Stug. III Ausf. D

by Jim Matthiessen

• Manufacturer: Fujimi
• Kit No. 76049 (S.W.A. 16)
• Stated Scale: 1/76 (Things are not always what they seem. Refer to text for detail)
• Review type: In the box.
• Summary: Recommended. Flawed, but still a very nice kit.

Background

I recently received asurprise while visiting a fellow small-scale armor modeler. Heshowed me a plastic injection molded StuG III Ausf. D. I havebeen buying and building small scale armor for many years, andhad thought that I had seen every kit marketed by the majormanufacturers, and yet here was one I did not even know existed.Now sold under the Fujimi name and marketed as 1/76 scale, thekit was originally part of the Nitto product line.

I like StuGs, and I hadbeen casually looking for a source of an early StuG III. I hadassumed that if I wanted one in my preferred scale of 1/72 that Iwas going to have to go with resin. While there is an assortmentof late production StuG IIIs and IVs available in plastic, themajor manufacturers have overlooked the early StuGs, or so Ithought. What made this Fujimi kit even more enticing was thesize. When lined it up with ESCI’s 1/72 StuG III, the Fujimikit is actually wider. With some work could the kit be modifiedto a passable 1/72 scale? That settled it. I had to own one, evenafter a warning from an internet message board that the kit wasinaccurate due to improper angles of the various armor plates.

The Kit

The first thing onenotices is the excellent box top artwork that depicts a StuGmoving downhill past a burning building. The artwork is detailedand is very strikingly done. It takes up the entire boxtop. Infact the kit designation appears in small letters in anunobtrusive corner. It is a huge improvement over the olderFujimi box art with the pathetically small, artsy, low-lightsoft-focus pictures that appeared a few years back.

There are three trees of partsfinely molded in a dark gray plastic. Two trees comprise thevehicle, and the third tree has hard plastic tracks along with asecond drive sprocket. More about the tracks in a bit. The kitshares a common sprue with the Nitto Pz. III M/N kit becauseturret side and skirt armor are molded on one of the trees. For akit that was engineered twenty-five years ago, the quality of themolding is surprisingly good; very good, in fact. The detail isvery crisp and sharp.

Superstructure panel linesare recessed, and there is a hint of weld seam marks in theappropriate locations. For comparison purposes I would say thekit is similar in quality to an average ESCI 1/72 kit. All of thehatches and engine access plates are molded as separate piecesand can be positioned opened. The hatches are molded rather thickand there is no detail on the hatch interiors. They will need tobe sanded down, and some interior detail added if the hatches areto be positioned opened. The ventilation covers for the engineaccess plates are separate pieces molded with an undercut lip.They should look excellent once in place.

There is a small amount ofinterior detail provided; basically the floor of the fightingcompartment and a detailed gun breach assembly and recoilmechanism. There is an attempt at transmission and engine detail,but it is rather simple and lacks detail. If the engine accessplates are displayed open, a bulkhead between the engine andfighting compartment will have to be added as none is provided.The drive train detail comes at the expense of the hull bottom.The engine and transmission are molded as part of the bottom hulland wherever there is detail on the inside of the hull there is avery large negative impression in the bottom. No one would evernotice this on a completed kit unless it was turned upside down.The gaps are too large to fill, but they could be easily coveredwith sheet styrene stock.

The kit captures the squat, complexshape of the StuG III Ausf. D extremely well. I give it anenthusiastic thumbs up, even in light of the faults.

Even though there is a lotthat is "right" about this kit, it does have its shareof faults. If the list of problems seems long, keep in mind thatmost of them are minor or fairly easily corrected. A very nicelooking StuG can be built straight out-of-the-box.

The Suspension

The running wheels shouldbe replaced by ESCI units as the Fujimi molding do not exhibitgood detail. What about the problems of scale by substituting1/72 wheel units you ask? This will be addressed later in thereview.

The front return rollersshould be repositioned further forward. The position of theforward return roller is correct for an earlier StuG III, but notfor the Ausf. D. The Pz. III Ausf. H chassis was used for theStuG III Ausf. D and had the front return roller moved forward tobetter accommodate the weight of the wider, heavier track used onthat version. Filling the existing mounting holes and drillingnew ones in the correct locations will easily fix this. The idlerwheel is located too far forward and should be relocated about 1½ mm back. This may affect the ability of the hard plastictracks to complete a full run around the suspension, but Idon’t know for sure.

