Hull Angle Brackets and Front Roller Position

[Stephen White]

These pictures reveal a couple of interesting details:

There are clearly two types of hull angle brackets, some with a scalloped bottom edge as shown in most of the drawings of Ausf L vehicles and some with a plain bottom edge as provided in the kit. Note that common to both is a slight chamfer at the front end, which is easy to replicate.The difference appears to apply to late models and was probably a measure to simplify production.

The pictures also reveal an issue with the position and rotation of the front roller housing. It is clearly mounted lower than the other two and is rotated from the vertical. I've measured this up on enlarged one sixth drawings and intend to remount mine 8mm lower and rotate it towards the rear of the vehicle.

There is a wider issue here - the kit as provided has a very "flat" look to the side decks and track top whereas the original vehicle clearly slopes downward both towards the front and back. In addition to repositioning the front roller, whick will fix the track sit, the side decks will also have to be worked on - but that's a task for another day.

Scalloped bracket Ausf J Moscow:



Straight bracket, Ausf M Munster



Scalloped Ausf N Norway:



Note position and rotation of front roller below:





Ausf J Ukraine also shows position and rotation of front roller


Is there any supporting evidence out there - for example I haven't yet got my copy of Achtung Panzer 2 - does that help?

All the best

Stephen

[Derek Attree]

Hi Stephen
I am not sure I understand what your point is but your photos
are of a models J, M and N types and the model Mark has done is an L type.
I am not an expert like some that post here (Kent) but my books show many changes between the different models so you need to be careful when looking at photos to use the proper ones of the type you are doing.
I found this out when I was making the Panther G..

Hope this helps

Derek

[Stephen White]

Derek you make a fair point. To be clearer though, I was asking questions to which someone knowledgeable may have the anwers.

I also agree it's important to get compare the right versions. As it happens, I've not yet decided whether to represent a late Ausf J or an L (which were visually identical) or an early M which was also similar but for the wading exhaust.

I've annotated two of the pictures to illustrate my two questions. The first is about the shape of the hull angles. Most of the photos I've seen of versions both earlier and later than the Ausf L show a scalloped bottom edge to the hull angles. So it might be a reasonable assumption that the Ausf L also had a scalloped bottom edge. But - I've found one photo of the Ausf M in the Munster museum which appears to have a straight bottom edges as represented in the kit. Of course, museum vehicles have to be treated with cautiion because they may have inaccuracies in restoration. So which shape is correct for the Ausf L?

The front return roller issue is more straightforward. All photos and plans suggest that the front roller is positioned significantly lower in relation to the hull centreline than the middle and lower rollers and this contributes to the whole characteristic shape of the side elevation. This isn't a trick of the perspective of the photos - I've measured an 8mm difference at one sixth scale. There is also some evidence that the mounting was rotated but that is probably getting into rivet counting territory.

The photos:





Best regards

[Dale jordan]

Hello Stephen . I agree with you , It's these small details that make a good model great . The standard kit set up looks to straight on the profile . I have been looking at photos in my books and like you I will drop the front roller and make the fenders fall down towards the rear and front to give it that uneven look .. The other thing I will do, is when the model is in static mode . I will ease off the tension on the track to give it that classic PZIII look . Dale

[Jim Fowler]

Guys,

I agree that these are important details and correcting them will really enhance the model. To that end, I would like to focus a bit on the front roller relocation.

Stephen, I think 8mm drop is too much. When I mock that up using the model's parts - it doesn't look right. Sometimes, just scaling something down does not render "the look". Have you had a chance to look at this further?

I am thinking just a 5mm drop?

Anyway, please, any feedback welcome.

[Stephen White]

Jim - I think the visual effect will only come good with a combination of the re-positioned roller and the correct line of the side decking ("mudguards").

I've gone ahead and dropped the front rollers by 8mm today - photos on my build post to follow. I also rotated them by 15 degrees.

The photo below is of the Dragon 1/35th Ausf J and the lower front roller really stands out. the model also correctly captures the rotation of the roller from the vertical ie clockwise. The corresponding roller on the left side is also rotated clockwise.



I've also re-positioned the rear left roller 19.5 mm to the rear so that it is now in its correct relationship with the shock. (The right rear roller is correct).

I do agree that to create a good scale representation, it is sometimes best not to follow accurate dimensions slavishly - as those who have tried to capture the complex underside shapes of the Spitfire will know. On my Pz III however, I'm trying to keep as close to the accurate dimensions as I can. Although there are significant variations between the available drawings and some comopromises are necesary.

One downside of building a reference model of the Pz III is realising how complex the back end is around the exhausts. The Dragon model captures it all beautifully.

