Sherman II - Dragon and Asuka - 1/35

[Nenad Ilijic]

Hi guys,

 

Starting WIP thread after quite some time. Struggling to make some time to do any modeling so its hard to squize writing WIP as well, although I enjoy doing it, and even more, following other people's WIP threads.

 

Anyway, it's Dragon kit No. 6447. Looks nice at first glance. The only concern are DS tracks. I hate them, not as much as vinyl but still. However, this one looks very nicely molded and surprisingly, they arrived undamaged, so I'll probably go with them.

 

 

PE fenders looks like something that might be a bit of a trouble and they arrived damaged a bit.

 

 

Initially, I planed to build it as 9th Lancers T-145063. This one:

 

 

I like this neatly applied camouflage and it's also a very nice reference photo. However, there is a problem. This tank is Lima built one, while Dragon provides PSC one in the kit. So I'll have to look further. I would like to avoid converting it to Lima one because Dragon provides very nicely molded riveted lower hull and it would be shame to shave it.

 

There are quite a few confirmed PSC built tanks photographed around Alamein period, but unfortunately, all of the photos I found for which I am 100% sure that it is PSC built tank are missing census number, making it impossible to identify them. So at the end I will probably have to choose between two tanks that are likely PSC built but I can not be 100% sure.

 

First one is T-145045, belonging to 9th Lancers. More likely it's Lima built, but there is a chance it is PSC built. It's missing additional cable clamp and it has rounded fabricated grouser cover typical to PSC built tanks (according to SoS).

 

 

Other option is T-146029 of the HQ of 2nd AB. It is more likely it is PSC built (no tail light guard, not additional clamp).

 

 

Although, I would rather like to go with the official scheme applied by 9th Lancers.

 

There is a third one which is also identified as PSC, and it is this one:

 

 

It is identified as T-74418, which is listed in the 24th Armored Brigade's War Diary in late October (45th RTR), according to Sherman Minutia website.

However, I was not able to find any reference photo after it was assigned to its unit and after desert camouflage was applied and I have no idea what was typical camouflage of 45th RTR in order to improvise.

 

Anyway, I'll probably go with T-145045 and consider it PSC built, but I would like to here from you guys what do you think.

 

More to come probably over the weekend. 

 

Cheers,

Nenad

 

[Bullbasket]

I'm not 100% certain, and if I'm wrong then someone can point it out, but I think that Dragon possibly got their box art slightly wrong. I think that the colour inside the circle on the turret should be the sand colour, and not the green. You can see it in the photo of the 9thLancers tank that you posted. I built this tank a few years ago, but I used the Tasca kit. It's a lovely kit.

 

John.

[Nenad Ilijic]

On 1/8/2021 at 4:00 PM, Bullbasket said:

I'm not 100% certain, and if I'm wrong then someone can point it out, but I think that Dragon possibly got their box art slightly wrong. I think that the colour inside the circle on the turret should be the sand colour, and not the green. You can see it in the photo of the 9thLancers tank that you posted. I built this tank a few years ago, but I used the Tasca kit. It's a lovely kit.

 

John.

Thanks for pointing out John. I am quite sure you are right. It's the same on other 9th Lancers photos, so I guess it was intentional.

 

In the meantime, I found a scene from Desert Victory movie that might be a PSC built Sherman II belonging to 24th AB. Unfortunately, census number is not completely visible (just partially), but at least I have some hint how 24th AB tanks were painted (it was quite standard scheme, similar to 9th Lancers), so I might go for T-74418 after all as it's confirmed PSC and improvise. I'll do some more research, currently going through war diaries.

 

Here's the screenshot:

 

 

[Kingsman]

Hello on a different forum, Nenad.  Nice to see you here on Britmodeller.  We discussed these Shermans and Lima vs PSC recently on another forum.

 

Your photo above of a 24AB tank probably belongs to 47RTR if I read the precedence of 24AB correctly.  86 is the 3rd senior Regiment in the Brigade, which was 47RTR with 45RTR and 41RTR (later 2nd Royal Gloucestershire Hussars) above them in seniority.  The 86 is on red.

