The Sherman in 1/72: A Firefly Named “Carole” in Normandy, Part 2 – “Brewing Up”

This is Part 2 of A Firefly Named “Carole” in Normandy. For a description of the actual tank and a review of the Dragon model, please refer to the previous post here.

The Crew of the “Carole” in Normandy

I was intrigued by the photo of the four young members of “Carole’s” crew in front of their vehicle “brewing up” at Gosport just before leaving England on their way to Normandy. The human interest value of the photo is immense, as we know the fate of at least two of these young men — Commander Fred Scamp perished soon thereafter, while Gunner Douglas Kay survived into old age. This type of photo where you look into the faces of men who will soon face their fate is always touching to me, whether the soldiers are American, British, Russian, German, Japanese, or any other nationality.

At any rate, I wanted to recreate the aforementioned photo, or something that evinced its feel. However, the fact that the photo was taken while “Carole” still had the wading trunk made it a non-starter as the Dragon model is of “Carole” after the trunk was removed. In addition, recreating anything that even looked like the background in the scene was beyond my meager modeling capabilities. The only avenue available to me was to depict the scene after “Carole” and its crew arrived in Normandy.

The aforementioned photo is on the left in the triptych below. (See previous post for a larger, uncropped view of this photo.) The middle photo shows “Carole” in Normandy. Note the high grass, the stone wall behind the tank, and the destroyed buildings behind that wall. The photo on the right shows a similar scene of a British tank crew with their Sherman. An interesting feature of the photo is that it includes tankers wearing different clothing. Click on the photo to enlarge it.The Diorama

The diorama below is a composite of those three photos. The modest effort depicts the crew taking a break in front of their tank somewhere in Normandy. Note the tall grass and stone fence present in some photos taken during the Normandy campaign. I’m not unaware that the stone fence is inexplicably intact while the building is in ruins and the tree next to it is completely charred. Still, I concluded that carving rocks out of the wall to simulate damage would not be worthwhile as it could not match the picture in my head anyway.Below is the same photo in color. Ever the philistine, I’m convinced that color photos are infinitely better than black & white photos. To me, continuing to film in B&W in this day and age, as was done in The Good German, which is actually an excellent film, is as silly as would be continuing to film silent movies even though we’ve mastered sound.

Note that the six tankers sport different uniforms, with the 1st, 4th, and 6th (from left) wearing standard British battledress serge while the 2nd and 3rd figures wear denim overalls. The 5th figure is dressed more casually, reflecting the motley nature of clothing in units throughout the war. These Milicast figures are nothing short of cromulent*. Click on the photo to embiggen* it.Note that all the men wear a black beret, the hallmark of a WWII British tanker. According to Military Modelling Vol.30 No.11, the design of the distinctive black beret was inspired by French berets used during WWI. The unstiffened crown allowed it to be easily stowed in the tight spaces within the tank while the dark color helped hide grime and stains inherent in working inside a tank.

This is not an idle observation as knowing that Brit tankers wore a black beret and Brit paras a red one would greatly enhance the casual viewer’s enjoyment of a A Bridge Too Far, as a red beret would immediately signal that the action is taking place at Arnhem. 🙂 By the same token, recognizing the “Screaming Eagles” patch versus the “All American” patch immediately reveals whether the action is taking place at Eindhoven or Nijmegen.Note that the animals move from photo to photo. The tan horse with a white blaze, in particular, had trouble staying on its four legs so every time it tipped over I placed it somewhere else. 🙂 The photo below is my favorite out of the dozens I took of this diorama, though I’m uncertain why.

“Everyone has a backstory and deserves a guess in the absence of facts,” Ara Hagopian.

For the first time in writing these posts I had an urge to create a backstory for the cat I whimsically placed just behind the turret number. Do my fellow German bloggers, who seem to be cat lovers, or any other readers have any ideas? The cattle and horses are Preiser HO scale prepainted figures, which at first blush appeared to me to be the same size as the horses and cattle in the unpainted Preiser 1/72 scale 72511 Horses, Cows, and Sheep set.

An indolent man at heart, I opted for the prepainted figures to avoid: 1) clipping the 72511 figures from the sprue; 2) cleaning the flash and seams; 3) gluing the two halves of each figure together; 4) priming them to ensure the paint adheres; 5) painting them; 6) detailing them; and 7) being disappointed with the results. I learned afterwards, upon actually placing the two sets side by side, that the 1/72 scale figures were proportionately larger than the HO scale figures. Alas, Preiser is a German company, after all.Note the tarps and blanket rolls on the rear hull of the tank. These are Value Gear pieces and they are superb. The stone fence is a Pegasus product that surprisingly looked the part with a simple black wash. Below is a fairly clear shot of the ruined building, which I had trouble bringing into focus at the same time as the tank and crew. Again, a photographer I am not. The realistic building is from the PMA Stalingrad set. PMA diorama pieces are really quite nice, though difficult to find.“Brewing Up”

Much has been written about the British soldier’s expectation of regular tea breaks to the detriment of achieving the objective. Some have offered explanations of this phenomenon cloaked in scholarly terms. Nonsense. The Brits may love their tea, but as their opponents have found out throughout history, they certainly achieve their objectives.For those of us non-British subjects, the 1977 film A Bridge Too Far was in some respects a formative reference on the peculiarly British affinity for drinking tea. The star-studded film has two important tea-related scenes that left an indelible impression on this blogger.

The first scene, with Sean Connery, perfectly encapsulates how the British perceive drinking tea:

Major General Urquhart:

“Hancock, I’ve got lunatics laughing at me from the woods. My original plan has been scuppered now that the jeeps haven’t arrived. My communications are completely broken down. Do you really believe any of that can be helped by a cup of tea?“

Corporal Hancock:

“Couldn’t hurt, sir,” as he hands Urquhart a cup of tea.

YouTube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKr9eja-1cw

The second — this time heated — exchange features Robert Redford, and is more a reflection of how Americans perceive the British love affair with tea:

American Officer:

“I don’t understand, why aren’t you moving, what’s the matter with you guys? Those are British troops at Arnhem. They’re hurt, bad. You’re not going to stop, not now.”

British Tank Officer:

“I’m sorry, we have our orders.”

American Officer:

“We busted our asses getting here. Half my men are killed. And you’re just gonna stop . . . and . . . drink tea? “

YouTube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1EsDkm_r3o

At the risk of belaboring the point, I believe ABTF was simply propagating an incorrect — yet widely held — belief among American soldiers that tea time was fairly important to the British. Still, at least in this case, let’s not blame Hollywood as this was a joint British/American production. ABTF was written by Cornelius Ryan, an Irishman; the screenplay was written by William Goldman, an American; and the film was directed by Richard Attenborough, an Englishman.

(Incidentally, what a cast! Laurence Olivier, Sean Connery, Ryan O’Neal, Anthony Hopkins, Robert Redford, Michael Caine, Gene Hackman, Dirk Bogarde, Edward Fox, Elliot Gould, and James Caan, just to name the Allies. Only Is Paris Burning?, Tora, Tora, Tora, and Midway come close. Also, those were real C-47 Skytrains/Dakotas in the film — eleven of them in total, borrowed from various countries, including Denmark, Djibouti, Finland, and Portugal. Sorry, I couldn’t resist. 🙂 )

Irrespective of how it came to be, or whether it’s a fair or accurate characterization, it is undeniable that British tankers are now firmly entrenched in the modeler’s psyche as soldiers with a strong love affair with tea. Thus, regardless of the scale, they are often depicted “brewing up” with a “cuppa” in hand. The photo triptych at left, showing tanker figures in different scales, makes the point clearly. At left is the Milicast 1/76 figure used in the diorama; at center is a Dartmoor 1/48 figure; and at right is a Dragon 1/6 figure. The first two photos are from their respective manufacturer’s websites; the third I scanned from an article in the French magazine Steel Masters #58.

List of Diorama Pieces

For those interested, below is the source of each piece:

Tank: Dragon 60250 Firefly Vc, 13th/18th Royal Hussars, 27th Armoured Brigade, Normandy 1944;
Tarp and Blanket rolls on hull: Value Gear Allied Tents, Tarps, and Crates;
Crew: Milicast 061 British Squaddies and Milicast 054 British Troops;
Animals: Various Preiser HO and 1/72 sets;
Trees: Various Woodland Scenics;
Building: Precision Model Art PMA P0204 Stalingrad;
Stone Fence: Pegasus Hobbies 5202 Stone Walls;
Spoked Wheel: Hat 8260 WWI German Field Wagon;
Meadow: Woodland Scenics Grass Mat;
Tufts of Grass: Noch Scenemaster, Spring Grass Tufts; and
Backdrop: Silk poster ordered on Amazon from China.

I hope you enjoyed this simple diorama of “Carole” and its crew. Again, if something looks amiss, please let me know. I would be delighted to correct inaccurate information so that this may be useful for other 1/72 scale collectors and wargamers. As always, comments, questions, corrections, observations, and backstories for the cat are welcome.