Regards

Stephen

[Jim Fowler]

Stephen,

Have you mounted the trans-case and sprokets for your review of the front roller position? See, it's that aspect that make it look too low to me. Anyway, I think I will wait to see your pics before I continue - (GRIN!)

Anyway, I do want to thank you for helping me out on this - whether I mount it as you or different, your help is invaluable! It's so good to have folks I can talk this stuff out with. I will also look at the rear roller too (thanks on that one as well!)

[Dale jordan]

Hello Stephen .. When I first scroll down your post on the PZIII and saw your photo of the hull .. I thought 'wow' he has done a great job on that ! Then I realised it was 1/35, anyway that's a good referance photo .To me it looks like the bump stops are angle backwards ...I can't wait for your next up date .. Dale

[Derek Attree]

Hi Guys
This is an interesting thread I would like to post one obsevation
the left and right running gear on th PzIII are staggered front to back.for example
If looking at the road wheels from one side to the other side one is further forward than the other.
I hope this makes sense.

Derek

[Stephen White]

Derek - I'd second that. The horizontal distances between rollers are as a result not the same on both sides. By bringing the left rear roller back, it restores the correct relationship with the rear shock absorber mounting.

Regards

Stephen

[Mike Stannard (toyrific)]

Hi Guys

I also found this interesting so I did a bit of research, here is what I found. I have covered most models of the Pz III Ausf E and on, Ausf A to D had completely different running gear.

There appear to be two basic designs E through G and J through N, F and G had both designs. The main difference is the return roller positions. All models had the off set tracks.

Here are the two basic designs. E to G had the return rollers as shown in Ausf G drawing and Ausf J to N had them as in Ausf L drawing. There are some combinations in Ausf F and G as shown later.


All comparision pictures have the right side reversed to clearly show diferent positions of road wheels, return rollors and suspension. Also note that the distance between the rear idler wheel, rear road wheel and rear return roller will vary due to track tension of rear idler wheel.

Pz III Ausf E.
Return rollers in same position on both sides, Road wheels and suspension moved forward on right side. Could not find a picture showing the rear return roller on right side so cannot comment on position of it and the rear suspension.



Pz III Ausf F
Early Ausf F has the the return rollers moved forward on the right side, but still at the same distance apart.



Pz III Ausf F Late
Ausf F late has the front return roller moved forward, note this model also has the later drive sprocket and idler wheel. This may have been a retro fit as the later model G (shown next) with the front return roller moved forward still has the early type drive sprocket and idler wheel.


Pz III Ausf G
Early Ausf G appears to be the same as early F.


Pz III Ausf G late with front return roller moved forward. Note late model still has early drive sprocket and idler wheel.



Pz III Ausf H
Ausf H appears to be same as late G, here you can clearly see the front and rear return rollers on the right side have all been moved forward, the center one appears not to have been moved. Note model still has early type drive sprocket and idler wheel.



Pz III Ausf J
Starting with Ausf J it looks like other changes were made to the position of the return rollors making a third design. Not to clear in these pictures, but betten shown in Ausf L pictures. Ausf J onwards were fitted with new drive sprockets and idler wheels.




Pz III Ausf L, M and N
Ausf L, M, N all appear to be the same. With the L model I was able to find pictures of the same tank from both sides with a scale pole on the road wheels which enabled me to get both sides close to scale. Here is were you can see the different positions of the return rollers on both sides.
Rollers A and C have both been moved forward on the right side and appear to have different distances between them and roller B, roller B may have been moved forward slightly as well, but this could be a photo enhanced position. The only way to be sure is for someone to measure them on a real Pz III.





Note on all models the suspension on the right side was moved forward in line with the road wheels. Also from the pictures you can see that the front return roller was lower that the others, even slightly on the earlier version although the scale drawing does not show it.

Hope you find this useful, I sure found it interesting.

Mike

[Stephen White]

What a wonderful piece of research to share with us. The Armortek community is knowledgeable, friendly and generous. As a newcomer, it gives me great pleasure.

Mike - your evidence is compelling, particularly the Ausf L with measuring poles. Your research ia pretty conclusive, especially for the L and M models. I suspect late J models could be similar. I wonder what the Jentz/Doyle view woul be?

In relation to the kit:

The left rear roller can be moved to the rear (I've chosen 19.5mm but this needs checking on a real vehicle)

Both front rollers can be lowered and rotated clockwise (I've chosen 8mm lower and 15 degrees rotation.

The front left roller may need to be moved forward. I'll see if I can quantify this when I next have access to my drawings.

When I get to Bovington, I'll see if I can support these conclusions with some real measurements.

Thanks to all who've contributed so far.

Regards

Stephen[/b]