Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

The M4 Sherman Tank Epic Information Thread.. (work in progress)


Recommended Posts

New section

 

Bibliography and sources: Yeah I Know Sources on Each Post Would be Nice, I’m Working on it

 

So yes, I know the site would be better with a list of sources, and this is going to be that post for now. I will also, as I review and rewrite all the articles over time, add them to each post.

 

A bit about the site, and myself, I’m just a guy who really likes WWII history, and more specifically, WWII tank history. I am not an expert on the Sherman, but I do know a hell of a lot about it, and I have a lot of opinions about it as well, and much of this site is me sharing that opinion. The hard data is not my opinion, the specifications, and other details are not my opinion and come from many different sources.  Most of these are listed in the book review, and links section. There is even a data post with a whole lot of useful information in picture format of various documents.

 

First and foremost, most of the minutia details come from reading the Sherman Minutia Website a lot and looking through the Son of a Sherman book. Between these two sources, you can answer almost any question about a production detail on a Sherman you may have, and the nice thing about the SMW is it’s always being updated. I only cover these details in a very general way, I could never do it as well as the book or site.

 

My next big source of information is period literature, and manuals. If you haven’t noticed, I have a very large selection of technical manuals and field manuals on my website, all available for download, for free. I’ve collected a huge number of the things over the years, most in PDF format, but a few in real paper, and I’ve read a hell of a lot of them.  I am missing a few key Technical Manuals, like one on the M4/M4A1, I have the M4A2, A3 and A4 covered though, and several TDs and the Lee. I’m pretty confident I could start up and drive around and M4A2 or A3 or even A4 and adjust the clutch linkage and do a host of other maintenance tasks from reading through the manuals on how to do them. These old tanks are so similar to old cars is funny, and if you know a good bit about old cars the manuals should be very easy to follow, the big difference is the size of the tools and weights involved.

Along with the TM and FMs I’ve hosted a lot of other documents I’ve found on the internet, from battalion and division histories, the very interesting Combat Lessons booklets the DOD put out during WWII, and I’ve taken information from all these sources.

Now for the books, so many books, most of these I own, and love, but a few I only have on PDF. I already mentioned Son of a Sherman Volume one. If you have any interest in the Sherman tank, you should by the book while it’s in print and reasonable in price, it’s fantastic. It also had some of the better info I used in the factories post.

 

Sherman: A History of the American Medium Tank, by RP Hunnicutt is the holy grail of Sherman books. So much information about the production history, use, design, modifications, and hard specifications on this site come from this book. The gun chart data came from here, all the data sheets, and a lot of the future things that almost made it came from here as well. This book is currently in print again, for 60 buck paperback, 70 hardback. Buy it now, before it goes back into the hundreds after going out of print. Though slightly dated in is short history of battle sections, it is still an amazing book, and really the only hard technical history of the Sherman that is really great.

 

Armored Thunderbolt: The US Army Sherman in WWII, by Steven Zaloga this book, when combined with Son of a Sherman and RP Hunnicutt’s Sherman book will give you a very good knowledge base on the both the technical and historical histories of the tank, and if you throw in Son of a Sherman you have all the minute details covered. With these three books you can really get a good idea how wrong the pop culture opinion of the Sherman and German armor in general really is.  So a little more about this book, Zaloga covers both the design history, though not in minute detail, (You will not find detailed specification sheets, or a breakdown of the exact details of the differences in all Sherman models) but he does cover much more of the politics and decision making the led to some of the key problems that popped up with the Sherman, US Tank design, and armor tactics.  In this book and several Interesting interviews, he really covers why Belton Cooper of Deathtraps fame was so wrong. He also has a lot of the numbers in his book backing up the Sherman performing in battle better than the Panther. Zaloga is a prolific writer and has put a lot down on paper about the Sherman, and I’ve read almost all of it, aside from a few older Osprey New Vanguard books.

 

The Tank Killers, Steel Victory, and the Infantry’s Armor, by Harry Yeide, These books are another big source they are really great books covering the use of Tank Destroyers and the Separate Tank Battalions.  Yeide is both knowledgeable and easy to read, and I will continue to buy every book he puts out.

 

Marine Tank battles of the Pacific by Oscar Gilbert, in comparison to to Sherman use elsewhere, until recently info on the Shermans use in the pacific was pretty light. This book is specific to the Marines and cover more than just Sherman use, but it does a pretty good job of covering each battle, and most of the info, along with some histories from the Marine Corps were used for the old Tarawa post. His book on Marine tank use in Korea also has some Sherman use covered, and is a good read as well.

 

Tanks in Hell by Oscar Gilbert and Romain Cansiere, is a very recent and very detailed study of the use of Marine Shermans on Tarawa.  It is the most detailed history available on the Shermans use in that battle and clears up some mysteries and misconceptions. It was a great read and I just finished it up.

 

There are so many books on the Sherman out there, I’ve tried to read any I could, but the ones listed are the best and most important. I do not read books just on the Sherman tank, and at one time was what one could consider a wehraboo, and I know the guy who invented the word too, so I have that going for me. Anyway, while a wehraboo, I collected some of the premium good source books on German tanks.  Reading through Panther Tank by Thomas L Jentz started me down the path to salvation, the combat readiness reports found in that book; even on the late model G Panther are truly pathetic, though it is really a beautiful book. I also have Panther and its Variants by Walter Speilberger, another beautiful book, filled with beautiful illustrations on a tank so unreliable to be almost useless. I have Jentz’s two books on the Tiger, D.W to Tiger I and Tiger I&II Combat tactics. Also very nice books but based on old outdated historical information when it comes to the unit histories, but boy are the pictures great. I have Speilburger’s books on the Panzer III and IV, both great books, and the subject matter is more interesting since these were the real stars of the German tank design, in that at least they worked and offered real value to the German Army.  I’ve read Tigers in the mud, and even enjoyed it.  There are of course more, but that covers the really big stuff/good stuff.

Other important sources are sites like Archive Awareness, who author takes Russian Soviet era archive documents and translates them and offers opinions on them. He has some very interesting information on the Sherman tank on his site, and far more on Russian tanks and German lies.  Some say he is biased, but if he is, it’s against Nazi propaganda that still lives on to stink up the world, and I’m fine with that.

 

The Chieftains Hatch of  Wargaming fame, like him or not has produced some very interesting new information about various tanks, and his publication of the French post war report on Panther use is a real eye opener, and was ground breaking info. I have links to many of his very interesting posts in the links section. Like World of Tanks or not, they have dropped a lot of real cash on restoring real tanks, and paying real researchers to unearth interesting tank information, that they deserve some real credit for furthering the modern understanding of Armor. Wargaming also got a lot of armor experts in one place as a panel and let the crowd as questions, it is on YouTube and filled with very interesting info.

 

If I have it listed in my links, information from their website has probably contributed to a post on this site.

Now a final bit about sources and this site, all the information in the various posts is true to the best of my knowledge and sources. Some information, mostly image captions is very generic and often wrong, and many helpful people have posted corrections, and I’m always grateful for it.  If you think I’m wrong on something, and you can back it up with sourced info, by all means, contact me through the site email, or posting a comment so I can correct any mistakes. I try and keep the site from being about my ego in any way, and will listen to reasonable people with reasonable arguments and most importantly, data and source info to back it up. Don’t bother if your ‘source info’ originated with a German wartime SS source, their war time numbers are not at all accurate, and even the German army discounted them.

 

On a final note, am I a fanboy of the Sherman, in a sense, I suppose, but a true fanboy does not understand the flaws of their subject of obsession, and in my case that’s not true. I know the Sherman had flaws, it like all things created by man, was an engineering trade off, and the ones they chose, were the right ones for the US Army in WWII, and even only one armed 75mm armed version could have carried the day in Europe. Or that’s my opinion anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

New section, maybe the most exciting post on the Sherman ever!! 

