Hans, That is the perfect picture ! … the round part of the 60 " bar is 1" in diameter and the square part is 1.25" , with the square part being 1 ’ long … a little heavier than some earlier tanks, but the bar is specific ( I think) to HVSS Shermans and later became standard as tracks and tanks became larger. ( still researching )
Thank you : )
tread[H]
P.S. We can see some other ‘specialized’ tools here in action.
( sorry crap pic)
A small look at your 1/16th M4E8 Tread ?
Ye, we call that a crow bar as well. I guess we avoided confusion as we didn’t have these smaller bars.
I have to say, shellbacks crow bar is much better presented.
But can you open a beer bottle with it?
Yes …
Results with The tanker bar and crow bar …[^o)]
The girl …still working on it …[whstl]
Although not a WWII version I do not believe the venerable tank bar has changed much over the years. I went digging through some of my photos and found that the good ole tank bar has not been the attention in any of my photos even though I have done enough suspension-detention. So I went through a couple of our TM’s, and found that according to the manuals there are two different NSN’s for the Crow Bars but I don’t think you could differentiate between the two if side-by-side, perhaps it is a shared NSN? For a couple years we received bright blue tank bar/crow bars when ordering new ones. Although our TM’s state a specific stowage location, there is only one place I have ever seen them stowed in the last 20-years, strapped to the port aft bilge-pump discharge tube.
The weights sound about right. We had two different sizes, but both looked identical in design except for the size. The tanker bar was found on M48/M60/M1/M88 type vehicles including CEVs, AVLBs, etc. The smaller size was found on APCs like the variations of the M113 and Bradley. I’m not sure which size a vehicle like the M109 series used.
When new, ours tended to be all black with the underlying forged metal being dark colored. During years of use, they received numerous black or OD spray paints as part of inspections, vehicle layouts, inventories, etc.
I often wonder why many modelers depict these tools as unpainted silvery bare metal. Even an unpainted wood axe head turns to a dark brown rust color.
The 60-inch bar… As for the paint on it, it was over-painted with rattle-can OD all the time, whenerver the was an inspection, anyway… Plus, each section had it’s own color for marking the BII… Mine was White, so every pioneer tool, and every bit of the BII had some white paint on it…
Water cans, fuel cans, shovel (which got the OD rattle-can paint too), axe, maddock handle and maddock, fuze wrenches, section chest itself, etc…
All were painted with a blob of white…
I know 36 fittings/places on the M109A3 were I can open a beer bottle…
Here’s a fuel can w/ donkey d ick …
!(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/HansvonHammer/Support Equipment/Fuelcandonkeydick.jpg)
When I was on M101A1s, we had two Donkey D icks in the section chest… The afore-mentioned fuel can spout, and this one:
This one was removable… It was just a round steel rod (wieghed about 10 lbs) that was pointed on one end to fit into the end of the left trail in order to move it… It was never left in place (as many modelers of the M101/M2A1 do) once the gun was laid and emplaced, because you WILL walk into it at night if you leave it there, and it WILL hurt…
Bad enough that the lunette (the thing on the other trail, that hitched to the truck) is also out to getcha… At night, we stuck an aiming post section in it for safety. But that sucker WILL put a damn-damn on your shin…
Oh yeah… It was also a perfect place to set your steel pot of shaving-water on in the morning…
Hi guys, this is the finished tanker bar with the afore mentioned dimentions.
I just have to make the 'leather ’ straps and buckles.
Shell, to answer your question, this is Tamiya’s 1/16 M4 105, not an M4A3E8, although they make conversions and turrets to make one.
The model has undergone lots of changes the only Tamiya parts left is the aluminum tub chassis, running gear and upper hull bare shell
I built it about 4 yrs ago and it is undergoing minor upgrades and new paint. (the paint in these pics is ‘in process’, so go easy LOL) I thought sure you must have seen it. When I’m done maybe I will post a pic or 2. I am just trying to get some ’ fine motor skills’ back since my surgery, but it looks as though I am going to need another anyway.
thanks everyone for the help
tread
Tread , now i see that i made some mistakes on the mounting of the “tanker bar” on my M4A3 . 1 or 2 pics of your M4 105 will not be enough . [Y]
Ain’t the chasis about the same for both? Both have the HVSS suspension right?
Suspension is the same for the M4 105 and the M4A3E8, but the main portion, the hull and powerplant is different with the M4 having the radial engine and the M4A3E8 having the Ford GAA. A simple turret swap won’t get you even a 50% solution. The entire back deck including most fuel and other filler spots and even the rear portion of the hull will differ. The running gear is about the only thing alike.
