Greetings Friends,
I recently decided that I want to build a Sherman for my Grandfather who commanded them while in the Army Active Reserves circa 1950 at Camp (now Ft.) McCoy in Tomah, Wisconsin. I was originally thinking I would need an M4A3E8 kit based on the Shermans used in combat at the time but this thought was blown out of the water by my Grandfather's personal insights and memories:
He tells me his tanks definitely had the rounded cast hulls, short main gun sans muzzle brake, tracks with flat rubber pads (no molded chevrons), transmission covers with two prominent ribs on them, and radial engines.
So obviously no M4A3E8. Apparently surplus WWII Shermans were being used. I'd like to tap into y'all's wealth of knowledge to make a decision on which Sherman model designation this information implies and which 1/35 kit would be my best starting point for this project. Any modifications that would be required for a 1950 Active Reserve example would be greatly appreciated as well.
Thank you all in advance for your help!
Hosted by Darren Baker
Have M4 Sherman Details, Need Information!
EZhotshot511
Joined: June 25, 2011
KitMaker: 26 posts
Armorama: 26 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 26, 2017 - 12:51 AM UTC
AikinutPGH
Joined: April 25, 2015
KitMaker: 45 posts
Armorama: 31 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 26, 2017 - 01:42 AM UTC
Sounds like a M4A1, but there are still things to look for.
Was it Direct Vision, Having steel plates welded in front of the hatches?
Did it have and early suspension with the return roller centered over the bogies or was it to the rear of the bogie.
You can look at some of either Dragon or Asuka/Tasca M4A1 kits and see which one matches his description.
The square track pads are not hard to find on kits.
Was it Direct Vision, Having steel plates welded in front of the hatches?
Did it have and early suspension with the return roller centered over the bogies or was it to the rear of the bogie.
You can look at some of either Dragon or Asuka/Tasca M4A1 kits and see which one matches his description.
The square track pads are not hard to find on kits.
Bravo1102
Joined: December 08, 2003
KitMaker: 2,864 posts
Armorama: 2,497 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 26, 2017 - 01:53 AM UTC
If circa 1950 it was probably an M4A1 remanufactured . It could be any type of M4A1 including the three piece front hull but remanufactured with applique armor and full width gun mantle and even probably a vision cupola. Some even had the turret pierced to add a loader's hatch.
Additionally it could have the extended suspension with end connector extensions on both sides referred to as an M4A1E9. There are a few preserved vehicles of this type around with all the post war modifications and updates to show him to see if it jogs his memory.
Many were substantially different from stock wartime configurations as in most kits with lots of late features added to very early production vehicles to update them to standard.
Additionally it could have the extended suspension with end connector extensions on both sides referred to as an M4A1E9. There are a few preserved vehicles of this type around with all the post war modifications and updates to show him to see if it jogs his memory.
Many were substantially different from stock wartime configurations as in most kits with lots of late features added to very early production vehicles to update them to standard.
EZhotshot511
Joined: June 25, 2011
KitMaker: 26 posts
Armorama: 26 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 26, 2017 - 05:19 AM UTC
Thank You Gentlemen,
I've reconvened with my Grandfather and he's divulged some more details after looking through some photos on Google.
I showed him photos of gun mantlets, suspension systems, turret hatches, direct vision ports, and specifically quite a few photos of the M4A1E9, thanks to your suggestion Steve.
This is what he had to say: He is fairly adamant that his tanks had a SINGLE hatch cover on the commander’s side (and definitely a single hatch turret overall) which leads me to believe that his tanks were retrofitted with all around vision cupolas. He does not remember a split hatch cover. He thinks the full width M34A1 mantlet is correct. He denies presence of appliqué armor on all of his tanks although he thinks some of them could have had it. He is fairly adamant as to the presence of the early type three piece transmission cover as he remembers the ribs. He confirmed that his VVSS bogie carriages had the offset return roller. He also remembers his tanks having a fender on the sides that one could stand on (leading me to think M4A1E9) however he does not remember all the welded fender supports that can be seen in this (and most) M4A1E9 photo: http://preservedtanks.com/Image.aspx?PhotoID=7948&UniqueID=2324&Page=1
Here’s the real kicker: He thinks the direct vision ports (and the idea of a slit that you could directly look out of to drive the tank) looks more like what he remembers...this kind of throws a wrench in what I'm led to believe by his other info.
Would a tank with all these features have existed?
Thanks!
I've reconvened with my Grandfather and he's divulged some more details after looking through some photos on Google.
