_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV: Allied - WWII
Armor and ground forces of the Allied forces during World War II.
Hosted by Darren Baker
M4 Sherman Normandy appraisal
HONEYCUT
Visit this Community
Victoria, Australia
Joined: May 07, 2003
KitMaker: 4,002 posts
Armorama: 2,947 posts
Posted: Monday, March 02, 2009 - 01:50 AM UTC
Hi there I was killing time in the local hobby shop when the above DML kit made it's way into my car...
Well I thought I'd post some quickfire Yays and nays on the kit based on a glimpse at the instructions and sprues...
Firstly I'll preface this by saying it is probably the most eagerly awaited kit for me in years...
PROS~
PE looks to cover relevant parts including tiedowns and accurate mesh cover for grouser vent covers
(These vent covers have the support pin included which although will be mostly obscured once the mesh is installed is still a nice touch.)
`Brilliant periscope guards in plastic; nearly half as thin as the previous attempts and look superb.
`Drivers hoods appear quite good/accurate
`Hull weld seams and radio pot look good
`Choice of three final drive housings (noses).
`Applique armour looks to be right size and shape...

CONS~
`Instructions. As per usual. Vague at times. eg. arrow points to side of tank where applique armour plate is to be glued, with no guidance for accurate placement at all.
`Decals~ Two choices, and not the best rendering of 'Joe Peckerwood' I've ever seen... Why couldn't they throw in some generic 2nd or 3rd AD markings?...
`The newly added tank commanders sight has been made backwards! The top half should have the highest part of the curve towards the rear of the tank when in place on the turret front. You will have to carefully cut the top section from the bottom (separate pieces in real life, and joined together by two bolts.) Also the circular holes in the sight are not present and wil have to be drilled out carefully and accurately, but will make the part look good...
`The infernal and never corrected circular housings for the periscope mounts in the drivers hatches. They have a large recess to make it sit in flush when viewed with hatch shut from above, but with hatch open, the two semi circles on each hatch underside protrude massively and should be removed entirely...
`Undersized differential housings when using the later shard nosed final drive housing. (This is the oblong shaped part that fits to the sides of the final drive housing where the drive sprockets are mounted.)
`The drivers hoods, final drive housings and even the grouser vent covers have maybe a little too much 'cast effect'... Small gripe I know
`No hole for crank start on rear plate...
`The old style vane sight is on the PE fret and builds into a 'mirror image' with two identically opposing parts, whereas it wasn't symmetrical but had the top section bolted onto one side of the lower, thus producing a staggered effect.

At first glance I'd still say this will build into a super kit,and if you can cobble together some other decal markings you can produce a tank that served until the end of the war...

Anyone else have the kit?
Brad
russamotto
Visit this Community
Utah, United States
Joined: December 14, 2007
KitMaker: 3,389 posts
Armorama: 2,054 posts
Posted: Monday, March 02, 2009 - 03:40 AM UTC
Thanks for the info. My LHS has it in stock, but for $70 US. I am hoping Lucky Model will pick it up soon for a more affordable price. I am sure there will soon be aftermarket decal options but I would like to pick things up in one box. I would prefer generic markings over on specific tank.
lucer105
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Joined: March 07, 2008
KitMaker: 189 posts
Armorama: 188 posts
Posted: Monday, March 02, 2009 - 05:13 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Thanks for the info. My LHS has it in stock, but for $70 US. I am hoping Lucky Model will pick it up soon for a more affordable price. I am sure there will soon be aftermarket decal options but I would like to pick things up in one box. I would prefer generic markings over on specific tank.

sprubro has it 51 bucks
bill_c
Staff MemberCampaigns Administrator
MODEL SHIPWRIGHTS
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: January 09, 2008
KitMaker: 10,553 posts
Armorama: 8,109 posts
Posted: Monday, March 02, 2009 - 05:29 AM UTC
You guys not know about e-HOBBYLAND.com?

