Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Builds Revell Vintage Sherman M4 Black Magic, flame thrower conversion

Here's one I made earlier, a blue peter Sherman. actually it's a kit I've been putting off for months, Revell re-released it as a Nostalgia item, as they have been doing for a while now.
box art.png

I made this after cocking up the Bandai Panzer IV Ausf D back in about 1970, and I was so please with it I couldn't stop looking at it. It is a much simpler kit to the Panzer, and goes together quite well, there is one major problem with it as I 'll show you in a bit. This is how the packaging looked when I purchased it, So the re issue is a replica from the 1950s/60s.
original packaging.png


the hull joins together with no dramas, quite simple.
lower hull join.png

this is an early armour kit, so some of the manufacturer methods are a bit Mark 1, like the mantlet, it's made up in a barrel shape
Mantlet join diagram.png

it goes together quite well though.
Mantlet join.png
 
the mantlet trial fitted to the front of the turret, doesn't look too bad.
Mantlet join sanded back.png

This is a good point to bring in my intended project idea, a flame throwing sherman from the Korean war.
real flame thrower.png

the flame tube is fitted to the right of the mantlet with all the flame equipment and fuel held inside the tank, unlike the Churchill Crocodile, that had the Napalm fluid in a armoured trailer towed behind the tank.
 
so I need to drill a hole and connect the flame tube/barrel through the gun mantlet next to the main gun.
real flame thrower cu.png

but first, the main trouble with this kit is the Sprockets, they are designed with motorization in mind and are unusable for a realistic build.
kit sprocket three parts.png

kit sprocket.png
 
a dig through the spares box and up came a set of alternative sprockets from a modern Sherman kit, never throw anything away.
new sprockets.png

new sprockeys.png
 
it's a strange combination, a cast hull M4A3 retro fitted with HVSS suspension seen on the 76mm armed Shermans of the later WW2 era.
HVSS parts.png


Another early innovation is this turret tube to allow the commander figure to stand upright in the hatch,
turret tube.png

that was cut out to allow the commander to sit lower in the cupola.
tank commander in new posn.png
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
the mantlet trial fitted to the front of the turret, doesn't look too bad.
View attachment 465241
This is a good point to bring in my intended project idea, a flame throwing sherman from the Korean war.
View attachment 465242
the flame tube is fitted to the right of the mantlet with all the flame equipment and fuel held inside the tank, unlike the Churchill Crocodile, that had the Napalm fluid in a armoured trailer towed behind the tank.
Bloody hell ! I would not have wanted to be in that tank. Given the Sherman's propensity to burn, aka Tommy Cooker, then storing loads of fuel inside the tank would concentrate the mind somewhat!
 
the model kit comes with two riflemen armed with M1 rifles, quite good for the time. Though I doubt they would use a flame throwing tank as hard cover
infantry.png

here it is in an initial airbrushed coat of OD, still awaiting it's flame thrower barrel, Ive started the WW1 armoured car now so this will have to wait a work slot in the busy model workshop
olive drab.png
 
Bloody hell ! I would not have wanted to be in that tank. Given the Sherman's propensity to burn, aka Tommy Cooker, then storing loads of fuel inside the tank would concentrate the mind somewhat!
Since most Sherman fires were due to Ammo propellent burning when hit (Like most tanks) a Sherman with just a flame gun(CWS-POA-H4) was at same risk as any other flametank. The 105mm and flame gun tank (CWS-POA-H5)never really faced an armor threat from the IJA, NKPA. In fact H5 never saw combat until Korea. CWS Chemical Warfare Service. POA Pacific Area of Operations

The ETO used mostly bow mounted flame guns which replaced the .30 browning- E4-5, E4R2, E4R3, E5R1 there was also a few using crocodile trailers with the flame gun on the hull right corner used by the 739th Tank bn in the Roer

The Pacific also saw a flamethrower M3-4-E6R3 which replaced a bow gunners hatch periscope
 
the model kit comes with two riflemen armed with M1 rifles, quite good for the time. Though I doubt they would use a flame throwing tank as hard cover
View attachment 465252
here it is in an initial airbrushed coat of OD, still awaiting it's flame thrower barrel, Ive started the WW1 armoured car now so this will have to wait a work slot in the busy model workshop
View attachment 465253
ANY tank has more cover than a wool flannel GI shirt for armor/cover...
 
Since most Sherman fires were due to Ammo propellent burning when hit (Like most tanks) a Sherman with just a flame gun(CWS-POA-H4) was at same risk as any other flametank. The 105mm and flame gun tank (CWS-POA-H5)never really faced an armor threat from the IJA, NKPA. In fact H5 never saw combat until Korea. CWS Chemical Warfare Service. POA Pacific Area of Operations

The ETO used mostly bow mounted flame guns which replaced the .30 browning- E4-5, E4R2, E4R3, E5R1 there was also a few using crocodile trailers with the flame gun on the hull right corner used by the 739th Tank bn in the Roer

The Pacific also saw a flamethrower M3-4-E6R3 which replaced a bow gunners hatch periscope
Plus .... Once the Sherman’s were fitted with “Wet Stowage”, the M4 was the safest Allied tank to be in.
 

ches

LE
Plus .... Once the Sherman’s were fitted with “Wet Stowage”, the M4 was the safest Allied tank to be in.

Was going to post similar. Bit of a misnomer the 'tommy cooker' thing. Hollands recent Normandy 44 book gives some interesting facts & stats on allied tank losses that show an M4 flaming wasn't any more common than any other tank type.
 
Plus .... Once the Sherman’s were fitted with “Wet Stowage”, the M4 was the safest Allied tank to be in.
There is a caveat to that

Wet Stowage was fitted to the large hatch shermans M4A1 (76)W, M4A2 (76)W, the M4A3(75)W, The M4A3 (76)W with the 47 degree glacis . The British Army didnt get many of those versions

Small hatch (M4A2)-


Large hatch- (M4A3 (75)W )



So unless there was a similar UK program or maybe just stowing ammo on the floor, the UK shermans still had the fault
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
So unless there was a similar UK program or maybe just stowing ammo on the floor, the UK shermans still had the fault
IIRC, Brits being untidy in turrets was a regular occurrence in the earlier desert campaigns, but they realised the problem and tidied their act up well before Normandy.
 
a dig through the spares box and up came a set of alternative sprockets from a modern Sherman kit, never throw anything away.

Well, with your monicker, of course you would.

We wouldn't expect anything less... ;-)
 

Daz

LE
Plus .... Once the Sherman’s were fitted with “Wet Stowage”, the M4 was the safest Allied tank to be in.
Once they sorted the crew habits of misstowing everything, it then became safe - rags, oily for the use of, extra ammo, kit etc etc
 
IIRC, Brits being untidy in turrets was a regular occurrence in the earlier desert campaigns, but they realised the problem and tidied their act up well before Normandy.


Indeed, plus the very swift deletion of the ready use rack fitted all around the turret basket on the first Shermans.
Surround the crew in the turret with a wall of shells, what could possibly go wrong.

unnamed-1.jpg
 
Top