_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV: Allied - WWII
Armor and ground forces of the Allied forces during World War II.
Hosted by Darren Baker
Grant vs. Lee
retiredyank
Visit this Community
Arkansas, United States
Joined: June 29, 2009
KitMaker: 11,610 posts
Armorama: 7,843 posts
Posted: Friday, August 14, 2015 - 04:30 AM UTC
Other than which army used them, were there any major differences between the Lee and Grant? I ask, because I want to use the Big Ed set made for the Lee on a Grant.
stoney
Visit this Community
British Columbia, Canada
Joined: October 16, 2006
KitMaker: 480 posts
Armorama: 399 posts
Posted: Friday, August 14, 2015 - 05:17 AM UTC
Matt, the Grant used a different british designed turret fitted with a radio set.
The hull should be the same.
Eric.
retiredyank
Visit this Community
Arkansas, United States
Joined: June 29, 2009
KitMaker: 11,610 posts
Armorama: 7,843 posts
Posted: Friday, August 14, 2015 - 07:03 AM UTC
Perfect. Thank you.
stoney
Visit this Community
British Columbia, Canada
Joined: October 16, 2006
KitMaker: 480 posts
Armorama: 399 posts
Posted: Friday, August 14, 2015 - 07:43 AM UTC
happy to help.
Bravo1102
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: December 08, 2003
KitMaker: 2,864 posts
Armorama: 2,497 posts
Posted: Friday, August 14, 2015 - 04:36 PM UTC
But wait there's more! The Grant also had a driver's periscope on the top hull and totally different rear storage boxes.

So the rear boxes given in the Big Ed set are not right for a Grant. The Grant also had some British fittings like the flimsy tin rack under the 75 mm gun and sometimes a funnel added to the tools stowed on the back deck. Grants generally never carried the grouser boxes on the hull superstructure (I've yet to see a photo of one, even on late Grant II's)

And of course those side skirts and their fittings are absent from the Lee set. So the Lee set is missing a bunch of fittings peculiar to a Grant and has a few that aren't right for a Grant.
GaryKato
Visit this Community
California, United States
Joined: December 06, 2004
KitMaker: 3,694 posts
Armorama: 2,693 posts
Posted: Friday, August 14, 2015 - 05:21 PM UTC

Quoted Text

and totally different rear storage boxes.


If you look at them from the side, British boxes had the tops parallel to the rear deck while American boxes were horizontal. There may have been a difference when looking at them fore/aft.
retiredyank
Visit this Community
Arkansas, United States
Joined: June 29, 2009
KitMaker: 11,610 posts
Armorama: 7,843 posts
Posted: Friday, August 14, 2015 - 06:01 PM UTC

Quoted Text

But wait there's more! The Grant also had a driver's periscope on the top hull and totally different rear storage boxes.

So the rear boxes given in the Big Ed set are not right for a Grant. The Grant also had some British fittings like the flimsy tin rack under the 75 mm gun and sometimes a funnel added to the tools stowed on the back deck. Grants generally never carried the grouser boxes on the hull superstructure (I've yet to see a photo of one, even on late Grant II's)

And of course those side skirts and their fittings are absent from the Lee set. So the Lee set is missing a bunch of fittings peculiar to a Grant and has a few that aren't right for a Grant.


Side skirts are easy enough to scratch, as are the rear boxes. The rest sounds like it should not be too difficult, for the price difference(I already have the Big Ed set for the Grant).
 _GOTOTOP