Sherman Superthread (now including Ram too)

[SimonL]

Oh my - can of worms time!

 

As I need to wait for the sprue to arrive from Japan I’ve not started a build thread yet.
 

I’ve found some rather nice photos of Churchill coming ashore in Sicily:

 

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205204224
 

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205204225

 

 

[Kingsman]

For some reason I thought you were meaning an M4A4: you did say Sherman III.......... Ignore my M4A4 comments. 

 

From those photos you can't tell which barrel it has as the muzzle is covered and that's the bit you need to see.  Fisher and Pullman - the 2 largest builders of M4A2s - seem to have used both barrel types on DV M4A2s.  So either is probably equally correct.  Without a photo of Churchill with the muzzle cover off you will never know.  And if you model the muzzle cover in place then no-one will ever know........

 

Have you noticed that Asuka's 35017 DV Sherman III has the wrong bogies for Churchill?  Dragon's DV Sherman III 6573 has the right bogies.  It probably has a 1-piece gun barrel too.  I am surprised at Asuka still using split barrel halves: very retro.

[SimonL]

Ha - yes, that might be a way around the conundrum!

 

As for the bogies, it looks like there are two types in the box.

 

 

I thought the “straight ones” on the left were correct - or am I missing so thing?

Edited December 20, 2022 by SimonL

[Kingsman]

Yes the "flat" ones on the left.  The upswept ones on the right are too late. 

 

I was misled from the boxart thumbnails and some model photos that this Asuka kit had the M3 bogies.  There was a different edition 35L-28 with those bogies but some pictures of it online are mis-captioned as 35017.

 

I see 2 of the 3 types of track skid in that picture, "mid" and "late".  The one you really want with DV is the "early", which was a simple half-round.  Are those provided?  If not you can probably get away with the "mid" type with the flat upright front: part B23 in that picture.  They're hard to see anyway with the track in place.

[SimonL]

Sadly the kit doesn’t provide the early type of skid you describe, the instructions would actually have you use    what you have described as the “mid” style. Thanks for the advice! I will now quietly shelve this until the sprue arrives from Japan.

[Kingsman]

Despite their alleged powerful Sherman-Fu, Asuka still don't get everything right and often provide incompatible parts choices - especially for earlier configurations.  Or with mix and match sprues you think you can build a particular configuration but can't.  Their markings are often hinky too.  But they are not alone in these faults.  And with TMD sadly closing in a couple of weeks our Sherman correction and version options have almost completely disappeared.  I am hoping that their masters and current moulds might be sold on: TMD has changed hands before, when it became New TMD.  But there is no sign of that.

 

Asuka have also not cottoned-on to the subtle bogie differences between suppliers and you just get the same bogie sprues in everything.  For example, the mould line on the swept-arm set is much more appropriate to an M4A2 from either Fisher or Pullman.  Whereas the much lower mould line on the flat-arm set is very typical of anything Chrysler-built but much rarer anywhere else - although I have seen it on an M4A2.  Their flat-arm bogies always have the roller axle riser pad, which is entirely incompatible with the 1st pattern skid (which they don't give you) and barely compatible with the 2nd pattern.  Correcting that is a faff.  

 

But to change that would require a change in the way manufacturers tool bogies.  Most notably separating the roller arms from the bogie bracket and the roller axle from the bracket.  That would permit different bogie bracket configurations and all variations of roller arm.  The roller brackets themselves varied little, although some had little triangular webs inside the main reinforcing ribs.  Such changes might permit better attention to the bogie bracket front and top face holes and ribs and the 6 securing bolts usually missing from the roller arms.  Bogies are perhaps the least well understood aspect of Shermans and Sherman-based AFVs by kit manufacturers.

[Longbow]

On 12/3/2022 at 8:30 AM, Peter Browne said:

Looking for 1/35 decals for a M4A3 (105) (VVSS).  I was planning to build a USMC vehicle, but then found they didn't operate 105s during WW2.   This is using the Asuka M4A3 (76) (#35-019) and the TMD 105 Late turret.  Star is limited to HVSS in Korea, and one set (#35-991) which includes a heavily sand-bagged vehicle, possibly using the Legend set.  I don't find that appealing - I like to see my Sherman. 

 

Possibly I could use a vehicle set from 35-991, or even the decals from the Tamiya 105 kit if I could source them.  Doesn't seem to be much else around.  WW2 or Korea or post-war Middle East is OK, but an identifiable vehicle is preferable, and one that is interesting.

 

Perhaps this IDF 105?

