Doing the Dragon VVSS kit. A photo of it in the Concord Battle of the Bulge book says its an M4, rather than an M4A3. Other than changing the rear deck and the back of the hull-A donor M4A1 is being aquired-are there other changes? Is the rear hull plate at a different angle?
This tank also has duckbills on the track. Any 1/72 sets out there, or a good way to scratch build them?
Finally-a photo of tank #16 from this unit shows the early split commanders hatch is mounted, so I'd bet #15 would have it too. Is the split ring hatch in the Dragon M4A1 normandy kit separate, including the ring? Will it come close to fitting the 105 turret?

Hi; let's go:
1- The Howitzer M4 had the upper engine plates used in Composite Hull M4s and M4A1 (76)W without filler caps side to the upper raised hatch and with a single filler cap in the bigger rear plate. So the more suited should be taken from a Dragon M4A1 (76)W. But also had the fuel tanks ventilation raised bulbs and, more important, the rear plate was angled 0 to 5º, not in 10 to 22º as the M4A3, and lacked the lower cut seen in M4s and M4A1s, being straight.
Well, you can take the engine upper plates, ventilation bulbs and rear engine air cleaners and vertical engine lower plate from an Dragon M4A1 (76)W, but I remember you that you must to cut the rear plate, remove the "squared" lower surface tracing a straight line connecting the side cutouts for the tracks and reshape the side and upper plates to get an almost vertical angle and glue the rear plate.
2- In plastic not; MR Modellbau (was really this brand? I don't remember...) has T47 tracks with duckbills in white metal.
3- Indeed the early M4 (105) had the split hatched commander cupola. You could take it too from the M4A1 (76)W, as in Dragon M4A1s (and M4A3 (105)) are separated pieces that fits perfectly in the commander side.
As I said Normandy M4A1 (75) are not the perfect donor kit, as its upper engine plate is not OK for Howitzer M4s; the model used in M4A1 (76)W it's perfect and the cupola and other parts are here too.
I have almost finished an conversion of an M4A3 hull to M4 (105) standards, and I strongly reccomend you to buy the new UM M4 (105) HVSS and replace the HVSS running gear with an VVSS one, sure will be easier. Yes, you also need to replace the turret, as UM strangely included a low-bustle model, but if you buy an Trumpeter M4A3 (75)W for the running gear you also have a nice high-bustle turret with split hatched cupola. UM Shermans are not finely detailed as Dragon ones, but are valuable and with Trumpeter pieces looks quite good.
Hope this help you.
Cheers: Luis.

I'm just gonna build mine OOB.....

... the markings provided by Dragon are for tanks that really were M4 (105), NOT M4A3 (105). In fact, the bulk of Howizter Shermans were M4s, not M4A3s, so, if Dragon don't want to do an M4 (105) hull, perhaps the best way should choice more accurately the color and markings depicted in their references. Well, too Eduard and UM failed in the marking provided by both (I'm not sure about the encircled-starred choice in Eduard box, perhaps was really an M4A3), so the flaw is common.
I'll apply Dragon decals in my UM rectified models; perhaps not refined as Dragon sisters but at least M4s.
Cheers: Luis.

Sadly for me, I don't know enough what the differences are between the two, particularly when looking at them in 1/72 scale. I guess I don't know enough what all the bobs and bumps, grills and indentations are on these tanks so I don't know what to change or leave the same. If they put in the wrong decals, I'll have to accept an incorrect model, or maybe if I can find the proper markings in 1/72 scale, I can build then and use those AM markings. We'll see what happens.

Just use generic stars over OD if you want an M4A3(105) and leave it pristine like it just left the manufacturers.
If you want to simulate an M4, the changes are primarily, as we've discussed, on the rear deck and upper and lower hull rear. If you are inclned you could use the rear lower hull parts from an M4A1(w). The rear deck, you could just cover with stowage from the turret on back to hide the differences if removing and replacing whats there, and changing the angle of the rear hull plate seems too much work. The real tank, of which a good photo exists, was pretty heavily burdened in this way, so its prototypical to a degree. you should at least trim the rear hull plate so that the bottom is even with the sponsons all the way across, and ignore the incorrect hull angle as most kit manufacturers have gotten it wrong for years, too..or say the heck with it, and finish it as you like. It is, as they say, your model.

Both the split hatch and the copula in the 105 kits are separate parts.
In the other kits the "hatch ring" is molded in place.
HTH Ken

Thanks for the info guys. So an M4A1 76 is a better donor, got it. Luis, I didn't want to get the UM kit (considered it) for a couple of reasons. First I plan on building a collection of Shermans, and I'd like a certain amount of consistancy in detailing, and size. Does the UM compare favorably dimensionally to the DML kits, at least? The sprue shots on Jadar's web site show it's lacking in detail like weld beads and the area around the driver and co-driver hatches looks "flatter" than the DML to me. I would use the separate engine deck and rear hull, possibly, from the UM kit, but again, would they be dimensionally compatable with the DML? Those are the main reasons I did not aquire a UM kit.
I do like UM's separate tools. How are they? The molded on DML ones kind of bug me, but they are petite and nicely shaped. Separate but oversized or blobby/soft molded would be worse IMHO.

As far as the engine deck......
The panels that com with the UM kit are 22mm wide,
the engine deck area on the Dragon hull is roughly 20-21mm wide,
so "if" you worked at it, you could put that in.
You would have to be very "precise", there is no room for mistakes.
The Hatches are indeed "flatter" and with no detail on the inner surfaces.
Dragon's are better.
The tools for the UM kit are OK but,
the one that I have has flash with the tools....
and the shovel is crap (Dragon's better).
The Dragon molded on tools can be treated by taking a "brand new" #11 blade,
and giving them a "slight" under cut.
HTH
Ken

I think I'll stay with plan A, adjusted to use the M4A1(76).

... so few commentaries could be written.
UM hull looks a bit short or "fat", like ancient ESCI M4A3, but only because the rear plates, separated pieces, includes the cut-out rear of the side plates appropiated angled according to the model. Although insured the proper angle of the rear plate, modeler should make himself the welding seam.
Talking about welding seams, indeed UM Sherman lacks every welding seam, raised o reccesed.
The hatches lacks also inner detail or is simply sparse.
Tools are separated pieces, not so good as Dragon ones.
And about upper engine plates, I agree with Ken: are "silver bullet" that needs very careful preparation and don't allow mistakes.
In short: buy an M4A1 (76)W as you planned. Don't buy UM Sherman instead you'll not pay much attention to fine detail or are able (or want) to do yourself fine details like welding seams, etc.
UM M4 looks in some aspects closer to ESCI/Italeri M4. So close that much pieces are interchangeable (i.e.: the turrets). As I'm seasoned about ESCI Shermans and I'm a freak of transformations I'm very fond about UM Shermans because the spoken compatibility and the truck-load of alternative or non-used pieces of UM model, that allows to scratch-build other models but, quite frankly, Dragon M4s are much better detailed and are more accurate in key points.
My e-mail is open for any commentary about your planned transformation; I hope to finish my own M4 (105) transformation the following week, so I promised to show pics.
Cheers: Luis.