Tamiya 1/35 M4A3 Sherman

[minitnkr]

Mostly to diffuse exhaust flames, gasoline powered 450 hp V8 could throw some big ones.

[A_J_Rimmer]

Very good progress so far!

Thanks Steve!

Mostly to diffuse exhaust flames, gasoline powered 450 hp V8 could throw some big ones.

Now that makes sense, thanks Paul. shouldn't the exhausts be connected to it?

[Guest]

In the last 10 months I have almost completed 4 models, Jakko about 2,000

I wish My score for the last ten months is also somewhere in the order of four, at a quick guess. I mean, I took four weeks to paint a model I didn’t even have to build myself!

I'm not that informed about US armour but I do think I've head about those radial engines - are those the same ones that were fitted to the Hellcat, sucking ice cold air through the crew compartment in the winter and freezing the crew to death.

Yep, same on the Sherman The first two variants had a radial engine — which is why the hull is so tall — and all the others came about because radial engines turned out to be in short supply when wartime production ramped up. Who would have thought that the aircraft industry wanted them as well? So they went shopping for other types of engine that could be produced without interrupting something else, leading to the M4A2, M4A3, M4A4 and M4A6.

The M18 76-mm gun motor carriage (“Hellcat” is a name thought up by its manufacturer, BTW, and was probably not used by anyone at all in the US Army) had a seven-cylinder radial, the same type as in the M3 light tank. The M3 and M4 medium tanks used a larger, nine-cylinder one instead.

As you seem to be the 'Sherman guy' maybe you can help with a question - what's going on with these undersides? I assume the parts coming out of the rear of the bottom hull are exhausts, but that's with the big thing hanging off the back - was it a heat exchanger or radiator or something (and should they be connected?)

The S-bend pipes are the exhausts for the V8, yes — one for each bank, straight through without a muffler. The grille on the back is incomplete on this old Tamiya kit: it should actually have a curved plate that follows the sides they did mould into it, with holes for the exhaust pipes in it.

What it is, is an air deflector. On the M3 and M4 medium tanks, there is — as you can see from the model — a big overhang at the rear. Engine cooling air exits through there: the rear wall, with the door in, doesn’t go all the way up in the middle, so there’s a hole the width of the hull there for the air to blow through. That looks like this on a real one:

[ATTACH]508751[/ATTACH]

This is an M4A4, but it’s not much different on the other variants. We’re looking towards the rear here from inside the engine compartment, of which the access plate has been removed. (I took this photo of a monument tank under restoration a few years ago.)

Once through that hole, it gets deflected downward by a curved plate in the overhang. But that caused a problem: the large mass of moving air caused dust clouds on dry ground. Oddly, each variant of the M4 has its own solution this problem, instead of using the same basic design on all, and on the M4A3, it’s a curved deflector made of sheet steel. If you look at the back of it, you see four horizontal louvres. On the real tank, those are actually four pieces of curved sheet metal, as you can see on this cross-section drawing:

[ATTACH]508753[/ATTACH]

The whole thing was hinged so it could be swung up into the overhang, because it was very much in the way for opening the engine door in the rear plate.

As you can also see in the drawing, on the M4A3 the radiators were in that big hole in the rear plate, with some curved deflectors behind them.

the ... co-driver's gun?

Assistant driver is the US Army term, IIRC. But yes, in combat his only real task was to aim and fire that bow machine gun.

Ignore me - it's the antenna base isn't it - I've seen it on other builds...

It is, yes. On the M4, the radio is in the back of the turret (British influence there, the Americans would have put it in the hull but British practice prevailed) and on the American tanks, the aerial is in the round opening. British tanks had one aerial there, and another on the little square lump with four bolts to the right of it on the rear roof. This because American SCR-508-series radio sets used only one aerial, while British No. 19 sets needed two.

