Yeah it looks cool with the bigger barrel of the 105
1 Like
Ok finally bring this saga to an end: I’m calling this one done ( I might add a figure later). Comments welcome .
11 Likes
Balls to the wall Richard! This is an outstanding build! Really solid build, fantastic paint, perfect weathering, and wonderful stowage. That .50 is a little masterpiece that just caps it all off. Kudos on an awesome build. Love the details.
3 Likes
Thanks for the kind comments Matt!
1 Like
That is some seriously good work, Great Job!
2 Likes
Thank you Jack . I’m glad it’s finally finished, now I can move on to other projects .
2 Likes
Great looking build, congrats.
2 Likes
Thanks Ryan appreciate it
2 Likes
Excellent work!
I really like the ammo on the deck. I’d opine that for loading into the turret, the turret would normally be over the left side of the hull, allowing crew to pass ammo down the loaders hatch. And as always, YMMV.
What a great build!
2 Likes
Thanks for the kind words Ted!
I wanted to turn the turret just to add some interest instead of it being straight ahead. I do plan on putting the tank in a diorama at some point. I could always turn it the other way, but I wasn’t planning on having the crew loading ammo; my plan is to have this old verlinden figure who is holding a panzer Faust with a small crowd around him looking on in awe including the tank crew. I have to play with the composition a bit. I’m also adding an M8 (10?) ammo trailer to the scene, but again I’d have to see if it works with the base I’ll be using.
3 Likes
HEY Richard-
So I’ve learned that there’s reality (I was a crewman for 27 years, commanding Infantry, Armor, and Cav units), and there’s modeling.
In my experience, some PSG or 1SG (senior NCOs in my company) would have a tank commander and his crew on the ground having a counseling/course correction “discussion”. A few yes or no questions (do you or don’t you understand the standards?), some direction with his “knife hand” for emphasis, and some immediate action. Then tht crew would go “train” everyone else in the Company! Leaving ammunition on the tarp and getting off the tank is a big No-Go in ammunition handling: someone’s got hands-on from the delivery system (truck or trailer) to the storage cell inside. No exceptions.
LOLZ
Now, that said, this is fabulous modeling. I would NOT judge (AMPS is my home) this on the basis of realism. It is a fabulous work, so take my feedback with a large grain of salt, please!
2 Likes
I understand completely, having served myself lol. It’s like leaving a weapon unattended, including leaving a .50 cal or 240 B in the hatch unmanned; happened to one of my guys on a deployment. He was down inside the vehicle with the weapon loaded but just sitting there in its mount.
However, looking at reference photos I see it quite often; ie rounds on the rear deck with other stuff piled around it but no one in arms length.
3 Likes
Provenance is MUCH more important than my opinion!
“To us, and those like us!”
3 Likes
I very much appreciate your opinion Ted and your expertise/ experience! Again thank you for the compliments.
I’m an AMPS guy too although I don’t get too many shows unfortunately. I did attend last years in Pennsylvania and I’m hoping to get to that show again May 15, I had a blast last year.
2 Likes
The normal way with Shermans was through the pistol port. Why lift whole boxes of ammo up onto the rear deck if you can unpack them on the ground, and going through the pistol port means one fewer crewmen having to be involved in loading the ammo than through the loader’s hatch.
The question you always have to ask, though, is: Were they also this strict in 1945? Chances are very good that they weren’t.
2 Likes
I agree, I’m sure there was more than one way of doing things and you make a great point about making it easier to load rounds into a tank. Troops will always find the easiest way to do something ( at least we did but that was in peacetime ) not necessarily safest, nor according to regulations; which I think if they weren’t outright ignored they were “modified “ lets say lol.
2 Likes
Size matters! But first, some history.
The first M4(105) was produced well after the original D50878 turret pistol port was deleted. Tanks in manufacture and depot had their ports welded closed. This started in June 1943. The pistol port was restored starting late 1943, with the updated D50878 turret. The best I can get is a November date, but some turrets w/o ports were in-stream before the latter turret entered the pipelines.
The M4(105) was first built in February 1944, and all 1641 were finished by March 1945. All the M4(105) were built by Chrysler. So whether an M4(105) had a port was a question of timing. As it was, the last VVSS M4(105) was produced in September 1944.
The TC’s vision cupola was introduced to the M4(105) line in May 1944. So Richard’s M4(105) was produced in those 3 to 4 months.
But the real problem is the port itself. The lever that open/closed/locked the port obstructed the 105 round passing through. The port opening was ~7” wide iirc. I think I saw you have drawings, so please set me straight!
With the port latched open, a 105mm didn’t fit well through the port. It was 5” longer than 75mm, and ~2” bigger (at the rim give or take) in diameter. The latch blocked the port rather effectively, and hence the 105 gets up porn the back deck, and down the hatch (no pun intended).
I also note Richard’s M4(105) doesn’t have the bulge at the right front, and also has the high lifting lugs. Chrysler reportedly ONLY made two of these, so the kit-bashing is making things complicated.
My head hurts. You’re right, crews liked the port. It was restored. But some interesting circumstances made it unlikely the 105 round would be loaded through the port.
2 Likes
PS- Jako, I think you have drawings. I’d appreciate help. Then, I’m going to the Armor & Cavalry Collection on Friday, and I’ll find out!
1 Like
Was there strict compliance? “Always” is one of those words I avoid, because obviously it wasn’t if Richard has a reference photo!
Let’s let @metalhead85 Richard’s work stand on its merits. It is BEAUTIFUL, far beyond my talent.
2 Likes
Hey Ted is the bulge you are referring to on the right front of the turret? I definitely missed that.
2 Likes