Sherman large numbers on my IIC, Yea or Nea?

[X82d Pathfinder]

To use or not to use large turret numbers. That is the question! I have large turret numbers that seem to be very common for the Normandy landings, yet I have seen few on those used in the Market-Garden. So at this juncture, I guess it boils down to taste.
What say you? I thought I'd ask some of you what you thought.

-Dan

[Pak36]

Personally...I would leave the numbers off.

I suspect most Shermans would have just been delivered to units with no time wasted painting marking numbers on. I also think, from what I have read about the post D-Day use of tanks, that units were swapping and changing tanks all the time, so it would have been pointless to number them!

One of the best reads on the period I have found is Ken Tout's book 'Tank'. Gives an excellent feel for the period and the general organisation of units then.

[greengiant]

From pictures Ive seen the stars were on the tanks along with the original issued unit identification numbers . changes were made to the unit marking only when tanks stayed in a unit for a time after being trasfered to a new unit or left off completely so the Germans wouldnt know what units they were engageing. Near the wars end it seems that most tanks had all their units marking applied.

[X82d Pathfinder]

Green:
The Brits seemed to make use of turret-tall colorful numbers. Light blue, yellow, red, etc. Most have netting over one side and they show on the side and rear radio box or storage box if equipped. The unit designators always seem to be present on the front and rear of the armor in those pictures that weren't obscured for OPSEC reasons. I elected to go without the large colorful numbering, however I did enlarge the decals from the Dragon Firefly kit and applied them to the storage box. Anyway, thank you for the input. The 99.9% completed tank less the figures being I had to section up the only Brit tankers I could find to work early style copula.

[Dietrich]

Hi,
I would leave the numbers off.....Watch this video and it rather highlights the Shermans....lack of suitability as a fighting tank.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns6l7sCoWX4

I suspect that some of the "crewmen" were changing tanks very often and with tanks being recommissioned once 'Washed-Out' and repainted...then the numbers were irrelevant....The numbers also makes the tank even easier to spot by the Germans....
Alb.

[X82d Pathfinder]

Alb-
I was noting the moronic commentary on this posting. The Shermans were built to counter the PZ III, IV.
However, most don't take into account transportation issues that would have came into play with larger armor. The U.S. 76 and 90MM as well as the Brit 17 pounder was certainly the equal of the Panther 75MM offering. The Monday morning quaterbacks are about as ignorant as the day is long. Sheer number was the order of the day. However, the U.S. should have re-tooled long before they did and up-gunned the Sherman like the Brits did. They were really never created for tank on tank battles. Flat out impossible to beat the reliability of a Sherman as well. Not to mention having one of the longest service life of any tank in history to this point. There could have been a huge influx in Pershing's, but Patton refused them. Not wise in my assessment.
Back to the original subject matter, but I elected not to use the large colored numbers, just the unit identifiers on the storage box and it's sides. I also noted no large colored numbers on any Brit armor during Market-Garden in the materials I could find. Thanks for replying.
-Dan