Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

For those who are interested, I thought I'd put up some photos of some of the new Rubicon kits under construction. I think Big P is going to do the same with some of the others. Apologies if this thread jumps from one kit to the other - I'm building the Tiger I, Panzer III and Panther Ausf D at the same time. As these are principally wargaming models, there are always going to compromises when you get multiple versions in a single kit which is designed to be assembled from minimal components. Rubicon seem to have cut a few too too many corners on a couple of their earlier kits, but the accuracy of the later kits is much better.

I'll start with Tiger I, which is their most recent kit. I understand the Panzer III and Panzer IV were the first ones they did, so it's interesting to see how they've learnt as they've gone along. These kits are principally designed and manufactured in China, but the process is closely directed from Hong Kong. Even if you compare them to the work of an established manufacturer like Italeri (who do Warlord's plastic vehicles), the quality of the moulding is very impressive. The detail is crisp, the casting is clean and free of flash, and the fit of the parts is (for the most part) precise. The running gear and lower hull are particularly well designed - the lower hull is in 2 pieces, so its robust and sits nice and 'flat'. The running gear comes in one main piece, including all of the tracks, so there's no need to match up tracks; all you do is insert the rest of the wheels. it's quick, easy and looks good. The loss of detail around the tracks is acceptable, and doesn't detract unduly from the model's appearance.

The Tiger I kit is larger then the others, and comes on 4 sprues. It has enough parts to make the early, middle and late versions. You get both the rubber rimmed road wheels and the later all-steel wheels. In fact the late version was invariably coated with Zimmerit, but we'll let that one go (Warlord's forthcoming Tiger I will have moulded-on Zimmerit, so it will make an interesting comparison). I decided to build the early version, as I want to do some Kursk-era Panzers. It really is very enjoyable to build, and goes together quickly. As always, it pays to test-fit everything. The model requires minimal filling, but there are a few very minor joins you might want to deal with. I decided to assemble the tracks and running gear on the axles, but not attach them as it will be easier to paint them separately.

Note that some polystyrene cements don't work with these kits. Revell's Contacta for one. I used Tamiya 'Extra Thin' liquid cement , which worked fine - although I have to say it puts off quite a strong smell when it reacts with the plastic.

Are the wheels finished in that pic?

Now to the Panzer III. This kit is noticeably inferior to the Tiger in terms of both accuracy and moulding. There are a number of issues. Firstly, it's not going to build an accurate Ausf J or Ausf N. The Ausf J had a different engine deck configuration and basic exhaust (i.e. not the tropical version provided), as well as hull escape hatches and vision ports on the turret sides. Neither the Ausf J nor the Ausf N had spaced armour on the mantlet, and there's no option for leaving the spaced armour off. This means the box art (which, incidentally, looks great) is misleading, as it depicts a largely accurate Ausf J. So it really just builds an Ausf M. Regardless of the version, the roadwheels are noticeably inaccurate; the tyres and rims are too thin and there are bolt heads where there should be small holes. The detail on the upper hull is a bit 'soft' (especially compared to their later kits), and the engine deck has one too many armoured louvres. The brake air intakes appear to have been mistakenly moulded as headlights, and there's no anti-slip pattern on the track guards. The mantlet also seems to be too wide, and lacks the prominent rivets. And the tropical exhaust is too small.

The kit comes with turret and hull Schurtzen (appropriate for the Ausf M and N, although not all vehicles had it). This has been simplified to the point of being crude, but since it's a wargaming model it's probably better that the Schurtzen is robust rather than realistic. You can thin the upper edges if you want a slightly less chunky look. The Schurtzen is removable, which is a nice touch.

Assembly is straightforward, and the fit is generally good. It's a fast build, which is what wargamers will want. Accuracy issues aside, the tracks and running gear are nicely done, and sit well. When assembled, the model's dimensions look right, and it certainly captures the Panzer III's 'look'. With the Schurtzen in place (so the roadwheels aren't so noticeable) it's a decent depiction of an Ausf M, and judging from the reviews on the web there are plenty of people who are perfectly happy to have a Panzer III in plastic. It's just not as good as it could have been. To their credit, Rubicon have acknowledged that the roadwheels are inaccurate. However, due to the cost of re-tooling the moulds, they don't plan to rectify them, which is a pity.

Apologies for the slightly dark photos...

Bit disappointing to see that the insides of the tracks are featureless and blank pieces of plastic. Granted, this is probably due to how they are cast (or whatever the proper word is for the creation of sprues), but it is noticeable, especially on the Tiger that shows quite a bit of inside track.

