M4A3 (47 degree glacis) what changes need to be made, save the one piece trans.? Hmmm...
Hosted by Darren Baker
M4 vs. M4A3 early
HONEYCUT
Joined: May 07, 2003
KitMaker: 4,002 posts
Armorama: 2,947 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 12:53 PM UTC
Hey lads. Need to establish something that I may have overlooked. Photos of M4s with a one piece transmission aren't necessarily M4A3s yeah? I mean they have diff. engines for a start, but from a modelling viewpoint, to change say, the Tamiya M4 to an
M4A3 (47 degree glacis) what changes need to be made, save the one piece trans.? Hmmm...
M4A3 (47 degree glacis) what changes need to be made, save the one piece trans.? Hmmm...
generalzod
Joined: December 01, 2001
KitMaker: 3,172 posts
Armorama: 2,495 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 01:33 PM UTC
Bradley
The engine deck,rear hull overhang and exhaust were different from the M4 to M4A3 I know the Tamiya M4 kit has the A3 exhaust plate come with it Not sure why
The engine deck,rear hull overhang and exhaust were different from the M4 to M4A3 I know the Tamiya M4 kit has the A3 exhaust plate come with it Not sure why
csch
Joined: December 27, 2002
KitMaker: 1,941 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 01:37 PM UTC
The M4 has small hatches and a 60º glacis and the Tamiya M4A3 has big hatches in the hull and a 47º glacis.
The Turret of the Tamiya M4 is a low bustle turret with only the comanders hatch and the Tamiya M4A3 47º Glacis has a high bustle turret with two hatches.
The engine decks are diferent.
The rears of the hulls are totally diferent.
These are the more noticeable but there are others diferences too.
Better buy an M4A3.
The Turret of the Tamiya M4 is a low bustle turret with only the comanders hatch and the Tamiya M4A3 47º Glacis has a high bustle turret with two hatches.
The engine decks are diferent.
The rears of the hulls are totally diferent.
These are the more noticeable but there are others diferences too.
Better buy an M4A3.
M-60-A3
Joined: June 14, 2003
KitMaker: 808 posts
Armorama: 479 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 01:48 PM UTC
Hi Bradley,
If you have both kits you could use the engine deck and rear plate from the M-4-A3 and put in on the M-4 body.
I think you might also be able to use the 3 piece transmission cover or the welded one. Also think the turret from the M-4 would work as there were numerous variations.
Far from an expert on Shermans, so if I've misinformed you, hopefully some one will correct me.
If I get time I will try and check the Hunnicutt book for photo confirmation.
Joe
If you have both kits you could use the engine deck and rear plate from the M-4-A3 and put in on the M-4 body.
I think you might also be able to use the 3 piece transmission cover or the welded one. Also think the turret from the M-4 would work as there were numerous variations.
Far from an expert on Shermans, so if I've misinformed you, hopefully some one will correct me.
If I get time I will try and check the Hunnicutt book for photo confirmation.
Joe
csch
Joined: December 27, 2002
KitMaker: 1,941 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 02:29 PM UTC
Both kits have diferent front glacis plates, the M4 has the early 60º glacis and the late M4A3 which is the Tamiya kit has 47º one.
It does exists the early M4A3 which has the same 60º glacis, but it´s not the Tamiya kit.
I believe that it doesn´t exists M4´s with 47º glacis.
I think that you can use the engine deck , the rear upper and lower hull plates and the of the Tamiya M4A3 and use them in the Tamiya M4 hull and turret. That will be an early M4A3, I think.
:-H
It does exists the early M4A3 which has the same 60º glacis, but it´s not the Tamiya kit.
I believe that it doesn´t exists M4´s with 47º glacis.
I think that you can use the engine deck , the rear upper and lower hull plates and the of the Tamiya M4A3 and use them in the Tamiya M4 hull and turret. That will be an early M4A3, I think.
