Jump to content

Unusual Ex-Fireflies


Recommended Posts

Having finished building the RMASG Centaur and Sherman and not feeling like assembling 600-odd track parts or painting just at the moment, I thought I'd crack open another couple of projects.  Like many of you I'm furloughed and so have all 7 days of the week to fill.  Time to make a dent in the stash......

 

So here are the possible parts: not sure they'll all get used.  I'm not saying yet what they will turn out as but the clues are in the parts and it will all become clear.................................

spacer.png  spacer.png  spacer.png

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gold star to Bullbasket. Yes, Lebanese. But I've found a particularly unusual one....

 

I've already found AM parts I don't need to use as the Dragon 1C kit comes with a full redundant A2 deck which I've been able to adapt to the RFM kit. And my final subject choice doesn't have the standard applique patches. Surprisingly these are not included in the RFM kit, hence the AM TWS resin. I know that not all Fireflies had them, but many did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

spacer.png

 

spacer.png

 

The engine conversion from the Chrysler A57 of the M4A4 to the GM 6046 twin diesel from the M4A2 by Lebanon is fairly well known and documented, and modelled before. Shown here a Dragon A2 deck adapted to the RFM hull and finished with a TMD exhaust.

 

The front is more controversial, and may be unique. There is a single photo of a Firefly like this in a Lebanese Army boneyard along with other Fireflies and Charioteers. So it existed. On other sites it has been said to be a vismod film prop in Jordan. Not so. The photo was taken by UNIFIL personnel and even has a UN soldier posing on top. The applique armour is simple and I used 0.75mm card to simulate 25mm armour. A little thick but 0.5mm looked too puny. Weld seams are stretched sprue worked with a pyrogravure.

Edited by Das Abteilung
addition
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

spacer.png

Having worked out (with some sweary words and threats of leaving via an open window.........) how to fiddle images on my Android tablet, here is the image of the tank taken by a Swedish officer serving with UNIFIL.

 

While the mantlet appears to be false or solid it's just that outer rotor cover is missing and the photo is a little over-exposed. Enlarged, the slots are still visible. At first sight the outer panels of the applique look angled, but are not. Optical illusion caused by the different rust pattern. If angled they cannot be parallel-sided. I tried.

 

So this is what I'm attempting to reproduce.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I made some construction comments on another WIP blog about the RFM Firefly, which I'll repeat here.

 

I didn't like RFM's hull construction at all. Lower hull parts far too flimsy and not enough joining area.  No bracing.  I found that getting the upper hull on after the FDA was in place and getting everything to line up and fit was troublesome.  Next time around (I have another to do) I will brace the lower hull and proably leave the FDA until the upper and lower hull are joined.

 

The FDA bolt flanges are a bit too regular.  In real life they rarely mated exactly so you find different shapes on each part and usually a visible join line between.  Asuka cracked this by making each flange of 2 pieces.  I left the mould line in place and did a bit of filing and scraping to un-even them up a bit.  Like other brands there is still that awkward join line around the FDA bulges, which was in reality a single-piece casting.

 

Most VC Fireflies were on mid-late production A4s as the M34A1 mount and Oilgear turret traverse were mandated for conversion.  RFM cover this.  But they give 3 sprocket options, of which only 1 is correct for any Chrysler M4.  As with other manufacturers RFM have missed the fact that Chrysler never used studs and nuts along the bottom of their bogie castings. Uniquely they used round-head slotted cap screws with no visible thread.  Easy enough to snip and file off the protruding threads and file the visible angles off the nuts.

 

The idler is wierd.  The construction method gives the edge flange missed by every other manufacturer to date, but leaves a large join around the running surface - which was of course a smooth single piece.  An etched ring for the outer rim each side would have been a better idea.

 

They don't give any applique armour, which is fine: not all Fireflies had it.  However, for the last 4 months of A4 production Chrysler were factory-fitting the whole hull set and for the last 2 months were fitting the turret patch.  Most of the 1600-odd ex-US A4s remanufactured and supplied during 1944 would have had the full applique set fitted. So a Firefly with no applique would be unusual.  RFM have copied the Bovington museum tank, reputed to have been a school tank - even to the point of including its markings.

