Backdating DML JgPzr IV

.

The Axis WWII discussion group is hosted by Tom Cockle and is dedicated to Axis armour of the Second World War.

Backdating DML JgPzr IV

Joined: June 28th, 2005, 12:50 pm

May 7th, 2012, 5:36 pm #1

Hi all,

Just got DML's latest offering of this SP, the L70 version but would really like to backdate it to the shorter barrelled version as used by 12 SS Panzer Div in Normandy. Is it just a question of changing the gun, or is there significant differences?

Thanks in advance.

Reply
Like
Share

Joined: June 23rd, 2003, 4:53 pm

May 7th, 2012, 6:10 pm #2

The L/70 (V)one was shorter than the L/48 one by 30mm (the IV/70 (A) was different again) but I haven't yet measured any of my kits to see whether Dragon got one (or indeed any) of them correct. Of course that's

Rob
There's nothing cushy about life in the Women's Auxiliary Balloon Corps
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: October 18th, 2004, 6:49 pm

May 8th, 2012, 4:46 am #3

Robert,

How could any of them be accurate? This information just came to light with the publication of Panzer Tracts No.9-2 which DML just received yesterday. It will certainly help in the production of the new Panzer IV/70(A) though.

Regards,

Tom

Tom Cockle
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: June 23rd, 2003, 4:53 pm

May 8th, 2012, 5:28 am #4

Or they might have measured one preserved example and assumed that all would have been the same.

Rob
There's nothing cushy about life in the Women's Auxiliary Balloon Corps
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: November 18th, 2009, 10:04 am

May 8th, 2012, 8:15 am #5

Hi all,

Just got DML's latest offering of this SP, the L70 version but would really like to backdate it to the shorter barrelled version as used by 12 SS Panzer Div in Normandy. Is it just a question of changing the gun, or is there significant differences?

Thanks in advance.
Stephen

The earlier Jagdpanzer IV (Panzerjager 39) Jan-April 44 production was based on a 60mm hull front armour base, so had thinner front plates and therefore yes was very slightly shorter. These thinner-front IVs are characterised by the two sliding conical MG shutters.

In May 44 the Jagdpanzer IV's frontal base was changed to 80mm, and from then on the armour layout was identical on both the IV and IV/70 (as was the hull roof and gunner's sight armour, spare wheel stowage etc) as they were produced concurrently until early November 44.

So yes, a simple gun-swop is sufficient for a May-Oct 44 Panzerjager 39.

However, you will need to be careful about Normandy as most of these 39s appear to be the earlier 60mm-front types!

Ron
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: June 28th, 2005, 12:50 pm

May 9th, 2012, 9:26 am #6

I'm after a representative model and the differences you described are marginal so I'll swap the gun! I'm just a hobby modeller who likes to build pretty much OOB, so if it's relatively accurate then I'm a happy camper. Many thanks for your response.

Stephen
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: August 12th, 2004, 7:30 pm

May 9th, 2012, 12:26 pm #7

When you say swap the gun this has implications on the mantlet too. L70 has a wider opening and therefore a fatter "nose" than the earlier/shorter version .

craig (8wheels-good)
http://8wheels-good.blogspot.co.uk/

Craig (8wheels-good)
https://www.facebook.com/8wheelsgoodPzIVarchive/
http://8wheels-good.blogspot.co.uk/
http://www.blurb.co.uk/user/store/8wheels-good
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: November 18th, 2009, 10:04 am

May 9th, 2012, 4:35 pm #8

Stephen,

Yes of course you'll need to replace the whole mantlet and base with one for the L48 weapon as Craig mentions. The are several AM products out there including Armorscale I think, that cater for this, and include the threaded barrel-end. If you want a 'free' backdate, the older Cyberhobby 'Johann Huber' IV/70s also have incorrect mantlet apertures that were tooled for a too-thin L70 gun, and are therefore more accurate for the L48 weapon. You'd still need the gun though...

Ron
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: June 23rd, 2003, 4:53 pm

May 10th, 2012, 10:37 am #9

Stephen

The earlier Jagdpanzer IV (Panzerjager 39) Jan-April 44 production was based on a 60mm hull front armour base, so had thinner front plates and therefore yes was very slightly shorter. These thinner-front IVs are characterised by the two sliding conical MG shutters.

In May 44 the Jagdpanzer IV's frontal base was changed to 80mm, and from then on the armour layout was identical on both the IV and IV/70 (as was the hull roof and gunner's sight armour, spare wheel stowage etc) as they were produced concurrently until early November 44.

So yes, a simple gun-swop is sufficient for a May-Oct 44 Panzerjager 39.

However, you will need to be careful about Normandy as most of these 39s appear to be the earlier 60mm-front types!

Ron
So say Jentz & Doyle in the new Panzer Tracts anyway (now that I've had the chance to read it!). The 60mm/80mm frontal armour is specifically mentioned as having no bearing on the roof length, although it would obviously, as you say, have a small effect on the hull length.

I need to convince myself that I don't need to start hacking up my largely completed (by my standards anyway) 116PD example now....

Rob
There's nothing cushy about life in the Women's Auxiliary Balloon Corps
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: November 18th, 2009, 10:04 am

May 12th, 2012, 4:44 pm #10

Yes, given the glacis top plate and the side plates meet at the same place, the roof would be longer to account for the thinness of the 60mm gunbox front as it hits the roof. So the CH 'Johann Huber' L70 kit would be wrong in this respect, based as it is on the Revell/DML L48 kit.

But what of the 80mm front (i.e later production L48)? I can't see the L70 and L48 hulls being deliberately different in this area, produced side-by-side as they were up till Nov 44. Why, as it would mean the sideplates would also be longer on the L48?

I'll order PT9-2 now, I can't wait to see this one.

Ron
Last edited by ronrunningman on May 12th, 2012, 4:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reply
Like
Share