New Panther (1 Viewer)

[braddinpa]

Wow! Now that is outstanding customer service! Oh, and by the way. Saw your new Zouaves and they are outstanding!

Brad

No matter what the vision block needs to be provided, its incorrect and needs to be remedied.

All I need is a collectors address and a painted aftermarket vision block will be provided with a placement paper die. This was provided to the factory and was omitted in production and needs to be provided for period the end. Its really no problem for us to do. We will then place the blocks on all units in the warehouse for dealers and collectors.

I think this is exactly what the forum is for, debating authenticity and so forth. I personally appreciate the comments.

Cheers!

Brian

 

[Hunter Rose]

The vision block is OK...it got omitted in the G. However it should have a periscope in its place which the model doesn't have. Not a deal beaker

Yep, that's actually what I was referring to the drivers periscopes mounted on the top of the hull, forward of the drivers hatch. As you said the smooth glacis plate is correct for a G model. Thanks for the correction (Sorry for the poor terminology, I typed fast and late at night and had dram or two of whiskey :salute:

Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Hunter Rose]

No matter what the vision block needs to be provided, its incorrect and needs to be remedied.

Brian

Since I used the incorrect terminology first, figured I'd post a picture to make sure we're all on the same page. The Panther G had a smooth/solid glacis plate and what was ommitted on the TCS model are the main gun travel lock and the driver's periscope (circled in the picture).

Cheers.

 

[Blowtorch]

No matter what the vision block needs to be provided, its incorrect and needs to be remedied.

Brian, could you check with some Panther experts before you do anything? The chin mantlet began slowly in 9/44 & the Panther A hulls ended in 7/44. Not an impossible mating of this turret with an A, but a Panther G is more likely & would save you a lot of work

 

[HAWKEYE]

All i know is that i saw this tank in person and it was sharp and had eye appeal. The paint shop looked great. Just a good solid tank and the size was nice. The panther was a big tank even though it was called a medium tank. I am 5'8" and standing with my arm up next to a panther my hand would come to the deck top. Many tanks we see produced for toy soldiers are just to short

 

[Firebat]

I feel uncomfortable counting rivets here so I will proceed with a section on the Battleground Art forum. I am assembling a "Staff" as we speak. Many technical matters will be discussed. That is the direction I am taking that forum and it is working well. I will provide excerpts here so there can be milder discussion. You did see an example if it in action here and surprisingly it went well. I knew the Panther had some errors, but I didn't say anything I let it flow naturally. Great work to those who contributed. Alex

 

[Firebat]

Right side pics as requested................

 

[Firebat]

If someone has a K&C Panther could you do a size comparison with this one.

 

[Blowtorch]

If someone has a K&C Panther could you do a size comparison with this one.

Comparing the HB with the K&C in this link, the HB is significantly longer than the Bradford diagram, making it a little longer than K&C. HB is a smidge taller than Bradford making it a little taller than K&C. HB is a little wider than Bradford making it a little wider than K&C.

Thanks for the photos. This looks like a nice tank.

If this is sizing well with HB then it is a plus size tank at least in some dimensions

 

[Blowtorch]

Brian, could you check with some Panther experts before you do anything? The chin mantlet began slowly in 9/44 & the Panther A hulls ended in 7/44. Not an impossible mating of this turret with an A, but a Panther G is more likely & would save you a lot of work

The driver hatches look to be the hinged type that flip up which is another feature of a G hull. Save yourself the trouble & leave the slots off would be my suggestion

 

[Phantom Warrior]

Here are the tell-tale features of a Panther Ausf G Late

 

[Phantom Warrior]

The only problem with the CS panther, which is clearly an Ausf G is the wrong slope on te glacis, driver's spotlight on radio operator side of tank, and main gun lock and improved driver's periscope not installed. It is clearly not an Ausf "A" and fixing the problems by calling it an "A" won't work.



Terry

 

[Blowtorch]

the wrong slope on te glacis,

aint' as bad as I first thought. From the perspective in this photo the angle is 40 deg instead of 35 deg. It's such a huge wall of metal that it becomes noticeable to some. Definitely not 55 deg as first feared

 

[Phantom Warrior]

aint' as bad as I first thought. From the perspective in this photo the angle is 40 deg instead of 35 deg. It's such a huge wall of metal that it becomes noticeable to some. Definitely not 55 deg as first feared

View attachment 136240

That is less than was first claimed and is pretty close to the official 55 degrees from the vertical (or 35 degrees from the horizontal) My earlier comment was based on posted large differences from people that had the Panthers and the photos posted where there appear to be different slopes on different Panthers. But now it seems that the problem was over stated.

 

[Mitch]

What I can't understand is how such errors can be made and continue to be made? This is not just aimed at CS but across the board at all manufacturers. This has been going on for years and its appalling really that its still continuing. we are not dealing with AFV's and weapons that were obscure, made only in prototype and dimensions etc only remaining on paper the paper panzers, these are well know well documented AFV's.

Its incredulous that we can see such issues it really is about time manufacturers started to see that the research they put in is lacking and address this at the design stages. Now I realise that some changes in Ausf and developments are often difficult to note the differences unless you know what to look for but, not with the Panther

shocking!!!!
Mitch

 

[jbonzo1]

What I can't understand is how such errors can be made and continue to be made? This is not just aimed at CS but across the board at all manufacturers. This has been going on for years and its appalling really that its still continuing. we are not dealing with AFV's and weapons that were obscure, made only in prototype and dimensions etc only remaining on paper the paper panzers, these are well know well documented AFV's.

Its incredulous that we can see such issues it really is about time manufacturers started to see that the research they put in is lacking and address this at the design stages. Now I realise that some changes in Ausf and developments are often difficult to note the differences unless you know what to look for but, not with the Panther

shocking!!!!
Mitch

Well said.
But as long as the products continue to sell, there is no incentive to do the research and produce dimensionally correct models.

 

[Poppo]

Thank you for the detailed photos you have posted; all considered, I' m happy with my previous version which I find more detailed and I like the whole shape more than the new one. Also the commander is amazing in the first version...And I like the weathering I made for a "Kursk version" ( even if the panther is a more modern type)