I GOT AN EMAIL FROM BAD CAT SAYING THAT MY 21C 1:18 MARINES HAD ALREADY SHIPPED. I AM GOING TO DO A DIO, WHICH SHERMAN TANK WOULD BE ACCURATE TO USE, I AM ASSUMING THE 2-TONE PACIFIC ONE, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE NEWER DARK BROWN ONE THAT WAS RELEASED. THANKS FOR ANY HELP. MARKSMAN1
ALSO, HAS ANYONE RECEIVED THE MARINES YET? DOES IT SHOW THE JAPANESE FIGURES ON THE BACK OF THE CARD?
WHICH SHERMAN TANK?
If your'e a real bolt-countin' fanatic...
for accuracy, then I do not believe that the current crop of 1/18th Shermans will meet your need as a USMC vehicle.
That is, AFAIK, I am pretty certain that the USMC only used the early and late M4A2 diesels and later gas-engined 47-degree hull M4A3's.
From the front, the late 47-degree hull M4A2 looked a lot like the late gas-engined 47-degree hull M4A3.
The 1/18th Shermies available represent late or rebuilt M4's - with applique armor and gas engines. OK for USA, but not for USMC.
That said, put a layer of sandbags on the front hull, and build up some planks along the hull sides. Scratch-build some wading stacks and call it an early M4A2. I won't tell if you don't.
If you can swing by a Barnes and Noble or Borders, look for Osprey Arms book on Modeling the Sherman. They have a build on some USMC Shermies that show the planks, stacks, and other USMC mods - not to mention the colorful cammo - that will do you proud.
Check this site out for USMC Shermies...
http://www.hardcorpsmodels.com/
That is, AFAIK, I am pretty certain that the USMC only used the early and late M4A2 diesels and later gas-engined 47-degree hull M4A3's.
From the front, the late 47-degree hull M4A2 looked a lot like the late gas-engined 47-degree hull M4A3.
The 1/18th Shermies available represent late or rebuilt M4's - with applique armor and gas engines. OK for USA, but not for USMC.
That said, put a layer of sandbags on the front hull, and build up some planks along the hull sides. Scratch-build some wading stacks and call it an early M4A2. I won't tell if you don't.
If you can swing by a Barnes and Noble or Borders, look for Osprey Arms book on Modeling the Sherman. They have a build on some USMC Shermies that show the planks, stacks, and other USMC mods - not to mention the colorful cammo - that will do you proud.
Check this site out for USMC Shermies...
http://www.hardcorpsmodels.com/
Here's another link showing some 1/35th Shermans - page thru for pics of the various USMC versions with all the tacked-on home-made armor and such.
http://homepage1.nifty.com/lefthand/She ... 321_1.html
http://homepage1.nifty.com/lefthand/She ... 321_1.html
Wow....some excellent sherman model pics in that link. Very interesting stuff. I'd like to do a mine flail Sherman variant some day (yes i know there wasn't a model pictured of that variant...i'm just sayin' is all).
What was the idea behind the wood planks on the USMC shermans? Protection against hollow charge weapons? If so what hollow charge weapons did the Japanese have?
What was the idea behind the wood planks on the USMC shermans? Protection against hollow charge weapons? If so what hollow charge weapons did the Japanese have?
-
momaw nadon
- Officer - Captain
- Posts: 777
- Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 3:07 pm
- Location: San Antonio, TX
- Contact:
I think the bbi Sherman would be a better base to use, IMO. The thing is the front armor plate, driver and gunner hatches on both the bbi and 21st C are all wrong for a M4A2 version. The other stuff would be eazy to cover up or over look.
dzirhan is right about the hollowed charged explosive stick, can't remember the name. It was in most cases a sucidal run because the blast would kill the user.
momaw nadon
dzirhan is right about the hollowed charged explosive stick, can't remember the name. It was in most cases a sucidal run because the blast would kill the user.
momaw nadon
USMC Shermans...
Actually the USMC used M4A1's (Cape Gloucester), M4A2's with early hull (Tarawa, Saipan, Iwo Jima) , some M4A2's with late hulls (Iwo Jima, Okinawa), and M4A3s with late hulls (Iwo Jima, Okinawa).
The 21C M4 is a mid-production/rebuilt M4 with 75,, gun. The COULD be rebuilt to an M4A2, needs new engine deck, along with rebuilt details/new exhausts on the rear hull plate. Turret is OK.
The BBi Sherman is (I believe) an M4A3 with 105mm howitzer. The hull is good for a late M4A3, but the Marines didn't get the howitzer armament until after the war. You could take the gun mount off the 21C turret and put it on the BBi hull. That would be as close as you'll probably get.
Color - the Pacific Theater didn't have a particular camo scheme! Most armor was plain OD whether Army or Marine. One of the battalions on Iwo used a multi-color camouflage, but it was the exception.
The wood armor (most often with a layer of concrete poured between the wood and the tank hull) was to defeat hand-held or magnetic Japanese AT mines. There were often nails and/or screens on the hatch covers to keep the Japanese troops from blasting the hatches with satchel charges. The Japanese lacked "bazooka" type AT weapons but had large numbers of fanatically brave troops who would swarm over the tanks.
Good reading: "Marine Tank Battles in the Pacific" by Oscar (Ed) Gilbert, available through Amazon.com
The 21C M4 is a mid-production/rebuilt M4 with 75,, gun. The COULD be rebuilt to an M4A2, needs new engine deck, along with rebuilt details/new exhausts on the rear hull plate. Turret is OK.
The BBi Sherman is (I believe) an M4A3 with 105mm howitzer. The hull is good for a late M4A3, but the Marines didn't get the howitzer armament until after the war. You could take the gun mount off the 21C turret and put it on the BBi hull. That would be as close as you'll probably get.
Color - the Pacific Theater didn't have a particular camo scheme! Most armor was plain OD whether Army or Marine. One of the battalions on Iwo used a multi-color camouflage, but it was the exception.
The wood armor (most often with a layer of concrete poured between the wood and the tank hull) was to defeat hand-held or magnetic Japanese AT mines. There were often nails and/or screens on the hatch covers to keep the Japanese troops from blasting the hatches with satchel charges. The Japanese lacked "bazooka" type AT weapons but had large numbers of fanatically brave troops who would swarm over the tanks.
Good reading: "Marine Tank Battles in the Pacific" by Oscar (Ed) Gilbert, available through Amazon.com
boy, one man-one ship, ok...i guess. But one man, one tank?
I found some info on these japanese hollow charge weapons. They were called 'lunge mines'. The mine was copied from the german anti tank magnetic mine (as seen in the movie 'Stalingrad') but in place of the magnets were three wooden dowls to keep the charge the proper distance from the tanks hull.
The charge was mounted on a pole about five feet long and the soldier then ran up to a tank and pressed the charge against the hull. It was either triggered by a pressure detonator or by pulling a trigger via a cable at the pole's end. The operator had no chance of surviving the ensuing explosion...
I found some info on these japanese hollow charge weapons. They were called 'lunge mines'. The mine was copied from the german anti tank magnetic mine (as seen in the movie 'Stalingrad') but in place of the magnets were three wooden dowls to keep the charge the proper distance from the tanks hull.
The charge was mounted on a pole about five feet long and the soldier then ran up to a tank and pressed the charge against the hull. It was either triggered by a pressure detonator or by pulling a trigger via a cable at the pole's end. The operator had no chance of surviving the ensuing explosion...