login   |    register

Scale Modeling Sponsors

See Your Ad Here!

Armor/AFV: Axis - WWII
Armor and ground forces of the Axis forces during World War II.
Hosted by Darren Baker
what does it qualify a Pz.4 F2 to a Pz.4 G?
Dinocamo
Visit this Community
Quebec, Canada
Joined: August 26, 2017
KitMaker: 34 posts
Armorama: 33 posts
Posted: Sunday, April 15, 2018 - 10:21 AM UTC
Hello everyone, as the title say, what does it take to qualify a Pz.4 F2 to a Pz.4 G?

After my understanding, the production of the F2 started in late 1941, and by March 1942, the production of the Pz.4 G started. Many Pz.4 F2 were also re-designated as Pz.4 G.

Here is my real question, why do people always use the the muzzle brake baffle to differentiate the 2 versions? Both are the same gun, the 7.5cm Kwk40 L43, but out of dozen parts on the gun, why only the muzzle? which can even be replaced...

People consider the "F2" be the one with single baffle and the "G" be the one with double baffle.

Some tanks used the late 1942 hull and turret, but just because of that tiny muzzle brake, it is qualified as Pz.4 F2.

I know some mutant version between the Pz.4, but they are not common. Like the Pz.4 413 in Germany and the Pz.4 419 in UK (Which has the Pz.4 E hull with late 1941 turret and a long 75 with a double baffle muzzle brake...)

After my knowledge, the Pz.4 F2 is the upgunned version of the F and also have different gun mount to support the gun. And in 1942, when the Pz.4 G production is already started, they made several change about it, namely:

The turret without 2 extra side view ports for loader and gunner
The front turret view port for the loader is removed
The later production turret has different hatch door
The hull generally doesn't have signal ports
The hull later has the extra 30mm armor plate which a distinctive cut on top of the drive view port to allow the use of the driver's optical view port, a feature that later removed in the Pz.4 H and the 30mm plate has no cut in like such, yet, some Pz.G also has that kind of hull.

Some Pz.4 has all of the condition above, but a single muzzle brake makes it a different version...

Can anyone explain it and give me more information. It is for my own curiosity and also because I'm so tired to look for the right kit while the information on these 2 model are so vague and the muzzle brake baffle just doesn't make sense for me.

(sorry for my English)
RobinNilsson
Staff MemberTOS Moderator
KITMAKER NETWORK
Visit this Community
Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: November 29, 2006
KitMaker: 3,556 posts
Armorama: 3,081 posts
Posted: Sunday, April 15, 2018 - 01:56 PM UTC
Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two by
Peter Chamberlain & Hilary Doyle (revised edition)
says the following about the G:
Produced from May 1942 to June 1943
Vision ports removed from turret sides and the turret front on the loaders side.
Summer 1942: New style muzzle brake, system to allow transfer of engine coolant to another Pz IV (helps with cold starts in winter), smoke dischargers moved from hull rear to turret side.
January 1943: Drivers episcope eliminated. Schürzen were also introduced in 1943.
Late March 1943 the KwK40 L/48 replaced the L/43, 1275 G's received the L/43 and the last 412 or so got the L/48. From 20th of June 1942 about 700 ausf G also got additional armour, bolted or welded.
The very late models got a new type of sprocket wheel and the radio antenna was moved to hull rear on the left side so now it is almost impossible to tell the difference from an ausf. H.

Since the new style muzzle brake came in the summer of 1942 I assume that the tanks produced before then had the same type as the F2 ...
/ Robin

LikesTanks
Visit this Community
Wales, United Kingdom
Joined: May 07, 2013
KitMaker: 163 posts
Armorama: 156 posts
Posted: Sunday, April 15, 2018 - 06:27 PM UTC
From what I gather reading Spielberger, the Ausf.F is the 7 series chassis (7./B.W.) and the Ausf.G is the 8 series (8./B.W.). The F2 are the last of the 7 series at the beginning of 1942 after the mounting of the longer gun was ordered. If insufficient guns were available, the vehicles were to be stored until the guns came, but no short barreled tanks were to be shipped after February '42.
Bravo1102
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: December 08, 2003
KitMaker: 2,113 posts
Armorama: 1,815 posts
Posted: Sunday, April 15, 2018 - 08:59 PM UTC
In the Osprey Vanguard on Pzkpfw IV armed with the long 75, Jentz noted that an order went out in mid 1942 to redesignate all Pzkpfw IV produced to that point armed with the long 75 as ausf G. The difference was amended to being the main gun.

Unless this has been superseded by further research that was my understanding. As well as the production line introduction of new features was fluid as it would be between the G and H. Revised features appeared at different times depending on dates of manufacture and availability of parts. Like the above post with holding older chassis for fitting with the new gun. Theoretically that could allow for a chassis with earlier F features being held for the new gun right beside a newer chassis with later G features.
RobinNilsson
Staff MemberTOS Moderator
KITMAKER NETWORK
Visit this Community
Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: November 29, 2006
KitMaker: 3,556 posts
Armorama: 3,081 posts
Posted: Sunday, April 15, 2018 - 09:36 PM UTC

Quoted Text

In the Osprey Vanguard on Pzkpfw IV armed with the long 75, Jentz noted that an order went out in mid 1942 to redesignate all Pzkpfw IV produced to that point armed with the long 75 as ausf G. The difference was amended to being the main gun.