[Guest]

BTW, I forgot to mention: I suppose this kit also includes the extra armour plates, parts C9 and C10? Those were in the original issue of this kit, and you can see them in plenty of photos of real Shermans. However, don’t fit them to your model. They’re another mistake by Tamiya, this time because they confused M4A2s with M4A3s. Shermans like yours never had those armour plates added to the hull, except for a small production run of M4A2s. But if you can’t see the engine deck and hull rear, it’s very hard to tell an M4A2 from an M4A3, so Tamiya’s mistake is understandable. However, generations of modellers have put those plates on M4A3 models because Tamiya told them it was an option

[A_J_Rimmer]

BTW, I forgot to mention: I suppose this kit also includes the extra armour plates, parts C9 and C10? Those were in the original issue of this kit, and you can see them in plenty of photos of real Shermans. However, don’t fit them to your model. They’re another mistake by Tamiya, this time because they confused M4A2s with M4A3s. Shermans like yours never had those armour plates added to the hull, except for a small production run of M4A2s. But if you can’t see the engine deck and hull rear, it’s very hard to tell an M4A2 from an M4A3, so Tamiya’s mistake is understandable. However, generations of modellers have put those plates on M4A3 models because Tamiya told them it was an option :smiling3:

LOL! I won't quote in both your posts just to cut down on scroll time for the dear readers - but WOW, what a fabulous amount of info. Taking in what you said I looked up some photos on the net. I get what you're getting at regarding the deflectors now - man that's an interesting system! Tamiya really did leave a lot of it out didn't they. I hope my Easy Eight kit is a bit more accurate.

Thanks Jakko, I really appreciate the time it took you to write that - it was very interesting indeed. I have a bit more respect for the old Sherman now. I may even have to buy a book or two, as I can definitely see me building more.

You'll be pleased to know that C9 and C10 are still on the Sprues - I don't think the destructions called them up.

[Guest]

Tamiya really did leave a lot of it out didn't they. I hope my Easy Eight kit is a bit more accurate.

That’s a much better kit, mostly because it has nothing in common with the 1980s one you’re building It has the exhaust deflector in full, and though it’s moulded a bit thick, it actually hinges up into the hull if you want to build it that way. The only real snag with the kit is that the bogies are a rather loose fit, unlike what I expected from Tamiya. See here for my take on it, though I didn’t quite build is straight from the box.

I have a bit more respect for the old Sherman now. I may even have to buy a book or two, as I can definitely see me building more.

You'll be pleased to know that C9 and C10 are still on the Sprues - I don't think the destructions called them up.

I looked in the instructions for your kit and the old one before writing that post, and noticed your kit doesn’t mention them at all, but I thought I’d point it out in case you’ve seen photos like these:

[ATTACH]508799[/ATTACH][ATTACH]508800[/ATTACH]

… and thought, “Those armour plates look nice, I’ll stick them on!”

The first photo, BTW, is of a “small-hatch” M4, with the steeper hull front, and those did get the extra armour plates (as you can tell). The second is a “large-hatch” M4A2, which looks almost indistinguishable from your M4A3 from this angle. The only reason you can tell at all that it’s an M4A2 from this particular photo is the fact that it has the extra armour plates

[A_J_Rimmer]

So they just thought ''Balls to the A3 crews, they don't deserve the extra armour''? :thinking: sounds a bit unfair!

Sherman's are waaaay more complicated than Spitfires, but interesting stuff - thanks for the info Jakko, it's fascinating. I'll have a read of your Easy Eight build.

[minitnkr]

Another thought...dry ammo storage vs wet. Thought dry had plates as a short term fix before wet storage was available.

[A_J_Rimmer]

Another thought...dry ammo storage vs wet. Thought dry had plates as a short term fix before wet storage was available.

This sounds like another layer of fun! Wet storage? I assume for cooling/Fire suppression reasons?

[Guest]

So they just thought ''Balls to the A3 crews, they don't deserve the extra armour''? :thinking: sounds a bit unfair!

Paul (minitnkr) has got the right reason: small-hatch Shermans had most of the ammunition in the sponsons above the tracks, but that proved to be rather vulnerable to enemy fire. When the Americans redesigned the hull front because it was too complex (anywhere between five and nine or so plates to assemble, with welds between them that weaken the glacis plate) and because the small hatches made crew escape difficult, they not only made the new hull front from a single, thicker steel plate, placed at a less acute angle so they could have larger hatches in the hull roof, they also moved nearly all of the ammunition stowage to the hull floor. Those new racks got double walls filled with water (and antifreeze, in cold weather), so that if they were penetrated, the water would put out any fires. That lead to the name “wet stowage” for these tanks, as Paul mentions.

