Jump to content

U.S Stuart tank or British Honey


bohicawill
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello, I usually build WW 2 aircraft but I have been getting a little bored with that lately and have decided to dive into WW 2 armor for a change. My question is what differences are there between the U. S. Stuart tank and the British Honey versions? I have a 1/35 scale academy Stuart tank arriving soon in the mail but I would like to paint it as the British Honey, is this possible ? Do I have to do a lot of modifications? Thanks for any help Armor Guys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None. "Honey" was just the British nickname for the M-3's they got. Only differences might be British stowage modifications, but those were sometimes done, sometimes not. You rarely see the extra fuel tank, however. They used all marks of the Stuart and all versions of the turret, but you have to get the right version in the time period you're modeling. For the desert, the early angled turret and driver's and co-driver's vision slits are in order. In Italy and NW Europe, the horseshoe turret was used and in the CBI, you'll see the horseshoe turret without the cupola. They even used the Mk III version (slanted hull plates) even though the US did not. The only one they did not use was the diesel engined variant, which was the subject of the old Tamiya kit. The only people that used that were the Marines and Russians.

 

I think I got all that right, but if not, I'm sure someone on this forum can provide corrections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While both kits have accuracy issues, they assemble well, have good fit and ample detail. I was pleased with the early US version I built about 10 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

Thanks to all who gave advise on the Stuart tank U.S. and British Versions. Found the Honey version for a good price and bought it, Now I have both versions by Academy, might build both or sell one in the future. Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the Stuart was a great kit! The tracks even held the paint this time (without flaking off).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said earlier, the kits build well, but have accuracy issues. To help you decide, I'll toss out some of the issues Allied armor builders have pointed out over the years.

 

They are virtually identical kits except for the turret. Both kits include a turret basket, but the earlier M3 did not have a turret basket. But even omitting the basket doesn't solve the problem because the interior floor layout was different to accommodate the presence and lack thereof a turret basket. Fortunately, this is an interior problem and not entirely visible.

 

The main external accuracy issue is the back deck. While it is correct for an M3, the back deck has a curved (not flat) plate on the M3A1.

 

Bottom line, the interior is correct for an M3A1 and the exterior is correct for an M3.

 

Here's a shot of the curved plate of the M3A1 (from Prime Portal) to illustrate the difference.

m3a1_21_of_42.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rob,

Great shot and if you want to see more.......Our gallery has a nice walkaround of one over at Camp Murray.

http://www.ipmsusa3.org/gallery/v/walkarounds/armor/M3/?g2_page=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't that an M3-A1, which means without the cupola on the horseshoe turret? That's a late model. As a matter of fact, that turret was also used on the M3-A3. I've never seen a photo of the A1 in the desert scheme, although I haven't seen every photo ever taken that's for sure. Then again, many of the paint jobs at the old Aberdeen were, shall we say, inventive at best. Done more to control rust than depict real colors.

Edited by Ron Bell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it was an A1, it would have a curved rear engine deck plate like the OD green photo from Prime Portal above. This M3 was one of the properly restored tanks that the Ordnance Museum was able to do. Funding and hazardous materials disposal was an issue when trying to restore the vehicles. The vast majority of vehicles got a generic coat of paint to protect the vehicle from the elements. Some vehicles got to be stripped down, power washed and properly repainted before being placed on display. What to do with the paint chips, petroleum products, contaminated water and other hazardous waste that comes from power washing a 50 year old vehicle became an issue because the installation is in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed area.

 

I think the vehicles chosen had to have some significant role in US armor development in order to be given the green light to restore with Army money and resources.

 

My limited Stuart references show four different styles of turret on the straight M3, the type above appears to be what the British called a Stuart Hybrid with a D58101 turret.

 

I do not know much about the M3A3, but my AFV Club kit's turret has a bustle in the rear and this turret does not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the later M3A3s had the same turret as the M5, which had the bustle. Of course, Stuarts were like Shermans in that the parts were interchangeable. You could put a later turret on an earlier hull or visa versa. Who knows what wound up where.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I took some walk arounds of some this summer at Fort Hood here is the link to where I put them. Hope it helps. I always say there never to many pictures.

http://www.modelersalliance.com/forum/the-real-thing/147313-m3-stuart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...