 

The Escape Hatch, Interior Lighting, and Auxiliary Generator: Why? Because People Want to Know About Sherman Interior Lighting

 

The Escape Hatch: If You Can’t Get Out the Top Get Out the Bottom

 

All Sherman tank production models and most of the TDs and ARVs based on the Sherman had an escape hatch right behind the co driver’s position. The location and size of the hatch stayed the same, but it the ones installed on TDs seem to be different than the ones installed on tanks. None seem to have been hinged though, a common field modification; adding steel tabs to one side of the hatch so it doesn’t fall all the way out was a common modification on both tanks and TD. This field mod was made a factory installation on at least the M36 B2.

 

The escape hatch on early Shermans with a full turret basket was only really useable by the driver and co-driver. The driver would have to climb over the transmission to get to it, but the area was pretty large to get through. The reason the turret crew couldn’t use it, or it would be hard for them to use it, was the turret basket on early Sherman models it was fully screened in.  There were openings, so the loader could reach the hull sponson ammo, but to use these, the turret had to be in the right place, and not facing forward. These openings, when turned towards the co-driver or driver would allow them access to the turret, or the turret crew to the hull.

 

When they decided the initial ammo storage layout was to dangerous, they removed the screening, and the ready rounds, making access to the hull for the turret crew much easier, but there was s till the turret basket floor, and the braces attaching the floor to the turret to get in the way.  As the Sherman matured, the basket on the second generation Shermans was cut back to a half basket, and then eventually removed. Once this was done, using the floor escape hatch was much more convenient for the turret crew.

 

The Shermans escape hatch was located just behind the 1 inch thick armor under the driver and BOG, where it was only half an inch. Far enough back there was not much of a chance of the crew being seen as they exit.  The hatch was not used for just escape, I’ve read many accounts of the hatch being used to rescue wounded and or just pinned down men under heavy machine gun fire.  The men would be told to lay still, and the tank would be directed onto them by the infantry in the area, in some cases one of them riding in the tank and when close the man on the ground would make sure the tank was going to straddle him and then waited to be run over. Once the tank was over them man, the escape hatch was dropped, the man pulled in and the tank would back out. This could be repeated as needed in the pacific, since in many cases the Japanese had nothing that could take on the Sherman locally.

 

One final thought on the escape hatch, the reason it was fairly large and far back under the hull was because there were no torsion bars to worry about getting in the way. Later US tanks did have hull escape hatches, but they were usually further forward due to torsion bar use, and different driver’s location. You can see this on the M26 Pershing, where the escape hatches, there was one each for the driver and co-driver, were right under driver and co drivers station. In some cases large mines could blow these escape hatches up into the crew compartment, injuring the driver or co driver. This could take place on a Sherman, but no crew member was right over the hatch.

 

Interior Lighting: Because the Interior of a Tank is Dark, and People Want to Know About the Lights.

 

The interior of a Sherman tank is a pretty dark place, even during the middle of the day, particularly on the early models, when buttoned up.  The only light would be what could come in through the various periscopes, if they were open, or the DV ports on DV Shermans.  On late model Shermans with the all-around vision cupola would be a little better but still not great. Opening the hatches and the pistol port of course helps a lot, but you can’t run that way when they are shooting at your Sherman.

 

Now those clever engineers who designed the tank thought about this one, and they provided the early Sherman crew with three interior dome lights in the hull and four or five on later Shermans, and the instrument panel and compass were illuminated.  The turret had an additional two interior lights on early tanks, and three on later Shermans. These lights were all three candlepower.

Early Sherman interior lights were white light only, but later ones had a red light as well to help with night vision. The lights are all in series with the master battery switch, so it must be on for them to work. Think 70s car dome light for brightness levels.

 

The Auxiliary Generator: All Shermans Had One, Even the TDs and ARVs

 

The Homelite Model HRUH-28 was the exact model used; the Army used this Aux Gen well into the 50s. Homelite also made other models for aircraft use, and they may have sold them commercially.  There were a few differences in the installation, on early production Shermans, it was installed with a simple muffler that had an outlet at the rear of the vehicle, and the heat generated by the use of the generator was called an added feature, and was the tanks ‘heater’. Later versions had a ducting system that vented the heat into the engine compartment to help pre warm the engine in cold weather, or vented into the crew compartment to heat it. The ducting added about 15 pounds to the unit, for a total of 140 pounds.

 

The motor that powered it was gas powered, even on the diesel tanks, and was a single cylinder, air cooled, 2-cycle with a 2 3/8 inch bore and 2 1/8 inch stroke. It operated at 3400 to 3700rpm and burned half a gallon of gas, mixed with oil for lubrication, an hour.  It could be run on gas 80 to 100 in octane, used a magneto ignition and a forged rod, crank, and piston.  The Generator could be started in two ways, if the tanks batteries had enough juice, it could be started by motorizing the Generator with the battery, or manually, with a supplied rope with a handle, on the starting plate.

 

The Generator portion of the unit generated 1500 watts, DC, 30 volts. It was shunt-wound for battery charging. The Armature had a high quality steel core, and was laminated, impregnated and backed to give high resistance to oil, moisture and dust. The field coils were made the same way as the Armature The whole unit, motor and generator, used ball bearings throughout.

 

There was a short 10 item list of things the tank crew could do to maintain the auxiliary generator, and the final one was remove it and put the new one/refurbished one in. looking over the technical manual for the generator (TM9-1731K), and reviewing its construction, it was both heavy duty in construction, and designed to give long trouble free service.  The unit took the up rear part of the sponson on the driver’s side and had a dome light right near it on most Shermans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, here's the final, 2200 word section on Sherman lighting, escape hatches and the auxiliary generator. 

 

The Escape Hatch, Interior Lighting, Exterior lighting and Auxiliary Generator: Why? Because People Want to Know About Sherman Interior Lighting The Escape Hatch: If You Can’t Get Out the Top Get Out the Bottom

escape-hatch.png

All Sherman tank production models and most of the TDs and ARVs based on the Sherman had an escape hatch right behind the co driver’s position. The location and size of the hatch stayed the same, but it the ones installed on TDs seem to be different than the ones installed on tanks. None seem to have been hinged though, a common field modification; adding steel tabs to one side of the hatch so it doesn’t fall all the way out was a common modification on both tanks and TD. This field mod was made a factory installation on at least the M36 B2.

 

The escape hatch on early Shermans with a full turret basket was only really useable by the driver and co-driver. The driver would have to climb over the transmission to get to it, but the area was pretty large to get through. The reason the turret crew couldn’t use it, or it would be hard for them to use it, was the turret basket on early Sherman models it was fully screened in.  There were openings, so the loader could reach the hull sponson ammo, but to use these, the turret had to be in the right place, and not facing forward. These openings, when turned towards the co-driver or driver would allow them access to the turret, or the turret crew to the hull.

 

M10-36-escape-hatch.png

When they decided the initial ammo storage layout was to dangerous, they removed the screening, and the ready rounds, making access to the hull for the turret crew much easier, but there was still the turret basket floor, and the braces attaching the floor to the turret to get in the way.  As the Sherman matured, the basket on the second generation Shermans was cut back to a half basket, and then eventually removed. Once this was done, using the floor escape hatch was much more convenient for the turret crew.

 

The Shermans escape hatch was located just behind the 1 inch thick armor under the driver and BOG, where it was only half an inch thick. Far enough back there was not much of a chance of the crew being seen as they exit.  The hatch was not used for just escape, I’ve read many accounts of the hatch being used to rescue wounded and or just pinned down men under heavy machine gun fire.  The men would be told to lay still, and the tank would be directed onto them by the infantry in the area, in some cases one of them riding in the tank and when close the man on the ground would make sure the tank was going to straddle him and then waited to be run over. Once the tank was over them man, the escape hatch was dropped, the man pulled in and the tank would back out. This could be repeated as needed in the pacific, since in many cases the Japanese had nothing that could take on the Sherman locally.

 

One final thought on the escape hatch, the reason it was fairly large and far back under the hull was because there were no torsion bars to worry about getting in the way. Later US tanks did have hull escape hatches, but they were usually further forward due to torsion bar use, and different driver’s location. You can see this on the M26 Pershing, where the escape hatches, there was one each for the driver and co-driver, were right under driver and co drivers station. In some cases large mines could blow these escape hatches up into the crew compartment, injuring the driver or co driver. This could take place on a Sherman, but no crew member was right over the hatch.