 

You can't see the Brigade marking on the opposite fender but, as I'm sure you know, it was an all-blue diablo. That being said, former 8AD vehicles have been observed still displaying the 8AD "Go" marking.  8AD never operated as a complete formation and was broken up to support other formations.  24AB was part of 8AD but was detached to form the core of an all-arms Brigade Group, 24BG, so I suspect that the Brigade  marking was adopted for that formation.  For Alamein, 24BG was attached to 10AD.  In theory the 10AD marking should have been adopted, but with so much swapping around of Regiments and Brigades in the desert unit markings were not always changed quickly or at all, especially if the detachment/attachment was known to be temporary.

[Nenad Ilijic]

Hello guys,

 

Finding out photos of PSC built Sherman IIs that participated in El Alamein battle turned out to be quite a journey. While there are quite a few photos of PSC built Sherman IIs, problem is, on most of them it is not possible to identify the tank (census number and unit). In addition, I wanted to find one with the official camouflage for the period, which made this task even harder. I found some additional photos of 9th Lancers, including my first choice T-145045, taken from the rear and I can now confirm that this is also Lima built tank (there's tail light guard visible). So that option is out. I'll summarize here conclusion regarding marking options offered by Dragon in case someone needs it.

1. T-145045, 9th Lancers - definitely Lima built
2. T-145063, 9th Lancers - definitely Lima built
3. T-145050 'DUNDEE', HQ 24AB - I have no idea, couldn't find any photo of it
4. T-145050 'DUNDEE', 9th Lancers - seams that this tank was transferred from 24AB to 9L, which makes sense because at least 5 remaining Shermans were transferred to 9L after Snipe attack.
5. T-146029, 2AB HQ, the one with funny camouflage - quite sure it's PSC
6. T-144905, 'C' sqd, 3rd Hussars, most likely PSC. Also, there's T-144975 from 'B' sqd that is definitely PSC, so there were PSC built tanks assigned to 3H
7. T-144058 'MARYLAND', Warwickshire Yeomanry, definitely Lima. This one is shrouded in mystery, there is a photo of this thank, but it is not mentioned in any WY listings 
8. T-144895, 3RTR, one with a sloppy camouflage, I think it's PSC, looks like there's no tail light guard
9. T-145080, 10th Hussars, I was not able to find any photo of it.

Here are some conclusions how to determine is it PSC or Lima tank. This only applies to Sherman IIs delivered before 2nd battle of Alamein.

1. If lower hull has rivets, it's definitely PSC. Good luck spotting them though
2. If there is angled transition on the lower part of the rear plate, its PSC. Also hard to spot.
3. If there's no tail light guard, it's PSC (PSC started adding tail light guard in October 1942)
4. If there's no additional cable clamp above last boogie, it's PSC. Sometimes, bags and other stowage items are hanging from this additional clamp, so it is also an indicator it might be there.
5. Grousers. Now this is a bit confusing. Generally speaking, it is not a definitive discriminator, but on all of the photos I had, triangular grouser means PSC, rounded means Lima.

If you decide to convert this kit to Lima one, you should do the following:

1. Remove rivets from the lower hull.
2. Add an additional cable clamp.
3. Change angled lower transition of the rear armor plate to angled one.
4. Add Lima specific tail light guards.

Although I couldn't convince myself to do that because of the really nicely molded riveted lower hull).

 

There might be some other details, especially on the rear amour plate, just check differences between Lima and PSC on Sherman Minutia website.

 

I also did some building

 

Lower hull is basically finished. I fits like a charm. Suspension is just partially glued together. I prefer to paint the roadwheels separately.

 

 

 

 

My only concerns are these front towing shackles. They does not look right to me? At least compared to all of the photo references I have:

 

 

They should be just normal straight ones. Are this some later version?

 

A also ordered Asuka 50 cal AA gun (not included in Dragon kit) and some Miniart stowage. 

 

Cheers,

Nenad

 

 

[M3talpig]

Nenad ...forgive me as i have a very limited knowledge on Sherman's ...but are those air filters on upside down.are they supposed to be ?

[Kingsman]

Yes the air filters are on upside down!!

 

At last, a Dragon kit that has the vertical bolts at the front of the lower hull securing the FDA!

