Tamiya 1:48 M26 Pershing B Co. 1st Tank Division US Marines, Inchon, Sep 1950

[Brews]

This is the box art, which is for a machine in Germany, in 1945. Everything in the box is in sealed bags except the instructions, decals and the lower (die-cast metal) hull. Option A is what i'll be doing (OOB). It looks a very thoroughly-detailed kit, with the only possible snags that I see at this stage being the attachment of plastic to metal (and there's more than just the upper hull to join, too). Superglue gel might be par for the course.

The Marines' landing at Inchon saved the war, and routed the North Koreans. It could have been disastrous. Heavy equipment like the Pershing would have been very welcome for the Allies.

[-Neu-]

Fantastic to see brews! I quite like the pershing... despite its less than stellar record in Korea. Looks like this an excellent kit too, so it should be fun to build.

[Troy Smith]

Brews

I'm not certain of the details, but you need to pick your subject carefully, as the kit is basically a WW2 era Pershing, and there are differences on most of the Korean ones, seems that the kit has early style tracks?

eg

http://www.network54.com/Forum/433829/thread/1162025107/Pershing+Tracks%21%21%21%21

there are links to pic galleries, if they still work. not checked.

You may not be to worried, but at least you are forewarned.

HTH

T

[Brews]

Thanks, Troy. I'm hoping that Tamiya got it right. I will check my references, anyway. The first three Pershings in Korea, at least, were old ones. There were very few "Super Pershings" there (they would have blown the T-34s back into Russia, let alone China.

Having read that link, I'm quite happy at the moment, but I haven't read my bibles yet.

[Brews]

Steve Zaloga has Plate C1 in "M26/M46 Pershing Tank 1943-53" as "M26 Pershing, Co. B, 1st Tank Battalion, Inchon, Korea, September 1950". This is the subject of the Tamiya kit.

Also, "Armor in Korea - A Pictorial History by Jim Mekso" (Squadron/Signal) has a photo of a Marine M26 with the early-style track on board a landing craft. Every other photo of Pershings/Pattons in Korea that I saw show the T-80E1 track.

Inchon wasn't a happy hunting ground for Pershings. It seems that they went virtually tank-for-tank with T-34s in battles where the North Koreans put up a fight. This may be in part due to the use of AT guns and mines, but it probably is a function of having to attack rather than defend, in an urban environment.

My guess is that as soon as the Inchon battles were over, the tanks switched to the T-80E1 track, because I saw photos of these on Marine 1st Tank Btn machines dated as early as October, 1950.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Brews

[Brews]

Proof of <25% completion:

[Troy Smith]

Useful to know Brews.

I think part of my mentioning to check details cam from this review

- http://modelingmadness.com/review/misc/vehicles/tmc/tmcm26.htm

Clever reckons it assembles well, so I don't think you need to worry too much, just dry fit and glue. he did them as sub assemblies of upper and lower hull and turret.

the Perth Military site review might have some more useful info

http://www.perthmilitarymodelling.com/reviews/48/tamiya/tam32537.htm

maybe you should get one of those Hobby Boss T-34/85's to go with it

cheers

T

[Brews]

Oooh, there might be some issues other than the tracks. I'm not going to worry about those, though It's only 1:48 scale, after all.

http://www.perthmilitarymodelling.com/reviews/48/tamiya/tam32537.htm

[Brews]

Tom Cleaver's review was interesting, but not entirely faultless. T-34/85s were not, as he asserted, vastly superior to the M4A3E8s. I think he was confusing the Shermans with Chaffees Time to start joining the parts together.

[Troy Smith]

Oooh, there might be some issues other than the tracks. I'm not going to worry about those, though It's only 1:48 scale, after all.

http://www.perthmilitarymodelling.com/reviews/48/tamiya/tam32537.htm

only 1/48th?!?!?!

You're talking about TOTS here [ The One True Scale] As opposed to the B*st*ard 1/35th which started out as accidental box scale....

