I'll be using the radio box and hull-gunners plate from Dragon, Jordi barrel, transmission cover from the spares box and the Tamiya M4 early. The loaders hatch can be scratchbuilt easily enough.
This tank was photographed in Holland in 1944.
Hosted by Darren Baker
A future project - Sherman 1c
DaveCox
Joined: January 11, 2003
KitMaker: 4,307 posts
Armorama: 2,130 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 12:19 PM UTC
Another rare Sherman - welded, not hybrid, hull Sherman 1c of the Fort Garry Horse. Note the one-piece transmission cover, unusual for an M4?
I'll be using the radio box and hull-gunners plate from Dragon, Jordi barrel, transmission cover from the spares box and the Tamiya M4 early. The loaders hatch can be scratchbuilt easily enough.
This tank was photographed in Holland in 1944.
I'll be using the radio box and hull-gunners plate from Dragon, Jordi barrel, transmission cover from the spares box and the Tamiya M4 early. The loaders hatch can be scratchbuilt easily enough.
This tank was photographed in Holland in 1944.
Hollowpoint
Joined: January 24, 2002
KitMaker: 2,748 posts
Armorama: 1,797 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 12:29 PM UTC
Go for it, Dave!
It looks like that final drive housing is also a later "sharp nose" one-piece instead of an earlier "round nose."
I might build this tank as well ... not for a while, though. Too many projects to finish before starting another.
Have any more details about this tank ... or other pics?
It looks like that final drive housing is also a later "sharp nose" one-piece instead of an earlier "round nose."
I might build this tank as well ... not for a while, though. Too many projects to finish before starting another.
Have any more details about this tank ... or other pics?
generalzod
Joined: December 01, 2001
KitMaker: 3,172 posts
Armorama: 2,495 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 12:38 PM UTC
Nice pic Dave Where did you find this at?
DaveCox
Joined: January 11, 2003
KitMaker: 4,307 posts
Armorama: 2,130 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 12:50 PM UTC
My main source of information for all things Canadian:
http://www.mapleleafup.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3452
http://www.mapleleafup.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3452
KurtLaughlin
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 12:57 PM UTC
Quoted Text
It looks like that final drive housing is also a later "sharp nose" one-piece instead of an earlier "round nose."
Correct. The E8543 double band brake housings are the only ones with steps and double tow lugs.
Judging by the rounded fronts of the driver's bulges this is probably a direct vision tank. Note also that it has the fabricated glacis antenna socket, not a casting.
One piece covers are not unusual on early tanks. I have a picture of an M4 direct vision with M3 bogies and the E4186 housing in factory acceptance or proving ground tests (i.e., not a modified vehicle).
KL
RotorHead67
Joined: May 07, 2003
KitMaker: 1,174 posts
Armorama: 772 posts
Posted: Monday, April 18, 2005 - 03:40 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Another rare Sherman - welded, not hybrid, hull Sherman 1c of the Fort Garry Horse. Note the one-piece transmission cover, unusual for an M4?
I'll be using the radio box and hull-gunners plate from Dragon, Jordi barrel, transmission cover from the spares box and the Tamiya M4 early. The loaders hatch can be scratchbuilt easily enough.
This tank was photographed in Holland in 1944.
DAVE,
Just curious? What makes you so sure it's an
Firefly 1C and not a VC or 3C? we cant see the engine deck. I agrre no cast or welded hoods, but it could be an late M4A3 hull as well. Todd
DaveCox
Joined: January 11, 2003
KitMaker: 4,307 posts
Armorama: 2,130 posts
Posted: Monday, April 18, 2005 - 05:14 PM UTC
[quoteDAVE,
Just curious? What makes you so sure it's an
Firefly 1C and not a VC or 3C? we cant see the engine deck. I agrre no cast or welded hoods, but it could be an late M4A3 hull as well. Todd[/quote]
Because the guys on Maple Leaf Up, who include Canadian military historians and researchers, have positively identified the unit and vehicle. The original photographer took multiple pictures including from the rear, which means that the type can be positively identified. We even know when and where the photo was taken. In WW2 allied service it would have to be 1c or Vc, the '3c' or M4A2 17pdr wasn't actually built so far as I know. All Sherman Vc (M4A4 base) were fitted with the three-piece transmission housing as well, so that tends (so far as is documented) to rule out that possibility.