Interior Lighting: Because the Interior of a Tank is Dark, and People want to know About the Lights.

Sherman-lights-both-main-types.png

The interior of a Sherman tank is a pretty dark place, even during the middle of the day, particularly on the early models, when buttoned up.  The only light would be what could come in through the various periscopes, if they were open, or the DV ports on DV Shermans.  On late model Shermans with the all-around vision cupola would be a little better but still not great. Opening the hatches and the pistol port of course helps a lot, but you can’t run that way when they are shooting at your Sherman.

 

m4a3-hull-lighting-wiring-diagram.png

Now those clever engineers who designed the tank thought about this one, and they provided the early Sherman crew with three interior dome lights in the hull and four or five on later Shermans, and the instrument panel and compass were illuminated.  The turret had an additional one to two interior lights on early tanks, and three on later Shermans. These lights were all three candlepower.

 

Early Sherman interior lights were white light only, but later ones had a red light as well to help with night vision. The lights are all in series with the master battery switch, so it must be on for them to work. Think 70s car dome light for brightness levels. There was also a third interior light type, used only on 105 Shermans, that didn’t look the same, but I do not have a picture of it at this time.

M4A3-drivers-side.png

blower-for-the-crew-1.pngExterior Lights: The Sherman Tank Had Those Too!

M4A3-drivers-side-headlight.png

The Sherman Tank had to drive on roads, sometimes in traffic, and at night. To facilitate this, the tank had removable headlights, and taillights.  The later model Shermans also had provisions for an amiable, removable spotlight mounted on the top of the turret.

The Headlights came in two varieties, a regular headlight, and a blackout headlight, both had blackout markers.  They would use the normal headlights anytime being observed at night was not important. If there was any chance of enemy observation, then just the blackout lights would be used. In extreme cases, just the black-out markers could be used.

M4A3-blackout-light-drivers-side.png

 

The tail lights were smaller than the headlights, and there was only one service taillight, and a pair of blackout taillights mounted in a pair of housings on the rear hull.

m4a3-taillight.png

 

Mid to to latish production turrets, and most 76mm turrets had a removable,  paintable from the inside, spot light added to the top of the turret. Many early Shermans that didn’t have the turret roof spotlight mount had it added during overhauls.

The headlights and taillights were controlled from the drivers panel by a four position switch. All the lights were removable, so they wouldn’t be damaged when the tanks went into combat.  

light-switch-settings.png

The Auxiliary Generator: All Shermans Had One, Even the TDs and ARVs, but they were not always the same unit

auxgen-early.png

 

The Homelite Model HRUH-28: Was the exact model used in most Sherman based Tanks and TDs; the Army used this Aux Gen well into the 50s. Homelite also made other models for aircraft use, and they may have sold them commercially.  There were a few differences in the installation, on early production Shermans, it was installed with a simple muffler that had an outlet at the rear of the vehicle, and the heat generated by the use of the generator was called an added feature, and was the tanks ‘heater’. Later versions had a ducting system that vented the heat into the engine compartment to help pre warm the engine in cold weather, or vented into the crew compartment to heat it. The ducting added about 15 pounds to the unit, for a total of 140 pounds.

 

early-aux-back.png

The motor that powered it was gas powered, even on the diesel tanks, and was a single cylinder, air cooled, 2-cycle with a 2 3/8 inch bore and 2 1/8 inch stroke. It operated at 3400 to 3700rpm and burned half a gallon of gas, mixed with oil for lubrication, an hour.  It could be run on gas 80 to 100 in octane, used a magneto ignition and a forged rod, crank, and piston.  The Generator could be started in two ways, if the tanks batteries had enough juice, it could be started by motorizing the Generator with the battery, or manually, with a supplied rope with a handle, on the starting plate.

 

m4a4-interior-manual-m4a4.png

The Generator portion of the unit generated 1500 watts, DC, 30 volts. It was shunt-wound for battery charging. The Armature had a high quality steel core, and was laminated, impregnated and backed to give high resistance to oil, moisture and dust. The field coils were made the same way as the Armature The whole unit, motor and generator, used ball bearings throughout.

 

early-sherman-hull-wiring-diagram-m4a2.p

early-sherman-hull-wiring-diagram-m4a2ke

There was a short 10 item list of things the tank crew could do to maintain the auxiliary generator, and the final one was remove it and put the new one/refurbished one in. looking over the technical manual for the generator (TM9-1731K), and reviewing its construction, it was both heavy duty in construction, and designed to give long trouble free service.  The unit took the up rear part of the sponson on the driver’s side and had a dome light right near it on most Shermans.

 

the-mystery-aux-gen.png

 

The Mystery Auxiliary Generator:  When I was going through all the Sherman Technical manuals looking for info on the lights and Aux Gen, I found a few

references to a model not made by Homelite. What’s interesting about this is, the Homelite tech manual is listed as a reference in most of the Sherman TMs that use it, but the mystery Aux Gen is not. I found most of the specifications for it but not everything and I found a few good pictures in the manuals, though one manual was useless in that area because it’s a horrible scan.

mystery-generator-installed.png

 

The Motor was a single cylinder like the Homelite, but it was a 4-cycle motor, the Homelite was a 2-cycle. The bore was 2 5/16 inches and the stroke was 2 1/4 inches. It ran between 2300 and 2550 rpm, and made 1.6 HP at 2300 rpm.

m4a3-hull-wiring-system.png

 

The Generator was 6 pole, and compound wound for starting, and shunt wound for generating. I assume it put out about the same amount of power as the Homelite unit, but the technical manuals I have do not state what it produced.

The whole unit appeared to take up less space, and may be the aux generator they used in some wet ammo rack hulls. If anyone has more info on this Auxiliary Generator, please contact me!

 

Both units had small fuel tanks in the engine compartment with their own filler caps. In some installs the gas tank may have been partially mounted inside the crew compartment.  I’m not sure if this version had an oil tank or was like the Homelite, that needed oil mixed into the fuel for oiling. I’m not sure why they used two different unit, the size probably had something to do with it, but it also could have been a supply issue, maybe like with the turret traverse systems, one maker couldn’t keep up?

different-style-aux-gen.png

 

 

. . .

 

 

A little note on the Technical Manuals, you would think they would be standardized, and in some ways they are. The early manuals, like the ones on the Lee tank, and early Shermans seem to be much shorter than the later versions, and none seem to cover the tank in the same way. They all seem to have an inventory of what the tank should come with, and it’s really huge, and a section on how to drive and maintain the tank. They all seem to have an electrical section, but what it actually covers varies.  The M4A4 tech manual has a huge section on the motor, but nearly nothing on how to use the main gun.  They do seem to get better as the Sherman aged, but the only late model manuals I have are for the M36B1 (TM9-748, TM9-745) and B2, and a horrible scan of the M4A3 manual(TM9-759). I have much better manuals for the M4A4 and M4A2 though. I really need a high quality 9-759!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A less exciting post than the one on lighting, but I think Sherman Urban Combat will interest a few people. 

 

 

 

City Tanking: The Tank Infantry Team in Cities and Towns

 

Tanks and cities do not like to mix, but when your job is to support the dough on the ground, when they goes into the city, so do the tanks.  So when your Armored Division if ordered to attack into an urban area, or the infantry division you’re supporting as a separate tank battalion goes into a city, so do your Shermans. When you really think about it, it’s a lot safer in a tank in an urban environment than for infantrymen, since they face all the same threats, but the tank has armor…

 

All the hiding places, and areas tanks can’t see or reach is what makes a town or city far more dangerous to armor. More than forest or jungle, the city gives the enemy infantry so many good places to hide, the already nearly blind tank is at just about as big a disadvantage as it could be at, and they only have firepower to use to thwart it, and at times the firepower was restricted. The clever US Army soldiers came up with solutions for this, like every other problem they encountered during the war.

