New release: M4a1 sherman with lafayette pool! (1 Viewer)

[Hunter Rose]

The easy 8 was not the correct shade of OD, this was apparent from all the feedback we got. So to be frank we did change the shade a bit lighter and a more correct OD. This is the shade we will use going forward on all upcoming allied AFV's.

Hope that helps.

Brian

Thanks for the reply. Works for me, as a lighter OD would probably look more authentic. You may have just sealed the fate of my OD Easy 8 though, since it won't match the new or future armor I think it will be offered up as a wreck for my Panthers and Tigers. If only it it had a thrown track and damaged turret to look the part....

 

[kilted vampire]

The easy 8 was not the correct shade of OD, this was apparent from all the feedback we got. So to be frank we did change the shade a bit lighter and a more correct OD. This is the shade we will use going forward on all upcoming allied AFV's.

Hope that helps.

Brian

Once again Brian being the resposive and responsible sort of chap he is!

 

[cnq]

That's the excellent altitute from TS maker. Listen to right advise from collectors and make the correct changes. Kudo to you Brian {bravo}}

 

[Vezzolf]

Looks Excellent CS....Very Nice Brian{bravo}}{bravo}}.

 

[cnq]

Have anyone received the new Sherman yet ? And what your thoughts ?

 

[O.T.K]

Have anyone received the new Sherman yet ? And what your thoughts ?

I don't think it ships till may.

 

[Terp152]

I don't think it ships till may.

May is what I saw on the vendors website.

 

[binder001]

I don't do "subtle" so I'll ask directly - has your sculptor ever bothered to look at a photo of a REAL M4A1 76mm Wet Stowage? The rear hull is very WRONG. The early M4A1s had the "cut out" for the air cleaners, but by the time the 76mm turrets were fitted, this feature had disappeared. The rear of the upper hull should be STRAIGHT across, no "scoop out". This shows very poor research effort, the old $15.00 Italeri kit from the late 1970s got this right as did the other major kits of this kind of vehicle. A Sherman had lots of variations, but they were built to standards and aren't really that subject to "artists' lisence". There's also something "not quite right" about the loader's hatch ring, but it might just be the photos. The use of T49 3-bar track is not "wrong" but it sure is an odd choice for one of the M4A1s with 76mm guns - something more typical of these tanks in British or Polish service.

Sorry, to sound mean, but there are a LOT of references out there and a strong cult of Sherman tank fans who are available to answer questions. There's no real excuse for such sloppy basic research.

Gary B.

 

[cnq]

u

I don't do "subtle" so I'll ask directly - has your sculptor ever bothered to look at a photo of a REAL M4A1 76mm Wet Stowage? The rear hull is very WRONG. The early M4A1s had the "cut out" for the air cleaners, but by the time the 76mm turrets were fitted, this feature had disappeared. The rear of the upper hull should be STRAIGHT across, no "scoop out". This shows very poor research effort, the old $15.00 Italeri kit from the late 1970s got this right as did the other major kits of this kind of vehicle. A Sherman had lots of variations, but they were built to standards and aren't really that subject to "artists' lisence". There's also something "not quite right" about the loader's hatch ring, but it might just be the photos. The use of T49 3-bar track is not "wrong" but it sure is an odd choice for one of the M4A1s with 76mm guns - something more typical of these tanks in British or Polish service.

Sorry, to sound mean, but there are a LOT of references out there and a strong cult of Sherman tank fans who are available to answer questions. There's no real excuse for such sloppy basic research.

Gary B.

I hope other knowledge collectors would chime in because if the tank is not that historically accurate like you stated I would have to pass on this one. Maybe Brian will have some comments later.

 

[jbonzo1]

I don't do "subtle" so I'll ask directly - has your sculptor ever bothered to look at a photo of a REAL M4A1 76mm Wet Stowage? The rear hull is very WRONG. The early M4A1s had the "cut out" for the air cleaners, but by the time the 76mm turrets were fitted, this feature had disappeared. The rear of the upper hull should be STRAIGHT across, no "scoop out". This shows very poor research effort, the old $15.00 Italeri kit from the late 1970s got this right as did the other major kits of this kind of vehicle. A Sherman had lots of variations, but they were built to standards and aren't really that subject to "artists' lisence". There's also something "not quite right" about the loader's hatch ring, but it might just be the photos. The use of T49 3-bar track is not "wrong" but it sure is an odd choice for one of the M4A1s with 76mm guns - something more typical of these tanks in British or Polish service.