I like it as it matches my planes Don't know if you are aware, the Hobby Boss T-34 was only partly in jest, as they basically took the Trumpeter 1/16th T-34 and did it in 1/48th... the kit has a full interior!

http://www.perthmilitarymodelling.com/reviews/48/hobbyboss/hb84806-8.htm

plus they can be got for cheap in the UK [i note you are in Canada, eh] but I presume also in Canada?

Tom Cleaver's review was interesting, but not entirely faultless. T-34/85s were not, as he asserted, vastly superior to the M4A3E8s. I think he was confusing the Shermans with Chaffees Time to start joining the parts together.

Cleaver can be controversial, but I was reading his review many years before I started buying kits again, I liked they way he did a bit of background. I linked it more as he'd built it with ease. From what i have read the 1/48 Tamiya armour is classic Tamiya, everything fits and easy to build.

cheers

T

[JasonC]

Cleaver can be controversial, but I was reading his review many years before I started buying kits again, I liked they way he did a bit of background. I linked it more as he'd built it with ease. From what i have read the 1/48 Tamiya armour is classic Tamiya, everything fits and easy to build.

Having read a few reviews of 1/48 armour recently, I've noticed that Tom Cleaver tends to parrot PMMS's kit descriptions with some changes here and there. Smacks of plagiarism IMHO. Since Terry Ashley at PMMS goes into more build detail, I tend to go straight to source at PMMS.

M26 Review:

http://www.perthmilitarymodelling.com/reviews/48/tamiya/tam32537.htm

PMMS, October 2006:

The kit has 170 parts in olive drag plastic plus the obligatory cast metal lower hull tub, a couple of screws and poly caps and the decal sheet with the quality of the moulding being very good overall with clean crisp detail and no flash evident, but there are a few shallow pin marks about the place to contend with.

Dimensionally the kit measures up very well in overall length, width, turret size and barrel length as well as the size of the muzzle brake when compared to the data in the Hunnicutt Pershing book with any discrepancies being well within acceptable tolerances.

TC, December 2006:The kit provides 170 parts in olive drab plastic with the now-standard cast metal lower hull tub. The quality of the molding is very good with clean crisp detail and no flash. Dimensionally, it measures up to all measurements in the Hunnicutt Pershing book.

Cromwell review:

http://www.perthmilitarymodelling.com/reviews/48/tamiya/tam32528.htm

PMMS, June 2006:

The 1:35 scale Tamiya Cromwell Mk.IV was one of the better releases in that scale and this kit is basically a shrunken version of that kit with many of the assembly sequences the same with a few simplifications due to the smaller size but there are some major fit issues we don’t normally associate with Tamiya kits which we will get too shortly.

The kit represents the Type C hulled Cromwell with the left side opening hull hatch and is armed with the QQF 75mm main gun and consist of 158 parts in olive drab plastic moulded to the usual high standard with crisp clean detail and no flash with a bare minimum of pin marks. The only cleanup being the sprue attachment scars and the very thin mould seam lines on the parts. There is also the usual metal lower hull tub, a few poly caps and a length of twine for the tow cable plus the decal and instruction sheets.

TC, July 2006:

This kit by Tamiya is a scale-down of the 1/35 scale kit of the Cromwell Mk.IV, which was one of the better releases in that scale. The kit represents the Type C hull Cromwell with the left side opening hull hatch and the ROQF 75mm main gun. It consists of 158 parts in olive drab plastic molded to the usual high standard with crisp clean detail and no flash with a bare minimum of pin marks.

This new kit has many of the same assembly sequences, and at least one similar mistake to the large kit, in that the upper portion of the tracks should not sit atop the road wheels as they do. Those who are concerned with accuracy will have to modify the parts A19 and A24 so the tracks will be tensioned properly.

Sherman Firely review:

http://www.perthmilitarymodelling.com/reviews/48/tamiya/tam32532.htm

PMMS, June 2006:

This is the third Sherman variant released by Tamiya in the 1:48 series with this kit representing the sometimes mystical British Sherman IC Firefly which along with the VC and Hybrid IC armed with the 76.2 mm 17pdr gun were the only Sherman types that could take on a Panther or Tiger on roughly equal terms. The C designation indicates it is armed with the 17pdr gun.