 

The main threats to a tank in an urban environment are enemy grunts with TD weapons like the Panzerfaust or Panzerschreck, or even just grenades and improvised explosives.   Anti-tank guns would also still be a serious threat, but they are harder to hide in a city, but if they can be emplaced in the right kind of building, a stone, heavily constructed one, or area in the city that could cover many roads, like a hilly, mid-city park they can make a very tough strong point. In Europe, there are a lot of heavily constructed buildings too, but also large numbers of wood buildings a Sherman could bring down with ease, as long as it didn’t have a basement. If the defenders of the city have time to figure out all the good site lines and emplace things in ideal spots if they know a fight is coming, they can really make a city into a fortress.

 

The defenders of a town or city have a big advantage in setting up their defenses. First off, they know the layout of the city; they would not just have maps or aerial photos to rely on. They can also blow up buildings and create roadblocks to channel attacks.  When they set their city defenses up correctly they can setup roadblocks, covered machine guns, or even AT or infantry guns, which could not be engaged by the attackers behind the roadblock because of buildings and other obstructions.  Another advantage the defenders would be sure use would be pre ranging in their artillery and having it ready to drop right on key areas. If the town had any castles or other historic, large stone buildings, these would be troublesome hard points and in some cases bigger than the Shermans cannon could deal with.

 

Another big threat to everyone was the sniper. A hell of a lot of tank commanders, infantry sergeants and officers got offed by German snipers. Its well know, in the ETO, MTO and north Africa, most America tank commanders fought un-buttoned, making them prime targets.  It takes a ballsy sniper to take on a tank, because if they miss and the commander spots them, he’s going to respond in one of three ways.  By shooting at him with the tanks co-ax, by shooting him with the .50, or most likely off all, the 75mm with an HE round or WP round. Or all of the above and it takes even more guts to try and shoot a panzerfaust or Panzerschreck, and they get all of the above for sure.

 

All these things that make city fighting deadly for tanks make it absolute murder for the foot soldier.  In a tank you have armor, and if done right, a lot of men outside your tank there with the sole duty of defending it.  Including a dough sergeant riding on your back deck talking to your commander and when the shit hits the fan, the commander buttons up and the sergeant gets on the phone at the rear of the tank, and tells the commander what stuff to shoot. The key here though is they are outside, and the only cover they’ll have is the buildings around the tank, or the tank.  Far more doughs died in every engagement than tankers, and even more would die without the tanks around.

 

The proper way to use armor in the attack on a town, or city, was to start by offering to let them surrender. If they didn’t, depending on the politics around keeping the village intact, they may or may not shell the hell out of it before attacking. In many cases, the Nazi scum were occupying buildings in towns of countries they conquered and couldn’t care less if the places were wrecked and the town’s people killed, when they were forced out. The Allies cared to some degree, but only so much, and if the Germans put up a really stiff fight, some big divisional artillery would probably be called in.

 

The next step in any case would be for the infantry doughs to move out. They move into the town ahead of the tanks, and will take the buildings on either side of the roads the tanks will be forced to work on, before the tanks move up. If there is resistance in the first buildings, the tanks will be in view of them, and help support the infantry with direct fire. Once the buildings were secure, the tanks would move up, and the doughs would begin to attack the next set of buildings, that the Shermans would now be close enough to fire into.  If the first buildings are tough, the tanks may move up a little to support the infantry pulling back.

 

Once the attacking force had penetrated into the town or city, they have to be ever watchful of the German counter attack, that the Nazi forces, who knew the places they were just forced out of well, would attack, and try and cut off the tanks, sometimes using clever routes the allied forces might not know about. If they succeeded the tanks were in trouble, because the infantry could attack them from several directions at once, and while the turret was facing one way, walk right up and place a charge a weak spot and blow the tank up. They key here would be if the US line was getting weak for the tanks to pull back with the doughs, shooting the hell out of the buildings as they backed out.

 

Most of the time pulling back wouldn’t be needed, the Sherman tank when supported properly, could make short work of all but the most massive buildings. The 75mm guns 1.5 pound TNT HE round would make short would of wood buildings, and WP smoke would fill it with smoke and set it on fire. For harder buildings, constructed of things like brick or stone, they may have to punch a few holes with AP before sending HE rounds in through the same holes. Plus the Sherman has two medium machine guns, and the turret .50 manned by a dough adding to the firepower.  For anything really stubborn, they could bring in the 105 Sherman with its 6 pound HE charge.  We also know Shermans, even when working with independent tank battalions tried to at least operate in pairs.   

 

Even using the best tactics, tanks were lost, and many doughs went down, and while in allied countries, re taking ravished and conquered lands, restraint was encouraged and often shown. This was not the case in Germany and other pro-Nazi countries. Once in the lands of the enemy, and after seeing concentration and death camps most allied troops were unwilling to show restraint when the Nazis decided to make things hard and use a town as a strong point. Burning a whole town flat wasn’t out of the question if the Nazis fought hard, or the population helped much.

 

In some crowds, it is popular to decry the treatment the German people got by the Allies, when the tied had turned and it was clear Nazi Germany was done for.  I’m not going to knock the good guys for being harsh to the Germans, soldier, criminal SS or civilian, I didn’t have to fight against the most evil regime in modern human history, and see the evil shit they did first hand, and am more than willing to accept they felt some Nazis, no matter their age, sex or type, deserved no mercy.  The Nazi regime showed no mercy for the 6 million Jews, and 6 million other un-desirables, after robbing them of everything including their hair, before murdering them in the death camps.  They killed tens of millions of Russian civilians, and raped so much, they planted that seed in the Russians. The Nazi German regime raped, murdered and robbed its way across Europe, they are lucky mankind had come far enough to not imprison every living adult German make or worse. This site will never support Nazi propaganda, myths, lies or popularize war criminals like many other websites on the internet.  

 

. . .

 

There was also something called the tank raid, but it fell out of favor pretty early on, and depended on the enemy having no idea you were coming.  This was basically a commando raid with tanks; they break through in lightly defended area, and romp and stomp and then move on, before much resistance can build.

 

Using these tactics, the tanks, and any infantry riding them, could do a lot of damage to a unit that was capable of knocking them out, and running away before they got the chance, AA units, any kind of artillery really. If you can think of a unit that would be behind the lines, but somewhat close, your tank raid could come and ruin their night or early morning, or late evening.  On a big scale, this is what the Armored Divisions were envisioned doing, but rarely got the chance to do.

 

The big danger  is in staying in one place long enough for a strong response to be formed,  moving out into a unit that knew you were coming and has armor or anti-tank guns, or getting cut off an hunted down. Other problems are tanks breaking down, and getting lost, and not having enough space for everyone on the working vehicles. So for these to work they had to have limited objectives, a way in and out, and enough good intelligence on the area to know the areas to avoid that could kill your tanks.  That’s a serious list of problems to overcome to make this work, and when tried, even in the Pacific, it usually resulted in a lot of lost tanks and dead or captured tankers and doughs.

 

The train yard scene in the movie Kelly’s Heroes is a decent example of this, as far as movies go. This could also happen on accident when things were unsettled during a large attack, parts of units trying to get back to friendly lines could run into supply units trying to find the attackers and fights could take place.  There were cases were tanks were sent into urban areas by infantry officers who had no idea how to properly use tanks, but this went badly most of the time.  On occasion TDs were asked to fill in for tanks in the infantry support role, but this was a harder job for them since they had open top turrets, less armor and fewer machine guns.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Here are some close up photos of the Sherman at Snigeri (lightly scuffed). Anything cool about it? http://nektonemo.livejournal.com/7221761.html

 

Some of that genuinely broke my heart. The engine for example.

 

(Not that the U.S. treats it's historic armor any better. In fact far, far worse)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Looks like a former Firefly Vc.  Those boggies are spaced pretty far apart, thats the main identifier for the A4/vC hull.  It also may be a transform or however you say the name for the A4s re engined with the R975. I have no idea what motor that tank actually has in it now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There seems to be a tube/pipe of sorts coming off of the center of the engine deck there.  Don't think I've ever seen such coming off a Sherman.

 

Yeah, that's what has me wondering whats in it.  I vaguely remember something about a diesel install of some type that wasn't what the Israelis did, but I don't remember any details. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A post about the putt-putts...

 

They were made in far greater quantity than the vehicles, and were not uncommon into my childhood.

 

I remember seeing them for sale in a nearby surplus store, ad not being a popular seller because they needed premix.