Dont forget the hull escape hatches on the ausf. J, it also doesnt have a spaced mantlet either;




The headlights are also odd on the Panzer III for the versions they list.

Dont think any had stalk headlights.

Good work Tailgunner. Reviews like this allow people to buy aware of any issues.



Think I have figured out why the Tiger wheels look odd...

Big P wrote:
Dont forget the hull escape hatches on the ausf. J, it also doesnt have a spaced mantlet either;

The headlights are also odd on the Panzer III for the versions they list.

Dont think any had stalk headlights.

Good work Tailgunner. Reviews like this allow people to buy aware of any issues.

Think I have figured out why the Tiger wheels look odd...

You're right; I edited my post to mention those points. The headlights on the Panzer III look pretty horrible, and they seem to have mistaken the brake cooling intakes on the Panzer III's nose for headlights. A pity they couldn't have done a scaled up version of the PSC Panzer III Ausf J, L, M and N…

In answer to your earlier question, the Tiger doesn't have its outer roadwheels yet. They are supplied separately. The running gear looks fine to me - did you spot something?

I will wait till the outer wheels are on... maybe just be the design.

How are they in terms of robustness? As in, the true model kits I use for wargaming tend to take lots of damage from minor trauma (MG's breaking off, external fuel tanks breaking off, etc). This is one of the reasons I really like Warlord's plastic vehicles as they are noticeably tougher. Are Rubicon's of similar strength?

 judgedoug wrote:
How are they in terms of robustness? As in, the true model kits I use for wargaming tend to take lots of damage from minor trauma (MG's breaking off, external fuel tanks breaking off, etc). This is one of the reasons I really like Warlord's plastic vehicles as they are noticeably tougher. Are Rubicon's of similar strength?

The basic models are pretty robust. Like I said, the design of the hull, tracks and running gear is very solid. They still have those small bits that tend to break, like machine gun barrels, headlights and open hatches. The machine gun barrels in particular do seem more fragile than Warlord's. but they're easily replaced with something more durable.

 Tailgunner wrote:
The basic models are pretty robust. Like I said, the design of the hull, tracks and running gear is very solid. They still have those small bits that tend to break, like machine gun barrels, headlights and open hatches. The machine gun barrels in particular do seem more fragile than Warlord's. but they're easily replaced with something more durable.

Are the MG's and fiddlybits thicker/more durable than their 1/48 counterparts? Those things tend to go flying off into the aether of space-time, never to be seen again.

 judgedoug wrote:
Are the MG's and fiddlybits thicker/more durable than their 1/48 counterparts? Those things tend to go flying off into the aether of space-time, never to be seen again.

No, they aren't. They're about the same. These models aren't deliberately chunky looking, like Warlord minis - they're intended to be true 1/56 scale. I'm going to replace the machine gun barrels with 28mm versions, so they look more consistent.

I'm building the M4A3 now. More photos soon.

On to the M4A3. This seems to be one of their later efforts, judging by the quality of the moulding. It's superior to the Panzer III, but it has a few issues.

The hull is in two halves with a separate transmission cover, This gives you a solid base for the model, although the detail around the rear is a bit rough as a result. The tracks and running gear come as one piece, with separate parts for the inner side of the suspension units and drive sprocket. Because the tracks are in one piece, the tread detail is simplified, and there are no guide teeth on the inner side. I build the Warlord M4, and while its tracks are more detailed, the Rubicon model's are far easier to build.

The upper hull is all one piece, and very nicely detailed. It even has moulded-on periscope guards. It's the late M4A3(W) version, which was introduced after the Normandy campaign. There are 2 turrets - the 75mm turret and the 76mm turret. There are a couple of common pieces (including the turret ring) so they won't be interchangeable on the finished model.

The 75mm turret is crisply moulded, and looks quite accurate (it has the raised bustle and oval loader's hatch that were features of the later 75mm turret). This turret should not have the split hatch for the commander, as depicted in the instructions, but the later cupola with one-piece hatch (this also comes with the kit, but more on that later). You get an optional 105mm gun barrel with its own mantlet, which looks accurate and is a nice inclusion.

By contrast, the 76mm turret is a bit of a mess. It's too square, and the bustle is undercut rather than sloped, which completely changes its appearance. It also lacks the prominent ventilator bulge on the rear of the turret. I re-shaped the turret bustle with putty, and sanded it so it's more rounded, and made a ventilator by carving out of plasticard. The 76mm mantlet is a bit misshapen, but it's acceptable - just sand the upper corners so its more rounded looking and sand down the collar where the barrel attaches (it's too long). The cupola hatch is entirely wrong; it should be a shallow dome shape, but they've given it an odd angular shape (I don't know what they based that on). It's hard to rectify - I ended up cutting the top off and replacing it with something more accurate.

