1945 GB

Nice looking Sherman castel.

Nice choice Stik. Will be interested to see how this kit builds up. I have not seen one of their armour kits being built before.

I built one of their Valentines back in the late 90s. I vaguely recall it being somewhat  clunky in assembly as well. But once built it looks pretty good on the shelf. So far, so good on this thing. I think that the biggest speed bump will be the indy link tracks.

A little more done this weekend. I painted the Hull (I still need the black boot top stripe) and sat the sub-assemblies on the deck to see how everything fits. I am' very pleased with the results. I'll take everything back off and do some more deck and hull painting, install AA guns, the catapult , rigging and railings, but I just wanted to give an update.

Steve

castelnuovo

Why was Sherman the right tank for the wrong war?

I'm sorry, I meant no disrespect, I love the Sherman. That was a quote for some of the tank crews. I think a better phrase would have been, right tank for the wrong theater.
The simple fact is that while the Sherman, was fast, maneuverable, easy to manufacture and ship overseas, but it was a medium tank in a heavy tank environment. It took several Shermans to bring down a Tiger, and would lose 75% of the attacking force doing it. It had a low velocity short barrel 75 which was more suited for HE than AP. On one of the "Greatest Tank Battles" episodes from the History Channel, one Sherman shot a few rounds Tiger from a hedgerow and didn't even penetrate it's frontal armor at point blank range, before getting an 88 round straight through it for the trouble. The Sherman was like bringing a knife to a gunfight and you opponent was wearing a suit of armor. It was designed to utilize surplus aircraft engines which burned gasoline. The crews would mount, hang, attach anything they could find in a vain attempt to survive the next encounter. Once the E8 and Firefly came out it did have better results.
The Sherman, however did seem to do better in the Pacific.

This is nothing new, and again, I meant no disrespect.  I really like the Sherman and am in awe of the brave men that fought in it. In Europe at least, it was a suicide mission, but they persevered and overcame.

Thank you for your patience with my answer.

I am very eager to see more of your work.

Steve

She is coming together very nicely!

Thanks SP.

Bish, chekmateking, Doug and jibber - thank you all for the kind words. It's funny - Spitfires have never really been my thing either. I am more a fan of Mustangs, Corsairs and, apparently, 109s. I built an ICM Spitfire IX when I got back into the hobby in October, but when I saw Eduard was coming out with this one, it was an impulse buy...and then I bought a Tamiya Vb...and now I'm planning on a Mk. I for the Battle of Britain group build if I can't score a new Airfix Hurricane by then. I really don't know what happened, but I do like the camo schemes.

Castel - I like the way your Sherman is coming along. I've loved them ever since I was a kid and saw one run over a car. I'm excited to see yours go through the build process. I like the appliqué armor on it, too. Gotta stop those 88s...

Stikpusher - I had never heard of an SU-76 until the other day, and here you are building one. Those parts do look thick, but I doubt they'll look thick on the finished build. You're off to a great start.

-BD-

Steve - I like the way that's turning out. It looks rather large, like 2.5 feet long. What are the dimensions? I know next to nothing about ship modeling, but would you say you're in the home stretch, or is there a lot to do, still?

-BD-

It's funny that most have not heard of the SU-76, yet it was the second most numerous AFV built and used by the Soviets in WWII. They were built and used in the thousands! Second only to the T-34. The North Koreans used them as well in 1950, along with the T-34.

BTW, your Spit is looking too notch! Excellent job on the camo!

BrandonD

It looks rather large, like 2.5 feet long. What are the dimensions?

That's close, It's just a tad over 20".

Sharp Sherman, castel!

Stik, looks like a good set up you've chosen--figures and all.

Very ship-shape cruiser, Steve.  Looking good.

1. Great to see a SU-76 - Russia's equivalent of the Marder. T-70 chasis w/o turret gave it space for the 76mm carried on the T-34. I think it wrong, especially on the Eastern Front, to think the Germans had a Panther behind every tree. The Rooskie 76mm could take on Stugs, PZIVs, anything soft-skinned and had decent capacity for HE infantry support work. And if the Sovs pulled and ambush that gun could ding a tiger from the rear. I think production was close to 14,000 which was more (I believe) than any single German type of AFV. I've been eyeing the Mini-Art version for sometime but every review leads me to believe that the this would be a pretty tough build - never done an Eastern Euro kit that hasn't supplied a heart attack moment. As I understand the DML is a older version of an older Russian kit and no throw together. My stash is pretty big as it stands, but if DML or Tamiya comes out with a new rendition I'd be in.

