RMASG Sherman V "Fox".

[Bullbasket]

I built this a few years ago using up some left over parts from a Dragon Sherman Vc. I used the upper and lower hull from the kit along with the tracks. The turret is one by Formations which comes with some British fittings, but the hatch cover needed changing so I used the Dragon one.

The colour for Fox is a bone of contention, some saying that is was SCC2, others that it was SCC15. One piece of info that I got from somebody in the know was that Fox was originally in SCC2 and held in storage. The thinking was that it would have been unlikely to have brought it out of storage and gone to the trouble of repainting it in SCC15 when the intention was for it to be used only for the initial landings, so that's the way that I went.

The decals are from Bison on sheet number 35015, which is no longer available, but it can be found on Star Decals sheet number 35-C1020.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As always, thanks for looking.

 

John.

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

Great looking Sherman 👍

[Kris B]

Looks very good, but the scale on the turret is masterpiece. What was this for anyway?

[Bullbasket]

13 hours ago, Corsairfoxfouruncle said:

Great looking Sherman 👍

Many thanks Dennis.

 

John.

[Bullbasket]

12 hours ago, Kris B said:

Looks very good, but the scale on the turret is masterpiece. What was this for anyway?

Thanks Chris. The RMASG Shermans, like the Centaurs, were used as artillery pieces as they were coming ashore in the landing craft. There was an infantry telephone at the rear and this was used to direct the fire. The graduations on the turret were so that the soldier directing the gunner could give accurate bearings.

 

John. 

[Ozzy]

Nice build John,

[Bullbasket]

2 hours ago, Ozzy said:

Nice build John,

Thanks Ozzy. Much appreciated.

 

John.

[Jim Wasley]

Another Great  build John and as always great attention to detail,Cheers.

[Hairtrigger]

Truly first class..  Those graduations on the turret wow nicely done.   Great detailing really love that..😁😁😁😁😁

[Kingsman]

That's a fine model.  the turret markings are especially nice.  I can't see any carrier film.  Are they decals?  If so, are they Bison/Star or Peddinghaus?  If they're hand-painted, masked/stencilled or made from dry transfers then they're even more awesome.

 

Although their role was that of control tanks for the Centaur Troops, RMASG Shermans also had the indirect fire dial sight fitted in a box on the front right top corner of the turret.  Same sight as the Centaur, just in a different place.  Without it they could only have fired at things the gunner could actually see line-of-sight.

 

But, were RMASG Shermans actually painted in SCC2?  Shermans in the UK were retained in their US OD finish.  If any repainting was needed after their RMASG "conversion" (and they were used 2nd hand tanks) then SCC15 was the authorised colour by then.  The Centaurs were factory finished in SCC2 and only remained in that colour because of the original intent for them not to go ashore and the lack of time to repaint when that decision was reversed.  Although I have seen it postulated that some were repainted in SCC15.

[bigfoot]

Lovely work as ever John. Despite the debate about the true colour its always interesting to see a Sherman in something other than olive drab. I have a similar dragon/formations kit mix up in the stash that I haven’t decided between fox and another of the fire control Sherman’s on the decal sheet, will be in SCC2 though so I’m storing your build for future reference.

[Bullbasket]

10 hours ago, Jim Wasley said:

Another Great  build John and as always great attention to detail,Cheers.

 

9 hours ago, Hairtrigger said:

Truly first class..  Those graduations on the turret wow nicely done.   Great detailing really love that..😁😁😁😁😁

Thanks both of you. I appreciate the comments.

 

John.

[robgizlu]

Cracking job and Nice Sealant!

Rob

[Bullbasket]

11 hours ago, Das Abteilung said:

That's a fine model.  the turret markings are especially nice.  I can't see any carrier film.  Are they decals?  If so, are they Bison/Star or Peddinghaus?  If they're hand-painted, masked/stencilled or made from dry transfers then they're even more awesome.

 

Although their role was that of control tanks for the Centaur Troops, RMASG Shermans also had the indirect fire dial sight fitted in a box on the front right top corner of the turret.  Same sight as the Centaur, just in a different place.  Without it they could only have fired at things the gunner could actually see line-of-sight.

 

But, were RMASG Shermans actually painted in SCC2?  Shermans in the UK were retained in their US OD finish.  If any repainting was needed after their RMASG "conversion" (and they were used 2nd hand tanks) then SCC15 was the authorised colour by then.  The Centaurs were factory finished in SCC2 and only remained in that colour because of the original intent for them not to go ashore and the lack of time to repaint when that decision was reversed.  Although I have seen it postulated that some were repainted in SCC15.

