I'm not entirely familiar with the Tasca line of Sherman kits, and want to avoid if possible the Dragon M4A2s. I am wondering if any of the Tasca kits will be of use in building a USMC M4A2. I know that the British received the the M4A2 and used them in the Med, but their designations have me confused...old age, what can I say? Can anyone shine a light on this for me? Thanks in advance, guys.

The "Sherman III (3)" is the M4A2 in British form. Others with more knowledge would be better as revealing all the detail differences between British and USMC vehicles.

USA - M4-M4A1-M4A2-M4A3-M4A4
Brit - Sherman I - Sherman II - Sherman III - didn't use the M4A3 - Sherman V

Tasca's kit 35018 Sherman II "cast hoods" will make a fine M4A2, but the few early M4A2s I've seen in USMC service have the square-fronted welded driver's hoods only available in Dragon's "Sicily" kit #6231. Others more knowledgeable than me on USMC tanks will know if they used cast-hoods versions as well...

Tom

Also, don't dismiss the Dragon kits - they are very good too. Not as good as Tasca, but the model type might suit you better if you're looking for a specific Marine Sherman. The Marine Shermans rarely used a 50cal machine gun on the turret, so if you don't want your Tasca one, can I have it????? Stevie.

The USMC used all versions of the M4A2 excepting the Late 47 deg hull 76mm armed variant (possibly trialled but I am fairly certain no used as such. Photos exist of DV hulls and the fabricated (Welded) hood variants in action in the Pacific (There was a good thread on Missing Lynx Allied Forum about six months ago re this.
The Tasca DV hull with the M4 Bogies is perfect for these and the DML Tarawa M4A2 is prett good particularly after they fixed the hood faces and engine grilles.
For a late Dry 47 deg hull I recommend the DML or Academy example. Under no circumstances do I recommend the Italeri Marines Sherman as it is an M4A3 and pretty bad although it was the first Sherman kit to feature roadwheels and idlers with detail on both sides.
CHeers
Al

Frankly I don't get the whole Dragon Shermans are horrible and Tasca are great thing. I bought a Tasca M4A3E2 and am really not all that impressed. The suspension is a PITA to build, what is up with cutting that damned foam? For the price they couldn't throw in an aluminium barrel or at least a slide molded one? No rotatable periscopes and NO periscope guards. What's up with that? So I spend a lot more money for a Tasca, then I have to spend more for a barrel and then more still for a photo etch set to actually finish the thing? Its ridiculous. Hell, in a Dragon kit you have your choice of photo etch or plastic periscope and headlight guards.

Don't knock Tasca or DML's kits, they both have there strengths and weaknesses.

John, you have some good intel here. If you have some photos then what I would recommend doing is studying the hulls and comparing them to the M4A2 and Sherman III kits available from those two companies and seeing what kit best matches your references. Pay close attention the driver's and radio operator's hatches.

Thanks for all the quick replies, guys. After reading all of them I am going to do as suggested and take a hard look at the hulls. I didn't know that Dragon had corrected the hull on their A2, although I may have read it and forgotten. Thanks again for the help!

the Gyrenes did use the 47 degree late M4A2. They had them in the Marianas, at Peleliu,1st Tanks , and at Okinawa , again 1st Tanks. So everything but the the 76mm version found its way to the pacific, even a few DV versions.

Hi Al,

You said "For a late Dry 47 deg hull I recommend the DML or Academy example".

I have the ACADEMY "M4A2 SHERMAN U.S. MARINES" in my stash and as it has a high bustle turret, I think it is missing the "cast in cheek armour" on the right turret side, Correct ?

Erich