:-H
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 03:08 PM UTC
If you can find the old MP Models Authen-I-kit M4/M4A3 early hull conversion. Really nice injection molded plastic and designed for the older Tamiya late production M4A3 (35122). It would presumably, work with the newer Tamiya M4A3. This set is incredibly easy to use to convert the late M4A3 into either a mid-production M4 or an early M4A3.
The Authen-I-kit set can still be found on eBay and in clearance bins. I think it retailed for around $7 and was set #20101. The set includes an upper hull with small hatches (non direct vision), M4A3 engine deck, M4A3 upper rear plate, M4 engine deck with separate vent cover, M4 lower rear hull plate, M4 upper rear plate and M4 air cleaners. No turret included.
Edit: If you want, I can scan the box of the Authen-I-kit set so you know what to look for. Boxtop artwork shows and M4A1 early for some reason.
The Authen-I-kit set can still be found on eBay and in clearance bins. I think it retailed for around $7 and was set #20101. The set includes an upper hull with small hatches (non direct vision), M4A3 engine deck, M4A3 upper rear plate, M4 engine deck with separate vent cover, M4 lower rear hull plate, M4 upper rear plate and M4 air cleaners. No turret included.
Edit: If you want, I can scan the box of the Authen-I-kit set so you know what to look for. Boxtop artwork shows and M4A1 early for some reason.
Plasticat
Joined: September 03, 2003
KitMaker: 448 posts
Armorama: 245 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 03:09 PM UTC
When myself and three of my modeling friends were researching M4A3 early's for a modeling project we found that there aren't any photos of A3 earlys in combat. Just the A3 late models. Our research wasn't exhaustive and we didn't have access to the Hunnicut book, but we came to the conclusion that the A3 earlys were kept in this country in the training roll and then, after the war, were remanufactured and issued to reserve and NG units. Since our project was all about the post war useage, we didn't pursue this thread as far as we could have. We were just curious if any of the three A3 earlys on display in our vicinity were combat veterans.
Of the three, all have low bustle turrets without a loaders hatch. Only one has the add on cheek armor on the turret. All have the add on armor plates on the hull sides. One has the sharp nosed(latest), one piece, cast tranny housing. The other two have the rounded, one piece cast tranny housing. All have the Torsion bar spring assist for the engine deck grills. All have the armor plates welded on in front of the two hull hatches. I imagine that during the war they could have had the three piece tranny....hard to say though...
Plasticat 
Of the three, all have low bustle turrets without a loaders hatch. Only one has the add on cheek armor on the turret. All have the add on armor plates on the hull sides. One has the sharp nosed(latest), one piece, cast tranny housing. The other two have the rounded, one piece cast tranny housing. All have the Torsion bar spring assist for the engine deck grills. All have the armor plates welded on in front of the two hull hatches. I imagine that during the war they could have had the three piece tranny....hard to say though...
Plasticat
Plasticat
Joined: September 03, 2003
KitMaker: 448 posts
Armorama: 245 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 03:20 PM UTC
oh yeah, the one I built used the old MP models upper hull on the old Tamiya M4A3 hull as Sabot just described. One of my friends built one using the Tamiya M4 early and converting it using the engine deck grills from an Italeri Marine Sherman he had and plastic sheet for the new rear plate, using one of my rear plates as a pattern. Both came out pretty nice. I painted mine as it was in service in 1953 and he painted his as it currently looks on display in front of the Emmett, Idaho city hall.
HONEYCUT
Joined: May 07, 2003
KitMaker: 4,002 posts
Armorama: 2,947 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 09:23 PM UTC
Struth!! Think I have M4 variation overload!! (ok, not possible;) Thanks for all the info. Now, not sure if this was mentioned, but have seen frontal photos of M4s with a one piece transmission. Now. Is it possible that a standard M4 (say, mid-production) could have used the one piece without having been a M4A3? ie can I throw one on my Tamiya M4? 
