_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
NEWS
Photo Report; DML's Brummbär
jimbrae
Visit this Community
Provincia de Lugo, Spain / España
Joined: April 23, 2003
KitMaker: 12,927 posts
Armorama: 9,486 posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 - 10:16 PM UTC
Dragon Models Limited have just published the details and CAD images of their new Brummbär model. DRA 6460 - Sd.Kfz.166 Stu.Pz.IV "Brummbär" Mid Production & Mid Production Command Version (Smart Kit is scheduled for release in june 2008. As a an idea of what to expect from this new model, check out the photo-report here:

Link to Item

If you have comments or questions please post them here.

Thanks!

H_Ackermans
Visit this Community
Gelderland, Netherlands
Joined: July 11, 2006
KitMaker: 2,229 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 12:38 AM UTC
Hmmmm, one thing catches my eye, it looks like this Brummbär is sitting neatly horizontal.

That's not right, Brummbärs were prone to a nose down attitude due to the heavier frontloading.

Tristat got that right, their kit has sagging suspension units for the front, giving the vehicle the appropriate stance.
Asmenoth
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: April 05, 2005
KitMaker: 274 posts
Armorama: 173 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 02:21 AM UTC
Supposedly, according to Dragon, they did not. They say the one in the museum is like that because it has been sitting for 60+ years. Not sure if they are right, but I have seen a wartime photo that shows it sitting horizontal. I will have to look through my books to try to find other pics.


CMOT
Staff MemberEditor-in-Chief
ARMORAMA
Visit this Community
England - South West, United Kingdom
Joined: May 14, 2006
KitMaker: 10,954 posts
Armorama: 8,571 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 03:31 AM UTC
Dragon are still producing some really nice kits, their attention to detail is very good despite some flaws. My only gripe is the reduction is what used to be called AM items while the price continues to climb. Thank you for the report Jim.
jimbrae
Visit this Community
Provincia de Lugo, Spain / España
Joined: April 23, 2003
KitMaker: 12,927 posts
Armorama: 9,486 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 06:33 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Hmmmm, one thing catches my eye, it looks like this Brummbär is sitting neatly horizontal.

That's not right, Brummbärs were prone to a nose down attitude due to the heavier frontloading.



Hmm... interesting. The (few) photos i've seen suggest the contrary...

Comments? Images to support or refute this claim? An interesting topic
emroglan
Visit this Community
Istanbul, Turkey / Türkçe
Joined: December 16, 2004
KitMaker: 1,163 posts
Armorama: 842 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 09:39 AM UTC
The box art shows a Brummbar with zimm, but there is no Zimmerit logo on the box, no zimm on Cad either... Pity, would have made another nice pre-zimmerited kit.

I am growing more unhappy with each new release news. I have stopped buying new kits because of my overgrown stash, yet this new releases hit the mark. I think this is what you call a "wrong investment policy"
Henk
Visit this Community
England - South West, United Kingdom
Joined: August 07, 2004
KitMaker: 6,391 posts
Armorama: 4,258 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 10:05 AM UTC
The weight of the Brummbär (according to Chamberlain and Doyle) was 28.3 ton. That is 3 tons heavier than the Pz.Kpfw. IV Ausf. H and J, and these were at the limit of what the chassis could cope with. The Pz.IV/70 (StuG) with it's 70 caliber 75mm gun caused the rubber tyres of the front wheels to wear to quickly, which is why these where fitted with the steel wheels. But that was mainly due to the overhang of the barrel, increasing the load on the front bogies. The armour thickness of the Brummbär's superstructure was 100mm at the front, and 50mm at the sides. Compare this with the 80mm and 30mm respectively of the Ausf J, and the overall increase of weight is obvious. The suspension of the Brummbär would have been overloaded, however, the weight distribution is much more centralised, so whilst the suspension overall would have been stretched, I don't think it would neccessarily be 'nose heavy'. If I remember correctly, I have seen pictures of Brummbär with all steel wheels, but not specifically just the front bogies.
The suspension and wheels of the Pz.Kpfw. IV were designed for a vehicle of around 20 ton (the first version weight in at 18 tons), not 28+ tons....

Asmenoth
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: April 05, 2005
KitMaker: 274 posts
Armorama: 173 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 02:46 PM UTC
Found this on YouTube...starts in English and then becomes dubbed (loudly) in Russian (I think). The suspension looks sound. Maybe the sagging thing happened over time, assuming the tank wasn't destroyed before that happened.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVzCBO_8IWk

whittman181
Visit this Community
Massachusetts, United States
Joined: December 30, 2006
KitMaker: 646 posts
Armorama: 473 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 03:43 PM UTC
The metal schurtzen will hopefully carry over to the late Panzer IV's. That would be nice and as for this Brummbar I've always wanted to build one so now I guess I'll have to Bob
jimbrae
Visit this Community
Provincia de Lugo, Spain / España
Joined: April 23, 2003
KitMaker: 12,927 posts
Armorama: 9,486 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 22, 2008 - 03:02 AM UTC
As something of a postscript to this, i'm beginning to get the feeling that DML are correct in portaying the vehicle in a 'Horizonal' position.

The last 24 hours, i've been looking at a lot of images of Brummbärs and i've yet to see one which confirms this.

Frankly, these 'instant' reviews based on a handful of CAD images rather than the actual model are becoming a tad terious....
Asmenoth
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: April 05, 2005
KitMaker: 274 posts
Armorama: 173 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 22, 2008 - 05:40 AM UTC
I am wondering if the sag in the Trumpeter kit is easily correctable. I would like to get the kit to try these new tracks they are putting in it.

jimbrae
Visit this Community
Provincia de Lugo, Spain / España
Joined: April 23, 2003
KitMaker: 12,927 posts
Armorama: 9,486 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 22, 2008 - 09:52 PM UTC

Quoted Text

I am wondering if the sag in the Trumpeter kit is easily correctable.



Lawrence Quah sent me a mail on the subject this morning, here are his suggestions:


Quoted Text

On the assertion from a manufacturer that the leaf springs were indeed straight and would have been replaced when they were bent. This is an ideal situation. Bear in mind that the Brummbar were built on existing Pz IV chassis with no measures made to strengthen the suspension. Bent leaf springs (which they do not dispute) should ideally be replaced but how do we know if this was carried out religiously? Freshly produced Brummbars would have had straight leaf springs but these springs would have started to bend as soon as it was driven and employed in combat.

The bent leaf springs by Tristar do look a bit overdone but I have seen it with my own eyes and it does need to be bend that much to re-create the nose heavy look. You can easily replicate this by cutting the leaf spring on either a DML/Tristar/Tamiya Pz IV and positioning it with a nose down look. Then use some plastic strips to rebuild the leaf springs and you will notice that it does need to bend by that much.



Nothing to do with me - but it does raise some fascinating ideas...
Henk
Visit this Community
England - South West, United Kingdom
Joined: August 07, 2004
KitMaker: 6,391 posts
Armorama: 4,258 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 22, 2008 - 10:50 PM UTC
Never mind the (perceived or not) nose heavy stance of the vehicle, does this new release mean that I can shelf the 'original' Brummbär from Dragon which I have been adding zimmerit to? It will be interesting to see where the kits differ.



edit as I hit the post button, I realised that the old Dragon kit is indeed a 'Late' version... The good news is that that means that all version will then be available. Thank you Dragon.

 _GOTOTOP