I am going to post some photos to back up some of the points I raised about DML Pz.IV E in a couple of threads in the last few days.

I am doing this simply because some people asked to provide �gproof�h or �gevidence�h to support my points. After I post these photos, I will quit and keep my mouth shut. OK?

If you despise of �gnitpicking�h or �grivet counting�h, then stop reading this thread now. This thread can be disturbing to you. I also ask you not to add smearing comments here, please. Just ignore the thread if you don�ft like it. You don�ft need to express how much you hate �grivet counting�h. There have already been many such opinions posted recently.

I will use photos in most cases, instead of plans, as some people are skeptical about plans. There are not obscure photos. Many of them are well-known and published quite many times in various publications. If you have one or two decent reference on Pz.IV, you will find no difficulty in finding these in your reference books.

Some of you may say that �gphotos can be deceiving and misleading, as they are prone to optical distortion and may give wrong impression if they weren�ft shot at the straight angle�h. Fine, I will try to use more than one photo to support each point.

Here goes...

Pz IV E doesn't have a square opening (an air intake) on the RHS of the upper structure. It was there on Pz IV D, but not on E. You will not notice this once the add-on armor part is attached and hides the opening, though.

The position of the drive wheel is too low.


I found the following photos of nearly completed DML Pz IV kit on the net.

From the left, Trister ausf D, DML ausf E, and DML/Gunze Jagdpanzer IV. It is apparent the drive wheel in DML ausf E is placed lower than the others.

The front armour plate of the turret does not look quite good. �gCheeks�h, the widest points, should be positioned slightly higher. Some people may feel that the gunner�fs vision port should be slightly moved towards the center of the turret too.

The stopper for the turret side hatch should be moved forward. It should be just in front of the widest part of the turret.

The triangular key hole plate on the radio operator's hatch is upside down. The key hole plate on the driver�fs hatch is correctly oriented. Yes, these plates are in opposite directions on the two hatches.



The following is an ausf D photo. But, this hatch remained the same through out ausf B to G. Interestingly, DML�fs own ausf J and ausf F kits have the same error. Tamiya and Itareli kits have the correct mold.

The positions of the bolts on the center hub of the drive sprocket wheel are wrong. The positions of the bolts along the rim of the drive sprocket wheel are wrong too.

See the following post for photos.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/47207/message/1130937041/photographic+evidence

DML ausf E wheel has excellent mold, its rubber rim is probably the best among Pz IV kits ever produced. However, I wouldn�ft mind if the hub stands higher than now.

The hub of the road wheel stands out prominently on Pz IV ausf E, not as high as on the ausf D wheel, but much higher than on the ausf F/G/H wheels.



Compare this with road wheels of ausf F/G, as shown below.



More ausf E road wheels.





This photo is of ausf D sent to Africa. However, the second vehicle has an ausf E road wheel on its engine deck.



Here are kit parts. Ausf D (left), ausf E (center left) road wheels in Trister Pz IV wheel set, DML ausf E wheel (center right), and TAMIYA ausf H wheel (right), which is the same as ausf F/G. Tristar ausf E wheel has a taller hub than DML ausf E wheel, and I feel the Tristar part has better impression than the DML part. Other than that, the DML wheel looks the best.

I also appreciate the extent to which you have analyzed the DML kit. I find this sort of "rivet counting" by folks who have larger reference libraries than me to be very helpful. I'm better able to determine which errors I think need to be corrected and which ones are close enough to leave alone. The information you have posted regarding the turret will be helpfull in correcting the dimensional problems with the Tristar IV D turret.

I would enjoy seeing a similar critique of the Tristar kit, since I am pretty sure it has problems that no one has illustrated in as much detail as you have with the DML IV E kit.

Thanks again,

Dave Clark

I posted Pz IV ausf D kit from Tristar I completed this summer in the Constructive Comment forum.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/110741/message/1130988267/Tristar+Panzer+IV+ausf+D

Kazutaka

Thank you for the link to your Tristar IV D build in the Constructive Comments section. It was very helpful. Keep up the good work.

Dave Clark

Kazutaka,

I have been meaning to respond to your last posting on the previous thread about the drive sprocket but I have been busy trying to resolve the dimensional differences in my own mind.

