Tamiya 1/35 M4A3 Sherman

[Guest]

Early Shermans were called Ronsons ( popular cigarette lighter of the time) by the Brits as they caught fire so easily when hit.

Sorry for breaking the news, but no, they were not Shermans didn’t burn any more easily than other tanks of their generation, but the wet stowage did reduce the number of fires drastically — though consensus seems to be that this was mostly due to where the ammunition was stowed (on the hull floor) than to the water-filled double walls of the bins. Now to find that data again … Ah, yes, Steven Zaloga’s Armored Thunderbolt, page 238:

It’s interesting to note that in Sicily and Italy [where much of the fighting was with dry-stowage Shermans], 81 percent of U.S. tanks that were penetrated by gunfire burned, while in the ETO [European Theater of Operations, that is, France and Germany] only 53 percent burned—an indication of the value of the wet stowage program.

Is there a good book on the Sherman? (Or US armour in general?)

Yes. But the really good ones are expensive and/or hard to find, and probably really only of interest if you’re fairly deeply into Shermans For a good, and cheap, introduction to Shermans, try Squadron/Signal’s Sherman in action:

[ATTACH]508929[/ATTACH]

It’s is pretty old (1978, off the top of my head) but it’s still a good overview with tons of good photographs illustrating the various types of Sherman in action.

But you can also find a lot of good information online. Probably the two best sites are The Sherman Tank Site for a general introduction, overview, etc. and the Sherman Minutia Website for all those little details that modellers care about

[A_J_Rimmer]

Was it this book Arnie?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]n1224425[/ATTACH]
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.

Hi Tim,

No it was this one - again a very good read. I'll check the Ken Tout one out.

[A_J_Rimmer]

Sorry for breaking the news, but no, they were not :smiling3: Shermans didn’t burn any more easily than other tanks of their generation, but the wet stowage did reduce the number of fires drastically — though consensus seems to be that this was mostly due to where the ammunition was stowed (on the hull floor) than to the water-filled double walls of the bins. Now to find that data again … Ah, yes, Steven Zaloga’s Armored Thunderbolt, page 238:




Yes. But the really good ones are expensive and/or hard to find, and probably really only of interest if you’re fairly deeply into Shermans :smiling3: For a good, and cheap, introduction to Shermans, try Squadron/Signal’s Sherman in action:

[ATTACH]508929[/ATTACH]

It’s is pretty old (1978, off the top of my head) but it’s still a good overview with tons of good photographs illustrating the various types of Sherman in action.

But you can also find a lot of good information online. Probably the two best sites are The Sherman Tank Site for a general introduction, overview, etc. and the Sherman Minutia Website for all those little details that modellers care about :smiling3:

81% to 53%, Wow, that obviously was worth doing. I think it's safe to say that most tank designers of WWII had to learn their trade the hard way. Much like aircraft design, I'm sure what they thought was needed before the war turned out not to be the case quite quickly. I can easily see the case of a designer saying 'yes we'll put the shells there, so the loader can get to them easily'' without really knowing the consequences of that decision. Much like them not fitting the seal-sealing fuel tank into the nose of the Hurricanes as a cost saving measure - who really knew the out come of that one.

Thanks for the tip for the book, I like books :-D, I've got one on order. I'll check out the websites too.

[Tim Marlow]

If you are after book tips, these two are good as well.


Ostensibly listed as novels they are actually the novelised war experiences of the respective authors. Churchill personal histories are quite rare I think, but both give a completely different view and are well worth reading.

[A_J_Rimmer]

If you are after book tips, these two are good as well.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]n1224444[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]n1224445[/ATTACH]
Ostensibly listed as novels they are actually the novelised war experiences of the respective authors. Churchill personal histories are quite rare I think, but both give a completely different view and are well worth reading.

Thanks for the tip Tim, I'll check those out as well - you guys are bad for my wallet :smiling:

This is another good one about Churchills...

[Tim Marlow]

Thanks for the tip Tim, I'll check those out as well - you guys are bad for my wallet :smiling:

This is another good one about Churchills...

Might have to look for that one myself.

[A_J_Rimmer]

Might have to look for that one myself.

It's worth a look - it was a while ago that I read it but it was very interesting. It IS an actual diary, which weren't generally allowed, so there was an interesting insight to the everyday. What amazed me though was the guy wasn't young, IIRC he was in his 40's with a wife and kids - you really feel for him. Left his job and family, went to war, came home and got on with life... amazing people.

Actually I might have to get another copy myself.

[Tim Marlow]

Well that’s them ordered……

[A_J_Rimmer]

Well that’s them ordered……

Yep...

[scottie3158]

Arnold,
My apologies very late to the party you are in safe hands with the advice you are getting. Your off to a great start and I will follow along if I may.

[A_J_Rimmer]

Arnold,
My apologies very late to the party you are in safe hands with the advice you are getting. Your off to a great start and I will follow along if I may.

No need to apologise Paul, welcome aboard! Thanks Muchly, I'm pretty pleased with it all so far! There are indeed some splendid chaps on these here boards, I'm learning loads!