One could buy a B&S powered Homelite or a surplus Wisconsin (From the M16) for a skosh more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These Paraguay Shermans came originally from Argentina.  The Argentinians called their modified Sherman the "Sherman Repotenciado."  

 

According to a face book post by The Armor Journal ( not to be confused with ARMOR, the official journal of the armor branch):

 

The Sherman-Repotenciado, an Argentinian Upgrade of 450 Ex-Belgian M4 Sherman Tanks, among them about 250 Firefly IC and -VC, bought in the 40s. In 1976 the Argentinian Army upgraded 120 (other sources states 250) of these Tanks with new, french Poyaud 520 V-8 520 HP Dieselengines, 105mm FTR 44/57 guns (a argentinian copy of the french CN-105-57 gun), Belgian 7,62mm MAG-58 Co-Ax-MGs and Turretmounted Smokedischargers. The chassis and tracks were also slightly changed and the Turret equipped with Stowagebaskets at the rear. Due to the size of the 105mm rounds the Loader and Radiooperator was removed and the crew reduced to 3 man

 

Of course, you all would have already known about Paraguay and the Sherman Repotenciado if you had read the post I made about it on my site back on January 1, 2016.  See, while you were all busy sleeping off your New Years Eve hangovers, I was selflessly posting about tanks, doing what I can to entertain and educate all of you who thirst for tank knowledge.   :P 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These Paraguay Shermans came originally from Argentina.  The Argentinians called their modified Sherman the "Sherman Repotenciado."  

 

According to a face book post by The Armor Journal ( not to be confused with ARMOR, the official journal of the armor branch):

 

The Sherman-Repotenciado, an Argentinian Upgrade of 450 Ex-Belgian M4 Sherman Tanks, among them about 250 Firefly IC and -VC, bought in the 40s. In 1976 the Argentinian Army upgraded 120 (other sources states 250) of these Tanks with new, french Poyaud 520 V-8 520 HP Dieselengines, 105mm FTR 44/57 guns (a argentinian copy of the french CN-105-57 gun), Belgian 7,62mm MAG-58 Co-Ax-MGs and Turretmounted Smokedischargers. The chassis and tracks were also slightly changed and the Turret equipped with Stowagebaskets at the rear. Due to the size of the 105mm rounds the Loader and Radiooperator was removed and the crew reduced to 3 man

 

Of course, you all would have already known about Paraguay and the Sherman Repotenciado if you had read the post I made about it on my site back on January 1, 2016.  See, while you were all busy sleeping off your New Years Eve hangovers, I was selflessly posting about tanks, doing what I can to entertain and educate all of you who thirst for tank knowledge.   :P 

 

 

I'm sure that must be what I remembered badly, no, really! B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

First draft of new post

 

Civilian Sherman Use: Hollywood, Loggers Farmers and Frat Boys

Since the Sherman tank was produced in huge numbers, and the Army didn’t need that many, and even after taking the best for themselves, mothballing the best of the ones they didn’t for use as military aid to struggling allies, they still had a bunch of small hatch M4 tank of various types sitting around.  The US Government decided there might be a civilian market for the tanks and put them up for sale as surplus.

 

It was not just Sherman tanks that would go on sale after the war, actually before the war ended in the case of aircraft.  When the war ended the US Government was saddled with so much, now essentially useless, war material, in many cases they just left it to rot where it was sitting. They bulldozed the stuff into ditches or off cliffs, or dumped it into the ocean. That was the fate of most of the war material in the pacific theater.  There are heartbreaking photos of P-38 Lighting fighters bulldozed off a cliff in the Philippines.

 

The war material, tanks, planes, trucks, tools, bulldozers, tug boats, etc. back in the United States would mostly be melted down for scrap,  thousands of B-17 and B-24 bombers, P-40s, P-38s, P-47s, you name it, if it flew, it was surplused after the war. Many airlines snapped up the transport planes and cargo planes, but just about all the fighters and bombers got scrapped. For about the price of a nice new car you could have owned any of the fighters, brand new, with full tanks of gas. Many fighters were bought up for use as air racers, or use as surveying aircraft, but at that point in time no one cared enough about them to consider preserving them, with exceptions for particularly historically significant aircraft.

 

You could buy Shermans in running condition, with the gun DE milled, for about the price of a nice used car.  I do not think the Sherman was a hot seller, though a few civilians here and there bought them for the novelty. They did sell to some construction company’s here and there, other companies bought them up in droves, and all the other vehicles that used the Sherman powertrain, and began converting the hulls into specialized equipment used in construction, mining, and forestry.    

Several companies, Finning, Traxxon, and Morpac made rocking drilling machines based on Sherman hulls, the whole upper hull being replaced by the drill and superstructure. Madill seems to have specialized in converting Sherman hulls into mobile ‘yarders’,  a central tower with winches, used to pull freshly cut trees up to an area to be further processed and loaded on trucks. These companies were mostly Canadian, and Morpac is still making heavy duty off road load carriers based on Sherman suspension components.

 

Vickers used Sherman hulls and suspension to make heavy duty tractors for peanut farming in Africa.  These heavy tractors were to be used to clear land for the farms. They only used the suspension, final drives, differentials and tracks, the transmission was different and they used a large inline six for power.

Some power companies used drilling machines based on the Sherman tank as well, but I am not sure if they are the same as the drills made by Finning and Traxxon.  In at least one other case a company named Abdo S Allen Co. used a Sherman tank they bought surplus in the 60s as a heavy duty building destroyer. They used the M4A3E8 Sherman, with no dozer blade or anything to knock down large swaths of houses in North West Oakland California in the late 60s.  They could be the only destruction company to figure out they could use a tank for demolishing light buildings.

 

In the 70s things began to change. Interest in World War II started to pick up, and that meant interest in the equipment, so museums for WWII equipment started becoming more popular.  The United States has always been interesting in aviation as a people. So WWII aviation was the first thing to really take off. It really started with surplus machines being used as air racers, and then many of the old racers, sitting around rotting, got bought up by men who wanted to own a WWII aircraft.  Some of these men founded things like the Confederate Airforce, or the Planes of Fame Museum in Chino.  These groups and many more keep aviation history alive by keeping the fantastic old flying machines in the air. It’s amazing that today, there is a larger variety of well restored and rare WWII aircraft flying than when I was a kid in the 70s.

 

As interest in WWII continued to grow, all forms of equipment became popular, and there had already been a few tank guys out there that had a tank or two, or whole collections. Tank museums, most in the US anyway, are owned by the government, and the displays are largely gutted, welded closed near hulks, rusting away in an outdoor display area. It’s not uncommon in Europe for a tank museum to have several runners they bring out several times a year for crowd pleasing displays.  There are a few museums in the US not owned by the government that are doing this now.  One, at least in the past, I don’t know if it still runs, was the Planes of fame museum, they had a running Sherman. The Flying Heritage Collection in Everett, Washington, has a running M4A1 75 and an T-34-85 and do an event where they drive them around on May 30th! This weekend! Battlefield Vegas a huge shooting range, with a large verity of Machine guns you can shoot is resto modding a Sherman that got off a target range.  He is planning adding some more modern updates to it, for safety, reliability and habitability in the Vegas heat. Since the tank was just about at the scrapping point, and I’m for A/C in everything, I see no problems with this at all.

 

There is also a large group of people, who like to reenact WWII battles, and they collect the vehicles as well, but tanks in this scene are rare. There are small private tank museums that use their tanks in local events like veteran days parades or local airshows. Tanks are a lot easier operate and cheaper to maintain than a WWII airplane, and that may be adding to their popularity and value with collectors as well.  Aircraft require all kinds of inspections and certifications, and you have to store them in hangers, and if you don’t fly them regularly they will rot away. Since they fly, not being on top of all the required maintenance might get you killed.

