Hello Guys, Yesterday I ran into another Sherman based vehicle. I've saw it before, but due to the low price I wasn't interested. ( yes I'm a bit weird...) It's the Academy M-12 105 mm self propelled field gun.
Has anybody build this model, and if so, was it any good?
I see it as another opportunity to expand my Sheman collection.

Thanks in advance, John.

The Academy M12 is a very nice kit right out of the box. It was the first of what has become a series of Sherman variants by Academy, which now includes the M10, the Achilles, the M36 and will soon include the M4A2 76mm. The kit includes a complete driver's compartment interior. It also has lots of extra parts that will help pump up your spare parts box.

You may want to replace the tracks -- the three-bar cleat tracks in the kit are not a very good match for this kit, but they can be used. The kit also has some questionable ammo tubes, but these are easily replaced or left off.

You can see pics of mine if you click "VISIT MY SELECTED LINK" at the bottom of my post -- look in "Bob's Gallery." I kind of botched the paint with a wash that was a bit too hot.

M12 is based on the M3 Lee chassis. When the M4A3 chassis was used it became the M40. Both vehicles are 155mm SPH.

The prototype for the M12 -- the T6 -- was indeed based on the M3 medium tank chassis. However, by the time the M12 went into production, it had more mechanically in common with the M4 than the M3. By the time the M12 made it into production, it had bogies with horizontal trailing arms, it had the three-piece final drive from the M4 (no notch on the left) and the engine had been upgraded to prevent vapor lock problems found in the M3's engine. I think it would be safe to say the M12 belongs in the "Sherman family," as much as it belongs in the "Lee/Grant family."

As long as we're splitting hairs, it should be pointed out that both the M12 and the M40 had 155mm guns and were categorized as "gun motor carriages," not self-propelled howitzers. The M40's kissing-cousin, the M43, was armed with an 8-inch howitzer and was designated as a "howitzer motor carriage."

You're correct, I erred by referring to the M12 as an SPH when it is in fact a gun motor carriage (GMC). I was referring to the vehicles being 155mm as opposed to 105mm as John mentioned and just used SPH as a generic acronym to depict a self-propelled form of artillery. My bad.

I also agree that the M12 is just as much a part of the Grant/Lee family as the Sherman family is. All I stated was that the M12 was based on the M3 Lee chassis and that it was 155mm [as opposed to the mentioned 105mm].

What part (other than the use of SPH vice SPG acronym) was incorrect or splitting hairs? I'm beginning to think you have some type of problem with me. Again, my apologies, I will refrain from participating in the same threads as you to avoid further conflict.

I would hate to see that. I just learned a bunch from both posters above. Through this discussion a lot of interesting information has been exchanged. I appreciate the knowledge shown in this thread. Good exchange of info.


Steve

John, definitely get it if you have a chance. It will certainly expand your Sherman collection and was a very important vehicle in the Allies arsenal.
And in case you're wondering, the vehicle was also occasionally used in a direct fire role. It would demolish any German armor.

PS: Who cares what it was based on? It could be said that the M4 was based on the M3.

Kencelot, what type of sighting system would they use to go direct fire. I don't think a 155 arty shell would penetrate something like a Tiger, but the concussion alone would cause the crew to be washed out with a fire hose

I have no idea. Perhaps a dude just looked down the barrel.

AH_HA>>>the old bore sight technique. Scary if you've got a tank bearing down on you, but if it were me, I'ld shoot what I had at him to. Hey it worked for Tom Hanks in Saving PVT Ryan (chuckle) #:-)

Thanks a lot guys for the answers. It was my finger-trouble at the keyboard that resulted in 105mm instead of 155mm.
I've bought the kit yesterday, and I think it's worth every one of the 18 Euro's I payed for it.

Again, Tanhks a lot, John.

verlinden do a nice update kit for it no doubt about twice the price of the kit itself if you read
citizen soldiers by steven ambrose there is amention of the damage that these caused the german's hated them one commander thought the US played fair until they used these in the direct fire mode blasted a fortified door down in two shots

Dragonwagen, the M40 has been confirmed from AFV Club. Release date SHOULD be the first quarter of 2004 although that is to be confirmed...Jim

Hollowpoint/Sabot, there's enough nonsense here without the two of you fighting. Now shake hands the pair of you....

For anyone serious about their Shermies this (apart from Hunnicutt) should be a priority....Jim

A small but beautifully formed image...... #:-)

Rob:

I don't have a problem with you. I thought we were both adding to the discussion. Perhaps I need to add a few winks and smileys to let everyone know I'm not unhappy.

To all:

One of the problems with communicating online is that we cannot see or hear one another -- we read words and sometimes conclude that the writer is implying other things.

I missed John's "105" typo. If I had noticed it, I would have corrected in my first post. Instead, I saw Rob's M3 comment and mistakenly thought he might be doing a bit of sharpshooting -- and as I said in my second post, I think a good argument could be made that that the M12 is a Sherman variant.

OK, I'll admit that the "gun motor carriage" stuff was a bit of a sharpshoot back at Rob. Sorry if I hurt someone's feelings -- it was intended as a good-natured nudge, not a flame.

I've been a registered user on Armorama for almost two years -- If I'd wanted to start a "fight" with Sabot, I could have done it a long time ago. But "fighting" isn't why I come on here or post. I'll continue to post when I feel I have something to add to a thread or have something to share. We won't always agree with each other and as long as we keep the debate civilized, it doesn't really hurt anything. Perhaps most importantlt, we shouldn't take ourselves or our hobby too seriously

Now, back to "serious stuff" --
About whether an M12's 155mm gun could take out a Tiger -- my refs say Tiger's frontal armor was 100mm thick and sloped a mere 8 degrees. Hunnicutt says the M12's gun, firing AP M112B1 could penetrate (at 30 degree obliquity) 119mm of homogeneous armor or 102mm of face-hardened armor at 1,000 yards. So, yeah, It'd probably ventilate it pretty good.

Also, yes, the M12 had a direct sight capability -- a Telescope M53. This part is included in the Academy kit and peeps through the little hole in the (rather dinky) gun shield.

Those M12's were used in the battle for the Seigfried Line Those things would stay out of small arms range and let one or two rounds at the bunker The bunker would still be standing but the cuncussion would take out the crew #:-)