Can anabody tell me if I can use the the Dragon Kit excluding its turret and the Turret of the conversion kit to make a Sherman Jumbo.
Thanks to the answers.
Hosted by Darren Baker
Sherman Jumbo Turret
csch
Joined: December 27, 2002
KitMaker: 1,941 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 06, 2003 - 07:22 AM UTC
I have a Sherman M4A3 76W HVSS kit from Dragon (No. 9010) and a Sherman Jumbo Turret Conversion Kit from Miniature Armor (No. 35TT004).
Can anabody tell me if I can use the the Dragon Kit excluding its turret and the Turret of the conversion kit to make a Sherman Jumbo.
Thanks to the answers.
Can anabody tell me if I can use the the Dragon Kit excluding its turret and the Turret of the conversion kit to make a Sherman Jumbo.
Thanks to the answers.
Jacques
Joined: March 04, 2003
KitMaker: 4,630 posts
Armorama: 4,498 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 06, 2003 - 08:10 AM UTC
ok, I feel pretty sure about this one...the only way you would find a Jumbo sherman turret is on a jumbo sherman (mod) hull. This had the thickened tranny cover and the extra armor on the hull front and sides. Also, Jumbo always had the "duckbill extenders" on the tracks, due to their increased weight.
So sorry, it would not be a accurate vehicle.
So sorry, it would not be a accurate vehicle.
Bravo21
Joined: February 07, 2003
KitMaker: 78 posts
Armorama: 63 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 06, 2003 - 08:30 AM UTC
Unfortuantely, your conversion will need several more items to create a Jumbo Sherman. The M4A3E2 Jumbo Sherman had a noticeably thicker transmission cover than a normal M4A3 and had additional armor plates welded to the upper hull sides and front. Most Jumbo Shermans used the spoked road wheels but other types of road wheels were also fitted. All Jumbos were fitted with tracks using extended end connectors to help reduce the increase in ground pressure due to the extra armor.
Your options are to build up the kit transmission cover with two-part epoxy putty and sand it to shape, or buy the Tank Workshop resin Jumbo Sherman transmission cover. The additional armor plates on the upper hull could be made from .030 sheet plastic as the additional armor is the same shape as the hull plates. For the tracks you could use a set of the Tamiya tracks from their M4A3 kit, or purchase aftermarket tracks.
In all likelihood, your Miniature Armor Jumbo turret was intended to replace the inaccurate turret in the Tamiya Jumbo Sherman kit but the Tamiya kit still lacks a correct transmission cover. If you want an all inclusive conversion set, Blast Models from France has just released the definitive Jumbo Sherman conversion that can be mated to a Sherman model lower hull. The Blast kit is the most accurate Jumbo conversion available. It's also a bit expensive at $65 (US).
I've submitted a dozen photos of a Jumbo Sherman I photographed about 10 years ago in Germany. Armorama hasn't posted them yet but they should available in the gallery in a week or so. Hope that helps you.
Your options are to build up the kit transmission cover with two-part epoxy putty and sand it to shape, or buy the Tank Workshop resin Jumbo Sherman transmission cover. The additional armor plates on the upper hull could be made from .030 sheet plastic as the additional armor is the same shape as the hull plates. For the tracks you could use a set of the Tamiya tracks from their M4A3 kit, or purchase aftermarket tracks.
In all likelihood, your Miniature Armor Jumbo turret was intended to replace the inaccurate turret in the Tamiya Jumbo Sherman kit but the Tamiya kit still lacks a correct transmission cover. If you want an all inclusive conversion set, Blast Models from France has just released the definitive Jumbo Sherman conversion that can be mated to a Sherman model lower hull. The Blast kit is the most accurate Jumbo conversion available. It's also a bit expensive at $65 (US).
I've submitted a dozen photos of a Jumbo Sherman I photographed about 10 years ago in Germany. Armorama hasn't posted them yet but they should available in the gallery in a week or so. Hope that helps you.
penpen
Joined: April 11, 2002
KitMaker: 1,757 posts
Armorama: 929 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 06, 2003 - 10:17 AM UTC
Just a question : isn't the blast-models conversion a full kit ? I thought that it came with a lower hull...
That's what they did with the borgwald : use the DML vehicle and add the resin parts peculiar to the version.
Anyway, I'll be giving Blast a visit on saturday so I can ask the people there !
That's what they did with the borgwald : use the DML vehicle and add the resin parts peculiar to the version.
Anyway, I'll be giving Blast a visit on saturday so I can ask the people there !
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 06, 2003 - 10:59 AM UTC
Don't forget that the Jumbo didn't use HVSS, although that kit may include the old Italeri M4A1 running gear, my Korean War M4A3E8 did.