Tread, that is a good looking job. I’ve got the old (from around 2000) Tamiya M4 105. I remember my hands hurting from assembling the metal tracks and always breaking track (just like a real tank) when running it R/C.
Sherman variants & sub-variants have always eluded me, Rob… Dunno an M4 from an M4/A-whatever… Only things I knew were that there was a cast hull version, a welded hull version, "Screamin’ Mimi"version , a 105 howitzer version and the hatches would vary, and that there was a VVSS and an HVSS (Which I knew was on the “Easy -8” and “Isherman”), and that the Iraeli Sherman had a Frog 105 gun and bigg-azzcounter-weight on the turret… And that was a LOT more than I know about German armor, what with all “Aufs”-stuff on 'em…
Now, ask me about M109s, well… That’s another matter altogether, lol…
Sherman variants are probably as confusing for me as it is for Clankers not knowing about all the variants of a Messerschmitt, Spitfire, Zeke, or Mustang, lol…
Guess I’ll stick to “Accessories, Gear, and Stowage” when it ccomes to things that go, “Clank”, lol…
What confuses most people about Shermans is that they tend to think of them as sequential; like the M4 then M4A1, M4A2, etc. when in fact, they were produced almost simultaneously in a parallel fashion.
For instance, the M4A1 came first but the US lacked the widespread ability to produce a cast hull so a welded hull M4 was also produced. Virtually identical except for the material of the hull. Both were powered with radial engines.
Then when the aircraft industry needed radial engines and got priority over the tank industry, the Ordnance Corps tried various engines leading to the twin diesel M4A2, Ford GAA M4A3, and the Chrysler multibank M4A4.
The diesel engined A2 didn’t see widespread US Army use because we knew a thing or two about logistics and the non-standard fuel would double the logistics load. We shipped them to allies and the Marines (who had more ample supplies of diesel because of ship use). For the allies, well, beggars can’t be choosers.
The M4A3 became standard US Army use because of the gasoline engine.
The M4A4 (British called it Sherman V) had an over complicated 5-engine design and was rejected from standard US use. The Brits got them because it was still better than any tank they could field and they could get them quicker and in superior numbers to what their industry could produce. It was sort of a dead end of the Sherman branch.
Because of their parallel development, you’ll see M4A4s (what you would might think of as a later Sherman variant) with earlier features than an M4, M4A1, M4A2 or M4A3 that continued to be produced and improved as the war went on.
Also many improvements took place during production. In the drive to make as many tanks as possible, just because new designed parts are developed, doesn’t mean you stop using the old design parts. They are used until the supplies are exhausted.
The US Army was a master rebuilder. As territory was overtaken, depot rebuild facilities were set up and damaged and detroyed tanks were cobbled together and returned to the supply chain and eventually to the front lines. Then you end up with a mishmash of Sherman variants (late parts on early or mid tanks and vice versa).
Then add the Israelis getting these second or third hand and continuing to cobble them together and things get even more mixed up. Bottom line, it is had to say what can and can’t be on Shermans. Although the 105mm howitzer was only produced and fielded on late M4 or M4A3 hulls.
Sherman turrets are a whole 'nother animal as well; low bustle, high bustle, 75mm vs 76mm, 76mm guns retro fitted into 75mm turrets (ala Kelly’s Heroes tanks).
Thanks,Rob, for the clear concise explanation. Even the Hunnicutt bible never really gets to the point : they were made simultaneously , and I think you are absolutely correct that is where much confusion arises, both for history buffs and model builders alike. I like to research everything I build. I even got out the ‘bible’ just for the tanker bar.
Thank you for the compliment on my job, and I hope you are having a terrific Memorial Day. God bless all who serve.
Best regards,
tread[H]
!http://wordforge.net/images/smilies/meme.gif
This should make it clear for you.
Front location designed for the square and angled end
and the rear location (smaller size?) for the smaller rounded end (although it might? possibly be placed in a reverse position also)
I’m out’ta here…!http://wordforge.net/images/smilies/flamingmob.gif
Heya Steve : )
I have them showing both ways, some fancy and specialized as your example and some just angle iron or ’ U ’ channel… and of course different for each chassis. I must say I haven’t seen this type mount yet, but I like it…it looks like maybe M4A3E2…I might scrape off my end holders and flip it… it would be easy… I DID find out the different lengths … the shorter one is 4’ 9’’ …so just a 3" difference
thanks for the help,buddy ! Have a nice Memorial day
yer pal
tread
