New KC Sd. Kfz. vs. New CS Hanomag (1 Viewer)

[gk5717]

I too am not an expert, but I did notice the license plates were expired!
Gary

 

[Rob]

I like both of the new vehicles by KC & CS. I hope to be getting both. Not to worried about a missing vision port or hinges that might be over-large, just happy to have some excellent new half-tracks for my counter-attack. -- lancer

Well said.I like the look of them all myself and hope to indulge!.

Rob

 

[jazzeum]

Here is a photo with the viewports open. The K & C model seems to be missing this. Even the drawing that Andy posted has them.

 

[lancer]

I too am not an expert, but I did notice the license plates were expired!
Gary

Well, that tears it. There will be no un- registered vehicles on my battlefield! Someone call Wash. D.C. DMV and get this corrected. DC should be able to fix this by the time WW3 is over. -- lancer

 

[Phantom Warrior]

I profess to be rather ignorant about armor so can one of you experts post a photo or drawing of what this vehicle is supposed to look like.

It looks exactly like the photos and drawings Andy posted earlier in this Thread except one of the two forward facing viewports, which is shown in the drawing as a flip up metal block with a narrow slit, is missing on the model on the passenger side.

In order to fit the Pak 40 in the vehicle, the lower corners of the Pak 40 shield were cut away to clear the sides of the vehicle. The passenger (commanders seat) was eliminated and used to store extra ammo. The commander's (passenger side) viewports were unnecessary in the Pak 40 version.

Terry

 

[wlindsay]

If the passenger side armoured viewport was closed, we would see only a narrow slit like the side viewport, and there is a mark in the photo where that slit would be, but the photo is quite unclear. The drivers side viewport is visible in the photo as it is flipped open and sticks out.

Terry

Terry,

That was my first thought too. But this photo is right next to it in the book and even if the port was closed, the port would still be raised slightly from the "windshield" area. Sorry about the quality of the photos.

I like the model anyway. I'll probably just end up just adding my own vision port with a piece of styrene strip.

Regards,

Wayne

 

[Phantom Warrior]

Terry,

That was my first thought too. But this photo is right next to it in the book and even if the port was closed, the port would still be raised slightly from the "windshield" area. Sorry about the quality of the photos.

I like the model anyway. I'll probably just end up just adding my own vision port with a piece of styrene strip.

Regards,

Wayne

In this photo the passenger side FRONT viewport does not look like it has a slit - perhaps replaced by a solid piece of metal welded shut as there was no need for a commander's viewport. Note I am talking about the passengers side of the vehicle, front viewport and not the passengers side, side viewport. For all Brits, Aussies, Kiwis and those in Hong Kong, the passenger side in a German vehicle is on the opposite side of that in a Brit vehicle.

Terry

 

[aujj65]

Found this photo in the "Encyclopedia of German tanks of World War Two".

Jeff

 

[jazzeum]

I profess to being confused. Conrad says it should have the passenger side port, armor or not. Terry agrees but then subsequently says that in the Pak 40 version the passenger port was "unnecessary". Does that mean it was removed or just not needed.

 

[Phantom Warrior]

I profess to being confused. Conrad says it should have the passenger side port, armor or not. Terry agrees but then subsequently says that in the Pak 40 version the passenger port was "unnecessary". Does that mean it was removed or just not needed.

Sorry for my confusing posts. The commander's (passenger side) front viewport on the Pak 40 version vehicle were often welded shut with any slits sealed. The commanders seat was removed in the Pak 40 version and the space was used for extra AP or HE rounds. No one was in the former commanders space to look out. If no one was using viewport to look out, no point leaving an opening for something to get in.

I don't know how the viewports could be removed as there would be a large opening left in the armour plate. It was probably easier to weld the steel plate viewport shut than to remove it and close the opening with a welded steel plate.

 

[jazzeum]

Your posts were not unclear. I'm just late to this party . At any rate, I'm gathering that the viewport should still be there, just not opened.

 

[Phantom Warrior]

Your posts were not unclear. I'm just late to this party . At any rate, I'm gathering that the viewport should still be there, just not opened.

Correct

Terry

 

[Warrior]

I like both of the new vehicles by KC & CS. I hope to be getting both. Not to worried about a missing vision port or hinges that might be over-large, just happy to have some excellent new half-tracks for my counter-attack. -- lancer

Glad to hear you like both of these fine vehicles, hinges and viewports aside.......

 

[Phantom Warrior]

I too am not an expert, but I did notice the license plates were expired!
Gary

Still a cop I see

Terry

 

[Phantom Warrior]

I like both of the new vehicles by KC & CS. I hope to be getting both. Not to worried about a missing vision port or hinges that might be over-large, just happy to have some excellent new half-tracks for my counter-attack. -- lancer

Glad to hear you like both of these fine vehicles, hinges and viewports aside.......

That is my point exactly. I like both the K&C Summer Pak 40 and the CS 251 AK version and am getting both.

