I know the author personally, and can assure you he did not take any short-cuts. He's an excellent draftsman & artist. Most of what he's drawn were sourced directly from phtos and measurements he secured during many visits to the displays at Aberdeen, Md. Those visits took place in the late 60s and early 70s. Any Brit old enough to remember the old Bellona booklets should remember his line drawings in those publications.
He may have missed a bolt or two, but the general outline should be accurate and to scale. Admittedly, his forte' is North Africa; 1940-43.
Thanks for the comments. The old Bellona books! Yes I recall those but never actually owned any of them (being in Argentina, and a kid, it wasn't easy to get foreign books here).
I ordered this book specifically to check the Mk.IV tank ditching rails, but while they are visible on the plans, they omitted the detail view of how they are attached at each end. But I guess I can draw that based on what I've already have!
The best surviving example of the detail you're looking for is the Royal Army Museum in Brussels. Their MkIV retains the rails and the timber. I took numerous pics of the beast and have them around my hobby room somewhere. The angle iron rail is bent and flattened where attached. I'm sure a search will find a few detail shots of both the rear and front of the vehicle.
Yes, I have gathered quite a few pictures of this specific rail, plus what I have from period pictures showing a degree of reasonable variations from tank to tank, showing that they were made in different workshops from perhaps a sketch or a basic direction from the central technical office. What seems to be a constant is the shape of the mid-hull roof brackets. But some rails seem to have an assortment of different approachs to how were angled to meet the inside walls of the track extensions at each end. If I get a presentable drawing I'll share it in a new thread. After all, it'll be just a modification to improve the given rails on the Emhar 1/72 kit.
In examining his drawings, I have noticed omissions when comparing elevations to plans - certainly more than a "bolt or two", but the plans cover the general arrangements pretty adequately. Perhaps it's because of decades of reading drawings on a daily basis that I notice things more than the average person who just looks at the drawings from an interest point of view.