Small Scale Military Headquarters

For my seventh review, I will take a close look at the latest Sherman offered by Forces of Valor in 1:32 - the M4A3 Sherman (Normandy 1944). This is the first Allied vehicle that I've reviewed, but know that I'm not obsessed with German armour - I just haven't seen much of what I'd like in 1:32, like the Churchill or Comet for instance. Heck, the Matilda II is really the only Allied armour that I'm nuts about. I will be adding a Sherman Firefly in the next month or two to balance out all the bloody Tigers that I already have. But I digress - on to the review.

This Sherman is painted a fine shade of olive drab and is only lightly weathered so as to look like it just rolled off a LST onto the beach. The relaxed pose of the three infantry riders and the tank commander makes it look like the tank is not rolling through a combat zone. It represents a unit that fought as part of the 3rd Armoured Division in Normandy after D-Dad and could be part of either the 33rd or 34th Armoured Regiment. The 3rd "Spearhead" Armoured Division fought from late June 1944 in Normandy all the way into the heart of the Third Reich by the end of the war. From what I can tell, the split commander's hatch, oval loader's hatch and lack of appliqué armour indicate that this is an early- to mid-production M4A3 Sherman.

Fine details included in the construction of this model include built up sandbags on the glacis (poor man's spaced armour to protect against shaped charge attack, r.e. panzerfausts), a M2HB mounted behind the commander's hatch, a tarp and crates on the engine deck, small ricochet marks on the hull sides & turret, a flexible plastic tow cable, and a stowage rack mounted on the rear hull.

Profile shot, showing the tank riders & tank commander:



The protective sandbags look great - they're perfectly molded to the glacis and are weathered to look like, well, real sandbags. There are two problems that I see here, though. First, the sandbags seem to block the driver's and radioman's vision blocks. Second, the bow MG is pinned in by the sandbags. A casual glance at this photo will also show another glaring flaw - the lower hull is painted light olive, contrasting with the dark olive drab of the upper hull. Why this is, I do not know.



Profile shot of the front right quarter:



One of the tank riders. He does not seem to be holding on for dear life, indicating that the tank is moving slowly through a rear area. He seems to be lost in thought or just half asleep. The level of detail is incredible.



One of the other tank riders. This gent doesn't seem terribly worried that a M2HB is pointed towards his head, and he is also carrying an M1 Garand. Again, the level of detail is great.



Rear stowage rack and engine deck. The engine deck itself is well weathered and almost looks like it could open, but sadly, it does not. The tarp and crates don't conform to the engine deck very well. The rack, however, is perfect for stowing some extra jerry cans and a crate I have from all of the other FoV I have in my collection:



Rear hull details, showing the overlapping rear armour plate with unit markings, the maintenance hatch and two mufflers - all signs that this is an early- to mid-production M4A3:



The running gear with light weathering. The tracks look good but have a tendency to throw if you roll the vehicle around too much:



Front shot without the soldiers or protective sandbags. The metal wall that the sandbags sat on doesn't seem right. From pictures that I've seen of M4A3s in action, it was more of an improvised affair made of wood or scrap metal. I may be wrong, however. The bow MG can clearly be seen now along with the three ventilators grouped around the front hull (are they ventilators?) that are another indication that this is an earlier model M4A3:



Top shot showing the four open hatches. None of the rest of the hatches open. The driver's, radioman's and loader's hatches and spaces are all so tiny that you'd be hard pressed to fit a figure in any of 'em:



The relatively clean underside. I haven't taken this beauty apart, but as you can see, there are two screw holes for mounting this to its base, four holes for the screws holding it together and one hole for the plastic rod that keeps the turret static on display. All fairly normal for Unimax:



Best profile shot I've taken yet:



CONCLUSIONS

All-in-all, I'd have to say that this Sherman is worth adding to your collection. It has a few items that the other Unimax releases do not have - namely, the tank riders and protective sandbags. If I recall correctly, three other M4A3s have been released - the Bastogne version in winter camoflage, the Italian Front version with British markings and the original Normandy version with less accessories. While I personally find it disappointing that Unimax wouldn't release different versions of the Sherman (such as earlier models with the cast hull, or later models with the 76mm or 105mm turrets and HVSS suspension). Perhaps such a model is on the horizon - after all, they did just release a brand-new Stuart!

The flaws are hard to overlook. I don't know why the upper hull has to be dark olive drab and the lower hull is painted light olive. If you know why, please let me know, because it's just crazy. The axe and shovel handles are painted a disgusting brown colour, also the norm for Unimax. The M2HB has an eternally crooked barrel that can't be corrected no matter how many times I give it the warm water treatment. The figures are awesome, but if you tried to fit figures in the other compartment hatches, you'd have a hell of a fight on your hand considering the lack of space. I know that the Sherman was cramped in real life, but seriously - why does the inside space for the front two hatches have to be so damned narrow? After all, a tank cruising through a rear area wouldn't be buttoned up except for the commander's hatch. One last problem I've experienced is that the turret does not move around smoothly. Turning it left or right from 0° is hard to do without applying some gentle force.

