RMASG Centaur and Sherman, D Day

[Kingsman]

This has been a WIP here if you want to see how we got to this point.  https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235065015-rmasg-centaur-and-sherman/

 

Centaur IV and Sherman V OP tank from Left Section, G Troop, 2nd RM Armoured Support Regiment.  They came ashore on Juno Beach at 0930 but what happened to them after that is unknown, as is the case with most of the RMASG.  Although it does seem that they made it off the beach: most German seafront resistance had been quelled by about 10.00.  Names are fictitious as no G Tp names are known and only a handful of any names are known.  Only in H Tp do we know Centaur and Sherman names but their Sherman "Hussar" and 2 Centaurs were knocked out on the beach, also Juno, within about half an hour of landing at 0730.  My name choice does follow the naming convention of current or recent RN Ships and there are surprisingly few G choices.

 

Finish is intended to be just off the beach, sandy but dried out.  Some wading kit removed.  And yes, some stray hairs have got into the photos........

 

 

  

Edited December 7, 2022 by Kingsman
Correction

[Pete Robin]

Super looking models. To these old eyes they look a bit more "used" than just off the beach, but that's only my opinion. It doesn't detract from your great work one iota.

Regards

Pete

[StuartH]

Superb work 👏

Great painting and weathering...I particularly like the faded dirty look you've achieved. They make a great pair👌

Is there any record as to how useful / effective the turret markings were?

[Kingsman]

As @Pete Robin has noticed they are a little more careworn than I had intended as a result of a weathering malfunction.  It's in the WIP.

 

That being said the Shermans chosen were 2nd hand and older.  This one is early '43 production, sort of matching the Warspite photo.  And they had been on deck in a salty environment for several days including a rough passage for about half a day.  Dried salt spray.

 

In the few pictures of dry Centaurs they don't look exactly well-kept.  They would be used former training vehicles and were originally intended to have a single use for a few hours as landing craft deck guns before being re-roled to land ashore but still only with a very short intended operational life.  Although this is a later production flat-trackguard Type D when many, perhaps the majority, were earlier sloping-trackguard D's and C's.

[noelh]

I think  they're  superb. It's  the little  details that catch  eye. The way the the canvas covers overlap the numbers plus the  outline which is  obviously  sealant.

 

I'm  onside with the weathering. Not everything that arrived on the beach that day was new out of the box. 

 

One  thing, what was the significance of the numbers on the turrets? Clearly 360 but  presumably an  outside observer would  have referenced them?

 

 

Edited September 2, 2022 by noelh

[IanC]

Two great models. The Sherman is my favourite - I love the faded, weathered look on that one in particular.

[Jasper dog]

Brilliant pair, I for one like the weathered, worn look!

Particularly like the recreation of the sealant and your super work on getting the numbering down on the turret, genuinely looks painted on.

 

Superb modelling 

Darryl 

[Bullbasket]

Very nice work on both of them Peter. Given the conditions in the Channel that morning, and then making their way through the Normandy sand, it would have been like a certain material on  blanket.....some of it's gonna stick!

 

John.

[Kingsman]

Yes the black lines are supposed to be sealant.  I actually used "3D Enamel" from a craft shop.  Basically very thick paint.  Fortunately it filled the gaps around the Resicast mantlet cover which didn't fit the Asuka turret too well.

 

I toyed with flapping bits of cover around the Centaur gun but many photos show the cover removed cleanly.  The other covers on the Centaur are lead sheet.  The turret vent and driver's vision port covers have been peeled off and the periscope covers folded back.  The essential bits to operate the vehicle.

 

The turret numbers have always confused the hell out of me.  They make no sense: not to me anyway.  Circular trigonometry was never a strong point, but I can read a map and use a compass.  I have conducted MAPEX artillery shoots, and one live shoot, as an observer.  Work with me here........

