Takom Panzer III Ausf. N Question

[CKPlasticModels]

So I was looking around on Sprue Bros today and realized that the CAD renderings of Takom’s Panzer III N (with winterketten, 8011) show an entire new hull (upper and lower) for the new parts. That prompted me to remember that the main issue I heard about this kit was dimension issues. After checking scalemates, I see that this was released after Takom’s initial Panzer III N with schurzen.
I was just wondering if anyone had any info on this. I was thinking maybe the dimension issues got corrected seeing as the Ausf. N with winterketten was released in 2023 and the original with schurzen was released in 2020, and the CADs seem to show that the hull was replaced.

Thanks!

[Armor_Buff]

missinglynx: takom-s-new-pz-kpfw-iiiausf-n-with-winterketten

It’s a fantastic thread, long but worth the read.

Pity all of that work & new parts was done to the Takom Pz III ausf N winterketten but it’s still has the same dimensional errors from what I understand.

The errors will matter to some and not to others. I passed on Takom’s rehash, I’d build a new Academy, trusty Dragon, RFM or 1990’s Tamiya over building another one Takom’s Pz III piles.

[geoawelch]

Takom 8011 Panzer III N w/Winterketten on Lightning Deal at @spruebrothers for $21.99.

With standard shipping, less than $30 US.

According to folks at Armorama and Missing Lynx this version has significant improvements and corrections from their previous Pz. III

I have given Takom some grief in the past but you have to respect a company who not only recognizes mistakes but corrects them.

[Garrand]

@geoawelch

Takom 8011 Panzer III N w/Winterketten on Lightning Deal at @spruebrothers for $21.99.

With standard shipping, less than $30 US.

Ah you shouldn’t have said that; I just bought one.

It actually came out to around $33 with shipping & tax.

Damon.

[jpwaller]

@geoawelch

According to folks at Armorama and Missing Lynx this version has significant improvements and corrections from their previous Pz. III

I have given Takom some grief in the past but you have to respect a company who not only recognizes mistakes but corrects them.

As Wade said, the issue is that Takom are aware of the dimensional issues with their Pz III/StuG III kits and have not rectified them, despite tinkering with the chassis in these later releases .

[Damraska]

Wade (ArmorBuff) and I have discussed Takom Panzer IIIs a few times. Having read the discussion he linking on multiple occasions, I had no intention to E V E R purchase a Takom Panzer III.

When the Flammpanzer 38 and Panzer III N Lighting Deals popped up at the same time, my resolve slowly crumbled over a period of about 12 hours.

As Deadpool would say…
Panzer III…bad Takom.
Jagdpanzer 38…good Takom!

I bought both.

Three things changed my mind with regards the Panzer III N. First was the drawing clearly showing a new hull. Good Takom? (In the discussion linked above, the person critiquing the model concluded the new hull is essentially the old hull.) Second was comparing pictures of the built up model to real tanks. Even if the hull still has issues, the road wheel spacing on both sides looks right. Good Takom? (In the linked discussion, the person critiquing the model concludes the spacing is still wrong.) Last, I really, really need some easy, cheap models to practice on. Good Takom!

Even if the Panzer III N is still wrong, it was really cheap. I have far worse models in the closet.

[Armor_Buff]

My Takom Pz III ausf N below.

What it is…

Experience Summary
It’s buildable but unpleasant. It looks wrong after building five other Pz III’s or Stug III’s without the suspension and dimensional errors.

Personal Verdict
FWIW - I don’t like the kit, that’s the OCD and retired Panzer Police/AMS agent in me. It might be fun to bash with a Tamiya 1990’s era Pz III lower hull as an exercise.

Cheers

[CKPlasticModels]

Ah, okay, that’s a shame. An entire new hull that’s still incorrect… Thanks for the info! Won’t be grabbing that one any time soon.

@Damraska I agree 100%! Cheap = good for practice. Didn’t grab this kit, but I did grab the Flammpanzer 38(t).

@geoawelch , for sure! I respect Takom for responding positively to their customers (hence the entire line of interior-less Hetzers). Definitely a plus in my book.