This kit is basically the same as the earlier M4 Early production (kit #32505) with the inclusion of a new sprue “G” with the Firefly turret parts and additional hull parts that include the “sharp” single piece cast transmission cover typical of the IC plus the full array of appliqué armour also typical of the IC with these features being the easiest way of picking the IC from its brothers.

...

The kit consist of 137 parts in olive drab plastic plus the lower hull in cast metal and some poly caps for the drive sprockets and gun elevation and of course the decal and instruction sheets.

The standard of the plastic parts is typical Tamiya with cleanly moulded parts with only a few shallow pin marks on the inside of the hatches and track links and all the parts scaled out precisely when compared to the 1:48 plans in the Hunnicutt Sherman bible, especially the barrel which has been a issue with some Firefly kits but this matches the Hunnicutt plans and scaled down 1:35 plans in the Hayward book well within accepted tolerances both in length and muzzle brake size and shape.

These are again the same T48 rubber chevron tracks in link and length plastic and have very good details for this scale

TC, August 2006:

This Firefly IC is the third Sherman released by Tamiya in their 1:48 series. This kit is essentially similar to the earlier M4 Early production (kit 32505), with the addition of a new sprue G that has the Firefly turret parts and additional hull parts of the Firefly IC, including all the appliqué armor which are typical of the Firefly IC - these features are the easiest way of picking the IC from the other Firefly marks.

The kit consist of 137 parts in olive drab plastic and a lower hull in cast metal, with poly caps for the drive sprockets and gun elevation.

The overall standard is typical Tamiya with cleanly molded parts that have only a few shallow pin marks on the inside of the hatches. Everything scales out precisely when compared to the 1:48 plans in the Hunnicutt Sherman bible, especially the barrel which I have learned has been a issue with some Firefly kits.

The tracks are the T48 rubber chevron tracks in link and length plastic, with very good detail for this scale.

[Shermaniac]

Personally, I really enjoyed building Tamiya's Pershing a while ago - seems like years now!

The Tamiya kits are pretty much dimensionally OK (though not necessarily completely accurate). The problem comes with the fit of the metal tubs, they were accurate enough when they were cast but then someone decided to powder coat them and that's where they went wrong, as the pre-coated hulls fitted the kit perfectly. The fit issue on the Tamiya metal tub hulls can be rectified by removing the powder coating, especially where it comes into contact with the plastic parts - if not all of it!

As to plagiarism, as you know, if enough people repeat the same thing 'right or wrong' it becomes the truth, 'right or wrong' and therefore the definitive opinion.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Shermaniac

[Shermaniac]

Brews

I'm not certain of the details, but you need to pick your subject carefully, as the kit is basically a WW2 era Pershing, and there are differences on most of the Korean ones, seems that the kit has early style tracks?

eg

http://www.network54.com/Forum/433829/thread/1162025107/Pershing+Tracks%21%21%21%21

there are links to pic galleries, if they still work. not checked.

You may not be to worried, but at least you are forewarned.

HTH

T

With the track, if you have the HobbyBoss 1/48 M4A3E8 Sherman you could do a track swap with the T80E1 track from the Sherman and T66 track from the Pershing as ultimately, both vehicles used both types of track. This will resolve the issue for this build.

[JasonC]

The problem comes with the fit of the metal tubs, they were accurate enough when they were cast but then someone decided to powder coat them and that's where they went wrong, as the pre-coated hulls fitted the kit perfectly. The fit issue on the Tamiya metal tub hulls can be rectified by removing the powder coating, especially where it comes into contact with the plastic parts - if not all of it!

A useful observation, thanks! I've got the 1/48 Cromwell on the bench and was wondering about the hull issue. The thickness of the powder coat hadn't occured to me.

And apologies to the OP for the slight digression above!

cheers,

Jason

[Shermaniac]

A useful observation, thanks! I've got the 1/48 Cromwell on the bench and was wondering about the hull issue. The thickness of the powder coat hadn't occured to me.

