I’m just glad that it’s not just me who lets projects wither on the vine!
Keep at it Doug (which is exactly the sort of advice I should give myself)
3 Likes
Yeah. I have a very bad case of ‘start and not finish’ disease. Like most creative people, I generate ideas far faster than my ability to realize them. A lot of people who frequent these forums have the same problem. My other major issue, one I write about often, is lack of painting talent. Since childhood, I put (mostly) built models in the closet rather than risk painting them.
I am now resolved to learn to paint well and finish all my stalled projects. Where talent is lacking, brute force learning must serve.
Now if you will excuse me…I need to head out to the garage to prime a Firefly and some Jagdsherman bogies. 
Those models aren’t gonna paint themselves.
Teaser shot of upcoming projects for 2024. Every model in this box was started in 2010 or earlier. Gonna get 'em all done. My secret weapon in doing all this is getting organized.
7 Likes
Wait a minute, that’s the secret, getting organized? You mean I have been doing it wrong all these years (decades, centuries)?
Ken
4 Likes
Dragon Firefly IC
The first couple rounds of painting went well. It should darken up a bit under a layer of umber. Tracks will probably end up in shades of brown. Unfortunately, the muzzle break seam shows. Sanding, filling, and repainting that will add a day or two to the project.
My experiment making tie downs using sheet plastic produced mediocre results. Gonna need to rethink that. Don’t like the brass, functional, or printed methods.
…
Most of the last few days was spent cleaning up tracks for the Jagdsherman while watching Bubblegum Crisis and Cowboy Bebop. Kinda want to build a 1/6 scale model of Sylia in her hard suit. Maybe Faye’s runabout in 1/35 scale as well. Would need to draft and print them for myself. They would make good learning projects.
6 Likes
Jagdsherman
It turns out this vehicle is built on a stretch hull, making it about the length of a M4A4 Sherman. That was probably done to provide more room for the 90mm gun breach. It has the added benefit of moving a large block of mass, the engine, further back, helping to counter balance the heavy gun casement. Since this is a diesel machine and the last set of bogies are further forward than on an M4A2, relative to the tail plate, some minor changes to the bottom plumbing were required. All of that is now in place, for better or worse.
Using materials at hand plus some stretched sprue, weld beads were added all over the vehicle. They are crude and mostly over sized but better than nothing.
As with all my projects, this one is plagued by mistakes resulting from inexperience, poor materials, poor tools, and lack of talent. Building up a larger supply of rod stock would really help. Thankfully, that is relatively easy to accomplish. Acquiring better tools will take much more effort and time since I have no experience with such things.
…
As an aside, while building this thing, I discovered great gobs of spare Sherman parts. If I can fabricate some bogie truck swing arms and volute springs, there may be enough stuff for 4 or 5 more vehicles! That is good because I definitely need the practice.
…
I need to start thinking about who used this thing. It is a diesel. Was it used by the United States Marines in the Pacific? Is it a British Lend-Lease vehicle? Was it supplied to the Australians? The Free French? The Poles? The New Zealanders? Maybe it was built and used by someone after World War II?
4 Likes
Doug,
This is a fantastic build you’ve got going. Very imaginative and very well thought out. I can see the Jagdsherman being deployed in NWE to take on the Tiger II and Maus. Since it is diesel powered, you have an option to the twin GM six cylinders. The M4A6, which never entered production, was powered by a Caterpillar D200A 9 cylinder rotary diesel engine. Might be just the powerplant for the Jagdsherman.
1 Like
Which is how you learn and improve your talent and skill set. And you are showing great skills here, not to mention a lot of imagination!
Ken
2 Likes
Jagdsherman
Jagdsherman now wears a set of T62 tracks from an old Dragon M4A4 Sherman. Cleaning up and fitting the tracks was 20 to 30 hours of work. It is absolutely required to drill out both mounting holes on each duckbill to make them deeper. Trying to assemble these tracks without drilling deeper holes will lead to all sorts of mayhem.
My 15 year old self made the width of each sponson pretty much perfect. This vehicle can easily wear sand shields even with duckbills in place.
The transmission cover meets the glacis place about half a millimeter too high. This was dealt with by building a little ramp where the two parts meet. While not perfect, it does not look terrible.
