If you have been following, I'm a newbie back to modelling. I'm currently building a tamiya M4 (early) and an italeri M4A1(76) Looking at the galleries, I noticed that I have a LOT to learn before I get to the caliber that some of you are at.

What do you feel are common mistakes that people make regarding the M4 Sherman and Variants?

Remember, its been years since my last real attempt, so all comments are welcome.

Thanks, John

John--armor modeling is a planned, patient activity. I look at the plans, get some photos together of the actual equipment, wash the parts trees, and follow the instructions. The biggest error I make is when I fail to sequentially follow the instructions. I usual find myself in a bind in skipping steps because some parts will not fit after you cement something together....stay the course and you'll do fine.
Hope this helps.
DJ

Thanks for the reply. I'm a fairly competent modeler, but I guess the questions were asked wrong.

What I was looking for was things that are overlooked.....IE simulating the cast steel on tranny covers, not filling in the gap on the ammo ejection hatch to make it look like its cast in,, etc.

I'm currently taking as many photo's as I can of all of the vehicles on Ft Knox so they can be posted as reference photos here.

A really broad topic you've broached...The big deal with Shermans is not so much mistakes of technique but of research, as DJ suggests. There were so many variants and production changes phased in over time that one might think anythign goes. But that really isn't true, at least not in WW2. Some things simply didn't appear on some models, in part because the items weren't phased into the line until after a certain variant ceased production. This is what makes modeling Shermans such a challenge. The anything-goes route is, however, somewhat appropriate for the Israelis who mixed and matched parts with wild abandon in the 1950s.
Greg

Dubanka
Does this help
One thing I see quite often is putting the tracks on backwards or worse missmatching them . The chevrons go on in a specific direction. It's easy to get them backwards so take your time there.
Another beginer thing I see is feature bloat. In an effort to add all the spare pieces or 'add on's' one can forget that certain items weren't used in the same theater of operations or didn't exists for the version of vehicle depicted.
A little research goes a long way.

Slodder's right; Shermans are festooned with everything under the sun but not all of them all the time. As for tracks, that too is on target but there are several well-traveled photos from WW2 and from Israeli sources that show vehicles with a track on backwards. Occasionally one also shows up with a different style track installed correctly on each side, say a T48 and a T51. So, if you build a dozen Shermans one of your collection could be done each way just for interest and to show that such things did happen. For me, that is what makes the Sherman so interesting--no two are ever alike, it seems; rather like snowflakes.
Greg

one mistake that could happen, as it happened to me as youngster is, that I added
US-markings to the Matchbox Sherman Firefly.
The instructions clearly showed it as British machine but a bit of bad research ( there were many allied tanks which were not US, but showed stars ) and a relaxed mood caused this historically incorrect markings.
care has also to be taken which hull and which turrets and guns ( 75mm, 76mm, 105mm )an at least suspension may and may not fit together.
and with 49.000 tanks built you have at least 49.000 reasons to take care of ... :-) :-)

I am linked to the yahoo G104 group, the deal with sherman and variants and if u read this stuff u really resign. they often go down to serial and part nbrs and can discuss for hours something misterious as "the comb" an unidentified gizmo on certain tanks.
I have great respect to these people and the are very helpfull, with lots of knowledge.

but your sherman kit will take 3 years completion if u take every tiny aspect into consideration..I do not know if you want that.

regards, werner

Werner is right; you can go ballistic with obsessing over details. I don't. I try very hard to get the basics right, and add a little flair as well. I would suggest not getting bogged down with serial numbers and production dates too much. Tank production in wartime is very fluid, and new components are added ad they are available. If they run out, later tanks may come out with so-called "early" features. That's OK. It goes back to research. Lots of things you can do to a Firefly Vc, for example. One thing you mustn't do is add a one-piece cast transmission cover--no M4A4 variant ever had one in WW2. Later Israeli tanks did. Research, once again. If a photo shows what you want to model, obviously you are justified. If a photo shows something on a different version of the Sherman than the one you have chosen, it is very possible that it could have been done there too. Generally, the list of forbidden combinations is small and the list of unlikely ones a little larger. Get some of the better books on the subject and read through them. As an industrial subject the development of the Sherman is fascinating, and the material is worth its weight in gold to the modeler.
Greg

With all the talk of "Forbidden variants" I take this approach. Build it how you want to, with what you want. If you are going for a specific vehicle/ variant then by all means research and try for that. I build stuff because I like it. I especially like Israeli stuff for that reason and that reaon only. There is a wide margin for error if you will with IDF stuff. I have a bunch of what if vehicles that will never see a contest, but they are just as detailed as any other that I have built. An example is my M1A2 with Israeli mods and add ons. Israeli A10. These are just 2 of many that I have done. I try not to get axle wrapped as I call it on specifics and just build because it is after all a hobby.... just my rant... "Q"

Couple of novice mistakes I see when people are building are not hollowing out the end of a .50 cal (very easy to do with the tip of an X-acto knife) and "miraculous stowage". This is gear and the like that is just glued on where ever without regards to where tie downs are located or if the vehicle would rip off the articles while under normal operation.

Do you mean this stuff is not just throw and stick,just throw it up their and it sticks where it hits #:-)

I fully agree with the stowage thing. When I do stowage, I try to think about where I would put it if it was mine. One thing that bugs me is the lack of "tanker rolls" or "tootsie rolls" I know I like to keep my stuff dry, and I'm sure they did too. Maybe we as modelers like to jumble it up like a salad on the back deck to keep our hands busy.

