Rubicon Models
Rubicon Models => General Discussions => Topic started by: Pinky on April 02, 2017, 01:41:20 pm
-
I picked up the new Rubicon M4A3E8 kit yesterday, and have been playing around with it since then.
The first point is that this kit marks another milestone for Rubicon. It's pretty much an entirely new kit - not much remains of their original (discontinued) M4A3 kit. There are 4 sprues packed with bits, including optional parts, accessories and crew figures (well, half figures). The precision and accuracy of the detail is up there with their best kits, but you can also have a lot of fun personalising the model. It's also going to be easy to build several 76mm-armed Shermans and have them all looking different. So I think this is their best kit yet in terms of just being enjoyable to build.
The most important options are the tracks and suspension - there are 3 versions, and they take up a lot of the space on the sprues. The basic version is virtually identical to the original, except that the chevron detail on the treads has been mounded onto the front section (but not the back - the only real flaw in this kit). The extended end connector version is very nicely cast, and a good example of how Rubicon are prepared to push the envelope with one-piece castings. They will fit on the original M4A3 kit, so I may replace mine. They don't fit on the M10/M36 hull. As an aside, the extended end connectors often broke off, so you can remove a few for added realism. You only get enough pieces for either the basic tracks or the version with extended end connectors.
The HVSS suspension is one of the big attractions of this kit, and it's very nicely done. All the details are there, and once again most of it is a one piece casting (although the tread detail is still only on the front section of the tracks). The tracks are the later T80 type (distinguished by the chevron tread pattern), which were less common in WW2 than the T66 single pin type.
There is one basic hull, with optional parts for the VVSS and HVSS suspension. The HVSS suspension involved narrow mudguards down the side which (along with the wider 23 inch track) altered the Sherman's appearance significantly, and these are separate parts which slot on very neatly. The hull hatches are separate, and other details like the rear plate and exhaust deflector have been greatly improved. Even the spare tracks brackets have been improved (remember not to mount these on the HVSS version).
The turrets have been totally redesigned, and look very accurate. As the instructions point out, you should only use the later version for the M4A3E8 (only very early M4A3E8s had the circular loader's hatch). The machine-gun storage brackets are included (they are a bit fiddly). You can't build 2 complete T-23 turrets - you have to choose. I don't think that's an issue. There are two .50 cals, one with a slightly thicker barrel for wargaming (a nice touch - I hope this becomes a standard feature in Rubicon kits). The M36 turret fits the new hull easily - as the M36B1 was often fitted with extended end connectors, you can now build a very accurate model of one.
There are 4 crew half-figures, all identical except 2 are modified to attach inside the hull hatches. No doubt most of us will replace them with figures from the forthcoming US tank crew set. The accessories include jerrycans and spare tracks and wheels (for the VVSS version) which are basically from the Allied stowage set. There are no spare HVSS wheels. There is an unusual version of the Cullin hedgerow device - these would be very rare on this Sherman, which entered service after the US Army left the Normandy bocage.
So, in summary a very good kit, and a very promising start to the Sherman range. Go out and buy some!
-
Very useful review. Thanks.
I look forward to seeing your finished model (and buying mine at Salute).
-
Agree with it all.
I had to clasp at straws to find issues with the kit and he only real gripes I could get was the tread pattern and lack
Of .30 cal for a pintle mount
-
Yes, a .30 cal would have been good. And maybe separate grips for the .50 cal.
I just realised that you can't build more than one complete set of tracks, as they all share the same inner drive sprocket pieces. I cannibalised my old Sherman tracks to make 2 complete sets with extended end connectors. But unless you're happy to leave the inner pieces off entirely, you're going to need to scratchbuild them if you want to use one of the optional sets of tracks on another model.