The rest of the kit is fine. I think Rubicon should provide more chunky machine guns, given that these are primarily wargaming models; the .50 cal that comes with the kit is very fragile. Overall, it's a very good rendition of the 75mm M4A3, but let down by obvious errors in the 76mm version.

Pity to hear that the 76mm turret is flawed, that was the one I was going for with this one. Also sounds like I'll be leaving the .50 off then, as weapons mounted up top are usually the first to snap off around here.

Also, bit of a newbie question, but how hard (or is it even possible with this chassis?) would it be to turn this kit into an uparmoured Jumbo variant?

 BrookM wrote:
Also, bit of a newbie question, but how hard (or is it even possible with this chassis?) would it be to turn this kit into an uparmoured Jumbo variant?

I think it would be doable. It's the right M4 variant to modify. The hull is easy - just a layer of plasticard for the additional armour. You'd have to make the turret sides thicker (that would be that hardest bit); maybe a layer of putty would work. You'd also have to replace the rotating loader's hatch with the oval hatch from the 75mm turret. And you'd need to make a new, slab-like mantlet, with a thick collar for the gun. The main problem would be that all Jumbos had extended end connectors on the tracks, due to their weight, and noone is going to want to try and replicate that. I guess you'd just ignore it.

Many thanks, time to start looking at a lot of Jumbo pictures then.

Meh. The prices are hardly worth the effort of building the thing over the cost of resin models.
eg
Rubicon plastic T-34 from PSC: £20
Resin T-34 from Warlord: £22
Warlord's plastic T-34 is £2 cheaper at £18 to boot.

Given the number of errors as well, I will give them a miss for now. If they improve the accuracy and come back with a sane price point I'd reconsider.

 Pete Melvin wrote:
Given the number of errors as well, I will give them a miss for now. If they improve the accuracy and come back with a sane price point I'd reconsider.

The Panzer III definitely has a lot of issues. The M4A3 (75mm) is fine, and the Tiger is very good. The Panthers also seem to be good (I haven't build them yet), and the T-34/76 (which I've started) looks as though it's up to the same standard as the Tiger I. Rubicon's models are probably easier to build than Warlord's - I certainly prefer their T-34 to Warlord's. That's not a bad start for a new company. I suspect their forthcoming SdKfz 251 Ausf D and T-34/85 will be excellent kits.

I believe the Panzer III and M4 were their first two kits, yes? The Tiger being their most recent.

Honestly the flaws that have been pointed out about the Panzer III and M4 just don't matter to someone like me, who is a gamer first. I also freely use WGF WSS Infantry for French, British, and Dutch troops, despite the uniforms not having the proper buttons. Minor flaws don't really matter for me when it comes to gaming.

 judgedoug wrote:
I believe the Panzer III and M4 were their first two kits, yes? The Tiger being their most recent.

The Panzer III and Panzer IV were their first.

Depends if you think the wrong turret is a minor flaw. For me, its a major flaw as it means you cant build an Ausf. N despite it advertised as such.

For me, it means I wouldnt use it as it dont look like its historical counterpart, which for me, is what historical gaming is all about.

But thats just me. Couldnt give a hoot what others do!

Big P wrote:
Depends if you think the wrong turret is a minor flaw. For me, its a major flaw as it means you cant build an Ausf. N despite it advertised as such.

For me, it means I wouldnt use it as it dont look like its historical counterpart, which for me, is what historical gaming is all about.

But thats just me. Couldnt give a hoot what others do!

Hmm I could definitely see how a wrong turret could put me off. Like a 76 turret instead of an 85 turret on a T-34. Do you have a pic of what you mean for the Panzer? If it's that bad I might hold off on buying the kit!

What I meant by my above post is that I'm not really a "button counter" and if it's something I'll not be able to discern from 3 to 5 feet away it won't matter to me too much. But a totally incorrect turret would be offputting.

The mantlet on the turret doesnt have its bolts on the front, a prominent feature, but you could live with that missing.

The problem for the Ausf. N and the J is that they didnt used the spaced armour on the mantlet. So the front of the turret just looks wrong for those.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20131118121435/fhsw/images/6/6e/Panzer_Iii_Ausf_N.jpg

Sadly a fair few computer games also make the same mistake and show the short 75mm mounted in the Ausf L and Ausf M turret with the added spaced armour.