I recommend it to anyone that loves Shermans and Forces of Valor, but not to die-hard enthusiasts. I've heard that such enthusiasts pan this release because of details that I'm not overly familiar with because of a lack of reference material. If you know of other flaws that I have not pointed out in terms of realism, please feel free to point it out.

I'm going to put this Sherman back on display with all its extra gear and its riders. That way it looks great and you can almost ignore whatever other flaws you might notice

Great review! I have this same Sherman and really like it The riders, stowage, and sandbag accessories were a very nice touch as well! The differing color of the lower hull (same on mine as on yours) does not really bother me and may have been done to better simulate mud weathering or something like that. Personally, I prefer this Sherman to the 21c 32x version, save that on the 32x Sherman, you can place the driver & radio operator in their respective hatches. All in all, I agree its a great tank!

Well, it worked on the M2HB and to a lesser degree with the Panther's MG34.

Thanks for the advice!

Nice review. Thanks! Re: the light olive lower hull, it looks to me like the lower hull was weathered before attachment to the upper hull, hence the lighter color and the distinct deliniation. A little airbrush work should fix it right up.

Lol the first time I looked at the pic I also though how the heck does the driver see! And I think Digimatt is correct about the hull painting. I really hate the bendy MG barrels. My FOV M16 AA track has three of them that refuse to go straight no matter what method I use. I wish they would use a tougher plastic on their barrels.

In regards to the sandbags on this model, I was quite pleased that the could come off! It gives the model greater versatility in terms of how it is displayed

I had trouble with my M16 too - but not with the gun barrels. Surprisingly they were made of firmer plastic than other MG barrels I've encountered. The trouble was with them falling off the mounting! The ammo bins wouldn't stay on either, so I used some model glue to solve that bloody problem

The Sherman and Panther have the worst "bendy" MG barrels. The Panzer IVs are hardly any better, especially considering that the BMG barrel on the Ausf G was bent in a "Z" shape when I got it!

I also have this Sherman and I love it. Great review ChairmanMilo!

1) unfortunately the M4A3s with early hulls (like the FoV) didn't go overseas until later in the war.

2) The applique armor is wrong. These are the extra steel panels over the ammo racks. There should be TWO on the right and one on the left. This was an OFFICIAL feature, not a field add-on, they go in very specific places. There should also be applique panels on the divers' hoods.

3) Did you notice that all three infantry figures are wearing assault vests? Issued to a few units for the DDay landings - an interesting detail.

4) The Chinese factory workers did not translate the unit markings correctly - there was no 23rd Armored Regiment in 3rd Armored Division. The two Armored Regiments were the 32nd and 33rd. The unit code on the left SHOULD read 3^32^ (or 33^).

Basically a good tank, but anothyer five minutes of research would have it great.

Gary

That's what I was hoping for, binder001 - details that I don't have in my personal reference materials. I would love to get the Hunnicutt Sherman book, but I don't have quite enough money at the moment for it

So we have a few issues - namely, that this model Sherman wasn't used in the Normandy battle, add-on armor plates are missing (I was thinking something wasn't right about the glacis...) and the unit markings are incorrect.

I didn't notice the assault vests until you pointed them out. It is interesting that they would include something like that while at the same time missing out on other important details.

Well, I recently bought this and it's not as bad as you guys say.

For one, the lower hull was not painted tan. When I turned it upside down, there were multiple holes to let the plastic wires hold the tank in place in the box, not 1 single hole. All these suggest that mine was a later production model, and the one in the pictures was an early version.

And apparently yall have some problem with the .50 cal machine gun's barrel right? Mine came slightly bent, and I straightened it out NOT with the warm water treatment. I put it under a hot desk lamp, and I waited for about 15 seconds until the plastic was soft enough for me to carefully bend it back in place. It also worked with the "thing" that held the gun; mine came bent out of shape so I straightened it out using that method.

Hope that helped!

Way to bring up 5 year old thread

Can't believe I've had that tank for nearly half a decade now - where did the time go? It also means the FOV tanks I had before that are even older...

Still, I have an earlier release like the one in the review, though I think Unimax has continued to release this as part of their D-Day lineup. Nice tank all around.

But it also shows what we have lost with Unimax's new cost-cutting measures whereby they simplify the tooling on new vehicles (ie few opening hatches), don't use as much diecast, limit the number of accessories, and have few to no weathering effects.

Although an old topic, this is a nice review CM. It's always great to see these vehicles up-close. I think what really makes this Sherman stand out is the sandbags and the figs. All-in-all, it looks like a great vehicle. FoV really does a fine job with the little details and their figs (the netted helmets as an example - nice touch).

It's interesting to compare older FoV vehicles with the new stuff. Based on their last few releases, these older vehicles seem to have more detail.

I know everyone is upset at Unimax's cost-cutting measures, but it may be the only way they can hang on to enough money to keep pumping out product.

The hope is that once the economy shows signs of strengthening they will go back to better detailing - and not decide to stay cheap because we've gotten used to it.

yeah I love these models keep going on the good sharing

Thanks

What about simple kit bashing? I was wondering if it might be possible to share parts from the 21C Firefly kit. Any thoughts?