Page 1 of 2

REVIEW: FoV 1:32 Panther Ausf G (80226)

Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 5:54 pm
by ChairmanMilo
For my first review, I will choose the Forces of Valor 1:32 panzer that has caused me the most grief - the Panther Ausf G (early) model # 80226 released in 2006. It is painted in a dazzle "V" pattern camoflage scheme and is supposed to represent a unit on the Eastern Front in 1945. The turret number, 215, denotes that it is of the 2nd Company, 2nd Zug, tank number 5, but it does not have any unit markings to denote which panzer regiment or division it is a part of.

It does not have zimmerit, which is all right because it represents a unit built after zimmerit use was discontinued in late 1944. It was alleged that the anti-magnetic paste was a fire hazard late that year and was no longer used, which somewhat simplified production of German armour in the last months of the war. I have read that Unimax was originally going to release 80026 (the first Panther) as an Ausf G used in Normandy 1944, but because they built it without zimmerit they could only release it as a late production model - hence the "Germany, 1944" and "Eastern Front, 1945" labels for both Panthers they have released so far.

Of course, most late production Ausf Gs were built with the new gun mantlet with the "chin" to prevent shot deflection into the forward hull's roof. I am disappointed that they released it without the anti-magnetic paste (they released all of their Tigers, King Tigers and Jagdpanthers with it - why not the Panther?) and that they chose not to build it with a more accurate gun mantlet with the "chin".

As to the diecast tank itself, it is fairly hefty and after disassembling it I found that the upper hull, turret, side skirts and gun barrel were all of stout metal construction. The gun mantlet, engine deck, front upper hull, lower hull and running gear are all of light plastic construction. It comes with two well-detailed landsers that are meant to be posed "taking cover" on the engine deck behind the turret. One is carrying a Kar 98K, the other a Sturmgewehr 44. There are no tank crewmen included, but the commander's hatch, radioman's hatch and driver's hatch all open if one wants to add crew later. The engine hatch opens to reveal a moderately detailed Maybach HL 230. The ball-mounted hull machine gun moves around freely and the travel lock for the main gun is moveable. The commander's hatch also has a rail-mounted (static) MG 34. The gun cleaning rods' tube is mounted on the left side of the tank, a further indication that this is an early Ausf G - later models had it mounted on the hull rear because it was vulnerable to damage while mounted on the side.

As to the gear mounted on the sides of the tank (as you would find on any WW2 German armoured unit), they are of plastic construction and appear to have been painted after they were mounted. As you can see in the photographs below, only the immediately visible parts of the mounted tools are painted gunmetal; the rest is unpainted - the original yellowish colour of the plastic can be seen.

Image

Image

What's worse is that the gun mantlet was installed upside down, and was in fact built to be installed upside down! It wasn't just a one-off manufacturer's mistake - as far as I know, all Panthers in this series are built with upside-down gun mantlets. You can tell because the gunner's sight is on the right side of the gun instead of the left, and the rain cover is underneath the sight instead of above it! Some careful surgery involving the removing of at least a dozen screws and the shaving off of a plastic tab inside the mantlet helped fix this error - it was about 20 minutes of work! Here is the corrected mantlet:

Image

As you can see, the landsers look pretty good sitting on the engine deck. The commander's AAMG was hard to mount and almost wrecked the rail on the commander's cupola, plus the barrel of the MG was crooked! It was mounted successfully, though, and the gun barrel was straightened out with the help of some hot water.

Image

Image

All four of the hatches open. As you can see, the hatches are quite clearly the Ausf G type - they swing up and outwards and are much simpler than the earlier lift-and-rotate types of the Ausf D and Ausf A:

Image

Rear hull, showing the "Type 2" exhaust outlets and jack stowage:

Image

The main gun's working travel lock:

Image

Front hull, showing the bow machine gun:

Image

Note the four holes for screws holding the upper & lower hull together, the two holes for mounting the tank to its base and the larger central hole for the peg that keeps the turret immobile when it is on its base. The running gear works but tends to throw tracks fairly often. This isn't a problem, really, considering that it is not a toy:

Image

When I first received this tank, I heard something rattling inside. Imagine my surprise when I found the plastic brace inside the bow of the tank broken! I believe this brace is meant to keep the drive sprockets moving together. However, the running gear works fine without this brace and it was removed altogether:

Image

Image

CONCLUSIONS

While there are some major flaws (upside-down mantlet, no zimmerit, troublesome AAMG, broken bit inside the hull, poorly painted hull-mounted gear) the intricate detail on the entire model is on par with that of every other vehicle in this line that I've seen. The only problems seem to be factory defects that have nothing to do with its design.