 

The tow shackles should be smaller U shaped ones.  The side pieces of the FDA were one-piece castings, so the join seams around the final drive bulges need to be filled and smoothed in.  Likewise the mould seams around the filler plugs.  These 3 FDA pieces should all have prominent casting marks and numbers on their top edges, as should many other cast parts.  I recommend a pack of the Archer 3D resin-printed casting mark decals.  Congrats on leaving the seam on the bolt flanges.  All too often these are removed by people when they were actually very noticeable.

 

I can see vertical gaps in the bogie brackets below the return rollers.  These should not be there.  Do the bogie wheels, idler and sprocket line up or are the bogies slightly too far out?

 

Asuka give different ammo box options for their M2.  You need the small 50rd one with the X shaped reinforcing ribs for this time period.

[Nenad Ilijic]

6 hours ago, M3talpig said:

Nenad ...forgive me as i have a very limited knowledge on Sherman's ...but are those air filters on upside down.are they supposed to be ?

 

Damn, you are right! 

Thanks for pointing out. 

 

[Nenad Ilijic]

5 hours ago, Das Abteilung said:

Yes the air filters are on upside down!!

 

At last, a Dragon kit that has the vertical bolts at the front of the lower hull securing the FDA!

 

The tow shackles should be smaller U shaped ones.  The side pieces of the FDA were one-piece castings, so the join seams around the final drive bulges need to be filled and smoothed in.  Likewise the mould seams around the filler plugs.  These 3 FDA pieces should all have prominent casting marks and numbers on their top edges, as should many other cast parts.  I recommend a pack of the Archer 3D resin-printed casting mark decals.  Congrats on leaving the seam on the bolt flanges.  All too often these are removed by people when they were actually very noticeable.

 

I can see vertical gaps in the bogie brackets below the return rollers.  These should not be there.  Do the bogie wheels, idler and sprocket line up or are the bogies slightly too far out?

 

Asuka give different ammo box options for their M2.  You need the small 50rd one with the X shaped reinforcing ribs for this time period.

 

Thanks for the suggestions Peter.

 

Do you have any suggestion for AM tow shackles?

 

Outer FDA pieces do have casting marks, but the inner one does not. Strange.

 

Bogie wheels, idler and sprocket line up perfectly. The gap there is because I didn't glue it yet. I just put it together to take a photo. I prefer painting the wheels separately, so I'll glue it later.

 

Bought this M2 set: https://www.amazon.com/Browning-machine-rocking-35-L24-japan/dp/B002TYZV7M

Is this correct one?

 

Best,

Nenad

[Kingsman]

Yes that's the M2.  Use the ammo box shown in those photos. not any other type provided.  The early ones had that small 50rd box fixed to the mount.  The rack for the detachable 150rd box came later: 50rds was only a 5 second burst.

 

I didn't see the marks in the photos.  The position of marks varied from foundry to foundry and they were not always visible: underneath.  They were generally only relevant to manufacture, not use.  Centre sections without visible marks are actually more common than I might have suggested so you could leave it blank.  The most common visible position was top right corner (as seen from the front) but vertical, not horizontal.  But every casting had a foundry mark, missing from most kits.  So the Archer decals might still be needed.  You don't find them in kits on ventilator covers, pistol ports, turrets and other places.  The M4A1 had many parts cast in that were separate welded-on castings on fabricated hulls.  Like drivers' hoods, glacis sections, splash rails.  So they actually had less casting marks than the fabricated types.

 

I'm used to Dragon M4 kits having different tow shackles provided.  Are there any U ones on other sprues?  If not, Tiger Model Designs have 4 resin M4 tow shackle sets but they are not easy to find in Europe and shipping from the USA makes them very expensive.  However, you may be in luck.  Modellbau Koenig in Germany are one of the few places that stock TMD and they are showing stock of the large and small types, but not the medium, at €5.75 a set.  They also have the TMD M4 hull detail set and other bits you might find useful.  Look under New TMD in their brand list.  The Aber and RB brass shackles are certainly all too large.

 

If you don't like the flexible tracks you will find some alternative tracks at MBK too.  I would go for the Bronco T51s, but these are out of stock.  The MiniArt T41s will work and they have those: cheaper too.  You could get away with WE210s.

 

BTW - a rounded lower hull transition could also be PCF.

