Are these sets exactly the same, as an old post mentions their T74 were just T54E2 (cuff design)?
http://www.network54.com/Forum/47208/thread/1297804809

http://www.oupsmodel.com/76965/bronco-maquette-militaire-ab-3545-chenilles-pour-sherman-t74-135.jpg

http://d2ev13g7cze5ka.cloudfront.net/brn/brncba3547_0.jpg?v=0000000001

btw I have Bronco's Cuff type (brown box), but does anyone else find the raised cuff is too skinny looking?

regards,
Jack

In short, no. The tracks, in the second link touch both upper and lower edges. The tracks, in your third link do not touch the lower edge. The T54E2 links chevrons are beefier than those in the first photograph. I believe there is a mistake, in labeling the tracks in the first link. The top are likely T54E2 links, but the Bronco tracks are larger. This accounts for the slight chevron discrepancy.

Thanks Matt, now that I take a second look at the artwork, I can see slight differences.

About the chevron being underweight, this is what I see on the actual plastic parts when comparing to period photos - but the box illustration looks fine.

regards,
Jack

I would not get wrapped around the axle regarding the angular vs. curved shapes of chevrons, or use them as the sole pass/fail criteria for judging a model track. All of the fabricated types (T54E1, T54E2, T62, T74) used a separate chevron that was rolled to a given cross-section as a long bar, then bent into the chevron shape, trimmed to length, and welded to the track body. The bending could have rounder or sharper corners depending on the bending process. Sometimes the inside corners were angular and the outside corners rounded.

Compare the grouser shapes of these T54E2 tracks:
Drawing


Factory photo


Manual illustration


Survivor


KL

Very Interesting Kurt. It never occurred to me that the Chevrons were not cast in place.

You learn something new every day....... and this just shows sometimes it is even worth learning it!!

Thank you Kurt for the response and images. Indeed, it's not the curve or angular look of the chevron that concerns me, it's the thickness of it. I guess I just have not found a photo example that echoes the undernourished look that Bronco has given theirs.



regards,
Jack

I think there might have been one (not one of the types I listed) that was cast along with half of the track block. The parallel trousers types were almost always formed as part of the track block.

KL

You have to love the way the software predicts that you really wanted to say 'trousers' rather than 'grousers', don't you?

And here I thought Kurt found a new track type in the Army archives!

"It's the wrong trousers, Gromit, and they've gone wrong..."

That's what I get for using a tablet rather than my desktop.

KL

And here I was assuming Kurt meant he had the best dressed Sherman on the site!

I know this is the riveted fabricated T62 track type, but I was intrigued to find that the cleat is actually made of 2 strips of metal and that they clearly separated with age and wear - despite apparently being full-length welded. Looking at images, the Bronco cleats do look a little weedy.

This is the Bovington M4A4.

Das_Abteilung, interesting photo, and thanks for posting. It actually gives me an idea to beef up the chevrons with some thin plastic card - at least on those track faces that are visible.

I had entertained the thought of removing those rivets from a set of T62 tracks (either Panda or Kasten sets) but these are more than double the price, and likely the same amount of work.

Not sure that the cleats are two strips welded so much as one piece tightly folded into a "U", flattened/squared up on the bottom of the U and then bent to form the cleat shape. I believe what you are seeing here is that the base of the U has worn through and you are seeing the slightly separated sides of the U that are welded at their ends to the track block.

I think.

I've seen these tracks in real life and that was my interpretation of the cleat manufacture at the time.

Just throwing it out there for discussion.

Paul

I can see that idea, but from my limited knowledge of production techniques it makes little sense. As indeed does fabrication from 2 strips for that matter. The U-bending would surely require hot forming for a 180 degree fold and result in a curved bearing surface not evident in photos of newish tracks. This cannot be more economical, easier or more efficient than forming bar section of the appropriate size - which was clearly possible - especially if flat-grinding was then required. Many operations, adds cost for no value.

As for the 2-strip idea, I can only think that perhaps this particular manufacturer did not have the press capacity for bar stock of the right size but could press thinner bar. However, all of the T62 type tracks on Bovington vehicles are the same and this seems to be a quirk not common to any other bar-cleat tread type. Where were T62 tracks made? Did they only come from one source? Were they copy-manufactured in the UK?

I've just noticed that the picture of less worn T62 on the Sherman Minutia site shows a distinct V notch at the inside end of each cleat and some evidence of the beginning of separation propagating from that notch, although a full-width join is hard to discern.

Interestingly, Hunnicutt doesn't even show or mention the T62 in his very limited coverage of track types.

I'd have to look at my stuff on the T-62 but I think the chevrons were rolled, like channels or I-beams, not folded or welded. That can give a sufficiently flat surface.

KL

Kurt,

I agree that rolling to a shape is most likely. I was using the term "folded" to illustrate the concept of a formed U shape rather than a fabricated pair of welded bars.

Given that the interior of the U essentially doesn't exist, the differences in folding and rolling in this case may be mostly academic versus practical, but yes, something has to both create the U shape and then press the sides together while forcing metal into the flatter bottom profile. Roll tooling is pretty much the ideal way to accomplish that for the numbers of cleats being manufactured.

Paul

Paul - Somebody else had mentioned bending or folding along with the observation that this would give a rounded grouser face. I thought it was worth pointing out that rolling the shape could give a flat (enough) face without further operations.

For those non-engineers (i.e. not Paul or me), forming would take a flat strip of rectangular cross-section and press or fold it into a U-shape. Rolling would take a bar of square or round or rectangular cross-section and put it between rolls to form it into the shape you want.

I also checked and the chevrons on the T62 were similar to a squat, solid, version of the capital A in the Armorama logo.

KL