_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
Hosted by Darren Baker, Mario Matijasic
REVIEW
Bronco Panzer III A Built
Mannloon
Visit this Community
Wisconsin, United States
Joined: May 18, 2015
KitMaker: 99 posts
Armorama: 97 posts
Posted: Thursday, August 25, 2016 - 06:43 PM UTC
Adam Mann reviews and builds the Bronco Panzer III Ausf. A in 1/35th scale.

Link to Item


If you have comments or questions please post them here.

Thanks!

bilbobee
Visit this Community
Minnesota, United States
Joined: February 28, 2015
KitMaker: 414 posts
Armorama: 406 posts
Posted: Thursday, August 25, 2016 - 08:33 PM UTC
Thanks Adam for your good review as always, I'am going to hold up on buying this kit. Bronco has come a long way with their kits. This seems to be a step back for bronco, very interesting, Thanks
bill_c
Staff MemberCampaigns Administrator
MODEL SHIPWRIGHTS
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: January 09, 2008
KitMaker: 10,553 posts
Armorama: 8,109 posts
Posted: Friday, August 26, 2016 - 01:13 AM UTC
I'm not sure this is "a step back from Bronco" so much as the fruit of MiniArt tree. The rear deck on the MA Pz. IIIs was bad enough that Tiger Models put out a resin fix (I suggested to Joe doing one for the A, but he showed no interest). This kit is essentially the same deck, so there is the same "lip" between the rear deck and the turret ring deck piece.
ColinEdm
Staff MemberAssociate Editor
ARMORAMA
Visit this Community
Alberta, Canada
Joined: October 15, 2013
KitMaker: 1,355 posts
Armorama: 1,229 posts
Posted: Friday, August 26, 2016 - 01:13 AM UTC
Is it just me but the link goes to your Rye Field Gruppe Fehrmann Tiger review Adam?
Cantstopbuyingkits
Visit this Community
European Union
Joined: January 28, 2015
KitMaker: 2,099 posts
Armorama: 1,920 posts
Posted: Friday, August 26, 2016 - 02:04 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Thanks Adam for your good review as always, I'am going to hold up on buying this kit. Bronco has come a long way with their kits. This seems to be a step back for bronco, very interesting, Thanks


Except it's not really a step back at all. The parts for the kit look completely fine in both moulding and casting area from every picture I've seen of the kits contents.
ULIX-VM
Visit this Community
Puerto Rico
Joined: February 22, 2016
KitMaker: 834 posts
Armorama: 649 posts
Posted: Friday, August 26, 2016 - 02:19 AM UTC
this bronco german tank is perfect.
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: Friday, August 26, 2016 - 02:44 AM UTC
The link is fixed.
johhar
Visit this Community
Alabama, United States
Joined: September 22, 2008
KitMaker: 476 posts
Armorama: 447 posts
Posted: Friday, August 26, 2016 - 03:10 AM UTC
Perfect...not by a long shot. But it was the right level of challenge for me and will be for some and not for others. I also recommend finding all reviews, build logs, etc, before starting.
digger303
Visit this Community
Australia
Joined: April 25, 2012
KitMaker: 69 posts
Armorama: 69 posts
Posted: Friday, August 26, 2016 - 04:57 AM UTC
could the PE have been made softer by heating with a candle so it wouldn't break.
M4A1Sherman
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Joined: May 02, 2013
KitMaker: 4,403 posts
Armorama: 4,078 posts
Posted: Friday, August 26, 2016 - 05:08 AM UTC

Quoted Text

could the PE have been made softer by heating with a candle so it wouldn't break.


Yes. The process is called "annealing". Check my post relating to this review in the FIRST "Comments" thread that responded to Adam's review...

