Jump to content

Sherman I or III?


DDGboy

Recommended Posts

https://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10206702

 

Dragon's 1/35 M4 Sherman III DV Early Production (6573) has an option stated to be from A Sqn, 26th Armoured Brigade in Tunisia, 1943 (bottom one) - 

 

https://www.1999.co.jp/eng/image/10206702/60/2

 

But Osprey's Vanguard 15 (Page 9) has this vehicle as a Sherman I - 

 

https://ibb.co/dmRXRcp

 

Clearly the same vehicle, markings are identical, and unlike the Dragon profile the caption states the clearly visible obvious - missing a LOT of standard bits! 

 

So who is right, is it a I or a III?

 

This looks like the same unit (Dragon even includes the second "4" along as an alternative), captioned as "Sherman tanks on parade during a visit by the Turkish Military Mission, 28 Mar 1943. IWM photo NA 1574" - 

 

Sherman+tanks+on+parade+during+a+visit+b

Edited by DDGboy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that Osprey have goofed, not for the first time.  There is no air intake cowl on the engine deck behind the turret and underneath the dust the rear hull seems to be the deeper M4A2 / Sherman III type.  You can also see the double fuel fillers on the engine deck inboard of the protected filler, another A2 ID feature if you can't see the deck grille.  So I would say that the Osprey picture is indeed and undoubtedly a Sherman III.  But absolutely no way of telling from that angle if it is DV.

 

As for which factory, that's an entirely different question.  Neither of the 2 nearest tanks in the photo above are Fishers, for which the key ID is their squared-off welded drivers' hoods.  They aren't ALCO as all their A2s were DV, and the siren position is wrong for Baldwin (who only built 12 anyway).  Could be Pullman Standard.  But my money is on Federal Machine and Welder for both closest tanks in the photo above and the Osprey one.  They are known to have used both bolted and cast final drives, both pressed and cast roadwheels and both types of sprocket ring shown.  They also put their sirens on the left fender.  You can also just see that the glacis lift ring in the photo above is "padded" (mounted on a small plate), a type also used by Federal.  The very squared-off bow MG mount profile is also characteristic.  And Federal did not build any M4s ................ 

 

Circling back to the DV debate for the Osprey picture, you can see the fender-mounted siren characteristic of a Federal tank.  Which still doesn't say DV or not but suggests - if from the same unit - that it might be the same configuration as the ones above.  While mixed factory variations were commonplace in units over time, new issues were more likely to be similar to each other.  The tanks above still have M34 gun mounts, which would narrow it down to Federal build before April 43 - which fits the March date.  But DV was only eliminated in Dec 42 (except ALCO), although some Federals had it as late as Feb 43.  With a 3-month typical shipping time the tanks in the photo above must be nearly new.  Unless my eyes deceive me the Osprey photo shows the little side protectors on the M34 mantlet, behind the co-ax MG.  This change only came in late in 42, which is about the same time that DV was being eliminated.  So that tips the balance towards the tank in the Osprey photo being non-DV.

 

The bad news is that the tank you want to replicate doesn't match the Dragon kit ...................... You'd need their 6313 kit: not exactly right but close enough.  Or another set of markings ............!  But the Bison and Star markings are not 100% reliable in their M4 drawings or correct version identification.  Can't speak for Echelon.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Das Abteilung said:

I believe that Osprey have goofed, not for the first time.  There is no air intake cowl on the engine deck behind the turret and underneath the dust the rear hull seems to be the deeper M4A2 / Sherman III type.  You can also see the double fuel fillers on the engine deck inboard of the protected filler, another A2 ID feature if you can't see the deck grille.  So I would say that the Osprey picture is indeed and undoubtedly a Sherman III.  But absolutely no way of telling from that angle if it is DV.

 

As for which factory, that's an entirely different question.  Neither of the 2 nearest tanks in the photo above are Fishers, for which the key ID is their squared-off welded drivers' hoods.  They aren't ALCO as all their A2s were DV, and the siren position is wrong for Baldwin (who only built 12 anyway).  Could be Pullman Standard.  But my money is on Federal Machine and Welder for both closest tanks in the photo above and the Osprey one.  They are known to have used both bolted and cast final drives, both pressed and cast roadwheels and both types of sprocket ring shown.  They also put their sirens on the left fender.  You can also just see that the glacis lift ring in the photo above is "padded" (mounted on a small plate), a type also used by Federal.  The very squared-off bow MG mount profile is also characteristic.  And Federal did not build any M4s ................ 