The early M4 is gonna be a 2AD vehicle. They put grab rails on the turret sides and back, so no stowage problems here.

Thanks for the replies.

PS as far as the backward track....I know some backward tankers that have done it.

John

Now, Colonel, just to set the non-M60 tankers straight, you cannot put M60A3 tracks (which used the octogonal variant) on backwards... as they are right either way. Now, if you were driving and early M-60 or M-48... just how old are you??

I don't know guys, there is usually one seam that i overlook filling. Makes me crazy.
At an AMPS contest one year I saw at least 3 Panzer IV's with tracks on backwards, it is easy to overlook.
I find the best thing to do is, put the model down, walk away for about an hour, come back and look it over again. I also ask my wife to look for obvious construction errors.
Another pair of eys can usually spot something

An easy thing to overdo on any allied tank is weathering and wear. The US Army was famous amongst it's soldiers for not letting their vehicles show too much wear. Tanks and other vehicles were complelety repainted as often as possible. US Tanks, unless they are abandoned or knocked out should show little if any rust. The same goes for having heavily damaged vehicles or having missing pieces. I have seen photos of German, Italian and Russian vehicles being driven with major pieces missing, but you will hardly ever see a US vehicle running in a damaged state. We just had too extensive a support system during WWII.

I am not so sure about that, Doc. Shermans often looked pretty beat up. Usually not as bad as their opponents, but somewhat crunched nevertheless. I think you are laboring under a bit of a misconception regarding tha vastness of the Allied logistical system. It wasn't so much that vehicles got a frequent depot-level maintenance and fresh coats of paint. No; sadly it is this: neither the tanks nor their crews lasted very long in combat in many cases. The vehicles often looked relatively new because they were...

That said, tanks that were recovered in battle and repaired at divisional ordnance sites would probably sport at least a partial repaint. Certainly the interiors were always repainted (according to Belton Cooper) to try to mask, very frankly, the odors of death and destruction. Sorry to be gruesome but that's the short sad truth of it. I don't know if an exterior would be completely repainted in such a case. Time may have been too short and the repaired tank needed back at the front too soon to allow for a major restoration from any standpoint other than functional.

Greg

My sources state that you would rarely see faded paint on a US armored vehicle and rust would be even rarer, except possibly on the tracks. Our vehicles were often very dirty, of course, which can make the paint appear lighter than it really is. But faded paint is rare. As for our tanks not lasting long enough to show wear, this is true because we were on the Offense. It is much easier to defend then it is to attack. The August 44 attack by the 47th Panzer Corps & the 1st SS Panzer Corps at Mortian in France and the September 44 attack by the Fifth Panzer Army near Arracourt in Lorraine, France proved that. Both German attacks had local advantages in numbers of armored vehicles, and both attacks were stopped cold by US forces.
As to damage, we had the best system for recovering and repairing damaged vehicles. I have pictures of German and Russian tanks being driven with major suspension components missing(road wheels) or broken (torsion bars). It is very rare to see a US vehicle in this state, unless it is knocked out, or the damage just occured.

Tracks would most definitely rust. Unprotected steel in a damp environment will rust literally overnight, and thus any vehicle with an all-steel track should show a rusty one unless it is literally rolling off the production line or in an exceedingly dry climate like North Africa.

As for fading, I'll still have to disagree. American vehicles did fade--all paint does when exposed to the elements and units in combat don't take time to repaint when other matters (like motor maintenance) pay better dividends in survivability. In northern Europe the degree of fade could be questionable, but for Italy and certainly the Pacific theatre a faded tank isn't inappropriate. Tropic sun is intense. Same goes for an early Sherman in North Aftrica.

Coats of dust and general grime certainly obscure a vehicle's "true" color. But for a modeler, that is just the point: Make the model look like the real thing. If ground-in dust makes a tank look three shades lighter overall, I see nothing wrong with the model being painted that way in the first place. Let the weathering bring out the impression that the "true" color lurks in places, but that the overall look is now substantially different after having seen active service. IMO, we're replicating the appearance of these objects and if a faded paint color achieves that objective then that's OK. How it got to be that shade is, to me, rather irrelevant.

Our ordnance recovery and repair operations were top-notch, but recall that a tank had to actually get knocked out or suffer a very serious breakdown before divisional ordnance got a hold of it. Anything less was handled by the line troops and the battalion maintenance organization. I've read Belton Cooper's very informative account of battlefield ordnance operations in WW2, and the topic of repainting is rarely mentioned. I very much doubt that vehicle crews kept up on regularly repainting their steeds. More likely, the three out of five crew who survived having their last tank shot out from under them picked up two new guys and a new tank all at the same time.

Greg

Putting on tracks backward is one I've made in the past.

Sure it is, it's called the "Verlinden Way" #:-) Seriously when I first saw Verlinden's work, I was awestruck, but now looking back, I'm amazed at the stowage just glued on and with no means of support.
As for common mistakes, well this really happened at my local model club meeting. I brought in my MP Models Israeli Sherman and one of the new armor guys looked at it and said " You left all those numbers on?" Meaning the casting numbers on the tank which MP Models faithfully replicates on the turret, hull and 3 piece nose plates. I came to find out he had been sanding them off, thinking they were some kind of model kit numbering system.