I have a dead on photo of the APG Panzer IV and by proportioning the 120mm track gauge, the actual outside diameter of the drive sprocket works out to almost exactly 22mm in this scale.

You are right that the DML and Tamiya drive sprockets are the same 22mm diameter and I misstated that in my previous posting. I was thinking that if the drive sprockets were 23mm like the Achtung Panzer drawing and the front circle of the drive housing was enlarged then that would help with the height problem. I also saw a posting on T-L by Mr. Ogino showing the final drive from the bottom and that it did not come down to the bottom of the hull like the photo I posted seemed to show. I also have a similar photo of the APG vehicle that shows the same thing. He was right to raise the final drive housing to correct this problem.

All of these points are very helpful and will be used to ensure that corrections will be made.

I also checked Doyle's drawings and he does not have larger spaces between the roadwheel pairs as you noted, but the overall center to center of roadwheels is a hair under 103mm. If you add the 1mm to the spaces on the Achtung Panzer drawings, then you also get 103mm. The only way we'll resolve this is for someone to get an actual measurement from either the Bovington or APG Panzer IV.

Let's move on from here now and I would request that any further postings on this topic be of a positive nature.

Thanks.

Tom

Steve Z's comments on similar Sherman nit picking from the Allied group...

"If DML improves their Shermans the way they did their PzKpfw IV kit, all they are going to get is nibbled to death by the nitpickers. Have you seen how looney the Japanese modelers are getting over that kit? Check out the Axis DG or Track Link! You would have thought that DML brought out a Kingtiger in Afrika Korps markings!"

Considering there is not a Panzer IV within how many thousands of miles of Japan there are a lot of experts there it seems.

The point I and others were trying to make was just once we'd like it if DML put as much effort into a Sherman as they have the Panzer IV or Tigers. If they honestly did that, the OD crowd would mess themselves.
Sure a bolt counter or two would snivel, but it would still be light years ahead of anything, anyone is currently providing Sherman wise.
Its jealousy pure and simple. You get Super detailed Tigers, and now the PanzerIV. We've yet to get one Sherman out of DML that is right.
Count your blessings guys.
- Shawn

Granted Dragon's Shermans are really often sub-par, the astonding, over-the-top nit-picking of the Dragon IV E floors me. Ok some little detail is 1/1000 of a millimeter off SO WHAT? Some people have way too much time on their hands. I can see the Sherman crowd starting a similar trend... grease nipple on the return roller is too deep, casting foundry marks in the wrong font, etc. I am just glad to see some new kits myself.

I got lit up for complaining about the DML Sherman short comings. While others are happy to have what ever DML throws our way (OD fans).
I say hold their feet to the fire so we can get a "Ultimate Sherman" kit along the lines of the Tigers and Panzer IV.
I don't think the allied side would complain as much if we got a Sherman that came anything close to the latest axis kits.
- Shawn

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 preference 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 (Ausf.), but time 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.

The Auflagelänge is equal to B in the sketch by Kazutaka.

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 (Hilary L. Doyle).

This was a follow up to a post on Track-Link on the same subject:

"Hilary L. Doyle informed me that the dimensions he stated, based on a drawing dated February 1943, was in line with others in his collection drawn during 1944. To note, the drawing for the Ausf. A states 3515mm. Remember that there is a maximum of 10 mm tolerence allowed (0.2857 mm at 1:35).

So, the 3520mm measurement is still within the tolerence and may have been stated so as to round off the measurement. The 3600mm measurement shown in other drawings are for the ground contact length of the tracks. This means that 30 links should contact the ground on a newly built machine.

Hilary was unable to pull out the drawing since he is packing to go and measure another museum specimen for an upcoming Panzer Tracts book."


Regards,

Saúl García
Roaming the deserts of Modelland

This may help you to read the Krupp diagrams...

In "Der Panzerkampfwagen VI und seine abarten" (Walter J. Spielberger, Motor Buch Verlag) the author quotes a figure called the "Aufgelänge je Kette". This refers to the precise distance between the axles of the front and rear road wheels on one side, in other words, the precise length of track that touches the ground.

