That’s a great story, except for, you know, the fact that the guy writing the review has no idea what he is talking about. Here’s photos of the DML Panther sprockets along with real Panther sprockets. Seventeen teeth all around.
First thing: The Wehrmacht “Leopard” was only a design study, it was never built. The statement that it used a Panther sprocket is wrong; it was intended to use, or projected to use the Panther sprocket, in documents. Second thing: What did this guy base his blathering on, certainly not a comparison to real Panthers. The Leopard only existed on paper, HB could be right in that they used the sprocket off a E25 or E50 or some other nonexistent tank when they made their conjectural kit.
Whaterver dimensional issues the Academy Hetzer has would be detectable on a single sample of a Jagdpanzer 38, ST-1, or G-13 made with a measuring tape. If not, they would not be detectable on a 1/35 model. Mass-produced vehicles like these do not have significant tank-to-tank variations, despite what some claim. Most reported differences are from people not measuring between the same two points or not realizing the the items being measured are constructed differently or are actually similar, but different, items.
My local shop had the three versions of the Hetzer, but only had the Takom Mid Production Hetzer. My modeling buddy picked up the early production Hetzer from Academy, because he didn’t want to deal with the interior build on the Takom kit.
This is the exact quote: “So I compared the Hobby Boss sprocket to the DML sprocket and found that the HB sprocket has 17 teeth and the DML sprocket has 18 teeth. Although the sprockets are the same diameter the teeth are a different size as well as one less.”
Having gone back and counted teeth on a lot of sprockets, I am now of the opinion that the author accidentally confused the HobbyBoss Leopard sprocket with the DML Panther sprocket. In other words, it is the HobbyBoss sprocket that has 18 teeth and the DML sprocket that has 17 teeth. As you wrote, 17 teeth is correct for a Panther.
The author’s own track measurements using calipers seem to confirm this. HobbyBoss Leopard tracks are narrower in pitch than DML Panther tracks. This is an absolute requirement given sprockets of the same diameter but HobbyBoss Leopard sprockets having one more tooth.
By my count, a Trumpeter E-25 sprocket has 17 teeth. In books available to me, H. Doyle’s drawing of the E-25 does not show sprocket teeth. It does show individual track links but I would need to create a drawing of my own to work out sprocket tooth positions from his drawing.
Unfortunately, I do not have a model E-50 or E-75 sprocket to examine.
I do not think it is necessary to insult the writer of the review in question. Based on your findings, now confirmed by my findings, he made a mistake and confused the two sprockets in his review of the VK.16.02. Now I wonder what the VK.16.02 really looked like right before the project was cancelled.
In the end, it is difficult for me to know who to trust with regards models and reviews. I am very pleased DML Panther sprockets are correct and thank you for finding the flaw in that reviewer’s sprocket comparison.
A mistake resulting from bad information is understandable, a preventable mistake resulting from a lack of attention to detail, implying that a manufacturer has made a significant error in a number of their kits is nearly unforgivable. Posting authoritatively that a major subject line is f’d up in this major way ought to have automatically motivated the author to check his conclusions a second time. Just looking at the sprue photos you can see that the sprockets have diametrically opposite teeth - an impossibility with an odd number - which likewise should have been a red flag.
Why the big deal about this, Kurt?
This question is inevitable from the readers here. Well, because this review was wrong, you made ran with something of your own:
“To my knowledge, in well over a decade, the author was the first person to notice this problem with Dragon Panthers.”
But you were not curious as to why this might be (“Please note, I have not checked this for myself.”) and passed on the original mistake 13 years later. You then went even farther, using this “discovery” to cast doubt on the accuracy of the Panzer Tracts series, implying that despite their author’s well-earned reputations, your experience in an unrelated endeavor has convinced you that they are probably just as error-prone as anyone else. That’s why it’s a big deal.
The review in question did not cause me to wonder about a drawing in Panzer Tracts. Over the years, I have seen many kits called out for dimensional inaccuracies, always after comparison to a set of plans. I have long wondered how I can know any given set of plans is correct. What if the person drawing the plans made an error? What if the person laying out the book for printing scaled a set of plans incorrectly? What if the printer made some mistake causing a scaling error? In science, errors are found when another person performs the same experiment and gets a different result. Then it is tested by a third person and so on, until researchers reach a consensus. Historians participate in similar discussions which is why we have numerous biographies of specific individuals, or descriptions of important events, that vary in detail.
After reading the review in question I did not assume the reviewer was completely correct, I assumed he was probably correct and that at the very least, something interesting was going on, worth further investigation. I counted the teeth and made the same mistake he did because the sprockets in the photos are not labeled. I have a couple Panther tanks on deck and planned on looking into it the sprocket matter further. Your post caused me to look at the sprockets more closely ahead of schedule.
Why must you always be so extreme? Instead of insulting people who misunderstand a piece of historical information, why not help people with polite and informative corrections so that a clearer understanding of history results? Insults cause people to fear sharing observations and asking questions.
