New Rubicon Sherman

[Pinky]

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:



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.

[ripley]

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 )

[elias.tibbs]

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.

[Pinky]

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.   

[ripley]

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 .

[ultravanillasmurf]

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.

[Pinky]

Thanks UVS - I have that book, but it's been a long time since I opened it. 

[ripley]

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

[Pinky]

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. 

[elias.tibbs]

Might of won another Sherman at an event today..

Well that's the start of company number 2...

[ultravanillasmurf]

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.