login   |    register

Scale Modeling Sponsors

See Your Ad Here!

Armor/AFV: Allied - WWII
Armor and ground forces of the Allied forces during World War II.
Hosted by Darren Baker
Tasca's M4A1 DV
Biggles2
Visit this Community
Quebec, Canada
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 3,325 posts
Armorama: 2,707 posts
Posted: Sunday, June 23, 2013 - 10:51 AM UTC
I couldn't help but notice that the Tasca M4A1 has deep, scoop shaped cutouts either side of the direct vision visors on the driver/MG hoods, which are not on the comparable Dragon kit, and which are also not very apparent in photo's. Is either kit correct/incorrect, or does this just reflect different founderies' casting?
ericadeane
Visit this Community
Michigan, United States
Joined: October 28, 2002
KitMaker: 3,276 posts
Armorama: 3,227 posts
Posted: Sunday, June 23, 2013 - 12:08 PM UTC
You've hit on foundry variations. I think this is an area that Tasca has over done. I think they are trying to represent what's seen here:


However, often you see tanks with this area with much softer edges:
Biggles2
Visit this Community
Quebec, Canada
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 3,325 posts
Armorama: 2,707 posts
Posted: Sunday, June 23, 2013 - 01:04 PM UTC
your first pic above resembles the Tasca version, however this is a very early or preproduction Sherman with those extra two .30's in the glacis. The second pic is more like the Dragon model. Could 'Tasca, The Great, and Manufacturer of The Best Sherman Kits', have made an error? The horror!!
KurtLaughlin
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 808 posts
Armorama: 806 posts
Posted: Sunday, June 23, 2013 - 05:13 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Could 'Tasca, The Great, and Manufacturer of The Best Sherman Kits', have made an error? The horror!!



They could and have in small details from time to time. However, this isn't one of them. You can see this shape in the DV tanks made by Pacific Car and Foundry, as

http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/manufacturer/m4a1pcf/Paccar_ca_8-42.jpg

It's also present on some of the M4A1s knocked out in Tunisia.

Where they might have goofed is using details (e.g. taillight brush guard, MG dust cover mount, hoisting eyes) different from those used by PCF. You can't hardly blame them though as much of this has only been sorted out in the last couple of years.

KL
tankmodeler
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: March 01, 2004
KitMaker: 2,455 posts
Armorama: 1,899 posts
Posted: Sunday, June 23, 2013 - 09:06 PM UTC
Man. Look at how smooth those hull and turret castings are.

Also, if you take a look at the front surfaces of the turret and note the subtley different shapes of the turret and rotor castings.

Paul
ALBOWIE
Visit this Community
New South Wales, Australia
Joined: February 28, 2006
KitMaker: 1,155 posts
Armorama: 1,115 posts
Posted: Sunday, June 23, 2013 - 09:35 PM UTC

Quoted Text

your first pic above resembles the Tasca version, however this is a very early or preproduction Sherman with those extra two .30's in the glacis. The second pic is more like the Dragon model. Could 'Tasca, The Great, and Manufacturer of The Best Sherman Kits', have made an error? The horror!!



No they haven't and this has been covered here with photos to support the issue (look for reviews or discussion of the DMl and Tasca A1 DV's). There are many foundry variations on cast hulls between the various manufacturers and different production batches as they add delete or modify the castings to suit.

Whilst I cannot confirm it I believe the Tasca kit represents the early hull which had the MG ports plugged as would be correct for the time frame of British Vehicles at Alamein which were some of the first Shermans produced (which both the DML and Tasca kits original represented).
This is an area where many a reviewer or modeller can become unstuck due to variations in casting. This happens when they uncover a particular photo of a variant which is different to the one the kit represents. The Academy Lee was a victim of this where people found photos of a particular manufactrers vehicle then slagged Academy for missing Rivets, over pronouncing the flat on the turret etc. If you do a google search you will find a really clear side on shot of a Lee with just the features that Academy were pilloried for.
You will also notice differences between the angles of the glacis sides between the DML and Tasca DV as well as the curves around the Hoods. Tasca Shermans are not without fault and have errors such as the rear light assemblies, missing glacis/hull welds, lower angled plate on the hull lower for later versions etc. regardless they are still a much less frustrating build than the DML which has the horrible transmission fit issue on nearly every Sherman they do, the gaps in the rear plate to hull wall, missing bolt strips for the hull to transmission etc.
I have yet to see the perfect kit and seriously doubt I ever will.
Cheers
Al
Removed by original poster on 06/25/13 - 08:51:51 (GMT).
M4A1Sherman
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Joined: May 02, 2013
KitMaker: 643 posts
Armorama: 618 posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 - 11:29 AM UTC

Quoted Text

I couldn't help but notice that the Tasca M4A1 has deep, scoop shaped cutouts either side of the direct vision visors on the driver/MG hoods, which are not on the comparable Dragon kit, and which are also not very apparent in photo's. Is either kit correct/incorrect, or does this just reflect different founderies' casting?



Hi, All! I think as time goes by, as more and more "NEVER-BEFORE-PUBLISHED" photos will be unearthed, we are going to find contradictions to many other things that we've taken as "Red Hot Gospel Truths"... There are bound to be other obscure differences within the M4-series Mediums, precisely because they were built in a dozen different foundries, locomotive and passenger car plants, automobile factories and Government Arsenals.

In any case, I've built several M4 and M4A1 Direct Vision Mediums, including the TASCA kit in question. I've modified the top hull glacis by adding the initial "fixed position" dual .30 cals... I don't get awfully excited over that kind of stuff, since the Oriental model companies very rarely explain anything that they choose to produce: You get a box, a set of instructions, the parts to build the kit, and a set of decals. Sometimes they include "Corrections", other times, not.

Personally, I LOVE the instructions that you find in the older ACCURATE MINIATURES 1/48 Aircraft kits- they included clear, concise explanations and helpful hints for assembling the various components, along with commentary! The illustrations are exemplary! Their B-25-series, TBF/TBM Avengers, SBD Dauntlesses and SB2U Vindicators are PRIME EXAMPLES of what I'm talking about. IF ONLY ALL MODEL KIT MANUFACTURERS WOULD FOLLOW ACCURATE MINIATURES' EXAMPLE, OUR MODEL-BUILDING EXPERIENCES WOULD BE A WHOLE LOT MORE ENJOYABLE!!!
M4A1Sherman
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Joined: May 02, 2013
KitMaker: 643 posts
Armorama: 618 posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 - 11:34 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Man. Look at how smooth those hull and turret castings are.

Also, if you take a look at the front surfaces of the turret and note the subtley different shapes of the turret and rotor castings.

Paul



Hey, Guys! Just a comment on that- Even our enemies during WWII had very kind things to say as regards to the quality and finish of US-made equipment...