I was so excited to buy the Dragon Panzer IV Ausf E to add to my DAK collection and then after arriving home I browsed the Internet for build reviews as I will since Dragon’s instructions are sometimes vague and I can learn pitfalls to avoid in this fashion. As many probably already know this kit was fairly ‘infamous’ for it’s innacuracies and even warranted a whole nuther kit, the ‘Vorpanzer’ which corrected many things. Well, I opened it so I own it and I’m asking the afficianados amongst us- granted, the measurements don’t lie but how “bad” do folks consider the mistakes? I know that is a pretty subjective question but if it’s one of those situations where almost everyone will shake their heads at a completed model built OOB I am willing to tackle some plastic surgery for corrections. But I’m not eager to volunteer for that either and while the ultimate answer is that I need to please myself I can also say that there’s an awful lot I can let slide but having everyone snickering behind my back is not among them.
Squid, this is one of those rare occasions where I actually thought the harsh reviews were warranted. I am in no way a rivet counter so when folks start debating inaccuracies I usually ignore them unless I can see that it “just doesn’t look right”…In this case, “it just doesn’t look right”…The biggest problem, IMO, is the drive sprocket sits way too low on this otherwise impressive kit…this is the deal-breaker for me…the sprocket top should be roughly the same height as the return rollers; instead it is noticably lower, which means I will leave mine unbuilt as I just can’t “get over” that kind of glaring error…
EDIT: I did read an article where a guy had somewhat of a fix for this…he rotated the final drive housing (I think) and removed a lot of the space in question…
The most prominent of the errors is the drive sprockets which are positioned about 2mm too low on the hull, the angles of the turret front plate are slightly off and the position of the glacis inspection hatches slightly too far back. Others include the open intake on the right hull superstructure that isn’t applicable to the Ausf.E and a number of smaller details.
But if you read their conclusion:
Conclusion: Simply a superb kit with innovative features and details wherever you look but not without several some quite large dimensional errors as well as numerous smaller issues most of which have been addressed in the new "Vorpanzer" kit.
The fact Dragon has made so many corrections to the kit is commendable but lets not forget the quite derogatory comments made on the Dragon site about the “nikpickers” when the many errors in the kit were first being highlighted and a little more care during development instead of trying to discredit people and rush kits out just to trump the opposition would benefit everyone involved.
That aside the kit is a generational step ahead of previous Panzer IV kits as are the excellent newTristarPanzer IV kits.
Recommended
It all comes down to as you state yourself:
while the ultimate answer is that I need to please myself
This kit should fit together well and if can you live with the dimensional and other errors. As the review states, it represents a significant increase in the quality of the kits on this vehicle. I have this one in my stash and will build it as a DAK vehicle.
It was exactly that review that caused my concern.
Manny,
Like you, I can let alot of stuff ‘go’ until it simply doesn’t look right and then later it becomes too apparent, if not glaring.
So that’s pretty much why I’m confused now. Has anyone read a writeup on fixing these issues? Dimensions were given and I guess I could take it from there but it would be nice to follow someone else’s lead on them. Again, I am not afraid of plastic surgery and it seems that my fears are warranted.
Further input (especially on a ‘fixit article’) is welcome and thanks very much so far!
I am certainly not one of those “nit-pickers” that is referred to in the article that Telesnso quoted…the drive sprocket is the only thing that is “noticable” to me…I believe I have an article on an easy fix that corrects a lot of the problem…I think the guy turned the final drive housing to angle it so the sprocket sits higher…basically, the track from the sprocket to the 1st return roller should be horizontal…the way the kit builds, it slopes up from the sprocket to the RR…I am surprised that DML hasn’t corrected this and reissued it, as the rest of the kit is really leaps and bounds ahead of anything else…
What’s your goal when when you build and who do you build for?
If your aim is to build historically accurate models for people who trully understand the technicalities of the subject you are building then you may have to address the accuracy issues of the kit as mentioned in various reviews on line or as MR decided on his kit, leave it unbuilt.
