this is just a basic repaint project nothink too heavy to start off with will keep you all posted with pics when possible

Little putty little paint make it seem like it aint huh britishtankman......My brother the body repair guy said that in the auto shop alot.

I'll be watching this thread for sure, being a Pershing fan. Mine went from this:





To this:





Good luck!


Jeff

Wasn't it fun ripping off all those ammo cans and crates? I hated it!

Panther F: Nice Pershing! So the repaint was postwar, after it made it through Korea?

thanks for the replys will try to keep you all posted. lol @ swath yea it was a rite pain thay were well on there had fun doing it tho

The M-26A1 looks really good and the color and finish are nice, BUT, no tubes for the gunner's telescope and coax MG. Open holes as issued.
NO Pershing ever had the Tiger colors[:'(] The tiger colors were only used in two operations in Korea April/May 1951 Operations killer and Ripper, and tanks used were M-4A3E8s, M-24 Chafees and M-46 Pattons. [>:]There are a couple museums that do have Pershings with these colors (including Fort Knox) but they are very incorrect and have taken a bit of flak because of it. [sm=red_smile.gif]

Bill

Note you have Marine Corps markings on an M-26A1 but US Army 3D Inf Div colors and white USA numbers on the sponson box. Where is it assigned? [sm=confused.gif]Don't see any unit markings but 3d ID is most definatelty not USMC.[:@] I spent 7 years is that screwed up division, and even the Marines couldn't do a more complete job of messing everything up. [:'(][:'(]

Here you go Mr. Expert:

http://svsm.org/gallery/M26



Also, found in the book "The M26 Pershings and Variants" by Troy D. Thiel

This coming from a guy that didn't know about the American 17 pounder. It's just a tank model (geez) and much closer to being exact than ... well. Make your work exact and then you'll have a leg to stand on. The animal face is from the 64th tank battalion in Korea and there were M46 Pattons marked that way and there is no evidence that Pershings weren't, so I took a little creative incentive but later decided I didn't like it and changed it.

BTW: The markings are per Tamiya's instructions. There are no white "numbers" on the sponsons but a female's name.

Jeff

Hey Jeff,

First off, I'm no expert...just have worked and served on a couple Pershings before we swapped over for M-46 Pattons. And of course, I haven't had a chance to see ALL of them. I can only attest to the ones I have seen. Our Pershings were prepared for switch-over when I got there and only had time to run a few in the staging areas and help get rid of them. Obviously, from looking back over some of my photos and reference stuff, some A1's did in fact have the protective tubes, which I only saw on our "new" M-46s. None of our 26s or the tank company supporting the Turks a few miles south of us had them.

As in many tanks, many things were upgraded, and we were told that the reason for the tubes on our 46's is that enemy small arms fire was taking out the gunner's telescopes and some rounds came in through the mg hole, so the tubes were installed.....obviously some A1's got the modifications. I note that your photo is of a retrofitted early version with the old 400 cfm blower motor. The aux persicopes could have stayed in place but have been removed.. So, I stand corrected on the scope-mg port tubes.

On the 64th, they were a 3d ID unit and from what I understand, they had only Easy 8 Shermans until mid-late 1952 when they got the M-46s. They never had Pershings. The 73d and 76th were the last to get rid of the Pershings and the 6th Tk Bn and other Inf Supprt tank companies of the 24th ID up north were the first, so availability and immediate need decided who got them first. The Marine 1st and 2nd Divs had the bulk of Pershings which was a great help our smaller units with old M-24s (which were useless against the T-34) and the limited firepower of the Sherman. Compared to the M-46, maneuverability of the Sherman was limited, to say the least and the Pershing was way underpowered for the steep hills of korea. Getting the M-46 was a real blessing. The ROK army got stuck with our old junk, but from what I heared, they never got Pershings. All our Shermans and M-36B2 TD's went to them.

