The new releases are in, the new releases are in!

[Donald M. Scheef]

For German freighters in 1/2400 scale, I suggest you look at PanzerSchiffe resin models. In particular, MG (Merchant Group) 5 and MG 6. Each contains about eight different ships at a cost of US$20.00 (the last time I looked). The details are nowhere near those of GHQ but they are perfectly acceptable as variegated merchant types for gaming.

MG 5 includes Bchenheim, Neuenfels, Aachen, Altoona, Friggia, Atemfels, Friesling Haus, and Martin Fisser, in addition to the oil tanker Jan Wellern.

MG 6 includes Hamburg type and Hein Hoyer, in addition to four armed merchant cruisers, a Danish cargo type, and an Italian liner.

Other than the lack of detail, my biggest disagreement with these packages is that they often contain a one-of-a-kind ship along with some ships that were built in significant numbers. If I buy enough packs to cover the numerous types I wind up with a large excess of the singletons.

Don S.,

[Mk 1]

As far as the M4A3 early hull Sherman - not as impressed. Not sure why they would use a turret with a late war commander's cupola. This configuration would have been extremely rare.

Who used the M4A3 and when. Especially would it have been present in NWE and in the US or Brits?

From what I can find, the M4A3 was used almost exclusively by the U.S. The Free French received one machine. I can't find how many the British had, just that they called it the Sherman IV. We deployed them in NWE, while the British used the M4A4s and A2s.

Yep. 'fraid I'm also thinking this was a miss. Shame, really, because they did get several things right in the details. But I think they missed on the cupola.

What I understand:

- The only volume of M4A3 (75) Shermans built with the "narrow hatch" hull (where the driver and co-driver positions bulged out in front of the primary slope of the glacis) were Ford production. Ford was the first producer of the M4A3 -- not surprising as it was their GAA engine that distinguished the M4A3 from other models of the Sherman.

- Ford continued to supply the engines, but stopped tank production when Chrysler and Fischer ramped up their M4A3 lines. All Chrysler and Fischer production used the "wide hatch" (aka: 47 degree slope) hull design.

- The Ford M4A3 (75) was primarily used in the US for training new tank units for ETO. But some hundreds of of Ford M4A3 (75) tanks did deploy to ETO. So it is not an inappropriate tank to use in ETO battles.

- They were also used by the USMC on Okinawa. So two places to game 'em up!

- But any other operators of Shermans during WW2 might have seen one or two for evaluation, but they did not receive service quantities. During 1943, 1944 and 1945 M4A3 was reserved for US units (and in 1943 reserved just for US Army units, so the USMC had to settle for M4A2s in their 1943 acquisitions).

The details that I believe are right:

- The M34A1 gun mantlet. The first handful of M4A3s to roll of the Ford line had the narrow M34 mantlet. But production quantities all had the wider M34A1, as I observe in the picture of the model.

- The travel lock on the glacis plate. Not present on the early M4A1 Sherman model (again correct). Commonly thought to be a factor on the later "large hatch" (also sometimes called 47 degree front plate) Shermans -- it is correct for them, but also for the later production small hatch Shermans, as in this model.

- The transmission/final drive housing cover. The GHQ model of the early production M4A1 correctly has the 3-part, bolted housing cover. The Sherman V models (M4A4) in the UK line also correctly use the 3-part housing cover. The later M4A3 models, both the M4A3 (75) W and the M4A3 (76) W, as well as the M4A3E8 (more properly M4A3 (76) W HVSS) use the single piece "pointed nose" housing cover, which I believe is correct/appropriate. With this model it LOOKS from the picture like a single-piece rounded (not pointed nose) housing cover. If I see it right, bravo for taking the effort to make this, as it was the dominant housing for the Ford M4A3 (75)s. If it is actually the pointed nose housing that's OK too, as it was in fact used, just in the last deliveries rather than throughout the production.

- Applique plates. There are a fair number of pics of Ford M4A3 (75)s available that do not have the add-on armor on the sides of the hull in the right turret cheek. But most of these are during US training. They were built without the applique plates, and most Shermans used in US training were never modified. When they deployed oversees, particularly to ETO, they very commonly got the applique armor applied at the depot level, as many upgrade kits were shipped to ETO for US Army and allied inventories of M4s, M4A2s and M4A4s (the kits for M4A1s and Grizzlies would probably not have fit).