————————————————————————————————————————————–

Once again, I’d like to thank my friend and fellow collector J. Buccellato of NY for his incredible skill and patience in painting the Milicast figures. He’s the sine qua non in creating these dioramas. His “therapy” is my joy. *For those not familiar with the two neologisms in this post, I highly recommend Season 7, Episode 16 of the Simpsons on the episode’s 20th anniversary. 🙂

The Sherman in 1/72: A Firefly Named “Carole” in Normandy, Part 1 – The Tank

Tank enthusiasts frequently admire a tank and blissfully identify its markings as well as its physical features — the version or type of hull, turret, gun, running gear, or tracks. This tendency to focus on the vehicle, rather than what it represents, holds especially true for Sherman tanks, which carry dizzying combinations of these various elements. We often forget, however, that each of these fighting vehicles was manned by five young men who had names and families and dreams, and many made the ultimate sacrifice inside those very vehicles. “Carole” stands out in that Douglas Kay, its gunner, survived the war and serves as a reminder of the human element we often ignore.

The Actual Tank

“Carole” was a Sherman Mark V Firefly belonging to the 13th/18th Royal Hussars Regiment of the 27th Armoured Brigade of the British Army. In its eight-month operational life, “Carole” participated in the D-Day invasion in Normandy in June 1944 and in Operation Market Garden in Holland in September 1944. It was destroyed in Germany in February 1945.

Below is the best known photo of “Carole” preparing to be loaded onto a Normandy-bound landing craft at the Port of Gosport in Southern England, on June 3, 1944. The photo is from the Imperial War Museum archives (IWM H38995) and is used here under their non-commercial license. Note the deep wading trunk at the rear of the hull, behind the gun, which itself has been traversed to face the rear for embarkation. “Carole” and the 13th/18th Royal Hussars took part in the Normandy landings on Sword Beach on June 6, 1944, successfully spearheading the invasion force in support of the British 3rd Infantry Division. Sword Beach, assigned to the British Army, was the easternmost Allied landing site. All told, almost 30,000 allied troops came ashore at Sword Beach, with losses of 683 men. The IWM photo below shows “Carole” still equipped with its wading trunk.Below is another IWM photo (B5471) of “Carole” in the village of Bréville-les-Monts, on June 13, 1944, a week after D-Day. The Germans had occupied the village in early June and from there had been attacking British positions at Sword Beach. “Carole’s” unit, Squadron C of the 13th/18th Royal Hussars, successfully supported the 6th Airborne Division in securing Bréville, thereby protecting the beachhead. Forgive the graininess of the photo, which has been enlarged from a shot taken at considerable distance. Note that by this time the trunk had been removed.Once the landings were completed and secured, the British Army disbanded the 27th Armoured Brigade in July 1944, and “Carole” and the 13th/18th Royal Hussars were transferred to the 8th Armoured Brigade. During this time, “Carole” is credited with knocking out a Tiger and a Panther on August 11-12, 1944, towards the end of the Normandy campaign. As part of Operation Market Garden, “Carole” crossed the Nijmegen Bridge, a key Allied objective, on September 21, 1944. The fighting was so brutal at Nijmegen that it came to be known as “Little Omaha” and has been compared to Guam, Tarawa, and Omaha Beach.

“Carole” was destroyed on February 12, 1945, in Goch, Germany, by an 88mm round that entered through the mantle and lodged itself in the radio box at the rear of the turret. The round killed Sgt. Fred Scamp, the commander, and Trooper Wilson, a substitute gunner who was filling in for Douglas Kay, who was on leave that particular day. Kay refers to himself as the “luckiest man” in the world because of this tragic but fortuitous event.

The Model

The Dragon 60250 Sherman Firefly is a special Dragon release issued during the 2006 Dragon Expo in Europe. It is one of the most sought-after Dragon fireflies, and for good reason. A look at the photos below reveal a finely crafted model from Dragon’s heyday, when workmanship was at its apex. The model represents “Carole” after the landing at Normandy, once the wading trunk had been removed. “Carole” was assigned to “C” Squadron, necessitating that its name begin with that letter. Sgt. Fred Scamp, the tank commander, named “Carole” after his daughter, who was born in 1944. In the photo below, note the red circle indicating “C” Squadron, just aft of the name. A triangle would indicate “A” Squadron, while a square would indicate “B” Squadron.Below is a front view photo. Note that “Carole” has the early bolted three-piece transmission cover, as opposed to the cast one-piece cover. Note also that the model does not have the stowage box above the transmission cover visible in the first photo of the actual tank above. This is not a mistake. The stowage bin was temporarily moved from its permanent place at the rear of the hull to the front of the hull to allow the wading trunk to be installed. Once the tank landed and the trunk was removed, the stowage bin was reinstalled in its original place on the rear plate of the hull. Finally, note that while Dragon has often bungled the tracks on its Shermans, “Carole” is equipped with the correct T54E1 steel chevron tracks recognizable in the aforementioned photo.

Dragon faithfully rendered on the transmission cover the colorful and distinctive markings so characteristic of British tanks. Starting from the left, the “33” inside a yellow circle is a bridge classification number, indicating that the Firefly weighed 33 tons, as compared to a standard 30-ton Sherman. The “51” inside the red box identifies the regiment to which “Carole” belonged. The 27th Armoured Brigade had three regiments: the 13th/18th Royal Hussars were assigned “51”; the Staffordshire Yeomanry, “52”; and East Riding Yeomanry, “53.” The yellow seahorse on a blue shield, colloquially known as the “pregnant pilchard,” is the emblem of the 27th Armoured Brigade. The seahorse was a reference to the cavalry roots of its regiments. Below is a starboard profile photo of “Carole.” Note the cast surface on the cheek of the turret, which differs from the smooth surface of the metal on the hull — another example of Dragon’s outstanding attention to detail. The British Firefly wielded a 76.2mm gun and the length of the barrel was a whopping 13 ft. 9 in. Incidentally, each troop comprised four tanks — one 17-pounder Firefly and three 75mm Shermans. The other tanks in “Carole’s” 2nd Troop were “Charmer” (68), “Cameo” (69), and “Cavalier” (70).Note the “71” on a square black oilcloth on the face of the blanket box in the photo below. The black square was intended to provide more contrast with the red number, making it more visible. As previously mentioned, the model represents “Carole” after it had landed and the wading trunk had been removed with the stowage box moved back to its original place on the rear plate of the hull. Finally, note Dragon’s signature drybrushing that highlights the edges throughout the tank, providing a “worn” look.The semi-overhead shot below provides a view of the commander’s round hatch as well as the loader’s rectangular hatch on the top of the turret. Note the radio box attached to the back of the turret. In order to fit the huge 76.2mm gun in the 75mm turret, the British removed the radio from the interior and attached it to the rear of the turret. Attached behind the radio box is a blanket box. Note the War Department identification number “T 228789.” Of course, the “T” indicates “tank.” Among others, an “L” before the number would indicate a lorry, an “M” a car, and an “S” a self-propelled gun. Beyond the Call of Duty

Probably the most outstanding feature of the Dragon piece is the accuracy of the turret. The close-up photo below clearly shows that the turret of the “Carole” did not have a pistol port. Firefly turrets were converted 75mm turrets, which had a pistol port on the rear port side of the turret. In April 1943, the U.S. Ordnance Department determined that it was a ballistic hazard and ordered builders to eliminate it from the turret. The response from the field was so negative, however, that the Ordnance Department reversed the order in July 1943. Still, a number of 75mm turrets without the pistol port were produced during those three months, and “Carole” appears to be one of those.

The side-by-side photos below from the Sherman Minutia Website show the two different Sherman 75mm turrets as regards the pistol port — the common one with a pistol port and the uncommon one without. Dragon brought us two terrific British Fireflies: the Dragon 60250 “Carole” (right) and the 60251 “Velikye Luki” (left) in the side-by-side photo below. Other than the markings and the addition of the blanket box on the “Carole,” the two are nearly identical. Obviously, the most important difference is the absence of the pistol port on the turret of the “Carole” – highlighted in yellow on the “Velikye Luki.” Dragon could have easily taken a short cut and simply used the same common turret on both. Instead Dragon was faithful to both tanks, and produced two different turrets — in my view, a commendable decision.In that same vein, note the siren on the front port side fender just above the tracks. If you click on the photo you will find that the siren has a “V” for victory grill used on the actual sirens — a diminutive detail but indicative of Dragon’s erstwhile zeal.

A Little Back Rub

Forgive the lame pun, but “Carole’s” only fault — the “rub” — is that Dragon failed to include markings on the rear plate of the tank hull. There are no clear photos of “Carole” from the rear, though barely visible on one of the photos above is the “51” regiment number on the port side of the rear plate. However, the photo below from British Tanks in Normandy by Ludovic Fortin clearly shows that other tanks of the 13th/18th Hussars — this is “Balaclava” — carried both the “51” regiment number and seahorse markings on the rear plate.Below is a corresponding rear view photo of “Carole” sans markings.The Upshot

There is no question that the Dragon 60250 Firefly is a little gem — a rare combination that brings together human interest, historical significance, and accuracy in detail. From the transmission housing to the rear plate and from the steel tracks to the turret hatches, this piece is well crafted. The accuracy of the turret — with its cast surface, radio box, blanket bin, lack of a pistol port, and markings — makes for an outstanding model. The superb finish, light drybrushing, and crisp markings throughout the tank make this an exceptional piece.

The Profile

In 2005, Military Modelling magazine conducted a series of interviews with Douglas Kay, resulting in a terrific, well-illustrated article in its July 2005 issue that featured “Carole” on its cover. The beautiful color profile below comes from that article. It’s a sure bet that Dragon used this profile as its guide. What little information there is about the actual “Carole” comes from that issue. Should the reader be interested in finding it, below is a photo of the magazine cover. The triptych also includes a photo of 19-year-old Kay in 1944 and Mr. Kay in his 80’s in 2005.