-
Unless you get down at table level to look , you probably wouldn't notice the missing inner sprocket piece . Most gamers view their toys from above ;D . I wonder if the full sand shields would help hide missing piece ? I used the inner sprocket pieces from my SU-85 to make a spare sprocket for a early warTt-34 . Missing parts are not noticable at all , but then the T-34 hull is low and crammed with large wheels
-
I'd find it hard to see the sprocket if the tank was upside down!
-
It easy , if you know where to look elias :D
(https://s4.postimg.org/l39c8lucp/overturned-_Sherman-tank.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/l39c8lucp/)
-
Here's the kit almost completed, with a lavish amount of Rubicon stowage.
(https://s13.postimg.org/gurfmgio3/IMG_2315.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/gurfmgio3/)
(https://s13.postimg.org/8qjbhpw8z/IMG_2316.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/8qjbhpw8z/)
(https://s13.postimg.org/ip4a475oj/IMG_2317.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/ip4a475oj/)
-
@Pinky, are you going to paint this? ;D
-
Looking forward to seeing this painted.
Lots of gear.
-
@Pinky, are you going to paint this? ;D
As long as I don't get distracted by another...what's that shiny thing there?
-
@Pinky, are you going to paint this? ;D
As long as I don't get distracted by another...what's that shiny thing there?
You would not catch me doing that...
http://ultravanillasmurf.blogspot.com/2015/12/more-rubicon-wip.html (http://ultravanillasmurf.blogspot.com/2015/12/more-rubicon-wip.html)
-
Yeah. I check your site regularly. My inability to focus is on a whole different level...
Russians (sorry, Rubicon - all Warlord):
(https://s14.postimg.org/8ddv9ez99/IMG_2355.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/8ddv9ez99/)
Germans (all Rubicon):
(https://s14.postimg.org/57t9j7gn1/IMG_2357.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/57t9j7gn1/)
US (all Rubicon):
(https://s14.postimg.org/d1tv4lofx/IMG_2358.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/d1tv4lofx/)
There are also WiP British Shermans and German half-tracks. And the Oddball Sherman...
The US tanks are a case in point. I've basically rebuilt them twice, once when the Allied stowage set came out, and again when the new M4A3 appeared ( the Shermans got new tracks). The other issue is time - it requires much longer periods of uninterrupted concentration to paint them properly. That's hard to find.
-
Well here's my Sherman project..
A full company of Shermans.. 3x platoons of 5 Shermans, 2x command Sherman and a 105mm. Mostly Rubicon.
(https://thumb.ibb.co/k1cnwQ/IMG_3833.jpg) (https://ibb.co/k1cnwQ)
First platoon completed.
(https://thumb.ibb.co/iDNbqk/IMG_4048.jpg) (https://ibb.co/iDNbqk) (https://thumb.ibb.co/dUPZbQ/IMG_4049.jpg) (https://ibb.co/dUPZbQ) (https://thumb.ibb.co/eQyubQ/IMG_4050.jpg) (https://ibb.co/eQyubQ)
I can't take credit for this conversion. I needed an M32 to complete my company so I asked a friend of mine (Richard Humble) to make me one using the Rubicon chassis!
(https://thumb.ibb.co/bMKNVk/IMG_4062.jpg) (https://ibb.co/bMKNVk) (https://thumb.ibb.co/mXfki5/IMG_4063.jpg) (https://ibb.co/mXfki5) (https://thumb.ibb.co/d3F7wQ/IMG_4064.jpg) (https://ibb.co/d3F7wQ) (https://thumb.ibb.co/ktySwQ/IMG_4065.jpg) (https://ibb.co/ktySwQ)
-
WOW! Fantastic tank platoon . Your friend did a great job on the M 32 , looks better than the 1/35 Italeri one I built
-
Great line-up of Shermans, Elias. A couple of them look noticably smaller than the Rubicon version though. I'd also suggest you use the same style of US stars on them, so it looks more like they all belong to the same unit. Just a suggestion.
