_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV: Braille Scale
1/72 and 1/76 Scale Armor and AFVs.
Hosted by Darren Baker
REVIEW
DML 7.5cm PaK 40 with Gun Crew
c5flies
Visit this Community
California, United States
Joined: October 21, 2007
KitMaker: 3,684 posts
Armorama: 2,938 posts
Posted: Saturday, April 03, 2010 - 01:40 PM UTC
Jan Etal provides an In-Box review of the 7.5cm PaK 40 w/Gun Crew + 3.7cm PaK 35/36, a 1/72 scale offering from Dragon Models Limited in their Figure Pro series.

Link to Item



If you have comments or questions please post them here.

Thanks!
weathering_one
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: April 04, 2009
KitMaker: 458 posts
Armorama: 456 posts
Posted: Sunday, April 04, 2010 - 08:49 AM UTC
WOW, that kit looks insane. When one considers that the pictures are blown up. I've seen the kit at the local shop but was unsure about it. With all the pieces and stuff and such an in depth review I have a silly question. Do one or both guns allow for posing with the gun barrel at a different elevation? Will you be doing a build log of this kit?

Regards,
AJ
tread_geek
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: March 23, 2008
KitMaker: 2,847 posts
Armorama: 2,667 posts
Posted: Monday, April 05, 2010 - 04:24 AM UTC
AJ, the movement of the guns on the carriage was something that I overlooked. I've rechecked the plans and the parts and unfortunately the PaK 35/36 must be assembled with barrel in a fixed position. There is a notch in the gun slide bottom that mates with a lug in the upper part of the carriage. Also with this gun is a rather small pin that is insufficient in size to support lateral traverse.

The PaK 40 traverse potential appears to be the same as it;s smaller cousin. However, for the adventurous I can see a potential to replace the moulded traverse pin with something more substantial that might permit post construction traverse. The slide part of the PaK 40 has a couple of shallow lugs gutting out each side that appear to fit into a 'U' shaped recess in the support frame. At this point it "appears" to look like elevation might be possible after assembly.


Quoted Text

Will you be doing a build log of this kit?


That is a distinct possibility but probably at a future date. There is also the possibility of a build article or feature. Thanks for your interest.

Cheers,
Jan
tread_geek
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: March 23, 2008
KitMaker: 2,847 posts
Armorama: 2,667 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 22, 2010 - 04:49 AM UTC
It has taken some time and research but I am fairly certain that I now know the difference in the PaK 40 muzzle breaks. If you read my review here on Armorama of this kit you will have noted that I mentioned that there was no indication given of which was early, mid or late. Since then I have still found it difficult to get a definitive answer. That being said, I did manage to find a couple of references that I am pretty sure are accurate. Basically, the double flange type was first used from May 1943. Front flange and rear disk type from March 1944. Finally, double disc type.

From that part H27 is early, H25 is mid leaving H26 (double disk) being the late version.

Cheers,
Jan
Braille
#135
Visit this Community
California, United States
Joined: August 05, 2007
KitMaker: 1,501 posts
Armorama: 1,485 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 18, 2012 - 05:03 PM UTC
@tread_geek – Jan,

Was looking through the Dragon review section for figures in this scale and stumbled across your review. Excellent review with equally excellent photographs. I must add this to my growing stash of 72nd scale WWII kits. For the price you get three fully detailed kits in one box – figures with optional gear, and two anti-tank guns also with optional parts. How can you go wrong!

~ Eddy
tread_geek
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: March 23, 2008
KitMaker: 2,847 posts
Armorama: 2,667 posts
Posted: Monday, March 19, 2012 - 04:45 AM UTC
@Braille - Eddy, what a surprise to see this thread resurrected out of the blue! Thanks for posting your comment as it is a great pleasure to see that even after all this time someone might find a review helpful.

This truly is an interesting combination of sorts. It really shows that Dragon can do justice to 1/72 figures. As I point out in the review, you have enough equipment to potentially outfit a dozen more figures than the kit contains. From what I have seen of other Dragon kits that include figures, this plethora of extra equipment seems standard. I can't help speculating that figure sets from this manufacturer might eventually make an appearance. One can only hope!

If you or anyone else has any further questions about this kit, please feel free to inquire. I have built two of the diminutive PaK 35/36 guns (still one more in the stash) but have yet to tackle its larger brother. Although I've wanted to, running and participating in campaigns and writing reviews have kept me distracted. When I get a chance I'll surely start a blog to give everyone my build impressions.

