M4A2 Sherman

[H0ffmn]

Yes, there were a few different manufacturers of Sherman tanks, but that doesn't apply to this situation. ALL  M34 gun mounts were attached to the turret by being bolted to it.
I guess I'll just have to use the M34A1 gun mount.

[ripley]

Agree to disagree then . If when I get the kit , it looks wrong , I'll add bolts using green stuff or Meng plastic bolts . To me its not a problem .  While I'll know they have been added , most of the guys I hang with at the hobby shop  wouldn't even know the Sherman version , never mind whats wrong or missing on the kit . But that's the joy of this hobby , we all take it as far as we want to go , super detailing one kit to the max and building the next , straight out of the box . 

[ultravanillasmurf]

I would like to think our objective is to assist Rubicon in manufacturing the best kit they can. It is all a balance between what is possible due to scale and manufacturing technology and what best reflects the original vehicle seventy odd years ago.

As Ripley points out, museum examples may well be cobbled together from various bits, the situation with "M4A1" examples is in some ways worse as a lot of them are "M4A5" Grizzlies with built in differences plus all additional changes of their actual career post war.

Going back to the gun mantlet, it would be nice if there was bolt detail on them both. It is not a deal breaker, and I would live with it (in the same way I do with the M4A4, though I will reshape the shield on the next one).

[tyroflyer]

I am in total agreement with you smurf on your assessment of the objective. Ripley is obviously very talented and gains great pleasure from kit bashing. However most of us probably aren't interested or haven't the time or talent to adopt this approach. One of the attractions of Rubicon's kits are the relatively easy assembly and low parts count. Kit bashing from my perspective runs in the opposite direction from quick and easy towards frustration and time consuming. None of this comment is intended to denigrate what ripley does. On the contrary I think it is terrific what he achieves. Just not sure he is in the majority on this one.

[ripley]

Your right , I'm not in the majority, in this scale . I'm not a gamer  . I build these kits as models . Makes a fun change from years of building 1/35 , really got tired of 1000 piece kits  .  Every gamer I know has his own "version " of the game . Some guys go paint mad on the figures , right down to eye brows , buttons and SS title cuffs , Others just spray their troops green and use them like that . There is no right or wrong , it's YOUR hobby . And they can play  each other with no problem , except for their interpretation of  the rules( flamethrowers !  )  . Same with vehicles , base coated and put together wrong , to contest standard conversions , paint , weathering and basing . I think its a fine balance that Rubicon has to walk , with easy of assembly versus acteratcy versus cost , and we all want them to add the things we think are important ( bolts, lift ring ,, track detail , tool etc ), things that others don't see missing  or even care about . Just look at some of the resin kits guys have been using ( Stug III with single spare wheels  )

[Rubicon Models]

Our opening speech as usual...
"As a small studio, we are very flexible and open to suggestions during the design and prototyping phase... up until the early stage of mould making!"

We do listen and react to constructive comments, even it is only 4 days away from Chinese New Year, and the last two days of work for our studio!

As it turned out we did left out the bolts at the rear of the M4A2 hull... for a reason!  The M4A2 is the only hull that has bolts at the rear.  The early M4A2 has 11 bolts, and from mid to late war, it only has 6 across.  The vertical 4 bolts remained the same throughout the war.  Being that said, we can only have either 11 or 6... What do you guys think?


Looking up our meeting notes with regards to the bolts on the gun mount, the design was supposed to be there but somehow they are not implemented.  There are THREE gun mounts in the 75/105 turret sprue; all bolts are added back for alteration after CNY.


Comments?

[ripley]

The new turret design looks really good . IMO the hull rear should have all the bolts added , it's easier for us to remove them , if needed , than it is to add details that small in a straight line  . I've tried this on another kit and it's not fun 

[Rubicon Models]

The new turret design looks really good . IMO the hull rear should have all the bolts added , it's easier for us to remove them , if needed , than it is to add details that small in a straight line  . I've tried this on another kit and it's not fun 

Unfortunately, the 6 and 11 bolt positions are slightly different.  Of course, at this scale, no one will notice.   

[H0ffmn]

PERFECT!! That's all I asked about in my suggestion to improve the M34 gun mount.Yes, I understand that I could add bolt details and convert parts I don't care for. It would be nice to not have to, if it could be molded from the beginning on the kit itself.
 An example of a kit ruined by lack of detail is the 1/56 Blitzkrieg M4A1 resin kit.The hull is acceptable, not up to Rubicon or Warlord's standards, but the gun mount is terrible, in my opinion, ruining an otherwise acceptable kit.

[Pinky]

You have 2 hulls in the kit - do they share a common rear plate?  I hope not, since (as I keep pointing out) the mid-production hull shouldn't have the rear shelf - or the notches for it.  Whereas it was fitted to some large hatch M4A2s.  If you had to make a choice, I'd ditch the shelf in favour of something more useful such as (for instance) an early type exhaust deflector, or appliqué armour for the large hatch hull (still apparently MIA). 

If you have 2 rear hull plates, you could have 11 bolts on the earlier type and 6 on the later type.  However, the bolts seem to have been reduced fairly early in the M4A2 production, so I think you could just go with 6.

Great to see the mantlet has been improved.  It makes quite a difference. 

[ultravanillasmurf]

Excellent.

My only question is the wrench position. I would suggest a peg on the wrench and half "drilled" holes for the various locations (assuming that is a mouldable option).

On the horizontal bolt question, I would suggest the six bolts option as that would appear to be the majority of Fisher built ones (based on the information from the Shaddock site).

[Rubicon Models]

You have 2 hulls in the kit - do they share a common rear plate?  I hope not, since (as I keep pointing out) the mid-production hull shouldn't have the rear shelf - or the notches for it.  Whereas it was fitted to some large hatch M4A2s.  If you had to make a choice, I'd ditch the shelf in favour of something more useful such as (for instance) an early type exhaust deflector, or appliqué armour for the large hatch hull (still apparently MIA). 

There are no rear plates for the two M4A2 hulls.  The notches had already been removed on both hulls. The exhaust deflector did not go so high up the rear hull, and we already had an optional exhaust deflector part that you can attached to the exhaust outlet.  As for the appliqué armour, the ones on the small hatch M4A2 are standalone pieces and can be used on the large hatch hull as well.

[Rubicon Models]

My only question is the wrench position. I would suggest a peg on the wrench and half "drilled" holes for the various locations (assuming that is a mouldable option).

The wrench is a standalone piece without any supports attached.  It can be placed anywhere.  There are two possible locations where the wrench are placed; will show both location on the assembly instruction.

[Pinky]

It looks as though most issues have been covered.  Nice work, Rubicon.

So this kit will build:

- a mid-production M4A2 (aka Sherman III), with narrow M34 gun shield and (I think) early pattern sandshields, as used by the British Army,
- an upgraded mid-production M4A2, with the wide M34A1 gun shield and hull/turret appliqué armour, as used by the Red Army, the US Marines and British Army, and
- a late production 'large hatch' M4A2(75mm), with the high bustle turret and hull appliqué armour, as used principally by the Red Army, and (in small numbers) by the US Marines.

[Pinky]

As for the appliqué armour, the ones on the small hatch M4A2 are standalone pieces and can be used on the large hatch hull as well.

The right side forward appliqué panel was square on the M4A2 hull - there was no cut-off on the upper right corner as there was on the M4.  So it should be possible to use the same panels for both types of M4A2 hull.

The book 'Comrade Emcha' has a lot of details on Soviet Sherman's, including markings, when you get around to doing the decals.