Hey guys,

Just for kicks I decided to compare the drawings in squadrons sherman in action, and the Tamiya M-4, and it seems the kit goes from 6-12 scale inches short of what it is supposed to be in various places!(hull length, length from front roadwheel to back, width) Who is inacurate, Squadron or Tamiya?

Could be either or both.

Pre-digital, the printing process was notorious for messing with scale drawings so don't put too much faith in them. I have checked the M4 against the drawings in Hunnicut with much better results.

According to Perth's review by Terry Ashley, the kit scales out precisely to Hunnicutt's Sherman book. That's good enough for me.

While the Squadron book is a great quick reference, the older books of the in action series are kind of the "comic books" of vehicle references. Many older books have been rendered obsolete by newer information. The Sherman book is older than you are.

Perth comparison review of Tamiya and Bandai Shermans

Without a check scale included in the drawing you have no way to comfirm that it was published at the correct size. I have the old In Action Sherman book, but it is really a pretty weak reference beyond the pictures themselves.

If you want to check the scale of a drawing take a component with a known dimension, like actual overall width and measure it on the drawing, then do the math to compare the actual measurement to the measurement on the drawing to see how close to the nominal scale the publisher has attributed to it the drawing really is.

Konrad

Thats what I did... I measured the hull length on the tamiya kit and multiplied it by 48, then I would measure the drawing and multiply it by 76 (it's a 76th scale drawing) I would end up with measurements that were upt to a scale foot too large or small...

The In Action series are okay as primers, but I wouldn't take the drawings as being accurate without some checking. I've had experience of the havoc that can be caused to scale drawings by reproduction for printing in the past. At least now that most of it is done digitally there is less chance of plans getting messed up.

There should be some dimensions given in the book which can be converted to 1/76 and 1/48 and the drawings and the model can both be checked against them.

Based on the plans in Hunnicut, the Tamiya M4 seems accurate enough to me.

Sorry, I might have been a bit confusing. What I meant was measure the hull width on the drawing and get an actual dimension. Then take the know actual dimension from the object depicted (exaple, hull width) and divide it by the actual dimension taken off the drawing, and the result will tell you the scale. For example if the width on the drawing was 2" and the actual tank was 96" wide, the scale of the drawing is calculated thusly: 96/2 = 48, so the drawing is 1/48th scale (96/48=2). If the actual tank was 83" wide and the drawing was still 2", the result of 83/2 = 41.5 so the scale is 1/41.5 (83/41.5=2).

I will now duck while the math majors open up on me.

Interestingly, in my edition of Sherman In Action the plan on page 5 is nominally 1/76 based on the hull width (the Sherman is 102" wide, and this measurement on the drawing is 1.340" according to my dial calipers, so the math is 102/1.340 =76.11, or 1/76.11 scale, which is within measurement error), but the same measurement on the Tamiya is 2.143" which scales out at almost exactly 102" in 1/48, so I am not sure there is a problem.

Konrad

For what it's worth, and I've mentioned this before, all three of Tamiya's figure sets ( German infantry, US infantry, German panzer grenadiers) contain obviously under-scaled figures, measuring a scale 4' 6" to 5' 6". And I really don't think this has anything to do with under-developed bone structures due to malnutrition from the depression years.

I am in the process of building all 3 sets released so far, and the issue has not escaped me - but none I have completed are under 5' to date. Definitely nutritionally deprived individuals though.

Konrad :-)