SILK PURSE FROM A SOW’S EAR.
A
construction review and comparison in 1/72 scale.
Revell/Monogram
[kit 3101] and the Dragon Models [kit 7260] Sd.Kfz. 167 Sturmgeschutz IV.
Stephen Brezinski
Dragon Kit 7260 
Revell Kit 3101
To turn a “sow’s ear” into a
silk purse denotes taking something very crude and rough and creating something
fine and valuable from it. Those who
are familiar with Revell’s
Sturmgeschutz IV kit will know that it is very detail-challenged model of the
StuG IV. Along with their M4A1(76) kit
this is one of Revell’s initial
1/72-scale AFV kits, first marketed by Monogram
under license. Compared to Dragon’s recent releases of the StuG IV
early and late and Revell’s more recent excellent kits, Revell’s StuG IV leave much to be desired. Compare & contrast is a great way to
learn about something so what better fun than to build both Revell & Dragon kits at the same time.
The Revell kit would get all the bells & whistles detailing while
the Dragon model would be built out
of the box.
The below review comments are my own and I am unassociated with any manufacturer or distributor.
A Concise Vehicle History For The Modeler
The Sd. Kfz 167 Sturmgeschutz IV was essentially a mating of
the modified superstructure of the StuG III Ausf. G onto the hull of the
veteran Panzer IV. Reference states
that it was an interim design until replacement by the Jagdpanzer IV though
over 1100 were produced in 1944 & 1945 up to the war’s end. A small box for the driver was added to the
left front to compensate for the added length of the Pz IV, compared to the
StuG III and Pz III chassis. The early
StuG IV had a roof mounted machine gun behind an armor shield like the StuG III
G. Late StuG IV assault guns were given
a coaxial machine gun and a roof-mounted remote control mg as mounted on the
Hetzer, among other detail changes.
1. 
Revell’s
StuG IV instructions are also clear and easily understandable; in the standard
line drawing method long the norm. The Revell kit consists 62 tan-colored
injection-molded styrene parts, including link & length hard styrene tracks.
There is no parts diagram to assist in locating parts. There is no information as to units and
location for the vehicles depicted with the vehicles. The Revell kit will
need an etched brass detail set from Eduard
[set #22 015] to improve it. As Rob
Haelterman goes over in his review, this Revell kit bears no similarity in
parts, assembly or relationship to the Revell
Panzer IV kits that Revell released
some years after the StuG IV. One-piece
‘schurzen’ side skirts are included which can partially hide the poor wheels
and tracks.
My Revell StuG IV
kit was purchased in about 1996; more recent releases of this kit may have
improved directions. Based on the kit
number, #3101, this appears to be Revell’s
first 1/72 scale release.
2. 
Great box art! This Revell kit has
earlier been sold as a Monogram and
as Matchbox kit #40180, but if you
look closely at the instructions you will find that it is a Revell AG model
that was boxed by Monogram in the
1990’s.
3. 
Dragon’s StuG
IV instructions are sharp and clear, and in color photograph’s, something new
for a manufacturer in small-scale armor modeling. [The handwritten writing in green are my notes jotted down during
assembly.] Sprue diagrams are included
to assist in locating parts. Dragon’s model consists of 129 Gray
injection molded styrene parts on 12 sprue, and a set of band tracks. Dragon
has also released an early StuG IV version with similar features to the Revell
StuG IV kit. No side skirts are
included.
1. 
In gray are the Dragon parts. Dragon’s
Saukopfblende mantlet [Part D2] represents the cast mantlet of the late StuG
III and StuG IV, which has the hole on the left side for a coaxial machine gun.
Revell’s mantlet [part 19] lack the
machinegun port and compared to my references appears too pointed and
long. Both mantlets could use some
texturing, such as by coating the surface in liquid cement and stippling the
surface with a stiff brush. Going right
of the center is Revell’s 75-mm StuK
40 gun barrel with muzzle break [part 18], then Dragon’s gray gun barrel [part C21], and then a spare barrel from TP Models that I used on the Revell model. The Revell barrel does
not appear properly tapered and the muzzle break is very disappointing. Dragon’s
barrel & muzzle break is the most accurate of the three.
2. 
At top is the Dragon hull side & bottom [part L] with the separate leaf
spring suspension bogies, locations for three return rollers of the late StuG
IV, and the fuel filler caps. The
separate bogies allow us to articulate the tracks over an irregular surface
with a little surgery. Below are the
tan colored Revell hull sides [parts
1 & 12] with molded-on bogies, four return rollers but with no fuel filler
caps that should be present on the left side [part 1]. Those modelers familiar with the Revell StuG IV will recognize that the
roadwheels on the center hull side are not from the Revell kit, but are stolen from an old ESCI [Italeri] Pz IV
kit. The Revell StuG IV’s roadwheels barely resemble Pz IV roadwheels and
are [in my opinion] the weakest feature of the kit. Rather than being two separate pared-roadwheels it comes as one
thick wheel. Dragon’s roadwheels are great.
3. 
Dragon’s
idler and sprocket wheels [parts H6 & H7 and J8 & J9] ] at top are,
like most all the other Dragon parts, more accurate and detailed than Revell’s offering below [parts 2, 3, 5
& 6]. Still, Revell’s idler and sprocket are not too bad, are actually better
than ESCI’s Pz IV parts and I felt were acceptable. Notice that Revell’s sprocket has half the number of bolts on the hub, Dragon is correct with 12 bolts.
4. 