Edited January 14, 2021 by Das Abteilung
correction

[Bullbasket]

Have a look here; http://shermantracks.com/catalog/worn_western_t51.html

 

John.

[M3talpig]

1 hour ago, Bullbasket said:

Have a look here; http://shermantracks.com/catalog/worn_western_t51.html

I did wonder how long it would take for you to casually drop a Panda into this thread 

[Bullbasket]

14 minutes ago, M3talpig said:

I did wonder how long it would take for you to casually drop a Panda into this thread 

Gotta earn my freebies somehow.

[Nenad Ilijic]

On 1/14/2021 at 3:18 PM, Das Abteilung said:

Yes that's the M2.  Use the ammo box shown in those photos. not any other type provided.  The early ones had that small 50rd box fixed to the mount.  The rack for the detachable 150rd box came later: 50rds was only a 5 second burst.

 

I didn't see the marks in the photos.  The position of marks varied from foundry to foundry and they were not always visible: underneath.  They were generally only relevant to manufacture, not use.  Centre sections without visible marks are actually more common than I might have suggested so you could leave it blank.  The most common visible position was top right corner (as seen from the front) but vertical, not horizontal.  But every casting had a foundry mark, missing from most kits.  So the Archer decals might still be needed.  You don't find them in kits on ventilator covers, pistol ports, turrets and other places.  The M4A1 had many parts cast in that were separate welded-on castings on fabricated hulls.  Like drivers' hoods, glacis sections, splash rails.  So they actually had less casting marks than the fabricated types.

 

I'm used to Dragon M4 kits having different tow shackles provided.  Are there any U ones on other sprues?  If not, Tiger Model Designs have 4 resin M4 tow shackle sets but they are not easy to find in Europe and shipping from the USA makes them very expensive.  However, you may be in luck.  Modellbau Koenig in Germany are one of the few places that stock TMD and they are showing stock of the large and small types, but not the medium, at €5.75 a set.  They also have the TMD M4 hull detail set and other bits you might find useful.  Look under New TMD in their brand list.  The Aber and RB brass shackles are certainly all too large.

 

If you don't like the flexible tracks you will find some alternative tracks at MBK too.  I would go for the Bronco T51s, but these are out of stock.  The MiniArt T41s will work and they have those: cheaper too.  You could get away with WE210s.

 

BTW - a rounded lower hull transition could also be PCF.

 

Here are foundry markings on FDA.

 

 

There is just one more pair of shackles, but these are rear towing shackles, and they are U shaped. I was ordering before from TMD, from their website and it takes 2 months or more to get your order, so I'll try to avoid doing that again. Will check MBK and other supplier's I am usually ordering from.

 

I hate flexible tracks. For many reasons, lack of details, they usually arrive broken, it so painful to paint them... but these looks quite nice, and they are whole, so I'll give them a try. Should I use T41 or T51 for this build btw?

 

Cheers,

Nenad

[Nenad Ilijic]

On 1/14/2021 at 3:48 PM, Bullbasket said:

Have a look here; http://shermantracks.com/catalog/worn_western_t51.html

 

John.

 

These look nice! Never heard of them though and website looks a bit scary

Are they good?

 

Nenad

 

[Kingsman]

Those casting numbers are going to make it hard to deal with the bulge joins.  Although Dragon provide the top edge bolt strip separately it was an integral part of the final drive cover: no join.

 

The only visible difference between 41 and 51 is the pad thickness. 51s were thicker and reversible,  Both are plain rubber block.  In 1/35 scale it makes no visible difference.

 

If the tracks in that kit are the sandy coloured DS ones (I should know as I have one down in my stash) then I would advise not using them.  Over time they have gained a bad reputation for crumbling, cracking, breaking and paint flaking.  No-one really knows why, although theories abound.  But Dragon have since dropped DS tracks in favour of injection link and length - with a price hike of course for the "Neo" versions.  Which is why many Dragon kits are not currently available.  But they still use DS for other things like mantlet covers and stowage items.  Which might yet come back to bite them because the material clearly has a problem.  I have no plans to use any DS parts on any kit.