Click here to relieve your Sherman lust!
GeraldOwens
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: March 30, 2006
KitMaker: 3,736 posts
Armorama: 3,697 posts
Posted: Monday, March 02, 2009 - 07:22 AM UTC
Working on it now. The glacis plate is one of the "complicated" varieties, with cast driver's hoods, a rolled steel intermediate plate in between them, a wide, cast steel panel below incorporating the machine gun ball mount, rolled steel side plates outboard of the hoods, and a small rolled steel plate directly below the left hand driver's hood. This last is problematical on a non-direct vision M4, as this section was generally incorporated into the left hand plate as a single, L-shaped panel. I opted to eliminate the outboard weld below the left driver's hood to depict the more common version. To my eye, these drivers' hoods were generally rounder than depicted in the kit, so did a little gentle sanding to round the front corners a bit.
I'm using one of the early transmission housings, so the undersized final drive on the late version is not a problem. In any case, that housing probably would be seen on a tank with a later style turret (no pistol port, and thickened cast armor right of the gun mount). The bolts on the lower hull side where the transmission housing attaches need to be added.
The engine deck panels have a fair amount of play, so I glued them in place (sparingly) with Testors tube cement, allowing me time to position them with equal gaps around the edges. This also avoids any unwanted melted plastic from oozing into the joints, as can happen with liquid cement.
The turret ring is a very loose fit in the hull top, so add some strip styrene to the inner face of the opening to eliminate the sloppy fit.
exer
Visit this Community
Dublin, Ireland
Joined: November 27, 2004
KitMaker: 6,048 posts
Armorama: 4,619 posts
Posted: Monday, March 02, 2009 - 07:28 AM UTC
Brad some photos and a bit more info and that could be expanded into a proper review, come on you know you want to.
Ellevenbravo
Visit this Community
Massachusetts, United States
Joined: April 08, 2007
KitMaker: 269 posts
Armorama: 261 posts
Posted: Monday, March 02, 2009 - 03:39 PM UTC
I've been working on this kit for the last week. For the record, I am not a Sherman expert but it seems to be accurate per my references and has very nice detail. The plastic headlight guards are too thick for my taste, I went with the PE parts. These look nice but are a bit of a challenge to get glued on securely. I second the comment on the instructions. They are truly awful. There are no drawings or detailed info on the specific location of the add-on armor plates and a bunch of other smaller parts. Just an arrow pointing to the general location. Not a serious issue if you have reference pix but you really should not have to do this to assemble a $70 kit.

The other real issue are the decals. Again, for a $70 model, I expect to have more than two choices. Both of the versions provided are from the same time period and (IMHO) are too gaudy. I really don't know why Dragon felt the need to short us on the decals. At a minimum, they should have thrown in some generic markings. Also, some of my references show that both of the versions provided in the kit had unit and vehicle markings on the front and rear. Dragon does not give you these, just turret and side markings. Unless you have a bunch of markings in your spares box, you will probably have to purchase aftermarket decals (and the selection that is out there isn't the greatest). Not acceptable for a model that costs this much.

I have to say that I feel a bit short changed. I typically stay away from Dragon and give my money to Tasca, Tristar and others. I broke down this time because I really, really wanted an M-4.

For the price I paid, I felt that I did not get my money's worth. I think it will be quite a while before I purchase another Dragon kit.
viper29_ca
Visit this Community
New Brunswick, Canada
Joined: October 18, 2002
KitMaker: 2,247 posts
Armorama: 1,138 posts
Posted: Monday, March 02, 2009 - 04:25 PM UTC
$70 US?

That is insane.....and here I thought mine was over priced at $70CDN, which is roughly $55US
cach7
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Joined: October 13, 2002
KitMaker: 444 posts
Armorama: 439 posts
Posted: Monday, March 02, 2009 - 04:31 PM UTC
Russ $70. for a Dragon kit, i woudnt shop there anymore. Try Dragon-USA or Great model.com . Both are close to you and the kits range $49. to $51. I should get my kit Tuesday. That is if it stops snowing here in New York.
HONEYCUT
Visit this Community
Victoria, Australia
Joined: May 07, 2003
KitMaker: 4,002 posts
Armorama: 2,947 posts
Posted: Monday, March 02, 2009 - 06:20 PM UTC

Quoted Text

The glacis plate is one of the "complicated" varieties

I opted to eliminate the outboard weld below the left driver's hood to depict the more common version.

The engine deck panels have a fair amount of play

The turret ring is a very loose fit in the hull top, so add some strip styrene to the inner face of the opening to eliminate the sloppy fit.


Thanks for the info, 'pre-build' Gerald.
I'll have to look into the glacis set up, but you may be right in removing that weld.
I will disagree on the hoods though, from some reference I have when altering the Sherman III Sicily hoods to a regular cast hood M4, but hey it is such a small discrepancy it ain't worth worrying too much about unless you have counted all the rivets
Forgot to add the lack of transmission attachment bolts; cheers!
John, the markings are actually 'refreshing' for a Sherman in general to break up the OD expanses, but I understand the need to have complete markings regardless, and also some basic more generic options, which were implemented as the war progressed with many armoured divisions and independent tank battalions opting for less and less in the way of markings...
Pat, I have a M4A1 late from Tasca that is next to be blogged, so this will be back burning for a little while at least...
Brad
jowady
Joined: June 12, 2006
KitMaker: 1,027 posts
Armorama: 683 posts
Posted: Monday, March 02, 2009 - 07:18 PM UTC
I'm almost done with this kit and have really enjoyed it. For my money it has a great level of detail, some pieces, like the periscope guards look as good in plastic as they normally are in p/e. I'm building it with AFV Club AM T48 track , not because I have anything against the kit tracks (I don't) its just that the tank that I am making had T48.
HONEYCUT
Visit this Community
Victoria, Australia
Joined: May 07, 2003
KitMaker: 4,002 posts
Armorama: 2,947 posts
Posted: Monday, March 02, 2009 - 09:36 PM UTC

Quoted Text

I'm almost done with this kit and have really enjoyed it. For my money it has a great level of detail, some pieces, like the periscope guards look as good in plastic as they normally are in p/e. I'm building it with AFV Club AM T48 track , not because I have anything against the kit tracks (I don't) its just that the tank that I am making had T48.