And apologies to the OP for the slight digression above!

cheers,

Jason

No worries, it's something SleeperService and myself (but mostly him) picked up on a while back - solves a lot of the frustrations.

Incidentally, on your M26 Pershing Korea version, you'll need to install the troop telephone to the right rear upper hull as seen here

Edited April 24, 2014 by Shermaniac

[HOUSTON]

Looking forward to seeing this.

Good luck

[Brews]

Don't know if you are aware, the Hobby Boss T-34 was only partly in jest, as they basically took the Trumpeter 1/16th T-34 and did it in 1/48th... the kit has a full interior!

http://www.perthmilitarymodelling.com/reviews/48/hobbyboss/hb84806-8.htm

plus they can be got for cheap in the UK [i note you are in Canada, eh] but I presume also in Canada?

Yes, I'm aware of the HB T-34. Sadly, when I was at Telford in 2006, I presumed that the interior applied to their 1:48 M4A1 76/W too. It does not. Not only that, but the kit leaves something to be desired Not aware if HB KV-1s have an interior, but it's something I'd check before I ordered one. Squadron has a range of HB T-34s on sale, with prices ranging from about USD11 to USD18 plus shipping. I think I paid GBP10 for my Sherman.

The Tamiya kits are pretty much dimensionally OK (though not necessarily completely accurate). The problem comes with the fit of the metal tubs, they were accurate enough when they were cast but then someone decided to powder coat them and that's where they went wrong, as the pre-coated hulls fitted the kit perfectly. The fit issue on the Tamiya metal tub hulls can be rectified by removing the powder coating, especially where it comes into contact with the plastic parts - if not all of it!

Thank you for the tip! I'd dry-fitted some parts to the hull and thought they were ok, but if removing the powder coating improves it, then I'll give that a shot.

With the track, if you have the HobbyBoss 1/48 M4A3E8 Sherman you could do a track swap with the T80E1 track from the Sherman and T66 track from the Pershing as ultimately, both vehicles used both types of track. This will resolve the issue for this build.

Yes and no. The drive sprockets are a bit different, and Sherman tracks are similar, but different, to the T80E1. In any case, the track is not an issue for this build, as I've identified Inchon Pershings with the T-81 track. Good enough for this little black duck!

No worries, it's something SleeperService and myself (but mostly him) picked up on a while back - solves a lot of the frustrations.

Incidentally, on your M26 Pershing Korea version, you'll need to install the troop telephone to the right rear upper hull

I'd guessed that to be the case, but thanks for confirming.

Looking forward to seeing this.

Good luck

Thanks, I have my fingers crossed, too.

Incidentally, I noted on Tom Cleaver's review that he felt the need to go to Tamiya's weathering pastels to break up the monotony of OD. OD being what OD is, I'm not sure you have an absolute need to go to pastels but I probably will anyway. I think I'd better use them before they dry up!

[Brews]

This is the photo I'm hanging my reputation on

I interpret the tracks of the nearer Pershing to be T81, while those on the one in the background are T80E1. There seems to quite a bit of mud on the T81 tracks, but even so, you can tell that what they are.

[Shermaniac]

Yes, I'm aware of the HB T-34. Sadly, when I was at Telford in 2006, I presumed that the interior applied to their 1:48 M4A1 76/W too. It does not. Not only that, but the kit leaves something to be desired Not aware if HB KV-1s have an interior, but it's something I'd check before I ordered one. Squadron has a range of HB T-34s on sale, with prices ranging from about USD11 to USD18 plus shipping. I think I paid GBP10 for my Sherman.

Thank you for the tip! I'd dry-fitted some parts to the hull and thought they were ok, but if removing the powder coating improves it, then I'll give that a shot.

Yes and no. The drive sprockets are a bit different, and Sherman tracks are similar, but different, to the T80E1. In any case, the track is not an issue for this build, as I've identified Inchon Pershings with the T-81 track. Good enough for this little black duck!

I'd guessed that to be the case, but thanks for confirming.