The Crew

Finally, so we can put faces to “Carole,” below is a lagniappe photo of the crew brewing up. From left to right: Fred Shaw (loader/radio operator), Douglas Kay (gunner), Fred Scamp (commander), and Bill Humphries (driver).

I hope you enjoyed the post. If something looks amiss, please let me know. I would be delighted to correct inaccurate information so that this may be useful for other 1/72 scale collectors and wargamers. As always, comments, questions, corrections, and observations are welcome. Stay tuned for a simple diorama of “Carole” in the next post.

The Filthy Thirteen of the 101st Airborne Division, Part 5: Preboarding Diorama

This is the fifth and final post of the Filthy Thirteen five-part series. For a synopsis of these colorful characters, creating the figures in 1/72 scale, selecting their weapons, and a look at the finished figures, please refer to the previous four posts, The Filthy Thirteen, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4, respectively.

The Group Photo

As previously mentioned, our 1/72 scale Filthy Thirteen are bareheaded — clearly not in combat as they’re not wearing a helmet. Thus, one of the few plausible diorama options was a scene taking place just prior to boarding the aircraft. Before embarking on a mission, it was customary for a stick of paratroopers to pose for a group photo with the pilot and crew of the aircraft. (A paratrooper stick typically numbered 15-18 men.) The reader is directed to the History Channel’s Dangerous Missions: Pathfinders episode, for example, wherein a paratrooper recalls sitting for the group photo. “They must be taking a photo for our obituary,” he quips wryly. The photo below, for example, is of the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment just before boarding for a mission. The Diorama

The diorama below depicting such a photo shoot at Upottery Airfield in East Devon, England, just before the Filthy Thirteen board their aircraft, is loosely based on this concept. A kneeling paratrooper, a sergeant, and a pilot stand directly facing the photographer, with the rest of the stick arranged in a semicircle in front of a Douglas C-47 Skytrain. A brief discussion and additional photos of the Skytrain appear in a separate section below.Below is a close-up photo of the scene. The paratroopers have been discussed extensively in previous posts so I will not belabor them further. However, I point the reader’s attention to the pilot, who is also covered in a separate section below.Below is a view from the right side. I was unable to locate a 1/72 scale U.S. photographer so I ended up using a Preiser HO scale figure. Note the three Jeeps, which were ubiquitous at Upottery Airfield.Below is a view from the left side. Note the markings on the front bumper of the Willys Jeep on the right, which clearly identify it as belonging to the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment. (Click on the photo to zoom in on the bumper.)Below is an overhead shot. Note the drybrushing on the pilot’s leather jacket, which came out better than I expected, once again proving the adage, particularly applicable to me, that “even a stopped clock is right twice a day.” For those skeptical that paratroopers would actually pose for photos, I direct you to the photo below of Jake McNiece, taken just before the Filthy Thirteen boarded their C-47 on D-Day.

The Pilot

Given that group photos often included the aircraft crew, the scene cried out for a pilot. As shown in the composite photo below, there are several U.S. pilot options in 1/72 scale.

us-pilots-graph — **From left to right: Airfix 1748; CMK 72039; CMK 72221; Hasegawa 35008; and TQD-AA9.**

While I considered the pilots from the Airfix 1748 U.S.A.F. Personnel, CMK 72039 US Army Pilots (resin), CMK 72221 USAAF Pilots (resin), and Hasegawa 35008 WWII Pilots sets, I ultimately opted for the pilot included in the white metal TQD-AA9 US Airborne Infantry & Pilot set, as I found it to have the quintessential WWII U.S. pilot “look.”

The TQD pilot sports the A-2 leather flying jacket so characteristic of WWII U.S. pilots. The backs of these brown leather jackets were often decorated with squadron insignia, victory slogans, or pinup art, as seen in the illustration at left by Francis Chin taken from Osprey Publishing US Army Air Force. The TQD figure also wears the popular officer’s peaked cap that was often worn with the crown stiffener removed, both to get the stylish “crushed” look and, more importantly, to allow the headset to fit over the cap. Note also that these pilots are almost invariably depicted either smoking a cigarette, as in the illustration, or chomping on a cigar, as in the TQD figure. I rejected the Airfix and CMK figures because they appear to be wearing the winter B-3 jacket with fur collar. I note, however, that CMK resin figures are generally some of the most realistic 1/72 scale figures on the market. Similarly, I passed over the Hasegawa figure because it’s wearing the garrison side cap with earflaps, rather than the more distinctive peaked cap.

The Willys Jeep

Numerous sources of information on the jeep are readily available and the reader is directed to them. However, for the sake of completeness, below are several photos of the jeeps used in the diorama. To my knowledge, there are only two 1/72 scale jeeps that specifically represent the 101st Airborne Division. First, below is the Hobby Master HG4203, US Willys Jeep, 101st Airborne Div., 506th A.B. Regiment, Company “C,” Normandy, 6 June 1944 (2010).Made of diecast, the Hobby Master’s heft is pleasing to the hand. Below is a portside view.Below is a front view shot of the Hobby Master model. The markings of the 101st Airborne Division 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment are clearly visible on the bumper.Pictured below is the only other 1/72 scale jeep specifically representing the 101st Infantry Division, the Dragon 60505, 1/4 Ton 4×4 Truck, U.S. Army Western Front 1944, 101st Airborne Division, 401st Glider Infantry Regiment, France 1944 (2011). Unlike the Hobby Master, the Dragon 60505 is all plastic and, like other Dragon jeep releases, comes bundled in a package of two. Below is a portside view.Finally, below is a side-by-side photo of the Hobby Master and Dragon pieces. As is readily apparent from the photo, the Hobby Master (left) is slightly larger than the Dragon (right). I note that the proportions of the Hobby Master are identical to those of the Cararama and Zylmex 1/72 scale jeeps and it’s probably at scale. In addition, there are reports that the Dragon jeep is underscaled — probably at 1/76 scale. While the Hobby Master model is diecast and the Dragon piece is plastic, a quick glance at the radiator grilles in the photo below immediately attests to Dragon’s redeeming quality — realism.The C-47 Skytrain

The first thing one notices in the diorama is the fabulous Douglass C-47 Skytrain behind the paratroopers. While the versatile “Gooney Bird,” as the Skytrain was known to Air Force personnel, had various military uses, its primary role was as a transport plane, ferrying paratroopers to its targets and becoming the most widely used transport of World War II. Douglas built 10,700 C-47s and more than 1,000 of these participated in the D-Day invasion alone. Below is a portside view of the diecast Corgi AA38207 used in the diorama.Band of Brothers, the highly acclaimed TV Mini-Series (2001) depicting the travails of the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment of the 101st Airborne Division, brought international fame to the 506th PIR and spawned a number of products specifically depicting that unit. The Corgi AA38207, for example, represents the transport for Richard “Dick” Winters, the leader of the first platoon of the 2nd Battalion, 506th PIR of the 101st AD. Below is a starboard shot.Below is a shot taken from the front. The 95 ft. 6 in. wingspan of the Douglass C-47 Skytrain was virtually identical to its German counterpart, the Junkers Ju52 “Tante Ju,” which had a wingspan of 95 ft. 11 in. Note the realistic transparent lens of the landing lights on the leading edge of the wings.As can be readily appreciated in the photo below, the Corgi AA38207 is a magnificent piece of diecast. It’s unfortunate that the model disappeared from the shelves long ago. Note the pilot and co-pilot figures through the windows.Below is shot of the portside fuselage. I almost wish Corgi had designed the model with an opening cargo door but such features often come at the expense of accuracy, making the models look toyish. Still, an opening cargo door would provide additional diorama opportunities.The Terrain

Because of their small size, creating realistic braille scale dioramas is inherently challenging — at least for a novice like me. In addition, the bases of the figures significantly detract from any setting, no matter how realistic it is. Thus, I had two options to try to improve the diorama: Either clip the bases of the figures as I have done for previous posts, or find a way to hide them. I opted for the latter.

I began by cutting out the flat part of styrofoam paper plate. I proceeded to draw the outline of the bases of the figures on the plate and carefully carved them out. When I inserted the figures into the recessed slots in the flat base, I found to my surprise that they fit snugly and were neatly flush with the base. The photo below shows the figures already embedded in the base. (Click on the photo to zoom in on the base.)I then enlarged the base with additional styrofoam plates, covered it with hydrocal plaster to create contoured terrain, and painted it with acrylic paints. Finally, I flocked it with Woodland Scenics green and yellow grass to resemble Upottery Airfield in East Devon, England, whence the flights for D-Day originated. The photo below shows the countours of the terrain.The Meltdown

While taking photos of the diorama in my backyard, I realized that the sky backdrop had warped, completely ruining the photos — and an entire morning. 🙁 Following a couple of hours of frustration attempting to salvage the photos by digitally cutting out the background, I decided to photograph the scene again. I was fairly certain that when I glued the silk poster to the cardboard backing I had achieved a good bond and there had been no warping. Still, I carefully unglued the poster and reglued it, using Elmer’s spray adhesive.

Despite diligent efforts and newly acquired photographic lights, indoor illumination continues to confound me, resulting in my strong preference for outdoor photography with natural light. Thus, after ensuring that there was no warping and the glue had set, I again moved the pieces outside and began to photograph. Alas, within ten minutes, the poster began to warp again. I suddenly realized that the 90 degree heat outdoors was melting the glue. As with the warped deck of an aircraft carrier in a previous project, I was once again paying the price of my incompetence and inability to take adequate photos indoors. Nonetheless, the few photos I managed to take before the meltdown were sufficient for this post. The side-by-side photo below is worth a thousand words.