As with the Sherman 1C Firefly, Jagdsherman uses plastic brush guards for the lights and periscopes. Yes, they are too thick. Yes, they are way easier to use. On the Firefly, after sanding, the brush guards ended up two or three times too thick. Jagdsherman will receive the same treatment once everything dries.
Some design problems still require attention:
-
The main gun needs a mantlet. My original idea was to sculpt a boar’s head mantlet like the one on a Jagdpanzer IV. That plan is now rejected. Jagdsherman will get something more aggressive and American.
-
M4A2s have a fuel filler cap located to the left rear of the turret ring. My current understanding is that this leads to a small fuel tank, located inside the fighting compartment, for the auxiliary power unit. The primary function of this little engine is to power the turret traverse. Since Jagdsherman does not have a turret, my original idea was to delete the auxiliary power unit and associated fuel cap. This was something done by the Germans on the Panzer IV Ausf. J and Jagdpanzer IV. However, just today, I read a report that Russian tankers liked the M4A2 because it could remain on standby with only the auxiliary power unit running to keep the batteries charged. Charged batteries means usable radios! Jadgsherman will keep the auxiliary power unit. However, versus an M4A2, this vehicle has significantly more space in the engine compartment sponsons. Therefore, the auxiliary power unit will go into the engine compartment, along with the associated fuel tank. It will also get a new door for easy access to this system.
-
Jagdsherman has a problem shared with the Jagdpanzer IV–poor crew visibility. To help with this problem, my 15 year old self raised the commander’s cupola about 1.5 millimeters. This creates a different problem. Last night, I watched a video on tank battles in Vietnam. In one battle, an entire American tank crew was knocked out when one round from a PT-76 struck the cupola of their M48. The little vertical rise beneath the cupola of Jagdsherman is a shot trap and weak point. The vehicle needs a cast piece, surrounding the base of a cupola, shaped tike a cone washer, to deflect shot directed at that weak spot.
-
M4A2s feature a fire extinguisher activation handle located on the fighting compartment roof behind the turret. Jagdsherman needs the same pull handle, moved to a better location.
-
British and Polish M4A2 crews often removed the commander’s M2 heavy machine gun because it interferes with the commander’s hatch. This came to my attention when doing research for the Sherman IC Firefly. Jagdsherman will have M2 heavy machine guns for both the commander and loader. This will require designing new mounts for those weapons.
-
Jagdsherman has a problem. Since it lacks a turret, any stowage on the rear deck will occlude the commander’s vision to the rear of the vehicle. This machine needs stowage boxes on the sides and rear.
…
Just like the Jagdpanzer IV, Jagdsherman is an ambush predator for use on the defense. Would a hedge cutter help? On the one hand, a hedge cutter would allow the machine to quickly create ambush positions in hedge country, or achieve tactical surprise by bursting through a hedge at any point. On the other, the long barrel would easily snag when piercing hedges and hedge country comprises a relatively small portion of Europe and Asia.
Would a dozer blade help? Jagdsherman, with poor crew visibility, limited weapon traverse, and armor concentrated frontally, is poorly designed for offensive urban warfare, where an attack can come from any quarter at short range. Jagdsherman is well designed for defensive urban warfare if supported by a protective umbrella of infantry.
Would add on armor help? Jagdsherman features 100mm of frontal armor sloped at approximately 60 degrees, making it very difficult to kill head on. Like all armored vehicles, it fares much worse when engaged from other directions. Does it make sense to trade mobility for protection from side and rear attacks? Will the enemy allow Jagdsherman to snipe from concealment with impunity? Who is this thing fighting?
…
@SSGToms Thank you for the gracious comment. I am trying but often realize something else would work better only after it is too late. For example, your idea to make Jagdsherman an M4A6 is really fun. Unfortunately, the model already has the engine deck, tail, tail plate, mufflers, and belly of an M4A2. There is no way to rebuild all that. However, the next one could be an M4A6!
@tankerken Thank you as well for your kind words and understanding. A lot of learning is happening. That’s for sure.
6 Likes
Jagdsherman
The rear end of Jagdsheman received a phone box (often found on Commonwealth tanks) and two large storage boxes. These accentuate the long, squat appearance of the vehicle. A storage bin was also added to each rear flank.