He also quotes "Aufgelänge je Kette bei 20cm Einsinktiefe". This apparently refers to the length of the track in contact when the vehicle sinks 200mm into the ground.

And finally the dimension called "Spurweite" appears to the the distance between the center lines of the two tracks.

David

How do you do, Mr. Cockle.

This is my first post to this disccussion group. Please forgive, if a not suitable point is in manners. I always admire that you respond to an inquiry sincerely quickly.

May I borrow this place and may ask a few? (May my translation software work well so that my opinion may be transmitted without misunderstanding!)

The mold of the turret of PanzerIVE of DML is the best in the model of all the past. And it has every four screw holes in forefront right and left of a turret ceiling. According to the photographs inside a turret (G type of Munster etc.), it turns out that this is provided for the screw which fixes the base of the arm of a visor.

Those arms are straight lines in a direction of movement (seeing from a top), and it will move in parallel with the base. The elbow of those arms will move at the verticality to a ceiling or the ground. Is it good so far?

If that is right, every four screw holes of these should be located in a line with the visor and the straight line (seeing from a top). PanzerIVE of DML has not become so like Mr. Doyle's drawing to which it referred. When based on a screw hole, the visor of the port side is slightly shifted outside in starboard inside. That is, trouble has a relation of the position of a screw hole and a visor. Doesn't this become a key which solves the trouble of arrangement of the visor which Mr. Yokota etc. points out? Can't your idea be shown about this?

(Though I hear that someone says, "It is trouble fine again!", I ask them to bear and want them to think just for a moment. If the turret front of a tank is compared to a "face", isn't the relation of the position of each part an very important thing which composes it? If they fiddle with their favorite actress's mug shot and detach 1cm of eyebrows, how do they feel?)

By the way, the visor of this kit can be assembled in the condition of having opened. This is a wonderful idea which tickles modelers at spirit. However, there is no bulletproof glass attached to the visor in front of a turret. Can't you suggest that bulletproof glass parts are added also here to DML? This will become a more wonderful product if it is realized.


best regards

Hi Kazutaka,

Do not let those bothered by rivet counters stop you from posting your findings. I appreciate your efforts. If you find it difficult to post, contact me directly.

Regards,
Saúl

Saúl García
Roaming the deserts of Modelland

One day these company's, who put out the money and effort to make these new kits, will just say forget it. I can hear them now- "If they don't appreciate our efforts to bring them the best quality models we've EVER seen, we'll go back to making sub-par models. They will be cheaper to produce and the ones who are going to complain anyways can make what ever changes they want". As for me, I like what I'm seeing. I will continue to support these companys who are trying to make really good models with my pocket book.
Happy modeling
Mike B

I can live with nitpicking, but when 95% of the kit is perfect and so well molded, when do we say "ok, this kit is great and I can live with a few minor problems?

to the folks at dml, I SALUTE YOU GUYS AND ALL THE EFFORT YOU PUT INTO THIS KIT ND I WILL BUY 5 OF THESE AMAZING KITS!!

dave

I think the models these guys are pumping out are just awesome!
The price allows the average modeler, who may not be able to afford after market products, to make a model that looks like you bought a ton of after market sets. How many companys worry about the detail under the fenders that most likely will never see the light of day.
Thanks to Dragon for helping the average modeler create a model that could win a model contest built straight out of the box!
Happy modeling
Mike B

Hi,

I remember that initially Dragon people took the critique that their products received very baddly. However, they soon turned the tables in this respect and have used the information they get from this site and others, not to speak from the nitpickers directly, into their advantage. Because they decided to listen to their clients, they are today making far better AFV models than anybody else in the market. And look at the speed at which they bring new kits to the market and make corrections when erros are pointed out. In my opinion, the evidence is not on your side when you hint that pointing out shortcomings, be they large or small, would reduce Dragons efforts. I see just the opposite, Dragon has built a good concept on how to use customer feedback to imporove business. I am convinced they no where to draw the line businesswise.

Best regards,

Jari

The answer simply is because it is Dragon. Not to bash Dragon, nor to diminish the effort they put forth.

It is because Dragon is a company with a track record of going to their molds and modifying them to improve accuracy. They tried to get it right, and for the most part...they have! Dragon accepted input from top modelers to help. Even these top modelers (see there work and be awed) missed a few items. This is what is being brought forth.

