What’s Walrus Building?

It is done! Man was that a job. So often getting one piece in place properly popped another one out somewhere else. It was quite frustrating resulting in me having to glue key areas so they wouldn’t pop out on me.

After the problem of the exhausts was solved the above was the next big problem. The turrent ring attachments were too tight and would pop out connections. I eventually had to alter the placement of the posts in reverse of the instructions so they would fit properly. Someone messed up the instructions.

I had to do the turret plating twice to get it to sit properly on the chassis. Once again being frustrating by having to apply pressure to lock on set of bricks which would pop out other connected ones elsewhere. It is something I’ve come to expect but hate about these builds. On some it doesn’t happen and on others it seems to happen every 10 minutes. The Tiger was especially so. But it is done!

It is one big mother for sure. Now on to the next build for which I have 6 models on deck. I think it will be the motorized Panther since I have never built a moving one. When I actually start it depends upon the Holiday season and what is taking up my time.

Previouis Build

M4A3E8 Sherman Easy Eight
The M4 Sherman is, by a comfortable margin, the most recognisable of the Allied tanks of World War II (at least to a Western audience). Thousands were built and supplied to all the major Allied powers, and their combat performance was, if not spectacular, thoroughly satisfactory, with the sheer number of available vehicles being a significant contributor to the eventual defeat of Nazi Germany. Of the many, many Sherman variants that would be developed, one of the most famous (and effective) was the M4A3E8 – more formally the M4A3(76)W HVSS, known for the sake of convenience and sanity as the ‘Easy Eight’ (from the E8 suffix and comfortable ride).

The Easy Eight was arguably the most well-rounded of the Second World War Sherman variants, combining welded hull construction and wet ammunition storage for survivability with the mobility of the smooth-riding Horizontal Volute Spring Suspension (HVSS) system and attendant wider tracks, and the anti-tank punch of the excellent 76mm Gun M1. Specifically designed to counter the increasingly heavy German armour encountered as US forces pushed towards Germany, the Easy Eight was capable of engaging and destroying all marques of Panzer IVs at combat ranges, and the 76mm gun could usually threaten the heavier German tanks from the sides and rear. Against the lighter opposition encountered on other fronts, they proved absolutely devastating, although most were deployed to Western Europe. With around 2,500 made, there were never enough to go around, the type never completely replaced the 75mm-armed types in service during the Second World War (although the excellent high explosive rounds available to the 75mm meant that having a mix of the two types in the same unit was often considered beneficial), but the Easy Eight was at its core still a Sherman, with all the reliability and consistency that name entailed. Well-liked by its crews, it was considered a potent and viable weapon, although it did not completely address the demand for more firepower in armoured units, this need increasingly being filled by the Tank Destroyer branch. A good number were also deployed during the war by Canadian units.

As an excellent, reliable medium tank, the Easy Eight unsurprisingly remained in service post-war, and would be deployed in significant numbers and see combat with a number of operators in the Korean War, maintaining its reputation as a rugged, reliable machine despite being rendered technically obsolescent by tanks such as the Centurion and Pershing. Not fully retired from US service until 1957, the Easy Eight would also enjoy a surprisingly long life in other militaries across the world. As surplus World War II US military hardware flooded the export market in the late 1940s and into the 1950s, ‘Easy Eights’ would go on to serve with many countries, seeing particularly heavy service in Israeli colours, and continue to see limited action until well into the 1970s and beyond, albeit often modified far beyond their original configuration. Most recently, an Easy Eight was the star of the film Fury – while much of the historicity may be a little dubious, it does give us plenty of lovely shots of a real example of the tank in ‘action’.

4 Comments

  1. In WW2 the various armies initially had this concept that “tanks” were primarily intended as infantry support vehicles, and “tank destroyers” were intended to fight enemy tanks and tank destroyers (not all armies used these terms, but had similar concepts – the Brits use the term Cruiser for their tank fighters). So 75mm equipped Shermans weren’t really intended to stand up to German Medium and Heavy tanks, they were intended to provide direct fire support for infantry against infantry targets and emplacements. As a result, the Sherman’s 75mm guns sucked at tank combat because that wasn’t what they were intended to be used for. The Easy 8 was the only one really intended to be used for tank combat, and that was really an ad hoc response to the reality of the battlefield not matching the US Army’s expectations. The US could crank out Shermans in droves, and they desperately needed one with a good anti-tank gun in it. The German philosophy early in the war was the same, with the Pzkw Mks 1, 2, and early 4s intended for infantry support, and the Mk 3 was the primary tank vs. tank vehicle. The problem was that by the time the US Army was facing the German army in 1942, pretty much all the German tanks were designed for tank vs. tank combat, with infantry support being secondary. The Germans realized that a high velocity gun could shoot HE for infantry support just as well as a low-medium velocity gun, but low-medium velocity guns sucked at killing armor. They’d been fighting since September 1939, and US tanks didn’t face German forces until almost 3 years later. The Germans had learned the lesson, but the British and US hadn’t yet. The US army produced tank destroyers at levels that assumed that the Germans still had the same philosophy, but they were wrong. As a result, German tanks from the Mk4 F2 on could destroy any Sherman (considered a medium tank) from any angle at reasonable combat distances, but the reverse was not the case. The only US army Heavy Tank of WWII was the M-26 Pershing. Only 200 made it to Europe in 1945 just before the war ended. It was roughly equivalent to the Tiger I in combat ability (Tiger 1 became available in 1942), but was somewhat more reliable and a bit faster. It could stand up to the Panthers, and Tigers 1 and 2, but there weren’t enough of them and they were far too late to have a meaningful impact (search for “Pershing vs Panther” to see a good video about one in action).