But if you are just building for fun and for yourself, I say build it OOB and enjoy the building experience.
I understand your point and I build for ‘myself’. However, if and when I choose to share my work I really hate glaring inaccuracies being pointed out if I was already aware and chose not to coorect it when it was within my means to do so. “Ignorance is bliss” and I can’t fix what I don’t know to be wrong. I am a self acknowledged anal retentive perfectionist and that’s what leads to my disappointment to learn after the purchase that this kit is generally acknowledged to be Dragon’s single biggest faux paus of recent times.
Manny,
I’m with you on wondering how Dragon can see fit to issue the ‘Vorpanzer’, an apparent attempt to rectify their earlier errors without adding ‘corrected’ parts to the original offender? Heck, they can issue ‘Smart Kits’ as derivatives of existing kits, mix and match existing kit sprues with new parts for a newer different version within a ‘family’ but they can’t go back and stop cranking out a kit which earned them a good amount of bad press? Furthermore, the new ‘Vorpanzer’ was sitting alongside the PN6264 which I bought (for the advertised DAK decals/option) and they were both current releases at the same price? So what did I know at the time I chose?
I will examine the sprocket location fix you mentioned, thank you. I’ll also try to squint my eyes at the Perth Military Modelling website which appears to show the original versus ‘corrected’ kit parts in their review of the ‘Vorpanzer’. Then I’ll dice and splice, hack and hew, scatter and smother till I’m comfortable with the results. Will I get it perfect- heck no. But I hope to get it ‘close’ to accurate which is what I’ve come to expect of Dragon’s offerings. Sorry, this leaves me a bit frustrated- IMHO if they aren’t going to ‘correct’ the kit they should have a huge ‘blowout’ at reduced prices with an announcement of why. But that’s just me and anyone else can argue why that’s not to be expected or is it even viable for a model company. But these things aren’t “cheap” and I think we all have come to expect a bit more from Dragon (besides coherent instructions) when compared to other mainstays of the business lately.
Okay, “rant” over- no need to correct me on my expectations or feasability of my opinion.
But, if you have any further information or links on how to correct the kit- please share them.
FYI: I have utilized Dragon’s customer care feddback system to voice my concerns and possibly learn their intent regarding this kit PN 6264 as it relates to their own release of the ‘Vorpanzer’ PN 6301 to ‘fix’ the errors. I’ll share their response if and when I receive it.
Wow, what a stink over 2mm’s in height on the idler!! Please by all means, this kit should not be built by all of you!!! Do yourselves a favor and box this kit up immediately. Drive down to the local USPS office and tell them you need to ship it to me!!![swg]
Wait, now that we are on the subject, box up any kits you may have with innaccuracies and send them too!! I would be most happy to do you all this favor and rid your presence of these nasty little vermin!!!
Really though, it would be nice to see what the response is from Dragon on this, IF you get one!!
Oh, I hear Ya and generally agree. But when the sprocket is that low it’s akin to building a car model and having the front end sit higher than the rear end- that’s noticeable, unfortunately. Oh, and I’m in N. Georgia too so would you prefer I deliver it to you? Don’t hold your breath- I still love the rest of this model and I expect to enjoy building it even if I’ll be doing the kind of surgery I usually reserve for those “flimsy box” models we’ve all accepted as challenges from the likes of Russia and Poland. With those you know going in that you get what you pay for and take it from there whereas in this case Dragon has been a victim of their own well earned ‘status’ of late. You wanna hear about my Panzer Ib from ZVEZDA that has the muffler ‘screen’ molded in vinyl and just as thick as the tracks which is the sprue it’s located on? But that’s not Dragon.
But their website and customer feedback options seems to stress their concern over customer satisfaction and I’m also eager to see what they say and will share it when received.
Please rest assured, no spite intended in this reply just hard to hit the drop down menu for emoticons to clarify!
Thanks for that! Armed with those pics and the PMMS info I’ll be having a go at some corrections. Unfortunately it seems the ‘Vorpanzer’ kit also included smaller diameter road wheels as a needed ‘correction’? I guess I’ll be finding out just how ‘anal’ I really am on this one. I already know how ‘bad’ I’ve been about similar things in the past![:-^]
I promised to share any response from Dragon and I did receive one and it took about 36 hours, which I consider to be prompt enough, if not fast. I’m including my original query to put the Dragon response in context:
I wrote:
Original Message:
Sirs, I just purchased your Panzer IV Ausf. E kit number 6264 and after opening it I went looking for online reviews and build tips. Boy was I disappointed to learn that this kit is widely regarded to have several important innacuracies! It even appears you might have acknowledged that with the release of your ‘Vorpanzer’ kit #6301. I find it hard to believe that a company with your deserved reputation for highly accurate and detailed kits is still marketing such a flawed kit without having replaced the original pieces with the newly available parts by now? I feel my money was not well spent and it was within your power to have avoided this situation. Would you care to provide me with those pieces from the ‘Vorpanzer’ kit #6301 to ‘correct’ my kit #6264? I believe you are aware of which pieces I speak since it has been reviewed and discussed online many times and your own “new” Vorpanzer kit is the result by your own efforts. If you can do so my faith and support of your products will be continued! Please let me know? Sincerely, (name has been masked to protect the party guilty of displaying a tad bit of a lack of tact! ME.)
Their response received today:
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your email. After doing some research with the manufacturer, the two
different parts are for two different model kits respectively. This is how the kit was
produced and regretably we can not supply new parts for older kits. If it is your
preference to modify the model kit, there might be after market parts available from
various vendors. We are very sorry for not being able to help in this case.
If you have any other questions please do not hesitate to contact us again.
Best Regards,
DragonCare
Armando
SO- it appears that I did not explain myself very well initially or the person who handled my ticket was not familiar at all with the issues or misinterpreted my letter? But in the end it is what I expected to happen.
FWIW?
BTW: I am still very impressed with the kit itself but do regret that Dragon has not yet seen fit to include/retrofit the ‘corrected’ parts into that kit as they have done with some other offerings already.
Not trying to be a ‘whiner’ or get something for free just because I asked. But if I hadn’t tried it would have nagged at me and at least someone might feel this is pertinent.
I do expect it will and while some kits ‘have to’ have alot of modifications to become passable I prefer to look upon this as an opportunity to make a very good, if not excellent kit, just a little better! Besides, the way the kit is produced you do get some options that’ll leave leftover parts! When was the last time you got a set of “spare” fenders with some great detailing just by choosing to use PE (included) equipment clamps or a set with locating holes for the plastic brackets on their attendant tools? Parts like those will help improve an Italeri Panzer IV Ausf F1/2 that I also have.
Not to belabor the point but my only real disappointment is that Dragon has not yet seen fit to swap and mix from their available inventory of parts (the ‘Vorpanzer’ Panzer IV Ausf E) so that they can simply avoid a potential disappointment with their customers. Of course, they might eventually get around to that so meanwhile I’ll stop whining and do what modelers do- improve what you’re given![;)]
Dragon has produced some really stellar kits, and some real turkeys ( I guess like most companies), this one leans towards the stellar rather than the bad, though. It sure looks nice when built up.
The JMN’s will always debate the “correctness” of any model produced, but alot of the supposed expertenpanzerwaffen make mountains out of molehills.
If you are building for a collector or a musuem show piece, then those measurements would need to be corrected, past that, is it really that big of a deal?
I’d suggest having a look at some of the builds posted online (there are a few of them to be found) and see what they look like.
From what I have seen, most that I have found appear to be uncorrected and honestly, if you weren’t looking specifically for the sprocket height issue, you probably wouldn’t notice the difference.