 

How did you get on with building the bogies? I built mine today and found that a lot of swearing was necessary. And a whole heap of seam scraping. 

 

As with Asuka's daft foam rubber I dispensed with the springs and filled the space with plastic so the bogies are solid. Strangely, the arms still had a lot of play in them. There are a lot of awkward sharp mould lines on what were smooth, soft-edged cast parts. In their quest for perfection, RFM have overlooked real imperfections. M4 bogies from different foundries have real mould lines in different places. The ones used by Chrysler on all their VVSS tanks had a prominent mould line across the face of the main bogie casting, between the ribs. Dragon and Asuka got this right. RFM missed it.

 

I found the road wheel rear face inserts to be hard to fit, needing a firm shove to seat fully, even allowing for lining up the index ridge. Several popped out again while I was reaching for the Tamiya Extra Thin. Make sure you get the wheels the right way round on their swing arms. The outer face is the one moulded to the rim and has the grease nipples in the 2 little indents. My kit had a little separate sprue with extra swing arms. Some on the main sprues had the axles moulded too short.

 

BTW you've used the Ford style forged sprockets, not used on A4s except perhaps as field replacements. You need the other open type provided,  without the little slopes at the tips of the openings. 

 

The sprocket construction itself is truly daft. You make a rotating hub (why?) and then attempt to attach the sprocket to it. I say attempt because the hub has a ring of little studs which are supposed to fit into small holes inside the sprocket. No way on this planet that you can see to line these up, and if you don't the sprocket will sit too far out. So trim off the little studs first. Also, be careful where you put your glue. DO NOT put any on the rim where you removed the studs. It will just ooze through the gap when you push the parts together and bugger the whole sprocket centre. Learn from my mistake. Much awkward cleaning up.......

 

Why they just didn't copy everyone else and mould the hub centre as part of the sprocket outer face I really don't know.

 

Edited by Das Abteilung
addition
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, diablo rsv said:

Following along as I'm awaiting delivery of the RFM Firefly. Hopefully it won't require too much corrective work as I was hoping for a straight forward build.

What he says.....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am building the other one, and some great tips received  in the above comment, this is only my second model in 25 plus years so starting  again, it seems to be going relatively straightforward, just a few firsts for me such as Pe parts, so I would think if you build regularly it should be pretty straightforward almost easy just watch the bogie assembly sequence, after you make the upper part you have to fit the road wheels by gently prying upper apart...

 

 

cheers

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a bit of a Curate's Egg. I was put off another Asuka by the poor production (rather than mould) quality of their V I bought, but in many respects Asuka is still the field leader.  Dragon's Vs have not been especially good.  Tamiya's M4s are largely rubbish, except the recent E8s.  Their Firefly, now selling for twice the Asuka price, was a reboxed Asuka. 

 

I think the problem with a lot of the recent start-ups is that they don't have the depth of knowledge or carry out the research to actually understand the subject matter.  While some companies make proper contact with museums for archive access and even laser scanning, and get support in understanding the subject, It is known that others just rock up at museums and take some photos.  You can see this when they kit Frankentanks or incorporate restoration errors.  As an example, Amusing Hobby's forthcoming FV4005 copies the composite vehicle outside Bovington - even down to the missing fume extractor.  That is on a non-original Mk3 hull.  There are pictures online of the original Mk7 hull and rear recoil spade, but Amusing have chosen to ignore this.  Presumably to reel in the World of Tanks audience.  Ace did the same thing in Braille Scale.

 

Shermans are not a good place to start unless you are prepared to research - a lot - which is what has hobbled so many previous Sherman kits.  The M4A4 was probably the most homogenous of all the M4 variants, along with the M4 Hybrid and 105mm variants, because these were all single-factory production by Chrysler.  There are no factory variations.  Despite that, there are more than 80 variations on the A4 over its production life.  But Chrysler was the only producer able to source almost the entire tank within its own company empire and was also large enough to have almost-dedicated subcontractors for bought-in parts, further reducing variations.

