WAK Panzer 1F Build (resurrected)

[CharlieC]

The build report of the WAK Pz 1F on another forum lost all the images in a server move. Rather than just walk away from it I'll rebuild the thread here - hopefully it will last longer than a few months. As, in the track build report, I've dropped the comment posts except where the replay clarifies the build.

I guess I've got myself into documenting the build of this model by doing the tracks in another thread. Here's the basic kit information.

The kit was designed by Mariusz Kurzynski who seems to be a new AFV model designer - at least the WSMK database doesn't record any other models except for the recent WAK models. It seems to have been a computer designed model as most recent Polish models have been. The printing and artwork are very good.

There are 10 parts pages printed on what seems to be 160 gsm card. Four pages of diagrams, the instruction text is in Polish and is less than a page and a single page of 80 gsm with the patterns for frames, etc.

The Panzer 1F was an armoured oddity - it was a continuation of the Panzer 1 development to build either reconnaisance (Ausf D) or light infantry support tanks (Ausf F). The armour of the Ausf F was increased up to a maximum thichness of 80mm but the primary armament was still a pair of MG34 machine guns. Only about 30 of the Ausf F variant were built in 1942-3.

The subject of the WAK model is a tank issued to SS Division "Prinz Eugen" in 1942 and used against partisans in Yugoslavia. This campaign was almost a throwback to medieval warfare in its ferocity - the recent Balkan wars of the 1990s almost looked like quite gentlemanly affairs compared to the WW2 fighting.

Regards,

Charlie

[CharlieC]

After surveying the model parts it was obvious that the roadwheel parts seemed to account for a large proportion of the model. Since I'd already built the track I decided to tackle the roadwheels - at least if I ran out of enthusiasm I wouldn't wind up with (another) tank hull lying around.

I like to build towards a target so here's an image of the Panzer 1F from armor.kiev.ua showing the general layout of the drive and roadwheels. I'll get some images of my model version tomorrow.

Regards,

Charlie

<< haven't found this image yet >>

[CharlieC]

I don't claim to be a great builder but here goes....

I believe that one of the traps of designing with computer software is that it is reasonably easy to develop a 3D object then generate parts to build the object based on unfolding the skin of the object. This procedure will work but ignores considerations of how easy it is to build, the strength of the object created from these parts and examination of alternative ways to creating the object which will be simpler to build and produce a better simulation of the original. I think the author of the Panzer 1F has, in part, fallen into this trap.

The roadwheels of this model took me ages to build because I found that I was either building simple structures with lots of small parts or having to reengineer the designto better approximate the original or simplify the design.

Picking a few obvious problems:

- The axles of the wheels were modelled as cylinders - replaced these with rolled up parts - the original was too weak to withstand much handling.

- The struts supporting the outer drive drive sprocket were replaced by parts cut out of 1 mm card - the originals were too small and complex and also too weak.

- the outer roadwheels were rebuilt using modified parts - the original didn't look very convincing and was very complex.

- replaced the washers on the end of axles with simple dished disks - the original had Belville washers to provide a simple way to get the torque right on the nuts on the end of the axle.

If I built these again I'd also fix up the inner wheels - the fused spokes are complicated to build and aren't very accurate. I'd probably also get a set of the nut shapes used on the reported build of the Draf 1/16 75mm gun - the best I could do was 1 mm disks

Regards,

Charlie

[CharlieC]

Back to the normal build sequence....

The frame is a pretty standard design. The parts layout was a bit confusing because there were a number of parts joined together - it wasn't clear whether these should be bent (not easy with 1mm card) or cut into pieces - I cut it into pieces.

Regards,

Charlie

[CharlieC]

Got the skin on the hull - the fit is reasonable without being in the Halinski class.

The instructions aren't very good - finding where a part goes usually requires searching a number of complex diagrams for a reference to it. I haven't found
any missing part references in the instructions so far but it can be quite frustrating. At least the parts for one major assembly are mostly all on the same sheet.

Regards,

Charlie

[CharlieC]

There are quite a number of inaccuracies in this model.

I think I've found the drawing that the designer used - it came from the Russian Modelist-Constructor magazine on the Panzer I. However, there are, as usual, a number of errors in the drawing when compared to photos of the Panzer 1F. In particular:

1. The shape of the rear hull is wrong - the rear plate of the hull is higher than modelled and the angle of the rear hull plate is steeper.

2. The muffler in the original looks as though it was enclosed by a box construction - the model doesn't attempt this.

3. The air inlets on the model are approximately correct but there wasn't a grille over the inlets but rather a plate pierced with 4 rows of circular holes.

4. The model has parts for towing shackles as if they were permanently fitted to the tank. I've surveyed dozens of period Wehrmacht images and haven't found a tank with the shackles fitted unless it was being towed. I don't know where this idea (the towing shackles were always fitted) came from but it seems to be inconsistent with photo evidence.

I'll do the best I can with this model but I'm starting to lose patience with a design based on limited research.