 

If your tank restoration project breaks down when your testing out the rebuilt Ford GAA,  you just fix it there, or have it towed back to your work area. It’s not going to fall out of the sky and possible kill you and other people. In both cases, to really work on it, you need some heavy equipment. You’re not pulling a turret, or motor (tank or plane), without a heavy duty hoist of some type, 10,000 pounds plus minimum, and that might not be enough to get a turret off.  Most tank motors the Sherman and other American WWII tanks used are pretty simple as internal combustion engines go, though the R975 radial would be pretty daunting to most car people, even it isn’t that complicated. In both cases they are thoroughly documented, but true experts on the motors who can overhaul them are few and far between, for both tank and aircraft motors.

 

In the United States, it’s not all that hard, if you’re willing to pay the taxes and go through the government checks, to own a tank with a working canon.   Since the tanks were never sold by the government to civilians with working guns, the guns are often pieced together, with parts that don’t match, and this really takes the danger level of owning a tank to a new level.  Part of the added danger is the rounds can’t just be purchased, you have to find suitable used brass, not an easy task, and then hand load it with surplus or custom made projectiles and surplus powder.

 

Now, these last few paragraphs have had a touch of tongue and cheek in them, owning a tank is a very expensive thing to do, and the bigger the tank the more money it will suck up each year, just less than an airplane.  A tank can’t fall out of the sky, but it is by no means safe, and doing any kind of work on it, or even climbing on and off of it, can cost you a finger or broken bones.  Putting an arm or hand in the wrong place while a turret is being rotated can get them messily removed. Falling off a tank while it’s moving is a bad way to die, but it happens.  It’s hard for people who have never worked with heavy equipment of any kind to realize just how dangerous 30 tons of steel is just sitting still.  That said, the people out there restoring WWII history, and keeping it running are awesome. Nothing beats seeing a Sherman tank moving around to really give you an idea of what the thing was all about. The Sherman people who go to the trouble to get the A57 in their M4A4 working are my automotive heroes!

 

At some point in the 80s some producer or special effects place got their hands on a Sherman and it made appearances in shows like the A-team, Knight Rider and Airwolf. I suspect it was the same M4A3 used in the Movie ‘Tank’ with James Garner, and that is now owned by the Collings Foundation.  In more recent years, privately owned tanks, and some working museum vehicles were used in the making of the miniseries Band of Brothers on HBO. They don’t appear in many of the episodes, but they are in at least two. More recently the movie Fury was filmed using the tanks of the Bovington tank Museum in the UK. They also purchased an M4A4 hulk, and did a quickie ‘resto’ on it and made up a fiberglass turret that could be blown off, for the movies to often used ammo rack explosion.

 

Another thing tanks get used for in civilian life is in ‘Drive a tank’ places.  There are several of these in the US, and around the world. You can pay for a package that often includes driving several kinds of vehicles leading up to the tank of your choice. They often offer add-ons like shooting machine guns or running over a car you supply, for various fees. The places that have a Sherman usually don’t use it in the car crushing displays; it’s usually a bigger tank like a British chieftain.

 

The final civilian Sherman type I want to mention is the kind you find in front of VFW halls, or town or state parks. The tanks in these cases are not actually civilian tanks. The Army still owns them more or less, so if the place they are in happens to close down or change, the town or VFW can’t sell the tank. The Army will come and get it, and they are supposedly responsible for keeping them up, but in reality, they are usually pretty rusty on the inside, and often have the floors starting to rust through.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actual post.

 

M4A4-Sherman-VC-17pdr-MT-3.jpgA restored VC, note how far apart the pair bogies are, this one with a museum in Europe.

 

 

Civilian Sherman Use: Hollywood, Loggers, Farmers, Museums and Frat Boys

 

 

Since the Sherman tank was produced in huge numbers, and the Army didn’t need that many, and even after taking the best for themselves, mothballing the best of the ones they didn’t for use as military aid to struggling allies, they still had a bunch of small hatch M4 tank of various types sitting around.  The US Government decided there might be a civilian market for the tanks and put them up for sale as surplus.

 

tank22ur.1331.jpgThe M3 Lee in 1941

 

It was not just Sherman tanks that would go on sale after the war, actually before the war ended in the case of aircraft.  When the war ended the US Government was saddled with so much, now essentially useless, war material, in many cases they just left it to rot where it was sitting. They bulldozed the stuff into ditches or off cliffs, or dumped it into the ocean. That was the fate of most of the war material in the pacific theater.  There are heartbreaking photos of P-38 Lighting fighters bulldozed off a cliff in the Philippines.

 

wwii-p38-dump-area.jpgThis was the only photo I could find of the P-38 dump in the Philippines.

 

The war material, tanks, planes, trucks, tools, bulldozers, tug boats, etc. back in the United States would mostly be melted down for scrap,  thousands of B-17 and B-24 bombers, P-40s, P-38s, P-47s, you name it, if it flew, it was surplused after the war. Many airlines snapped up the transport planes and cargo planes, but just about all the fighters and bombers got scrapped. For about the price of a nice new car you could have owned any of the fighters, brand new, with full tanks of gas. Many fighters were bought up for use as air racers, or use as surveying aircraft, but at that point in time no one cared enough about them to consider preserving them, with exceptions for particularly historically significant aircraft.

 

ontario-california-military-boneyard-aer

 

You could buy Shermans in running condition, with the gun DE milled, for about the price of a nice used car.  I do not think the Sherman was a hot seller, though a few civilians here and there bought them for the novelty. They did sell to some construction company’s here and there, other companies bought them up in droves, and all the other vehicles that used the Sherman powertrain, and began converting the hulls into specialized equipment used in construction, mining, and forestry. They also one in at least one case sold a Sherman to a college fraternity, but I can’t remember the details or source.

 

Traxxon-Tank-Drill.jpg

 

133580828_B2oSVjA9_1aMadill171TimBrown4H

 

Several companies, FinningTraxxon, and Morpac made rocking drilling machines based on Sherman hulls, the whole upper hull being replaced by the drill and superstructure.Madill seems to have specialized in converting Sherman hulls into mobile ‘yarders’,  a central tower with winches, used to pull freshly cut trees up to an area to be further processed and loaded on trucks. These companies were mostly Canadian, and Morpac is still making heavy duty off road load carriers based on Sherman suspension components.

 

Sherman-dozer-by-vickers.jpg

 

Vickers used Sherman hulls and suspension to make heavy duty tractors for peanut farming in Africa.  These heavy tractors were to be used to clear land for the farms. They only used the suspension, final drives, differentials and tracks, the transmission was different and they used a large inline six for power.

 

IMG_1105.jpg

 

Some power companies used drilling machines based on the Sherman tank as well, but I am not sure if they are the same as the drills made by Finning and Traxxon.  In at least one other case a company named Abdo S Allen Co. used a Sherman tank they bought surplus in the 60s as a heavy duty building destroyer. They used the M4A3E8 Sherman, with no dozer blade or anything to knock down large swaths of houses in North West Oakland California in the late 60s.  They could be the only destruction company to figure out they could use a tank for demolishing light buildings.

 

DSZ_7721.jpgThis is Agnes II, the Plane of Fame Museum at Chino California’s working M4A1. This tank looks like it’s in very good condition, and is an early small hatch tank.

 

 

In the 70s things began to change. Interest in World War II started to pick up, and that meant interest in the equipment, so museums for WWII equipment started becoming more popular.  The United States has always been interesting in aviation as a people. So WWII aviation was the first thing to really take off. It really started with surplus machines being used as air racers, and then many of the old racers, sitting around rotting, got bought up by men who wanted to own a WWII aircraft.  Some of these men founded things like theConfederate Air Force, or the Planes of Fame Museum in Chino.  These groups and many more keep aviation history alive by keeping the fantastic old flying machines in the air. It’s amazing that today, there is a larger variety of well restored and rare WWII aircraft flying than when I was a kid in the 70s.

 

49-e-1280.jpgI can’t resist a chance to past Corsair porn. This is the Planes of Fame’s F4U-1A Corsair. They’ve had it for years and you can see the amazing Steve Hinton at the controls. This image is from www.warbirdsdepot.com

 

 

Hollywood made a few movies using somewhat correct airplanes, but most movies until 90s didn’t bother with accuracy in armor, and many of the big screen epics like, The Longest Day, the Battle of the bulge, and Patton, using more modern stand in tanks.  A Bridge To Far, broke the mold, and got a lot of running Shermans together, though many not exactly period correct.  Kelly’s Heroes was another oddball in that it used real Shermans as well, but their tiger was fake.