Sorry, but I couldn't see the name on the sponson box...thought it was a USA #: 70 yr old eyes getting weaker. So, appologies from an old tanker for not looking closer and being familiar with all the changes made to the hybrid 26A1, and I don't understand why Tamiya would issue tiger marking decals for a Pershing. I am going to dig deeper into Korean War units and TO&E to check more on this controversial tiger face issue.

Bill

Ummm, Bill. I never rode in a tank (wish I had) and I would trade that with you any day.

Now the other thing, the Tamiya Pershing comes with the 1,000 cfm Rotoclone blower housing (it does) have 4 intakes (two on each side) and I thickened and flatened the front so it is correct for a M26A1.

BTW ... it's not a Tiger face decal and it's not from Tamiya either! The aux persicopes on most of the M26A1's I read were filled in because of the shot deflection potential.

Get a few Pershing books!!! Page 38 of Squadron/Signal "Pershing/Patton in action" tells that there was a mixture of M4 Shermans and M26 and M46's during the spring offensive operations in Korea.

Hopefully I'll be doing a M47 in the near future. I already have half the reference material I need for that.

Sorry for highjacking britishtankman's thread but had to make the corrections. (You Danville guys!)


Jeff

Hi Jeff, the HL and Tamiya era both late model (Korean era) Pershing with the larger Rotoclone blower and double vents on the side. The earlier one only had two vent slots. The earlier model had a more flat housing and the 1000 cfm housing was a bit rounded. Most of the A1's were retrofitted later models and it's unusual to see an A1 with the smaller blower housing. The reason for the removal of the aux perioscopes was the size of the larger Rotoclone motor. Granted, the deflection of a round from the lower mantlet would be an issue,( Same as the panther) but the armor at that point is only about 2 inches, and covering the periscope locations with an inch of steel plate would be redundant.

I think the book refers to a combination being the 2 Marine Divisions' Pershings as well as the Army conglomeration of "anything available" tanks. I also want to be clear on this issue, so I am trying to do some more research. Although I came in right at the end, I had a nice '46, the ROK army had the leftover Shermans and the Marines had the 90mm en massse. We had a tank company..ie; 22 tanks (4 platoons of 5 & 2 HQ tanks) and a platoon of M-45's as inf support (used as the Wehrmacht Sturmgeschütz),. so we occasionally got pretty well spread out over a few miles and didn't have the firepower or the coordination the Marines had. Operations in Apr.May 51 was a concentration of everything available to push the NKA back across the 38th, but that was before I got there and am relying on what intelligence was put out. Mac's brilliant strategy of landing at Inchon was the back breaker for the NKA and we did OK 'til the Chinese interviened.

I spent many moons working on M-47s and can probably build a model from memory. Externally, it's a great looking tank, but the ammo stowage and steroscoptic range finder was the absolute pile of doo-doo. You had 11 rounds in the ready racks, and that can go fast...then the loader had to lift the floor panels of the turret basket and dig 90mm ammo out of the ammo wells and try to find somewhere to put them while holding up the floor panels. Turret traverse was about the fastest in the world and a big improvement over the 26-46, it had power elevation...instead of the small hand crank. The range finder was great at intermediate range targets, where it wasn't so ciritical,,providing the gunner had good 3D vision....but at greater ranges, where the range finder was needed, was not so good. But the 47 was very maneuverable, easy to handle and not bad to work on.

If I can supply any info on an M-47 model, please ask. I put out some pics of the M-46 back deck a week ago....the M-47 is exactly the same...no change at all. If you are converting from a Pershing, you have a lot of work cut out. There's supposed to be an M-26/46 conversion coming out soon, and I am waiting for that. The M-47 turret and front glacis plate will be absolutely a scratch build. The 47, like the M-41. was never used in combat by the USA.

Bill

I have to take issue with this statement Bill. You guys fought courageously and kicked the Chicoms rear ends. It was the rush to the Chosin Reservoir, outrunning the supply lines and ignoring the intel that the Chinese were already in theater that made things more difficult. Once regrouped we kicked their butts again until Truman conceded and stopped everything at the 38th parallel and the real blood letting began. Remember, who betrayed Chiang Kai-Shek and let the commies take over China? Truman.