Thanks, I have my fingers crossed, too.

Incidentally, I noted on Tom Cleaver's review that he felt the need to go to Tamiya's weathering pastels to break up the monotony of OD. OD being what OD is, I'm not sure you have an absolute need to go to pastels but I probably will anyway. I think I'd better use them before they dry up!

The HobbyBoss T-34's are the ONLY ONE'S to have the interior. Having said that, the KV's are little stunners, scaled down Trumpy ones

And, watch out for that OD as it changes shade post-WWII - my versions I use are......:

Early WWII: Vallejo Brown Violet 71.887 (93) FS34088

Late WWII: Vallejo Olive Drab 71.043 FS34087

Korea: to a greener type, Vallejo 70.893 US Dark Green (95) FS34079

Vietnam: then darker again to 70.889 USA Olive Drab (91) FS34084

After 1980

These are all laid over a grey undercoat - light to medium depending on the effect you want

This is the photo I'm hanging my reputation on

I interpret the tracks of the nearer Pershing to be T81, while those on the one in the background are T80E1. There seems to quite a bit of mud on the T81 tracks, but even so, you can tell that what they are.

I would agree with you about the T81 track in your picture and I'd also say this is more unique than common

[Brews]

I measured the width of the hull sides as dry-fitted to the metal hull, and the width of the corresponding styrene bow, and found the bow piece to be 0.5mm wider, so there was absolutely no value to be gained from removing any width from the lower hull. Having determined that, I superglued the styrene pieces to the lower hull, completing part 1 of the instructions. On my way!

[Brews]

I sprayed the metal and plastic parts with Tamiya XF-62. This will do well, as far as I'm concerned, for a base colour. Here you see the upper hull and lower hull dry-fitted. The plastic bits on the lower hull are attached with super glue. This comprises all of Section 1 of the instructions, and parts of Sections 2 and 3. I needed to spray the parts because Section 2 is mostly about getting the wheels together. All 24 of the mongrels, plus drive sprockets, which are in about 25 parts each. I exaggerate on the drive sprockets. Marginally.

This last photo shows the colour of XF-62 compared to the colour of the bare plastic:

My first wife would say "why bother?".

That's why she's my ex-wife.

[SleeperService]

Hi Brews

An excellent choice of subject I must say. Having built this beast I would offer the following advice;

Add a strip of plastic card vertically from the back of the first road wheel arm to the keyhole shaped moulding on the hull side near the escape hatch. Otherwise the arm WILL break at some stage, it's too long for the cross section and the tracks are a little tight.

When assembling the track sections don't butt them up tight to each other or they'll be too short. This applies to most in this range BTW.

As Shermaniac's build pay attention to the blower housing between the driver and co-drivers hatches. There were two variations and Tamiya have made a mongrel of the two. The front needs beefing up for the later 1000cfm blower and the slot in the top should be single and about 3/4 of the length moulded for the 750cfm. The profile ahead of the periscopes also changed.

The HB M4A3E8 tracks can be made to fit with a bit of work on the drive sprocket to match the track width. The tracks are slightly narrow as HB made their drive sprocket the correct width but the teeth too wide so the track has been narrowed to fit. I'd advise packing strips under the track around the drive sprocket to avoid the track bowing in as well. They haven't got much stiffness to them to retain their shape for long.

Hope it goes well.

[Brews]

I'm sticking with the T81 tracks. I'm quite comfortable with that for this machine (see landing craft pic).

Thanks for the tip on the road wheel suspension, track assembly and blower cover, though.

[SleeperService]

Ah Yes. I can see better when I'm not squinting at my tiny phone screen

You're making a wise decision on the tracks the HB ones are a bit of a

[Brews]

I ran my callipers over the the suspension arms. The two pieces that aren't moulded on to the hull already are about 0.2 - 0.25mm thinner than the ones that are (1.97mm v 1.77mm tapering to 1.5mm v 1.25mm). Even if I thought I could get away with the construction, it would be best to add a veneer of 10 thou card to make them all the same thickness.