    US Army SOP in WW2 eventually stated that to go up against a single Panther (which, at 45 tons, was considered by the Germans to be a medium tank) took a minimum of 5 Shermans, and you should anticipate losing 4. You had to charge the Panther at max speed, the idea being that the Panther would destroy 4 of the Shermans, but the 5th would be able to get a close shot at side or rear armor and destroy the Panther (the Panther had a 5-1 kill ratio in WW2). I saw an interview of a British tanker from WW2 who served in a Sherman Firefly (probably the second best Sherman for tank combat, having the 75mm gun replaced with the British 17 pound AT gun). A company of 13 Fireflies were traveling along a dike in Holland (so, water on both sides). At one point, off to their left, beyond the water was a rise, which at its top, had a small forest. A Panther came charging out of the forest heading down the hill. The Fireflies all stopped, pivoted to put their frontal armor facing the Panther, and opened fire. He said that you could see their shells bouncing off the front of the Panther, which stopped at 800 meters (in WW2, firing on the move against an enemy vehicle beyond spitting distance meant you missed, because guns weren’t stabilized). The Fireflies continued firing, and their shells were still failing to penetrate the Panther. The Panther’s first shot destroyed the lead Firefly, at which point the crew in the second Firefly bailed out. The Panther waited for them to get to a safe distance (while still receiving fire), and destroyed the second Firefly. The 3rd Firefly crew bailed. The Panther worked its way down the line, firing 13 shots and getting 13 kills, but only the lead Sherman had crew casualties (very polite on the part of the Panther crew). The Panther then turned around, and drove back up the hill to hide amongst the trees again (air attack was the fear). That’s how poorly the Sherman compared to its opponents. You didn’t want to face a Tiger 1 (1,300 made) or Tiger 2 (450 made) in a Sherman – you could only scratch the paint. I’ve only read of one Tiger 2 being killed on the Western Front by fire from an allied tank. A Sherman tank commander had gotten fed up with having his Shermans shot out from under him. So he went to an allied US Army Air Corp base on the continent where he had a buddy, and asked for help. They took 4 rocket launch rails intended for use on ground attack fighters and welded them to the turret. They wired them up to a set of 4 switches mounted near the commander. They then loaded each rail with a 5 inch diameter dual use rocket (shaped charge nose for piercing armor, and shrapnel load behind that for soft targets). Afterwards, he was driving along a road when a Tiger 2 pulled out of a barn ahead of him at point blank range (< 100 yds, IIRC), but with the side facing the Sherman. The gunner got the turret pointed at the Tiger 2, and he fired all 4 rockets, all of which hit, and got the kill before the Tiger 2 could shoot at them. Most Tiger 2s, on either front, were captured with empty gas tanks. Very few were destroyed by ground fire.

    I also saw an interview with a German tanker from WW2, who first faced the Sherman after the Normandy invasion. He stated that he’d been involved in many conversations at the time with his peers about how bad the Sherman was. They were baffled that America, with all its wealth, and with the Axis powers unable to affect American production, didn’t have the best tanks in the world. The Germans called the early Sherman Tommie Cookers, or Ronson Lighters (slogan: they light the first time) because of how easily they’d catch fire when penetrated. But basically, no Panther or Tiger crew was ever afraid of Shermans in 1-on-1 combat, or even 3 or 4 on 1 combat. With respect to the Tiger 1, I have a book with a photo of the first Tiger 1 to get 88 kill marks on its 88mm gun (on the Eastern front, where it had to face the much more capable medium tanks like the T-34, T-34/85 (85 mm gun, but really a totally new tank, not just an original T-34 with a bigger gun), heavy tanks like the KV-1 (same 76mm gun as the T34), JS-1
    (same 85mm gun as T34/85) and JS-2 (122mm gun), as well as he various unturreted tank destroyers (SU-85, SU-100, etc). So at the time of the photo, that one crew/Tiger combination had essentially destroyed a tank brigade (usually around 100 tanks) on its own. The Germans used such events as “proof” of German superiority (I’ve got another book with a photo of the first German ME-109 pilot to get 109 kills in his ME-109 – pretty impressive considering the US’s leading ace had 40 kills – but we pulled such people out combat to send them on war bond drives).

    The comment about using flat plates welded for the E8’s hull reminded me of why we did that (and the Germans never used a casting for armor). A properly processed flat plat (I’ll have to admit to not knowing exactly everything the processing entailed, but it including squeezing it between rollers while still red hot (so, sort of like “drop forging”). Ultimately, this provided armor that provided the same protection as a casting that was 15% thicker (and heavier). The weight savings meant that for the level of protection you wound up with, there were substantial mobility enhancements relative to a comparable casting (faster top speed, better acceleration, lower ground pressure for a given track length/width), etc.

    Sorry about the length and rambling, but your post reminded me of a bunch of stuff I thought would be appropriate to share. I’ve been a WW2 buff all my life (having read hundreds of books on the subject, although I wasn’t able to read many books written by non-english speaking writers because of the difficulty of finding translations). I’ve also worked 9 years on the software for various versions of the M1A2 Abrams. Go look for Heng-Long-panzer’s site for some really decent RC tank models.

    • “A company of 13 Fireflies were traveling along a dike in Holland . . .”

      I saw this encounter on a TV show on the History Channel called “Tank Battles.”

      Also, Patton’s “War As I Knew It” is a must-read on this subject. He did want to use tanks as cavalry, not just as infantry support.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.