So every nit pick that is documented, as long as it is constructive, should be brought forth. BECAUSE IT IS DRAGON, I believe we will see an improved product in the future.

Had this kit been released by Tamiya (or any other company)....how long would we have to wait before these improvements would be made? Perhaps never?

My hats off to the nit pickers for seeing these details so many other eyes did not, and my sincerest respect for the company that I know is listening and will bring forth THE BEST kit ever in accuracy to match the outstanding value that the model already is.

Regards,


Saúl García
Roaming the deserts of Modelland

Kazutaka, I dont mean to be disrespectful, Pls forgive me. But i ask What is your point ? In life,nothing is exact. Ersatz "official" plans or not.If you dont think the kit is correct,Then correct it any way you like and and be on your way.It seems to the writer , that there is disagreement on whether the kit is totaly accurate. Fine. we all have our opinions.This should not be an exercise of "gotcha" . What do you gain by pointing this out ?? Lets not delude ourselves into believing that 99% of the real world modellers do what you do to take a micrometer to every kit they buy.Most people open the box and build it. If it is your pleasure to comapre the kit to plans and correct every detail,perceived or otherwise,then fine , Have at'em. However there is nothing to be gained to be first and formost on the gotcha list advising the kit is 2mm off in scale for some insignificant part of the vehicle based on suspect plans.For in the real world, most modellers dont care. They see a kit they like,Some company brings it out,they buy it an eventually build it. Lets not get lost in the forest from the tree's. Do what make you happy. At this point, this thread seems trite..Sorry for the rant.Rgds jim

This is a hobby. So why not let people learn more if they are interested to know, or ignore if they do not care such details? Neither way make you bad. You need not to appreciate such kind of effort but some others outthere do. If it did not "offend" any modellers but model companies, why we bother? You can support a company but not everyone have to do so. No model company was out of business or making even poorer products because of customers' complaint. Otherwise all of the companies were already gone.
my two cents
Tang

You don't have to incorporate any of the changes he mentions and you can enjoy your hobby just as much as he can. I can't see why anyone would bother to spend an obviously considerable time in researching and posting such posts just for the benefit of their ego, so have you considered the possibility that he actually wanted to share his findings for the benefit of us all?

I wonder if 99% of modellers actually build the kits they buy (many of us have a growing stash of unbuilts or unfinisheds) but as long as they buy them, the manufactutrers will be happy. That's where they make their money. Actually, there are companies whose products repeatedly tend to be unbuildable (no names no pack drill) but it doesn't seem to dent their sales. Maybe if we did build all the things we bought, said companies would no longer be trading as natural selection would have weeded them out.

I don't have a Dragon Pz IV E (not even seen one yet) but it is likley that I will buy one and then spend a while checking it against my references so that I can do the best job I can on it. That is my choice and what I enjoy. If others enjoy building from the box, that's fine too but I don't tell them they are ruining my hobby and they shouldn't tell me I am ruining theirs.

If someone points out a dimensional error in a kit, I can take a view as to whether I want to correct it or not. I suggest everyone else probably does the same but that seems like a poor reason to criticise the person who pointed it out. If not even the people who provide research to kit manufacturers are remunerated for their efforts, why would someone who does so on an open forum such as this do so for reasons other than to help out the rest of us?

Keep up the good work Kazutaka and the rest of you - some of us appreciate your efforts.

greetings and salutations,
i cannot agree more-you have written it all and maybe it will keep some people honest-cost is going up and how about accurracy...?
cheers
bror-willy
carpe diem

I think Yokota-san is doing us, and DML, a service by pointing out the minor faults he has discovered in the kit. Is he perhaps a little detail-crazy compared to some of us? Probably, but if craziness were a crime then most modellers would be locked up already Is he saying the kit is no good? No. Is he disparaging DML? No. He is respectfully pointing out some possible errors that he has discovered, he is showing us how to correct them, and he has carefully documented his points with photographic evidence.

