RMASG Sherman V 'Fox' in Normandy?

Modeling Subjects Armor
21

Peter, those are a lot of good questions.

For the wading trunks, I wouldn’t spend exra money on that unless you want to display the whole thing. Scratch building some remnant of it on the rear should be good enough. I would have to assume the RMSG Shermans had them too, since they would be none too sure the landing craft would make it safely all the way to a dry beach.

When I was researching the Canadian Sherbrooke Fusiliers, they were a reserve tank regiment, landing only at noon on June 6th. Photos do indicate they were equipped with wading trunks. Note too, the shape at the sides is simpler, not angular like in many other photos.

regards,

Jack

22

Wadeproofed M4s normally showed other signs if the trunking can’t be seen. The Bostik sealant, for example - which would probably still be visible after the short time RMASG spent ashore. Looks like vestiges of it around the mantlet in the top photo: Fireflies didn’t have canvas covers either, IIRC. Canvas mantlet covers wouldn’t have been possible for RMASG anyway because of the aiming marks. Not all Centaurs were done - presumably no time once the decision to land had been made and the tanks re-engined.

I wish that outfits like Critical Past would wake up to the fact that they can’t copyright photos they didn’t take or for which they have not explicitly acquired the rights to the original prints or negatives from the rightful owner - the person who took it or his descendants, or the State if he was an official photographer. Any photo from 1944 is still copyright to the owner’s descendants, but will be copyright free in 2019. Unless it’s Crown Copyright when the Crown owns it until 2069.

23

There is a photo of an RMSG Sherman on the beach at Bernières, and it clearly shows it has aiming marks and a canvas cover over the gun manlet. I can’t find the image on the free web, but is found here, and you will have to sign up if you want to see the larger image link:

http://ww2talk.com/index.php?threads/royal-marines-armoured-support-regiment-2rmas-juno-d-day.50802/page-2

There is also this photo of a Centaur, which also looks to have a cover around he mantlet:

One frustrating thing is pinning down dates, of which I cannot find any as to when Centaurs had their engines placed back in their hulls. I’ve seen one comment where their unit history makes no mention about this, and best I could find is late spring when it was acknowledge that they should have capability to operate on the ground. There is also a gaming site, stating the crews had several months to prepare thier vehicles for the invasion:

https://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=481

regards,

Jack

24

Oh one more thing, was giving some thought as to why 180 degrees was at the front of the tank turrets. Could be this was based on the general direction the assault was heading - south - so the numerical increments represent the compass?

regards,

Jack

25

So it seems that however long they had to prepare, the extent of preparation was variable between being fully prepared and almost entirely unprepared. I wonder if that can be tied to sub-unit or beach? Did any of the 3 UK - Canadian beaches shelve at such an angle that full wadeproofing would have been unnecessary? With the COPP surveys this would have been known. Sandbars and deeper water between were a worry at some beaches.

I hadn’t seen the Sherman with the mantlet cover, but I don’t pretend to have researched extensively yet as the model is a long way off being built. I was planning a double build with a Centaur. That would certainly have obstucted some aiming marks unless they were repainted on the canvas. It mattered less on the Centaurs because the marks continued above the mantlet opening. The canvas cover implies rear trunking too.

Regarding having 180 at the front, the only explanation that makes sense is the one assuming a South-facing approach to the beaches with fire directed by compass bearing Army-style rather than by bearing relative to the ship’s head Navy-style. But unless the ship and vehicles were lined up exactly on the North-South axis they would have been inaccurate. The only solution here would have been to take a bearing correction sighting once static and make a corrected 180/0 mark near the turret ring to line up on. That in turn required someone outside the tank - but then , thinking about it, someone had to be outside the tank anyway as the marks were entirely invisible to the gunner or to the commander in his cupola. Or was that the co-driver’s job through his open hatch?

Realising how little I know about this - and that it very clearly isn’t as simple as building an M4A4, painting it OD and whacking on a decal set with a gallon of MicroSol - I’ve put in a request to go down to the RM Museum and do some focussed research. I would hope, though, that others have trodden that path already. The Museum is actually closed at the moment and is re-locating from Eastney Barracks to the main RN Museum in the Dockyard to re-open next year. So it may be some time before access is possible. Bovington is another possibility - I’m a Friend there - but I suspect anything RMASG-related is probably in with general M4 material and probably a lot harder to identify.

Re-fitting the Centaur engines would have been a major workshop job and would have taken some time to do, supporting the argument for reasonable preparation time. Don’t forget, they had engine bays configured for the Liberty with the rear radiators. Those engines were gone and Meteors were re-fitted - with front radiators and the top deck vent. While the A27 series was designed to take either engine, it wasn’t a drop-in replacement: the engine bay had to be gutted and re-fitted. An awful lot of spare parts were needed to make this happen and there were no conversion kits. So technically they came out of the process as a sub-variant of the Cromwell VI, but as an essentially “field” conversion no new designation was given.

There has long been debate about Centaur colour, SCC2 or SCC15 or some of each, but the M4s would certainly have been in US OD.

26

Peter, hope you can make that trip to the RM Museum, and post your findings here. In the meantime you could join the UK based WW2talk forum (unless you are already a member?) as they are a pretty knowledgeable group, and includes war veterans.

I’m not sure just how much was known about beach conditions, but assuming they were striving for the perfect landing, (ie. dry beach sand) it would still have been a good precaution to have some wading capability just in case the landing craft was disabled before it could reach it’s objective? As I understand it, maximum depth with the trunks deployed was water level below the turret base. The trunks weren’t not intended to be a snorkel device, but only to prevent salt spray from entering the engines.

regards,

Jack

27

Their contention will be that the digital “sharpening” of the images represents a change of greater than 26%, and therefore the resultant content is new, and deserving of a present copyright.

IP law is somewhat unique in that one’s 'common sense" has to be tempered with the ways and means of modern technology.

Similarly, a person can take public domain 16mm motion picture photography and line double it to “HD” quality, and express a copyright upon the “new” content thus created.

28

Back in the days of using ranging marks for naval gunfire, certain assumptions were presumed.

Like clear visibility to the next unit in a given squadron.

Further, that the next unit in line would be no more than dead abeam (90º left or right of Leader). That, most typically, additional units would be ecshelloned behind and to the sides of the Lead.

To that end, turret markings are reversed vice whatever agreed aiming index was chosen. This allows direct reading of train angle. So, if the Lead is trained 32º to left of center, the turret markings will show a corresponding 32º angle.

Now, given that a “range clock” is not included, how trailing units were meant to match gun tube elevation is an open question.

Which then suggests the markings were, in fact, spurious, a bit of bravado, well within the espirit de corps of the Marines.

Now, in battleship era (spark telegraphy and coal smoke), “reading” squadron firing orders was atad simpler. The aftermost turret was the one typically indexed. That index was normal to the turret face. Which was automatically reversed in the after turret. The aft-facing “range clock” then giving gun elevation information. All of which is also modified by Formatio nand Corpen flag hoists.

The flagship generates a firing solution for the present enemy. Let’s say that the decision is made is that each ship in the squadron will close to 22,000 yards, turn 35º starboard to better uncover the guns, and engage. So, the clock is set to indicate the 22,000 yard range, the after turret trained to the firing bearing, and a flag hoist of “CORPEN, THREE, FIVE” is made up.

This is rather different from tank warfare, where a squad of tanks will need to nagigate bocage or hills and swales and standing structures.