Thanks for the comments. I could lie through my teeth and say that I painted the turret markings by hand, but in actual fact, they are an old set from Bison, no longer available, but they have been reissued by Star Decals. I got the SCC2 from the Bison sheet, but obviously that could be wrong. The T number included on the sheet is wrong as from what I've read, it' more likely to begin with a 1 and not a 2. At around the time that I built this Chris Meddings also did one and we had a discussion about the colour as he had finished his in OD. The general thinking was that it could have been any one of the three options.

With regards to the dial sight, as you know, photos of RMASG Shermans are few and far between, and on the only two that I've seen, it's hard to decide if one is present.

 

John. 

[beefy66]

Another great job and it is a Sherman what else is there to say. 👍🏻

 

beefy 

[MikeR]

Nicely done!

 

Mike.

[Kingsman]

I've just spotted your remnants of the Bostik sealant round the mantlet: nice.

 

Yes the T number is certainly wrong and it's been deleted from the Star re-release of that sheet.  T228378 wasn't even assigned to an M4A4, and may not have been assigned at all: it's in a gap between 2 ranges of M4A4 numbers for 1943.  The T numbers of RMASG Shermans seem to be a complete mystery.  You can work out the possible range of numbers from the change date to the M34A1 mantlet plus a couple of months for shipping.  You have the correct combination of pressed idler and "fancy" sprocket types for a vehicle built after Oct 42.  The M34A1 mantlet began to be fitted on M4A4s in mid Jan 43 and was universal on M4A4s by the end of April.  So yours was built between Oct 42 and Apr 43.  The possible/likely  ranges of T numbers are 147191 - 148162 and 148269 - 148859.

 

I had the Bison sheet but the carrier film yellowed.  I've replaced it with the Star version but I also have the Peddinghaus set too.  Undecided as to which to use.  The white print on the Peddi sheet looks a bit thin/translucent.

 

I suspect that Johan assumed that all RMASG tanks were in SCC2.

 

You can see the dial sight on Fox just in front of the HMG barrel, and here's anther view too on Hussar.

  

 

Interestingly, Hussar doesn't have the turret bearing markings (the white marks are bird guano) but does have the white star on the hull side - and an unusual ringed one at that - which was instructed to be removed before D Day.  I did read somewhere that a 2nd group of Shermans were assigned to RMASG after the decision to go ashore meant that more would be needed but there wasn't time to paint the markings.

[Bullbasket]

5 hours ago, bigfoot said:

Lovely work as ever John. Despite the debate about the true colour its always interesting to see a Sherman in something other than olive drab. I have a similar dragon/formations kit mix up in the stash that I haven’t decided between fox and another of the fire control Sherman’s on the decal sheet, will be in SCC2 though so I’m storing your build for future reference.

Thanks very much BF. I've been reading a lot of stuff on different sites regarding Fox, and I've come to the conclusion that the proper colour should probably be OD, the colour that it was delivered in from the States. As it was an old tank, it probably didn't even get repainted with SCC15. Confusing, isn't it.

 

John. 

3 hours ago, robgizlu said:

Cracking job and Nice Sealant!

Rob

Thanks for the comment Rob.

 

John.

[Bullbasket]

1 hour ago, beefy66 said:

Another great job and it is a Sherman what else is there to say. 👍🏻

 

beefy 

 

1 hour ago, MikeR said:

Nicely done!

 

Mike.

Thanks for the comments.

 

John.

[Bullbasket]

57 minutes ago, Das Abteilung said:

Yes the T number is certainly wrong and it's been deleted from the Star re-release of that sheet.  T228378 wasn't even assigned to an M4A4, and may not have been assigned at all: it's in a gap between 2 ranges of M4A4 numbers for 1943.  The T numbers of RMASG Shermans seem to be a complete mystery.  You can work out the possible range of numbers from the change date to the M34A1 mantlet plus a couple of months for shipping.  You have the correct combination of pressed idler and "fancy" sprocket types for a vehicle built after Oct 42.  The M34A1 mantlet began to be fitted on M4A4s in mid Jan 43 and was universal on M4A4s by the end of April.  So yours was built between Oct 42 and Apr 43.  The possible/likely  ranges of T numbers are 147191 - 148162 and 148269 - 148859.

 

Yes, especially when you consider that Warspite was T-147535, it fits in.

 

John.

[Kingsman]

I think Warspite might perhaps be the only one that is known for certain.  There are few photos and none except Warspite seem to show a legible serial number.  Apparently the RMASG records at PRO Kew don't shed any light.  Tanks are generally referred-to by name or callsign.  Neither the RM Museum nor Bovington have anything.

