login   |    register
Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
REVIEW
Tasca M4A1 Sherman w Culin Rhino
bill_c
Staff MemberCampaigns Administrator
MODEL SHIPWRIGHTS
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: January 09, 2008
KitMaker: 10,284 posts
Armorama: 7,897 posts
Posted: Friday, February 11, 2011 - 02:28 AM UTC
Bill Cross''s 75th review for Kitmaker Network covers Tasca's M4A1 Sherman (Late Production w. Hedgerow Cutter).



Link to Item

If you have comments or questions please post them here.

Thanks!
Biggles2
Visit this Community
Quebec, Canada
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 6,985 posts
Armorama: 5,636 posts
Posted: Friday, February 11, 2011 - 05:10 AM UTC
Isn't this type of hedgerow cutter atypical to those usually seen on M4's? Most Shermans were equipped with the more usual 4 or 5 straight prong, or "Salad Fork" design. And Tasca's type was more often seen on M10's. Of course, I'm not saying this combination never happened, but the other combination was more typical. Maybe Tasca is going to release an M10 soon with this particular hedgerow cutter?
bill_c
Staff MemberCampaigns Administrator
MODEL SHIPWRIGHTS
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: January 09, 2008
KitMaker: 10,284 posts
Armorama: 7,897 posts
Posted: Friday, February 11, 2011 - 05:27 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Isn't this type of hedgerow cutter atypical to those usually seen on M4's? Most Shermans were equipped with the more usual 4 or 5 straight prong, or "Salad Fork" design.


The original Culin was a field modification, as opposed to those factory-made later on. If you prefer another version, there are numerous AM sets available. Perhaps someone has a breakdown on how many field Culins and how many factory-made ones were used? Click here to see a real experimental model. See here for more in-depth about "busting the bocage."

Quoted Text

Maybe Tasca is going to release an M10 soon with this particular hedgerow cutter?


I have no knowledge of Tasca's plans.
ejasonk
Visit this Community
Baden-Württemberg, Germany
Joined: October 14, 2007
KitMaker: 313 posts
Armorama: 226 posts
Posted: Friday, February 11, 2011 - 06:54 AM UTC
The "Battling lady" Tank was also included als an decal option within the earlier release..but there was the callsign "Battling lady" missing..they corrected it.

BUT..
They still include the middle-type transmission cover. it´s wrong for this option. I´ve never seen an early/middle type transmission cover combined with hedgerow cutter. They should add the transmission cover they sell with the M4A3 version.

Still the same misstake,Tasca
bill_c
Staff MemberCampaigns Administrator
MODEL SHIPWRIGHTS
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: January 09, 2008
KitMaker: 10,284 posts
Armorama: 7,897 posts
Posted: Friday, February 11, 2011 - 07:05 AM UTC
Yes, that has been noted in other reviews. There is some disagreement whether the "narrow nose" isn't found on hedgerow cutters. Can you point me in the direction of your sources, I will amend my review if I can see something on that. The Formations transmission cover cited in the review should handle the problem.
pseudorealityx
Visit this Community
Georgia, United States
Joined: January 31, 2010
KitMaker: 2,174 posts
Armorama: 1,797 posts
Posted: Friday, February 11, 2011 - 07:05 AM UTC

Quoted Text

The "Battling lady" Tank was also included als an decal option within the earlier release..but there was the callsign "Battling lady" missing..they corrected it.

BUT..
They still include the middle-type transmission cover. it´s wrong for this option. I´ve never seen an early/middle type transmission cover combined with hedgerow cutter. They should add the transmission cover they sell with the M4A3 version.

Still the same misstake,Tasca



Well,

You can buy the Tasca sprue that includes said transmission cover for less than $5, and it includes some possibly other useful pieces as well.

http://www.tasca-modellismo.com/seihin/parts/35019-j.jpg
barkingdigger
Staff MemberAssociate Editor
ARMORAMA
#013
Visit this Community
England - East Anglia, United Kingdom
Joined: June 20, 2008
KitMaker: 3,428 posts
Armorama: 2,925 posts
Posted: Friday, February 11, 2011 - 08:20 AM UTC
Hi Bill,

Thanks for the review! That style of cutter appears on M4A1(76)W tanks used in Op Cobra in July '44 - I scratched one for my old Italeri kit. I don't know about these small-hatch M4A1s, but it's likely they could have the same style. (As Cullin's device spread, each maintenance unit seems to have made their own twists on the design...) The design is of course widely seen on M10s too.

Op Cobra tanks also received black bands as camo, so Tasca left out a more colourful scheme than the basic OD.



Tom
Iraqiwildman
Visit this Community
Missouri, United States
Joined: November 24, 2008
KitMaker: 93 posts
Armorama: 81 posts
Posted: Friday, February 11, 2011 - 10:13 AM UTC
I have read that these cutters varied by armored divisions, since they were field modifications and only used for about 2 months. The myth that Culin invented these is not totally true. The basic idea was implements in different divisions around the same time.

Tasca is really become the leader in Sherman kits.
Visit this Community
California, United States
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 1,141 posts
Armorama: 950 posts
Posted: Friday, February 11, 2011 - 05:23 PM UTC

Quoted Text

The "Battling lady" Tank was also included als an decal option within the earlier release..but there was the callsign "Battling lady" missing..they corrected it.