Regards,

Charlie

[CharlieC]

Time for an update.

The swing arms are finished and various bits on the hull. I had my doubts about how well the muffler would come out but it seems ok. The swing arms are really well designed - in effect they are solid card - takes a while to cut out but they certainly are strong enough to support the weight of the model.

I haven't put the air intakes on yet. I'm still trying to find an image of these. I think the drawing is wrong.

Regards,

Charlie

[CharlieC]

Same state from the front - and also to prove I've done the swing arms on both sides. I found the driver's visor quite tricky to get right - lots of folds and edge joins.

Regards,

Charlie

[CharlieC]

Time for an update ......

Finally got all the stuff on the hull top finished - lots of fiddly things.

I finally found an image of the VK1801 (prototype of the Ausf F) which showed the engine air inlets. The model had the trash screens recessed but this doesn't seem to have been the case so I reworked the model to reflect this.

For a number of the small parts the designer used minute cylinders complete with end caps I found it much easier to simply punch out the appropriate size part out of thick card.

Regards,

Charlie

[CharlieC]

View from the front....

I found the escape hatches quite hard to build - it's a disk with a truncated cone to give the effect of the hatch thickness. At least I'm reasonably happy with the towing cables - even if they aren't consistent with the photo evidence - the original seems to have had quite long lengths of thin cable.

I've played around for ages with tow cables made from strands of thin copper wire but was never particularly happy with the results. The ones here are made from black cotton thread - the trick is to soak the thread in acrylic varnish before twisting the threads to get rid of the "furriness" of the thread. Each cable is made from 11 strands twisted together and the bundle of threads soaked in acrylic varnish again. I guess I should have used grey thread but in my defence I'd point out that wire ropes should never be used if they look dry (silvery) or rusty (I just knew those years in heavy industry would be useful one day).

Only the turret to go!!!

Regards,

Charlie

[CharlieC]

Originally Posted by Jim Nunn
Very nice, are the shovel and ax heads made with foil or paper? Either way they look great the shovel handle is spot on.

Jim Nunn

I used heavy foil for the shovel and axe head - it came from the air seal of a coffee can. The shovel handle was sanded down from a bamboo skewer in a Dremel. The trash screens on the air inlets came from a mesh bag that garlic came in - painted with black acrylic.

I generally make up a solution from what's to hand - I think it's an Australian thing - works often enough to keep doing it.

Regards,

Charlie

[CharlieC]

Originally Posted by rockpaperscissor
It's coming out beautifully Charlie. Do you make it a practice to weather your armor models, or do you leave them assembly line pristine? Good arguments can be made for either presentation. Is the antenna made of wire? In my plastic days, I used to make antennas from stretched track sprue. That's why I still have two eyes. Can't wait to see it done.

Regards,
Don

I've done both weathered and factory fresh - I think I like a little weathering - helps hide obvious mistakes. I weathered the tracks so it will look odd if the running gear is pristine. I'll give the coloured chalk dust technique a try - it sounds effective and not too difficult.

Yup - the antenna is wire - it's easy in this model because the base is a tiny cylinder with some supporting struts which the wire fits into. All I had to do was use the antenna wire as a mandrel to roll the base cylinder around.

My problem is what do I do next - I'm tempted to do the Supermodel Panzer 1A - a sort of first and last pair. The colour of the Supermodel Pz 1 is wierd - a sort of orange-pink colour. I think it should be a dull brown colour for 1941 North Africa. There's also a Porsche Tiger which turned up the other day ex-eBay - decisions, decisions.

Regards,

Charlie

[CharlieC]

The turret is done. I had a small disaster with the mantlet (dropped on floor and run over by chair castor). I didn't like the original design so rebuilt by laminating the part from multiple layers of copy paper. The armour shields around the machine gun barrels aren't right - the photo evidence shows an end cap with the gun barrel running through it. It's another error in the drawing used.

The gun barrels were supposed to be wire with a couple of paper pieces added - too fiddly for me. I turned the barrels out of a bamboo skewer held in a Dremel at lowest speed - like wood turning on a micro scale.

The aerial push over rings aren't correct in the kit - the photo evidence shows they were circular rather than the oval shape in the model (and the MK drawing).


Regards,

Charlie

[CharlieC]

Wheels and tracks on - it just needs some weathering now.

I'll try to come up with an overview of the build to help anyone who wants to tackle this model.

Regards,

Charlie

[CharlieC]

My overall impressions about the WAK PzKpfw 1F.....

Firstly I think WAK needs to be applauded for releasing models of more obscure WW2 AFVs. To tackle fairly obscure armour designs, I believe, gives a designer an added problem in that there is much less reference material available.

In the case of the PzKpfw 1F there is a reasonable amount of information available including a "Panzer Tract" on the Pz 1. Unfortunately, this design seems to be based mostly on a drawing published in the Russian publication Modelist Konstructor. I've picked up some of the errors in this drawing but there are probably more. Perhaps I'm a bit fanatical about accuracy but if one's objective is to build a model of a particular tank rather than just assemble a model kit the errors do irritate.