Hollowpoint
Joined: January 24, 2002
KitMaker: 2,748 posts
Armorama: 1,797 posts
Posted: Monday, March 14, 2005 - 01:16 AM UTC
Bradley:
The Tamiya M4 comes with a three-piece final drive and a one-piece, sharp-nose final drive. Neither one is the part you are looking for. What you need is a one-piece round-nose final drive. The round-nose final drive can be found in a number of kits, namely the Academy M10/Achilles/M36 series and several Dragon kits as well. Formations also makes one in resin, as I am sure other resin companies do.
Also, the M4A3(75) dry did apparently see some service in WWII. There are a few photos on this site: http://mmcalc.tripod.com/Shermans/M4A3_dry.html
The Tamiya M4 comes with a three-piece final drive and a one-piece, sharp-nose final drive. Neither one is the part you are looking for. What you need is a one-piece round-nose final drive. The round-nose final drive can be found in a number of kits, namely the Academy M10/Achilles/M36 series and several Dragon kits as well. Formations also makes one in resin, as I am sure other resin companies do.
Also, the M4A3(75) dry did apparently see some service in WWII. There are a few photos on this site: http://mmcalc.tripod.com/Shermans/M4A3_dry.html
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Monday, March 14, 2005 - 02:00 AM UTC
Bob, am I correct in assuming that an early small hatched M4A3 would have the pointed nose and not the rounded nose?
A follow up question, is it also correct to assume that an early small hatched M4A3 would have the applique armor seen on later dry hulls (like the Tamiya M4A3 late)?
A follow up question, is it also correct to assume that an early small hatched M4A3 would have the applique armor seen on later dry hulls (like the Tamiya M4A3 late)?
ericadeane
Joined: October 28, 2002
KitMaker: 4,021 posts
Armorama: 3,947 posts
Posted: Monday, March 14, 2005 - 03:18 AM UTC
Very interesting thread! Here are some thoughts:
1) the M4 and M4A3 both existed in 47degree and 60 degree glacis plates
2) The M4 with 47 degree was a commonly seen variant in the ETO. In the later 60 degree glacis, these hulls were used with the M4 (105mm) howitzer tank
3) the M4A3 initally was produced with 47 degree hull (as in the MP M4?/M4A3 kit). The excellent Tamiya M4A3 is the later 60 degree hull.
4) the "early" M4A3s were used stateside for training but were brought over to Europe to supplant the huge drain of gun tanks in that theatre. Although rare, photos of these small hatch M4A3's exist in combat situations
5) All of these in theatre M4A3 earlies show the applique armor on the hull sides in photos I've seen
6) for Rob Grovinus: the later M4A3 (as in the Tamiya kit) never had the hull applique armor. It is a huge mistake on the part of the Tamiya directions/kit engineers. The later M4A3 hulls had wet stowage so did not need the added armor.
7) M4 Shermans had both one piece and three piece differential covers.
1) the M4 and M4A3 both existed in 47degree and 60 degree glacis plates
2) The M4 with 47 degree was a commonly seen variant in the ETO. In the later 60 degree glacis, these hulls were used with the M4 (105mm) howitzer tank
3) the M4A3 initally was produced with 47 degree hull (as in the MP M4?/M4A3 kit). The excellent Tamiya M4A3 is the later 60 degree hull.
4) the "early" M4A3s were used stateside for training but were brought over to Europe to supplant the huge drain of gun tanks in that theatre. Although rare, photos of these small hatch M4A3's exist in combat situations
5) All of these in theatre M4A3 earlies show the applique armor on the hull sides in photos I've seen
6) for Rob Grovinus: the later M4A3 (as in the Tamiya kit) never had the hull applique armor. It is a huge mistake on the part of the Tamiya directions/kit engineers. The later M4A3 hulls had wet stowage so did not need the added armor.
7) M4 Shermans had both one piece and three piece differential covers.