I, for one, appreciate his comments. I have one Pz IV Ausf E, I think the kit is amazing, and I'll probably buy another at Devilcon this weekend. I will choose to fix the sprocket issue that Yokota-san has pointed out (otherwise I'll always be unhappy with the downward dip at the front of the top track run) but I'll probably choose to ignore most of the other points he raises. That's my choice. Other modellers can make their own decisions, to the point where they're happy with their models. That's their choice, and we should all respect each other's choices. At least Yokota-san has given us the ability to make such informed choices. Arigato gosimasu-teh!

Let's not persecute the nit-pickers for some perceived heresy. DML produces great kits and is pushing the boundaries of quality, accuracy and value in most respects. Informed, justified, CONSTRUCTIVE criticism only helps them push those boundaries even further, and they have shown that they respond positively to such comments. That's a Good Thing. They know that their positive reaction to such criticism will result in more sales of better products. I respect their attitude, and I will buy more of their products - and correct them where I feel it's necessary - because of it.

Neil

Some years ago, well many, on an Italian modelling magazine there was a guy who pointed out the 85 diffrent modification he made on a Stuka (I can admit it, I have done aircrafts for many years) to have an accurate replica.
Every single modification, small and big, was supported by pictures, sketches or drawings.

There was a lot of discussion about that: "company will stop producing new kits", "in this way we keep people out of the hobby", bla, bla, bla.

His answer was: "I like to make my models as accurate as possible, some others will make them OOTB, others will make only 10 of the 85 changes, others will even add some changes. It's just up to you."

I learnt a lot from him and my modelling skills improved thanks to his comments.

I owe him, Mr. Giampiero Piva, a big thank you and the same goes to Kazutaka and to Tom.

Francesco

Dear mr Yokota.

Please do not stop posting. Your findings will be of very great value to me! They will help me correct the minor faults of this otherwise wonderful kit. I fully appreciate all the positive aspects of this kit, it has set standards that will be very hard to surpass. May Dragon prosper forever and kudos for all efforts!
Please note: these faults will NOT stop me from buying it. (The Ausf. E is a favourite of mine since the days when I first looked at the photos of "800" a long time ago). I will have a wonderful time modelling it, including the challenges of correcting the faults. I will also support the modelling industry even further since I will also buy another Tristar wheel set (to get the hubs right) and some bolts (MK? Grandt Line?) for the drive sprocket.
BTW, I hastilly looked through my references on P IVs; the gap between the wheels is narrover within the boogies than between. This is rather clearly seen on most DAK samples as they often can be seen on even, level ground.

Many thanks! Please don´t let the bashings cloud your day,

Tomas Enerdal

I for one appreciate the effort you put in to provide us this information. I like to make the kits more accurate if possible, and your post is extremely helpful. To those who do not want to get as specific as possible with the model, and prefer OOB, then do what you enjoy most in modelling. But please do not try to deny us the pleasure of detailing the model to the nth degree, as it is what provides us the most enjoyment. To each his own.

I am new to this website and I have to say that I cannot believe the information and web sites that I have picked up just reading through the questions. The Pnzr.IV debate has been some of the best research and discussion on the tank and the model. I have got pics and information that I would have spent alot of bucks and time trying to gather. To all of you BB stackers and rivet counters, I say thank you. I won't be chopping the hull up like a spicey tuna roll anytime soon, but I will look at rebuilding a few items that I feel make the biggest appearance change. Again, Thanx to you all Walt

OK! I think I've got the point, I'll just build the Tristar kit instead.

Ruben

I'm a bit dumbfounded by the heat that has built up over this the accuracy issue with this kit.

But to me it sums up as yet another example that way too many modellers are way too concerned with how other modellers should deal with their hobby. If you like your models lightly weathered, you'll be told that it needs more mud. If you drown your stuff in filth, it will be said to be too much. It's damned hard to please them all, but who should you really please but yourself? I enjoy feedback on my modeling in order to learn, but when it comes to setting the standard I'm comfortable with I follow only my own gut feeling. If I like to superdetail a project, I'll do it. But if I want to do the next one OOB and ignore any omissions and inaccuracies, then that's my choice alone.

So why not just leave people alone to do what they like? Why is it so damned important to tell the nit pickers that they are wrong in pointing out the errors? If you want to build stuff OOB and leave everything as the manufacturer made it, fine, I do that too. But why the heck do people read a forum like this in the first place if not to find more information than what's provided in the box?