 

Tamiya failed to appreciate this by using an A4 Chrysler-specific glacis on their M4, for example.  Bin job.  RFM failed to appreciate that Chrysler's bogie castings are different to most others.  All have variations of casting marks, but Chrysler's also had screwed bottom caps nut studs and nuts.  Everyone misses this.  RFM have, with some logic, placed mould joins along the edges of some parts, especially the tops of outer bogie faces.  But that leaves very sharp edges where there should be soft edges.  Placing a part join around the idler is just perverse, but kudos for trying to depict the edge flanges for the first time.   So is having a separate sprocket hub with alignment pins you could never line up.  There are natural places for mould lines, often prominent, around the turret pistol port from where it was deleted and then restored.  But RFM put theirs half way to the back of the turret: awkward.  Possibly unintentionally they have replicated the machined lower edge of the turret casting seen on some A4s (and AFAIK only on A4s).  It just needs feathering-in behind the top-bottom join.

 

Not including any applique parts is odd as most Fireflies had at least some.  The hull front, hull side and turret patches were all separate mods and not necessarily all applied.  But again they seem to have largely copied the Bovington tank, believed to have been a non-combat school tank (although it has indications of having had a wading trunk at some point).  Hence also including the rarely-seen hull side Sunshade attachments (as do Asuka).  They even include the fictitious generic Bovington markings.  Asuka include optional different top plates for the radio box, RFM do not.  Asuka include parts for earlier production, RFM do not. Both give you 2 incorrect sprocket choices along with the right one.  RFM include an alternative type of 17pdr muzzle brake with square edged openings not seen on Fireflies.

 

I like the RFM indy link tracks and build jig: saves me replacing nasty vinyl.  Strength of little pins yet to be established.

 

Don't get me wrong, the RFM VC isn't a bad kit by any means.  I can't see anything fundamentally wrong and every kit needs some cleanup of joins and mould lines.  But I don't think it's stolen Asuka's crown just yet.  Just trailing behind.

 

But Asuka aren't infallible.  They sell a VC kit with thickened cheek turret, for example.  Except that Chrysler never used that turret on A4s, and only fitted the applique patch for the last 2 months.  You would find that turret on ICs.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's really interesting. Looks like I will need to decide early on which vehicle to build and hunt down decent references.

Are you aware of any decent publications on the firefly?

I did watch a Youtube video of the RFM kit being built and I have to say that some of the assembly sequences seem a bit of a faff. I probably need to crack on with it asap or I can see it being put to the bottom of the pile.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, mbthejester said:

More super info, and I now know which muzzle break to use 👍

The style of muzzle brake with the square-edged openings was used on some Archers and on TOG, possibly some Challenger. I have yet to see it on a Firefly. Which doesn't conclusively mean it wasn't fitted (this is when someone posts a photo of one!).

 

2 hours ago, diablo rsv said:

some of the assembly sequences seem a bit of a faff. I probably need to crack on with it asap or I can see it being put to the bottom of the pile.   

Every Sherman kit to date has some 'faffing', usually around the bogies. All kits require attention to mould and join lines. RFM is not necessarily any worse.

 

There is a specific Firefly book in the Osprey series. The Surviving Panzers website lists and photographs all known complete and partial survivors.

 

The only set parameters for Firefly conversion were the Oilgear power traverse and the M34A1 gun mount with the wide rotor cover. Which meant A4s built after about May 43. Having said this, the Brussels Firefly is a DV hull and is said to be original. DV production ended in autumn 42. Which means it must be one of the 1600-odd remanufactured ex-US training tanks. These were fitted with some later features and most outstanding modifications and were still being received until about Sept 44. US Tank Depots also applied missing essential and priority modifications post manufacture and before shipping. Some of these were also applied by UK depots prior to issue.

 

The Firefly conversions were fairly consistent. About the only variations were the shape of the hull MG plug, the position of the rear travel lock and the access panels in the top plate of the radio box turret extension.

