British Shermans

[Swamprat33]

Hi Rubicon, I have just completed my first Rubicon Sherman, the British version of the M4A2 (Sherman 111).

This is a trully great model, and i amd planning to get a few more (M4 & M4A2) to replace the old resin WLG Shermans in my British force.

I do have  a couple of niggles with it though.
First is that there are no spare track links in the kit which would have been nice to put onto the front of the tank.
I do have the Allied stowage box, but the Sherman track links are different to those on thios tank.

Second is that the add on armour is not included on the sprues, but is not a massive task to produce IF you have some suitable thin plasticard. I did not, so had to order a sheet.

Third issue is that in general practice British Shermans used the 30cal MG instead of the 50cal HMG in Normandy and beyond. I think there were only a couple of units that kept the ma deuce on their tanks.
I have used the 30cal mg from the Allied Stowage set, but now need to buy another stowage set so that i can fit a 30cal to all my new tanks. It would be great if you could include both types in the kits.

Cheers
Tim

[Rubicon Models]

First is that there are no spare track links in the kit which would have been nice to put onto the front of the tank.
I do have the Allied stowage box, but the Sherman track links are different to those on this tank.

Because of the way the new Shermans are designed, we are not able to include "spare" accessories to them.  We might add the spare tracks in our next Allied Stowage Set.

Second is that the add on armour is not included on the sprues, but is not a massive task to produce IF you have some suitable thin plasticard. I did not, so had to order a sheet.

We have studied the M4A2 for add-on armour, not too many have them.  This is similar to the M4 where large hatch model usually doesn't have extra armour.  That's why we only add extra armour on M4 small hatch hull.

Third issue is that in general practice British Shermans used the 30cal MG instead of the 50cal HMG in Normandy and beyond. I think there were only a couple of units that kept the ma deuce on their tanks.
I have used the 30cal mg from the Allied Stowage set, but now need to buy another stowage set so that i can fit a 30cal to all my new tanks. It would be great if you could include both types in the kits.

Again, this had to be addressed with more 30cal MG on future stowage sets...

[Pinky]

Swamprat:

The spare track link stowage wasn't a standard feature of British Shermans; it seems to have mostly appeared on the Sherman V.  In NW Europe they welded spare tracks from all kinds of sources onto their Shermans, including Churchills and Panthers.  So pretty much anything goes.

Appliqué armour was a feature of later Sherman IIIs.  Maybe Rubicon were looking at earlier types in use in the Mediterranean, before appliqué armour was introduced..  I'm not sure about the comment about "large hatch" M4s; aside from 105mm variants, late M4s were the composite or "hybrid" version, which did have appliqué armour.

Very few British Shermans had any kind of machine gun mounted on the turret hatch.  It's true that some units preferred the .30 cal, but you'll find few photos of either type.

[ripley]

The 3 link stowage fixture seems to show up in pre D-Day assembly pictures . Before that it seems they just added whatever track they could scrounge for extra armor . The narrow style track shoes  all  had the same bolt pattern , so you might see a tank with rubber pads carrying steel chevron track as spares . Note the groucer bars were for use with the flat rubber pad links only  , so if you have steel track on your M-10 for example you can leave off the groucers from the side racks . Yes it would have been nice to have the extra side armor plates , but you do get a pattern in the instructions , and as for plastic ,I've used those plastic tabs that come on bread bags when I was out of sheet styrene . And I can see your point about the 30 cal , but as Pinky said , the Brits got rid of most of their turret mounted mgs . It made it a hassle to get out of a one hatch turret . The Canadians , gave theirs to their Infantry to mount on their Universal carriers , and I read a story about one unit , that claimed they " lost " theirs , in reality , they buried  them soon after landing in France.  And it sounds like Rubicon has plans for more stowage sets with more machine guns and stuff so that will be good for all of us

[Swamprat33]

Cheers all, They were only minor niggles tbh and overall it is a superb kit which is light years ahead of WLG.

I will add some of the track links i have then as it also helps to give them an in use look.

Cheers.
Tim

[ultravanillasmurf]

On the British use of pintle mount machine guns, I have seen reference to them being ordered to be removed, because of complaints from pilots that they were being engaged by friendly tanks^{[looking for reference]}. With the Luftwaffe being busy elsewhere it was thought that loss of AA capabilities was better than potential friendly AA fire incidents (which I think is included in the Bolt Action rules).