BTW - Jentz & Doyle did top notch research. They were quite candid about corrections if new material was discovered or a translation error happened. I do wish Jentz was still with us.
I used to sit and have hours long conversations with Tom Jentz at his vendor table at Armorcon and AMPS about German armor. Of course, he was a fascinating guy to talk to with all his knowledge, but Tom was also a very charming and funny guy. I miss him dearly.
I was not “extreme”. Saying " the guy writing the review has no idea what he is talking about" is hardly a blistering, mean-spirited insult, and given that he claimed to have researched Panther sprockets sounds pretty much on target.
Well, I did provide an informative correction, showing what Panther sprockets really looked like, how the matched the DML kit parts, and explained why the different sprockets on the HB kit may still be right because the vehicle was never built.
I also pointed out that it’s irresponsible to publish information claiming that a major manufacturer made an egregious error in a number of their kits when it’s not true. The mere fact that this would be big news should automatically lead authors (and those reposting who amplify that it’s big news . . .) to check their information in the draft stage. Mentioning this is not impolite.
And by the way, this was clearly not just a typo caused by transposing HB and DML in one place. He went through quite a process fitting three brands of tracks and even looked at sources: “I researched the panther drive sprocket and much to my surprise I found out that the HB sprocket is correct with 17 teeth and the DML with the 18 are incorrect. I wonder why no one noticed this during the DML Panther reviews.”
He didn’t make a mistake, he convinced himself that DML was wrong, period.
I agree with that, which is why I didn’t insult anyone. The review author does not know what he was talking about (at least he didn’t in 2010) and you demonstrated an unexpected credulity in repeating what he said without verification or anything more than the most superficial, pro forma qualification. Those are facts, not insults.
I miss him as well. I ran into him a couple of times at the Army’s Military History Institute and he agreed to meet me on my first trip to the National Archives and guide me along the process.
If he had a fault in his work it was his refusal to speculate on something if he did not have documentation about it. It did not matter if a feature was plainly evident in photographs or on surviving vehicles; without the paper it didn’t exist, or at least he wouldn’t write about it. In conversation he would, after stating his usual “I don’t know, I wasn’t at that meeting”, go into “that started showing up at Vomag in March . . .” or the like. Unfortunately, his omission of visible characteristics in his writing has been taken by some as evidence of poor research or errors.
He also was not a Panzer Fanboy, holding a clear-headed engineer’s view of German technology’s postives and many negatives. Out the yard at APG with a tour group (Sunday morn after AMPS - I think you were there, Tom) he said “Technology doesn’t win wars. It’s whole military, political, and economic structure of the country that’s important. No matter how good the German tanks were they were never going to win WW II.”
This led to my contentions observation, also in Post 82:
At the end of the first paragraph, I clearly state I have not checked the review author’s assertion about Panther drive sprockets. For clarification, I had recently read the review and found it disturbing. In the past, I have gone with expert information only to have it subsequently contradicted by another expert, with the second expert ultimately proven to be correct. Since I have a number of DML Panther tanks in the display case and one under construction, I wanted to know if the reviewer was correct and had decided to investigate. This issue was very much on my mind at the time of writing the first paragraph.
My second paragraph is a musing about how I can know what I know. For context, I am trying to be funny, but the underlying issue genuinely troubles me. If I am building a model, trying to get it as accurate as reasonably possible, and reach an ambiguous situation, how do I know who to trust? What if the expert is wrong?
In post 86, you post information showing that the reviewer in my anecdote was mistaken.
In post 88 I wrote:
After you made that post, I spent a couple hours counting Panther sprocket teeth and was happy to discover you are correct. I genuinely do appreciate your efforts to refute the claim in question.
My intent was not to spread misinformation on the internet, nor was I completely uncritical of the assertion about the DML Panther sprockets. I was concerned the reviewer might be on to something because in the past, similar assertions calling into question known history have ultimately proven to be true. I genuinely wonder if some plans found in books are wrong. That just is what it is.
…
With regards the issue of insulting comments, I often find your word usage insulting when you do not. That also just is what it is.
…
I own at least two dozen books by Spielberger, Jentz, and Doyle. They are obviously very knowledgeable in their area of study. I consult those books often when building models or seeking answers to historical questions and hold them in high regard. Even so, it will take independent corroboration to confirm their findings.
…
I still wonder how come the Academy Jagdpanzer 38(t) models do not match the plans in Panzer Tracts.
Sometimes they get it wrong for various reasons. If a error occurs it could be the original measurements were flawed. Could be that the information was input incorrectly. Could be they copied some other manufacturers incorrect work. Maybe they just didn’t measure twice and cut once if you know what I mean. Dragon’s black label series was full of poo. yet other kits in different series were spot on. Whatever happened, there was a different process that was used by the same company.