Dig deep enough and many of the models made by all manufacturers have errors or they have taken cost cutting shortcuts and omitted features. These may not be obvious in the photo but ones I notice only when I have the model in my hands and have a really good look. Even with a high end maker like FL, I can take exception with the colour of his Stug, but I would not say it was wrong. I just think other colours are more likely or representative.

Other than the viewport, the K7C Pak 40 looks like an exceptionally good piece and I am buying the Summer version. The missing viewport is likely an error but not necessarily a major one IMO. There were so many field modifications and field repairing of armour it is hard to say an "error" is wrong in many cases. It may be uncommon or even unique, but possible. Perhaps the passenger side steel plate was damaged and replaced with a solid sheet when the Pak 40 was being mounted? A very real possibility given the weight of a Pak 40 and the small amount of clearance in the vehicle. Mind you, I do believe this was an oversight.

To me a major error is something impossible like a sdkfz 251 Ausf D in North Afrika when Ausf Ds were not produced until several months after Rommel surrendered.

I could go on about errors by all manufacturersI have found and not mentioned, but that is not why I collect. And for the cost of most armour pieces, I can hardly expect perfection but still get a great deal of enjoyment from collecting them.

Terry

 

[noli-poli]

Found this photo in the "Encyclopedia of German tanks of World War Two".

Jeff

Now, this picture is very consoling. The KC should be an easy fix. Simply fashion a piece of bolted plate (sheet styrene or plastic) and glue it in just like in the picture...and voila, a perfect Hanomag Sd.Kfz 250/10 Pak 40!

N-P

 

[fmethorst]

I too am not an expert, but I did notice the license plates were expired!
Gary

Too funny!

 

[fmethorst]

For me there is a difference between the way I critique the mainstream maufacturers (i.e. K&C, CS) and the way I critique those manufactures that operate at the higher detail, higher cost end of the market (i.e. HB, FL). If I am paying 2-3 times the cost of what I could get a mainstream vehicle for then I feel I am entitled to demand a product with a higher level of research, higher level of detail and higher level of accuracy. That's what I'm paying the extra money for.

If any of you have been following the thread on FL's Stug regarding color then you know the level to which these discussions can go and in that case I feel it's fair comment as FL has placed their product at the high end of the market. I would never dream of having such a conversation on a K&C product. Aside from the fact that I would have people screaming "rivet counter" at me I simply don't believe that level of accuracy is the intention of K&C.

K&C makes a good product that is reasonably accurate and clearly satisfies the majority of the market. The accuracy game is a case of diminishing returns where the last 10-15% takes more effort than the majority of collectors would likely appreciate.

 

[Phantom Warrior]

I too am not an expert, but I did notice the license plates were expired!
Gary

Let's see. 1943 to 2009 That's 66 years at lets say $200 per year plus penalties and interest - roughly $682,546.28. But how are you going to collect. Their gun is bigger than yours. Much, much bigger.

Terry

 

[Phantom Warrior]

For me there is a difference between the way I critique the mainstream maufacturers (i.e. K&C, CS) and the way I critique those manufactures that operate at the higher detail, higher cost end of the market (i.e. HB, FL). If I am paying 2-3 times the cost of what I could get a mainstream vehicle for then I feel I am entitled to demand a product with a higher level of research, higher level of detail and higher level of accuracy. That's what I'm paying the extra money for.

If any of you have been following the thread on FL's Stug regarding color then you know the level to which these discussions can go and in that case I feel it's fair comment as FL has placed their product at the high end of the market. I would never dream of having such a conversation on a K&C product. Aside from the fact that I would have people screaming "rivet counter" at me I simply don't believe that level of accuracy is the intention of K&C.

K&C makes a good product that is reasonably accurate and clearly satisfies the majority of the market. The accuracy game is a case of diminishing returns where the last 10-15% takes more effort than the majority of collectors would likely appreciate.

Having been a part of the FL Stug discussion, I completely agree - you have expressed clearly what I was trying to say.

And specific to the 251 Pak 40 viewport discussion, it is extremely likely that several or more of the exact 251 Pak 40 with the missing viewport actually existed. On the personal orders of Adolf Hitler in the Autumn of 1944, all suitable vehicles were to mount anti-tank guns. Some Sdkfz 251/9 Ausf Ds mounting the KwK 37 L24 short barrel howitzer were converted to 251/22 mounting the Pak 40. the 251/9 were used for close support of reconnaissance units in Russia and with Germany retrating were not as useful as an anti-tank gun. The mounting of the KwK 37 L24 required the removal of the entire front armour plate (including the front viewport) on the commanders side. See photo On replacing the KwK 37 L24 with a Pak 40, that armour plate would have to have been replaced or the gun mount, 251 interior, gun crew and some of the stored ammo would have been exposed to shell fragments and MG fire. Not needing a viewport on the former commanders side, they did not go to the trouble of cutting one out and installing a viewport just to turn around and weld it shut. I do not have any proof photos, but I would bet that this type of Pak 40 reconversion was not terribly rare.

Terry