I have seen no mention of supporting British infantry making use of tank pintle mount weapons - though the recent Osprey Elite (209) Victory NW Europe book does mention their use by US infantry.

I have still to add the mount from the Allied Stowage set to my M5A1, after removing the gun itself (from a photograph in the British Tanks in Normandy book - no pintle mounts elsewhere).

[ultravanillasmurf]

On the track links, I remember reading that two three link racks were part of the set up for D-Day tanks, again I will need to find the reference.

A three link rack in the next stowage set would be nice. I covered the mess I made with other stowage.

[ultravanillasmurf]

Appliqué armour was a feature of later Sherman IIIs.  Maybe Rubicon were looking at earlier types in use in the Mediterranean, before appliqué armour was introduced..  I'm not sure about the comment about "large hatch" M4s; aside from 105mm variants, late M4s were the composite or "hybrid" version, which did have appliqué armour.

Maybe they mean large hatch M4A2s rather than later small hatch M4A2s.

A quick look through three books (Comrade Emcha, British Tanks in Normandy and the Dennis Oliver Sherman Tanks) shows most small hatch/75mm Sherman III tanks have obvious appliqué and Comrade Emcha shows large hatch/76mm without obvious appliqué.

[Swamprat33]

Thar reasoning by Rubicon seems odd anyway as you get both hulls in the kit.
Anyway, not really an issue as it only takes 10 mins to measure, cut and glue on anyway.

Cheers
Tim

[ripley]

The Concord book British Sherman Tanks shows no applique plates on Sherman III  in Italy . Hm , there must be a date as to when it became an official add on to the hull . I have seen some pictures of depot added plates of 3 or 4 small pieces instead of the normal production  one , probably all one offs , with the REME guys using what they had .  And  once the a  the sponson shell racks moved  to under the turret floor ,the so called wet stowage , you didn't see side armor added

T-16 with 50

UC with 50

UC with 30

[ultravanillasmurf]

The Minutia site mentions non Quick Fix vehicles being moved from Italy to Southern France to support the Invasion there (Lima M4A1 article).

[Tracks]

Second is that the add on armour is not included on the sprues, but is not a massive task to produce IF you have some suitable thin plasticard. I did not, so had to order a sheet.

We have studied the M4A2 for add-on armour, not too many have them.  This is similar to the M4 where large hatch model usually doesn't have extra armour.  That's why we only add extra armour on M4 small hatch hull.

Because the applique armor was not molded onto the plastic parts, this opens the door for "optional". I really liked how you have the option to have applique armor or not. The kit instructions even gives you all the details you need to make the side plates for the hull, and for the turret, they give you part F22. The only thing I think Rubicon could have made the plastic kit better was to include a small piece of 0.5mm thick plastic card that could be cut to make the applique armor.

I really like that Rubicon gives you the option to have applique or not. My M4A2 (kit# 280055) will not have any applique armor because it was not common for the M4A2. However, if I did decide to add it, I'm really glad Rubicon gives you part F22!

Just adding my $0.02 worth to the discussion.

[Pinky]

The Concord book British Sherman Tanks shows no applique plates on Sherman III  in Italy . Hm , there must be a date as to when it became an official add on to the hull . I have seen some pictures of depot added plates of 3 or 4 small pieces instead of the normal production  one , probably all one offs , with the REME guys using what they had .  And  once the a  the sponson shell racks moved  to under the turret floor ,the so called wet stowage , you didn't see side armor added

Applique armour was added from mid-1943.  Initially it was part of an upgrade kit that was added to tanks already stationed in the UK.  Then it was added as part of production.

The Sherman III / M4A2 received this upgrade.  There are plenty of photos of British Sherman IIIs with applique armour.  There are also many photos of Sherman IIIs without it - these would be vehicles that went into service before it was introduced.  The "large hatch" M4A2 (75mm) didn't have "wet" stowage, so it also had applique armour.  These vehicles were mostly supplied to the Soviets, although the Marines got some.  The British didn't get any.

[elias.tibbs]

I thought that the marines only got the small hatch ones (because they were desperate for any Sherman) and changed across to the M4A3 large hatchbokce it was available in numbers?

[ultravanillasmurf]

A one site reference:
http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/manufacturer/m4a2largehatches/m4a2_largehatches.html
Normal Internet caveats apply.