Jump to content

4th Armored Brigade Shermans


arkbuilder2012

Recommended Posts

I’ve hit a roadblock on a current build and was hoping someone here might have the answer. The British 4th Armor Brigade was noted for using the sand shields on the rear engine deck to keep stowage secure. I saw a 1/72 build along with a reference picture of a tank which used the front sand shields and had cut outs for the rear marker lights, and the lights slightly protrude from the sand shields. I really want to do this in 1/35. My question because it is difficult to tell from the picture, were the brush guards for the marker light removed? I know the sand shields were tack welded to the deck but it seems a lot of effort to cut away the brush guards. Any insights are much appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this top photo of an M4A1 Sherman II the rear light guards are clearly still in place.  But the sand shields are fitted far enough forward not to need cut-outs to fit over the lights. 

 

Judging from the upside-down AOS markings on the wrong side, these guards were originally attached as stowage bins above the little rear fenders as in the lower photo. I imagine that the mounting strips along the bottom of the sponsons were used to mount them, using their own mounting holes.

 

While you might think the lights' guards unnecessary if the sand shields partly cover them, there is risk of damaging or dislocating the lights from stowage piled in the bins so the guards might be best left in place.  But I really can't see any point in removing the light guards and/or cutting the sand shields to fit over the lights for the sake of mounting them 6 inches or so further back.  Seems inherently pointless.

 

pNuTpd5.jpg

 

P0QY1fX.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Das Abteilung said:

In this top photo of an M4A1 Sherman II the rear light guards are clearly still in place.  But the sand shields are fitted far enough forward not to need cut-outs to fit over the lights. 

 

Judging from the upside-down AOS markings on the wrong side, these guards were originally attached as stowage bins above the little rear fenders as in the lower photo. I imagine that the mounting strips along the bottom of the sponsons were used to mount them, using their own mounting holes.

 

While you might think the lights' guards unnecessary if the sand shields partly cover them, there is risk of damaging or dislocating the lights from stowage piled in the bins so the guards might be best left in place.  But I really can't see any point in removing the light guards and/or cutting the sand shields to fit over the lights for the sake of mounting them 6 inches or so further back.  Seems inherently pointless.

 

pNuTpd5.jpg

 

P0QY1fX.jpg

Thanks. Agree with your assessment. I will see if I can locate the specific picture on line and see if I can post it. The M4A1 would also make for a nice build.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tank in question would be #4 in the lineup. On closer inspection it looks like the brush guards are intact and the cutouts are larger to accommodate those. As you can see the sand shields are located much further back than the tank you've shown - same picture BTW.

 

 pIoRiTC.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the M4A1 I posted is the right-most vehicle in this group.  So we're talking the same unit.  The photo of the earlier lower configuration has the same AOS, so same unit.  Possibly same tank with the bins relocated.  If you look at the welded hull tank at far left, the bins look to be similarly further forward and in front of the light guards. 

 

The 4th from right tank does indeed appear to have the bins cut over the guards, and it looks as if someone has decided to line up the bin and hull corners for neatness.  The size of the dark shadow suggests that the cut-out is large enough to go over the guard. 

 

But is it a Firefly?  It has a loader's hatch which looks very square like the retro-fitted UK hatch (and no other tanks have loader's-hatch turrets), there is a hint of a covered muzzle brake and the shadows imply that the turret box is a bit further back than the rest.  Look also at the longer distance between the back of the box and the turret lifting eye.

 

Interesting mix of pistol port types on the turrets: 2 without and 2 welded-up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Das Abteilung said:

But is it a Firefly?

IMHO Yes.

 

The position of the rear turret stowage box is clearly different relative to the lift ring on the rear left quadrant of the turret.....Plus it has a rectangular loaders's hatch.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly does appear to be a Firefly, with the rectangular loader hatch, pistol port, etc. I love this picture with such a mixed bag of vehicles. Lots of inspiration for us modelers. The vehicle I am wanting to do is a Mk1 Hybrid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you would have a Firefly option there.  Counting heads seems to suggest that Hybrid Fireflies were perhaps more common than 75's.  Or maybe just photographed more often.  The frontal armour was better, bearing in mind that Fireflies were especially targeted, and some had the loader's hatch thick-cheek turret with pistol port.  But they were still dry stowage and so would have the hull applique patches - the front ones of which differed between ALCO and Chrysler.