Unless this has been superseded by further research that was my understanding. As well as the production line introduction of new features was fluid as it would be between the G and H. Revised features appeared at different times depending on dates of manufacture and availability of parts. Like the above post with holding older chassis for fitting with the new gun. Theoretically that could allow for a chassis with earlier F features being held for the new gun right beside a newer chassis with later G features.



Don't tell Dragon about this. They would flood the market and drain our wallets with all possible mix and match versions of F2 & G up to borderline H. And then there is the possibility of field repairs ...
/ Robin
RLlockie
Visit this Community
United Kingdom
Joined: September 06, 2013
KitMaker: 800 posts
Armorama: 665 posts
Posted: Sunday, April 15, 2018 - 10:05 PM UTC
The F2 was redesignated as a G, so they are the same. I can’t answer why people think that the muzzle brake distinguishes one from the other but they are repeating an old myth that was debunked some years ago by Jentz and Doyle based on primary sources but there are lots of old books in people’s libraries and they aren’t amended when new information is discovered.

You might as well ask why some people keep referring to ‘Porsche’ and ‘Henschel’ turrets when neither manufacturer designed or built turrets. It’s just old and incorrect information being redistributed.
Bravo1102
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: December 08, 2003
KitMaker: 2,113 posts
Armorama: 1,815 posts
Posted: Monday, April 16, 2018 - 01:05 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

In the Osprey Vanguard on Pzkpfw IV armed with the long 75, Jentz noted that an order went out in mid 1942 to redesignate all Pzkpfw IV produced to that point armed with the long 75 as ausf G. The difference was amended to being the main gun.

Unless this has been superseded by further research that was my understanding. As well as the production line introduction of new features was fluid as it would be between the G and H. Revised features appeared at different times depending on dates of manufacture and availability of parts. Like the above post with holding older chassis for fitting with the new gun. Theoretically that could allow for a chassis with earlier F features being held for the new gun right beside a newer chassis with later G features.



Don't tell Dragon about this. They would flood the market and drain our wallets with all possible mix and match versions of F2 & G up to borderline H. And then there is the possibility of field repairs ...
/ Robin



The Dragon "F2" kit has all the bits in it and acknowledges various production changes with optional pieces in their typical confusing and cluttered directions.

At least we're all past calling it a Panzer IV special.
GeraldOwens
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: March 30, 2006
KitMaker: 3,426 posts
Armorama: 3,387 posts
Posted: Monday, April 16, 2018 - 01:43 AM UTC

Quoted Text

The F2 was redesignated as a G, so they are the same. I can’t answer why people think that the muzzle brake distinguishes one from the other but they are repeating an old myth that was debunked some years ago by Jentz and Doyle based on primary sources but there are lots of old books in people’s libraries and they aren’t amended when new information is discovered.

You might as well ask why some people keep referring to ‘Porsche’ and ‘Henschel’ turrets when neither manufacturer designed or built turrets. It’s just old and incorrect information being redistributed.


F2 is a convenient designation for modern historians who want to distuinguish the early G with single baffle muzzle brake and turret side vision ports from the more common, later version.
Dinocamo
Visit this Community
Quebec, Canada
Joined: August 26, 2017
KitMaker: 34 posts
Armorama: 33 posts
Posted: Monday, April 16, 2018 - 06:34 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

The F2 was redesignated as a G, so they are the same. I can’t answer why people think that the muzzle brake distinguishes one from the other but they are repeating an old myth that was debunked some years ago by Jentz and Doyle based on primary sources but there are lots of old books in people’s libraries and they aren’t amended when new information is discovered.

You might as well ask why some people keep referring to ‘Porsche’ and ‘Henschel’ turrets when neither manufacturer designed or built turrets. It’s just old and incorrect information being redistributed.


F2 is a convenient designation for modern historians who want to distuinguish the early G with single baffle muzzle brake and turret side vision ports from the more common, later version.



That's the problem, some Pz IV around that time have single baffle muzzle and a turret without side vision ports, while other "mid" G have double baffle muzzle with side view ports. There are also some with the entire tank is a 1941 F upgraded with only the kwk40 L43 and double baffle, still considered a G and not F2.

I don't find it convenient with such vague detail.
Bravo1102
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: December 08, 2003
KitMaker: 2,113 posts
Armorama: 1,815 posts
Posted: Monday, April 16, 2018 - 04:29 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text


Quoted Text

The F2 was redesignated as a G, so they are the same. I can’t answer why people think that the muzzle brake distinguishes one from the other but they are repeating an old myth that was debunked some years ago by Jentz and Doyle based on primary sources but there are lots of old books in people’s libraries and they aren’t amended when new information is discovered.