I showed him photos of gun mantlets, suspension systems, turret hatches, direct vision ports, and specifically quite a few photos of the M4A1E9, thanks to your suggestion Steve.
This is what he had to say: He is fairly adamant that his tanks had a SINGLE hatch cover on the commander’s side (and definitely a single hatch turret overall) which leads me to believe that his tanks were retrofitted with all around vision cupolas. He does not remember a split hatch cover. He thinks the full width M34A1 mantlet is correct. He denies presence of appliqué armor on all of his tanks although he thinks some of them could have had it. He is fairly adamant as to the presence of the early type three piece transmission cover as he remembers the ribs. He confirmed that his VVSS bogie carriages had the offset return roller. He also remembers his tanks having a fender on the sides that one could stand on (leading me to think M4A1E9) however he does not remember all the welded fender supports that can be seen in this (and most) M4A1E9 photo: http://preservedtanks.com/Image.aspx?PhotoID=7948&UniqueID=2324&Page=1
Here’s the real kicker: He thinks the direct vision ports (and the idea of a slit that you could directly look out of to drive the tank) looks more like what he remembers...this kind of throws a wrench in what I'm led to believe by his other info.
Would a tank with all these features have existed?
Thanks!
EZhotshot511
Joined: June 25, 2011
KitMaker: 26 posts
Armorama: 26 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 26, 2017 - 05:25 AM UTC
I've done some searching and I've found that "Black Magic" (supposedly an M4A3, although I didnt know any of these had cast hulls) seems to match with a lot of what he's telling me. It has applique armor, and no direct vision, but he was iffy on both of these points. What it does have is an entirely M4A1 apperance but with a later all around vision cupola on a single hatch turret. So at least I have evidence that this existed.
Great photo: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/CRW_8244.jpg
And another example:
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/533887730806037468
Great photo: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/CRW_8244.jpg
And another example:
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/533887730806037468
jps
Joined: February 06, 2006
KitMaker: 147 posts
Armorama: 140 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 26, 2017 - 05:50 AM UTC
Have you considered contacting Fort McCoy? They may have a historian or information officer (their public affairs officer contact info is on their website). Maybe they can help you out. Of course, there is no quarentee that all Sherman tanks at any given time on base were the same.
That said, if this is being made for your grandfather, maybe worrying about recreating the tank as he remembers it as opposed to what it logiclly should be.
That said, if this is being made for your grandfather, maybe worrying about recreating the tank as he remembers it as opposed to what it logiclly should be.
AikinutPGH
Joined: April 25, 2015
KitMaker: 45 posts
Armorama: 31 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 26, 2017 - 09:50 AM UTC
Some M4A1s had the added armor on the side cast in.
Bravo1102
Joined: December 08, 2003
KitMaker: 2,864 posts
Armorama: 2,497 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 26, 2017 - 02:18 PM UTC
You can never say "never" with a Sherman.
But remember how memory works. He may be conflating the direct vision slots with the periscopes that replaced it.
There were Sherman's that went through the remanufactured program and didn't get the applique armor. So you could just build what he remembers as a trade-off and skip trying to be 100% because chances are it did exist but nothing like it was photographed or retained. Post war Sherman's are like that. The specific updates and features can vary from preserved tank to preserved tank and who knows if they weren't put together in the scrap yard to get a full tank for display (like a certain M48A1 with an M48A3 late turret in NJ)
But remember how memory works. He may be conflating the direct vision slots with the periscopes that replaced it.
There were Sherman's that went through the remanufactured program and didn't get the applique armor. So you could just build what he remembers as a trade-off and skip trying to be 100% because chances are it did exist but nothing like it was photographed or retained. Post war Sherman's are like that. The specific updates and features can vary from preserved tank to preserved tank and who knows if they weren't put together in the scrap yard to get a full tank for display (like a certain M48A1 with an M48A3 late turret in NJ)
tankmodeler
#417
Joined: March 01, 2004
KitMaker: 3,123 posts
Armorama: 2,539 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 26, 2017 - 10:17 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I've done some searching and I've found that "Black Magic" (supposedly an M4A3, although I didnt know any of these had cast hulls)
They did not. The tank in the photo is an M4A1 and never an M4A3 (see comment below, though). The M4A? designations were, all, except one case, based on the engine fitted. The One case was the M4A1 which shared an engine with the M4 (a radial engine) but had the cast hull instead of the welded plate hull of the M4. No other Sherman other than the M4A1 had an entirely one piece cast hull.
Quoted Text
seems to match with a lot of what he's telling me. It has applique armor, and no direct vision, but he was iffy on both of these points. What it does have is an entirely M4A1 apperance but with a later all around vision cupola on a single hatch turret. So at least I have evidence that this existed.
