I can’t find any references to a Sherman detail evident on 76mm armed vehicles. Some such vehicles have a bare metal ring around the base of the main gun barrel, and some do not.
This M4A3 has such a bare metal ring.
This M4A1 does not have the ring.
My references haven’t given me any indication as to the cause of this detail. Why is it present on some Shermans, but absent from others? Was it done intentionally to increase clearance between the gun barrel and the mantlet during recoil? Is it wear from the action of recoil? Any insight would be appreciated. I’m working on an M4A1 right now, and the area is blocked by a hatch on my reference photo. I’d like to know more about it.
Maybe I’m just thinking too much about a simple detail. I’d think that if it’s wear, it wouldn’t be concentric. I’d think the barrel would contact the mantlet unevenly, which would create uneven wear. Basically, the only reason I doubt wear is that it looks so darn perfect. Maybe I’m overthinking it.
Robin is right. This is a widely seen and discussed phenomenon with 76mm gun tubes on Shermans. It’s concentric because of the close tolerances of the mantlet opening.
OK, you’ve convinced me. I wonder if the clearance between the barrel and mantlet would decrease due to thermal expansion of the barrel. Maybe a couple of rounds wouldn’t cause this issue, but sending a few through the barrel in a short period of time would contribute to this effect.
I can tell you on the Bradley I was a gunner for, part of the maintenance for the cannon was to lube that part of the barrel as it rubbed on the gun mount at that spot.
If we didn’t shoot in a while or not use the vehicle for an extended period of time that bearing got really rusty and we had to clean the barrel and mount to ensure smooth fitting.
Sorry,
I had to ask. I think models can be accurate either way. Like I said, the ring is visible in some period pictures, but absent in others. When it comes to models, I have seen some model pictures that don’t have the ring, some have a narrow ring, and some have a ring that’s about a scale foot long. I think the models that show a scale foot of wear may be inaccurate, but I’m not sure.
I’ve decided to go with a narrow ring of bare metal for mine. I’ll try to model it to look like the M4A3 pic on the opening post of this thread.
I’ve always wondered about this as well - thanks for asking the question and thanks to others for the answers! I’ve studied numerous photos of Easy 8s in Korea and found, like you, that some have the ring and some don’t regardless of whether they’re in the field or in depot.
The new Tamiya M4A3E8 kit instructions call for a 3mm section of silver on the gun. It looks reasonable to me when I compare the painted model to photos.
Three millimeters looks about right to me too. I like the look of that new Tamiya kit, and I like the way they positioned the commander figure. The FSM review said that it could benefit from photo-etch parts. I should finish my M4A1 before I even think about buying that one.
I think I’ll put some of my build pictures here. This is Dragon’s M4A1 (76 mm) Operation Cobra kit. It’s a very nice kit with very detailed moldings. It’s engineered well, and all of the parts fit together nicely. However, they seem more delicate than Tamiya parts. They take more care, but the care is worth it. The dimensions seem to fit references rather well. Originally, my build was OOTB. However, I decided to include some parts from an Eduard PE kit at the end of assembly (intended for an old Italeri kit). I wasn’t happy with the guards for the headlights, taillights, periscopes and siren. Also, I wanted to include skirt hangers. I think the Eduard periscopes are superior to the Dragon kit parts as well. The .50 cal is from Tasca. I read on this forum that it was a great mini-kit, and I saw it at an out-of-town hobby shop I visited.
This kit has one big problem, its instructions. Follow the instructions with skepticism. Use reference pictures whenever possible.
Here are some pics after assembly. There’s one after priming. Preshading is next.
I started applying color. The olive drab is a mix of 5 parts Tamiya Olive Drab and 1 part Tamiya flat yellew. I like the preshading effect so far. I may apply another coat, or I may not. I’ll decide tomorrow.
She looks pretty sweet to me Chris! I’ve gotten to like single colour subjects, a little pre-shading and modulation and they can be just as interesting as a complex camo job.
Actually, the Sherman will be getting a black over OD camo scheme. The majority of the vehicle will remain OD. I was going for a faded look, and I’m happy with the results so far. The next step is faded black. I bet the aircraft forum has dealt with faded black for nightfighters.
I did a Sherman with the black camo bands a few years back. I just did the pre-shading and colour modulation to the OD and then used a dark grey for the black and lightened it a little on the turret and hull top. I might have blended mine a little too much since the black doesn’t stand out that much:
I don’t think the black blends in too much. The picture shows what I think is the right kind of look. In some of those old black and white photos, the colors do seem to blend. It’s often difficult to tell what’s black and what’s OD. The mud and dirt on the vehicles adds to this effect. So, I’d think that overblending would be less of a concern than underblending. I think your model and its camo look great.
I see that you have some “soft” edges between the OD and black. I was unsure about the camo edges, but I eventually went with a “hard” edge. There seems to be some variation between vehicles. What do you think? Is it likely that they were all sprayed on free-hand?
I need to fix that for sure. Thanks for noticing that, Ridleusmc