List of Diorama Pieces

For those interested, below is the source of each piece:

Photographer: Preiser 28069, Photographer (HO Scale);
Pilot: TQD Castings, TQD-AA9, US Airborne Infantry & Pilot Boarding Aircraft;
Paratroopers: Various sets (see previous four posts);
Jeep (far right): Hobby Master HG4203, US Willys Jeep, 101st Airborne Div., 506th A.B. Regiment, Company “C,” Normandy, 6 June 1944 (2010);
Other Jeeps: Dragon 60505, 1/4 Ton 4×4 Truck, U.S. Army Western Front 1944, 101st Airborne Div., 401st Glider Infantry Rgt., France 1944 (2011);
Aircraft: Corgi AA38207, Douglas C-47 Skytrain, USAAF 439th TCG, 50th TCW, June 5th, Upottery, England (2014);
Meadow: Styrofoam plates painted with acrylic colors and flocked with Woodland Scenics grasses;
Backdrop: Silk poster ordered on Amazon from China.

Lagniappe

This series of posts began with a wonderful painting of the Filthy Thirteen by Joel Iskowitz. It is only fitting, therefore, that it end with another beautiful painting. The lagniappe painting below, entitled We Were a Band of Brothers, is by John D. Shaw. It is reproduced here for discussion purposes under the fair use exception to the copyright laws. z-john-d-shaw-we-were-a-band-of-brothers I hope you enjoyed this simple diorama and the Filthy Thirteen series of posts. Again, if something looks amiss, please let me know. I would be delighted to correct inaccurate information so that this may be useful for other 1/72 scale collectors and wargamers. As always, comments, questions, corrections, and observations are welcome.

Softskins of the Afrika Korps in 1/72 Scale

The German Afrika Korps (Deutsches Afrikakorps) arrived in Libya in February 1941, following Mussolini’s appeal to Hitler for assistance in light of Italy’s dismal performance fighting the British in North Africa. Within weeks of arrival, Rommel’s Afrikakorps had reversed Mussolini’s fortunes, handily defeating numerically superior British forces time and again in rapid succession, and in the process becoming a source of fascination for many a WWII buff despite their eventual defeat in 1943.

Countless books have been written on this subject and the reader is directed to them. This post is merely intended to provide collectors a survey of Afrikakorps-specific prebuilt softskins available in 1/72 scale. The reader should note that major manufacturers such as Dragon and Panzerstahl have also produced more than a dozen prebuilt Afrikakorps tanks, but information on these is readily available and not the subject of this post.

By my count, there are approximately 20 prebuilt Afrikakorps softskin vehicles. Photographs are provided below. To provide perspective on the size of the vehicles, included in the photos are figures from six of the eight different Afrikakorps sets released thus far. They range from the Airfix set released in 1973, more than 40 years ago, to the Caesar set, released in 2010. The name provided for each of the vehicles and soldier sets is the one given by the manufacturer, thus the lack of consistency in the use of “Afrikakorps,” “Afrika Korps,” “Africa Corps,” and “DAK.”1. Altaya Opel Blitz 3.6-36S (Kfz. 305), 21.Pz.Div., Medenine, Tunisia 1943. Other than the lack of weathering and fake window flaps on the canvas cover, this is a neat little piece that would greatly improve with a simple umber wash.

Figures: Zvezda 6143 German Medical Personnel set. In my view, Zvezda is now producing the best 1/72 scale figures on the market.

2. Left: Hobby Master HG3903, Opel Blitz German Cargo Truck, 21st Panzer Div, North Africa 1942. This little truck is a beauty. Note the crispness of the DAK palm tree. The divisional and tactical markings on the fenders are an added plus.

3. Right: Hobby Master HG3911, Opel Blitz German Cargo Truck with 20mm Flak 38, DAK, WWII. The Flak 38 anti-aircraft gun is metal and is detachable. About the only quibble with this piece is the lack of divisional markings on the fenders and rear.

Figure: Matchbox PK35 Sd.Kfz. 232 plastic kit. This is one of two figures included in this 1/76 Matchbox kit. The figures themselves are actually 1/72 scale, however.

4. Left: Hobby Master HG4501 Horch 1a with 20mm Flak 38, DAK 1941. This vehicle came with a Flak 38 anti-aircraft gun worthy of comment in its own right. Regrettably, I did not photograph it.

5. Right: War Master Steyr 1500 A/01 + 20mm Flak 38, 10th Panzerabteilung, Tunisia 1942. I failed to include the Flak 38 on this vehicle as well. Though War Master gets credit for including the swastika on the palm tree, they managed to place it facing left, which is incorrect. One wonders whether the “error” was by design to get around laws in various countries that prohibit Nazi symbols.

Figure: Revell 2513 Africa Corps. This particular figure in the Revell set is one of the most ubiquitous in Afrikakorps dioramas, probably due to its casual pose as the vast majority of a soldier’s time is spent not in battle but performing pedestrian daily activities.

6. Left: Dragon Warbirds 50120 Me 109G-2 Trop & Kubelwagen, III./JG 77, North Africa 1942. This hard-to-find Cyber Hobby exclusive aircraft model included this kubelwagen. Of note are the balloon sand tires, designed specifically for the desert campaign.

7. Center: Altaya Kfz. 15 Horch + 10.5cm le FH18M, Art.Reg. 119, 11.Pz.Div., Kursk USSR 1943. Admittedly, this model is not marketed as an Afrikakorps vehicle, but given the wide use of the Kfz. 15 Horch in North Africa and its dunkelgelb base color, the straightforward application of DAK palm tree decals would easily do the trick.

8. Right: Dragon 7434 Sd.Kfz.181 Tiger I Mid Production w/Zimmerit & Kubelwagen. This vehicle, which was included as a plus in a Dragon Tiger kit, is identical to the one in the Dragon Warbirds 50120 set described above except for the standard tires and darker desert yellow.

Figure: Airfix 1711 Afrika Korps. Despite its release 43 years ago, the Airfix Afrikakorps set remains one of the most beloved among collectors, for obvious reasons — this was Airfix sculpting at its pinnacle.

9. Left: Dragon 60514 Sd.Kfz. 223 Leichte Panzerspahwagen, 21.Pz.Div., North Africa 1941.

10. Center: Dragon 60498 Sd.Kfz. 222 Leichte Panzerspahwagen, Unidentified Unit, North Africa 1942. A quick comparison of this Dragon piece with its Altaya counterpart to the right immediately reveals why Dragon has been king of the 1/72 scale hobby. There is absolutely no comparison in terms of detail, finish, and weathering.

11. Right: Altaya Sd.Kfz. 222, 10.Pz.Div., Tunis, Tunisia 1943. Given the existence of the vastly superior Dragon 60498, this Altaya 222 model is only for the hardcore collector.

Figure: Atlantic 88 German Afrikakorps. This hard-to-find set was maligned from its release almost 40 years ago (1977). Today, it’s highly sought-after by collectors.

12. Left: Altaya Schwerer Panzerspahwagen (8 Rad), Sd.Kfz. 232, 5.le.Div., Agedabia, Libya 1941. Dragon has produced an Sd.Kfz. 232 that is immensely superior to this piece. Unfortunately, Dragon has not released one in an Afrikakorps desert livery.

13. Right: Altaya Sd.Kfz. 250/5, Afrikakorps, Tobruk, Libya 1942. Desert campaign enthusiasts will immediately recognize this vehicle as Rommel’s “Greif.” In retrospect, it would have been more appropriate to use a Rommel figure for the photo. As is Altaya practice, neither vehicle has swastikas on the palm trees.

Figure: ESCI 206 Afrika Corps Soldiers. This ESCI set, their second effort at producing Afrikakorps soldiers, was summed up by Plastic Soldier Review (PSR) as a “perfectly solid effort.” The first set, now extremely hard to find, was somewhat unattractive.

14. Left: Dragon 60294 Sd.Kfz. 251/10 Ausf. C Unidentifed Unit, El Alamein 1942. Photographs exist of the actual vehicle upon which this model is based. Unfortunately, the actual vehicle was an Ausf. B, rather than an Ausf. C, which is immediately apparent by the location of the hull side lockers.

15. Right: Dragon 60281 Sd.Kfz. 251/2 Ausf. C, Eastern Front 1942. Despite Dragon’s “Eastern Front” label, this piece is actually from the DAK, as can be easily concluded from the 21.Pz.Div. formation marking on the vehicle’s front plate. The actual vehicle upon which this model is based was an Afrikakorps 251/1 Ausf. C, rather than a 251/2 Ausf. C. To make it accurate, one need only remove the mortar from the back of the vehicle.

Figure: Caesar H070 German Afrika Korps. This 2010 release is the most recent Afrikakorps set on the market. According to PSR, the figures have “well-defined detail and faultless proportions” and the use of modern molds allowed Caesar to produce figures that are appealing from every angle without resorting to multiple pieces that require assembly, as Preiser often does.

16. Left: Hobby Master HG5104 Sd.Kfz. 11, 33d Pz.Art., 15th Pz.Div., North Africa. This vehicle carries an interesting but non-standard Afrikakorps palm tree.

17. Right: Altaya Sd.Kfz. 11, 15th Pz.Div., El Alamein, Egypt 1942. To my mind, this is not a bad effort by Altaya and the difference in quality between it and the HM piece is not that great. Note again Altaya’s failure to include the swastika on the palm tree on the port-side front fender.