 

Here’s an M4a3 105 on Okinawa… 

I also had photos of late war M4a3 105 VVSS in the Pacific in the Sherman Group Build thread…

 

[Peter Browne]

16 hours ago, Longbow said:

Here’s an M4a3 105 on Okinawa… 

I also had photos of late war M4a3 105 VVSS in the Pacific in the Sherman Group Build thread…

 

 

Picture is identified as 6th Marine Tank Bn, in Naga, Okinawa.  But apparently not an M4A3 105,  according to a member on MissingLynx.  Instead he suggests a early production M4A3(75)w.

 

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/missinglynx/viewtopic.php?p=1686873#p1686873

[Peter Browne]

The RFM Firefly VC has a long and short option for antenna base No. 9 (the one with conical brush guard).  Which are 'most' correct?

[Longbow]

1 hour ago, Peter Browne said:

 

Picture is identified as 6th Marine Tank Bn, in Naga, Okinawa.  But apparently not an M4A3 105,  according to a member on MissingLynx.  Instead he suggests a early production M4A3(75)w.

 

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/missinglynx/viewtopic.php?p=1686873#p1686873

Okay, that sounds right. 
I’ll try and dig up the photos I have, and PM you if I find them, to not clutter the thread. 

[John Tapsell]

The long and short options for the aerial base relate the type of commander's cupola fitted. There's a recent thread on Missing Links that explains the options.

 

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/missinglynx/radios-used-in-cromwell-mk-iv-during-wwii-t333395.html

[Peter Browne]

2 hours ago, John Tapsell said:

The long and short options for the aerial base relate the type of commander's cupola fitted. There's a recent thread on Missing Links that explains the options.

 

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/missinglynx/radios-used-in-cromwell-mk-iv-during-wwii-t333395.html

 

Thanks.  The Sherman VC doesn't have an around periscope turret, but there are still options for two different heights for the No. 9 in the RFM kit.  L30A and L30 are the different parts.  If it matters. I have used part L9 for the rubber conical base for the No. 8 antenna.

 

[John Tapsell]

The choice is yours - who's to say a particular vehicle had a 'long' aerial stem but not the ARV Cupola (or vice versa). ARV cupolas seem to have been less common on Shermans than other British types.

 

Never assume that the model companies know what they are talking about. They regularly make errors in new kits, major or minor. With rare exceptions, the model companies are not subject experts, they are production experts. They rely on the people they employ to do the research, either directly or through third parties (however good or bad those people are).

[Peter Browne]

15 hours ago, John Tapsell said:

The choice is yours - who's to say a particular vehicle had a 'long' aerial stem but not the ARV Cupola (or vice versa). ARV cupolas seem to have been less common on Shermans than other British types.

 

Never assume that the model companies know what they are talking about. They regularly make errors in new kits, major or minor. With rare exceptions, the model companies are not subject experts, they are production experts. They rely on the people they employ to do the research, either directly or through third parties (however good or bad those people are).

 

Sure, I could just make a choice, but I much rather be an informed one.

 

The question is not just long or short, but why those options for this Firefly VC are offered (on the initial assumption that RFM know what they are doing), and which were the most common etc. 

 

The Cromwell thread on ML, is interesting and pertinent in logic for antenna mounts and ARV cupolas, but not particularly relevant to this RFM Firefly VC, as this vehicle is depicted with a non-ARV cupola with no option for an ARV version.  It may well be a mistake by RFM to offer the choice, but I guess that's what I'm trying to determine.

[John Tapsell]

RFM provide both options on their sprues and therefore offer both options to the modeller. That indicates they know both types existed but not necessarily that they understand WHY both types existed.

 

I'm not familiar with the markings options provided in the RFM kit but it could be that the choice of aerial base length is predicated on the markings being used. Check your references for the specific vehicles for which the markings are supplied.

 

If you're unsure, then the default option would be the shorter aerial base because the vehicle is not fitted with an ARV cupola.

[Kingsman]

On the No19 antenna base subject, the shorter version appears to be by far the most common on Shermans.  Even the official VC Stowage Diagrams show that type.

 

No M4A4s had the factory vision cupola anyway and the British pattern seems to have been mostly if not exclusively fitted to ICs rather than VCs.

 

 

[Peter Browne]

11 hours ago, Kingsman said:

On the No19 antenna base subject, the shorter version appears to be by far the most common on Shermans.  Even the official VC Stowage Diagrams show that type.

 

No M4A4s had the factory vision cupola anyway and the British pattern seems to have been mostly if not exclusively fitted to ICs rather than VCs.

 

 

 

Thanks.  I thought that antenna base was a No. 9 (mounted on the rectangular welded platform) as opposed to the No. 8 or No. 10 bases in the protective ring (proper name?). Though I'm probably being pedantic.  All serving I assume the No. 19 WS.

 

http://www.shermanvc.org.uk/vc-wirelessic/

 

One more question, how common was the additional storage bin attached to the wireless bustle? 

