Help support TMP


"FOW Shermans V PSC Shermans" Topic


25 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please remember that some of our members are children, and act appropriately.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Flames of War Message Board


Areas of Interest

World War One
World War Two on the Land
Modern

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Featured Ruleset

Principles of War: 19th Century


Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star 


Featured Showcase Article


Featured Profile Article

Herod's Gate

Part II of the Gates of Old Jerusalem.


Featured Movie Review


1,639 hits since 8 Jan 2016
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

CptKremmen08 Jan 2016 7:22 a.m. PST

I am considering a 15mm British army for the new iron cross rules.

Will need a fair few Shermans.

Does anyone have experience of the Plastic soldier company shermans and the battlefront ones as to which is nicer??

Andy

Winston Smith08 Jan 2016 7:37 a.m. PST

Detail is of course crisper on the PSC models.
In addition, you have the option to make Fireflies with the PSC models.

ubercommando08 Jan 2016 7:41 a.m. PST

You get more stowage bits with the FoW ones than PSC but if you like your Shermans looking less cluttered PSC are the ones to go for.

Buckaroo08 Jan 2016 7:55 a.m. PST

I did some comparisons a while back on the All Miniatures Great and Small blog.

M4A3 versus PSC

link

M4 versus PSC

link

Overall I like the Battlefront stuff better. but I've used PSC when cost matters. The new Plastic Battlefront Kits are awesome. I haven't purchased an PSC box in a while to see if they've improved as well.

PiersBrand08 Jan 2016 8:37 a.m. PST

PSC Firefly…

link

shaun from s and s models08 Jan 2016 8:54 a.m. PST

there will be a load of 15mm stowage out soon, watch this space

CptKremmen08 Jan 2016 9:52 a.m. PST

Think i have decided on a paratrooper force.
Battlefront british paratroopers look a bit funny.

I rather like the look of the peter pig ones

struggling to get a good view of the forged in battle ones, anyone know how FIB and PP paras compare?

Andy
PS I am coming down on the side of the PSC shermans as i get standard and fireflies in the one box. 2 boxes would give me 7 shermans and 3 fireflies for very little money

Zippee08 Jan 2016 11:35 a.m. PST

I've built both.

The PSC ones are crisp and once you get how they go together they are great, lots of crisp, clean detail.

The Battlefront ones are simpler and have more stowage, they also take turret magnets better but are god awful in terms of fit. Twisted and bent and require a ton of post build work to make them fieldable – lots of foliage and gobloads of mud help disguise the wobbly tracks. That said once built, sworn at and painted they look fine on the table.

Beowulf Fezian08 Jan 2016 12:27 p.m. PST

The new plastic FOW Shermans and StuG IIIs are a lot better than the earlier releases.

PiersBrand08 Jan 2016 12:57 p.m. PST

PSC British Airborne due soon…

sgt Dutch Supporting Member of TMP08 Jan 2016 2:03 p.m. PST

I agree with you Beowulf. The heavy IS tanks a very nice. Same with the Jagpanthers/panther are nice in plastic. I own both PSC and FOW models.

pigasuspig08 Jan 2016 6:17 p.m. PST

The godawful Battlefront Shermans are the first release of the Open Fire box set (green plastic). They later redid them and the StuGs: you get the new ones in the tank boxes (2 or 5 tanks), and in the new edition Open Fire box. I haven't built the new ones, but I expect they are precise and easy to build, like the other new BF plastic.

PSC tanks are easier to magnetize if you stick a washer inside the hull and replace the turret peg with a 3mm disk magnet.

Frothers Did It And Ran Away09 Jan 2016 2:48 a.m. PST

I've built both the old BF and new BF Stugs – old were ghastly, new were lovely. I'd check if the PSC Shermans have two or one piece tracks as their two piece tracks are a pain.

Bellbottom09 Jan 2016 3:29 a.m. PST

I think all PSC stuff comes with one piece tracks now, unless you're buying older second hand stuff. IIRC only the T34 and Panzer IV had the two part ones, and PSC now sell one piece add-ons to replace those.

Zippee09 Jan 2016 4:18 a.m. PST

pigasuspig:
"PSC tanks are easier to magnetize if you stick a washer inside the hull and replace the turret peg with a 3mm disk magnet."

That's true if the tank has a peg – not all of them do, many have circular collars, etc. It makes it a pain as you have to work out 'how to' for each style. I still love the kits. And yes AFAIK all now have one-piece tracks as an option – if you buy Panthers save yourself some grief and get them, the two piece ones were a nightmare!

Fair enough if it's old BF v new BF. I did a load for a friend (assorted Shermans, mostly 76mm but some 105mm, Stug IIIs and hanomags in a variety of greys and green plastic). They came with plastic US airborne and panzergrenadiers, sounds like it might have been the box set, I got them loose in a plastic carrier bag as he'd despaired of them. I can't comment on models I ain't seen but it wouldn't be hard for the new ones to be an improvement!

CptKremmen09 Jan 2016 8:49 a.m. PST

I have assembled PSC tanks before and HATE HATE HATE the 2 part tracks, they never go together properly.

What do you mean that one piece tracks are an "option" how do i request 1 piece tracks??

Andy

Bellbottom09 Jan 2016 9:29 a.m. PST

They're purchasable quite cheaply from the website
link
5 X sets for £2.99 GBP

CptKremmen09 Jan 2016 12:01 p.m. PST

They only seem to have them for T34 and Panzer IV. Can't find them for M4A4 and firefly shermans?

Zippee09 Jan 2016 12:16 p.m. PST

You're right, could have sworn they had Panther ones too. I admit I didn't have any issues with the Shermans.

Bellbottom09 Jan 2016 2:09 p.m. PST

I thought the T34 and Panzer IV were the only PSC kits with multi part tracks?

Zippee09 Jan 2016 3:48 p.m. PST

Nope check the build and sprue layout ODFs on each page. Shermans have two track halves and boggie assembly for each side of the hull but they fit well. The Panther has the same, the fit is less good.

There was much internet complaint about the T34 and PzIV when they were released leading to the new style tracks being made available and later models like the Comet come like that as standard.

Need a campaign for retro fitting one piece castings to the Panther and others

Zippee09 Jan 2016 4:56 p.m. PST

Doh that's Cromwells not Comets. It's late and the grandson is teething.

john lacour11 Jan 2016 5:27 p.m. PST

I also HATED the stug and PAK40 muzzle breaks, as they had the break in 2 pieces ie the end cage was very tiny and hard to set right.

jameshammyhamilton19 Jan 2016 12:33 p.m. PST

Personally I quite like the multi part tracks, it allows for more detail on the tracks and I have been able to make them easily enough.

One part tracks for me lack some detail as a simple byproduct of the way moulds work.

wizbangs21 Jan 2016 6:22 a.m. PST

I've had no problem with PSC 2-part tracks.

Regarding Forged in Battle infantry, I have mixed Russian support weapons teams in with my FOW and I can't tell which is which. They're bulky metal models, like the FOW models, but I find that they really don't have faces, so I wouldn't recommend them if you go for a high level of detail.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.