Another good point John, the kit probably would have been better with T48s?
sgtreef
Visit this Community
Oklahoma, United States
Joined: March 01, 2002
KitMaker: 6,043 posts
Armorama: 4,347 posts
Posted: Monday, March 02, 2009 - 11:06 PM UTC
Good views on the kit I get mine this week.

Using my LHS 20%sale on 1/35 armor to buy his start price $65.00 - 20% = $52.00 not bad.

So thanks for the heads up,wonder when Eduard will have the PE for it if needed.

the AFV club tracks sound like a deal also.
ALBOWIE
Visit this Community
New South Wales, Australia
Joined: February 28, 2006
KitMaker: 1,605 posts
Armorama: 1,565 posts
Posted: Monday, March 02, 2009 - 11:07 PM UTC
Brad, I also had a kit of this (actually a pair) follow me home - I really wish they would stop that. I'm not in agreeance on the hoods as they should be identical to the M4A2 cast hoods. The two were essentially the same part. I think the DML Sherman III got this more correct than the M4 kit. The real parts are very smooth and the new ones are pitted like orange peel. e.g.
M4 Kit Hood:

Sher III (M4A2 Hood)

M4 kit hood:

Real hoods






Please note that the antenna pot in the last picture is different to the kit one which is correct for an M4. As can be seen the shapes are not as the real things complex arrangement. Still its a pretty good kit. Does anyone have any good photos of the 2" Mortar muzzle on the real thing, my refs are packed away to move at present.
I am really looking forward to the Composite from DML and hope they actually offer the early version with the mid production low bustle turret and a good selection of UK & US markings.
CHeers
Al
HONEYCUT
Visit this Community
Victoria, Australia
Joined: May 07, 2003
KitMaker: 4,002 posts
Armorama: 2,947 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 - 02:06 AM UTC

Quoted Text

I'm not in agreeance on the hoods as they should be identical to the M4A2 cast hoods. The two were essentially the same part. I think the DML Sherman III got this more correct than the M4 kit. The real parts are very smooth and the new ones are pitted like orange peel.

Hey Al
So what are you saying is wrong with the M4 versions? That they are too pitted alone, but that the shape is ok? I did mention that they were overdone in the initial posting, but upon looking at you ref pics it would seem that there needs to be more curve from the bottom front edges arcing towards the top front of the hood maybe... Only subtle though
Brad
jowady
Joined: June 12, 2006
KitMaker: 1,027 posts
Armorama: 683 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 - 09:12 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text



Another good point John, the kit probably would have been better with T48s?



From the photos I've seen T-48 seems the most common track for Normandy.

John
ALBOWIE
Visit this Community
New South Wales, Australia
Joined: February 28, 2006
KitMaker: 1,605 posts
Armorama: 1,565 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 - 07:27 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

I'm not in agreeance on the hoods as they should be identical to the M4A2 cast hoods. The two were essentially the same part. I think the DML Sherman III got this more correct than the M4 kit. The real parts are very smooth and the new ones are pitted like orange peel.

Hey Al
So what are you saying is wrong with the M4 versions? That they are too pitted alone, but that the shape is ok? I did mention that they were overdone in the initial posting, but upon looking at you ref pics it would seem that there needs to be more curve from the bottom front edges arcing towards the top front of the hood maybe... Only subtle though
Brad



Brad, I think the Sher III kit one got the shape closer to the real thing but still not correct. If you look at the weld seams on the M4Kit where it joins with the Glacis you will see a straight line as opposed to the kinked one on the real thing. It looks as if they have gone backwards with this one. A huge improvement over Tamiyas one though (M4A4 type)!

Cheers
Al
GeraldOwens
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: March 30, 2006
KitMaker: 3,736 posts
Armorama: 3,697 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 - 07:45 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

I'm not in agreeance on the hoods as they should be identical to the M4A2 cast hoods. The two were essentially the same part. I think the DML Sherman III got this more correct than the M4 kit. The real parts are very smooth and the new ones are pitted like orange peel.