 

Circling back to the DV debate for the Osprey picture, you can see the fender-mounted siren characteristic of a Federal tank.  Which still doesn't say DV or not but suggests - if from the same unit - that it might be the same configuration as the ones above.  While mixed factory variations were commonplace in units over time, new issues were more likely to be similar to each other.  The tanks above still have M34 gun mounts, which would narrow it down to Federal build before April 43 - which fits the March date.  But DV was only eliminated in Dec 42 (except ALCO), although some Federals had it as late as Feb 43.  With a 3-month typical shipping time the tanks in the photo above must be nearly new.  Unless my eyes deceive me the Osprey photo shows the little side protectors on the M34 mantlet, behind the co-ax MG.  This change only came in late in 42, which is about the same time that DV was being eliminated.  So that tips the balance towards the tank in the Osprey photo being non-DV.

 

The bad news is that the tank you want to replicate doesn't match the Dragon kit ...................... You'd need their 6313 kit: not exactly right but close enough.  Or another set of markings ............!  But the Bison and Star markings are not 100% reliable in their M4 drawings or correct version identification.  Can't speak for Echelon.

Excellent, thank you SO much, EXACTLY what I was after! I'm an ex-Sailor (RAN, 23+ years) who mainly builds winged-things but occasionally dabbles in armour, so my foo in the latter is extremely weak! I actually have the Tamiya 1/35 M4 Sherman Early Production and found what I posted above while searching for a possible Brit version,  seems to be naff all out there about Mark I's though, and pretty sure my kit lacks most of what's needed feature-wise anyway, hence getting a tad excited over the Osprey pic! Thanks again, Jamie in Oz 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We had quite a lot fewer M4 Sherman Is, just under 2,100, compared to over 5,000 M4A2 Sherman III and over 7,100 M4A4 Sherman V.  Which explains why you can't find much on them.  The M4A1 Sherman II were fewer again at just under 1,000 - but they are probably the easiest to spot from any angle.

 

To pour more Monsoon rain on your parade, Tamiya's M4 Early kit is a dog.  Only their most recent HVSS Shermans and re-boxed Asuka Firefly are worth buying: avoid all the others.  The principal problem with it is that it has an M4A4 glacis, a design only used by Chrysler on the M4A4 and unique to that variant.  So the whole front end needs to be replaced with one from another kit: so why not just build the other kit ............?  That being said, it is the only plastic "early" M4 show in town, and making one from an A2 or A3 involves even more slicing and dicing at the other end and elsewhere.  Your other alternative is to add the drivers' hood applique plates and festoon the rest of the glacis with stowage, especially the antenna base on the right, and hope no-one notices the wide drivers' hoods.

 

The only plant building M4s in time for Tunisia were Pressed Steel Car, who built them from March 42: other plants didn't begin M4s until at least Jan 43 and they wouldn't have arrived in theatre until at least April 43.  So Tamiya's kit isn't exactly "early" anyway: it's very much "mid".  Production of both small hatch and large hatch composite M4s had ceased completely by Jan 44.  The UK funded the reactivation of an abandoned PSC plant at Hegewisch in Chicago in order to build Shermans solely for the UK.  Then the US Govt took it over (did we ever get our money back?).

 

As the UK was getting M4A2s, which the US did not want, and M4A1s the US got priority for M4s.  There were no UK M4s in N Africa and probably therefore not in Sicily and possibly not in Italy.  And there were only about 400 in NWE in Sept 44.  No, I don't know what happened to the rest.  I do know that we didn't like the need to hand-crank the radial engine a few turns before starting if it had been stopped for more than a few minutes -  a tactical disadvantage in action.

 

As you can see, M4s are a complete minefield with so many variant and production variations.  And so many rivet-counters ready to pounce.  Hey, I resemble that remark ................................!!

Edited by Das Abteilung
Correction
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One more thing to bear in mind with regards to Tamiya's M4 (and the M4A3 also as it uses the same lower hull), is that they have moulded the back plates for the VVSS units 1.5mm higher on one side than on the other. Figure that one out!

 

John.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The colour instruction sheet of disruptive diagrams is mostly inaccurate.  The side views generally conform to the 1943 issued painting diagram.  However the remaining views are pure fiction, evidently in the erronious belief that these patterns were made up by individuals each with a tin of paint.    These far eastern companies have no real idea about British camouflage.

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...