 

Because the RMASG Shermans were an assorted collection of used tanks re-assigned to RMASG and not supplied new as a group their numbers were not contiguous and maybe not even close.

 

The Star re-release of the old Bison set includes Waspite as T147535, but no longer has a serial for Fox.  It also has Hussar, correctly compete with side star but no serial and no graduations, and another unidentifed vehicle.  The Peddinghaus set has Fox with no serial.  The turret markings are printed in longer sections than Star, which may be problematic with the pistol port.  But the whole decal sheet is just one single sheet of carrier film so they need to be cut out anyway.

 

Both show OD as the colour.

[Badder]

Lovely Sherman John.

I first made WWII models over 35 yrs ago (and exclusively British or German) There was no internet back then, and so research on AFVs mostly came from Tamiya instrution sheets and the odd hardback on general model-making! Since returning to the hobby, I have used modern technology, but confess that I only research those vehicles that I'm currently building. So, I have to thank you for choosing a Sherman with turret graduations. I would still be ignorant as to their purpose otherwise!

 

I had figured that maybe they were used for aligning their turrets whilst being 'stored' en masse at assembly points, or for close-packing during transportation, or on landing craft etc, but couldn't fully justify the need for them. Now it all makes sense!

..
It would be interesting to see a diorama where the markings were being used

Rearguards,

Badder

 

 

 

[Silenoz]

Interesting subject and discussion. Learned something new today. 

 

With regards to the model: very nice...

[Kingsman]

The markings were intended for the original RMASG purpose of firing from on board LCTs.  Once ashore, they served no real purpose unless the unit was to be used as field artillery from static locations.

 

They allowed the turret to be aligned to a specific bearing, which was otherwise impossible.  The index point was the centre-line of the tank, for which I believe a small index mark was painted on the hull top.  The Sherman control tanks acted as battery command posts, converting the observer reports and fire mission requests into bearing and elevation for the Centaurs to train onto.  The specially-fitted dial sight was necessary for setting the correct elevation. 

 

While the Shermans could also act as gun tanks (otherwise why not just use an unarmed Centaur or Cavalier OP as other artillery observers did?), the ballistics of the 75mm gun were very different to that of the 95mm howitzer and it had less elevation.  It wasn't really suited to indirect fire.  I believe it was originally conceived that the Shermans might go ashore and act as observers for the immobile Centaurs left on the LCTs, where a gun might have been very useful.  Once it was decided that the whole unit would go ashore they certainly performed this function.

 

However, the bearing markings have 180⁰ (Due South) at the front.  But that only works if the tank is pointing Due South.  The command tank would need to apply a bearing correction to observers' target information based on the ship's actual compass heading as well as the grid to magnetic bearing correction (grid to mag add, mag to grid get rid).  Now you know why trigonometry was taught in schools!  But the approach to the landings was broadly Southerly to South South East, so it wasn't a bad starting point.

 

Had the fire been controlled from aboard ship in the naval manner then I presume the bearings would have had 0⁰ at the front, increasing to 180⁰ around each side to the rear.  Naval guns were trained on Red and Green port and starboard bearings from the ship's head (Red 15, Green 20 etc), eliminating the need to do any compass trigonometry in engagements where both sides were manoeuvering.

 

Ashore, once a battery arrived at a firing position that position would need to be surveyed-in as with any field battery.  Once the centre-line bearing of the firing position and the individual bearings of each tank had been established, then the turret bearing markings could once again be used.  Without that, and probably without the command tank too, the bearings were useless unless individual commanders could do the math.   1 degree out at the firing point would be about 175m out at 10km range.  Which is why artillery generally use the much more precise Mil bearing measurement, of which there are 6,400 in a full circle.

 

But I don't believe that RMASG acted as batteries once ashore, becoming divided-up and essentially acting as mobile gun tanks rather than emplaced artillery.  Apart from the Petard on the Churchill AVRE, the 95mm howitzer was the most effective tank-mounted close support weapon the British had and was perfectly capable of direct fire against enemy positions.

 

 

[Bullbasket]

4 hours ago, Badder said:

There was no internet back then, and so research on AFVs mostly came from Tamiya instrution sheets and the odd hardback on general model-making! Since returning to the hobby, I have used modern technology, but confess that I only research those vehicles that I'm currently building. So, I have to thank you for choosing a Sherman with turret graduations. I would still be ignorant as to their purpose otherwise!

Thanks Badder. Yes the internet has proved to b a boon when it comes to researching a project. But I still rely on my modest library a lot.

 

John.

2 hours ago, Silenoz said:

Interesting subject and discussion. Learned something new today. 

 

With regards to the model: very nice...

Many thanks for the comments.

 

John.