2. Shermans. The Sherman was not a perfect machine but that had less to do with the tank than with US Army doctrine. The Sherm was never expected to tank hunt - that was the job for the US tank destroyers and towed AT guns. It was designed for infantry support and did very well at that job. What folk like McNair didn't figure was the very large number of lethal AFVs and AT guns the Germans would be able to muster, especially in Normandy. From the outset Shermans were working with infantry against very powerful German weapons that drive allied infantry to ground and allow the appropriate weapons to brew up semi-isolated tanks. The odds evened more than a little for Shermans with improvements in ammo storage and the wide spread adoption of the 76mm gun (not to mention the Firefly). But the biggest disadvantage all allied tanks had in most of the war was that they were attacking. By the nature of European terrain you were faced with pretty obvious "choke points" and the Americans were quite right to often advance (as one of Patton's tankers told me) in "baby steps" with the radio always connected to mortars, artillery and often airpower- real equalizers. During the Ardennes the Germans switched shoes and suffered very serious armored losses before the withdrawal of most German armor in early January. (Bazookas and captured Panzerfausts were deadly in ambushes, and it was common for Germans to unknowingly bypass allied tanks: I've read that 3 M8 armored cars killed a Tiger II because the beast didn't see them and all the M8s pumped 37mm rounds into the Tiger's rear. US tank destroyers also had many successes.) It says very good things about the soundness of the allied emphasis on loads of lead that they were able to go from Normandy to Bohemia in ten months and inflicted more casualties than they suffered.  

The same thing is true with the Rooskies. The Germans maintained a relative edge in tactical skill almost until the end of the war. But a German counterattacks which usually gave Soviet gunners the first crack made the Germans look a lot less brilliant the Rooskies a lot smarter. Stalin was always willing to pay an extraordinary blood tax for military gain and the Germans normally enjoyed a healthy "kill ratio" through most of the war. We shouldn't forget, however, that when the Rooskies broke an egg shell they pursued with extraordinary vigor even if it cost men and machines. So when you look at campaigns like Bagration (the destruction of German Army Group Center in summer 44) or the brilliant and relentless demolition of the entire German southern flank in Poland, Germany and the Balkans between January 45 and the end you have to tip your hat. (If the allies had a Guards Tank Army at Falaise, I'd bet not a single German donkey would have survived the pocket. Of course if an allied general came home with an Eastern Front butcher bill it would have meant relief - Stalin gave his toughest generals medals. Different armies. )  

Modelcrazy, no worries, no disrespect taken , I really was curious about that statement. I think of all the tanks, I know the least about Sherman. I started modeling by building German tanks, and they seem to be quite popular models. So somehow all my learning was about German tanks. Sherman is a bit of a new territory to me.

EBergured, thanks for the lengthy article, explains a lot, very helpful.

Meanwhile, I have Googled Sherman tanks and read a thing or two. I guess I could have done this earlier as I found the "right tank wrong war" statements in few articles.

Cheers...

castelnuovo

Modelcrazy, no worries, no disrespect taken

Phew!, I'm, really glad I didn't stir something up.

Steve, great to see that ship coming together, really nice stuff your doing there.

Brandon, I do think the Spit is a nice looking aircraft and makes a lovely sound. But living in England, and of course being a self confessed Germaholic, I am bored to death of the wonder weapon being rammed down our throats at every chance they get. Its sort of put me off a bit. I do think it is way over hyped.

Bish

I am bored to death of the wonder weapon being rammed down our throats at every chance they get. Its sort of put me off a bit. I do think it is way over hyped.

I feel the same way about the Mustang and Corsair here in the US. Don't get me wrong, they are some of my favorite planes, and I won't ever miss the chance to see or build one, however, I really don't think they were the unbeatable super fighters they have grown to be. I believe the P-47 and Hellcat had more kills, they just weren't as pretty.
I do love the looks and sound of a Spit though. 

Edit. I'm kinda the same way regarding Japanese war machines as you are about the Germans.

