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.

By way of an update, I've since built the Rubicon Panther D and Panzer IV (and finished building a couple of M4A3's - see the separate thread). I'm not sure whether this thread is really worth continuing, now that these kits have been out for a while, so this update will be brief.

The Panzer IV is another early Rubicon kit. It's better than the Panzer III, in that it doesn't have any major accuracy issues when built as an Ausf F or an early Ausf G. The Ausf H version is less satisfactory, as there were a number of changes introduced with the Ausf H (some of which first appeared on late Ausf Gs) which are not depicted on the model. These include a one-piece circular commander's hatch and an air filter on the upper hull side. You'll also want to remove the turret vision ports (easily done) and the heater next to the muffler (not so easily done) and relocate the antenna to the hull rear. There are other small details that would need to be addressed, although most wargamers won't be too bothered. The Schurzen are quite thick and very simplified, but they're robust and removable, which is a nice touch.

I build mine as an Ausf F2. Apparently the spare wheel stowage wasn't introduced until the Ausf G, but there seems to be a lot of blurring between the Ausf F2 and Ausf G so it's no big deal. Mine is intended to depict a vehicle in Russia; photos of these vehicles often show them heavily stowed (by German standards), so I added pieces from Tamiya and Warlord. I noticed that Warlord plastic doesn't stick to Rubicon plastic if you use liquid cement, so those pieces are super-glued. The crew figure is a mixture of Tamiya and Warlord bits (yes, he should have headphones but that defeated me).

And so on to the Panther. Big P has posted some photos of the Rubicon Panther Ausf G he built and painted, and it's probably the best of the 3 Panther variants that Rubicon do (his model certainly looks great). The Ausf D is less accurate, principally because it uses parts for the Ausf G which were only features of later Panthers. This includes the exhausts and turret roof (and, I suspect, the number of bolts on the roadwheels, but I didn't count them!). If you want an accurate Ausf D, you'll need to remove the Plitzen, periscope and Nahverteidigungswaffe from the turret roof, and fill the resulting holes (easily done). You'll also need to replace the exhausts with the earlier type without the heat shields (a bit more tricky - mine are made from spare T-34 exhausts and bent sprue). You should also move the jack down so it's stowed horizontally below the exhausts. Ausf D's had pistol ports in the turret sides, and a shell ejection port on the left turret side - I added the former, but not the latter (it's usually harder to see). Many also had smoke launchers on the turret (mine came from my discarded Panzer III - they're not accurate, but they look okay).

These inaccuracies aside, it's quite a nice kit. The only fit issue was where upper and lower nose join up; it was hard to line up the interlocking joint detail. I like the way Rubicon do the tracks and running gear - I think it's preferable to Warlord's approach. My Ausf D is intended to represent a vehicle taking part in Operation Citadelle. I realised after I took the photos that it should have two headlights - which just goes to show how easy it is to overlook things on a model! The commander is a combination of Tamiya and Warlord bits.

Really nice job, good effort to 'Kursk' it...

Though a Kursk Panther should really have an open engine deck and several men staring at the smoking transmission...

I would have removed the front hinged mudguard and added side skirts, as many seem to have had them at Kursk, though early production Panther Ds didnt have them though they did have that weird stowage box on the right hull side, but thats just personal preference and I think you have done a bang up job of modding the Panther into a decent 'D'.

You can see the stowage box on this fella... Who just to prove the exception, has the early production stowage box, with side skirts and front mudguard hinged section!

 Tailgunner wrote:
By way of an update, I've since built the Rubicon Panther D and Panzer IV (and finished building a couple of M4A4's - see the separate thread). I'm not sure whether this thread is really worth continuing, now that these kits have been out for a while, so this update will be brief.

I found your thread on the Rubicon M4a3's but nothing on the M4a4's. Can you link that thread please? I find your insights on these models extremely helpful.

Big P wrote:
Really nice job, good effort to 'Kursk' it...
Though a Kursk Panther should really have an open engine deck and several men staring at the smoking transmission...

I would have removed the front hinged mudguard and added side skirts, as many seem to have had them at Kursk, though early production Panther Ds didnt have them though they did have that weird stowage box on the right hull side, but thats just personal preference and I think you have done a bang up job of modding the Panther into a decent 'D'.

You can see the stowage box on this fella... Who just to prove the exception, has the early production stowage box, with side skirts and front mudguard hinged section!

Yes, or I could have just modelled it as a wreck left behind by its frustrated crew after the final drive failed again…

Mine doesn't have side skirts because I seem to have lost them! I was going to do that side stowage box (nice photo, btw), but decided to let it go. You're right though - the early versions without side skirts generally seem to have had the stowage box.

Got any photos of early Ausf D's from the rear? I want to add some stowage there, but nothing looks right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kasrkinlegion wrote:
I found your thread on the Rubicon M4a3's but nothing on the M4a4's. Can you link that thread please? I find your insights on these models extremely helpful.