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Monday, March 14, 2005 - 04:14 AM UTC
I always wondered about the applique armor on the original Tamiya M4A3 late. I plan on building mine using the MP Models early hull conversion and the applique armor on that hull. I always thought the Tamiya A3 hull looked better with the 76mm turret.
toadman1
Vendor
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 1,141 posts
Armorama: 950 posts
Posted: Monday, March 14, 2005 - 04:39 AM UTC
Quoted Text
2) The M4 with 47 degree was a commonly seen variant in the ETO. In the later 60 degree glacis, these hulls were used with the M4 (105mm) howitzer tank
3) the M4A3 initally was produced with 47 degree hull (as in the MP M4?/M4A3 kit). The excellent Tamiya M4A3 is the later 60 degree hull.
Hi Roy,
I think you got the hull types backwards. The M4 and M4A3 with the 60 degree hull were the earlier versions. The late versions had the 47 degree glacis.
Chris "toadman" Hughes
csch
Joined: December 27, 2002
KitMaker: 1,941 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Monday, March 14, 2005 - 05:27 AM UTC
Does the M4 with 47º glacis exists ?
I think they were built only with the early 60º galcis.
Is that right ?
I think they were built only with the early 60º galcis.
Is that right ?
toadman1
Vendor
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 1,141 posts
Armorama: 950 posts
Posted: Monday, March 14, 2005 - 05:50 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Does the M4 with 47º glacis exists ?
I think they were built only with the early 60º galcis.
Is that right ?
The M4 with 47 degree glacis was only built with the 105mm howitzer.
toadman1
Vendor
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 1,141 posts
Armorama: 950 posts
Posted: Monday, March 14, 2005 - 05:55 AM UTC
Quoted Text
.
I imagine that during the war they could have had the three piece tranny....hard to say though...
While I've learned to never say never about Shermans, early M4A3's didn't use the three piece differential cover.
Hollowpoint
Joined: January 24, 2002
KitMaker: 2,748 posts
Armorama: 1,797 posts
Posted: Monday, March 14, 2005 - 06:38 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Bob, am I correct in assuming that an early small hatched M4A3 would have the pointed nose and not the rounded nose?
Photos in Hunnicutt show it with a round nose.
Quoted Text
A follow up question, is it also correct to assume that an early small hatched M4A3 would have the applique armor seen on later dry hulls (like the Tamiya M4A3 late)?
This is correct. This is the main way to tell an early M4A3 in war photos -- it has a M4A3 rear end and applique armor (and a low-bustle turret).
The Tamiya M4A3 is a wet stowage tank and does not use the applique armor. Good ol' Tamiya has baffled a lot of modelers since 1981 when they issued this kit with the applique ands never took it out of the subsequent re-issues.
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Monday, March 14, 2005 - 06:40 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I've got the Fujimi M4 105mm howitzer tank. I know this combination is correct, but it also has HVSS. Is that correct? (Apologies for wandering off topic here). If it is correct, what theater/era? PTO, ETO, post-WW2 Korea?Quoted TextDoes the M4 with 47º glacis exists ?
I think they were built only with the early 60º galcis.
Is that right ?
The M4 with 47 degree glacis was only built with the 105mm howitzer.
toadman1
Vendor
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 1,141 posts
Armorama: 950 posts
Posted: Monday, March 14, 2005 - 06:58 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I've got the Fujimi M4 105mm howitzer tank. I know this combination is correct, but it also has HVSS. Is that correct? (Apologies for wandering off topic here). If it is correct, what theater/era? PTO, ETO, post-WW2 Korea?
Rob,
I've seen the M4(105)HVSS only on Okinawa. I don't think any of them made it to the ETO before the end of hostilities. In Korea, you would have seen only M4A3(105)HVSS as the Ford powered A3's were the preferred Sherman type for active duty US Army units. All other non-Ford powered Shermans would have been sold off , scrapped, sent to Reserve/Guard units or put in storage after WW 2.
