_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV: Allied - WWII
Armor and ground forces of the Allied forces during World War II.
Hosted by Darren Baker
Iwo Jima Sherman
Elad
Visit this Community
Tel Aviv-Yafo, Israel
Joined: June 19, 2004
KitMaker: 458 posts
Armorama: 269 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 11, 2007 - 02:32 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

I found this, another 3rd tank Bn tank

Don


Okay, now I've studied a decent resolution print of this photo in Concord's book on tank warfare in the Pacific, I'm convinced that this tank has the applique armour panels on the turret cheek (even the seam between the two plates is visible). Not only that, but the two tanks following also have a full set of hull and turret applique panels - obviously recently added as the paint doesn't match the rest of the tank.

David


can you upload the enlarged pic? if indeed the 3rd Bn. tanks on this photo have improvised cheek armor I would definetly want to add this to my Apache model also.
TankCarl
Visit this Community
Rhode Island, United States
Joined: May 10, 2002
KitMaker: 3,581 posts
Armorama: 2,782 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 11, 2007 - 04:16 AM UTC
Don,thanks for this information.I like the M32 series of retrievers.And I noticed that early picture with a LARGE HATCH M32 on the beach with the other M4s.
Do you think it was an M32B3? Built on the late M4A3 hull? And might it have been an army attached unit,since A3's were gassers,and M4A2's were diesels?
gunnytank
Visit this Community
California, United States
Joined: February 24, 2006
KitMaker: 205 posts
Armorama: 200 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 11, 2007 - 06:16 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text


Quoted Text

I found this, another 3rd tank Bn tank

Don


Okay, now I've studied a decent resolution print of this photo in Concord's book on tank warfare in the Pacific, I'm convinced that this tank has the applique armour panels on the turret cheek (even the seam between the two plates is visible). Not only that, but the two tanks following also have a full set of hull and turret applique panels - obviously recently added as the paint doesn't match the rest of the tank.

David


can you upload the enlarged pic? if indeed the 3rd Bn. tanks on this photo have improvised cheek armor I would definetly want to add this to my Apache model also.

Sorry, this is the only a picture I found on line. I don't have it any bigger. You can contact Hardcorps models and ask David Harper if he knows of any photos showing add on cheek armor to 3rd Bn tanks on Iwo. He helped me out with my M4A3 Flame tank. I looked all over the internet and in my "Marine tank battles of the Pacfic" book and could not find any USMC tanks with add on cheek armor. Without a close up I can't give you a positive yes or no.
Don
gunnytank
Visit this Community
California, United States
Joined: February 24, 2006
KitMaker: 205 posts
Armorama: 200 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 11, 2007 - 06:39 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Don,thanks for this information.I like the M32 series of retrievers.And I noticed that early picture with a LARGE HATCH M32 on the beach with the other M4s.
Do you think it was an M32B3? Built on the late M4A3 hull? And might it have been an army attached unit,since A3's were gassers,and M4A2's were diesels?


In the book "Marine Battles of the Pacific" and other sources state that the 4th and 5th Tank Bn's were re-equipped with M4A3's just before Iwo Jima, tank retrievers also. The 3rd still had M4A2's with thier tank retrievers being based on the A2's hull.
The photo with "DORIS-53" should be based on the M4A3, they are 4th Tank Bn tanks. The Academy kit has the decals for "DORIS" but it calls it a M4A2 (wrong) from some other Bn (also wrong).
NO ARMY UNITS WHERE ON IWO JIMA, until after it was declared secured. Reason behind this is a long story. Army Air Corps units moved in soon afterward and were attacked by Japanese troops that had hid out while the Marine combat troops left. They killed a bunch of pilots and ground crew before the Navy CB's, Marine Support troops and the USAAF troops killed them.
The Marines used both types of retrievers on Iwo.
Don
Drader
Visit this Community
Wales, United Kingdom
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 3,791 posts
Armorama: 2,798 posts
Posted: Monday, November 12, 2007 - 12:23 AM UTC
I may have found another example of applique armour on the turret of a 3rd battalion tank. US Marine tanks in the Second World War (Tanks Illustrated 29 published by Arms and Armour Press) has an overhead shot of one landing on Iwo Jima (probably taken while unloading from an LST) and this too appears to show something in the right place on the turret side. I'll try and get around to scanning the pictures in the next few days.

David
TankCarl
Visit this Community
Rhode Island, United States
Joined: May 10, 2002
KitMaker: 3,581 posts
Armorama: 2,782 posts
Posted: Monday, November 12, 2007 - 07:18 AM UTC
Thanks Don.
Now I will look at the chronology of IWO vs Kawajalien. If Marines were all A2 variants on Kawajalien,I will do the M32B2 depositing the Type 94 onto Killer,and a generic LARGE HATCH M32B3 just to build one.
ALBOWIE
Visit this Community
New South Wales, Australia
Joined: February 28, 2006
KitMaker: 1,605 posts
Armorama: 1,565 posts
Posted: Monday, November 12, 2007 - 03:14 PM UTC
DML have just announced what they call an M4A2 (W) with Wooden armour and T54 track with Ext EWnd Connectors. I'd say it is either a mis labelled M4A3 late 75 or an M4A2 late Dry hull. Either way it is perfect for what you want.

http://www.dragonmodelsusa.com/dmlusa/prodd.asp?pid=DRA6462

CHeers
Al
Drader
Visit this Community
Wales, United Kingdom
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 3,791 posts
Armorama: 2,798 posts
Posted: Monday, November 12, 2007 - 09:24 PM UTC
Looks like the Dragon Sherman might be worth getting for the tracks alone, never mind which version it turns out to be.

And BTW if you're modelling Killer with the Type 94, don't forget the Type 97 Te Ke parked just behind it and just visible on the edge of the photo.....

David
Elad
Visit this Community
Tel Aviv-Yafo, Israel
Joined: June 19, 2004
KitMaker: 458 posts
Armorama: 269 posts
Posted: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 10:39 AM UTC
hey,

I built 80% of the model three days after it's arrival.
what made me stop is the idler wheels which have a free allignment assembly which leaves me a bit puzzled.

the idlers have a round mounting that has two pins - one is centered and goes into the idler but the other pin is off centered and goes into the hull mountings.

logic says I should just fit the tracks and glue the idlers in a position that keeps a decent tension but is that technically correct? is the real mount spring loaded and thus the idler moves according to the terrain negotiated and the specific track tension of the tank?
Drader
Visit this Community
Wales, United Kingdom
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 3,791 posts
Armorama: 2,798 posts
Posted: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 09:02 PM UTC
Sort of - the idler is adjustable to maintain track tension, but it's locked after adjustment not spring loaded. To tension the tracks the large spanner carried on the rear deck is applied to the inner end of the idler arm here,



or if hot-linking doesn't work

http://data.primeportal.net/tanks/dan_reed/m4a3e2/m4a3e2_17_of_47.jpg

moving the idler on its eccentric axle until the track is taut. Once the idler has reached the end its travel the track has to be broken and shortened by a link and the process started over again. More jobs to fill the tanker's lives with joy.

David
Elad
Visit this Community
Tel Aviv-Yafo, Israel
Joined: June 19, 2004
KitMaker: 458 posts
Armorama: 269 posts
Posted: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 10:10 PM UTC

it actually looks centered in this shot you provided.
if I have seen it without the accompanying explanation I'd probably trim the pin and glue it right on centered to the mountin.

anyway, I'll do it like it was done in reality - I'll fit the tracks and glue it in the right angle to get optimum tension.

thanks.
 _GOTOTOP