 

I've seen the Panda tracks and as a personal preference I don't like them.  In fact I don't like any of the brands which have tiny short pins either on the ends of the blocks or on the end connectors (the latter might be unique to MiniArt).  Why? Because these are very liable to snap or twist off and cannot be flexibly repaired, defeating the object of flexible tracks - which IMHO are far easier to paint and fit to the model than glued-up indy links or link and length.  The advantage of the Bronco design is that the pins go all the way through from side to side and are joined at the ends in pairs.  The end connector guide horns attach to the end tabs.  This makes them very much stronger and far less likely to jam - as long as you're careful with the glue for the inner and outer faces.  Masterclub VVSS tracks have full-width pins too but individual, and then you have to glue the end connectors to them.  And each link is still in 2 pieces.

 

For HVSS tracks, the RFM ones likewise have all-through pins in pairs with end connectors and the inner and outer faces clip together with no glue.  I now have a set of these for each of my HVSS tanks.

Edited January 16, 2021 by Das Abteilung
badd spelllng........!

[Bullbasket]

14 hours ago, Nenad Ilijic said:

 

These look nice! Never heard of them though and website looks a bit scary

Are they good?

 

Nenad

 

Yes! Despite what has been said, they are, IMO, the easiest tracks to assemble. They're not the workable type, which suits me fine. Panda do a jig to make it easier to assemble, but I made my own from strips of card. Give me a couple of hours, and I'll find the thread on BM where I explained exactly how to make the jig and how to use it. Believe me, it couldn't be simpler. And they look good when finished.

 

John.

[Bullbasket]

Here you go Nenad. 

If you scroll down, you'll see some photos of the jigs that I made in use. If you are interested, I could give a breakdown on how I built them. There are no pins involved with these tracks. The end connectors just push onto the track ends, and they remain semi workable until you apply glue, meaning that you can position them on the running gear easier.

HTH's.

 

John.

[Cerberus]

Following along, I love these early cast hull Shermans, and yes the towing shackles should be the early U shape as others have pointed out, they will probably be on one of the sprues somewhere 😉 

[JackG]

Just a question about the AoS marking containing 86, the statement was made that it represents the third regiment - is that just a peculiarity with 24AB?  

 

The chart laid out here has that number as the middle regiment, while 74 is the junior: https://tank-markings.blogspot.com/p/middle-east-armoured-divisions.html

Illustrations in both The New Breed and Codename Swallow, also follow the above linked chart.

 

regards,

Jack

Edited January 18, 2021 by JackG

[Nenad Ilijic]

Hello guys,

 

Struggling to find a tank that can be identified as PSC built and that has standard camouflage scheme, with census number visible, I did what I am sure everyone would do. I ordered another kit! 😀🤔

 

Perfect excuse?

 

So I'm going to build this one as PSC, and Asuka one I ordered as LLW, probably 9L, the one I wanted to build in the first place. It will have to be converted though, because it is also PSC one (or more precisely mix of PSC and LLW), but it will be interesting to compare Dragon and Asuka kits.

 

Anyway I think I am getting fond of these early cast hull Shermans 

 

This one will probably be 3rd Hussars one. This one:

 

 

The other option being the 2AB HQ one (famous photo with a Jeep, with funny camouflage), but after reading regimental histories and war diaries, I was quite fascinated buy what the guys from 3H did, so I'll probably go with it. It will be a challenge to make this one interesting, being so plainly painted, but lets see. This photo was taken sometime before or after the battle, I will make it battle ready, with full stowage, etc.

 

I made some progress over the weekend.

 

 

Upper hull is mostly complete. There are two options for light guards, PE and plastic one. I decided to go with a plastic one. PE is too thin in my opinion. Plastic is maybe too thick, but a bit better I would say. There is some more sanding to be done, and grouser armor is missing, because I didn't decide yet for sure which subject I am building. I'll add them later.

 

 

Filling many joints with Mr. Dissolved Putty. My best friend for this type of job, I love it.

 

 

Oh yeah, inverted air filters, they are OK now I hope.

 

 

Will start building turret next. Not sure which gun barrel to choose? Not sure what am I seeing on the photos?

 

 

That's all for now. Thanks for watching.

 

Cheers,

Nenad

 

[Nenad Ilijic]

On 1/16/2021 at 10:39 AM, Bullbasket said:

Here you go Nenad. 

