As to why no early German armor. I think that the answer comes in two parts. Looking just at the panzer II family: The Encyclopidia of German Tanks of World War Two gives production numbers as follows,

Pz II A = 75
Pz II B = 25
Pz II C = 1,113
Pz II D+E = 43 (combined)
Pz II F = 524
Pz II G= 12
Pz II H = 4
Pz II J = 22
Pz II L Luchs = 100

The numbers are similar in the panzer III family. So how many people will buy a tank that only 22 where produced? I would but the Mfg may figure that its not worth the tooling cost to find out.

The second part has been stated earlier, German early war production just wasn't SEXY.

Thats just my personal opinion.

Tiger101,DML built some low production German armor,like the SiG33 based on the Panzer III hull I think only 24 were built for the Russian front Speciffiacly Stalingrad I think they also made some Panzer III kits that not a lot of the real ones were produced,but I could be wrong

hehe, the Sturmtiger was built in kits more than actually field in real life.... Heck, I think the Tiger I was built more in kits than real life... #:-)

Generalzod, SS74 you ar both right! Some smaller production vehicals have made the cut. The Sig 33 was a very unique type of vehicle. That alone helped it's sales. Most Pz II 's look the same. DML did all of the Stugs, the Ausf A only had 30 units built. The idea that everyone wants "all" of the panzer IV's that ever exsisted. Well The panzer VI A,B, and C where all produced in low numbers before 1939, and saw limited action. From what I have read the "invasion" force going into Poland was mostly Pz I's and Pz II's. (Pz II C 1,113 the most produced Pz II by far) Again for the Mfg's it's risk vs cost. It looked as if DML was going to do every piece of German armor at one time, something stopped them.

I don't think numbers built have anything to do with it. DML made the Maus which was an experimental vehicle of which only 2 existed and those 2 weren't even complete. There are also plenty of kits available of "Paper Panzers" which were only blueprints and were never made. I think that the real answer is that most people don't see early war armor as "sexy". That is a real shame for people like me who find Tigers, King Tigers, and Panthers to be bland and find the early war stuff to be really unique. I for one like the early war stuff much much more because I think of the men that served in them and think of the balls that it must have taken to get into those little, cramped, noisy, smelly, iron death traps. Besides without those little things we wouldn't have the tanks of today. Those are the great-grandparents of what we have today.

A guy at my local model shop once said to me that he felt that there were certain tanks that every armor enthusiast should have in their collection and the first 2 tanks that he mentioned were the FT-17 and the Panzer I. His reason being that all modern tank design can be traced back to the FT-17 (because of its novel idea of having a turret) and that the whole German blitzkreig was perfected while training and subsequently using the Panzer I. I tend to agree with him. If anyone is interested in what the others on his list are, here is what I can remember: Mark I (? is that right - the first British tank)Panzer IV, Panther, Tiger, T-34, Sherman, T-55, Patton. His reasoning was their importance in regards to history or future tank design. I would add the BT (any variant or even the T3 Christie) since it was the precursor to all future Soviet tank design.