 

The initial idea was to be essentially ships' deck guns.  British naval gunnery is always in Red or Green port or starboard bearings relative to the ship's head rather than on specific compass bearings.  So that would need the 0 mark at the front and probably wouldn't need to go past 90 either side assuming that the landing craft would be heading for the beach, not running parallel to it.  The Navy worked in degrees.  The OP Shermans carried a binnacle compass, presumably in degrees.

 

However the Royal Artillery and army gunnery worked in much more accurate milliradians (mils) even in WW2, and the dial sights fitted to both Centaurs and Shermans would have been graduated in mils.  6,400 mils in a full circle rather than 360 degrees, and no direct conversion (1 degree = 17.777... mils).  But painting mil markings round a turret was clearly impractical. 

 

Having 180 degrees at the front might suggest an assumption of running in to the beach heading due South.  That might make some sense but could not be assured.  The run in to Gold was pretty much due South, but Juno was more towards SSW and Sword pretty much SSW.  And the vessels would be manoeuvring, hence the naval practice of using the ship's head as the constant 0 datum.

 

Once ashore the markings would again have been useless without knowing the "tank's head" bearing.  And only the Shermans had compasses.......  Once in a battery gun position aiming stakes would have been deployed and fire control managed relative to those using the dial sights: no need for the markings.

 

Is it making no sense yet?  This came up on WW2 Talk a while ago and no-one there could explain it either.  There is really only 1 explanation that works, but it is complex.

• OP tank receives target info from an FOO, probably as a target grid or observer grid plus target bearing (mils) and range.
• GPO calculates target compass bearing (mils) and range from the LCT's estimated (and possibly moving!) position.
• Converts this to degrees, converts that bearing to offset from ship's head compass bearing (assuming all tanks are exactly aligned on deck) and passes to gun tanks to traverse turrets.
• That process would work ashore but only if the OP tank remained with the battery and all 5 tanks were together and exactly aligned on the same bearing.
• There does not seem to have been a mark on the hull top against which to align the turret markings, but it would probably just have been a white dot and hard to see in photos.  A degree (bad pun!) of precision was needed.  1 degree out at the muzzle will be 18m out at 1,000m, or about 120m out at the 95mm's max range of just over 7,000m.

My head hurts now........

 

As far as I can determine, there were no calls for fire from any of the RMASG batteries on the run in to the beaches before landing anyway.  It seems that few if any received any calls for fire once ashore either and many chose to act independently in direct fire support - as proper tanks.  As the days progressed they increasingly found and joined up with their parent batteries as artillery, but as there was a considerable range mismatch with the 25pdr with which those batteries were equipped their usefulness was limited.  They did prove useful in the counter-mortar role.

Edited September 7, 2022 by Kingsman
correction

[Pig of the Week]

These are stunning in every way 👍 I also particularly like the improvised "just welded on" square " conning tower" thing on the centaur...

Great stuff..

[StuartH]

17 hours ago, Kingsman said:

Yes the black lines are supposed to be sealant.  I actually used "3D Enamel" from a craft shop.  Basically very thick paint.  Fortunately it filled the gaps around the Resicast mantlet cover which didn't fit the Dragon turret too well.

 

I toyed with flapping bits of cover around the Centaur gun but many photos show the cover removed cleanly.  The other covers on the Centaur are lead sheet.  The turret vent and driver's vision port covers have been peeled off and the periscope covers folded back.  The essential bits to operate the vehicle.

 

The turret numbers have always confused the hell out of me.  They make no sense: not to me anyway.  Circular trigonometry was never a strong point, but I can read a map and use a compass.  I have conducted MAPEX artillery shoots, and one live shoot, as an observer.  Work with me here........

 

The initial idea was to be essentially ships' deck guns.  British naval gunnery is always in Red or Green port or starboard bearings relative to the ship's head rather than on specific compass bearings.  So that would need the 0 mark at the front and probably wouldn't need to go past 90 either side assuming that the landing craft would be heading for the beach, not running parallel to it.  The Navy worked in degrees.  The OP Shermans carried a binnacle compass, presumably in degrees.