In close competition with Revell’s StuG IV
roadwheels for crudeness and inaccuracy are Revell’s
StuG IV styrene link & length tracks at top. There are strange raised sides, small nubs for track teeth, and
no link detail on the inside. Dragon’s soft plastic band tracks. in
the center, have very accurate detail and compare well with the best Panzer IV
tracks in this scale. Some modelers
seem to detest band tracks while some dislike link & length tracks. What may be more important is how well the
track is done rather than the material it’s made of. At the bottom is a set of
PART etched brass tracks for the Panzer IV and Panzer III in 1/72. PART’s
detail is superb but some modelers find them unacceptably too thin. For this Revell
StuG IV, I substituted tracks from Revell’s
outstanding Pz IV H kit, which will in turn get the PART etched brass tracks when that kit is assembled.
5. 
Again, in an overhead view and comparing the
two hull superstructures: Dragon at
right wins hands down for correct shape and size. Though both kits have molded-on tools, Dragon’s offering is more accurate and well rendered. Where visible, the weld seams and joints for
the armor plates should be scribed in.
6. 
This overhead photo shows the Revell and the Dragon kits partially assembled but unpainted. The early StuG IV [represented by the Revell model] was produced in late 1943
& mid 1944 when zimmerit antimagnetic coating was standard at the
factory. Our choices for a model are to
produce the zimmerit with putty or find an aftermarket product. Eduard
company produces an etched brass zimmerit coating [Eduard set 22 091] for the Dragon
model but I found nothing comparable for the Revell model. With some
ingenuity and modeling putty the Eduard
brass zimmerit was made to work on the Revell
model. Eduard does producer an etched-brass detail set specifically made
for the Revell StuG IV, [set #22 015]
that helps a lot. Many brass parts such
as the brass handtools are unusable, as they are flat and poor
representations. A coarse treadplate
from Eduard’s brass set has been
applied to the top of the fenders. On
the left side of the Revell StuG,
three of the brackets for the schurzen, side skirts, have been attached. Note that Revell’s cupola deflector was corrected, tools were scratchbuilt,
and a storage box added to the engine deck.
The hatches are left open for a crew.
The roof hole for the gunner’s site has been opened up. Hand tools on the fender of the Revell model are either cut off for
later re-attachment if well rendered, or scratchbuilt.
Dragon’s late StuG IV kit does not have or need zimmerit and the parts are of such quality that it builds to a fine display model without brass detail parts.
7. 
The completed Dragon late StuG IV, built out of the box. Fit of the parts is very good. Parts like the periscope gun sight [part
C13] separate fender-mounted fire extinguisher, spare tracks and tow cable
holders on the stern are included. The Dragon tracks are well detailed and
among the best for soft band tracks. It
is odd in that I found the tracks a little too short by about a link or
two. The tracks had too be stretched in
order to fit around the wheels. Mostly
what I have heard about Dragon tracks is that they are too long?
8. 
The completed Revell StuG IV model with etched brass side skirts for the StuG IV
by Eduard [set 22 015]. The main gun barrel for the 75-mm StuK40 was
left in primer red color, perhaps representing a replacement at a field
workshop. Markings and the color scheme
do not represent a particular unit of vehicle and represent common markings and
camouflage for late war StuG III’s and StuG IV’s. The cupola periscope lenses were represented with cut up
rectangles of exposed camera film.
These were applied with white glue after any dullcoat is applied to the
model. Notice the supplemental armor
plates added to the front, modeled from styrene plastic sheet. The Revell
model comes with a piece [part 20] that represents concrete reinforcement for
the driver’s compartment. Not all StuG
IV’s used the concrete reinforcement.
9. 
A view of the top right rear of the Dragon kit shows the nice detail. Rather than the venerable Pz IV muffler, the
late StuG IV had the late-war vertical exhaust stacks of the Pz IV Ausf J. After painting with a dark panzer yellow a
dark oil wash was added to the recesses.
When the wash was dry after several days a lighter shade of panzer
yellow was sprayed over upper exposed areas to represent faded and make the
recessed areas appear shaded. Later a
green & brown camouflage pattern was applied with artist’s oil paints [the
kind that comes in a tube] with a short soft bristle brush. This represents a hasty field application of
camouflage colors. The 2-meter antenna
was replicated with a plastic housepainting-brush bristle painted brown to
represent the copper color of rigid German antennas.
10. 
The rear view of the Revell StuG displays the kit muffler modified with a new exhaust
outlet on top and straps, the zimmerit pattern on the rear plates and fenders
and the coiled-up tow cables. The rear
of the superstructure is devoid of details and items such as the circular vent
that will need to be added. The rear of
the engine deck by the tow cable will need bolts. Painting was accomplished similar to the Dragon model above.
Markings are water-slide decals.
CONCLUSION
This Revell model is in stiff competition with Revell’s second 1/72 scale AFV, their M4A1 Sherman, as their worst
small-scale kit. My judgement is that
the StuG IV wins this competition for “quality-challenged” kits. My personal opinion is also that with a
considerable amount of detailing, the Revell Sturmgeschutz IV can be made into
a good, and even award winning display model.
Unless you resin-cast your own roadwheels you will have to steal them
from an ESCI or Revell Pz IV or a Dragon
kit. With the extra wheels,
etched-brass zimmerit, etched-brass detail set and the significant
scratchbuilding our cost for this model is going up significantly. If you really enjoy the challenge of trying
to turn a “sow’s ear into a silk purse”, and making the model more your
creation than just an assembly of someone else’s engineering, then this is a
great project. If you wish a good,
easily assembled, solid wargaming model of the StuG IV, then the Revell model is a better choice.
Below are two
additional reviews of the Revell/Monogram model.
http://www.ontheway.org.uk/reviews/RevellAG/Revell%20StuG%20IV%20Review.htm