Figure: Caesar H070 German Afrika Korps. See comment in previous photo.

18. Hobby Master HG5002 Sd.Kfz. 7 German 8 Ton Semi-Track, Luftwaffe, Africa 1942. While this is, in fact, an Afrikakorps vehicle, HM neglected to include the distinctive Afrikakorps palm tree. I pilfered the palm tree decals from the Airfix A02303 Sd.Kfz. 7 Tractor half-track kit.

Figure: Italeri 6099 D.A.K. Infantry. As can be seen in the photo, the detail on this figure is superb. In PSR’s words “detail is everywhere clear and sharp, while clothing looks natural and human proportions are spot on.”

Finally, here’s a lagniappe photo of an Opel Blitz bus, widely used by the Afrikakorps in North Africa.

19. Roden 721 Plastic Kit, Opel Blitz Omnibus (model W.39 Ludewig-built, late). This model is not available as a prebuilt. I commissioned this piece from a master modeler in Poland.

Figures: Various Afrikakorps Sets; Nikolai ARB04 Arabs in the Streets 2 resin set. Without a doubt, resin figures allow more detail than plastic ones as exemplified by the three wonderful figures from the Nikolai set. However, the short runs and resulting high cost of resin sets often present an obstacle for collectors.

I hope you enjoyed the photos. As always, comments, suggestions, and questions are always welcome.

Operation Detachment, Part 2: Prebuilt 1/72 Scale Models for the Battle of Iwo Jima

The Battle of Iwo Jima was fought from February 19 to March 26, 1945. Thus, a follow-up to the last post is still timely. Here’s a brief photo summary of prebuilt 1/72 scale vehicles available for the battle.

To my knowledge, there are eight such models for Iwo Jima, including the two amtanks reviewed in the last post. http://ww2in172.com/?p=742 In alphabetical order by manufacturer, they are:

Altaya DUKW 353, US Marine Corps;
Altaya Type 97 Chi-Ha, 26th Tank Regiment, Imperial Japanese Army;
CDC 3135 M4A3, “Black-Jack,” B Company, 4th Tank Battalion;
Dragon 60331 M4A2, D Company, 1st Marine Amphibious Corps Tank Bn, Tarawa 1943 (Dragon mislabeled it; Sherman is actually from Iwo Jima);
Dragon 60425 LVT(A)-4, 2nd Armored Amphibian Battalion;
Hobby Master HG4402 LVT(A)-4, US Marines, 2nd Armored Amphibian Battalion;
Hobby Master HG4407 LVT(A)-2, 10th Marine Amtrack Bttn., “Beach Yellow 1”; and
Hobby Master HG4201 Willys Jeep with Trailer, 4th Marine Division, 2nd Battalion.

1. Altaya DUKW 353, US Marine Corps

This is an attractive model, though the detail is soft because of its diecast construction. On the plus side, the camouflage is very nicely done. To my knowledge, this is only one of two prebuilt DUKWs — the other being an Amercom piece, clearly a different casting, and without the canvas cover.
2. Altaya Type 97 Chi-Ha, 26th Tank Regiment, Imperial Japanese Army

As with the DUKW above, this Altaya is an adequate diecast model. However, in terms of realism, it pales in comparison to the detail and finish of the all-plastic Dragon Chi-Ha. It’s unfortunate that while Dragon released four Chi-Ha models, not one of them represents a vehicle at the Battle of Iwo Jima. 3. CDC 3135 M4A3 (105mm), “Black-Jack,” B Company, 4th Tank Battalion

This piece is inaccurate in a number of ways and really only for the hardcore collector. To begin with, the real “Black-Jack” carried a standard 75mm gun — not a 105mm gun, as CDC represented it. Secondly, like other Sherman crews at Iwo, the crew of the “Black-Jack” added wooden planks to the side of the hull to provide additional protection. It was on these planks that the markings, including the name “Black-Jack,” were painted — not on the hull itself, as represented on the CDC model. Thirdly, compared to other 1/72 Shermans, the CDC series is significantly overscaled. Finally, its all-metal content results in soft detail, particularly when compared to the crisp detail of the all-plastic Dragon issues. 4. Dragon 60331 M4A2, D Company, 1st Marine Amphibious Corps Tank Bn, Tarawa 1943

This is a terrific little piece though, once again, Dragon research leaves a lot to be desired. As the very name of this Sherman indicates, “Destroyer” was assigned to D Company. It is well documented that only the 14 tanks of C Company fought at Tarawa. All 14 carried the elephant with raised right leg and cannon shot coming out of its trunk, which is why Dragon incorrectly assumed that the design of an elephant with a raised foot meant the “Destroyer” fought at Tarawa. Still, this Sherman is a nice piece of work and I plan to do a detailed review of it in the future. 5. Dragon 60425 LVT(A)-4, 2nd Armored Amphibian Battalion

Please see review of this piece in the previous post. http://ww2in172.com/?p=742 6. Hobby Master HG4402 LVT(A)-4, US Marines, 2nd Armored Amphibian Battalion

Please see review of this piece in the previous post. http://ww2in172.com/?p=742 7. Hobby Master HG4407 LVT(A)-2, 10th Marine Amtrack Bttn., “Beach Yellow 1.”

This is another fine piece by Hobby Master. It’s a recent release and I’ve yet to assess its accuracy.

8. Hobby Master HG4201 Willys Jeep with Trailer, 4th Marine Division, 2nd Battalion

At least five manufacturers — Amercom, Cararama, Dragon, Hobby Master, and Zylmex — have tried their hand at producing the Willys Jeep in 1/72 scale. The Dragon, which is all plastic, is probably the best, though known to be underscaled. Yet the weight of the diecast Hobby Master is satisfying to the hand and, at least in this case, there appears to be no sacrifice in detail in using metal. The Amercom model is an inferior copy of the Hobby Master, right down to the War Department number of the vehicle. By my count, there are 17 prebuilt WWII 1/72 scale Jeeps available and I intend to do a review of them in the future.Finally, here’s a lagniappe photo of all eight of these vehicles so the reader may better appreciate the difference in the respective sizes of the vehicles as well as the various camouflage schemes. Also of note is the difference in size between the CDC and Dragon Shermans.Italeri 6098 Iwo Jima Flag Raisers

For the sake of completeness, the reader should be aware that in 1977 ESCI issued a set of plastic 1/72 scale soldiers (ESCI 8062) depicting the flag raising at Iwo Jima portrayed in Joe Rosenthal’s famous photo. Though the ESCI set is now hard to find, Italeri reissued the set more recently (Italeri 6098). The set is a disappointment — at least to me. In addition to the poor detail, the figures have disfiguring sink marks on their backs and pronounced seam marks along their sides. Moreover, being almost 40 years old, the set is beginning to show its age as the figures are rather poorly engineered — some with separate limbs — and a couple of hours of effort yielded endless frustration and a less than satisfactory result. I would not recommend this set to anyone except those of stout heart, steady hand, and monk’s patience.I hope you enjoyed the post. If the reader knows of any other 1/72 vehicles for the Battle of Iwo Jima, please do leave a comment or send me an email. As always, thanks for your indulgence.

Operation Detachment, Part 1: Amtanks in the Invasion of Iwo Jima, 1945

On February 19, 1945, 30,000 U.S. Marines of the 4th and 5th Marine Divisions landed on the beaches of Iwo Jima, a tiny pork chop-shaped island measuring eight square miles in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, halfway between Tokyo and Saipan. Many more Marines, including those of the 3rd Marine Division, followed in subsequent days. Iwo Jima was of immense strategic importance to the U.S. war effort in the Pacific, as fighter aircraft, whose range was far less than that of larger bomber aircraft, would be able to use it as a staging area to escort U.S. bomber aircraft taking off from the Marianas on their way to Tokyo, providing indispensable protection from Japanese Zero fighters. In addition, U.S. bombers returning from Japan would have an airstrip to use as a refuge should they be damaged or otherwise incapacitated while carrying out their missions. In fact, 859 U.S. bombers made emergency landings at Iwo Jima beginning in March 1945.

I’ve modified the map below, from Collins Atlas of the Second World War, to show the strategic importance of Iwo Jima as a staging area for fighters escorting bombers originating in the Mariana Islands (Guam, Tinian, Saipan).

For a detailed history of the Battle of Iwo Jima, the reader must consult other sources, as my focus here is on 1/72 scale vehicles. Suffice it to say that the Marines took Iwo Jima after over a month of the fiercest and bloodiest fighting the Marines had ever faced, costing the lives of almost 7,000 Marines plus over 19,000 injured. Of the estimated 21,000 Japanese who defended the island, just over 200 survived. The Japanese had hoped that the high cost in American lives at Iwo Jima would deter America from invading Japan. They succeeded. Based on the casualty count at Iwo Jima, American military strategists estimated that invading Japan would cost approximately 1 million American and 2 million Japanese lives. Ironically, to keep from invading Japan, the U.S. made the fateful decision to use the atomic bomb on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, and on Nagasaki three days later.

This map of Iwo Jima, from the Wikipedia entry for the 28th Marine Regiment, shows the landing beaches well.

Today, on the seventy-first anniversary of the Battle of Iwo Jima, let’s remember and honor the almost 28,000 American and Japanese soldiers who forfeited their lives on that tiny speck of an island, as well as the over 19,000 others who were injured during that battle.

