Heya, Folks,

Just ordered a set of those hatch cages from Harper Castings for an Iwo Jima M4A3 Marine Sherman... Woo-hoo, those suckers look beautiful (and I have been ruminating on how to make them for years!)

What is the best 35th scale big hatch Sherman kit on the market today? Again, it is going to end up as an Iwo Jima Marine Sherman.

I've got a (13) month old so I am not looking to get into gobs of after-market, extensive modifications and such...looking to get as close to "out-of-the-box" as I can get given the time constraints.

Thanks, Folks!

Much Aloha,

Johnny B.

Well, Dragon's M4A3 105 HVSS kit just hit the market, and it has everything but the kitchen sink included. If you have your heart set on a 75mm version rather than a howitzer tank, the Italeri US Marines Sherman is an M4A3 with a few alternate parts to do an M4A2 engine deck, but no other parts for the A2 upper or lower tailplate. Italeri also offered this version with a Calliope rocket system, but I haven't seen that kit in some years. The M4A3 is a decade-old kit, with a 30-year old suspension, so it will require a bit more work. The US Marines boxing does include a wading system.
Still, it's only a matter of time before Dragon, Tasca or Academy offer a newer M4A3 75 (W) kit.
The Academy M4A2 US Marines version isn't as flashy as the newer Dragon offerings, but it isn't bad, either, and IIRC, one Marine tank unit held onto their A2's through the end of hostilities.

Gerald, I'm not a Sherman expert by any stretch of the imagination but I noticed that you did not mention the Tamiya M4A3 kit as an alternative for a Pacific Sherman, any reason?

I have not seen this new Dragon 105 Sherman. It's supposed to be very good, but of course comes with the wrong suspension (if you want to do an Iwo one).

Most modelers seem to feel the Tamiya M4A3s are better than Italeri. The turrets seem a bit better, as do the areas around the driver hatches. It also has a closer to accurate exhaust deflector. I like having closed sponsons, so I do like the Italeri kits, too, and with a bunch of shermans to swap parts from, they look fine.

I did an Iwo A3 with the cages (homemade) and wood planking, etc., though it's in need of a refurbishing.....I used the Italeri kit. It's doable, and if you use the wading stack, even the lower part, then the incorrect (it's a later version) exhaust deflector in the Italeri kit is hidden anyway. I also replaced the kit tracks with the older Tamiya ones with the extended end connectors, which were commonly used on Iwo.

Hope this helps, at least a bit.

Rob

Darren:

As Robert says above, the Tamiya kit can be used, but you will have to do plenty of scratching and scrounging to get all the parts for an Iwo M4A3.

Out of the box, Dragon's M4A3 105 HVSS is inappropriate for Iwo. Again, it could be converted with lots of work and parts, but a better base kit would be the Italeri, Academy or Tamiya kits.

So what is the real problem here, either the kit manufacurers can not get it right, or the Shermans used in th Pacific did not confirm to a certain production standard....

Since the HardCorpModels steel cage hatch covers are for the M4A3 that would limit your selection right there to Tamiya M4A3(75) or Italeri Marine M4A3(75). I am not familiar with the specific M4A3 names on the steel cage package so I don't know how it was dressed up.

The Italeri Marine M4A3 already comes with wading stacks and wooden side panels to go with your steel cages. That would make a nice Marine setup

I'm not sure if the Hard Corps set has the cages for the upper hull as well, but if not, then the cages for an M4A3 would be the same as say, the Academy M4A2 Marines, since they have the same turrets and hull hatches.

However, most of the Marine Shermans on Iwo were M4A3. So that means:

Tamiya (they make various, but the old one is probably best since it has the correct tracks.

Italeri Marines Sherman (just don't use the optional A2 parts)

A Mishmash of Dragon kits.

Nothing that special about the Marine M4A3s, other than cages/nails, wood planking, extra tracks, etc.

So, it's not that the manufacturers have gotten something wrong per se, just that the kits are either a bit old but still solid, or lacking in a few details, or kits we haven't seen yet (such as the new 105 type by Dragon).

By the way, although both the Academy A2 and Italeri Marines sherman come with the wood planking, I'd just just that as a template and make them out of bass/balsa wood instead, as it'll look much better than plastic. That's what I did, and I was quite pleased with the look compared with the fake grain on the plastic.

Remember, too, if you decide to do an A2, if you use the Academy kit, swap out the tracks (I'll trade ya or buy 'em off you) for older Tamiya ones or some aftermarket ones, as the Marines did not use the rubber tracks, only steel.

