I found this diorama.
and I wonder how correct it is? Is the Sherman tank right for this setting? I personally think that the Sherman be build burned-out given all the hits he received.
Interesting… If it was empty of fuel and had no ammo on board, maybe it would be close to that , I did think that Sherman’s had a reputation for brewing up at the slightest thing though ?
Only 2 or 3 of the hits look like they penetrated but I would of thought the very large calibre one to turret would of resulted in a lot more significant damage and fire damage…
It’s a nice Dio though. A lot going on but it has a nice balance and not so busy that it’s confusing.
The M4A1 76mm was not used during the time frame depicted in this diorama. They were first used in action during the break out at St. Lo in August,1944. Not all knocked out tanks, even Shermans burned. Most fires in Shermans were the result of ammo not fuel and these later Shermans had ‘wet stowage’ for the ammo. This seemed to help, but the average tank crews habit of stuffing ammo in every nook and cranny probably defeated its usefulness! Interesting figures, I assume they’re wearing camo para smocks, but it’s hard to tell under all that (dirt?)weathering. I don’t care for all the silly graffiti painted all over the tank. You rarely if ever saw that sort of thing done by the crew.
More research and less graffiti sounds Ike order of the day. I think before I ever do another Sherman, I will be asking about a thousand questions to see if it depicts the right sort…
Not sure of exact date this diorama depicts but signs refer to St Lo and Falaise so I assume (yes, dangerous) it’s very late July or early August '44. M4A1 76mm’s were in theater at that point, and I’ve heard various dates of actual employment. Have seen many photos of Shermans with this amount of damage (and more) that didn’t burn, as noted above, the wet ammo stowage was very effective. I agree the level of graffiti seems excessive, have not seen a photo of an American Sherman marked up like this. At this point, the US tank crews were removing most white markings on their vehicles, so does not make sense to add such large aiming points. Anyway, the build is well done, wish I were as skilled.
Some more of this guys works.
Historically accurate? I have no idea. And to tell the truth it doesnt concern me. But as a model and an artistic “interpretation” I like it.
Unless a modeller claims some form of accuracy then Im ok with artistic license.
He certainly builds good models and figures thats for sure. I generally really like looking at all dios and never try to be critical as I could never get up to the standard of most you see. I like all the elements in the Africa Korps dio, but to me they dont all fit into that small space. It all just looks to busy. The Brummbar dio is really nice, great idea, lovely build and figures and looks realistic. The only thing that looks overdone is the damage on the upper hull corner. It doesnt look real. The Ardennes one looks nice and not overly busy. Has enough on the base to keep you interested and looking around it. I wonder what scale that one was ?
All are 1/35 scale.
If you translate what he wrote about this dio he says it is supposed to depict the fighting in the Utah Beach area shortly after the landings. That pretty much eliminates using the M4A1 76mm as shown in this dio. I agree that his work is pretty good, but how hard is it to do a little research either online or in a book to make sure your facts are right? To me setting a scene in its proper place and time is as important as the quality of the work. Think about that the next time you see a Panther in Africa Korps markings or a T34/85 in Stalingrad! I’ve seen both over the years.
Hi Robert, thanks for clarification. To be honest I know this guy in person, he is living in the next city. I know him for decades and he´s a guys who builds for his own ego. On shows he is fishing for compliments, I had some arguments over time. He is familiarly biased with Wehrmacht. Since he speaks no English, he hardly will have some books on the subjects. He also placed his works in the local newspaper, to show his “historical correct” works.
Each to their own, I suppose, certainly ‘Artistic’ but to most journalists, every military vehicle is a “tank”
If they claim ‘Historical Accuracy’ call them out, as this perpetuates lazy tropes.
I once has a long ping-pong forum chat with a modeller depicting a wrecked/abandoned LCVP. Everything was very very rusted, including all the woodwork & plywood!
That will always be a problem. To 97 % of people outside of these forums they will have no real clue if its historically sound or not. They will see WW2, Normandy and see a “Sherman” and think, yeap, that looks great and sounds about right.
Like I said above, I think they are all built very well and the groundworks are good etc etc, but once you start adding specific veh makes and time frames, then you have to do the research and homework to make sure it all ties in. And to be fair, with Google, you can research the basics in probably under an hour.
There’s a TV series called Landscape Artist of the Year. At a guess less than 50% of the participants produce anything that anyone could recognise as what the public would see. So those painting photorealistic should decry those who take artistic license with the scene!
So wheres the difference? Do we only admire museum representations? Or do we recognise artistic skill? How about modelling skill?
My point is that unless a modeler declares their “intent” then we are all making assumptions. With my modelling I freely admit to an artistic licence. A representation. I know squat about military “things”. But I do like to model the “feel” of a military scene. So does that make me “evil”?
When an “acurate” model includes weight then I’ll start to accept all critism.
I’m rambling but my point is not to be tooooo judgmental.