Landing Vehicles Tracked (Armored) at Iwo Jima

The U.S. Navy had bombarded Japanese positions at Iwo Jima for three days prior to the invasion on February 19. When bombardment ceased to allow the Marines to land, 68 amphibious armored landing vehicles (LVT(A)-4’s) of the four companies of the 2nd Armored Amphibian Battalion accompanied the Marines to provide protection, suppressing fire from entrenched Japanese positions.

By February 1945, the armored tracked landing vehicle, commonly known as an “amtank,” had evolved from the LVT(A)-1 with its 37mm peashooter to the LVT(A)-4, which carried a 75mm howitzer gun in an open turret and a 50mm caliber machine gun to protect against infantry attacks. In addition, the experience gained in the Mariana Islands had by then taught the Marines to utilize the LVT(A)-4’s effectively in amphibious operations, using them during the landing at the beaches and then relying on M4A2 Sherman tanks inland for close fire support. An additional 380 LVTs – landing vehicles without the 75mm gun turret — ferried Marines and cargo to the beaches.

These drawings, from Jim Mesko’s Amtracs in Action: Part One, provide a good idea of the differences between LVT(A)-4’s and LVT(A)-2’s. I’ve added the numbers of each at Iwo Jima.

To save a trip to Wikipedia for those not familiar with the LVT(A)-4, here’s a synopsis from David Harper’s Project LVT’s: Amtanks:

“The LVT(A)-4 Amtank was a direct descendant of the earlier LVT2 Amtracs. Production of the new “Amtank” vehicles began in 1944. The LVT(A)-4 came about from the US Marines’ request for increased turret fire power from the earlier LVT(A)-1’s high velocity 37mm weapon (mounted in an M5 type turret). The result was the mounting on an M8 “Stuart” type turret which mounted a 75mm Howitzer. . . . The LVT(A)-4 was first used in the Marianas campaign during the invasion of Guam, Tinian, and Saipan. The US Marines used 535 of the vehicles to equip three Amtank battalions while the US Army equipped seven Amtank battalions with the 1,300 LVT(A)-4s they were issued.”

To my knowledge, only Hobby Master and Dragon have released 1/72 versions of the LVT(A)-4. To date, Hobby Master has released two, the HG4402 and the HG4408, while Dragon has also released two — the 60425 and 60500. This comparison review covers the HG4402, named “Grzmot,” and the Dragon 60425, named “Corps,” both based on vehicles from the 2nd Armored Amphibian Battalion at Iwo Jima. (HG4408 and Dragon 60500 are based on vehicles used in other campaigns.) It bears mentioning that this is one of the few instances where two major manufacturers have produced the same vehicle in the same scale. Perhaps both Dragon and Hobby Master were looking to capitalize on the success of “The Pacific,” a television series widely acclaimed for its portrayal of the Pacific war where LVTs were extensively used.

The Actual Tanks

As always, let’s start with photos of the actual vehicles. First here’s a photo from the Naval History and Heritage Command (photo 80-G-303914) of the “Corps,” whose tactical number “D35” on the sides of the hull superstructure identifies it as being from D Company, being hoisted unto the USS Hansford in preparation for the invasion. Tactical numbers had by this time become smaller, as the larger numbers previously used on the side of the hull presented an alluring bull’s-eye for Japanese artillery.

Here’s a photo from the Naval History and Heritage Command (photo NH-104216) of the “Grzmot,” whose “A21” tactical number pinpoints it to A Company. We can reasonably assume that there was a Pole in the crew as “Grzmot” means “Thunder” in Polish.

The Models

Here is the Hobby Master HG4402: LVT(A) -4, US Marines, 2nd Armored Amphibian Battalion, Iwo Jima 1945.

And here’s the Dragon 60425: LVT(A)-4, US Marines, 2nd Armored Amphibian Battalion, Iwo Jima 1945.

The markings on the Hobby Master HG4402 are terrific. Markings are extremely important in models, as they individualize the vehicle, and most collectors are far more likely to purchase a model with markings than without. The vertical red bar indicates that “Corps” landed at Red Beach 1, on the southeastern coast of Iwo Jima. The map of Iwo Jima above shows the locations of the various beach landing areas.

Note that the Dragon 60425 has no markings other than the tactical number “A21”. Note also that Dragon inexplicably — and unforgivably — omitted from its model the name “Grzmot,” clearly seen on the front of the hull on the starboard side in the photo of the actual tank. While the “Grzmot” did not have bars indicating the beach to which it was assigned, one internet source indicates it landed at Blue Beach 1. See the map of Iwo Jima above. On the plus side, note the superb weathering on the tracks of the Dragon 60425, which makes them really stand out.

The escape hatches on the Hobby Master HG4402 are more realistic and the hooks are separate pieces, whereas on the Dragon 60425 they are molded into the body.

Seen from the back, the Hobby Master HG4402 looks to be in pristine condition fresh off the factory, whereas it’s pretty clear that the Dragon 60425 has been dry brushed, giving it a weathered effect. Note the more detailed cable ends on the Hobby Master HG4402. Note also that the company letter and tactical number were also carried on the rear of the hull.

The surprise comes from this top view of the interior. The Hobby Master HG4402 does not have seats. The Dragon 60425, on the other hand, has a fairly detailed interior, complete with a turret basket, and seats. Also note the black weathering on the inside of the barrel on the Dragon 60425. Note that neither model has the protective tub for the machine gunner — very likely a field modification — seen in the photos of the actual vehicles.

Here’s a lagniappe photo of the two, side by side.

The Profiles

For those of us who love profiles, here’s one of each of these two models. This first one of the “Corps” is from Amtracs in Action: Part One, by Jim Mesko, Color by Don Greer & Tom Tullis, Illustration by Joe Sewell.

This profile of the “Grzmot” is from US Amtracs and Amphibians at War 1941-45, by Steven J. Zaloga and George Balin, Color plates by Arkadiusz Wrobel. Note that the artist did not include the name “Grzmot.” I firmly believe Dragon failed to include it because it relied on this profile.

The Upshot

This being a comparison review, the reader will naturally wonder which model is more accurate. Let’s compare the various features:

Heft: The lower hull of the Hobby Master HG4402 is metal, while the rest is plastic. The Dragon 60425 is entirely plastic. The weight of the Hobby Master HG4402 feels considerably more satisfying on the hand.
Surface Detail: Given that both have plastic upper hulls, which allows more crisp detail than metal, they’re about even, though the hatches on the Hobby Master appear to be more realistic.
Markings: The Hobby Master has all the standard markings found on the real tanks. The Dragon does not. In addition, it’s unforgivable that Dragon did not include the name “Grzmot” on its model.
Interior: No contest. The Dragon has far more interior detail, including a fairly elaborate turret basket.
Weathering: No contest again, the Dragon has been very lightly dry brushed. The tracks on the Dragon have been weathered and are superior. In addition, the inside of the Dragon barrel has been blackened, contributing to an overall realistic effect. The Hobby Master, on the other hand, appears to be in factory fresh condition.
Camouflage: Although both have a three-color scheme using olive drab, sand, and red brown, the appearance is very different. The Dragon’s appearance is dominated by olive drab, while sand is much more prominent on the Hobby Master. The camouflage on the Hobby Master more closely resembles most color profiles and is likely more accurate.
Historical Basis: Both models have solid historical photographic support, with at least three photos of the “Corps” and one of the “Grzmot” known to exist.

As can be gathered from the above comparison, the two models are fairly evenly matched. However, Dragon’s boneheaded omission of the name “Grzmot” tilts the balance — at least for me — in favor of the Hobby Master.

I hope you enjoyed the post. As always, comments, questions, corrections, etc. are welcome.

The “Uzbekistan” SU-100 Tank Destroyer, 3rd Soviet Guards, 1945

Dragon Armor released four 1/72 scale Soviet Tank Destroyers — two SU-85s and two SU-100s — around 2006. Of the four, the Dragon 60305 SU-100 Tank Destroyer is the most captivating, a handsome piece whose compelling slogan not only personalizes the vehicle but broadcasts its unique origin. “SU” stands for “Samokhodnaya Ustanovka,” literally “self-propelled carriage” in Russian. The number following the “SU” designation is the size of the gun in millimeters.

The Actual Tank

The Dragon 60305 SU-100 Tank Destroyer is almost assuredly based on the photo below of the Soviet 3rd Guards taken in early 1945, ostensibly on the Belorussian Front. Dragon incorrectly attributed this tank to the 1st Guards Mechanized Corps, rather than the 3rd Guards, and placed it in Hungary, rather than Belorussia.

Immediately apparent are the varied markings on the hull side. In addition to the tactical numbers, the slogan “20 Years of Soviet Uzbekistan” is barely discernible, a reference to Uzbekistan’s integration into the Soviet Union in 1924 and to its citizens, whose sacrifice and hard work had paid for this and other tanks that bore the slogan.

Ivan Antonovich Vovchenko, Commanding General of the Soviet 3rd Guards Tank Corps, recalled the arrival of the Uzbek-funded tanks in his memoirs:

“In the forests of Smolensk our unit received new tanks. On the turret, each of them had the inscription “20 Years of Uzbekistan” and the emblem of the Uzbek SSR. I went to the place where the tankers took the new vehicle, and saw Major Ayrametova, the commander of the Health Battalion. The Major touched the letters and coat of arms and I understood his excitement as this big tank column was built with money collected by the workers of Uzbekistan. News of the arrival of the machines quickly spread through the division, and soon two Uzbek tank drivers came running . . . .”