I'm no riveteer, and would never have dreamt to do the kind of research that has been done in this case. But I am grateful that somebody bothers to do it, and that they share it with the community! If you don't want or need the advice, ignore it.

We're in this hobby because it's fun, right?

Arild

As i stated.if you want to correct everything,perceived or otherwise.Have fun. However,it seems to the writer that whenever a new kit comes out theres a horse race to be first on the 'net to identify whats wrong with it. Is there a prize ? I dont get it. Compare what you have now to 10-15 years ago ? Remember those early Tamiya's we worked on ? Look at the improvements that have been made. This PZIV is about as close as a shake and bake as there is.It seems that unless there is something to complain about nobody's happy. A manufacturer could put out a perfect kit and i am sure somebody would find something wrong with it. I believe pointing out this error is a non-starter also. Be honest with yourself, How many of you are going to actually make the indicated "corrections" to the sprockets,wheel spacings etc ? Ok so you know about them,fine.Does this minor correction if not done going to detract from the overall quality of the kit ? I dont think so,maybe i am wrong. Basically i am not a riveteer. If it is something that I have the skill to correct and i am so inclined, I take a crack at it. If not i move on and are happy. If cutting up a hull into 4 pces to fix a wheel spacing is what makes you happy.Then do that too. But i feel that being so publically critical of every kit release affect sales. Some people probably think this kit is bad by now they wont buy it. Less sales equals less releases.Dont forget, Model companies are businesses who are affected by this sort of bad press. Remember,what we consider crap now was the cats meow 15 years ago. Sorry for the rant...jim

as long as it's a constructive criticism which do good to the model companies.

I would add that it's not just Dragon that is willing to listen to customers' feedback. Tracing back to postings down here you will find AFV Club did get some modification on their 251 series as to the posters said and I believed that their upcoming 251/1 Stuka Zu Fuss will be far much better than their previous one. If Tristar is not going to correct those mistakes made last time then their next Pz.IV ausf.C will still be abondoned by those nitpicking modelers. The same case applied to Trumpeter or Revell or whichever companies.

That's the way to stay alive in the industry but not the mercy by Dragon alone.

I just noticed that nit-picker has a negative connotation if one looks at its origins. This comes from picking nits away from something, thereby making less.

So, I suggest we call this process of identifying errors which we plan or hope to correct 'tweaking'. To tweak is to improve. This does not have a negative aspect since the item that is being tweaked may be excellent to start with. For example, if I were to nit-pick an older kit, I can say that it lacks bolts on the sides of the hull. Here, I only pointed out an error (which is easily fixed but I did not mention it).

Yet, let me say that I would tweak this kit by adding the missing bolts to the sides of the hull and it is positive. Unlike the nit-pick, the person does not (incorrectly) perceive that I did not like this the kit, instead they see me as finding an opportunity to improve it.

So, I am definitely a rivet and bolt counter. I am NOT a nit-picker but a tweaker.

Last night, I finally opened the bags to my Panzer IV Ausf E that I was saving for the inevitable aftermarket goodies. I was thoroughly impressed at the details, the execution, and sheer thoughtfulness Dragon bestowed on this kit.

However, I did find some tweaks.

I informed Paul, from photos of the hull, that it had a square cut out in the belly pan armor which does not belong. The purpose of the belly pan armor was to protect the ammunition bins and fuel tanks above. The cut out is where a fuel tank is located (compare to the cap on the side of the hull). Why is it there? I believe it is supposed to be an escape hatch on a Jagdpanzer IV. It is not difficult to fill in so I shall after I use it to glue my painting handle.

Another are the absolutely BEAUTIFUL crown nuts depicted on the lower bogie mounts. I will cut them off carefully and replace them with slices of square stock to which I will shave the corners into an octagon. Photos in my collection of period pieces (or museum pieces of WWII captured stock) so far show eight sided nuts. Could there be examples with crown nuts? Possibly, but I plant to put these crown nuts on something else where they can be appreciated.

Again, these are my tweaks.

Regards,

Saúl García
Roaming the deserts of Modelland

nt, nt