To improve protection for the older tanks, a “quick-fix” modification was developed, which included welding 25 mm armour plate onto the outside of the tank over the ammo racks, as well as 6 mm plate around the racks on the inside. It also entailed other modifications intended to increase crew survivability, but it was soon said to be “neither quick nor a fix” because of the amount of work involved and the questionable combat value of the modifications :smiling3:

However, there are two types of large-hatch Sherman that were built with dry stowage. One was the earliest production of M4A2s with the new hull front, and other type is M4s with a cast hull front:¹ because the new ammo racks weren’t ready yet, these both got the old type (and the rest of the old interior, because almost all of that got rearranged) and the extra armour plates welded to them in the factory.

---

¹ These had a welded hull, but the glacis was basically taken from the cast M4A1 hull. They’re hard to tell apart from the front, but it can be done if you know the details to look for.

[minitnkr]

Yes, so the ammo wouldn't 'cook off' as easy. Early Shermans were called Ronsons ( popular cigarette lighter of the time) by the Brits as they caught fire so easily when hit.

[A_J_Rimmer]

Paul (minitnkr) has got the right reason: small-hatch Shermans had most of the ammunition in the sponsons above the tracks, but that proved to be rather vulnerable to enemy fire. When the Americans redesigned the hull front because it was too complex (anywhere between five and nine or so plates to assemble, with welds between them that weaken the glacis plate) and because the small hatches made crew escape difficult, they not only made the new hull front from a single, thicker steel plate, placed at a less acute angle so they could have larger hatches in the hull roof, they also moved nearly all of the ammunition stowage to the hull floor. Those new racks got double walls filled with water (and antifreeze, in cold weather), so that if they were penetrated, the water would put out any fires. That lead to the name “wet stowage” for these tanks, as Paul mentions.

To improve protection for the older tanks, a “quick-fix” modification was developed, which included welding 25 mm armour plate onto the outside of the tank over the ammo racks, as well as 6 mm plate around the racks on the inside. It also entailed other modifications intended to increase crew survivability, but it was soon said to be “neither quick nor a fix” because of the amount of work involved and the questionable combat value of the modifications :smiling3:

However, there are two types of large-hatch Sherman that were built with dry stowage. One was the earliest production of M4A2s with the new hull front, and other type is M4s with a cast hull front:¹ because the new ammo racks weren’t ready yet, these both got the old type (and the rest of the old interior, because almost all of that got rearranged) and the extra armour plates welded to them in the factory.

---

¹ These had a welded hull, but the glacis was basically taken from the cast M4A1 hull. They’re hard to tell apart from the front, but it can be done if you know the details to look for.

Ah now that makes much more sense. Having a wet stowage sounds a much better idea. Thanks for the explanation Jakko!

I have to say that these discussions about the different marks has been really interesting, and certainly makes me realise how little I know about armour in general. Is there a good book on the Sherman? (Or US armour in general?)

[A_J_Rimmer]

Yes, so the ammo wouldn't 'cook off' as easy. Early Shermans were called Ronsons ( popular cigarette lighter of the time) by the Brits as they caught fire so easily when hit.

Yes I've read about that - terrible really wasn't it. I read a book recently about a British Tank Troop commander from D-Day to VE Day that talked about the Shermans habit of 'Brewing up'. It was a really good book, but the name escapes me at the mo!

[Tim Marlow]

Was it this book Arnie?

Fine book if it was.
Always thought the Ronson nickname followed the Ronson advert….”Lights first time, every time”…….but apparently that’s a myth because Ronson never used that slogan. The Gerrys called them Tommy cookers I believe.

[Waspie]

Just out of interest to any older F1 enthusiasts. Are you aware Murray Walker commanded a Sherman in WW2 when he was serving in the Royal Scots Greys. (My dad’s old lot - but unlike Murray, never got off the beaches).
That’s me - knowledge of Sherman’s ends!! :rolling: