Tank - Panzer IV AusF H
331 Favourites83 Comments33K Views
Stock image - model tank.
For usage restrictions please see the journal entries on my main page: [link]
For usage restrictions please see the journal entries on my main page: [link]
Image details
Image size
4048x2550px 764.22 KB
Published:
Comments83
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
thank you 
Thank you! this stock was used here on a site called Horse Eden Eventing
:origin()/pre00/39cb/th/pre/f/2018/139/b/2/mr_ba_final_by_seaheartstables-dcbx9qw.png)
PANZER VOR !!!
Is that the 50mm high velocity cannon on this model? I prefer the later 75mm version.
super work, very beautiful rendering and 3d Model
Model
D: You forgot the skirts! Oh noes!
Sorry... I'm a nerd... Couldn't help myself... Sorry...
Sorry... I'm a nerd... Couldn't help myself... Sorry...
I used it here:
:origin()/pre08/80a6/th/pre/i/2015/203/6/f/tank_girl_and_friends_by_melocardio-d92dhbk.png)
This is no ausf H. It looks more like an Ausf. D with skirts on the tower. The ausf H and J both have different bodies. There are 2 Panzer IVs with that body Panzer IV Ausf. A and Panzer IV ausf. D and this looks more like an ausf. D with skirts attached.
1. That is a turret, not a "tower".
2. Those are not "skirts", Skirts are only found on the hull of the vehicle (just call them spaced armour)
3. Models H and J had the same hull, Ausf. H had the side skirts and the spaced armour for the turret, Ausf. J had no skirts.
4. We cannot assume that this is an Ausf. D since the D variant had a two piece hatch for the commander. The one here is a one piece hatch found on the Ausf. H and Ausf. J
5. We cannot assume that we are both correct nor incorrect. German tank developments were not completely documented and field modifications undertaken by crew or field mechanics are not documented as well. So we do not have a clear idea as to what variant of the Panzerkampfwagen IV this is as the information and the model shown are contradictory.
6. It can be generally assumed that this Panzer IV is a late war command tank but with the surplus of kwk37 cannons they were easier to fit than the other guns such as the kwk40 and kwk48.
7. However, the model contradicts point no. 6 as there are no visible radio antenna such as those found on German command tanks of the time (similar to the Tiger's star antenna on their command vehicles)
8. An odd note is that the commander's cupola has no fitting for the five standard vision ports for the commander to direct the driver.
9. It can be assumed for sure that this vehicle must have been an early war vehicle fitted with the turret spaced armour. And that the single piece hatch was a replacement for the two piece hatch used on earlier vehicles.
2. Those are not "skirts", Skirts are only found on the hull of the vehicle (just call them spaced armour)
3. Models H and J had the same hull, Ausf. H had the side skirts and the spaced armour for the turret, Ausf. J had no skirts.
4. We cannot assume that this is an Ausf. D since the D variant had a two piece hatch for the commander. The one here is a one piece hatch found on the Ausf. H and Ausf. J
5. We cannot assume that we are both correct nor incorrect. German tank developments were not completely documented and field modifications undertaken by crew or field mechanics are not documented as well. So we do not have a clear idea as to what variant of the Panzerkampfwagen IV this is as the information and the model shown are contradictory.
6. It can be generally assumed that this Panzer IV is a late war command tank but with the surplus of kwk37 cannons they were easier to fit than the other guns such as the kwk40 and kwk48.
7. However, the model contradicts point no. 6 as there are no visible radio antenna such as those found on German command tanks of the time (similar to the Tiger's star antenna on their command vehicles)
8. An odd note is that the commander's cupola has no fitting for the five standard vision ports for the commander to direct the driver.
9. It can be assumed for sure that this vehicle must have been an early war vehicle fitted with the turret spaced armour. And that the single piece hatch was a replacement for the two piece hatch used on earlier vehicles.
1. seriously that is your first point?
2. I'm sorry but in Germany (you know where the tank was build and named) those things are called 'schürzen' which means skirts, so no those are skirts.
3.i think i made a spelling mistake there H and J had similar hulls; Wether a tank had skirts or not wasn't essential for the naming some ausf. H had none and some ausf J had skirts (www.militaryimages.net/photopo…) the skirts are an attachment which was sometimes build on older tank retroactivly.
4.We can assume it's an Ausf J because that is the hull for one it has the the ledged front of a ausf. furthermore we don't see the hatch so i assume that either it's closed, it's not the correct hatch or that it's not the correct tower ...
5. Changing a tower is not really a field modification, because that is clearly an ausf D body
6.A commander tank would have special radio equipment noticable by a star antenna
7.see point 6 (if you contradicted yourself why did you write both of it? to have more points?)
8.valid point but also there is no driver viewport
9.i don't know how you can 'assume this for sure' i just like to believe that this is not a correct model
2. I'm sorry but in Germany (you know where the tank was build and named) those things are called 'schürzen' which means skirts, so no those are skirts.
3.i think i made a spelling mistake there H and J had similar hulls; Wether a tank had skirts or not wasn't essential for the naming some ausf. H had none and some ausf J had skirts (www.militaryimages.net/photopo…) the skirts are an attachment which was sometimes build on older tank retroactivly.
4.We can assume it's an Ausf J because that is the hull for one it has the the ledged front of a ausf. furthermore we don't see the hatch so i assume that either it's closed, it's not the correct hatch or that it's not the correct tower ...
5. Changing a tower is not really a field modification, because that is clearly an ausf D body
6.A commander tank would have special radio equipment noticable by a star antenna
7.see point 6 (if you contradicted yourself why did you write both of it? to have more points?)
8.valid point but also there is no driver viewport
9.i don't know how you can 'assume this for sure' i just like to believe that this is not a correct model
Yes, I'm mocking you in No.1 because you called the turret the tower (I will always be laughing at this). You probably can't see the hatch clearly is mainly because of the MG mounting on the Cupola. Haha. See those two tiny dots above the drivers view port? we both know that those are for his periscope, so why say that there is no drivers view port (I know it's not clearly marked between those two plated by a small indent or slit)? I mentioned star antenna at the end of No.6.
I never said that I was correct. I just assume based on the image given to me.
I never said that I was correct. I just assume based on the image given to me.
really, your main argument point is a specification mistake that is only present in english and yes i get that i'm speaking english jadijadijada but seriously? You start your first point with the fact that i used a synonym incorrectly?
And when i sai dthat there was no viewport i meant the obvious fact that the view port holes don't go all the way through x-x
and my point stil stands you brought up a point jsut to negate it in the next sentece which is really redundant and you only made your argument look longer.
And I'm sorry but the phrase 'It can be assumed for sure' means that you ARE sure because.
And when i sai dthat there was no viewport i meant the obvious fact that the view port holes don't go all the way through x-x
and my point stil stands you brought up a point jsut to negate it in the next sentece which is really redundant and you only made your argument look longer.
And I'm sorry but the phrase 'It can be assumed for sure' means that you ARE sure because.
yeah so? you got a problem with that.
--->Lets be mature. Argument ends here<---
--->Lets be mature. Argument ends here<---
well that wasn't a waste of time or anything
Look at the protrusion of the optics. It's a D that has spaced armour for whatever reason.
What protrusion? The commander's hatch? The turret?
Read my comment again. I said the protrusion of the optics. Next to the machine gun port.
You should have said Protrusion in the hull for the Driver's compartment.
I think I made myself pretty clear. So do you agree with me?
For whatever reason, this is not a correct model of the Panzerkampfwagen IV
View all replies
the ledged hull at the front H AND J bo not have that
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In