If you scroll down, you'll see some photos of the jigs that I made in use. If you are interested, I could give a breakdown on how I built them. There are no pins involved with these tracks. The end connectors just push onto the track ends, and they remain semi workable until you apply glue, meaning that you can position them on the running gear easier.

HTH's.

 

John.

 

Thank you John. I'll probably order a set to try them. I'll PM you if I need some help with the jigs.

[Nenad Ilijic]

On 1/15/2021 at 9:43 PM, Das Abteilung said:

Those casting numbers are going to make it hard to deal with the bulge joins.  Although Dragon provide the top edge bolt strip separately it was an integral part of the final drive cover: no join.

 

The only visible difference between 41 and 51 is the pad thickness. 51s were thicker and reversible,  Both are plain rubber block.  In 1/35 scale it makes no visible difference.

 

If the tracks in that kit are the sandy coloured DS ones (I should know as I have one down in my stash) then I would advise not using them.  Over time they have gained a bad reputation for crumbling, cracking, breaking and paint flaking.  No-one really knows why, although theories abound.  But Dragon have since dropped DS tracks in favour of injection link and length - with a price hike of course for the "Neo" versions.  Which is why many Dragon kits are not currently available.  But they still use DS for other things like mantlet covers and stowage items.  Which might yet come back to bite them because the material clearly has a problem.  I have no plans to use any DS parts on any kit.

 

I've seen the Panda tracks and as a personal preference I don't like them.  In fact I don't like any of the brands which have tiny short pins either on the ends of the blocks or on the end connectors (the latter might be unique to MiniArt).  Why? Because these are very liable to snap or twist off and cannot be flexibly repaired, defeating the object of flexible tracks - which IMHO are far easier to paint and fit to the model than glued-up indy links or link and length.  The advantage of the Bronco design is that the pins go all the way through from side to side and are joined at the ends in pairs.  The end connector guide horns attach to the end tabs.  This makes them very much stronger and far less likely to jam - as long as you're careful with the glue for the inner and outer faces.  Masterclub VVSS tracks have full-width pins too but individual, and then you have to glue the end connectors to them.  And each link is still in 2 pieces.

 

For HVSS tracks, the RFM ones likewise have all-through pins in pairs with end connectors and the inner and outer faces clip together with no glue.  I now have a set of these for each of my HVSS tanks.

 

DS tracks worked only once for me. I have no idea why. I was very surprised that there was no flaking this time (usually there is). I think it helped I didn't use primer.

Usually I don't even have a choice to use them, because they arrive broken.

[Nenad Ilijic]

8 hours ago, JackG said:

Just a question about the AoS marking containing 86, the statement was made that it represents the third regiment - is that just a peculiarity with 24AB?  

 

The chart laid out here has that number as the middle regiment, while 74 is the junior: https://tank-markings.blogspot.com/p/middle-east-armoured-divisions.html

Illustrations in both The New Breed and Codename Swallow, also follow the above linked chart.

 

regards,

Jack

 

I am quite sure that 86 universally means second (middle) regiment. In case of 24AB that would be 45RTR. But it would be great if someone else can confirm.

[Kingsman]

1 hour ago, Nenad Ilijic said:

Not sure which gun barrel to choose? Not sure what am I seeing on the photos?

Potentially they are supposed to be early and late pattern barrels.  If so, not doing a very good job of it.  The early M3 guns had a slight flare at the muzzle, whereas the later ones did not.  I can't see any flare on either of those, and I'm not aware of any after-market flared-end barrel.  But period photos suggest that the straight-taper unflared barrel was by far the most common anyway.

 

Or it might be that because of the way Dragon mix and match sprues you may just have 2 barrels.  Look at the sprue diagram on the instructions.  Parts not used in that kit are blocked out in blue.

 

I always replace plastic barrels, even 1-piece ones, with metal wherever possible.  The RB Models 75mm M3 is perfectly OK and cheap. There are others: Aber, MR Modellbau, DEF spring to mind. If you're thinking of ordering anything from MBK they should have one or other of these.

 

AOS 86.  Yes, in the desert campaign at that time 86 on red would be the 2nd senior unit in an Armd Bde.  In 29AB the senior unit changed but 45 RTR was always 2nd senior.