Hey Al
So what are you saying is wrong with the M4 versions? That they are too pitted alone, but that the shape is ok? I did mention that they were overdone in the initial posting, but upon looking at you ref pics it would seem that there needs to be more curve from the bottom front edges arcing towards the top front of the hood maybe... Only subtle though
Brad

As the photos above show, the radius of the curved corner as viewed from above is larger on the real hoods than on the kit's, with the curve flattening out inside the outer edge of the periscope cover (i.e., the flat portion on the front is narrower than depicted on the kit). If you wish to alter the kit part, it takes under a minute with some fine sandpaper.
That said, Pete Harlem has drawings in his book showing a later hood design with a wider flat area in front, so it's possible Dragon was looking at a different casting pattern. However, the rest of the Dragon glacis, with its many small sections, suggests a rather early vehicle.
Vodnik
Visit this Community
Warszawa, Poland
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 - 08:01 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Another good point John, the kit probably would have been better with T48s?


Not really. T-51s were also common at that time period, so DML used the opportunity to include this type of track in the kit. Please note that it is the first time T-51 DS tracks were used in any DML kit. And they are IMHO the most accurate one-piece T-51 tracks available, as those from Tasca (which are two-piece actually) are a good representation of T-41, but not T-51, and those in Academy kits are just poor in details and dimensions.

Pawel
Gt351
Visit this Community
Tasmania, Australia
Joined: July 26, 2003
KitMaker: 142 posts
Armorama: 114 posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 - 01:05 AM UTC
Hi, I picked up this kit last week and am very impressed with it , except for the instructions that is, as for the shape of the hoods I think they are fine but they are not perfect, but since they are cast I would expect there to be slight differences between them, as for the tracks if they had put t-48 tracks in people would have said why not t-51 ,get the picture, my only real gripe is that my 50.cal was bent in half where the barrel joins the gun but dragon care is sending a replacement, other than that its a typical dml kit. And I would like to thank Pawel for coming on here and other forums to explain his involement with these sherman kits, cheers Bob.
HONEYCUT
Visit this Community
Victoria, Australia
Joined: May 07, 2003
KitMaker: 4,002 posts
Armorama: 2,947 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 05, 2009 - 06:50 PM UTC

Quoted Text

T-51s were also common at that time period, so DML used the opportunity to include this type of track in the kit. Please note that it is the first time T-51 DS tracks were used in any DML kit.

Hey Pawel, thanks for dropping by. I see what you mean about the T-51s inclusion, and it isn't like I'm short of T-48 Tamiya tracks I guess it is more of a case of having a 3AD M4 in mind and they were predominantly T-48 users... Now if only they were included in addition to the T-51s...

Hey Bob

Quoted Text

as for the tracks if they had put t-48 tracks in people would have said why not t-51 ,get the picture

Well.... no... I don't think so. I can appreciate the fact that DML included T-51s for the first time, but as far as people wanting something other than T-48s if they were included, I doubt there would be gripers in as many numbers (as myself )
Brad
jowady
Joined: June 12, 2006
KitMaker: 1,027 posts
Armorama: 683 posts
Posted: Friday, March 06, 2009 - 10:31 AM UTC
I wasn't complaining about the T51s, in fact I am planning on using them for an M4A1 I am going to build. It must be a pain to figure out what to put in a Sherman kit, since you can see almost anything at any point. As for me I am okay with adding my own details like tracks and stowage. I am moving the siren as well.
mmcalc
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Joined: February 19, 2008
KitMaker: 55 posts
Armorama: 49 posts
Posted: Friday, March 13, 2009 - 11:46 AM UTC
Al,

I hadn't noticed that the radio bracket on the new DML M4 was depicted as having a round seam with the glacis plate. That's too bad, since it was actually an oval. This is the best picture I could find showing the oval weld seam.



The forward part of the hood looks too wide. it should be considerably narrower than the upper part, I think they had the hood shape closer to being correct on the older M4A2 hull. So by making the two mistakes it really compounds the apparent error because the bracket seam is way to close to the hood seam.

Mike
AlanL
Visit this Community
England - East Anglia, United Kingdom
Joined: August 12, 2005
KitMaker: 14,499 posts
Armorama: 11,675 posts
Posted: Friday, March 13, 2009 - 08:01 PM UTC
Hi Guys,

Thanks for the thoughts on the new kit. It's grand to have a new M4 available. I haven't bought this one yet I was wondering if they might release a British version lol, lol and wanted to wait and see what folks though of the kit.

Keep the info coming, very useful.

Al
marcb
Visit this Community
Overijssel, Netherlands
Joined: March 25, 2006
KitMaker: 1,244 posts
Armorama: 1,226 posts
Posted: Friday, March 13, 2009 - 10:07 PM UTC
Interesting thread,

On the hoods: it also appears that on the kit the upper inner edge flares out towards the turret ring, while on the real thing both inner and outer upper edges were parallel to the hoods center line.
 _GOTOTOP