1. RE: Shermans. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear - the Sherman, at least in 1944, was proof that US armored doctrine was seriously flawed. Had McNair and company thought things through they would have had the 76mm gun on half the Sherms at D-Day and would have listened to Brits about their nutty idea about putting the 17 pounder on board. A tank guru working for the Center of Military History (I think he's still involved with the new tank museum being created at Ft. Benning GA) told me that the Sherman got everything right except the gun and armor - big excepts. But my point about the huge advantage given to the side on the defensive in tank warfare (or most kinds really) stands. When the Rooskies got a good supply of 76mm Shermans in late 44, some units got very good service from them. See Steve Zaloga's fine study published a couple of years ago on the Sherman "Armored Thunderbolt."

2. Fighter aircraft. I wrote a book about air warfare in the South/Southwest Pacific a few years back which included very serious research on fighter technology (to the extent that I could understand it.) I was also was lucky to interview dozens of pilots, including "top guns" at Cactus and 5th AF. (That book is "Fire in the Sky" and it did well enough that used copies are now available on Amazon for less than a dollar. I have no idea why some people buy new ones, but they do. It's 700 pages so lots of details therein.)

It is very true that the Hellcat scored more kills in the PTO than any other plane - that's because they were in action throughout 194-45 when IJ air forces were at their numerical peak and qualitative low. A target rich environment you might say. When comparing Hellcats and Corsairs however, the Navy picked the Hellcat because it was much more forgiving on take-off/landings and had superior ground handling. The Corsair was originally planned to be the plane for the new carriers coming out in 43 (the Hellcat was developed as a kind of reserve) but it had poor visibility for take-off/landing and had to be man-handled on a deck - it also had defects in the spring system. So the Navy exiled the Corsair to land use (much to the delight of the Marine squadrons who expected second best). Deployed about March 43 Corsairs - aided by 13th AF 38s - wiped the skies clean over the Solomons just as the 5th AF 38 demolished Japan's Army Air Force over New Guinea. When the Japanese withdrew fighters from Rabaul in 1944, the Corsair had nothing to do for over a year. (Joe Foss scored 26 victories in a remarkably short period at Cactus - he later led a squadron based at Emiru and never saw a Japanese aircraft.) When Kamikazes came into the picture there was a rush by the Navy to get Corsairs on CVs - they even put on veteran Marine squadrons - because of the substantial speed advantage held by the Corsair. There is no questions that in purely fighting terms that the Corsair was superior to the Hellcat - much faster, far better roll rate, very good at all altitudes - but the Hellcat was the better plane for the thousands of "junior birdmen" coming out of training by late 43 who were in greater danger of accidents than the Japanese.. It's worth noting that the USN - even after Bearcat deliveries started, chose the Corsair for continued service and were well served in Korea. It's not often noticed, but the Corsairs were put back on CVs because the UK Fleet Air Arm was given several hundred and the Brits figured out how to land the things reliably on CVs - lessons passed on to the US.

Spits - no continental air force developed long range single seated fighters. So Spitfires were essentially delegated to ground support in the ETO at Normandy. However, when the allies broke out and the late model Spits were able to operate against German airfields they proved to be splendid aircraft. The RAF spent much time flying close cover over German airfields (aided by US planes) and made flying a 262 anywhere near the line a real risk. A Griffon powered spit in decent hands was at least equal in capability to the FW-190D and any 109. (I'd say better because some Spit variants had extremely robust performance at very high altitudes - the Dora's major weakness..) But overall after 1940, except for the Med, Spits were in their own way the wrong plane for the wrong war. But excellent within their range limitation - this is why Spits remained in production after WWII and proved a good aircraft for export in the late 40s.