The 75mm short couldnt be mounted with the added spaced armour as it was too heavy.

Historical (and sometimes hysterical) errors don't tend to bother the guys I game with, but they make me twitch a little. I can accept some compromise, hell we're just pushing little plastic mans across a table, but big errors like Big P has pointed out are a no from me.

As for the building of the Walord plastics Vs these, well I haven't got any plastic Warlord kits as the price differential for me is not enough to move me from resin.

Big P wrote:
The mantlet on the turret doesnt have its bolts on the front, a prominent feature, but you could live with that missing.

The problem for the Ausf. N and the J is that they didnt used the spaced armour on the mantlet. So the front of the turret just looks wrong for those.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20131118121435/fhsw/images/6/6e/Panzer_Iii_Ausf_N.jpg

Sadly a fair few computer games also make the same mistake and show the short 75mm mounted in the Ausf L and Ausf M turret with the added spaced armour.

The 75mm short couldnt be mounted with the added spaced armour as it was too heavy.

Ahh I see what you're saying. Hmm... well, that's to but so bad. As long as it's "mostly" and it should look alright from a distance. Plus most of my BA fellows are skilled enough to recognize tanks but not the actual Ausf, so by saying "This is an N" they'll say "ah, okay".




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pete Melvin wrote:
As for the building of the Walord plastics Vs these, well I haven't got any plastic Warlord kits as the price differential for me is not enough to move me from resin.

The new tank platoon box sets are quite a good deal especially from online discounters. A Warlord rep told me the 3x Panther and 3x Panzer IV boxes are coming in January. If they're the same price as the Sherman, Cromwell, and T-34/85 box sets, should be $80 MSRP for 3 tanks (http://us-store.warlordgames.com/products/british-tank-troop/ and therefore $64 from The Warstore, etc) which definitely makes them cheaper than the resin tanks by far.

Indeed JD, it wont bother some, but I find it a little irksome to advertise it incorrectly as they have done.

Blame my day job... I work in consumer affairs misleading advertising!

If making historical models, I prefer to get them right, as someone drove those things for real. Just my personal view. Dont expect others to be as anal!

For me, id like to see them correct so that people know what the real thing was like, otherwise the mistakes are viewed as the reality.

But im an old fart, not down with the 'kewl' systems.

Right im off to count some rivets...

 judgedoug wrote:
Ahh I see what you're saying. Hmm... well, that's to but so bad. As long as it's "mostly" and it should look alright from a distance. Plus most of my BA fellows are skilled enough to recognize tanks but not the actual Ausf, so by saying "This is an N" they'll say "ah, okay".

For me it's the sort of thing that I'm fine with until I know... once I know it'll piss me off forever. I couldn't tell an ausf N from an ausf M before Big P mentioned it... but now I know every time I look at one I'll be thinking about it

If you just tell me "this is an N, that's an M" I wouldn't really care, but once you tell me "that's not an N because it has spaced armour" I will forever notice it and it will annoy me if it's wrong

I think it's the same reason Big P said, I know it's actually historical vehicle that a person drove (and many people died in) so it just irks me when I know something is off. When it comes to 40k I don't really understand why people care about sticking to the lore, it's all fiction, I couldn't care less if you have a Heavy Bolter but call it an Autocannon or you have Blood Angels that you painted like Dark Angels, it's just the way GW envisioned it so if a player has their own vision that's fine by me.

I think Rubicon should have shelved the Panzer III. It really undermines their product line. But I guess a lot of wargamers simply won't care, as long as the model approximates what they want.

I've still got the Panther Ausf D, Panzer IV and T-34 to do. I was also going to put up more photos of the ones I've started, showing the rest of the construction (expect for the Panzer III, which I binned). Is anyone interested?

I am, still waiting for the samples to arrive...

 Tailgunner wrote:
I think Rubicon should have shelved the Panzer III. It really undermines their product line. But I guess a lot of wargamers simply won't care, as long as the model approximates what they want.

I've still got the Panther Ausf D, Panzer IV and T-34 to do. I was also going to put up more photos of the ones I've started, showing the rest of the construction (expect for the Panzer III, which I binned). Is anyone interested?

I'll pay you for shipping for the Panzer III if the garbage men have not arrived yet to take it away!

Would love to see some side by side comparison pictures with Warlord resins and 1/48 scale tanks.

Looking forward to more WIP shots. This is a great analysis of Rubicon's stuff.