Also check my last post in WIERDY's "DRAGON StuG.III Ausf.E In Detail" thread:

Check it out- Some good news over on the DRAGON USA site:

DR-6851 StuG.III Ausf.C/D

Looks like it's going to be another "winner". A short description of the new kit is provided, along with a single CAD-type illustration. There is a short history, and a short list of some of the new kit's features. No mention of Tracks. It's worth a look...
metooshelah
#011
Visit this Community
Jerusalem, Israel
Joined: February 06, 2009
KitMaker: 1,507 posts
Armorama: 1,304 posts
Posted: Friday, August 26, 2016 - 09:41 PM UTC
I watched the video and also the "after battle report". While the parts look nice and all (and I'm not someone to complain about over engineering) Adam's bottom line is very accurate: the Bronco kit looks like a toy, while DML's looks like a scale model.
johhar
Visit this Community
Alabama, United States
Joined: September 22, 2008
KitMaker: 476 posts
Armorama: 447 posts
Posted: Friday, August 26, 2016 - 10:53 PM UTC
I've built both DML (kit 6632 Pz III F) and Bronco's Pz III A and I think the toy vs. model statement vastly overstates the difference(s). What surprised me was how close the two kits seemed in level of detail, and perhaps even engineering.
Cantstopbuyingkits
Visit this Community
European Union
Joined: January 28, 2015
KitMaker: 2,099 posts
Armorama: 1,920 posts
Posted: Friday, August 26, 2016 - 10:56 PM UTC

Quoted Text

I watched the video and also the "after battle report". While the parts look nice and all (and I'm not someone to complain about over engineering) Adam's bottom line is very accurate: the Bronco kit looks like a toy, while DML's looks like a scale model.


Dragon hasn't ever done the Ausf A Pz III
brekinapez
Visit this Community
Georgia, United States
Joined: July 26, 2013
KitMaker: 2,272 posts
Armorama: 1,860 posts
Posted: Saturday, August 27, 2016 - 01:55 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

I watched the video and also the "after battle report". While the parts look nice and all (and I'm not someone to complain about over engineering) Adam's bottom line is very accurate: the Bronco kit looks like a toy, while DML's looks like a scale model.


Dragon hasn't ever done the Ausf A Pz III


I think Adam was comparing another Pz III just to illustrate the difference in detail in general. The Bronco did seem a bit softer in detail to me, and not at all as nice as some of their older kits, of which I have a few. Maybe they switched plastic due to supply issues and have a situation like Miniart (or was it Master Box?) where the new plastic was an inferior quality.
M4A1Sherman
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Joined: May 02, 2013
KitMaker: 4,403 posts
Armorama: 4,078 posts
Posted: Sunday, August 28, 2016 - 04:58 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

Thanks Adam for your good review as always, I'am going to hold up on buying this kit. Bronco has come a long way with their kits. This seems to be a step back for bronco, very interesting, Thanks


Except it's not really a step back at all. The parts for the kit look completely fine in both moulding and casting area from every picture I've seen of the kits contents.


Agree- My BRONCO Pz.III Ausf.A's parts look beautifully cast, with no "soft" details or edges. If anything, the moldings are as "crisp" as ever...

BTW Jonathan, comparing a DRAGON Pz.III Ausf.F to BRONCO's Pz.III Ausf.A is, to use a really tired old phrase, "like comparing apples to oranges". Please don't take offense with that last remark, as I don't mean to "put you down" in any way...

Between the two designs, the Ausf.A & Ausf.F had different Upper & Lower Hulls, completely different Suspension designs; the Ausf.F uses SIX Road Wheels per side, as opposed to the Ausf.A's FIVE larger and different Road wheels per side. The Sprockets & Rear Idlers were of different designs, altogether. The Ausf.A also features a different Commander's Cupola, different Front & Rear End details, plus a bunch of other details. If I'm not mistaken, as I'm certainly no "Panzer-expert", I THINK the Engines were different, as well as the Engine Access Doors on the Engine Deck. I'm not familiar with the ACTUAL internal differences between the Ausf.A and the Ausf.F, so I can't make any comparisons in that particular department.

Maybe some of the "Panzer Gurus" can shed some light, or correct ME as well...
johhar
Visit this Community
Alabama, United States
Joined: September 22, 2008
KitMaker: 476 posts
Armorama: 447 posts
Posted: Sunday, August 28, 2016 - 06:09 PM UTC
No offense at all. I figured the two kits were the same ballpark in terms of subject. The Stug kits will be a much better apples-to-apples comparison.
 _GOTOTOP