A few weeks ago, someone posted a picture of a new, Israeli, 8x8 armored car. The vehicle wears explosive armor blocks along the sides, giving it the appearance of an armadillo. I immediately decided to adopt the same profile for Jagdsherman and built two very long stowage boxes for the hull sides. I goofed. The stowage bins ended up different lengths with different segment spacing. 
The model now awaits a new, improved set of side bins.
Otherwise, if I would give this project maybe 4 hours, it is almost ready for paint. Kinda excited to paint it.
5 Likes
You only need to decide which is the best of the two you’ve built and build another to match. Or you could take the one you like least and shorten it, add another skin from thin styrene and re-scribe that; tanks are rarely completely symmetrical so as long as the side bins start the same distance from the front the additional space at the back on one side can be used for a hatch, doodad, or stowage…
Do another with a howitzer and you’ve got a Sturmshermie…
Cheers,
M
2 Likes
That’s a good suggestion. I wrote off the side bins but, having scratch built so much stuff over the last three weeks, maybe they can be saved.
Sturmsherman is a good idea. Armored personnel carrier Sherman is planned.
2 Likes
Wasn’t that actually done?
Ken
3 Likes
Yes, in Italy Sherman IIIs had their turrets removed and the interior gutted and fitted with benches. These supplemented “defrocked” Priest M7 SPGs, originally devised by Canadian Lieutenant-General Guy Simonds in Normandy to supplement scarce half-tracks, when 72 M7s became surplus due to being replaced by towed 25pdrs (to simplify logistics) they had their guns and ammunition stowage removed and the gun embrasure closed with improvised armour. This was done in the field in about a week under the Code Name “Kangaroo”, which later was used to describe all vehicles so repurposed, they were ready in time for use in Operation Totalise (8th August 1944). This original batch were were re-converted to M7 format when the Americans asked for them back, but the idea had caught on. The Canadians (and British) had already become used to removing turrets from gun tanks to better suit them to various purposes, such as M3 and M5 Stuarts (initially as artillery tractors, and later to better suit them to their scouting role: they were a failure as Kangaroos), and the Canadians had around 500 of their Ram gun tanks in the U.K. as training vehicles with no intention for their use in combat for which they were under-gunned. These were shipped to Normandy as and when opportunities arose; once more they were converted in the field. Early Rams found favour as they had side doors in the hull which were advantageous for infantry “de-bussing” under fire. Sexton SPG batteries (based on the Ram chassis) were supplied with ammunition by a Ram Kangaroo variant called (logically enough) “Wallabies”, these units also had Rams which retained their turrets (but with dummy guns) for Command/Observation roles.
All this is making me think of a “What If”, albeit not suitable for this GB. Many tanks such as Matilda IIs and Lee/Grants, upon becoming obsolete in the Europe/Mediterranean theatre, migrated east as they could still be a nightmare for the Japanese; however some did serve in Europe converted for special purposes. I have the old Academy M3 Lee kit, from the original batch with the “too-tall” bogies. No matter, there are Sherman bogies in the box, and the M12 Gun Motor Carriage, based on the M3 chassis, were (retro) fitted with these when readied for deployment to Europe as were the Cargo Carrier M30 (the same vehicle less gun and recoil spade) with which they were paired. Hence the M3 Lee Kangaroo, 75mm gun and 37mm turret and their ammunition stowage removed along with the fixed hull .30 Brownings, and the turret cupola relocated to the hull roof as a MG turret. Turret ring plated over but with a large, forward opening hatch. Augmented frontal armour and a late, cast, one piece Sherman transmission cover.
Cheers,
M
2 Likes
@tankerken Yes! As Tom (MoramarthT) describes, the Kangaroo was probably the first armored personnel carrier based on the extended M4 Medium family of vehicles. If I recall correctly, the Israelis also repurposed M4 Mediums into the armored personnel carrier role. I would not be surprised to learn that other countries did the same thing in the decades after World War II.
What I plan is radically different from a Kangaroo. I made a picture back in…August 2023!..and here it is…
Endurance was my original idea for the Apocalypse campaign but I ran out of time and built MADMAN instead. If allowed, Endurance may end up in the Shermania campaign. Maybe.
@MoramarthT If I build anything weird after Endurance, it will be something really crazy.
3 Likes
I did think a while back about doing a Matilda II with an updated turret with a 6pdr in. I wonder if they ever thought about doing that? Or was the turret just too small?