If one doesn't mind having to perform minor surgery on an expensive diecast miniature just purchased, the problems I've listed above shouldn't cause a headache. The Panther looks good sitting next to any other Forces of Valor 1:32 miniature. I consider it to be a worthy addition to my collection. Sit it next to a Tiger I or King Tiger, and you'll know what I mean! This steel Panther is huge!

However, I am looking forward to a better-manufactured Panther release in the future that includes zimmerit.

Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 6:31 pm
by grunt1
Wow! :shock:

Excellent review.. I love the blend of toy level observations (paint, assembly, etc..) with the detailed analysis from a historical accuracy standpoint (hatch locations, mantle design, tool placement, etc..)..

Coincidentally I just picked this unit up at Target and was excited just to have one (a steal at $24 IMHO) but this makes it much better.

Looking forward to further reviews and I beckon you to do some in the 1/18 world where I primarily dwell. It would be much appreciated! :D

Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 6:57 pm
by Soldier16S
That paintscheme just looks a bit odd to me. That's why I decided to not get this version.

Reminds me of wrapping the model up in duct tape or something and painting it. The lines are too clean.

But, it's my opinion only.

Great review!!


-Noel

Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 7:07 pm
by ChairmanMilo
$24 USD is a steal! I bought mine for about $50 CDN including shipping.

It's even harder to find 80026, which I think has a better paint scheme. I think that its tools are painted better too, from pictures that I've seen online. I don't know that for sure though. Last one I saw on eBay went for almost $70 CDN... :shock:

Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 8:09 pm
by tmanthegreat
Thanks for posting that great review! Just what one needs when deciding to purchase (or not to purchase) a model :)

Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 8:47 pm
by Rowsdower
Ugly ugly paint scheme. Bleh.

Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 2:54 am
by Jagdpanther
Nice pics! I have the same tank but a different paint scheme. Yes this time the paint scheme isn't so nice, relay great figures.

Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 5:33 am
by Rowsdower
Yeah, those figures are real nice. Yesterday I found myself in Target, once again holding the new US Lee in my hands. Though I was tempted I reminded myself I don't buy Action series and will wait for the Enthusiast version next month. 8) :lol:

They also had a King Tiger which had the Enthusiast weathering but not the extra parts, but truthfully I'm not to crazy about the KT and I already have the 21st version so I passed that up as well.

Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 7:57 am
by ostketten
Ugly ugly paint scheme. Bleh.
I agree, never cared for that "V" pattern, very odd looking. Kudos on the review though, very nicely done. 8)

Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 12:24 pm
by Meskary1
Great review-Thanks for the picts also, will put your work to good use.

Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 1:01 pm
by ChairmanMilo
I didn't much mind that camoflage scheme, even though I would have preferred the original on #80026. However, one problem I have with this V-pattern scheme is that when I fixed the gun mantlet issue, the camoflage on the mantlet and front hull & turret no longer matched up! It doesn't look bad, but it doesn't look great, either.

Oh well!

Thank you

Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 11:42 am
by ltcbj
I have been wanting an FoV Panther for quite a while and your review has convinced me that I shouldn't bother. The thing is that they are toys, merely expensive ones. In consequence the tracks that roll dependently are bound to be thrown, independence as in the 21st C models is much better for track retention. Having both tracks on one axle is the cheap way of mounting them. While the weight and details are nice if you are going to do them at all you should do them right and FoV doesn't bother. From the Stug III whose gun had to be worked on to depress to the upside down mantlet and bent aamg on this Panther it is just a plethora of little flaws that does in the whole for me.
Thank you very much. You have saved me $40+.

Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 7:20 am
by ostketten
this Panther it is just a plethora of little flaws that does in the whole for me.
Thank you very much. You have saved me $40+.
I suppose it all boils down to what is important to you. For my money, the unsightly paint scheme aside, the FOV Panthers are superior in pretty much every respect to the all plastic offerings from 21C. Don't get me wrong, for the money the 21C Panthers are OK, but to me it's an apples versus oranges comparison.

Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 8:52 am
by rose4472g
Bottom line is somebody needs to do a decent Panther. The FOV Jagd looks real good, so I guess it'll have to stand in. The Zimmerit problem is worse than suggested. Physically the FOV Panther is an early model G. That plants its production firmly in the ZIM period. Early model G's had ZIM. Are there knowlegdable people working for FOV, because they really blew this. If you want to do a Panther without zim then do a D model or a LATE model G with all the late model details. Had they chosen either course I would own a FOV Panther. It's easier to make a bad buy with 21st, there stuff is much cheaper. So I ocasionally make impulse buys that prove to be poor choices (PZIIIL). I don't do that with FOV because of the cost! If I'm going to dump 25 to 40 dollars on it it better be right.

David

Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 9:02 am
by Rowsdower
IMO, for the price nothing beats enthusiast FOV unless you have the time, patience and skill to build armor yourself from a kit. If you find so many flaws you might be happier building your own where you can modify most anything to your liking. 8)

Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 9:06 am
by ChairmanMilo
If I would have known about the flaws in 80226's construction, I wouldn't have bought it. It was an impulse buy, and while it does look great sitting next to other German armor, you can't look at it up close without noticing the defects and realizing that it's an early Ausf G without zimmerit. At least, if you know about German armour you would notice these things.

I for one am cutting my losses. I'll be writing more reviews this week, and hopefully they'll be more cheerful than this one.

Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 9:24 am
by Light.Inf.Scout
Wow - that is one hell of a review. Thanks

Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 12:46 pm
by rose4472g
Rowsdower wrote:IMO, for the price nothing beats enthusiast FOV unless you have the time, patience and skill to build armor yourself from a kit. If you find so many flaws you might be happier building your own where you can modify most anything to your liking. 8)
My major point was that these people spend hundreds of thousands to put together a whole new model. Why not have someone PROOF the damn prototype? I mean I could have spotted the flaws on the Panther when I was 16. They CAN do a great job. They just don't sometimes :cry:

As for kits, have you priced them lately? A PAnther with all the bells and whisltes could go a C-note! Never mind that as an Adult I lack the time (I've got a JSII that's been ongoing for five years :roll: )

David

Chinless

Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 1:05 pm
by ltcbj
Actually I have been under the impression that most and especially late war Panther-Gs had the chin piece on the mantlet. I suppose if this had come that way they probably wouldn't have manufactured it upside down. It really make you wonder how much time and effort they put in to research the model. Did they just pick up a can Do 144 scale tank? Not having the chin largely places it as an "A" variant as the chin was a distinguishing characteristic- especially of the later war "G"s which this is supposed to be one of.
FoV reminds me of an old girlfriend with lots of makeup and very little substance. Looked great as long as you didn't examine her too closely.

Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 2:16 pm
by ChairmanMilo
This is the only FoV I've ever had trouble with in terms of realism, and that's only because of the lack of zimmerit combined with the early-type mantlet. Early production Ausf Gs (early to mid-1944) were built with the same mantlet as the Ausf A. Late production Ausf Gs (mid-1944 until the end of the war) were built with the new mantlet, but zimmerit would not have been discontinued until late 1944. Unimax seems to have missed the boat on research with this particular model.

I'm happy with FoV in that they have produced affordable scale miniatures of the armoured vehicles that I have studied for over ten years. I love 'em because they look better than what most other companies make in 1:32-1:35 scale... however, while their 1:72 looks great, some models don't look as good as what the competition makes (compare the FoV Tiger I to the Dragon Tiger I, for instance). Lastly, they're great because they're affordable compared to what other companies charge for large scale well-detailed miniatures.

Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 5:39 pm
by rose4472g
ChairmanMilo wrote:This is the only FoV I've ever had trouble with in terms of realism,
I got only one word for you, Sherman.

DAvid

and

Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 5:45 pm
by ltcbj
and StugIII and M-3A1 Quad .50, and Bradley and M1-A1 Abrams.

Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 6:05 pm
by ChairmanMilo
Well, c'mon fellas :) I haven't had a chance to look at all of them in that much detail yet, give me some time to catch up with you.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 1:54 pm
by theToyFederation
In the old Concord publication on the Panther (7006), I believe I found the tank FOV based theirs on.

Image

The camo scheme on the side matches exactly and the tactical number is the same. If the caption is true and it seems there are three tonal values in the picture, then FOV cut some corners on the camo scheme and the track links on the turret

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 2:09 pm
by ChairmanMilo
Wow, that really does look like the one. Even looks like it has the "V" pattern camoflage and no anti-magnetic paste at all. It does have a chin mantlet though, and like you said, it has tracks mounted all 'round the turret for extra protection. It's too bad they cut corners like that. All it would have taken is a bit more effort and they would have had a beauty.

Thanks for takin' the time to look that up!