 

As with anything Sherman, the key is understanding the base vehicle model production history, production plant variations and when changes took place. As I said, the A4 is one of the easiest. Just be grateful there were no IIICs! ICs are more complicated too. I have listed the A4 production variations over time in a spreadsheet. The Sherman Minutia site is a good guide here but isn't organised by date.  If you can afford it, the Son Of Sherman book is excellent.

 

Working from period photos is always a good plan: the camera doesn't lie.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Das Abteilung said:

Every Sherman kit to date has some 'faffing'

Have you examined the 1/48th Shermans?  I have seen some info on them on Track48, but didn't have this depth of knowledge.  

Not particularly the Bandai ones, as not really available, and they need new tracks, and I have read main faults for the Hobby Boss one on the Perth Military Modelling site, but less on the Tamiya.

I appreciate 1/48th maybe of no interest, and so you will not have examined the kits,  or should this be a new thread? 

 

I have been experimenting with track colour though following your posts on this, which has been interesting. 

 

cheers

T

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a 1/48 Tamiya Sherman IC I intended to build. Very much simplified compared to 1/35 offerings. No attempt at working bogies for example. I haven't examined it for correctness, which I should perhaps have done bearing in mind the poor accuracy of their 1/35 offerings. But I'm clearing out the few 1/48 kits I acquired. I got a stack of after market parts for it from Black Dog, Hauler and RB. PM me if you want to discuss a deal!

 

Being an M4 Sherman I there are more possible variations than on Sherman Vs, if only because 4 plants built it. But it can't be a Baldwin as every Baldwin M4 was (uniquely) DV right to the end of production. And little is known about Pullman Standards. So that narrows it down.

 

There was a resin VC conversion by my old mate Tim Perry under his Fighting 48th brand, but those are long OOP.  Gaso.Line or someone else might have one.

 

In the smaller scales a lot of the variations become less significant. Cast vs fabricated fittings, for example. But there are a lot less correction parts available for goofs or conversion parts and you don't get the plethora of leftover parts that you get with some 1/35.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, diablo rsv said:

That's really interesting. Looks like I will need to decide early on which vehicle to build and hunt down decent references.

Are you aware of any decent publications on the firefly?

I did watch a Youtube video of the RFM kit being built and I have to say that some of the assembly sequences seem a bit of a faff. I probably need to crack on with it asap or I can see it being put to the bottom of the pile.   

 

The definitive reference bible for the Firefly is Mark Haywards splendid book, now long out of production (and hence the section on available kits is somewhat out of date) but still can be found on Amazon, but at much inflated prices: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sherman-Firefly-Mark-Hayward/dp/0953877728

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Das Abteilung said:

Tamiya failed to appreciate this by using an A4 Chrysler-specific glacis on their M4, for example.  Bin job. 

Hi Das Abteilung

I have been reading your entire post with great interest and have been doing a lot of reading on the Sherman minutia website amongst others since reading this very interesting post and the above statement has me worried....i like accuracy in my builds and i not having done much reading on the Sherman (until finding this thread) have just come to the conclusion that my first model in 20 years project is in fact basicly scrap because i missed the difference in the glacis plates.

Now i would like to ask you ( as you clearly have done your reading on this subject) what would i need to do to identify the problems with the Tamiya M4 as i would like to correct the inaccuracies ......scratch building isn't something that scares me so don't hold back :P...... 

The problem for me is over the last day or two i have done so much reading on this subject since seeing your thread that im simply suffering with info overload and now i'm more confused than when i started :boom:

So i'm hoping that a conversation with you might help to clear my mind

From one modeller to another HELP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi M3talpig.  I didn't mean to trash your current project!  But the ills of Tamiya's older Shermans have been covered at length before.  For such a long-standing reputable company they are surprisingly poor and remain un-corrected.  They seemed to lose their way a little some years ago, and I note that the more recent kits are no longer produced in Japan.  Make a future note to ignore them!  However, as I noted, their 2 recent M4A3E8 kits and the related M51 are very nice and well received.  Simplified construction compared to some other brands but good detail.  Dragon responded to criticisms of their older Sherman kits by revising them.  So you need to know your release sequence with Dragon kits.  Scalemates can help here as their kit timelines show re-toolings and new parts.