 

However the Royal Artillery and army gunnery worked in much more accurate milliradians (mils) even in WW2, and the dial sights fitted to both Centaurs and Shermans would have been graduated in mils.  6,400 mils in a full circle rather than 360 degrees, and no direct conversion (1 degree = 17.777... mils).  But painting mil markings round a turret was clearly impractical. 

 

Having 180 degrees at the front might suggest an assumption of running in to the beach heading due South.  That might make some sense but could not be assured.  The run in to Gold was pretty much due South, but Juno was more towards SSW and Sword pretty much SSW.  And the vessels would be manoeuvring, hence the naval practice of using the ship's head as the constant 0 datum.

 

Once ashore the markings would again have been useless without knowing the "tank's head" bearing.  And only the Shermans had compasses.......  Once in a battery gun position aiming stakes would have been deployed and fire control managed relative to those using the dial sights: no need for the markings.

 

Is it making no sense yet?  This came up on WW2 Talk a while ago and no-one there could explain it either.  There is really only 1 explanation that works, but it is complex.

• OP tank receives target info from an FOO, probably as a target grid or observer grid plus target bearing (mils) and range.
• GPO calculates target compass bearing (mils) and range from the LCT's estimated (and possibly moving!) position.
• Converts this to degrees, converts that bearing to offset from ship's head compass bearing (assuming all tanks are exactly aligned on deck) and passes to gun tanks to traverse turrets.
• That process would work ashore but only if the OP tank remained with the battery and all 5 tanks were together and exactly aligned on the same bearing.
• There does not seem to have been a mark on the hull top against which to align the turret markings, but it would probably just have been a white dot and hard to see in photos.  A degree (bad pun!) of precision was needed.  1 degree out at the muzzle will be 18m out at 1,000m, or about 120m out at the 95mm's max range of just over 7,000m.

My head hurts now........

 

As far as I can determine, there were no calls for fire from any of the RMASG batteries on the run in to the beaches before landing anyway.  It seems that few if any received any calls for fire once ashore either and many chose to act independently in direct fire support - as proper tanks.  As the days progressed they increasingly found and joined up with their parent batteries as artillery, but as there was a considerable range mismatch with the 25pdr with which those batteries were equipped their usefulness was limited.  They did prove useful in the counter-mortar role.

 

And there's me thinking it would be a simple system 🤣

[SimonL]

They look great! The sealant effect is fabulous. 

[Nenad Ilijic]

Brilliant work! Numbering on a turret looks fantastic!

 

Cheers,

Nenad

[neilspen]

Fabulous work. Both look really good, particularly the Centaur. It is one of my faves. Cheers Neil

[Kingsman]

This is the product I used for the sealant.  Dovecraft 3D Enamel, acrylic I believe. I got mine from The Range ages ago thinking it might be useful for something but I imagine it is available elsewhere.  Relatively easy to use and quite controllable with the bottle nozzle but quite hard to use with a brush.  Can only be dabbed on, not brushed.  Sets quickly.

[Kingsman]

I've just noticed that the Centaur track is slacker on the right than the left.  It didn't seem that way when I fitted them with the tank on its side, but under their weight they clearly hang and sit differently the right way up.  Bugger, as we say, and damn that gravity....... 

 

Both sides have the same number of links, 125 per side with the Masterbox track which is a very tight fit between the sprocket teeth which seem to be set for a slightly longer link pitch.  And I laid them side by side when finished as well as link counting.  I might need to see if I can take a link or two out on the right.  But that begs the "why?" question.  Why would left and right be different?  Even on torsion bar suspensions with offset wheels the overall track length will still be the same.  Has anyone else noticed this on Tamiya Cromwell or Centaur, or have I just goofed again?

[Bertie McBoatface]

5 hours ago, Kingsman said:

I've just noticed that the Centaur track is slacker on the right than the left.

 

Even looking for it. I can't see any difference. 

[fittedkitchens]

Lovely. The Sherman is particularly cool in that scheme.