(Follow this link http://tankfront.ru/ussr/colums/20_let_sovetskogo_uzbekistana.html# and hit “Google translate” if you’re interested in finding out more about the Soviet 3rd Guards.)

The passage above confirms that such slogans significantly improved morale among the troops and evokes an image of the Major pining for his family as he caressed them – or rather, the side of the tank.

The Model

Here’s a three-quarter view of the 60305. At a length of 17.5 feet, the 100mm barrel made the SU-100 a colossal 31 feet long, making maneuvering in tight urban settings extremely difficult. Although no frontal photos of the “Uzbekistan” exist, Dragon placed spare track links on the glacis, a sensible decision as it was common practice to add the spare links to provide the crew additional protection.

This eye-level profile photo provides an excellent view of the track sag. Note that Dragon applied light, silver dry brushing on the tracks and road wheels, resulting in a realistic worn, weathered look.

This close-up gives a good sense for the 75mm sloped front armor.

Note the light dry brushing throughout the roof of the destroyer, which effectively highlights the detail on the hatches. Note also the thickness of, and cut marks on, the front plate.

There are subtle darker tones throughout the tank, most evident in the back and rear of the hull.

This starboard three-quarter view shows that Dragon used markings identical to those on the port side. Dragon is to be commended for its tampo application as the markings neatly curve around the turret base of the cupola. Note also the realistic weld marks on the base of the turret base of the cupola. In my enduring quest for improved photography, I continued experimentation with lighting, illuminating specific parts of the vehicle with a small flashlight, with mixed results.

Dragon’s attention to detail is evident on the side of the front slab, which shows cut marks consistent with a torch. Note the grab handle below the slogan as well as the two-man saw beneath it.

The Rub

This model is a beauty in every way save one — Dragon botched the slogan! A close review of the slogan reveals three mistakes in the phrase, one in each word:

Dragon: “20 лст Соввтского Узбеккстана”

Correct: “20 лет Советского Узбекистана”

Translation: “20 Years Soviet Uzbekistan”

Whenever markings are incorrect on a model, one can usually find the source of the problem in a color profile of the actual tank. This illustration from the Polish book SU-85/100/122, Wydawnictwo Militaria No. 240 carries all three mistakes in the slogan and, in addition, refers to the 1st Guards, rather than the 3rd Guards, confirming conclusively — for me, at least — that Dragon used Militaria 240 as its source.

It bears noting that, subsequent to Dragon, Trumpeter produced a 1/16 kit of this same model and repeated Dragon’s exact mistakes, presumably following the same Militaria 240 profile. On the bright side, all three errors are conveniently bungled, such that an advanced modeler could correct all three with a very sharp blade and a dab of white paint. Below is a photo of Trumpeter’s decal sheet. I easily modified the three incorrect letters in this jpeg in Paint, though I lack the courage to do it on the real model. Smile

(Subsequent Note: As pointed out in the comment below, the source of Dragon’s mistakes was not Wydawnictwo Militaria 240, as originally stated. A blowup of the profile shows that WM 240 was actually correct. Thanks to ez for pointing it out.)

Here’s a lagniappe photo of the “Uzbekistan” next to its Dragon 60299 “K-17” sister, the only other Dragon SU-100.

The Upshot

The Dragon 60305 SU-100 Tank Destroyer is quite a handsome piece with subtle tones in its finish, very light dry brushing, neat weld seams and cuts, good track sag and, perhaps more importantly, a documented historical basis. For those of us with a penchant for slogans and art on a tank, the phrase “20 Years of Soviet Uzbekistan” makes it irresistible — more so in this case, where the slogan speaks to this particular tank’s origin. While the botched slogan somewhat detracts from this wonderful piece, I’ve opted for blissful ignorance as I can’t read Cyrillic anyway. 😉

The Sherman in 1/72: M4A3E8 “Thunderbolt VII,” 37th Tank Battalion, 4th Armored Division, Germany 1945

The Dragon 60297 “Thunderbolt VII” Sherman is a particularly welcome release as the actual tank it represents was commanded by then-Lt. Col. Creighton Abrams, considered the best tank commander in the U.S. Army in WWII by General George Patton, and in whose honor the M1 Abrams Tank is named. Here’s my modest attempt to review this tank. I know it goes without saying, but please don’t hesitate to point out errors or guide me to additional photos so we can do justice to this tank.

General Creighton Abrams

Twice decorated with the Distinguished Service Cross for extraordinary heroism, Abrams, who was known for standing tall in his turret and leading from the front, made a name for himself during the Battle of the Bulge, when he led the 37th Tank Battalion in relief of an encircled American division at Bastogne. According to Steven Zaloga’s The Sherman at War (1): The European Theatre 1942-45, “besides being a superb unit commander, Abrams was probably one of the highest scoring American tankers during the war, as his battalion saw more tank-vs-tank combat than nearly any other and Abrams’ was the highest scoring crew in the battalion.” The New York Times reported at the time that “the retreating Germans were said to be fascinated and terrified by Colonel Abrams because they assumed from his name that he was Jewish, and that he saw himself as a wrathful Jehovah taking destructive vengeance on the Germans for what they had done to the Jewish people.” (http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/colonel-creighton-abrams-at-the-battle-of-the-bulge/) A West Point graduate, General Abrams eventually served as Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army.

The Actual Tank

The “Thunderbolt VII” was an M4A3E8 Sherman, with a 76mm gun and Horizontal Volute Spring Suspension (HVSS), considered stronger and more stable than previous suspension systems. Here are photos of the actual “Thunderbolt VII,” taken in early 1945. Abrams, who commanded seven tanks during the course of the war, including four in the U.S. during training, used colorful thunderbolt motifs for his tanks that made them easily recognizable. Note the stowage on the engine deck. Our models would be even better if Dragon and other manufacturers included such items.

Note the appliqué steel armor plates on the hull and turret. General Patton prohibited the use of sandbags for extra protection of tanks in his Third Army, so many units in the 4th Armored Division used steel armor plates cannibalized from destroyed tanks. Of particular interest is the white turret star, which by this time had been painted over by many other tank crews in the division because they provided German crews with convenient targets.

This March 1945 photo, from Zaloga’s Sherman at War (2): The US Army in the European Theater 1943-45, shows the appliqué armor well.

The Dragon 60297 “Thunderbolt VII” Model

The Dragon 60297 is easy on the eyes (lame pun intended). Easy Eight Sherman tanks are inherently attractive but the applique armor plates on the “Thunderbolt VII” make it really stand out among Dragon Shermans. As far as I know, it’s the only Dragon Sherman that received this special armor treatment.

Below is another portside view. Note the HVSS suspension and the detail on the rear deck.

Below is a starboard side view. Dragon got the “Thunderbolt VII” wrong on this side. The design was identical on both sides. Thus, the cloud should have gone around the “VII” rather than the “T” in “Thunderbolt,” exactly the same way it is on the port side. In other words, the motif was identical — rather than symmetrical — on either side of the hull.

Below is a close-up of the appliqué hull and turret armor plates. As previously mentioned, Patton prohibited the use of sandbags for extra protection, so many units used cannibalized steel armor plates. Note also the colorful “Thunderbolt” motif Abrams used on his tanks. Note the white turret star, which by this time had been painted over by many other tank crews in the division. Also evident is Dragon’s signature dry brushing.

Below is a close-up of the turret. Note that, in addition to the standard .50 caliber machine gun, the “Thunderbolt VII” also packs a .30 caliber machine gun added by Abrams’ tank crew. As far as I know, only two Dragon Shermans have the extra .30 caliber machine gun, the other being Dragon 60298, another Easy Eight also from the 4th Armored Division. It is also of interest that unlike “Thunderbolt VII,” the 60298 has its turret star painted over in black. Finally, note Dragon’s impressive attention to detail in adding the casting numbers on the rear of the turret.

Note the additional applique armor on the glacis plate. I believe the only other Dragon Sherman with applique armor on the glacis plate is the aforementioned 60298.

The Profile

Below is a color profile from Steven Zaloga’s The Sherman at War (2): The US Army in the European Theater 1943-45. Judging from the profile, it’s pretty hard to complain about Dragon’s effort. About the only niggle is that the .50 caliber machine gun on the Dragon should have been further back. You can better appreciate this placement in the photos of the actual tank above.

Finally, below is a lagniappe photo of the Dragon “Thunderbolt VII” side by side with its Easy Model 36260 Sherman brother, the “Thunderbolt VI” (erroneously labeled “Thunderbolt IV” by Easy Model). The “Thunderbolt VI” was Abrams’ first 76mm Sherman and the one he commanded at Bastogne.

The Upshot

I hope you will agree that as an Easy Eight Sherman with additional hull and turret armor panels, extra .30 caliber machine gun, distinctive colorful markings, and historical significance, Dragon’s “Thunderbolt VII” is a real gem.

Dreaming of a White Christmas

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, Season’s Greetings, and Happy New Year

The Tiger in Winter: To celebrate the season, here are photos of 1/72 Tigers in winter camouflage.

Front Row, L to R: Dragon 60001, Dragon 60410, and Dragon 60097.

Back Row, L to R: Dragon 65004, War Master TK0031, Easy Model 36214, and Easy Model 36208.

The Santas and hot Santa Helper chicks are made by Preiser.

Here’s a portside view.

White Rhino and Bumblebees: Here is a photo of a Nashorn and a couple of Hummels.