 

Unfortunately Honeycutt's book doesn't have much at all on the Fireflies... 

[Peter Browne]

Looking for some detailed photos of the Sherman Firefly VC glacis MG port plug.  In particular the top part where it looks like some filling has been applied above the plug.  The best I can find is this video of the Bovington tank:

 

 

though the filling can be better seen in this image:

 

[Peter Browne]

One more question, what are the attachments next to the lifting hooks on the glacis?  AFAIK they only seem to appear on the Bovington tank.  

[Retired Bob]

1 hour ago, Peter Browne said:

One more question, what are the attachments next to the lifting hooks on the glacis?  AFAIK they only seem to appear on the Bovington tank.  

They are a part of the 'Houseboat' decoy system, along with the rectangular brackets on the hull sides they were for attaching a frame to make the tank appear as a lorry/truck from the air.  Not used during the Normandy campaign because the Allies had air supremacy. 

[Kingsman]

RFM fairly faithfully copied the Bovington tank, although that didn't stop them including some other parts - not all of which are appropriate.  That was a school tank and so is not necessarily typical of service vehicles.  I don't think I've seen the Houseboat fittings on an operational vehicle.  In any case they interfered with fitting the hull side applique plates and these were a higher priority than the disguise.  The non-inclusion of any applique in the RFM kit is a glaring oversight, although it was not entirely universal in service.  There is no sign that the Bovington tank ever had it.

 

Photos suggest that the turret stowage box was far from being universal on Fireflies, ICs or VCs.  The VC had the advantage of the hull rear stowage box, not fitted to other species.  At least not at the factory.......  I think we come back to specific vehicles or units here.

 

Does this picture of the hull MG plug help?  Installation would be no different with the applique plate fitted as that sat over the MG "bump" and did not interact with the plug. 

[Peter Browne]

@Kingsman  Thanks.  Is the plug filled at the top end?  So if using just the plug on the RFM kit, looking down to the plug from the turret,  there would be small gaps between the plug and the glacis and MG port.  Or was this all filled in with something?

[Kingsman]

The gap between the plug and the MG socket was filled with weld bead.  M4A4s were almost entirely consistent in this area as they used the same cast lower glacis panel containing the cast-in MG socket - except for a period in Apr 43 where for some reason they used the Ford-style M4A3 2-piece composite cast and plate lower glacis.  M4s varied a bit in this area and the external shape of the MG socket could be slightly different.  Baldwin used a square-edged fabricated version, for example.  The plug had to fit any Sherman selected for Firefly conversion and was adapted to fit by weld-filling rather than grinding to a close fit.  We had finally learned that excellent craftsmanship was not the right answer to building tanks in wartime!

 

Don't forget that if the welded-on MG cover beading was present - which it almost certainly would have been as Chrysler were fitting it from Oct 42 - there might be some evidence of its removal, especially if the applique plates were fitted.  However it doesn't look like the Bovington tank ever had it despite being June/July 43 production.  Maybe it was very neatly removed but I can't see evidence of a weld scar, even if it was just spot-welded.  You do very occasionally see Fireflies with the applique plates with the curved top part of the MG cover bead still in place on the plate.  But predictably the only photo I managed to find was a IC in the Osprey book.

 

You can see a bead removal scar on these 2 IC Hybrids.  Interesting PsyOps speakers too on the left.

  

 

Going back to the Blanket Box, as the turret rear box was officially called, the official stowage diagram for the VC doesn't show it.  Which suggests that any you do see were entirely unofficial.

 

Going off at a slight tangent, you do worry about some people.  Someone has has produced this masterpiece 1/16 RC "Firefly" on a large-hatch M4A3 hull and finished it in a N Africa Caunter scheme.............

 

And this is how misinformation starts.  A 1:1 scale mix-up of a Firefly barrel (or is it Comet 77mm?) on a preserved M4A1 (or is it a Grizzly?), with the wrong mantlet and still with the hull MG.  Can't see the turret rear.  I believe that "Classy Peg" was actually a US M4A3 of some sort.  Could have been done for a film, perhaps: the mantlet colour doesn't match the tank as well as it being the wrong outer outer shield for that mounting and for the barrel.

 

Which leads to kit companies doing this.......

[Bullbasket]

Ah, yes. The Firefly llc. If memory serves me right, buried somewhere in my files, I have an article from the 70s from Military Modelling, on building one of these. I'll have to see if I can find it.

 

John.

[Peter Browne]

That last photo reminds me of seeing a photo of a Firefly VC, I think it was in Belgium, in the last two days, which was fitted with a 75mm.  I will have to 're-find' it and post.  

 

Crikey, it's 8:30am and already 28C....it will hit at least 38C today, so better get to that dog walk.