 

Ideally you need a new upper hull, but if you can find an appropriate resin one that will cost you as much as the Tamiya kit.  If you realy want to make an M4 (i.e. radial engine, welded, 75mm) then Dragon is really the only show in town right now.

 

For the Tamiya M4 there is the "cover the glacis with stowage and no-one will notice" school.  There is also the "cut off the hull front and swap it for another" school. but that pre-supposes that you have a spare - and appropriate - donor Sherman kit lying around. The principal flaws are the shape and size of the driver's hoods and the antenna base.  You can hide the fronts of the drivers hoods to a large extent with the applique plates.  They're still too wide, but nothing you can do about that.  You could also round off the front vertical corners of the hoods a little more, tapering to the more rounded profile at the top used by most other plants.  But the plastic may not be thick enough for that.  The antenna base is more difficult to correct  The Minutia site shows you the different manufacturer shapes better than I can describe.  Potentially you could cut it off, modify it and re-fit.  Unfortunately this part is always moulded integrally with the glacis so you don't get spare or optional ones in kits.

 

Hope some of that helps.  Modelling Shermans accurately is a real nightmare.  Years ago we didn't really care too much.  But now we do.  I don't count myself as a river counter, but I do like things to be accurate - if that isn't a contradiction.

 

The Sherman.  Built in 11 places.  2 completely different suspension types in 4 variations.  2 track types with about 8 variations.  2 different turrets, each in several variations.  3 different guns (as built).  2 distinct generations of hull types, each in cast and fabricated types with 2 lengths of fabricated plus 2 lengths of combination cast/fabricated.  5 different engines.  And a zillion variations of piece parts and factory variations.  49,200-odd built in 3 1/2 years.  But all still Shermans.............

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Das Abteilung said:

I don't count myself as a river counter, but I do like things to be accurate - if that isn't a contradiction.

It isn't... If you want things accurate great. Only if you tried to force others, or attacked there builds because it wasnt 100% accurate. Only then would you be considered a rivet counter. Keep it up I'm learning about fireflies and Sherman's. Someday I’ll build a Firefly. 

Edited by Corsairfoxfouruncle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Das Abteilung said:

Hope some of that helps.  Modelling Shermans accurately is a real nightmare.  Years ago we didn't really care too much.  But now we do.  I don't count myself as a river counter, but I do like things to be accurate - if that isn't a contradiction.

It certainly does and as long as you have no objection i might hit you up for advice while i scratch build the necessary parts for the corrections....and thanks for the thread without it i probably would never have realised just what a complicated task it could be to do a Sherman (Tigers are my strong point Shermans not so much ) but as i love the history of these vehicles i plan on doing the knowledge so to speak.

So checklist is -

re-do driver and co-driver hatches for rounded castings 

re-make antenna base

re-do weld beads to match new layout

Already did the bogies to earlier spec (not upswept idler wheels)plus the missing bolt and nut detail as that's one thing i did notice but still need to add casting marks on the bogie bodies.

and casting marks and serials

is there anything else you can think of?

 

spacer.png

 

Edit ....having looked into it further looks like i will be doing the mods for a mid-late ALCO built Sherman as this will mean some fairly heavy but manageable modding but will hopefully result in a reasonably accurate Sherman.

Sorry for hijacking your thread and thank you again for your help

Edited by M3talpig
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That list sounds about right for what can be done with the kit parts.  The other things you mention all sound good too.  See, your Sherman-fu is coming along nicely, Grasshopper! 

 

I'm just picking it up as I go along too.  I have a lot of Shermans in my stash, although few of them will be factory-spec.  Most are post-war user upgrades.  Then life gets really interesting when you factor in US MDAP rebuilds sold to France then sold on to Israel to torture inro various FrankenShermans and then sold again to Chile, who did more stuff to them.  And then your head explodes..................  Post war Shermans are real nightmare territory.  Remind me why I chose to model some................

 

I find it useful to make notes about what changed when for different models and factories and the various visible differences to get a baseline.  Dragon in particular usually provide optional or redundant parts.

  • Thanks 2
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...