Unfortunately, finding a photo of a tank in a museum is not an indication that the vehicle, as displayed, actually existed in the field as seen. Many have had details changed or even been completely "Frankensteined" from other tanks over the years. Period photos are really the only source of accurate evidence, specially for situations that might not be standard.
Now the comments on this photo, which bears on the point above. I'm reasonably sure this is, in fact, a Grizzly, an M4A1 built in Canada, one of 188 built in 1943. The ID feature are the heavyweight trailing arm bogie assemblies that were initially made for Canadian build Sexton SPGs, but eventually fitted to some Grizzlies serving in Canada after the war. These were eventually sold to Portugal who operated them into the 80s whereupon they were sold on the open market, almost all going to various collectors and museums. It's why most of the operational M4A1s seen today are, in fact, Grizzlies.
That said, from the limited viewpoint of the photo, this tank looks to have been retrofitted with typical American fittings, such as the cupola, .50 cal mount and hull stowage. The only way to really tell is to find the dataplate and establish exactly what it was built as. And that's the point with photos of restored vehicles. :/
How's that for muddying the waters?
Paul
GeraldOwens
Joined: March 30, 2006
KitMaker: 3,736 posts
Armorama: 3,697 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 26, 2017 - 11:10 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Thank You Gentlemen,
I've reconvened with my Grandfather and he's divulged some more details after looking through some photos on Google.
I showed him photos of gun mantlets, suspension systems, turret hatches, direct vision ports, and specifically quite a few photos of the M4A1E9, thanks to your suggestion Steve.
This is what he had to say: He is fairly adamant that his tanks had a SINGLE hatch cover on the commander’s side (and definitely a single hatch turret overall) which leads me to believe that his tanks were retrofitted with all around vision cupolas. He does not remember a split hatch cover. He thinks the full width M34A1 mantlet is correct. He denies presence of appliqué armor on all of his tanks although he thinks some of them could have had it. He is fairly adamant as to the presence of the early type three piece transmission cover as he remembers the ribs. He confirmed that his VVSS bogie carriages had the offset return roller. He also remembers his tanks having a fender on the sides that one could stand on (leading me to think M4A1E9) however he does not remember all the welded fender supports that can be seen in this (and most) M4A1E9 photo: http://preservedtanks.com/Image.aspx?PhotoID=7948&UniqueID=2324&Page=1
Here’s the real kicker: He thinks the direct vision ports (and the idea of a slit that you could directly look out of to drive the tank) looks more like what he remembers...this kind of throws a wrench in what I'm led to believe by his other info.
Would a tank with all these features have existed?
Thanks!
The presence of the fender does not necessarily mean that the tank had the wider E9 suspension. Remanufactured tanks had wider fenders to allow the fitting of "duckbill" extensions on the outer edges of the tracks (the E9 had the suspension bogies mounted further from the hull, so duckbills could be added to the inner edges as well). These fenders were supported by threaded rods and tubes rather than sections of U-channel, like the welded hull versions. The threaded rods could be adjusted in length to match the changing curvature of the cast hull. A tab for a bolt was spot welded to each end. No kit includes this, but it wouldn't be hard to scratch build.
EZhotshot511
Joined: June 25, 2011
KitMaker: 26 posts
Armorama: 26 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 26, 2017 - 11:15 PM UTC
Gentlemen, Thank you for your insights! I appreciate your vast knowledge on the subject.
Dave and Steve, in the end, I think I'll be going with your suggestions. It's a gift for my Grandfather and I'd just as soon satisfy his memories at the expense of perfectly service-documented accuracy. Certainly rather have him saying "This looks just about right" than me telling him "This is the exact tank you wouldve been using"
Thanks again!
Dave and Steve, in the end, I think I'll be going with your suggestions. It's a gift for my Grandfather and I'd just as soon satisfy his memories at the expense of perfectly service-documented accuracy. Certainly rather have him saying "This looks just about right" than me telling him "This is the exact tank you wouldve been using"
Thanks again!
EZhotshot511
Joined: June 25, 2011
KitMaker: 26 posts
Armorama: 26 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 26, 2017 - 11:21 PM UTC
Thanks Gerald, I probabaly will endeavor to scrathcbuild those fenders without any kind of E9 modification work just to satisfy my grandfather's memory. I wont be adding the duckbills to the tracks but I've read a few pieces now that usggest these were not always fitted even when called for. Theres even pictures of E9's in service with neither the inside or outside duckbills fitted.
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.