I may do the same

Although a Smart kit, there is an awful lot of PE in this one, more than in any Smart kit so far, so it would seem reduced PE is not a pre-requisite! :-) Vinnie

According to Michael Rinaldi on Missing links, who is showing images of the build in progress, the bend does happen as dragon advertised, when the upper hull is pushed into place. See full thread here

Got to agree. I've read all the posts. The engineering of that kit is superb. Although I'm not happy about the profile of one of the sprues.........it needs to be 'rounder'. Vinnie

Bill, on Missing Links Michael Rinaldi is building the sdkfz 140 and he says that when the upper hull is fitted it causes the kink in the fenders so it looks like that is not so much of a problem. Regards, Roger Oops, sorry Frank I didn't see your post about this!

Here is a thread from ML: LINK

With respect guys, may I suggest you have a look at the images that accompany Mike’s build in regards the fenders as they clearly show that the proposed solution doesn’t actually represent the straight fender kink seen in many photos but is more a “dent” where there is a pronounced deforming of the outer edge of the fender while leaving the inner edge straight in the hull side channel. The real fender has a straight line from the back to the kink and then another straight line from the kink to the front of the fender, the images clearly show this is not what happens when forcing the outer edge of the fender down with the superstructure but leaves a distinct dip in the fender line. With the straight hull side fender channel it is physically impossible to force the whole fender down to form the kink and so with respect there is an issue here as acknowledged by Cookie Sewell in his review of the Marder III kit. Cheers Terry A

I read the post/thread on M-L yesterday after digging around and while it's a "workaround" solution (a common occurrence in model kits and part of the hobby, right?) that Michael Rinaldi came up with in respect to the 140/1, I don't know that the III-H hull structure would or wouldn't lend itself to the same type of work-around solution, hence my question to Vinnie who has the actual kit to hand and is planning a review. I'm not bashing the DML III-H, just wondering if the fender question is something to be aware of as a carry-over from the 140/1 since the Tristar 38(t) hulls use a different approach to the fenders and their III-H would conceivably maintain that approach vs. the DML design approach. I've no doubt the DML III-H is up to the usual standard of DML design engineering with their latest kits, just reading about the rear basket being made out of pre-formed metal parts is intriguing all by itself, and every kit regardless of the manufacturer, will always have their own quirks/differences. As mentioned in Jim's thread about diversity/competition, it's all good in promoting higher quality and choice for the modeller/buyer in the end.

This looks like a really nice kit that is accurate and looks like the original. The fender issue is not really that important to me. I would definently be ready to invest in one despite a big stash already