[Guest]

Much like aircraft design, I'm sure what they thought was needed before the war turned out not to be the case quite quickly. I can easily see the case of a designer saying 'yes we'll put the shells there, so the loader can get to them easily'' without really knowing the consequences of that decision.

The sponsons are indeed a logical place for ammo stowage: there’re plenty of room there, and they’re easy to get to. All major German tanks, from the Panzer III to the Tiger II, stowed a lot of their main-gun ammunition in the sponsons, but nobody seems to call them “Jerry cookers” or “IMCOs”

What probably didn’t help in the case of American tanks is that the USA didn’t have any practical war experience at the time, and though they were sort of willing to listen to British suggestions, they didn’t exactly put all that much trust in British judgement in the matter. The reason for that was mainly that British tank designs of the 1930s/early 40s were not great, coupled to American tank doctrine being outdated (they tended to see the tank as an infantry weapon rather than one in its own right, so they kept sticking superfluous machine guns on it, for example). The British, OTOH, had both combat experience in modern tank warfare and the knowledge that their own designs were lacking somewhat. About the only concession the Americans were willing to make to British experience and practice, though, was to put the radio into the turret.

Much like them not fitting the seal-sealing fuel tank into the nose of the Hurricanes as a cost saving measure - who really knew the out come of that one.

It makes sense that they would try to cut costs, though, especially when the performance of the plane in actual warfare wasn’t known yet. I take it they put a self-sealing tank in later, though?

[A_J_Rimmer]

The sponsons are indeed a logical place for ammo stowage: there’re plenty of room there, and they’re easy to get to. All major German tanks, from the Panzer III to the Tiger II, stowed a lot of their main-gun ammunition in the sponsons, but nobody seems to call them “Jerry cookers” or “IMCOs” :smiling3:

What probably didn’t help in the case of American tanks is that the USA didn’t have any practical war experience at the time, and though they were sort of willing to listen to British suggestions, they didn’t exactly put all that much trust in British judgement in the matter. The reason for that was mainly that British tank designs of the 1930s/early 40s were not great, coupled to American tank doctrine being outdated (they tended to see the tank as an infantry weapon rather than one in its own right, so they kept sticking superfluous machine guns on it, for example). The British, OTOH, had both combat experience in modern tank warfare and the knowledge that their own designs were lacking somewhat. About the only concession the Americans were willing to make to British experience and practice, though, was to put the radio into the turret.


It makes sense that they would try to cut costs, though, especially when the performance of the plane in actual warfare wasn’t known yet. I take it they put a self-sealing tank in later, though?

Just the Radio? lol! Well, when has the US ever listened to us Brits! At least we knew enough to know our designs were lacking I supposed, but from what little I do know about British Armour, It's an entire subject all to itself!

Very interesting to know that this 'brewing up' thing that the Sherman was supposedly bad for is another of those 'fake facts'.

Yes they did - The Hurricanes (and the Spitfires to an extent) had a tendency to turn into roman candles if the front fuel tank was hit as it was located between the engine and the pilot. A lot of pilots were very badly injured and it's one of the the reasons why we got very good at plastic surgery during the war. They did learn their lesson though and sorted the tanks out on later marks - as a caveat, this is all facts in my head that I read a long time ago and someone probably going to come along and say I'm completely wrong... but I don't think I am lol!

[Guest]

Just the Radio? lol! Well, when has the US ever listened to us Brits!

Well, it wasn’t the only thing, but on the whole American tank designers were not overly impressed with the British and ignored their advice more than they listened to it.

At least we knew enough to know our designs were lacking I supposed, but from what little I do know about British Armour, It's an entire subject all to itself!

The main advantage the UK had in tanks was that it had a much better idea of what would be needed in the future — by the start of the war they already figured that the 2-pounder gun would soon be obsolete so they started work on the 6-pounder, and once that was in production they drew the same conclusion as the Soviet Union: future tanks would have even more armour and so would need a bigger gun still, which became the 17-pounder. The Americans looked at the same intelligence information and came to a completely different conclusion from their allies: what they had now (ca. 1943) would still be good enough in the years to come. (American tank gun designers did see a need for a bigger gun, though, but were overruled, partly due to those faulty conclusions and partly for practical reasons.)

A book I already mentioned, Zaloga’s Armored Thunderbolt, goes into a good amount of detail about all of this. It’s a good example of how institutionalised thinking and NIH syndrome can lead to conclusions that are far from ideal, even when it’s pointed out by outsiders.

The Hurricanes (and the Spitfires to an extent) had a tendency to turn into roman candles if the front fuel tank was hit as it was located between the engine and the pilot. A lot of pilots were very badly injured

I bet — TBH, it’s one of those things that make you think, “Why didn’t they see that coming?” A fuel tank in front of the pilot sounds like it’s just asking for the pilot to get burn injuries, really … But it’s better for balance, of course, and that consideration probably won out.

[Waspie]

I can easily see the case of a designer saying 'yes we'll put the shells there, so the loader can get to them easily'' without really knowing the consequences of that decision.

Sounds like UK procurement and design.
Probably designed by student designers, not checked and pushed through due to the pressure of war.
We did it with a few of our warship designs!!