BTW, that version of the Sherman is one of more rare DML Sherman variants (right behind the M4A1 Early and Sherman Firefly Ic). Seems like a waste when an old Tamiya M4A3E2 Jumbo runs about $15 and would do the job much better (kit includes the hull armor).
BTW, that version of the Sherman is one of more rare DML Sherman variants (right behind the M4A1 Early and Sherman Firefly Ic). Seems like a waste when an old Tamiya M4A3E2 Jumbo runs about $15 and would do the job much better (kit includes the hull armor).
Bravo21
Joined: February 07, 2003
KitMaker: 78 posts
Armorama: 63 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 06, 2003 - 12:17 PM UTC
Oops. I didn't notice that the base kit was an Easy-8. Thanks for catching that, Rob. I agree: if possible, just go get a Tamiya Jumbo.
PenPen: Let us know what you find out from Blast. The kit review I read on Perth Military Modeling clearly desribed it as a conversion for the Tamiya M4 Sherman. The Tamiya parts were not included. The packaging box even states that the Tamiya parts on not included. Perhaps Blast offers it as a complete kit in Europe?
PenPen: Let us know what you find out from Blast. The kit review I read on Perth Military Modeling clearly desribed it as a conversion for the Tamiya M4 Sherman. The Tamiya parts were not included. The packaging box even states that the Tamiya parts on not included. Perhaps Blast offers it as a complete kit in Europe?
csch
Joined: December 27, 2002
KitMaker: 1,941 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 06, 2003 - 12:38 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Oops. I didn't notice that the base kit was an Easy-8. Thanks for catching that, Rob. I agree: if possible, just go get a Tamiya Jumbo.
PenPen: Let us know what you find out from Blast. The kit review I read on Perth Military Modeling clearly desribed it as a conversion for the Tamiya M4 Sherman. The Tamiya parts were not included. The packaging box even states that the Tamiya parts on not included. Perhaps Blast offers it as a complete kit in Europe?
Thanks to all for the responses. I will try to find a complete kit of a M4A3E2. Here in my country is very dificult to find that version in Tamiya, they distributor donīt take care about the market needs.
Bravo21:
The kit is not a Easy 8, itīs a M4A3 76W. I also have in my closet a M4A3E8 an a Firefly Ic both from Dragon. Here itīs more ease to find Dragon kits, Ithink it exist all the line.
Thanks again
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Friday, March 07, 2003 - 12:52 AM UTC
But in your opening line you state it is "Sherman M4A3 76W HVSS." HVSS stands for Horizontal Volute Suspension System which is more commonly known as "Easy 8." A Jumbo Sherman uses VVSS or Vertical Volute Suspension System. There are several variations of VVSS in kits going from the old M3 Lee type to the type with upswept arms like on the Tamiya kits.
csch
Joined: December 27, 2002
KitMaker: 1,941 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Friday, March 07, 2003 - 01:31 AM UTC
Quoted Text
But in your opening line you state it is "Sherman M4A3 76W HVSS." HVSS stands for Horizontal Volute Suspension System which is more commonly known as "Easy 8." A Jumbo Sherman uses VVSS or Vertical Volute Suspension System. There are several variations of VVSS in kits going from the old M3 Lee type to the type with upswept arms like on the Tamiya kits.
Youīre right, but thatīs what the kit box says (M4A3 (76)W HVSS Sherman WW2 - Kit No. 9010 - Imperial Series).
The other one says (M4A3E8( Easy Eight Korean War - Kit No. 9009 - Imperial Series).
Both are HVSS. The first one has aditional armor plates for the sides of the turret, the glacis and the transmission cover.
The first one comes with T66 tracks and the other one with T80.
Except for the tracks and the aditional armor plates the kits looks the same.
avukich
Joined: April 11, 2002
KitMaker: 760 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Friday, March 07, 2003 - 03:53 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Just a question : isn't the blast-models conversion a full kit ? I thought that it came with a lower hull...
That's what they did with the borgwald : use the DML vehicle and add the resin parts peculiar to the version
I just got the Blast Models conversion the other day. It comes with an upper hull, tranny cover, turret, duckbill ends, and other misc. parts. No lower hull, running gear, or tracks. The instructions say to use the Tamiya M4 for those pieces and clearly show the Tamiya M4 tracks when showing how to apply the duckbills.
Jacques
Joined: March 04, 2003
KitMaker: 4,630 posts
Armorama: 4,498 posts
Posted: Friday, March 07, 2003 - 06:57 AM UTC
sorry to hear that about the Blast kit...seems pretty pricy...what is the hook that makes it better than the TW conversion? ALl my research into the TW kit shows that it is VERY accurate, only missing a few weld lines.
avukich
Joined: April 11, 2002
KitMaker: 760 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Friday, March 07, 2003 - 07:19 AM UTC
I will be doing a photo side-by-side comparison of the Blast Models, TW, and Verlinden conversions tomorrow and will post it. I will post here with a link so you can see the difference for yourself. One thing to remember about the Blast Conversion is that it comes with everything you need (except the kit to convert) to make a Jumbo including a bunch of nicely done detail parts such as new tools, gun travel lock, periscopes that can be positions open or closed, a nice .50 cal, etc. The TW stuff only gives you the turret, upper hull, and tranny cover. One really nice thing about the Blast Models conversion is that the doors on the rear hull that open in to engine compartment come seperate and are see through instead of solid.
Jacques
Joined: March 04, 2003
KitMaker: 4,630 posts
Armorama: 4,498 posts
Posted: Friday, March 07, 2003 - 08:53 AM UTC
So it is basically a TW set with all the extra detail parts that TW did not do...ok. I can see that being appealing. My main concern is with dimension/outline. I am assuming it is going to be closer to the TW than the Verlinden.
avukich
Joined: April 11, 2002
KitMaker: 760 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Friday, March 07, 2003 - 08:56 AM UTC
From what I can see, it is extremely accurate, but it is not based on the TW set. It is a completely new casting.
Bravo21
Joined: February 07, 2003
KitMaker: 78 posts
Armorama: 63 posts
Posted: Friday, March 07, 2003 - 09:37 AM UTC
IMO, the new Blast conversion is far more accurate than the TW turret and transmission cover. I can't speak for the Verlinden set but based on its age, and the fact that almost every Verlinden conversion I've purchased has had gross problems, I think it's safe to assume Blast will blow away Verlinden too.
As for the TW set, I have the complete turret and tranny cover. The tranny cover is not the right shape; it's too thin and pointed. While it is thicker than the Tamiya kit part, it is still not thick enough or rounded enough. The TW turret, while a lot better than the Tamiya part, still has a basic shape problem, which oddly enough is correct on the Tamiya turret. The lower part of the turret casting on the TW item has a hard edge where it angles in toward the turret ring. Not only is this incorrect, the point where the armor should angle in toward the turret ring is too far up the side of the turret. This is a difficult shape to describe so I'll attempt to post a photo of the real deal and the TW part this evening. Regardless, I had 3 years of unfettered access to a Jumbo on static display at my Army post in Germany. I corrected the Tamiya kit while stationed there. Most of the photos I took of the real tank should be posted in the Gallery section soon. While the TW set makes a better looking Jumbo than the Tamiya kit parts, Blast will be the best and most accurate conversion available. From what I've seen of review pictures (my copy is in the mail), Blast has finally given us an accurate Jumbo conversion kit.
As for the TW set, I have the complete turret and tranny cover. The tranny cover is not the right shape; it's too thin and pointed. While it is thicker than the Tamiya kit part, it is still not thick enough or rounded enough. The TW turret, while a lot better than the Tamiya part, still has a basic shape problem, which oddly enough is correct on the Tamiya turret. The lower part of the turret casting on the TW item has a hard edge where it angles in toward the turret ring. Not only is this incorrect, the point where the armor should angle in toward the turret ring is too far up the side of the turret. This is a difficult shape to describe so I'll attempt to post a photo of the real deal and the TW part this evening. Regardless, I had 3 years of unfettered access to a Jumbo on static display at my Army post in Germany. I corrected the Tamiya kit while stationed there. Most of the photos I took of the real tank should be posted in the Gallery section soon. While the TW set makes a better looking Jumbo than the Tamiya kit parts, Blast will be the best and most accurate conversion available. From what I've seen of review pictures (my copy is in the mail), Blast has finally given us an accurate Jumbo conversion kit.
penpen
Joined: April 11, 2002
KitMaker: 1,757 posts
Armorama: 929 posts
Posted: Friday, March 07, 2003 - 10:40 AM UTC
Too bad for me about the blast conversion ! So if I have to by the tamiya kit plus the conversion it's gonna be too expensive for me ! i'll just have to get myself something else...
It's too bad the guys from Blast don't post here. They probably don't have the time because they are expending their line of products fast ! if you go to Paris, make sure you visit the shop, it's the friendliest armor model shop I know.
It's too bad the guys from Blast don't post here. They probably don't have the time because they are expending their line of products fast ! if you go to Paris, make sure you visit the shop, it's the friendliest armor model shop I know.
Jacques
Joined: March 04, 2003
KitMaker: 4,630 posts
Armorama: 4,498 posts
Posted: Friday, March 07, 2003 - 01:15 PM UTC
well, I stand corrected onthe TW set being perfect, if that is what was read into it. I meant mainly that it was far and away better than the Tamiya or Verlinden offerings.
I have about 180 pics of the jumbo at Camp Ripley here in Minnesota that I have been crawling over for about 12 years now. Now it is about 2 hrs drive from me...
Upon looking at the TW kit and the pics I have come to the following conclusion about the problems, which I do hope BLAST has addressed:
1. The Tranny cover is NOT thick enough. From where it bolts onto the hull, the TW replacement piece is level straight around. On the real deal as soon as the Tranny cover is past the "bolt Line" on top, it thickens very noticably. I would say it should be about .10 sheet and then .20 sheet over it thicker up to where the tranny cover starts to curve under, to about 1/4 to 3/8 of the way around the front.
2. The turret undercut is TOO HIGH. It should be about 1/4 inch lower onthe turret and should be a rounder edge to it, not so much of a "beak". The mantlet is the correct height from the hull. The overall shape of the turret from the crosssection and top seem to be accurate, so the screwup is just in where the undercut was placed. It is not too noticeable until you REALLY look for it.
3. aside from the weld line missing about halfway down the side of the hull, the new hull seems accurate...no provision for a open engine compartment without some major cutting, but all those engine adding people are just plain crazy anyhow...heh heh heh.
otherwise, for the $30 price tag, what I paid for the whole conversion anyhow, it is not too bad. Yes, it is noticeable with the right refences and the right angles, so the caliper armed bolt counters will be upset, but just for fun, I looked through all the normal Jumbo pics on the web that we have all seem a million times. Looking at those, the TW set makes a perfectly acceptable Jumbo because the angles all show what it represents. Does this mean that we should give BLAST a bad time for yet another conversion...no way. Does it mean that you will be getting $28 in extra accuracy and detail...I do not know without the BLAST item to scrutinize.
I will try to put the rest of my Jumbo pics up on the webpage below ASAP..got a family and other models too...
http://milveh.tripod.com/
I have about 180 pics of the jumbo at Camp Ripley here in Minnesota that I have been crawling over for about 12 years now. Now it is about 2 hrs drive from me...
Upon looking at the TW kit and the pics I have come to the following conclusion about the problems, which I do hope BLAST has addressed:1. The Tranny cover is NOT thick enough. From where it bolts onto the hull, the TW replacement piece is level straight around. On the real deal as soon as the Tranny cover is past the "bolt Line" on top, it thickens very noticably. I would say it should be about .10 sheet and then .20 sheet over it thicker up to where the tranny cover starts to curve under, to about 1/4 to 3/8 of the way around the front.
2. The turret undercut is TOO HIGH. It should be about 1/4 inch lower onthe turret and should be a rounder edge to it, not so much of a "beak". The mantlet is the correct height from the hull. The overall shape of the turret from the crosssection and top seem to be accurate, so the screwup is just in where the undercut was placed. It is not too noticeable until you REALLY look for it.
3. aside from the weld line missing about halfway down the side of the hull, the new hull seems accurate...no provision for a open engine compartment without some major cutting, but all those engine adding people are just plain crazy anyhow...heh heh heh.
otherwise, for the $30 price tag, what I paid for the whole conversion anyhow, it is not too bad. Yes, it is noticeable with the right refences and the right angles, so the caliper armed bolt counters will be upset, but just for fun, I looked through all the normal Jumbo pics on the web that we have all seem a million times. Looking at those, the TW set makes a perfectly acceptable Jumbo because the angles all show what it represents. Does this mean that we should give BLAST a bad time for yet another conversion...no way. Does it mean that you will be getting $28 in extra accuracy and detail...I do not know without the BLAST item to scrutinize.
I will try to put the rest of my Jumbo pics up on the webpage below ASAP..got a family and other models too...
http://milveh.tripod.com/
Jacques
Joined: March 04, 2003
KitMaker: 4,630 posts
Armorama: 4,498 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 08, 2003 - 07:28 AM UTC
I have posted a few new pictures that should help with the accuracy issues of the TW set...and for others to check the Blast kit against. I have a nice 3/4 view of the tranny cover top that shows how it thickens. See above post for link
avukich
Joined: April 11, 2002
KitMaker: 760 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Monday, March 10, 2003 - 01:01 AM UTC
Here is a link to the side-by-side comparison of the Verlinden, TW, & Blast Jumbo conversions:
http://www.tankshack.com/testing/reviews/details/jumboshermans.html
Any which way I look at it, the Blast Models conversion is far and away better. It is more accurate, has some of the petitest details I've ever seen, and you get TONS of great stuff. In my humble opinion, it is well worth the extra money if you plan on making an accurate, highly detailed Jumbo.
http://www.tankshack.com/testing/reviews/details/jumboshermans.html
Any which way I look at it, the Blast Models conversion is far and away better. It is more accurate, has some of the petitest details I've ever seen, and you get TONS of great stuff. In my humble opinion, it is well worth the extra money if you plan on making an accurate, highly detailed Jumbo.
csch
Joined: December 27, 2002
KitMaker: 1,941 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 02:08 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Unfortuantely, your conversion will need several more items to create a Jumbo Sherman. The M4A3E2 Jumbo Sherman had a noticeably thicker transmission cover than a normal M4A3 and had additional armor plates welded to the upper hull sides and front. Most Jumbo Shermans used the spoked road wheels but other types of road wheels were also fitted. All Jumbos were fitted with tracks using extended end connectors to help reduce the increase in ground pressure due to the extra armor.
Your options are to build up the kit transmission cover with two-part epoxy putty and sand it to shape, or buy the Tank Workshop resin Jumbo Sherman transmission cover. The additional armor plates on the upper hull could be made from .030 sheet plastic as the additional armor is the same shape as the hull plates. For the tracks you could use a set of the Tamiya tracks from their M4A3 kit, or purchase aftermarket tracks.
In all likelihood, your Miniature Armor Jumbo turret was intended to replace the inaccurate turret in the Tamiya Jumbo Sherman kit but the Tamiya kit still lacks a correct transmission cover. If you want an all inclusive conversion set, Blast Models from France has just released the definitive Jumbo Sherman conversion that can be mated to a Sherman model lower hull. The Blast kit is the most accurate Jumbo conversion available. It's also a bit expensive at $65 (US).
I've submitted a dozen photos of a Jumbo Sherman I photographed about 10 years ago in Germany. Armorama hasn't posted them yet but they should available in the gallery in a week or so. Hope that helps you.
Bravo 21:
Eureka ! I bought a Tamiya M4A3E2 Jumbo to a modeler that doesnīt want it, as Iīve said here is very dificult to find it in the hobby shops. I decided to build it with the Miniature Armour Jumbo Turret Conv. Set. I know that the Tamiya Jumbo doesnīt have the correct transmision cover but I will try to do something about it. When finished Iīll send some photos.
Bravo21
Joined: February 07, 2003
KitMaker: 78 posts
Armorama: 63 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 05:20 PM UTC
CAS,
Great! I can't wait to see your Jumbo Sherman.
Dave :-)
Great! I can't wait to see your Jumbo Sherman.
Dave :-)
beachbm2
Joined: December 21, 2002
KitMaker: 400 posts
Armorama: 151 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 06:10 PM UTC
Tank Work Shop makes a nice conversion set also, just add the Tamiya M4A3 with the conversion parts and you will have a nice Jumbo (Tamiya Tracks have Duckbills on tracks already)
Just My 2 cents
Jeff Larkin aka beachbm2
Just My 2 cents
Jeff Larkin aka beachbm2
mp_guy
Joined: March 22, 2003
KitMaker: 13 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 22, 2003 - 10:33 PM UTC
Just my two cents, and for a bit of clarification on the suspension systems used on the sherman... The M4A3E2 Jumbo used the earlier version vertical volute spring suspension or VVSS suspension system. The duckbill extended end connectors were ALWAYS added to deal with the increased weight of the added armor. The E8 designation was used for all Shermans with the Horizontal Volute Spring suspension or HVSS. It is odd that the E9 designation denoted the earlier VVSS suspension used in conjunction with spacer plates to displace the bogie trucks, drive sprockets, and idler wheels out farther away from the hull to allow the use of duckbill extended end connectors on BOTH sides of the track. This was not used much as the HVSS was a better alternative.
mp_guy
Joined: March 22, 2003
KitMaker: 13 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 22, 2003 - 10:50 PM UTC
It is also interesting to note that the first version of the M4 Sherman was the Cast hull M4A1. The production was contracted out to many different companies, and most didnt have the ability to create such huge castings. At the time, the Sherman hull was the largest casting ever attempted on a tank. To ease production, a welded hull was designed... easier to produce, and was accpeted as the standard production model in 1942. As a result, the FIRST cast-hull version of the M4 produced was considered as a follow on model, and designated M4A1. The M4A1 offered better ballistic protection, and the M4(welded hull) provided more interior space. There were many examples of the M4A1 that landed on D-Day that were still in use at the end of the war, and many units used a combination of both versions.
 |
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.