2 Likes
Basically, that’s true but the main reason for not developing the Matilda II beyond the Mk.V was the Valentine which was faster (and cheaper) while (initially) having the same gun and a similar level of protection. The Russians fitted one Matilda with a 76mm ZiS-5 but the turret became to crowded. One Matilda was somehow fitted with a Cromwell 6pdr turret but this was never taken forward. It has been suggested the Matilda II could have been upgraded with turrets from the early Churchills, as they had the same diameter turret ring (54 inches). Those from Mks 1 and 2 would have been no help as they only had the same 2pdr, and while the Mk.3 did have the OQF 6pdr production bottlenecks meant there were never enough of these welded turrets even for the Churchill. To rectify this a cast turret for the Mk.IV with the 6pdr was developed. Not only does this seem the best option for a “What If”, it raises the possibility of a Matilda II with a 75mm gun! Mk.IVs were not only upgunned with the British OQF 75mm but prior to this in North Africa a rather complex field conversion allowed the cast turret to be fitted with the (inverted) gun and mantlet from wrecked Shermans, a couple of hundred Mk.IV NA75s were so produced. It is JUST conceivable if one of these was K.O.ed with the turret intact that could have been transferred to a Matilda II hull if there were any still available…
Regards,
M
2 Likes
I have two words for you:
Matilda Firefly
Edit: With Typhoon rockets.
Edit: Carrying a bridge.
Edit: And a flail.
Edit: With a flame thrower barrel and towing a fuel trailer.
Edit: With an awning.
Edit: Carrying a captured E5 on the rear engine deck.
Edit: With a full set of bar armor.
Edit: And sandbag armor.
Edit: And wood plank armor.
Edit: And nails on all the hatches.
Edit: That is more than two words.
2 Likes
Jagdsherman
It proved impossible to fix the original side storage boxes so new ones were made. Fabricating identical parts remains beyond my abilities but these boxes are almost the same length with almost the same panel spacing. Front profile geometry is a bit off. Box lid spacing is a bit off. Simple latches were added to all boxes. My original intent was to use brass latches but there were none in inventory.
My previous estimate of 4 hours to paint was extremely optimistic. With the new boxes built and attached, It will probably take another 20+ hours just to deal with absolutely necessary requirements. If I add a plow, that along could consume 20+ hours. With many projects underway, it could be the end of the year before this gets finished. Constant project time overruns are really starting to frustrate me in a major way.
It feels like my comfortable interest window for a model project is about two weeks. If a project exceeds that limit, it becomes an increasingly difficult slog and begins competing with other projects for my interest. At this moment, I have no interest in any of the projects before me. It is all pure work. In the future, I need to choose model projects that are easy and quick to build and paint.
On the positive side, all things considered, this project is looking pretty good. Learning is happening. Progress is happening. It is all just so painfully slow.
Looking at the picture above, I just realized Jagdsherman does not have any fume extractors. Add that to the list.
5 Likes
I have one word for you: Archbishop. The Bishop was a 25pdr gun/howitzer mounted in a lightly armoured casemate on a Valentine tank chassis. “Pheasant” was the code name for an extemporised mount for the OQF 17pdr gun which was in pilot production before the carriage design had been finalised and so was fitted to a 25pdr carriage in a rush so it could be sent to North Africa to be used against the Tigers which had arrived in early 1943. What if a Bishop and a 17/25pdr A/T had met in, say, Tunisia and some bright spark had put two and two together… “Archbishop” would be appropriate for the result as British SPGs had clerical names (Priest, Sexton) while the SPA/Ts had names beginning in “A” (Achilles, Archer)…
I’ve actually had this in mind for a while as I have the bits to do it but they don’t really match (a mix of 1:72nd and 1:76th scales) so it’s languished in “Development Hell” (as they say in the Movies) for a long time. The limited elevation of the Bishop wouldn’t be a problem for the gun as regards ballistics but would be for mobility.
Cheers,
M
2 Likes
I like how Archbishop combines the ‘A’ naming convention of tank destroyers with the clerical naming convention of self propelled guns.
When I was young, one of my very first tank books included a section on the Bishop. I have long thought they were very interesting vehicles.
I wonder if the 54 inch turret ring of a Matilda could be increased to 69 inches, making it big enough to accommodate the turret of an American M4 medium tank.
2 Likes