Oops - typo. I meant the M4A3 thread. Rubicon don't do an M4A4 yet, although I'm pestering them to do an M4A4/Firefly kit.

 Tailgunner wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kasrkinlegion wrote:
I found your thread on the Rubicon M4a3's but nothing on the M4a4's. Can you link that thread please? I find your insights on these models extremely helpful.

Oops - typo. I meant the M4A3 thread. Rubicon don't do an M4A4 yet, although I'm pestering them to do an M4A4/Firefly kit.

Isn't the Warlord plastic an M4a4 or is it an early M4a3?

Rear view... Never very much, Im guessing to make access easy to the engine, for obvious reasons! A bucket hanging on the back seems a common adornment and several units adopted a variety of adhoc stowage boxes but these were at a unit level and dont seem to have been done on early Panthers as they were still new vehicles.



For Kursk I'd leave it fairly clear, just about every Panther had maintenance problems during the fighting, so it seems from pictures that they were kept reasonably clear of stowage on the back. It saves time when working on a tank not to have to dump off a load of stowage to get to an engine fault, and also given the problems with engine and transmission fires, I's imagine the crews were keen not to have their gear anywhere near something that could cause a fire... You wouldnt want all your spare kit going up in flames.

After Kursk, once the issues were sorted you do see alot more adhoc stowage storage solutions on the backs of them, done on a unit basis generally. But for a 'Kursk' Panther I would leave it reasonably clear of stuff.

Maybe just the obligatory bucket hanging off the jack...

Thanks, Big P. A bucket will have to do.

Now that single headlight is bugging me...

 Kasrkinlegion wrote:
.Isn't the Warlord plastic an M4a4 or is it an early M4a3?

No, it's a mid-production M4.

 Tailgunner wrote:
Thanks, Big P. A bucket will have to do.

Now that single headlight is bugging me...

 Kasrkinlegion wrote:
.Isn't the Warlord plastic an M4a4 or is it an early M4a3?

No, it's a mid-production M4.

I thought the early M4a3's had the two hatch protrusions on the front armor plate and the later M4a3's had the smooth sloped front like the Rubicon model.

Im no expert on Shermans, they have huge variation even in standard production versions, but it does look rather like the Fisher Body M4A3(75)W hull to me on that Rubicon pic.

Large hatches, 47º glacis, sloped rear hull, large grill engine deck.

Fisher Body didnt make that many Shermans and there M4A3(76) used the T23 turret.

 Kasrkinlegion wrote:
I thought the early M4a3's had the two hatch protrusions on the front armor plate and the later M4a3's had the smooth sloped front like the Rubicon model.

They did. Rubicon's M4A3 is the later version, built from early 1944. So it has the 47 degree glacis, larger hatches and 'wet' stowage (which means it doesn't have the appliqué armour panels on the sides). The correct designation is M4A3(75)W. When the 76mm turret appeared, that version was designated M4A3(76)W.

Warlord's kit is the mid-production M4, with the protruding front hatches (actually called 'doors' at the time), and appliqué armour. The M4 didn't get the 47 degree glacis, except for the 105mm howitzer armed version. The main difference between the M4 and the M4A3 is the engine; the M4 had a Continental aero engine (the size of which dictated the M4's high silhouette) while the M4A3 had a Ford V8. The Ford engine was considered superior, so the M4A3 was the preferred model for the US Army. The main distinguishing feature is the big grills on the M4A3's engine deck - the M4's engine deck was plain.

Big P - Fisher Tank Arsenal built both 75mm and 75mm armed M4A3's, while Chrysler only built the 76mm version.

Again, Shermans aint my thing but...

Chrlysler built 1500, but Fisher Body built 525 M4A3(76)W I believe. Here is one...

The exchange above with Big P led me to spend some more time getting the Ausf D details right. So I made the early stowage box and a new jack block, added a cartridge ejection port to the turret side gave it two headlights and re-did the exhausts. I also added a bucket. None of the details are entirely accurate, but I'm still getting used to this scale (it's funny how hard it is to judge proportions when you're used to 1/35 or 1/72 scale models). I think it's now 'good enough' as a wargaming model. I wouldn't have expected Rubicon to provide all of these details as part of the Ausf A/Ausf D kit, given they had to cover two versions. But I think it should at east have had the correct exhausts and turret roof, and maybe the earlier jack block.

...and a bucket!

Spot on mate, really nice job, especially on the early production stowage locker.

Top dollar dude.

Thanks, Big P - you inspired me to look into this version more, and I found this great blog: http://www.track-link.com/forums/site_blogs/21314/flat

This wasn't really meant to be a blog about building and painting each kit, so that's it for the Panther. I'll put up 'as built' photos of the Tiger I (which I may modify into a Tunisian campaign version) and probably add reviews of the kits they're releasing later this month - the T-34/85 (which looks very nice), SdKfz 251 (also looks great) and StuG III.

Look forward to your take on the Tiger... Especially a Tunisian one.