Jugs and Stangs: I don't know where anyone got the figure that the 47 had more air-to-air kills than the 51. Wiki says that it outscored 51s during "big week" in early 44. That may say more about the greater numbers of 47s available. Although a well flown Jug was a match for any German fighter because of its advantages over 20,000 feet and ability to dive away from many attacks. But 8th AF chose 51s for all their groups - minus the Wolfpack - because it was an excellent fighter in almost every way and - more important - it could get to the battle. Only the latest Jug variants had the range needed to fly escort deep into Germany. (The silliness about drop tanks shown by both the RAF and USAAF until 1943 is worth its own book.)  So the Jugs, like the Spits were spectators during the greatest air to air campaign of WWII - any front - the battle over the Reich between July 44 and January 45 where Mustangs creamed the LW - and often at inferior odds at the point of engagement. The Mustang had very good to adequate performance in every area at all altitudes. Like the Jug, it could easily out dive any LW fighter and that gave them an extra edge. (The ability to dive is one of the unsung factors in WWII style combat. In 1919 the Air Corps sent uber-ace Eddie Rickenbacker back to Europe to test all allied and German aircraft to serve as a model for US aircraft development. "Rick" plugged for his old steed the Spad XIII because it could outdive any of the others, including the FVII or Snipe, giving it the advantage a "back door" out of a sticky situation. No accident that the US were the early leaders in dive bomber development.) All these advantages led to startling scores by several 51 FGs flying for 8th AF and others - despite the fact that the 51s war started a year later than other second generation US fighters. In 45 Stangs flying out of Iwo inhaled any Japanese plane encountered and were considered by Japanese officers as the most formidable US fighter. Like Corsair, the 51 remained in service while 47s were retired and were invaluable in Korea. (Veteran pilots had great affection for their old planes. 47 pilots often called 51s "Spam Cans."  There were 38 jockeys that claimed late model Lightnings could match a Pony. Corsair and 51 vets didn't argue the point - they simply knew theirs were the best. For what it's worth I did interview a Corsair pilot who also flew Hellcats and Mustangs and he admitted that the 51 was special. German ace Gunter Rall was involved with a pretty good sized German/Allied fighter contingent based on repaired planes that crashed behind German lines and claimed the 51 was the best of the lot.

No plane was a wonder weapon. If a pilot - even a very good one - was jumped there was serious danger. All American fighters, relative to any other air force, were extremely rugged - the Brits  claimed too much so. (We developed "Brit style" Jugs and 51s - liked the greater speed and climb - and junked the designs quickly in favor of heavy Detroit Iron.) But the biggest danger (along with accidents and bad weather) was ground attack. Hats off to any Jug pilot in the ETO because most flew with 9th AF for ground support and the losses showed it - ironically the last model 38s increasingly became the "back-up" bomber escort aircraft. No matter how rugged an aircraft, running the gauntlet of mass 20 and 30mm flak cannon was very risky business and if you were hit hard on the deck there was no margin of error for the pilot: a Stalag or a grave was inevitable.

Anyway, it's really not easy to say which plane was better. It was more a question of what plane was in what type of mission. American tax payers got their moneys worth out of every fighter minus the 39 and Buffalo. (Although if WWII had been fought under 10,000 feet, the 39 would have been most useful as the Rooskies could testify. A Cobra could make a FW190 pilot think twice about a head-on pass.) They're all worth a model or three. My brother is a civilian pilot, formerly with the Forrest Service, and said he would have killed to fly a plane as "hot" as any front line WWII fighter.    

Sorry if this is tedious, but it's an occupational hazard. I spent seven years of my life writing books about the Pacific War (and five about Vietnam) and couldn't avoid picking up serious information about the ETO too. Vets loved to argue about weapon capabilities and I was able to sit in on a lot of talks. Luckily for me I was writing in the between 1994-2001 and was able to get invaluable data from men that are passing from our world every day. So issues like this bring back very pleasant memories.

Eric

Eric - thanks for all the info. I was working a really long day yesterday, but I managed to find time to read your post when it came through to my email, and it was both great info I was aware of that reaffirmed my own research and a WEALTH of new information that was VERY interesting to read. Thanks again for sharing.

I tend to agree that any of these fighters in the right hands would be a deadly weapon. When we look at just plain overall kills (not a definitive metric), the P-51B I believe had more kills than any other single variant of allied fighters. The P-51D gets all the glory (and has such beautiful lines), but the B was more of the workhorse. I built a B for the Mustang GB and really enjoyed it. The D is probably my next project, but it's a late '44 so won't be in this build.

All that said - I get where you guys are coming from, Bish and model crazy. That's one of the reasons I like building some of the more rare birds. I just picked up a Tamiya P-47M and have a Mosquito FB/NF MkII on the way, and the Tamiya Wildcat is in the stash. I think they will all be fun builds of aircraft whose praises aren't sung as much as they should be.

-BD-

Well, I got a lot done on Sunday, and I just didn't have time to post last night, so here is a decent update.

First, some teasers - stencils applied:

I normally detest using decals for wing walk lines, and I still do, but I have to say the Eduard-printed stencil sheet worked extremely well for that. They took some straightening, and they aren't perfect, but I'm generally happy with them. Next time, I'll probably mask and paint, however.

I've found that it's best to do stencils first, and in this case, three decals went over stencils (both upper wing roundels and the aircraft marking on the starboard side under the rear canopy glass).