BUT..
They still include the middle-type transmission cover. it´s wrong for this option. I´ve never seen an early/middle type transmission cover combined with hedgerow cutter. They should add the transmission cover they sell with the M4A3 version.

Still the same misstake,Tasca




There's nothing wrong with the differential housing provided for the "Battling lady" option. Below is a photo of the real vehicle:

Photo courtesy of the National Archives via Michael Green.

Next, here's a closer look showing the clear outline of the E4186 cast differential housing:


When compared to the later E8543 differential seen in the photo below, you can see the differences in shape:

Photo from my website.

The area above the tow lugs on the E4186 housing is much rounder than the same area on the E8543 housing. So clearly, Tasca got this correct.

Chris "toadman" Hughes
Toadman's Tank Pictures
Visit this Community
California, United States
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 1,141 posts
Armorama: 950 posts
Posted: Friday, February 11, 2011 - 05:28 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Isn't this type of hedgerow cutter atypical to those usually seen on M4's? Most Shermans were equipped with the more usual 4 or 5 straight prong, or "Salad Fork" design. And Tasca's type was more often seen on M10's. Of course, I'm not saying this combination never happened, but the other combination was more typical. Maybe Tasca is going to release an M10 soon with this particular hedgerow cutter?



The hedgerow cutter supplied in the Tasca kit is based on photos of the actual vehicle. Other Shermans, in particular some M4A1(76)'s used this type as well. See my post above this one.

Chris "toadman" Hughes
Toadman's Tank Pictures
vonHengest
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Joined: June 29, 2010
KitMaker: 5,854 posts
Armorama: 4,817 posts
Posted: Friday, February 11, 2011 - 05:35 PM UTC
Thanks for getting this review posted so quick Bill, been waiting for this one!

And thank you Chris for your knowledgeable inisight
HONEYCUT
Visit this Community
Victoria, Australia
Joined: May 07, 2003
KitMaker: 4,002 posts
Armorama: 2,947 posts
Posted: Saturday, February 12, 2011 - 12:16 AM UTC
The featured hedgerow device appears to be the T2 Douglas device which was developed and used exclusively by 3AD tanks. This was called the T2 Rhinoceros (The T1 being the Culin device which had the 4 or 5 evenly spaced prongs.) The triangular side plates are the obvious give-away for it being built and used on 3AD tanks. I have seen photos of Culin devices on M4s with the bolted transmission housing, so all three basic styles were employed?
Chris, a great close up of Battling Biatch. She was a 7AD M4A1 right?
Brad
Visit this Community
California, United States
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 1,141 posts
Armorama: 950 posts
Posted: Saturday, February 12, 2011 - 04:29 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Chris, a great close up of Battling Biatch. She was a 7AD M4A1 right?
Brad



Hi Brad,
Yep, 31st Tank Bn, 7th AD, just like the markings in the kit. The original uncropped version of the photo shows a M4(105) working with it.

Chris "toadman" Hughes
Toadman's Tank Pictures
bill_c
Staff MemberCampaigns Administrator
MODEL SHIPWRIGHTS
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: January 09, 2008
KitMaker: 10,284 posts
Armorama: 7,897 posts
Posted: Saturday, February 12, 2011 - 05:34 AM UTC
Thanks, Chris, for clearing that up.

Just goes to show that "always" and "never" are dangerous words for historians AND kit builders, LOL.
Big-John
Visit this Community
Ohio, United States
Joined: August 12, 2010
KitMaker: 731 posts
Armorama: 711 posts
Posted: Saturday, February 12, 2011 - 01:54 PM UTC
As Chris has pointed out, Tasca has the correct differential housing. I have been doing a ton of research the last few weeks and all of the so called “late” M4A1’s I ran across ALL have the E4186 cast differential housing.
KurtLaughlin
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,136 posts
Armorama: 2,111 posts
Posted: Saturday, February 12, 2011 - 04:47 PM UTC

Quoted Text

There's nothing wrong with the differential housing provided for the "Battling lady" option.

Next, here's a closer look showing the clear outline of the E4186 cast differential housing:


When compared to the later E8543 differential seen in the photo below, you can see the differences in shape:




Not only that, but it looks to be a Union Steel Castings produced housing, based on the size and location of the markings cast into the upper surface. The large circle around the E of E4186 is noteworthy.

KL
Big-John
Visit this Community
Ohio, United States
Joined: August 12, 2010
KitMaker: 731 posts
Armorama: 711 posts
Posted: Saturday, February 19, 2011 - 04:05 AM UTC

Quoted Text

D Company, 66th ot 67th Armored Regiment, 2nd Armored Division, Normandy, June, 1944
70th Armored Regiment, 2nd Armored Division (same time frame)



The kit Decals are miss represented on 2 of the vehicles. They represent them as belonging to the 2nd armored division

Derby, “D-32” is actually a 3rd armored division tank and Anne “16” is a 70th tank battalion tank.
Illini
Visit this Community
California, United States
Joined: March 27, 2003
KitMaker: 320 posts
Armorama: 230 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 10, 2011 - 07:13 AM UTC
I really enjoyed your history lesson, with your usual rye wit.
bill_c
Staff MemberCampaigns Administrator
MODEL SHIPWRIGHTS
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: January 09, 2008
KitMaker: 10,284 posts
Armorama: 7,897 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 10, 2011 - 07:49 AM UTC

Quoted Text

I really enjoyed your history lesson, with your usual rye wit.


Thanks, Dave. Bourbon or rye both work!