The hard tracks are a mixedblessing. While they are preferable to vinyl tracks, the treadpattern is frankly an awful representation of those of the Pz.III series. The tracks are not molded with any gaps for the drivesprocket teeth. Fujimi deals with this by supplying a seconddrive sprocket that does not have any teeth molded on the arcwhere the track would be in contact. With the exception of thetread pattern already mentioned, the tracks are finely molded,and even include double link sections that have been molded witha curve to go around the drive sprocket and idler, a nice idea.The center guide teeth are represented.

Hull and Superstructure

The main gun tube is toothin and looks more like a 37 mm cannon than the 75 mm howitzerit should be. The gun from an Airfix or Hasegawa Pz. IV F1 wouldmake an acceptable replacement.

I was concerned about thesuperstructure. As mentioned earlier I had read an internetcomment that the kit suffered from superstructure plates being atthe wrong angles. I was pleasantly surprised to find that atfirst look there were no obvious errors. In fact, thesuperstructure matched up well with the plans I was using. A morethorough examination revealed that the middle of thesuperstructure is about one mm too high. The rear edge of thesuperstructure is the correct height. This causes the upper rearsuperstructure plates to slope downwards towards the rear of thevehicle at a slightly greater angle than they should. Inaddition, the gun side shields are too high in profile and shouldbe sanded down a bit to lower their profile. So while theinternet comment about incorrect plate angles was basicallycorrect, in my opinion the errors are minor. It would take a welltrained eye or a side-by-side comparison with scale plans toidentify these problems.

The pioneer tools aremolded onto the hull deck, but they are well cast and have gooddetail. There is a tow cable molded onto the rear deck, but anyattempt to remove it will be hindered by the nearby access platehinge detail.

Kit Scale

The kit is marketed as1/76 scale. So why is there a review of this kit in "On theWay!", a web site dedicated to 1/72 scale modeling? How doesthe kit really measure up? The following matrix shows kitdimensions, actual vehicle dimensions gleaned from referencesources, and the projected kit dimensions in both 1/76 and 1/72scale. To arrive at the 1/76 projection, a conversion of 4 mm = 1foot was used, which is standard 1/76 scale measurement. A steel1/72 ruler was used for the 1/72 measurements.

It is clear that there aresome difficulties with the kit dimensions. The kit is too wideand too short according to both scale projections. In 1/76 it isclose to being correct in length; in 1/72 it is close to correctin width. But overall dimensions do not portray the entirepicture. With a kit like this determining scale is as much amatter of interpretation and art as it is science. The accuracyof scale drawings and reference material can have a major impacton any one person’s findings. When is a measurement withinacceptable limits, and when is it not? While some modelers feelthere is no room for any inaccuracy, I take the view that totalaccuracy is a goal that will never be achieved due to thelimitations of the mold making art. The only question is whatdegree of accuracy a modeler is willing to accept.

In conclusion, whencomparing the kit components to scale plans in both scales I feltthat wheel diameter, suspension spacing, superstructure details,and other items matched up with 1/72 scale plans, not 1/76. For1/72 scale, most of the length problem was aft of thesuperstructure. The rear deck does not extend over the rear hullas far as it should because the engine deck is too short. I planon adding a spacer of about 8 scale inches just aft of thesuperstructure. While this will not totally correct the lengthproblems, it will result in what I feel will be a very nicerepresentation of a StuG III Ausf. D in 1/72 scale.

A special note of thanksto Frank Stewart for turning me on to this kit, and to Doug"On the Way!" Chaltry for allowing me to ramble on withthis review. A special message for Doug: I do so build kits, Ijust don’t ever seem to finish any.

Reference Material

Drawings:

1. 1/76 drawing by H. L.Doyle enlarged to 1/72 scale. BellonaMilitary Vehicle Prints (out of print).

2. SturmgeschutzIII In Action , by Bruce Culver. SquadronSignal Publications.

3. PzKpfw.III In Action , by Bruce Culver. SquadronSignal Publications.

Reference:

1. Encyclopediaof German Tanks of World War Two , byChamberlain and Doyle.

2. GermanTanks of World War Two , by George Forty.