Rob

Starting with the turret, Formations have this:

http://www.formationsmodels.com/700180.html

Lower Hull:

http://www.formationsmodels.com/894777.html

Update set for Tamiya M4a3:

http://www.formationsmodels.com/1538249.html

Johnny-
I've got the Tamiya M4A3, AFV club tracks/wheels/VVSS suspension, & some collectors brass .30 &.50cal MG's. I also have a template somewhere for correcting the open sponsons on the Tam kit(Also have the website I got it from, so you can download your own...)
Send me your Snail Mail Addy in a PM or to [email protected] and it's yours if you don't mind reimbusing shipping. Probably 5 or 6 bucks if you're in a hurry...

Merry X-mas, chum. Iknow the perils & joys of the 13 Month old

Peace,
LD

The AFV Club wheels/suspension is inappropriate for that vehicle, as it depicts the horizontal return roller arm rather than upraised. The kit one is fine, although some prefer to replace the wheels since they do not have detail on both sides. Another reason why I like the Italeri kit, as there is detail on both sides of ITS wheels.

Rob

According to the new Osprey Modelling "M4 (75 mm) Sherman medium tank", the only kit that has the right size loader's hatch (20 inch) is the Italeri kit. All other ones have incorrectly used the 24 inch hatch from the 76mm turret.

The kit needs the turret rhs cheeck armour added, see (remove xxx):
http://www.usarmymodels.com/ARTICLES/Sherman%20Corner/turretcheekarmor.jpgxxx

The Italeri kit would also need a set of Formations wheels, either F041 or F043, and some easier to use tracks. Bison makes a nice decals sheet for USMC M4A3's.

Hope this helps.

First time I ever heard that in 20+ years of modelling Shermans. I have that book and cannot find any statements about the sizes of oval loader's hatches. (I would not, however, be surprised if it was in there -- the book has several errors, including the awful T1E3 project, which produces a totally bogus vehicle.)

The oval loader's hatch should be the same size on any vehicle that uses it, whether it be a 75mm Sherman, 76mm Sherman, 105mm Sherman, a Pershing, etc.

Actually, the book is correct!

Both Steven Zaloga and Rob Ervin (Formations) confirmed this over on ML just a few weeks ago. The oval hatch on the 75 mm gun armed tanks was slightly smaller in size than that one the 76mm gunned tanks and the Pershing.

I must confess, however, that I was unaware that Tamiya had gotten that detail wrong. Must also confess that I really don't care much, either.

Rob

Well I'll be dipped.

This is what Zaloga posted on ML back in November: "...If you mean the oval loader's hatch on the left side of the later 75mm turret, the C7054011 hatch is 20 inches wide versus 24 inches for the loader's hatches the T-23 turret and M26 Pershing turret. Most kits have this too big as they assumed the various turrets shared the same oval hatch."

I couldn't find anything from Rob Ervin, but I might drop him a note to find out what he knows.

It makes me wonder why this isn't more common knowledge? All these years and all those models and conversion turrets and whatnot and suddenly we find out they are all wrong? Kinda weird. I also wonder why Hunnicutt doesn't mention the difference? This is going to bug me for a while ...

Bob,

Maybe Rob Ervin wasn't involved in that discussion. I'd thought he was, but may be wrong. Glad you were able to find the thread, though.

Sometimes, don't you hate knowledge? It's screwed up some plans of mine as well!

Rob

The only thing I'm not sure on is if the 20/ 24 inch refers to the widht or the circumference of the hatch. In any case the difference in scale is about 2mm. For me it's interesting to know which kits feature which hatch, but I doubt I'll be buying a Italeri kit for each project.
Btw Trakz sells a resin updated copy of the Italeri turret, alas without the loader's hatch itself.

Osprey has several books on modelling the M4 Sherman. The book by Steve Zaloga is just out, and features a lot of very usefull info, such as a breakdown of registration numbers for each factory and type.

It is a truly excellent book. A review of it can be seen:

HERE...

This could explain the variety in size on loaders hatches found on the models, if the 4" relates to the circumferance. In all these years I have never noticed any size difference. If there is some thing I missed it would be because I have never seen the tanks side by side for a comparison. When you consider the near a-retentive standardization of U.S. equipment, it does not make any sense either.

There's no WAY 24" is the circumference! Could any of us fit through a hatch that was 24" around? What's your waist size? Shoulder width? No, it's the width of the hatch, not the circumference.

Rob

Thanks Rob,

I was on my way to work when my morning caffine activated the brain cells. I was hoping to sneak in and make a correction.

Any thoughts on the hatch size discussion?

So where does a wombat find these mythical hatch cages? I googled Harper Castings, which led to VLS, and they don't show much (maybe five figure sets).

Here:
http://www.hardcorpsmodels.com/

Bueno, gracias. I musta mistyped the name of the website. You don't wanna know what Google returned...well, some of you might. But this is a family site...

Gotta be the width. I agree -- they looks right to me.