Cheers,
Jan
Braille
#135
Visit this Community
California, United States
Joined: August 05, 2007
KitMaker: 1,501 posts
Armorama: 1,485 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 29, 2012 - 05:35 PM UTC
@tread_geek Jan,

Oh, my goodness! I hadn't thought to look at the date your review was first posted . . . Better late than never, I guess?

Jan, you brought up another good point in making my purchase of this kit worth acquiring and that is the amount of equipment included in the kit, as much of this could be used as vehicle stowage.

one vote from me on a build review!
~ Eddy
tread_geek
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: March 23, 2008
KitMaker: 2,847 posts
Armorama: 2,667 posts
Posted: Friday, March 30, 2012 - 03:38 AM UTC

Quoted Text

@tread_geek Jan,

Oh, my goodness! I hadn't thought to look at the date your review was first posted . . . Better late than never, I guess?


Eddy, I'd have to say that it's never too late to find something that you are looking for! It just goes to show how important these types of sites with their reviews can be.


Quoted Text

Jan, you brought up another good point in making my purchase of this kit worth acquiring and that is the amount of equipment included in the kit, as much of this could be used as vehicle stowage.


Yes, as I mention there is plenty of extra equipment with this kit. Surprisingly, yesterday I attended a meeting of our local IPMS club's Braille Special Interest Group. The topic of decent styrene figures came up and besides this kit, one member mentioned that Dragon has three or four other kits with figures. Two are Tiger II's (#7361,#7362), there is a Panther (#7363). He said he has these kits in his stash and that one of those kits comes with eight figures, four seated, four standing and double the amount of equipment sprues. I cannot confirm this but he was quite adamant that that was the case.


Quoted Text

one vote from me on a build review!
~ Eddy


Thanks and I hope that others will also find it interesting.

Cheers,
Jan
nikon1
Visit this Community
Kansas, United States
Joined: April 11, 2005
KitMaker: 622 posts
Armorama: 605 posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 - 03:50 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

@tread_geek Jan,

Oh, my goodness! I hadn't thought to look at the date your review was first posted . . . Better late than never, I guess?


Eddy, I'd have to say that it's never too late to find something that you are looking for! It just goes to show how important these types of sites with their reviews can be.


Quoted Text

Jan, you brought up another good point in making my purchase of this kit worth acquiring and that is the amount of equipment included in the kit, as much of this could be used as vehicle stowage.


Yes, as I mention there is plenty of extra equipment with this kit. Surprisingly, yesterday I attended a meeting of our local IPMS club's Braille Special Interest Group. The topic of decent styrene figures came up and besides this kit, one member mentioned that Dragon has three or four other kits with figures. Two are Tiger II's (#7361,#7362), there is a Panther (#7363). He said he has these kits in his stash and that one of those kits comes with eight figures, four seated, four standing and double the amount of equipment sprues. I cannot confirm this but he was quite adamant that that was the case.


Quoted Text

one vote from me on a build review!
~ Eddy


Thanks and I hope that others will also find it interesting.

Cheers,
Jan



Jan & Eddy, I have both Tiger kits and in both kits, you get 8 figures and double the amount of weapons and field gear. In the Achtung Jabo set, you only get one set of figures and no weapons or field gear. In the LAH Panzergrenadiers, you get 4 figures with one sprue of weapons, and 2 sprues of field gear. I have purchased multiple sets of the Pak35/36, Pak40 and LAH panzer grenadiers just for the figures. Good luck on finding the Actung Jabo and Paratrooper sets as they are sold out. All figures produces so far are superb in detail and quality.
Charlie
tread_geek
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: March 23, 2008
KitMaker: 2,847 posts
Armorama: 2,667 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 - 04:31 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Jan & Eddy, I have both Tiger kits and in both kits, you get 8 figures and double the amount of weapons and field gear. In the Achtung ... Good luck on finding the Actung Jabo and Paratrooper sets as they are sold out. All figures produces so far are superb in detail and quality.
Charlie


Thanks very much, Charlie! As this thread is linked in the review I am sure it will prove informative and helpful to many in the future. In travels to hobby shops in my area (+/- 50 miles) I not too infrequently run into one of these kits every now and then. I'm sure they are old stock but aren't exactly in demand as they carry a higher price tag than other Dragon offerings. The last couple I saw was about three weeks ago in a city about 30 miles away. Now that I know what to expect in the kit I might have to make a point of picking them up whenever I see them.

Cheers,
Jan
PedroA
Visit this Community
Valencia, Spain / España
Joined: December 27, 2010
KitMaker: 324 posts
Armorama: 322 posts
Posted: Saturday, June 09, 2012 - 10:06 PM UTC
Thanks again Jan. They are a good reference for future projects.

Regards.

Pedro.
 _GOTOTOP