You might as well ask why some people keep referring to ‘Porsche’ and ‘Henschel’ turrets when neither manufacturer designed or built turrets. It’s just old and incorrect information being redistributed.


F2 is a convenient designation for modern historians who want to distuinguish the early G with single baffle muzzle brake and turret side vision ports from the more common, later version.



That's the problem, some Pz IV around that time have single baffle muzzle and a turret without side vision ports, while other "mid" G have double baffle muzzle with side view ports. There are also some with the entire tank is a 1941 F upgraded with only the kwk40 L43 and double baffle, still considered a G and not F2.

I don't find it convenient with such vague detail.



But all tank designations are like that. It's one of things that makes this hobby so interesting.

Unless there is detail like the day-by-day log of German production that is increasingly being documented for the Panther and Tiger nearly all tank production and designation is like that. Inconvenient and undocumented. They're assembled on a production line and parts are used as they come in.

Even things like Shermans have all kinds of detail differences month to month of production and then all the rebuilds and updates.

I crewed M60A3 for 10 years and hot-seated lots and lots of them and there were all kinds of variations even in something so mass produced. And once you get into castings? You can have a line-up of tanks in one unit and no two are quite the same.

RobinNilsson
Staff MemberTOS Moderator
KITMAKER NETWORK
Visit this Community
Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: November 29, 2006
KitMaker: 3,556 posts
Armorama: 3,081 posts
Posted: Monday, April 16, 2018 - 04:51 PM UTC

Quoted Text



That's the problem, some Pz IV around that time have single baffle muzzle and a turret without side vision ports, while other "mid" G have double baffle muzzle with side view ports. There are also some with the entire tank is a 1941 F upgraded with only the kwk40 L43 and double baffle, still considered a G and not F2.

I don't find it convenient with such vague detail.



It could also be seen as an opportunity to build lots of slightly different variants. The whole process of small changes leading from the F1 via F2 and G to H, or even all the way from ausf A to J
/ Robin
RLlockie
Visit this Community
United Kingdom
Joined: September 06, 2013
KitMaker: 800 posts
Armorama: 665 posts
Posted: Monday, April 16, 2018 - 11:52 PM UTC
It’s not even as simple as parts being used as they come in because sometimes a delivery can block access to stored older components so the new ones get used first and then the old ones are used later once that delivery has been used. It does afford some flexibility to the modeller as long as we don’t use parts from a Panther on a vehicle in North Africa, of course😉
tankmodeler
#417
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: March 01, 2004
KitMaker: 3,009 posts
Armorama: 2,425 posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 - 12:37 AM UTC
Pretty much every mass produced vehicle has this issue, especially in wartime and doubly so if the supply system is being really pressed by demands from the field. Remember, the switch to the longer 75 mm was due to the twin emergencies of the Russian front needing something to kill the T-34 and the North African front needing something to kill Matildas and then Grants. Any group of parts that could possibly be assembled into something resembling a Pz IV with a 75mm L43 was pushed out the door and called whatever the flavour of the day was.

Configuration control was not a thing at the time.

Paul
Dinocamo
Visit this Community
Quebec, Canada
Joined: August 26, 2017
KitMaker: 34 posts
Armorama: 33 posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 - 11:59 AM UTC
I apology for begin bitter about the detail. As I said, it is for my curiosity.

I'm not a very good modeller, I'm neither a serious one, I don't mind about the small details. I have very limited tools and resource. Despite that, I enjoy to kits with interior (irony, I know). And as you all know, when including the interior, a model can have even more possible variations than a regular model, exterior only model. It is also the reason for me to ask the initial question, because the baffle was a small exterior detail and the fact it decides the model regardless interior is a little too far out. But yeah, I think that I'm done about this subject.

Btw, here is my on going Tiger E: https://imgur.com/cVaxEt5

I did check the site of Mr.Byrden or corrections, but still intentionally leave some because there are many mixed variants of the Tiger E. So yes, I do aware of the poor standardization even before making this the post.
d111298pw
#456
Visit this Community
Delhi, India / भारत
Joined: September 22, 2016
KitMaker: 344 posts
Armorama: 328 posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 - 12:56 PM UTC

Quoted Text

I apology for begin bitter about the detail. As I said, it is for my curiosity.

I'm not a very good modeller, I'm neither a serious one, I don't mind about the small details. I have very limited tools and resource. Despite that, I enjoy to kits with interior (irony, I know). And as you all know, when including the interior, a model can have even more possible variations than a regular model, exterior only model. It is also the reason for me to ask the initial question, because the baffle was a small exterior detail and the fact it decides the model regardless interior is a little too far out. But yeah, I think that I'm done about this subject.

Btw, here is my on going Tiger E: https://imgur.com/cVaxEt5

I did check the site of Mr.Byrden or corrections, but still intentionally leave some because there are many mixed variants of the Tiger E. So yes, I do aware of the poor standardization even before making this the post.




No apology needed. It's a great question. German naming conventions during WWII can be very confusing, even to the "experts". So, continue asking questions. That's the only way to learn.