The detail they didn't get right:

- Sigh. I don't see any evidence of Ford M4A3 (75)s coming off the line with cupolas. I think they all came off the line with the split hatch for the CO. They may often be pictured today with cupolas, but that is because many were re-manufactured for aid programs after the war (the US Army declared the M4A3 (75) unfit for service by 1946). It is a fairly common tank in the surviving Sherman inventories around the US because so many were kept at home (for training), and used as gate guards, etc. after the Army surplussed them out of active forces.


Here is a pic of a Ford M4A3 (75), which is described as "A tank of 1st Division, US First Army, destroyed on outskirts of Rottbitze, Germany...March 20, 1945." Date and time indicate that this is almost certainly 1st Infantry Division (not 1st Armored Division), so the tank was actually with the 741st GHQ Reserve Tank Battalion, attached to support the 1st Infantry Division. It is clear from the pic that this is in fact an M4A3 (75) "narrow hatch" Sherman. Note the applique plates, and ... alas ... the split CO hatch.

-Mark

[Hoth_902]

Could it be modeled off of this one? With an exagerated command hatch because of scale issues.



It looks pretty close in my opinion. It looks like its a static display in Europe. The web site says this one was manufactured by Baldwin LW, Pressed Steel Car, ALCO and Pullman Standard (6748 units produced). Not sure the accuracy of this page.

Also, could they have field modded the commanders hatch.. or is it possible to put a different turret on it from another version due to damage..

Just throwing it out there.

[pmskaar]

I am totally with Mark on this. I have been asking GHQ for quite some time to please do a standard American Sherman turret with the split hatch which was very much the most common type.

What I did to sort of rectify this problem on some was to cut off the bustle on the late British Sherman UK65 in order to get a later type split hatch Sherman turret for my M4A3s, US74.

It appears that when the decision was made to make US74 the commander's cupola was chosen instead of the way more common split hatch. Once US74 was created, all the later American Shermans including US99 M4A2 and US97 M4A1 Modernized all have the commander's cupola. Both of these that GHQ currently makes are rare beasts and not your typical American Sherman. Even the British UK100 M4A2 Sherman w. sand shield has the commander's cupola.

I would love GHQ to make at least 2 new 75mm Sherman turrets and maybe include them in a turret pack. Here they are:

1. Split hatch, wide mantlet, no loaders hatch, steel plate on the right side.

2. Split hatch, wide mantlet, no loaders hatch w/o steel plate. I'm not sure if the Russians had these extra plates welded on or not. I stand to be corrected if I am wrong.

3. Split hatch, wide mantlet, with loaders hatch and no steel plate. This is currently the type I am using to make my M4A3 American Shermans. GHQ could make this one very easily.

How about it? Is anyone else interested in these?

Pete

[Mk 1]

Could it be modeled off of this one? With an exagerated command hatch because of scale issues.

The issue I and others have described is not that the hatch is exaggerated. It is, in fact, a reasonably well modeled Sherman commander's cupola.

The problem is that the tank in question, a small-hatch M4A3 (75) should not HAVE a commander's cupola. It should have a flat split two-piece hatch.

It may not be clear to those less versed in Shermanisms, perhaps because of my own references to these models as "small-hatch" versions of the tank. That label refers to the hull hatches for the driver and co-driver, not the turret hatches. "Small-hatch" Shermans have bulges in the glacis plate. This was the original design. The bulges, which were cast and welded into place, were identified from combat as a weakness in the hull. They were also unpopular with crews, as it was difficult to escape in emergencies through these small hatches. "Large-hatch" Shermans have a flat glacis plate, with no bulges for the hatches. The slope angle of the flat front is less than the slope angle of the bulged front, thus making a larger hull roof area, which could fully encase the hatches without need for a bulge, even though the hatches were larger. The new hull front provided more consistent levels of protection, and also made it easier for the crew to escape. These later large-hatch Shermans are also often referred to as 47 degree hull versions of the Sherman.

It looks pretty close in my opinion. It looks like its a static display in Europe. The web site says this one was manufactured by Baldwin LW, Pressed Steel Car, ALCO and Pullman Standard (6748 units produced). Not sure the accuracy of this page.