Just curious? What makes you so sure it's an
Firefly 1C and not a VC or 3C? we cant see the engine deck. I agrre no cast or welded hoods, but it could be an late M4A3 hull as well. Todd[/quote]
Because the guys on Maple Leaf Up, who include Canadian military historians and researchers, have positively identified the unit and vehicle. The original photographer took multiple pictures including from the rear, which means that the type can be positively identified. We even know when and where the photo was taken. In WW2 allied service it would have to be 1c or Vc, the '3c' or M4A2 17pdr wasn't actually built so far as I know. All Sherman Vc (M4A4 base) were fitted with the three-piece transmission housing as well, so that tends (so far as is documented) to rule out that possibility.
tankmodeler
#417
Joined: March 01, 2004
KitMaker: 3,123 posts
Armorama: 2,539 posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 05:31 AM UTC
Quoted Text
but it could be an late M4A3 hull as well. Todd
There were no Fireflys built on M4A3 hulls that ever saw service. Apparently there were a very few built, strictly for American use, but they were not issued.
thebear
Joined: November 15, 2002
KitMaker: 3,960 posts
Armorama: 3,579 posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 05:45 AM UTC
Dave the rounded shape of the drivers hatch behind the appliqued armor looks to me like this is a Direct vision hull ...Looks like a fun conversion coming up..I look forward to it.
Rick
Rick
DaveCox
Joined: January 11, 2003
KitMaker: 4,307 posts
Armorama: 2,130 posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 06:16 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Dave the rounded shape of the drivers hatch behind the appliqued armor looks to me like this is a Direct vision hull ...Looks like a fun conversion coming up..I look forward to it.
Rick
Actually Rick, Todd picked up on an old thread - the model is completed and is one of my Canuck Steel entries.
thebear
Joined: November 15, 2002
KitMaker: 3,960 posts
Armorama: 3,579 posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 09:09 AM UTC
D'OH! 
Rick
Rick
RotorHead67
Joined: May 07, 2003
KitMaker: 1,174 posts
Armorama: 772 posts
Posted: Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 09:17 AM UTC
Quoted Text
[quoteDAVE,
Because the guys on Maple Leaf Up, who include Canadian military historians and researchers, have positively identified the unit and vehicle. The original photographer took multiple pictures including from the rear, which means that the type can be positively identified. We even know when and where the photo was taken. In WW2 allied service it would have to be 1c or Vc, the '3c' or M4A2 17pdr wasn't actually built so far as I know. All Sherman Vc (M4A4 base) were fitted with the three-piece transmission housing as well, so that tends (so far as is documented) to rule out that possibility.
Dave, Thanks for setting me straight . I knew I could count on your input. I have such a hard time w/ SO MANY different Shermans, its hard to keep track.
Now if you could just resolve my other Firefly Dilema
LOL Todd
RotorHead67
Joined: May 07, 2003
KitMaker: 1,174 posts
Armorama: 772 posts
Posted: Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 09:17 AM UTC
Quoted Text
[quoteDAVE,
Because the guys on Maple Leaf Up, who include Canadian military historians and researchers, have positively identified the unit and vehicle. The original photographer took multiple pictures including from the rear, which means that the type can be positively identified. We even know when and where the photo was taken. In WW2 allied service it would have to be 1c or Vc, the '3c' or M4A2 17pdr wasn't actually built so far as I know. All Sherman Vc (M4A4 base) were fitted with the three-piece transmission housing as well, so that tends (so far as is documented) to rule out that possibility.
Dave, Thanks for setting me straight . I knew I could count on your input. I have such a hard time w/ SO MANY different Shermans, its hard to keep track.
Now if you could just resolve my other Firefly Dilema
LOL Todd
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.