L to R: Altaya Nashorn, Dragon 60288, and Dragon 60190.

Other German Winter Vehicles

Cheers!

The Sherman in 1/72: M4 “Cannon Ball,” 70th Tank Battalion, Utah Beach 1944

I had intended to write a brief review of the Dragon 60369 Sherman “Cannon Ball,” a wading Sherman that landed at Utah Beach on D-Day. However, as I tried to understand where it fit in within the framework of the D-Day landings, I found that my knowledge of tank warfare on D-Day was quite limited. I had no real sense for how many tanks landed at each beach and how many were lost. I decided that, at the very least, I would get a rudimentary “big picture” grasp of tank landings at Utah Beach and try to understand the other four beaches at a later time. For those not interested, please skip to the photos below.

Sherman Tanks at Utah Beach

On D-Day, June 6, 1944, approximately 100 U.S. Army Sherman tanks attempted to land at Utah Beach in support of the 4th Infantry Division. The U.S. deployed two tank battalions at Utah Beach, the 70th and 746th – each consisting of 48 Sherman tanks.

The 70th Tank Battalion was comprised of three tank companies, each with 16 Sherman tanks. Companies A and B were equipped with Duplex Drive Shermans; Company C was made up of 16 wading Shermans, including 4 dozers. “Cannon Ball” was one of the wading tanks in Company C. (Note: Each tank battalion also had a D Company made up of Stuart light tanks.)

The 70th lost 9 Shermans during the landing — 5 DD Shermans and 4 Wading Shermans, including “Cannon Ball.” Throughout the day, the 70th lost another 7 tanks, for a total of 16. Thus, by the end of D-Day, the 70th had lost one third of its Sherman tanks.

The 746th Battalion, on the other hand, did not have Duplex Drive Shermans, and all 48 Wading Sherman tanks landed safely, though the Battalion did lose two Shermans throughout the day.

It bears mentioning that by the end of D-Day, all objectives at Utah Beach had been achieved and the area was securely under control of the Allies. This is in sharp contrast with Omaha Beach, where the Allies suffered tremendous casualties and did not reach all objectives.

The chart below provides context regarding how “Cannon Ball” fit within the organizational framework of the 70th Tank Battalion at Utah Beach on D-Day. (I made the chart for learners like me who want to visualize where a small piece fits into a larger whole. I’m just an amateur so please use at your own risk.)

The 70th Tank Battalion

Before we get to “Cannon Ball,” here are a few bullets on the storied 70th Tank Battalion, to which “Cannon Ball” belonged:

Formed in July 1940, the 70th Tank Battalion was the first independent tank battalion in the U.S.
The Battalion fought in every major U.S. campaign in WWII, beginning with North Africa, through Sicily, Italy, and France, and finally in Germany itself.
While in Algeria, the 70th trained the Free French soldiers who later formed the 2nd French Armored Division.
The 70th was called the “soixante-dix” (meaning “70”) by the French, a phrase that later appeared on the sash of their mascot, Joe Peckerwood.
Among other achievements, the 70th participated in the D-Day invasion, the Battle of the Bulge, and eventually crossed the Rhine to see the end of the war in Germany.
In Normandy, the 70th supported the famous 101st Airborne Division during combat at St. Mere Eglise.
Considered the most experienced U.S. tank battalion, the 70th was one of the most decorated of the war and received a Presidential Unit Citation for its role in the invasion of Normandy.

The Actual Tank

Unfortunately, there isn’t much information specifically on “Cannon Ball,” other than a well-known photo of it stuck in a shell hole at Utah Beach (see photo below). Nonetheless, here are a few bullets on what little I could gather from books and various corners of the internet:

On D-Day, “Cannon Ball” was one of 16 Sherman wading tanks in C Company of the 70th Tank Battalion.
It landed at Utah Beach but got bogged down in a shell hole.
“Cannon Ball” was pulled out of the hole and put back into action.
The tank had been previously fitted with a T4 Whiz-Bang Demolition Rocket Launcher in advance of D-Day. Following tests, the U.S. Army concluded that the launcher presented a risk to the crew and decided to remove the launcher prior to D-Day.
“Cannon Ball” is one of very few D-Day tanks with wading trunks for which we have reliable marking information. But beyond that, it’s representative of the hundreds of amphibious tanks that fought the waves to reach shore at Normandy. Numerous DDs failed to make it, particularly at Omaha, while most wading tanks made it to shore.

I searched numerous books and the internet and, as far as I know, the two photos below are the only existing photos of “Cannon Ball.” If anyone knows of any other pictures, I’d love to see them.

Of interest are the two mounting attachments on either side of the top of the turret. As mentioned, prior to D-Day “Cannon Ball” had been equipped with the Whiz Bang rockets (see profile below). The photo with the red arrows was posted by Steve Zaloga on another forum.

Note: Subsequent to publication of this article in December 2015, the photo of “Cannon Ball” below appeared in Armored Strike Force: The Photo History of the American 70th Tank Battalion in World War II, by Charles C. Roberts Jr., published July 1, 2016. It is posted here for discussion purposes under the fair use exception to the copyright laws.Though somewhat grainy, this photo is important historically in that it provides clear evidence that “Cannon Ball” survived the landing at Utah and lived to fight another day. It is similarly important for the modeler in that it confirms that the markings on the starboard side of the tank were symmetrical to those on the port side — an assumption usually made but often wrong. Note that the wading stacks were removed once the tank left the beach.

D-Day Shermans: Only “Cannon Ball” and “Carole” in 1/72

As far as I know, the only two D-Day Shermans in 1/72 scale are “Cannon Ball” and “Carole,” a Firefly with the 13th/18th Royal Hussars of the 27th Armored Brigade (Dragon 60250).

Dragon produced another Normandy M4, the 60370 “Tonto,” representing the U.S. 37th Tank Battalion, but that battalion didn’t arrive in Normandy until July 13, 1944, incidentally, at Utah Beach.

Dragon also produced another Normandy Firefly, the 60251 “Velikye Luki,” representing the Northamptonshire Yeomanry, but the unit didn’t arrive until June 12 at Gold Beach.

The Dragon 60369 “Cannon Ball” Model

This is the only U.S. tank in 1/72 representing D-Day and makes a fine pair with “Carole,” its British D-Day counterpart.
“Cannon Ball” is something of a unique tank in 1/72, as it’s the only tank with wading trunks that represents an actual tank. (Note: Dragon included a 75mm M4A1 with its LCM(3) but it has no markings and did not represent any particular tank.)
The markings on “Cannon Ball” are colorful – and distinctive. The turtle is “Joe Peckerwood” the Truculent Turtle with a tanker’s helmet and the sash carries the words “soixante-dix” meaning “70” in French. (See inset in the profile.)
The model is missing the T4 Whiz Bang brackets and gun sight pointed by red arrows in the photo above.

And finally, here are the photos:

Note the dark band around the turret. Mastic glue was used as a sealant to waterproof the tank over the opening of the turret ring and hatches.

Note the red number with white trim, a distinctive feature of the 70th. Note also the applique armor on the starboard side of the turret.

Note that the stars have been obscured. The black and white photo towards the bottom of this post graphically illustrates why.

Here’s a close-up of Joe Peckerwood the “Truculent Turtle” and the waterproofing label.

The U.S. Army began to obscure the white stars because they made excellent targets for German tank crews.

The Profiles

For those who love profiles, this is what “Cannon Ball” looked like on D-Day, from Zaloga’s Sherman at War (2): The U.S. Army in the European Theatre 1943-45.

This is what “Cannon Ball” looked like before D-Day, when it still had the Whiz Bang rockets, from Steve Zaloga’s U.S. Armored Funnies: U.S. Specialized Armored Vehicles in the ETO in World War II.

For those interested in what a wading dozer looks like, here’s a profile of the “Double Trouble,” also from the 70th Tank Battalion. The profile is also from Zaloga’s Funnies.

Here’s a lagniappe photo of the “Cannon Ball” with “Carole” (Dragon 60250), its British D-Day Sherman brother (or sister).

The Upshot

The Dragon 60369 M4 Sherman “Cannon Ball” is almost flawless. Other than the two mounting attachments for the Whiz Bang rockets missing on either side of the top of the turret, the 60369 is a fine and faithful representation of the actual Sherman tank that landed at Utah Beach on D-Day.

I hope to do a review of the Dragon 60250 Sherman Firefly “Carole” in the near future.

WWII in 1/72 Scale

My Obsession with Miniatures and WWII

Category: Dragon

The Sherman in 1/72: A Firefly Named “Carole” in Normandy, Part 2 – “Brewing Up”

The Sherman in 1/72: A Firefly Named “Carole” in Normandy, Part 1 – The Tank

The Filthy Thirteen of the 101st Airborne Division, Part 5: Preboarding Diorama

Softskins of the Afrika Korps in 1/72 Scale

Operation Detachment, Part 2: Prebuilt 1/72 Scale Models for the Battle of Iwo Jima

Operation Detachment, Part 1: Amtanks in the Invasion of Iwo Jima, 1945

The “Uzbekistan” SU-100 Tank Destroyer, 3rd Soviet Guards, 1945

The Sherman in 1/72: M4A3E8 “Thunderbolt VII,” 37th Tank Battalion, 4th Armored Division, Germany 1945

Dreaming of a White Christmas

The Sherman in 1/72: M4 “Cannon Ball,” 70th Tank Battalion, Utah Beach 1944