Then it was on to the decals, and you know the saying, "You can't miss what you've never had"? Yeah, that's how I feel about Cartograf decals, and I now see just why everyone raves about them. These things were perfectly in register, went down easily, responded to Micro Sol and actually sunk down so tight that the rivets managed to hold a wash on top of them. I'm really impressed, and happy that Eduard supplied markings for six birds, as now I can use the RAF roundels on my Spitfire Vb, and I can probably find a use for the USAAC national insignia, assuming I don't buy another Mk. VIII and build one of the American variants.

I forgot to take a pic of the decals pre-wash, but they were laid down atop Alclad Klear Kote, then oversprayed with the same.

And then the Flory grime wash, which always makes me nervous. What if it doesn't come off?!?!

But of course it does, and it looks more and more like a plane.

You can also see that I've got the elevators on in the down position, and the rudder is glued in position. I knocked off the starboard cannon, which is nice since I already knocked off the port one and had to reattach, so now neither one thinks it's special.

This evening I sprayed the Tamiya dull coat and removed the mask on the canopy, attached the PE shock absorber bits, assembled the wheels (save for the PE wheel covers that need paint first) and got the prop together. I'll need to clear it and the landing gear doors, then wash and dull coat them, but that shouldn't take too long. I also need to attach the pitot tube and radio mast, but she's in her final stages.

-BD-

Great looking Spit BD, and like you, I get real nervous with the wash, but you really pulled it off.

Regarding fighters in the right hands, the Finish had 36 Brewster Buffalo aces against Soviet fighters. Not bad for a fighter we regarded as overweight, unstable and obsolete.

As far as the 51, thanks for not misunderstanding me, I love the 51 as much as some of the members love the 109, and I don't doubt your numbers on the "B". The US and the British had several outstanding fighters, that unfortunately don't get the limelight like the 51D or Spitfire.

Eric,

Thank you for your outstanding information and research. That's one of the things I like about this forum. There's always someone who has an immense amount of knowledge on whatever subject one is interested in.

Lovely work on the Spit. I do like those Flory washes, I use it the same way you do and find it gives great results.

Very nice results on the Spitfire, BD.  Looks very impressive.

Maybe I missed it, but which theater of operations did she fly in?

Check, I am not 100% certain, but I things those blue and white roundels were used in the far east.

Brandon-your Spitifre is coming along nicely-very nice job on the weathering

Eric-thank you so much for sharing your knowledge-that is one of the things I really enjoy about the forums & the Group Builds

Bish-I'd like to join the fray with a 1/35 Dragon King Tiger-my plan is to build a Battle of Berlin or Lake Balaton participant,  Kit has been started (for the Battle of Berlin GB several years ago...sigh)-road wheels are painted and attached to the lower chasis-that's it.  If that's ok, great....if not, still great-I've got several kits in the stash that will fit.

Checkmateking: Thank you, and Bish is right - this is Robert Gibbes' RAAF plane, flying out of the Dutch East Indies in 1945. The kill markings on the side of German and Italian aircraft are from his time in the Mediterranean.

Bob - thank you, and I am looking forward to seeing the King Tiger. That kit must be huge!

-BD-

Do I hear talk about a Tiger II. In February 1945 my guys will be in Pommerania with a well crewed IS-2 (or JS-2 or Stalin tank. I'd plug for Stalin because this beast looks ugly and lethal.) It's not easy yet to evaluate the kit because I'm coming off the Tamiya JP IV which was spanking new and one of the best kits I've worked on. This is a Cyber-Hobby Orange Box (cheap). Barring the magic tracks the part count won't match a modern DML kit but for me that's not necessarily bad news. A lot more sanding and trimming than with the Tamiya but things do fit. (Curse DML's instructions - they're second rate.) I'm rooting for myself here because I have several other CH Orange kits and if this one works I'll keep the others. We'll see I guess. The suspension below took two long sessions - lots of sanding and dry fitting. But also nearly half the parts done. BTW: I bought a pair of Tamiya "Sharp Point" sprue cutters and these things are really good - I have a Xuron but I'm not sure how good it is. But once you get used to them you can cut delicate parts with considerable ease and keep sanding to a real minimum. Anyway, here she be:

Eric

EB, I built the original issue of that kit several years back. It builds up easy enough, but some folks have had issues with the fit of the upper hull to the lower part, and the spacing for the tracks. I didn't myself, but... I actually thought that it built up fast (for me)...