Your Sherman collection reminds me of this photo of part of the 752nd Tank Battalion in Bologna, Italy:
(https://s23.postimg.org/ulnge7knr/Sherman_company.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/ulnge7knr/)
The M32 is excellent. I did one of these in 1/72 scale many years ago, and I know how hard it is to get that 'turret' shape right. Your friend did a superb job.
-
You might want to rethink the types of tanks in each platoon . The USA used mostly M4 / M4A1 ( radial engine ) and the M4A3 ( gas V-8 ) . All tanks in the unit should have the same engine for ease of supply and maintenance .That's why the M4A2 ( diesel ) went to the USMC and Lend Lease , and the M4A4 ( Chrysler multi bank 5 x 6 cylinder ) went Lend Lease mostly to the Brits . IRC , the ammo differences didn't cause a problem ( 75mm , 76mm or 105mm ) for the US supply chain . Looks like you have enough tanks to shuffle them about and still fill your platoons . As Pinky said , get the markings for each troop as same as possible ( stars , numbers , etc ) , maybe make the M4 / M4A1 types another unit with a different style star and larger or smaller numbers ( maybe a replacement unit due to heavy losses )
-
The only tanks in there are M4, M4A1 and M4A3 which I'm going to keep it a mix of them, but mostly the A3.
US tankers loved the A1 so tried to keep hold of them as long as possible!
The trenchworx M4A1 isn't actually smaller, it's just the angle of the pic, the curved armour and the fact it's next to an E8.
Will keep in mind the stars being similar. I've got s whole company to play with and move them around and potentially another 2 companies after this one is done.
-
The only tanks in there are M4, M4A1 and M4A3 which I'm going to keep it a mix of them, but mostly the A3.
US tankers loved the A1 so tried to keep hold of them as long as possible!
The trenchworx M4A1 isn't actually smaller, it's just the angle of the pic, the curved armour and the fact it's next to an E8.
Will keep in mind the stars being similar. I've got s whole company to play with and move them around and potentially another 2 companies after this one is done.
I can see what you mean about the M4A1 appearing smaller when it isn't. The quality of the casting looks very good, but I really dislike resin and metal kits. Personally, I won't mix different kits unless I can standardise features like machine guns and hatches - there are very noticable differences between different manufacturers' versions of the .50 cal (although there shouldn't be). This is one reason it takes me so long to finish stuff.
I've never seen anything about US tankers preferring the M4A1. I'm not saying it's wrong, but where did you get that from? I've read that the radial engine was powerful but also quite noisy and more difficult to maintain than the Ford engine in the M4A3.
-
I think he means the M4A1 Hybrid , IRC it had a better internal layout ( more ammo ) and larger hatches for the driver / co driver ( easier to bail out) . Also the cast front had better protection than the same thickness of welded flat plates of the M4 .
-
New Vanguard 3: Sherman Medium Tank 1942-45 page 9 says "Some units preferred the M4A1, feeling that the rounded surfaces warded off enemy projectiles better; but in at least one tank battalion, the 73rd, the troops became convinced that the cast armour was inferior to that on the M4, and avoided using M4A1s in combat".
That might carry over to the A3.
There is a bit about engine behaviour on page 20. The Ford engine took some getting used to.
-
Thanks UVS - I have that book, but it's been a long time since I opened it.
-
lol . Isn't that always the way , when you realize you have the book guys are telling you to check out ::) Note to self : sort book shelf
-
The same book says that by August 1944, when more M4A3s were available, the troops grew to like the greater horsepower, greater low speed torque and better reliability of the Ford engine. The companion Osprey book on the Sherman in British service says that the radial engine was hard to service - British tankers preferred the M4A2's diesel.
-
Might of won another Sherman at an event today..
Well that's the start of company number 2...
-
The same book says that by August 1944, when more M4A3s were available, the troops grew to like the greater horsepower, greater low speed torque and better reliability of the Ford engine. The companion Osprey book on the Sherman in British service says that the radial engine was hard to service - British tankers preferred the M4A2's diesel.
True, it did not spray oil and fuel around the engine compartment like the radial.