If you need pics I have quite a few of 501 Tigers in Tunisia if needed.

Im just waiting to see if Will at PSC wants me to work up another Rubicon for the PSC display stand. Quite fancy working on the StuG...

Thanks - when it comes to the Tiger I've got more than enough references. Including the Restayn book 'Tigers on the Western Front' and his book on 10th Panzer Division. The hard part will be the early pattern mufflers. Hopefully we'll see some quality 1/56 after-market resin stuff soon.

Rubicon's StuG III would look great with the Big P treatment!

Rubicon have now released their Stug III, SdKfz 251 Ausf D and T-34/85 kits. I just picked up all of them. Comments and photos to follow, but initial impressions of the half-track are that it's a great kit - better engineered and more accurate than Warlord's Ausf C, and with loads of options (the canvas tilts are a very nice touch).

I'm looking foward to learning more about the halftrack. I really do like the canvas option.

Here are the sprues for the basic Ausf D (edited with better photos).

The detail looks crisp and accurate. The tracks and running gear are particularly nice. The inclusion of MG34s is unnecessary - I've only ever seen Ausf Ds equipped with MG42s - but that's no big deal.

The rolled tarp even fits onto Warlord's Ausf C (with a bit of filing). Very useful if you don't want to spend time on the interior!

Oh wow that half track sprue isn't half as complicated as I somehow expected it to be. Thanks for sharing it I've been debating between a rubicon and warlord halftrack and I think your pictures have convinced me of rubicon.

Rubicon really needs to beef up their external MGs and such though. I really like that the Warlord 251/1 C has a gunner w/ MG34/42

Id rathed have a better kit than a gunner... the Rubicon looks a bit better based on those sprues.

I keep asking Rubicon to beef up their machine guns. I think they're planning an accessory set with some 'chunkier' components. They're still a bit stuck between trying to appeal to modellers and whole-heartedly embracing the wargaming angle. If they went all-out war gamer, the small parts would be less delicate and they'd be more consistent about reducing the parts count. They would also ditch some of the minor variants and focus on the things that wargamers want.

For example, the "3-in-1" Ausf D comes with an extra sprue (photo below) with parts for making a platoon commander's vehicle, a pioneers' vehicle, and an ambulance. The ambulance parts take up most of the space on the sprue. But any wargamer who wanted an ambulance would happily leave out the stretchers and just put a canvas tilt on top and some red cross markings on the sides. Similarly, Rubicon have provided the full gun shield for the Pak 36 (in addition to the cut-down shield), even though it's unlikely an Ausf D would ever have been fitted with the full shield. The space these parts take up on the sprue could have been used to provide the parts for a "Stummel" variant, and maybe some accessories like jerrycans.

Anyway, it's a small issue (I guess no kit is ever good enough!). I haven't started building it yet, but Rubicon's Ausf D kit is clearly superior to the Warlord Ausf C kit. It's also far more appropriate for the late war period than the Ausf C.

Think you miss a point here.

The reason for the full gun shield will be to then include that sprue with an Aust C 251.

Rather than make another costly accessory sprue.

Making these moulds ain't cheap so you economise at each opportunity.

Big P wrote:
The reason for the full gun shield will be to then include that sprue with an Aust C 251.

I don't think so, Big P. I think their initial research was a bit off. It does leave that option open, but I doubt they'll bother with an Ausf C. I'm sure we'll see a Warlord/Italeri Ausf D before long, however.

All good points, but pricing also matters. Warlord (surprise!) has a plastic 251 ausf D coming out soon as well. They tend to be at least 10% cheaper than Rubicon at base pricing and are then easily available at another 20+% off online, not to mention the "platoon" box sets they like releasing". With the new plastic German veteran grenadier set coming out, I imagine that Warlord will also be releasing a second "Panzergrenadier!" style kit that has three 251 D's and 30 of the new plastic infantry.

As it stands, I already have three 251/1 C and a 251/10 from Warlord due to their cheapness, and they look just fine. That being said, I will probably get a Rubicon 251 D to make an ambulance.

Yep... Very good point JD.

I guess as I would only be doing one as a modelling project, as I game in 20mm, that very important consideration of price is moot for me.

But if buying several for units, then its a key factor.

I guess Rubicon have to bear that in mind. I thought they also gave a discount for the 'platoon' purchase, but I realise they're generally more expensive. I think it's worth paying a bit more for a superior model, so I would go for their SPW over Warlord's unless I specifically wanted the earlier version (e.g. for 1943-era Afrika Korps). Similarly, I think Rubicon's T-34s are better than Warlord's, and worth the extra money (although the 1943 turret should have been in the T-34/76 kit!). But Rubicon have let themselves down sometimes when it comes to accuracy, and that makes the higher price harder to justify. For instance, I'm sure Warlord/Italeri's Panzer III will be superior to Rubicon's. I'm waiting for the Warlord/Italeri Stug III to be released to make a comparison.

You should post some feedback on Rubicon's site, JD. They are very receptive.