RC Tank Warfare community hobby forum

Then.... these are a few pointers to watch out for. They're areas on the tank that HL and Taigen have erred on badly. The engine deck behind the turret, should slope away from the Turret. much as the frontal area does. The top of the storage bin on the turret should be (in most instances) flush with the top of the turret roof, and not obscure, or encroach at all on the Commander's Cupola.
Here the Heng Long (L) and Taigen (R) ausf. F2s reveal how the storage bin stands quite proud of the Turret roof. While this allows HL/Taigen models to retain the standard HL elevation unit, it the rivet-counter's refined ideas of authenticity and accuracy!. It's a glaring error. Incidentally, the Taigen upper hull is identical to the Heng Long version, and so they are both guilty of poisoning the tank's profile. Trumpeter produce Panzer IVs (G and J models) with the correct bin shape and orientation, and so do Tamiya with their ausf, J.

...now for that slope. For comparative purposes, I've set a Tamiya ausf. J upper hull (fawn- foreground) beside a Heng Long (grey) offering. Ignore the detail differences between F2/G and J models. The basic shapes and outlines should be broadly the same. The Tamiya version has the correct shape. The HL (also Taigen) unit has a level engine deck, and that's plainly wrong
The arrows serve to indicate the degree of slope: none on the Taigen HL and a few degrees on the Tamiya. Click to enlarge the pics

Although the general dimensions, and proportions, of the two are roughly the same using a Tamiya upper hull with a Taigen Turret would be a major challenge, as would transplanting HL internals (elevation unit/ turret rotation unit etc) into the Tamiya upper. If you'd like to see how they're arranged, and how they differ, have a peek: and again: If you're wondering why I've had a good look at the two, it's because my Pz IV project stalled when I tried to marry the HL upper hull to the Asiatam metal chassis/lower hull. Having sawn a fair chunk off the Asiatam lower hull to make it line up properly with the HL top, I began to notice just how inaccurate the HL part was. This made me think that the Tamiya offering might be a better option; but then on closer inspection that seemed likely to be a world of pain and modding too.
There are fantastic Pz IV threads here on RCTW, by the way, where members have performed successful cosmetic surgery on HL upper hulls to make them more accurate, but for the novice or those with limited time or resources, it might be a step too far.
Converting a static Trumpeter ausf. G or J to full RC might be another option if correct detailing is what's required. The arrow shows how the storage bin is at the correct level, and not impinging on the Cupola. Note too that there is a slope on the deck behind the turret
However, the Trumpeter model isn't cheap, although it's a third of the price of a Tamiya model; and it's also a static kit.
Here's an ausf H being kitted out for full RC (note the correct deck angle, and bin orientation).

The return roller issue is one that has been discussed here numerous times, but essentially the roller should be lower than the three in front. HL/Taigen historically have the four in a line, and that's another affront to the conscientious rivet-counter. Tamiya models have the correct position...but at a hell of a price.
Lately, the recently released Taigen metal edition of the Pz IV sports an accurate representation of the storage bin, but fails to resolve the engine deck slope and return roller issue. It's undoubtedly a nice piece of kit; but if you want to build something that actually looks like a Pz IV, you might be a little disappointed. If rivet counting's not your thing, then you might just build one of these..

Fantastic review Funny I was working in my shop this evening and went through a Box of random tank parts and found a partial IMAI Panzer iv upper hull. Yes even that rear engine deck was sloped way back when

c.rainford73 wrote:Fantastic review Funny I was working in my shop this evening and went through a Box of random tank parts and found a partial IMAI Panzer iv upper hull. Yes even that rear engine deck was sloped way back when

Thanks for the plaudit, Carl. Looking again at the new Taigen metal ed., the rearmost return roller does appear to dip a tad below the others, but maybe that's an optical thing.
For anyone wishing to see how the upper hull exterior of the Tamiya ausf. J differs from the HL/Taigen (F2/G/H) upper, here's a pic: Although the 'J' version offered fewer features than earlier Pz IVs (simplified because Germany needed quantity over quality towards the end of the war..), the F2/G and H versions are fairly well represented by the Taigen HL upper hull, as is the 'J' model by Tamiya- although some might say it needs more detail.
Maybe it's size related, but I found the Tamiya hull to be almost as robust as the HL offering. BUT....it does have the advantage of the accurate engine deck slope. That makes it a winner for me, and worthy modding for my Asiatam metal hull project. Or maybe, I'll just but the Tamiya metal hull and some bits to work on as a starter pack..... Kerching! Kerching!.. I can hear the sound of cash draining away ...rapidly

I have the Metal PzIV from Rctank.de
The return rollers are all at the same height. So yeah, they are still wrong. Basicly the entire lower hull is the exact same as the HL and plastic versions, but a lot harder to fix, since its fully cast in metal. only the wheels and suspension can be removed. Transmission cover and return roller holders are molded in.

The american version that you can get from taigentanks.com will at least have the last return roller fixed in the correct position. Imex-Eric saw to this and the pictures on their website confirms it.

If this will implemented to later european versions though... only time will tell.

Arnie I thought it was me with a Panzer 4 fixation,
If you have a Dremel drill stand with the Dremel turned through 90 Degrees fitted with a "Diamond" Cutting Disc it should remove the offending roller mounts,
You would need a sturdy unshakeable vise to hold the hull, then with it all lined up you pull the pillar drill handle down and remove the mount,
I reckon lining it all up would be the biggest problem.
What puts me off is the inability to fit Gearbox output shaft bearings
Shaun.

Im still surprised about everybody claiming against the latest return roller as always and nobody about the main sprochet location, which is too low in the heng long-taigen, but not in the asiatam and tamiyas.

Rad_Schuhart wrote:Im still surprised about everybody claiming against the latest return roller as always and nobody about the main sprochet location, which is too low in the heng long-taigen, but not in the asiatam and tamiyas.

Having just looked again at the PZ IV (real thing- top pic), and compared it with the new Taigen metal edn., Rad, it appears as if the Taigen/HL idler is not low enough. That, or it's slightly too big to match the shape evidenced by the real thing.
I agree that the main drive sprocket appears to be sited too low, but if it were slightly larger, the line it forms with the rollers and the Track guards/fenders, might look more convincing. ..and Shaun, it's obvious that the Pz IV has its hooks in quite a few of us