Chris
Hollowpoint
Joined: January 24, 2002
KitMaker: 2,748 posts
Armorama: 1,797 posts
Posted: Monday, March 14, 2005 - 06:59 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextI've got the Fujimi M4 105mm howitzer tank. I know this combination is correct, but it also has HVSS. Is that correct? (Apologies for wandering off topic here). If it is correct, what theater/era? PTO, ETO, post-WW2 Korea?Quoted TextDoes the M4 with 47º glacis exists ?
I think they were built only with the early 60º galcis.
Is that right ?
The M4 with 47 degree glacis was only built with the 105mm howitzer.
Definitely post-war -- I have a pic of one training at Fort Ord in 1952. I'm pretty sure they were fielded in Okinawa and possibly in the ETO at the very end of the war. Have to check the refs to know for sure. It's kind of hard to tell the M4(105) from the M4A3(105) unless the pic is from the rear or side.
ShermiesRule
Joined: December 11, 2003
KitMaker: 5,409 posts
Armorama: 3,777 posts
Posted: Monday, March 14, 2005 - 09:58 AM UTC
Oh Hell you could do it the good old US engineering style... if it fits...use it. If it doesn't fit... make it fit!
Slug
Joined: September 02, 2004
KitMaker: 705 posts
Armorama: 505 posts
Posted: Monday, March 14, 2005 - 11:35 AM UTC
Here's a cheat sheet that may help:
KurtLaughlin
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Monday, March 14, 2005 - 02:17 PM UTC
Rob:
Small hatch (Ford-built) M4A3s could have either the "round" (E4186 or single band brake) or the "pointy" (E8543 or double band brake) differential housings. The last 250 or so were built with the later type.
The small hatch M4A3s could have anything from a full suite (hull ammo racks, turret cheek, driver's hoods, and rotor shield) to nothing. Remanufatured vehicles could be expected to have both hull kits and the turret cheek piece (if needed) but I've yet to see any tank in combat with the modified rotor shield. It seems they just plopped in an M34A1 mount instead.
And, as Roy said, the Tamiya kit is wrong. They were probably looking at M4A2(75)Ds or just didn't catch the differences in glacis angles.
KL
Quoted Text
[A]m I correct in assuming that an early small hatched M4A3 would have the pointed nose and not the rounded nose?
Small hatch (Ford-built) M4A3s could have either the "round" (E4186 or single band brake) or the "pointy" (E8543 or double band brake) differential housings. The last 250 or so were built with the later type.
Quoted Text
A follow up question, is it also correct to assume that an early small hatched M4A3 would have the applique armor seen on later dry hulls (like the Tamiya M4A3 late)?
The small hatch M4A3s could have anything from a full suite (hull ammo racks, turret cheek, driver's hoods, and rotor shield) to nothing. Remanufatured vehicles could be expected to have both hull kits and the turret cheek piece (if needed) but I've yet to see any tank in combat with the modified rotor shield. It seems they just plopped in an M34A1 mount instead.
And, as Roy said, the Tamiya kit is wrong. They were probably looking at M4A2(75)Ds or just didn't catch the differences in glacis angles.
KL
tankmodeler
#417
Joined: March 01, 2004
KitMaker: 3,123 posts
Armorama: 2,539 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 06:45 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Here's a cheat sheet that may help:
The only ones missing are the welded hull 47 deg M4s and the M4 Hybrids (which for those wondering, look exactly like the M4A6 hull front with an M4 engine deck and rear hull). I just wish Squadron (for that is where I believe that digram came from, no?) would have finished the job if they were determined to show _most_ of the variations.
Actually, that's what we need from Ampersand, a new edition of their Sherman book with the content expanded to detail the turrets and variants in addition to the hull and running gear info they published first time. A bit of a half-*rsed job. I would also like to see any 2nd edition list the actual part numbers as opposed to the "Type 2b" nominclature that _they_ invented and is now starting to percolate through the hobby.
Kurt, you wouldn't happen to be interested in working with me on a project like that would you? Sort of an illustrated parts book for modelers?? Show the variations and list the PN so people have a proper idea of what they are talking about???
Paul
 |
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.