This kit is quite complex and runs to something over 1500 parts. In part, the high part number is a result of the design technique used (I've made comment on this ealrier in this thread). The printing and fit of the parts is generally very good. I found if I was getting misfits it was usually because I was making a mistake in the build. There are a few places where the structural strength of the model is a bit suspect, such as the mudguards, but the model hull is strong and resists distortion well.

The build diagrams are not easy to use - they remind me of kits from about 10 years ago and are not in the same class as the recent Halinski or GPM kits. This is especially true of the roadwheels - all that is provided is a cross section with lots of parts references. In the case of this model with complex roadwheeels an exploded diagram of the assemblies would have saved a lot of bad language on my part.

Perhaps this model could have been improved with another beta build - it's not Halinski but it makes an interesting and different model.

Regards,

Charlie

[CharlieC]

Originally Posted by eatcrow2
Wonderful Model!!!!!!! Love the attention to detail, as it looks very realistic......


Most of the credit for the detail must go to the designer - Mariusz Kurzynski - for making the effort to design all the parts on top of the guards and hull top.
As an example of the level of design detail - on the left side guard the storage box is raised on short legs - underneath this are the wire cutter and crank handle - you can barely see them but they are there. I just implemented the design - sometimes by changing media.

Regards,

Charlie

[Clashster]

I relished following this build when it first occured, and I enjoyed going through your report again! Great looking build. This one is in the stack and may have worked it's way up the list... perhaps I will try your track technique on this one, since I now can easily refer to it! Thanks!

[NOBI]

very clean build...thank you very much to share picture to us. Really like your tank :) can't wait to see weathering version.

[Stev0]

Theres nothing wrong with being picky about model errors. Complacency would deffinately be a bad thing. Sad to see that WAK did have some significant issues with accuracy which even though the final build was satisfactory to your standard ... others would run into the same issues.

[John Griffin]

Wow Charlie... despite what you claim, I think you are a master builder- and one who knows what his subject as well. After reading this thread I am a bit intimidated now about my on-going design of the M48! I will have to make doubly sure that I get all of the small details right. There are so many of them; it never ends- I am getting down to deciding whether or not to add bolts along the fender tops, etc.
I see your point about over-reliance on the computer for the final design of every piece. I am finding that for ease of construction and simplicity, (does that equal design elegance?) some parts are better just done straight in 2D (in PS, for instance). It is also just plain faster to design bits that way sometimes- negating all the unfolding.
Here's hoping I get it right...
Thanks for the photos- they give me something to aim for in level of detail.

[CharlieC]

Wow Charlie... despite what you claim, I think you are a master builder- and one who knows what his subject as well. After reading this thread I am a bit intimidated now about my on-going design of the M48! I will have to make doubly sure that I get all of the small details right. There are so many of them; it never ends- I am getting down to deciding whether or not to add bolts along the fender tops, etc.
I see your point about over-reliance on the computer for the final design of every piece. I am finding that for ease of construction and simplicity, (does that equal design elegance?) some parts are better just done straight in 2D (in PS, for instance). It is also just plain faster to design bits that way sometimes- negating all the unfolding.
Here's hoping I get it right...
Thanks for the photos- they give me something to aim for in level of detail.

Thanks for the compliments. It's a pity the images from Jim Nunn's Halinski Panther build aren't on line anymore - that was a real master build. Perhaps Jim would resurrect his build on this forum.

There is, I think, a balance between excessive detailing and sufficient to get across the form and structure of the model subject. There was a fairly long discussion on this on another forum. My view is that it is possible to design arbitrarily small details but at the cost of a lot of frustration among builders and a small audience of builders who are prepared to actually attempt the model. For example, the Halinski T-34/76 - 7000 parts! On the other hand simplistic models, although quick to build, seem to be frustrating in a different way - perhaps a sense of "missed opportunity" is as close as I can get to this.

I like the approach of a number of Polish designers in recent years who provide labelled optional detailing parts so a model can be built according to
a builder's patience/skill level.

Regards,

Charlie

[CharlieC]

This must be a thread resurrection of a resurrection....

My Panzer 1F had a public outing last weekend at AMMS Brisbane (Australian Military Modelers Society). This is mostly a plastic modeling group. Most of them had never heard of card models so I took the Pz 1F along as a modest example. Most of the people didn't realise it wasn't plastic - I had to put a sign alongside the model "Not Plastic". Quite a bit of interest.

There was a scratchbuilder there who used cardmodel patterns to create styrene sheet models. I seem to remember Wunwinglow in the old site was trying this approach.

Talked with Jim Fainges - he's the Dad from Ladndad models. He was interested enough to think about doing some armour models. He said there will be a 1/48 Tetrach model with one of the WW2 glider models Chip Fynn is going to release. He's got access to all Australian museums and said he had a bunch of research material on the A7V at Brisbane and the Vickers Mk 3 at Pukapanyal.

Regards,

Charlie