 

The later Dragon IC Hybrid release is OK - the one with Zemsta II on the box art (6228). Avoid the earlier one with the 3D topographic map of the Himalayas as cast texture!  AFAIK their 75mm Hybrid (6441) is the same kit without the Firefly parts but knowing Dragon the 6228 kit probably has all the 75mm parts anyway and has other UK parts like the spare link holders.  A set of T62 riveted tracks might be appropriate for a Chrysler-built Hybrid. 

 

ALCO built a few Hybrids too and the UK certainly received some of these, and some were Firefly'd.  So there are details to check: turret configuration, sprockets, roadwheels, return roller arms, air cleaners.  I believe the Dragon kits are Chryslers, but even so there is a turret choice between low bustle, no-loader's hatch, no pistol port and high bustle with both.  The low bustle was most common in UK units and the majority production: 1,000 vs 600.  Hard to know how many Hybrids we had as they were just identified as M4s in Ordnance records for lend-lease.

 

As I'm sure you know, Shermans I, I Hybrid and II were used interchangeably in Commonwealth armoured Regiments as they were mechanically identical.

Edited by Das Abteilung
correction
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Das Abteilung said:

But they were still dry stowage and so would have the hull applique patches - the front ones of which differed between ALCO and Chrysler.

Do you have more on this please?

 

It's been a matter of some puzzlement with my M4A1s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

M4A1 front patches were cut in several pieces because of the double curvature.  They did vary between factory, depot and field fitted.

 

The ALCO - Chrysler Hybrid/Composite shape differences are shown on the Sherman Minutia site.  This is a very good site for looking at variant and manufacturer differences.  If you have deep enough pockets I can recommend the Son Of Sherman book. 

 

IIRC the main difference was an angled top front corner on ALCO, rounded on Chrysler.  But this top link will take you through all the ALCO-Chrysler hybrid differences.

 

http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/manufacturer/m4composite/m4_composite.html

 

This is the site home page.  There's a tab on M4A1s.

http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is of course the Tasca/Asuka IC Firefly kit if you have deep pockets.  I've just spotted one on eBay for a £38 start price + P&P, but I would expect this to end somewhere in the order of £60.  I don't believe they ever did the 75mm Hybrid/Composite.

 

I've just dug out my 2 Dragon Hybrids from the stash for a better look, a Firefly and a 75. 

 

You can't use the Firefly kit to make a 75mm as it has the UK-fitted loader's hatch unique to Fireflies - which would be difficult to correct invisibly.  I imagine the Tasca/Asuka kit will have the same problem.  A replacement turret (e.g. TMD) would add a lot to the cost. 

 

The "PTO Composite Hull" kit includes both high and low bustle turrets with loader's hatches and pistol ports.  This is odd as this very late low bustle type was not used on Composites.  The high bustle turret is representative of the last 600 or so Composites built: the first 1,000 or so had the low bustle turret without hatch or port.  Again, replacing the turret with an after-market earlier type would add a lot to the cost but is probably more representative of a UK vehicle.

 

The basic kits are the same and represent Chrysler manufacture.  Curiously, both kits include open-spoke wheels and rear tow pintles - neither of which were ever used on Composites.  The lack of a tow pintle on an M4 with cut-out rear hull plate is about the only rear ID clue for a Composite.  Fortunately they both also have the correct pressed-spoke wheels along with "fancy" sprockets and square air cleaners you need for a Chrysler Composite.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Value Gear have recently released a Sherman stowage set including stowed-up sand shield stowage boxes. See photo below.  While the individual parts picture looks OK, the angle in the picture of them fitted to a model (M4A2) looks decidedly odd.  And they've completely covered the rear lights, going back to where we came in - although that is correct for at least one vehicle in the photos above.  Not sure they could be moved forward because of the interaction with the fuel fillers.  Perhaps you could grind out a representative hollow cut-out to go over the lights, the inside of which would of course be blanked by the stowed gear.  The representation of the sheet metal guards is far too thick.

 

Originality, 10/10 as no-one else has ever done it.  Research, 6/10 for not taking note of the rear lights.  Execution, 4/10 for the over-thick parts.  And why do such companies (and modelers) insist on stowing Brodie helmets?  British tank crew rarely if ever wore them as they were not standard issue for tank crews. By this stage of the war the AFV Crew helmet similar to the para helmet was in use.

 

aRCnXu8.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...