 

600px-BridgeTooFar_2015.jpgA bunch of Sherman tanks gathered for the Movie, A Bridge To Far

 

tank-1984-james-garner.jpgJame Garner, on top of the M4A3 small hatch tank he is about to use to knock down a building, in the Movie ‘Tank’

action.jpgTrain yard raid in Kelly’s Heroes

 

 

As interest in WWII continued to grow, all forms of equipment became popular, and there had already been a few tank guys out there that had a tank or two, or whole collections. Tank museums, most in the US anyway, are owned by the government, and the displays are largely gutted, welded closed near hulks, rusting away in an outdoor display area. It’s not uncommon in Europe for a tank museum to have several runners they bring out for events various times a year for crowd pleasing displays.  There are a few museums in the US not owned by the government that are doing this now too.  One, at least in the past, I don’t know if it still runs, was the Planes of Fame museum in Chino California, they had a running Sherman they show off at their airshow. The Flying Heritage Collection in Everett, Washington, has a running M4A1 75 and a T-34-85 and do an event where they drive them around on May 30th! This weekend! Battlefield Vegas a huge shooting range in Las Vegas, has a large verity of Machine guns you can shoot and is resto modding a Sherman that they got off a target range.  The owner is planning on adding some more modern updates to it, for safety, reliability, and habitability in the Vegas heat. Since the tank was just about at the scrapping point, and I’m for A/C in everything, I see no problems with this at all.

 

ShermanTank05.jpgThis is the later production M4A1 75 Sherman the Flying Heritage Collectionoperates, it’s newer model but still a small hatch tank. Note the extra armor on the turret cheek and over the hull ammo rack

 

There is also a large group of people, who like to reenact WWII battles, and they collect the vehicles as well, but tanks in this scene are rare. There are small private tank museums that use their tanks in local events like veteran days parades or local airshows. Tanks are a lot easier operate and cheaper to maintain than a WWII airplane, and that may be adding to their popularity and value with collectors as well.  Aircraft require all kinds of inspections and certifications, and you have to store them in hangers, and if you don’t fly them regularly they will rot away. Since they fly, not being on top of all the required maintenance might get you killed.

 

M4_Sherman-1024x561.jpgprivately owned and beautifully restored M4A1 76w

 

If your tank restoration project breaks down when your testing out the rebuilt Ford GAA,  you just fix it there, or have it towed back to your work area. It’s not going to fall out of the sky and possible kill you and other people. In both cases, to really work on it, you need some heavy equipment. You’re not pulling a turret, or motor (tank or plane), without a heavy duty hoist of some type, 10,000 pounds plus minimum, and that might not be enough to get a turret off.  Most tank motors the Sherman and other American WWII tanks used are pretty simple as internal combustion engines go, though the R975 radial would be pretty daunting to most car people, even it isn’t that complicated. In both cases they are thoroughly documented, but true experts on the motors who can overhaul them are few and far between, for both tank and aircraft motors.

 

M4105W.jpgPrivately owned M4 105

 

 

In the United States, it’s not all that hard, if you’re willing to pay the taxes and go through the government checks, to own a tank with a working canon.   Since the tanks were never sold by the government to civilians with working guns, the guns are often pieced together, with parts that don’t match, and this really takes the danger level of owning a tank to a new level.  Part of the added danger is the rounds can’t just be purchased, you have to find suitable used brass, not an easy task, and then hand load it with surplus or custom made projectiles and surplus powder. As dangerous as this can be, I’m all for allowing people to do what they want with the things they own, and having a working main gun on your Sherman is pretty damn cool.

 

 

Sherman-M1-from-the-x-littlefield-collecAn Israeli Sherman M1, that belonged to the largest private collection of Armor on the west coast. Until the owner died.

 

Now, these last few paragraphs have had a touch of tongue and cheek in them, owning a tank is a very expensive thing to do, and the bigger the tank the more money it will suck up each year, just less than an airplane.  A tank can’t fall out of the sky, but it is by no means safe, and doing any kind of work on it, or even climbing on and off of it, can cost you a finger or broken bones.  Putting an arm or hand in the wrong place while a turret is being rotated can get them messily removed. Falling off a tank while it’s moving is a bad way to die, but it happens.  It’s hard for people who have never worked with heavy equipment of any kind to realize just how dangerous 30 tons of steel is just sitting still.  That said, the people out there restoring WWII history, and keeping it running are awesome. Nothing beats seeing a Sherman tank moving around to really give you an idea of what the thing was all about. The Sherman people who go to the trouble to get the A57 in their M4A4 working are my automotive heroes!

 

the-tank.jpgJames Garner hauling ass in a M4A3 Sherman in the movie ‘Tank’

 

 

At some point in the 80s some producer or special effects place got their hands on a Sherman and it made appearances in shows like the A-team, Knight Rider and Airwolf. I suspect it was the same M4A3 used in the Movie ‘Tank’ with James Garner, and that is now owned by the Collings Foundation.  In more recent years, privately owned tanks, and some working museum vehicles were used in the making of the miniseries Band of Brothers on HBO. They don’t appear in many of the episodes, but they are in at least two. More recently the movie Fury was filmed using the tanks of the Bovington tank Museum in the UK. They also purchased an M4A4 hulk, and did a quickie ‘resto’ on it and made up a fiberglass turret that could be blown off, for the movies to often used ammo rack explosion.

 

fury.jpg

 

US_Sherman_3666208242-1-1600x1200.jpgM4A2 used in Fury, before it was kitted out for the movie

 

Another thing tanks get used for in civilian life is in ‘Drive a tank’ places like, Ox Ranch in Texas, and driving a tank isn’t the only thing you can do there! Machine guns, Off roading, hunting, tanks, this is like heaven!

 

sherman-tank-1024x768.jpgOX Ranch’s M4A2 76w HVSS in actiontank-driving-sherman-1024x768.jpgOX Ranch’s M4A2 76w HVSS in action

 

There are several other places in the US, and around the world like Drive a Tank in Minnesota and Battlefield Vegas, (Sherman in the works). You can pay for a package that often includes driving several kinds of vehicles leading up to the tank of your choice. They often offer add-ons like shooting machine guns or running over a car you supply, for various fees. The places that have a Sherman usually don’t use it in the car crushing displays; it’s usually a bigger tank like a British chieftain.

 

M4DV-1024x768.jpgM4 tank in front of a VFW

 

 

The final civilian Sherman type I want to mention is the kind you find in front of VFW halls, or town or state parks. The tanks in these cases are not actually civilian tanks. The Army still owns them more or less, so if the place they are in happens to close down or change, the town or VFW can’t sell the tank. The Army will come and get it, and they are supposedly responsible for keeping them up, but in reality, they are usually pretty rusty on the inside, and often have the floors starting to rust through.

 

Sources

  1. Warhistoryonline.com Civilian Shermans: After war they went to work 
  2. The Rusty Grapple: Logging History Online
  3. Yesterdays Tractor Co.
  4. Battlefield Vegas
  5. The Ox Ranch
  6.  Drive a tank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sherman Model kits. 

 

 

Sherman model kits: Not as Popular as German Tanks, but there are some good kits out there.

 

In the Sherman tank model game there are a lot of players. I’m really only going to cover 1/35, and 1/72 scale plastic kits and maybe 1/16 RC tanks.

 

When I started off building models, I was a kid in the 80s, Tamiya was king, but AMT, Testors,  Dragon, Monogram, and Italeri and Academy all were doing kits too.  There was no such thing as photo etch and I had no idea just how wrong most kits, including the Sherman kits. Tamiya was for sure the best of the lot, and even had some cool 1/16 scale RC tanks in their line. I remember hanging out at the local hobby shop, before the Sunday class, that was 5 kids of various ages and one 45 year old instructor, looking through the awesome Tamiya catalog and dreaming about what kits I would get.  I spent most of my time building airplanes at first, then armor, mostly German, and really only built two Shermans.  Many of the tanks were up armored to survive hits from a pellet gun.  Once I got a drivers license, I started spending money on the car I acquired, a barely running 68 GTO, and my interest in models passed for a few years.

