swathdiver

W = Wet Stowage. Tanks with wet stowage wouldn't have the applique armor on the hull sides anymore as the ammo was moved to the botton of the turret basket. Pretty sure all Shermans in PTO were 75mm or 105s, no 76mm were needed as the enemy tanks were puny and the 75 was much better at bunker busting. Besides, they had TDs with 76mm and 3".

philipat

Wet storage...makes sense. thanks.

I can't speak for the Army's tanks in the PTO, but all of the Marine tanks that I've found articles about were all 75-mm. I assume that Okinawa may have had some 105s, but I haven't found any pictures. I suppose I could look for 1st Tank Bn's AAR. Anyhow, I did some quick Google-ing and found some articles about Marine tanks in the PTO if someone wants them for a reference.

swathdiver

BUMP! A little perspective and historical background on this first release from the Sherman Project.

Dmon1996

Thank you, Swathdiver.... for your hard work in designing the most desired model of tank to date. (Well, except maybe the Churchill....)

I think what with the "perceived" shortcomings and flaws, we are forgetting that this is (from what I understand) the first Mato tank produced (wholly createde by Mato, instead of subcontraced and tagged as Mato) and as such completely designed and built from the ground up. As such, I think we should cut Mato some slack and be glad for what we did get. The first run of anything always has bugs- and Mato (with help from some great people like Swathdiver) filled a need that we all knew of, but none of the established manufacturers seemed willing to step up and fill.

So, instead of complaining of what may have not been exactly like you would like to have gotten on your Sherman....maybe drop a line to Swathdiver and say "thanks!". I can see A LOT of HARD WORK that went into that "little toy".....


Just my two cents- please do not flame me for my opinion.

kalnaren

Noone is denying that a ton of effort went into this design. But at the same time, just because it's the first release of something from Mato, and just because it's an M4, doesn't mean those of us that have issues with it have to ignore them.

This M4 isn't quite what I want, so I won't buy it. Simple as that. I'm not going to sit here and complain about it, but at the same time, I'm not going to say "Hey, thanks Mato for releasing a product that isn't up to a standard I'd buy, but I'll buy it anyway because it was your first."

As you said, this is just an opinion. I fully expect Mato to improve on the design.

Dmon1996

You are right- Mato should have addressed these issues before release....especially since they have been "about to release" this for all of 2009. It's not like they had anything against delaying the release date. But I see nothing positive being said, and I think that if you asked Swathdiver of what Mato changed from his design recommendations, I think he would admit that they changed these things despite his recommendations. And I said to thank Swathdiver - not Mato! I'd love to have seen what his prototype was like in comparison! And I am pissed at Mato for misrepresentation as well -from the box pic that "shows" the model inside (after a few hours with a skilled model painter and detailler maybe) to their claim of accurate suspension. It is not accurate in scale or action! But it was their first attempt- I am hoping that they will do better in the future. To be blunt- from what I've seen, it would look far better with a shot of olive drab paint over that shiny plastic! And that's just a start!

Personally, I am curious as to what is inside those gearboxes....junk plastic, or good nylon or (even better) metal gears? I would be Heng Longing the electronics right quick, just for conformity of my armor corps. And I am curious as to whether HL will be releasing a Sherman still....rumors are running rampant!

kalnaren

Well, this is true. I'd have gladly paid more for the Sherman if it had Swathdiver's functional VVSS design. It's unfortunate that a community member, who knows what people want, put in such time and effort working with a manufacturer only to have his advice not followed.Like you I'm also annoyed at the false claims from Mato. The M4 looks nothing like all the pics we've seen of it, and doesn't have the advertised functional suspension. Perhaps in the future they will improve it.

Rex Ross

I have ordered an R/C VVSS Sherman tank for under $200. If I was to scratchbuild one, the R/C parts and raw materials alone would cost more than $200. Figuring my time at $25 per hour, that would make my tank worth many thousands of dollars (at least to me). It would not be perfect. It would have inaccuracies and screw ups.

Whatever I get will be worth it. And fun to fix up to suit me.

I have seen sources of aftermarket track that cost as much as this complete tank. Compare the price to the MSRP of a Tamiya tank on the Tamiya website. I really expected this tank to sell for more than it is. It's a shame the final product doesn't look like the promotional photos. Those photos were what I bought, not the tank we are seeing being shipped.

YHR

Actually other then the paint, the tank is exactly the same. I could be wrong but I think the pictures that were produced earlier just had a coat of paint applied. Swath do you know for sure?