[Damraska]

In the linked discussion, the person making the critique states all Rye Field Panzer III models come with a spare J/L/M hull. Using ScaleMates, I am not seeing a spare hull in any Rye Field model. Do any of you know what he is writing about?

[Tommi_Lukkarinen]

That person is probably referencing RFM Stug IIIs coming with a spare J/L/M Lower hull, which is true.

As for the Takom model, it’s like Mr. Owen-Hayes says, you either let the dimensional error bother you or not. I’ve checked the models I’ve built against photos and the mistake seems pretty unnoticeable to me. Obviously if you put it against a correctly dimensioned Panzer III or Stug, the error might become more noticeable.

[Armor_Buff]

@Damraska

Do any of you know what he is writing about?

Yes, during my rfm-stug-iii-ausf-g-build I got bored and slapped the spare Pz III lower hull together.

Amazing how many spare parts were included.

[Damraska]

@Tommi_Lukkarinen Ohhhhhh. Thank you for pointing me in the right direction. I was looking at the Rye FIeld Panzer III kits, not the Stugs.

@Armor_Buff My memory sucks. I probably read your Panzer III journal three times and still managed to forget that part.

Having just compared instructions for the Rye Field Panzer III J and Takom Panzer III M, I chose the correct model for my needs at this point in time.

[Damraska]

I finally had a chance to look at the Takom Panzer III Ausf. N with Winterketten. Unfortunately, I do not have a modern Dragon or Rye Field Panzer III/Sturmgeschutz III to compare against.

All parts trees look like they came out of every other Takom model in my possession.

The only other Panzer III in my possession is a built up but not painted Dragon Panzer III Ausf. M. If I recall correctly, this is based on a Gunze Sanyo model from the mid 1990s.

Comparing the Dragon and Takom hull pans, one can immediately see differences. With a bit of sheet plastic, the front, bottom, and rear surfaces of the Takom model could be made to match the Dragon model. When the Takom model is sitting on tracks, only a Panzer III expert will potentially spot an issue with the front and rear lower hull plates.

The more detectable problem is spacing of the torsion bars. To understand what is going on, I overlaid a side profile line drawing of a Takom Panzer III Ausf. M over a side profile line drawing of a Rye Field Sturmgeshutz III Ausf. G. Torsion bar positions on the Takom kit are spaced very slightly further apart, such that the rear most position is a millimeter or so too close to the rear idler wheel. I know that is a small amount, but once you know what to look for, there it is.

Shortening the rearmost torsion bar by a millimeter, then shortening every other torsion bar by a progressively smaller fraction of that, will hide the road wheel spacing issue. Surgery of this kind requires some serious model fu.

Based on what I have read, using the hull pan from any other not Takom model will also solve the problem.

Please note, this entire comparison hinges on an assumed fact: Dragon and Rye Field models are correct in all major dimensions. This fact assumes another fact: Panzer Tracts drawings are correct in all major dimensions. To prove the matter beyond a reasonable doubt, different teams would need to measure existing Panzer IIIs and Sturmgeschutz IIIs and publish their findings for comparison. Many people get upset when I bring this up, but we do not actually know anything with certainty until that happens. Repetition of experiments is a fundamental pillar of scientific inquiry and establishment of truth.

Please note, I do not own the Panzer Tracts volume on Panzer IIIs and thus cannot make any comparisons based on it. I know that is lame.

At this point, the writer usually offers some opinion on buying or not buying the model. You are all big boys and girls. Decide for yourselves! I am trying to be funny but seriously, do what is right for you.

[Garrand]

I bought the N as well. And as well I have the Dragon M, though of a much more recent issue (owes nothing to Gunze Sangyo). Comparing the two, I can’t really see a significant difference.

Damon.

[SSGToms]

The Panzer Tracts drawings are absolutely, unequivocally accurate. That is a known and established fact. The Takom Panzer III (and StuG III) hulls are 1mm too short. That is now also a known and established fact. The guys on Missing-Lynx have a 13 page diatribe devoted to it. You can go read it if you want, it’s a sh!t show, but the above is the outcome of the whole mess.
The Takom Panzer III Blitz kits are a great value and can be built up into beautiful kits, but the hull is 1mm too short. It is up to the modeler to take that into consideration before buying the kit.