Size Comparison C/S and K/C Shermans (1 Viewer)

[maddadicus]

Just received my new K/C Sherman and was hopeful it would match up with my C/S Sherman..Looks pretty good to me side by side, but would appreciate the Shermanolics chiming in...Michael


Photos are new K/C Sherman, C/S Sherman in middle and oldie but goodie K/C Sherman...

 

[Guy]

It seems to me the height of the tank causes some trouble and not the length. Are they all the same version of the Sherman ???
guy

 

[Mitch]

there is certainly to my eye just looking at the two latest a difference in overall size. What are the measurements of the K&C E8?. I always thought or something is jogged in my memory that the CS Sherman was one which was thought to be 1/28th that does not look the case in these comparison shots if K&C is 1/30th which, lately a lot of their AFV's has been
Mitch

 

[Guy]

The Sherman M4 and M4A1 had the same dimensions: lenght: 5,90m-height:2,74m-width:2,60m
The Sherman versions M4A2,M4A3,and M4A3E8 also had the same dimensions apart from a few cm 's difference with the original M4 type:5,84 length,2,62 width, height was identical to the M4 and M4A1
In the 1/30 scale this should not be noticeable.
guy

 

[Phantom Warrior]

It is important to compare the same Sherman versions to each other because dimensions varied. There are at least 15 variations of standard production Shermans.

Length - many were 233" and several at 247". Big enough to be an easily seen difference at 1:30 in a side-by-side comparison.

Width - Most at 103" but 3 versions at 118" which at 1:30 the difference can easily be seen

H - Either 108" or 117" and the difference is easily seen side by side.

So comparing an M4A1 to an M4A3 HVSS, the HVSS is longer, wider and taller and side by side looks much bigger overall.

Terry

 

[uksubs]

Got to say for £150.00 TCS tank to £200.00 for the lastest kc sherman I would expect more for my money , just lack detail for that kind of money for me and can see why people are using FOV armour. just a thought

 

[maddadicus]

Got to say for £150.00 TCS tank to £200.00 for the lastest kc sherman I would expect more for my money , just lack detail for that kind of money for me and can see why people are using FOV armour. just a thought

To be fair, I repainted the CS Sherman and added all the extra junk and weathering.....Michael

 

[maddadicus]

there is certainly to my eye just looking at the two latest a difference in overall size. What are the measurements of the K&C E8?. I always thought or something is jogged in my memory that the CS Sherman was one which was thought to be 1/28th that does not look the case in these comparison shots if K&C is 1/30th which, lately a lot of their AFV's has been
Mitch

Mitch, I believe that we might hold the same feeling that CS is actually all over the place in scale/size from model to model. If K/C is the new 1/30, then it seems at least in this CS offering, it is also. Because another member at the time did a compare shot of this CS Sherman with Panther, I felt that I could take the buying chance. I waited for the K/C Easy 8 because I did not trust the CS version to be right. As some have stated, I like the KC tank, but miss their unique stowage, cluttered, lived in look. I always felt that was their style. Seems so generic now. Michael

 

[Blowtorch]

I only have the CSE8 to compare with (other than Fireflys which are all 1/30 models). So if you have been following the other thread in General Matte you'll recall that I blow up Bradford diagrams to1/30 to see how the models overlay. Well, in the E8 case, I made a 1/28 diagram as well, and imho both the CS & K&C models were targeted at 1/28, each being off in only one dimension. The CS hit 1/28 in length & width, but was just a few mm lower than the Bradford diagram, while K&C hit the width & height, but came in a little short lengthwise. Both work well together to me. You see from the pics that when you view the models from different angles as you would in a diorama, the differences blend right in. Can hardly tell what's different about them. I wonder how much they are going to go with 1/28.

 

[maddadicus]

I only have the CSE8 to compare with (other than Fireflys which are all 1/30 models). So if you have been following the other thread in General Matte you'll recall that I blow up Bradford diagrams to1/30 to see how the models overlay. Well, in the E8 case, I made a 1/28 diagram as well, and imho both the CS & K&C models were targeted at 1/28, each being off in only one dimension. The CS hit 1/28 in length & width, but was just a few mm lower than the Bradford diagram, while K&C hit the width & height, but came in a little short lengthwise. Both work well together to me. You see from the pics that when you view the models from different angles as you would in a diorama, the differences blend right in. Can hardly tell what's different about them. I wonder how much they are going to go with 1/28.

View attachment 133257

View attachment 133254

View attachment 133255

View attachment 133256

Super Thank you. It is amazing how several different mfg. can have available the legit stats of any vehicle, put them into the sculpting, then producing process and still come up different in details and size. Not griping as both tanks look close enough, but still amazed in the subtle turret and hull inconsistencies.^&confuse Michael

 

[binder001]

Good comparisons. Great idea about using the Bradford diagrams to help with scale. I agree that the CS M4A1 76mm and the CS M4A3E8 seem a bit short compared to the K&C version. Obviously the M4A3 76mm HVSS will be wider than the M4A1 76mm as the M4A3 has the HVSS with 23-inch track. HOWEVER the length of track on the ground should be about the same. The M4A4 (Sherman V to out British cousins) and M4A6 were the only two types to have a longer track base, M4, M4A1, M4A3 and M4A3 all used a very similar lower hull and suspension To say it another way, the M4A4 used 83 track shoes per side while the others used 79 shoes per side - so there is a fixed measurement for comparison.

To my eyes, these photos seem to show that the CS 76mm turrets don't have much slope to their frontal sides - K&C seem to have captured the profile a bit better.

Trivial points, CS modeled their M4A3E8 with the later turret with oval loader's hatch - but they have the MG pedestal mount in the wrong place. CS also modeled their tank with T84 rubber chevron track - I have not seen photos of this track overseas in WW2. K&C modeled their version with the earlier turret and the all-steel T66 track (the most common track seen on Easy Eights in the ETO). CS also really screwed up with the rear of the upper hull on their M4A1 76mm. CS also have the engine deck access doors (the ones with the air grills) WAY too narrow on their tank - closer to an M4A2's engine deck. So K&C gets a few more points for doing their homework.

 

[Panzer ace]

What was the topic again? I got lost salivating over the 21 year old bottle of Glenfiddich in the background of Blowtorch's pics.

^&grin