The picture looks to my eye to be an M4 (75), not an M4A3 (75). But it is hard to be sure without a view of the rear engine deck or the lower rear hull.

Baldwin, PSC (Pressed Steel Car), LW (Lima Locomotive Works - assuming LLW was intended) and ALCO (American Locomotive Company), between them, made several versions of the Sherman. But they did not make M4A3 (75)s.

The tank in the pic is a good example of the full post-production applique armor kit in place. The hull-side plates were the most frequently applied. The turret cheek plate was not as often applied, but still reasonably common. The plates to re-enforce the driver and co-driver hatch bulges were even less frequently applied, to the point of being perhaps uncommon, but were still was available.

Also, could they have field modded the commanders hatch.. or is it possible to put a different turret on it from another version due to damage..

The cupola was specifically designed to fit in to the space in the turret roof used by the split hatch. So it was, indeed, possible to retro-fit cupolas onto tanks that were not produced with the cupola.

But cupolas were not produced and shipped to ETO as a retrofit kit during the war (to my knowledge). They were commonly retrofitted AFTER the war, which is why they appear so often on current / restored Shermans.

Replacing the hatch with a cupola is more likely than fitting the turret from a different tank to get this same result. The tanks that would have been produced with the cupola would not have had the right side cheek armor applique. Cupola = (very) late production, applique armor = mid-war production.

It would have been possible to remove the cupola from the turret of a damaged/destroyed late-war production tank, and retrofit it on to the turret of a working mid-war production tank. But that seems like a very rare potential, making it a stretch to say all the mid-war production Shermans in my forces should look that way.

:-/

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

[panzergator]

It is somewhat frustrating to me, and a little mystifying, that a company whose stock in trade is the accurate depiction of armored vehicles, does not seem to have a few standard references hanging around the shop to look at when they plan a new model. We have here a burgeoning discussion of the M4A3. Another example is my favorite M60A2, both of which are examples of a lack of basic research leading to obvious inaccuracies. One has to do a bit more than a superficial examination of a few pictures. Let's start with Hunnicut's series, for instance, on US tanks. There are a few others. And even the contributors to this forum might be able to provide some insights to the company before they start in on the final sculpt. A preliminary sketch for the M60A2 and the M577 track extension emailed to me for feedback might have saved me some head scratching and heartburn about those models. The company only has to peruse the contributions on this forum to identify some consultants. I am HAPPY to work for free on those vehicles I know something about. And I am certainly going to tell 'em when I don't know enough to comment.

[Hoth_902]

Hmm...interesting and I think I missed part of your point in your last post. Thanks for the detail information. Just when I think I know something about anything, I realize I know very little. It's impressive the amount of knowledge in this forum.

I will now crawl back in my box and leave this conversation to the experts.

[CG2]

A number of other companies post CAD drawings on their websites before going to production - this would allow comments when it is still relatively cheap to fix errors. Also a few CAD drawings posted each month through the year rather than 1 annual list would keep the excitement up and GHQ could judge the likely sales from the comments. Sounds like a win all round to me.

[Dog Smack]

Pete,

I would be interested in a turret pack. I don't know if GHQ has ever gone back and corrected any of their models once they began being produced. I seem to remember they swapped a prime mover for an artillery piece, but they already produced that model if i remember correctly. Have you or Mk 1 ever seen GHQ change a model after release?

Steve

[pmskaar]

Hey Steve

First of all, great work on those T-34's with mine rollers. Really excellent painting on those.

GHQ has occasionally corrected a model here and there. I know there is at least two ships, GWG15 Magdeburg which was way too long and IJN39 Hiryu which was if I recall lengthened a bit from the original.

For land vehicles, the did do a correction on the original German Puma IFV which originally had 5 roadwheels vs 6 on the current model.

The tricky part on ultra-modern vehicles is getting a model of the actual fielded version of the vehicle and not a prototype which may get modified later.

Regarding Sherman turrets, I would love to see GHQ do a turret pack with the turrets I described. I have corresponded with them before about doing a proper split hatch turret for their newer Sherman models but so far no luck on that. I know it costs a bit of extra money to actually sculpt new pieces but these are very common items.

There are a few other vehicles I would like to see re-done due to some issues I have but I will not list them here.

Have a great day!

Pete