Sorry, to sound mean, but there are a LOT of references out there and a strong cult of Sherman tank fans who are available to answer questions. There's no real excuse for such sloppy basic research.

Gary B.

Very fair point raised.

 

[Mitch]

Gary...

Good post
Mitch

I don't do "subtle" so I'll ask directly - has your sculptor ever bothered to look at a photo of a REAL M4A1 76mm Wet Stowage? The rear hull is very WRONG. The early M4A1s had the "cut out" for the air cleaners, but by the time the 76mm turrets were fitted, this feature had disappeared. The rear of the upper hull should be STRAIGHT across, no "scoop out". This shows very poor research effort, the old $15.00 Italeri kit from the late 1970s got this right as did the other major kits of this kind of vehicle. A Sherman had lots of variations, but they were built to standards and aren't really that subject to "artists' lisence". There's also something "not quite right" about the loader's hatch ring, but it might just be the photos. The use of T49 3-bar track is not "wrong" but it sure is an odd choice for one of the M4A1s with 76mm guns - something more typical of these tanks in British or Polish service.

Sorry, to sound mean, but there are a LOT of references out there and a strong cult of Sherman tank fans who are available to answer questions. There's no real excuse for such sloppy basic research.

Gary B.

 

[The Collectors Showcase]

Gary,

Thanks for your " direct comments "^&grin

The M4A1 76mm as built by TCS is of course perfectly correct. Any limited research, that takes minutes confirms that the hull along with the turret and manufactured details are pristine for the variant presented.

However I must say I am ecstatic that our model has inspired such a fine eye and zealous focus as yours though, keep up the eager comments they are appreciated! : we must be doing something right! ^&grin

Cheers!

Brian

 

[binder001]

Gary, The M4A1 76mm as built by TCS is of course perfectly correct. Any limited research, that takes minutes confirms that the hull along with the turret and manufactured details are pristine for the variant presented. right QUOTE]

Brian - here is the rear of an M4A1 (in this case a Canadian-built M4A1 Grizzly, but the hull castings came from the USA). Note the "cut out" on the rear upper hull between the air cleaners.

Here is an early M4A1 76mm HVSS type that would have been in action in asimilar time to Pool's "In The Mood III". Note the straight rear upper hull - no cut out and a luggage rack added.

Compare these photos with the pre-production photos of the model and you will find the CS effort less than "pristine".

Gary B.

 

[Firebat]

I hope this works out well, I have made a large investment into TCS AFV's, because with their large size I like how they fit with mainstream 1/30th figures, which are a bit ovesized also. I am in a big collection revamping now. I am finished with all of my size testing etc. So Brian you are providing my forces with a lot of their armor, so keep up the good work and make them right. Alex

 

[dragon53]

What is the release date for "In the Mood"?

 

[O.T.K]

What is the release date for "In the Mood"?

I would say now! Or in the next few days.

 

[kilted vampire]

Thanks for the reply. Works for me, as a lighter OD would probably look more authentic. You may have just sealed the fate of my OD Easy 8 though, since it won't match the new or future armor I think it will be offered up as a wreck for my Panthers and Tigers. If only it it had a thrown track and damaged turret to look the part....

One other thought, with the use of oils and filters you could really change the appearence without destrying the tank{eek3}{sm4}{sm4}{sm4}

 

[Hunter Rose]

One other thought, with the use of oils and filters you could really change the appearence without destrying the tank{eek3}{sm4}{sm4}{sm4}

Thanks for the suggestion, but I have ZERO artistic talent. That's one reason I buy these things, they are already painted.

 

[dragon53]

Anyone with the new "In the Mood" care to post a review and photos?

 

[Jürgen_Keuppe]

Anyone with the new "In the Mood" care to post a review and photos?

The hatches are a bit confusing and I was unable to figure out how to affix the driver's hatch...oh well, the model is beautiful...^&grin