Ok guys, I'm going to step in here for a minute. Discussing the history of these vehicles is totally cool as it applies to the discussion concerning RC Tanks. But discussing the politics and strategies of the wars is not cool here as it's totally off topic for this thread and forum. Let's leave these types of discussions out or we'll have to start removing posts from the thread.

Thanks for your cooperation.

Ken

lol interesting read guys

basecoat

what do you guys think of this green? just playing with a few diffrent greens to see which look better and make the tank more realistic as the standard olive green drab doesnt look like it belongs on a tank

With some heavy weathering and washes with black and maybe some browns it should be fine.

that looks quiet good. I was like you with paints, more so with the greens. I bought US Olive green which turned out near dayglow. Then i got USA Uniform green which just didn't realy cut it. I ended up getting Olive Drab which is ok but in some light it's brown and in other it's green ??

swath what do you mean by washes? ive heard about them just never understood how to do it and the effect it gives? yea bravo i can never make up my mind with paints lol [>:] its a nice green in person it looks realy light in the pic coz its under the light but yea like you said swath with some weathering it should look good does anyone have any tips on removeing the suspension mounts/rods out of the bottom hull?

Washes can be part of the weathering process. You highly dilute some paint with water or thinner and maybe a drop of dawn dish soap, such as black and spray the whole tank with it, the paint finding its way into the nooks and crannies highlighting the detail and giving the effect of accumulated dirt in these areas. Some people use artist oils. I'm no expert on this topic, I hope some of our more knowledgeable tankers will chime in.

Tower Hobbies carries Tamiya's Weathering Pastel Sets and I like these.

The top pins for the shocks cannot come out without destroying the return roller brackets. They are melted in place at the factory. The wheels are heavily glued together, you can try to cut the hubs off and get in there with a small screwdriver or saw the wheels in half and glue them back together. It's not worth it, I did it and wrecked every single wheel.

ok thanks swath il give that a try

its comeing along slowly but nicely

Looking good[sm=thumbup.gif]

Thanks for the uplift....and I prefer the "BIg Mac:" over a Trumanburger any day. When Joe Chink decided to come for a visit, I was very happy not to have a Pershing or one of the many Shermans. The Tamiya and HL Pershings as well as the M-4 105 are very good models of Korean tanks, although the marines made more use of the latter. A good addition to the Shernman is to add a flame gun.
I added this to my Tam Sherman and it looks mean...now have to figure a way to make it squirt a little water for effect. (No, forget the lighter fluid!) Pics of my Cent 21 Sherman,,,don't have sep shots of my Tam Sherman set up the same way.
With the really bad cold and snow, the venerable old M-46 plowed through the steep, narrow trails (called roads) and we even managed to use it as a toboggan,,,,going downhill forward with the trans in reverse, using the accelerator as a brake. It works but scary as hell. Figure on RC, it would only work with metal tracks Tam or HL, but that's something you could try on a very steep incline. Just let it get started down (gun to rear) and throw it in reverse and accell to brake. Our tracks held firm, the tank was strong and the engine chewed up 3-4 gal per mile on the level, but we had nice, warm, muffler shields to heat C rats and dry off wet parkas and half frozen tankers.
The HL Pershing does pretty well and I now have 4 versions, but I am really waiting for the M-46 conversion and make 2 of them...one exactly like mine. The Marines did OK with their Pershings, but didn't have quite the same benefit of heat. The solid plate between the front and rear grille door sections houses the oil coolers and radiator, and this is the reasion I caution guys about stowing so much stuff back there. On the real M-26, there would get too hot, so the model should reflect actual use. (OK, in Korea at 35 below, this is a debatable practice,) Way back on the end is OK and it doesn't block all the air. Infantry hitchhikers do that pretty well.