kits, except for the dent in my wallet by the amazing amount of new releases.

John

I am sorry, but I am rather confused about the drive wheel.

The diameter of the drive wheel in DML ausf E kit, as it stands now, exactly matches those in Tamiya and Tristar kits, and it also almost matches Doyle drawings (only marginally smaller than the drawings). It is, however, nearly 1mm smaller than Tomioka drawings.





You also suggest enlarging the drive housing. If the drive housing in the DML kit is enlarged by the amount you suggest, it would become noticeably bigger than what the Doyle drawings show, and become as large as what is in the Tomioka drawing.

Do we need to deviate from the Doyle drawings, and enlarge the drive wheel and the drive housing that much? Perhaps, the problem is not in the size, but in the placement of these parts on the lower hull wall of the DML kit, instead?

And another thing.

I now understand that the eight road wheels are not evenly spaced, as clearly shown in your photo of the Pz 4 D in APG. Wow, this has not been depicted in any drawings I have seen. (Even the Doyle drawings show evenly-spaced road wheels.)

You mentioned that the �goverall center-to-center dimension�h (I take this is the length between the center of the first and the last road wheel) should be 103mm in 1/35.

I found that Panzer Tracts shows �gtrack contact length�h to be 3520mm; that is 100.6mm in 1/35. This is puzzling. Considering the relative geometric placement of the road wheels and tracks on the ground, the �gtrack contact length�h must be the same as, or longer than, the �goverall center-to-center dimension�h, mustn�ft it? It cannot be shorter, unless the first and the last road wheels are somewhat above the ground.



Maybe this figure in Panzer Tracts is somewhat wrong; the REAL contact length is much longer than 3520mm when measured on the real vehicle...

we have been hearing the same story over and over, day after day. you sound like my mother-in-law!

Hi Guys,

From Krupp drawings come the following:

The design dimension of the Auflagelänge (first wheel centre to last wheel centre) is 3517 mm.

The suspension unit shows the design dimension, wheel to wheel, is 500 mm.

The gap between wheel sets is greater - it is designed to be 505.6667mm (but this is only 0.1619 of a millimeter at 1:35).

The reason for the seemingly larger gap in the museum photo can be for various reasons. When a suspension unit (a bogie with 2 wheels) is loaded, the distance between the wheels will increase (on that bogie) but if the weight is taken off the distance will decrease and a larger gap will appear between the wheel sets.

My personal preferences are the Panzer Tracts plans (I prefer to use those in the hard bound German language Begleitwagen PanzerKampfwagen IV by the team we 'all love and trust' Spielberger/Jentz/Doyle).

I won't pick sides; as long as the criticism is constructive...go for it! Just make sure the references you are using are correct for the vehicle in question- not only model, but time frame as well since a vehicle which was recently built will definitely have differences in parts designed to be variable such as the suspension (shock absorbers, torsion bar flex, and spring resiliency).

Find a photo of an Ausf E. and compare the wheel unit spacing. Then we will see if the scale plans are correct. Note, when Panzer Tracts 4 appeared in 1997, the book CLEARLY states that the scale plans were scaled down to approximately 1/35th scale from their original 1/24th scale. So, before laying kit parts on them, measure the scale plans and compare them to the dimensions listed in the book. Increase or decrease as needed and lay your parts over them.

Regards,
Saúl García
Roaming the deserts of Modelland

The Auflagelänge is equal to B in the sketch.

The drive sprocket diameter is governed by the track pitch. The stated pitch is 120 mm but the sprocket was designed to accommodate additional length as tracks quickly wear.

Again from a trusted source.

Regards,
Saúl García
Roaming the deserts of Modelland

Some of us purchase models and build them to remove our daily stress; I do and I think with all the nay sayers out there they seem to expect us to all build museum quality kits; (mine will never make it that far) to reflect the 'perfect model of a German Panzer' about what is correct and what is not. Tom Cockle was instrumental in creating this kit and I appreciate his help with everything he does with this web site. Remember we are alot better off with the quality of kits today than we were 30 years ago.

After reading this thread I am simply gobsmacked. You guys have been treated to what are probably the three best 35th kits ever done (far exceeding anything else ever done) with a stunning level of detail at a ridiculously low price and you can still whinge.

Maybe it's time to hang up the Giant verniers guys and actually just start building the kits. If you want to count rivets find a steel bridge and go to it.

I find it incomprehensible that a kit of this calibre is being picked over in this fashion. As for basing this nit-picking on drawings is just to much. Maybe a few real measurements may be a better way to critique. Then again - third hand information is better than none. Is this the new categegory for Euro Militaire - The best nit-pick?

If you want to whinge take up modelling allied subjects. I'll take an allied kit to that standard anyday!

To DML - these are true masterpieces, please don't stop there.

CHeers
AL

I too found this to be one of the most silliest thread I have read for quite while ! Bashing a new kit that is ovbiously far superior to anything comparable on the market when even the major references show significant discrepancies is completely weird for me and something that I don´t get at all.
I don´t have the knowledge to judge whose drawings are right and whose are wrong. I understand that the gentlemen Doyle & Jentz are taking their research very serious. On the other hand I had the pleasure to see Mr. Tomioka "in action" in the Koblenz museum when I accompanied the guys from Armour Modelling on their german tour some years ago. The very first moment Mr.Tomioka got on his knees to start measuring several track types he obviously "stepped into another world", not noticing anything else around him. The precision which he showed with taking the measurements and making appropriate sketches while "crawling" on the museum´s floor was something I haven´t seen neither before nor afterwards, so if there really are these signifant discrepancies between his drawings and those of Hilary Doyle, my guess would be that these come from measuring different surviving examples that have differences in 1:1 scale.
But unless these discrepancies are cleared, it´s useless (imho) to simply 'take one side', I for myself will nothing but enjoy this superbly detailed kit as it is !
My 2 decreasing european cents,

Stefan

Guys,

Why on earth are any of us getting worked up here about ANYTHING? Everyone enjoys the hobby in his/her own way and should be able to do so without people telling them how silly they are.

Personally, I think that the DML is by FAR, the single best kit available in plastic at the moment. That being said, the folks at DML are human and could have easily made a mistake or two. I don't know that they did (and frankly the "evidence" that has been presented so far hasn't convinced me), but it ceratinly is possible. I am currently building this kit OOB and am having a wonderful time doing so. On the other hand, the Japanese modelers such as Kunihito-san that are hacking it up and making "corrections" also seem to be having a great time doing so. I definately disagree with calling this thread or any like it silly, because as Tom said a few posts above, the folks from DML are watching these threads and do correct any errors that are found. These are the types of threads that in the past have led to the kits we have today. We should all be thankful for the people that are engaging in this type of discussion as they are the ones helping to drive the further improvements that DML and other companies have been making with their models.

Keep it guys. Keep telling DML and the other companies what they have done right or wrong so that they can continue improving and wowing us.

P.S. - If you folks from DML are actually reading these postings, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE go to this level of detail on the T-34/76 Models 1942 and 1943 that I assume you will be releasing. It will be wonderful to finally have extremely well done and accurate T-34/76s (after all this is one of the most, if not the most, important tanks or WWII). Keep up the great work!

My 2 cents,
Adam