Several decades later, after breaking up with a girl, I had more time and money available than I had in a while and decided to splurge a little and bought a Tamiya 1/16th RC Pershing kit, with full sound option, and etc., all told, about 800 bucks for everything needed to build it in 05. I had to dig all the old model building stuff out of storage, and surprisingly, most of the paints, the brushes and all the tools were in great shape and I only had to purchase a few colors I didn’t have, or that had dried up and a ton of olive drap spray paint for the base.  The tank took about two weeks to build, and was a really good time, I still have it, but it needs new batteries, the current ones won’t hold a charge.  Building this kit sparked interest in building regular plastic model kits, so I picked up a Tamiya 1/35 plastic kit, and put it together, and really enjoyed it, enough to break out the airbrush.

 

This led me to start ordering Sherman kits, and reading as many reviews as I could. I came back at the start of a very nice time in Sherman model kits, but also right on the edge if when older more flawed kits were still very common.  The problems with the old kits stemmed from inaccurate molds for the upper hulls being solder back and forth between kit makers without much of an upgrade. This biggest flaw was sunken welds, when all Sherman welds should be raised. The main culprits in inaccurate kits like this were Tamiya, Dragon, Italeri, AMT, Academy IE, pretty much all the early Sherman kits. They also suffered from bad rubber band tracks, inaccurate turret molds, and flaw each sub types details. Many kits also lacked the bottoms of the sponsons, leaving huge visible areas of the inside open unless you used skirts.

 

In the early 2000s Dragon stepped in and started to really improve the Sherman kits. They started by getting in the sponson bottoms and improving the lower hulls, then the suspension and turret moldings for various models. Each years releases seemed to get better, and they ultimately ended up with the smart kits in the mid to late 2000s that had very nice Sherman kits, though a tad fiddly.  About the time Dragon was really getting its Sherman kits right, Taska/Asuka came onto the scene and started offering very nice, if still a tad fiddly kits, better than dragon in many ways but not cost. Tamiya seems to have lagged behind with AMT and Italeri until very recently.  Now it seems like all the brands have some very nice Sherman kits.

 

Another thing that is big now is aftermarket add-ons for model kits.  You can build a Sherman M4A4 kits, with a full resin motor, and interior if you dig around for the parts, easier to come by are brass and aluminum barrels for both the main guns and machine guns. More companies that I can practically mention produce brass photo etch detail kits for everything including Shermans. These add on kits allow you to detail a model down to the casting numbers and straps and latches holding down the external tools. Other companies make individual metal track blocks held together with pins, or plastic ones, and even the much maligned rubber band tracks have gotten much better over the years.

Now I will told about the main companies:

 

Tamiya: The Aging King?     

Tamiya, was the best all-around plastic and RC model company for years. I got my first real RC car from them, a Fox, and built it with my Dad, when I was like ten. I built their fantastic 1/350 New Jersey at 12. Most of the model kits I remember came from them, including the first tank I built solo, their M3 Lee kit. This company makes beautiful aircraft kits. I have their 1/32 Zero with working landing gear behind me unbuilt. The do car kits, motorcycles, tanks, RC tanks, cars, and trucks.  One of the key features of all their products are they are easy to build and they come with well-done instructions.  I would love to build another one of their RC tanks, but their prices have really gone up.  Their RC 1/16 full option super Sherman is $1404.00! Their most expensive RC tank kit is the IS-2, at a whopping $2024.00 and their best bargain is the M4A3 105, at $976.00. For build it yourself RC tanks in 1/16th they are the only option, and they are good kits, and fun to build, but that’s pricey.

 

Tamiya has always had cutting edge 1/35 armor kits, and they pretty much pioneered the 1/48 armor scene.  But they are not perfect.  One huge problem with them is they still sell the kits I bought when I was a kid, but without much warning it’s a old flawed kit. Granted they are very cheap at this point, but they should at least let the modeler know on the box somewhere they are buying a kit that’s not accurate.  I think they are a very conservative company, and that keeps them a little behind the curve now. I was looking over the contents of their latest M4A3E8 kit, and it looks great, but the periscopes are still cast in, now with nice details added on, but you can’t rotated them. Dragon has been doing rotating periscopes, with very nice interior and exterior details for over a decade now.

 

After looking into their modern kits, it seems they have either purchased molds Tasca/Asuka, or made a deal to get kits from them since they’ve re-boxed some Tasca kits. Overall, I would say if you avoid their very cheap older kits, you can’t go wrong with Tamiya, the kit will always fit, and build into a nice model, it may not have bleeding edge features, but it will go together right.  A good start for the less experienced modeler.  

 

Some kit reviews:

 

TA 35346 M4A3E8 European Theater: A very nice kit, and a very nice price.

This is an all new all Tamiya design, that looks a lot like an improve Tasca/Asuka kit.  There is a really great build review over on Armorama I’m going to link, since his review does a better job than I could. I would love to build this kit, and you can pick it up much cheaper than the $53.00 suggested retail price online.  This would be a great kit for a beginner to Sherman models to jump into. With a few upgrades it could be even better.

 

TA 251754  M4A3E8 with 4 figures: Not exactly a Tamiya kit.

This kit is a bit of an odd one. The tank kit itself is not a Tamiya designed model. It’s a Tasca kit from 2010 re-boxed with some older Tamiya figures thrown in, probably to hold the line until their own M4A3E8 kit was ready.

This looks like it builds into a very nice Easy 8, and the figures are not fantastic, but not terrible either.  The suspension and tracks on this kit are very well done.  Check out this full review over on Armorama by a much more talented modeler than I’ll ever be.  I would say the biggest flaw on this one is the price, if you can find it, it probably won’t be cheap.

 

Dragon: The Chinese Tamiya, but not as conservative, and more prone to flaws in new kits.  

 

Dragon was pretty ghetto when I was a teen, but had some good offerings. I think they had some good stuff in 1/72 early on, but I might be remembering the wrong brand, since Hasegawa had some 1/72 kits too. Now, in the Sherman department they are pretty good. Some of their newer American releases like the M103 have had some issues but their Sherman line is very good, even some of the older kits that are not perfect can be fixed fairly easily.

 

I got into Shermans kits, and discovered Luckymodel.com at the same time and ended up getting some really good deals on 1/35 Sherman kits. One thing is clear, even on their early slightly flawed, but still less flawed than anyone else’s Shermans at the time kits, is they were trying very hard with extras.   Dragon is very generous with sprues, and you might get a whole sprue of parts from another kit, just for the bow machine gun, or a horn or something. Often the same kits come with several turret shells, so you can build the 76mm Sherman with a split or oval loaders hatch. They came with photo etch kits right out of the box and often aluminum barrels, or very nice one piece slide molded plastic ones. Build a few Dragon Shermans and you will have a ton of spare suspension parts too.  Some kits come with two sets of Dragon Styrene tracks, a very nice option on Shermans, since they look great as live tracks.  Another thing I always liked about these kits, is very early in the improvement process they started making the periscopes a separate part, so you can build each periscope open or closed, with nicely detailed armored flap, periscope, in clear plastic, and guard, can be rotated in their mounting hole, just like on the real thing, so you can all pose them looing in different directions if you want. They were also an early adopter of having clear plastic windows in their all-around vision commander’s cupolas.     

 

This is also were some of dragons problems come in. They have been improving older molds, and adapting them to new kits. In many kits, you have to put together fiddly hull sections at the back of the hull, to make a hull designed for an M4 fit an M4A1. Often this requires sanding and test fitting to get the upper hull to fit right. They also have several types of adapters to fit the suspension units to the hull. Last time I checked, even their best heavy duty VVSS suspension still needed holes drilled for the side the roller bracket wasn’t on.  Other complaints are how fiddly some of the better kits are, with individual link tracks being offered in some kits, instead of Dragon Styrene. Dragons best HVSS and VVSS suspensions are nice, but contain a lot of parts they have to be built. They look good done, but are more work than say Tamiya latest offerings.

 

Many of the classic Dragon kits have been out of production for a while but show up again in online hobby shops, either as re-releases or old stock.  If you watch you can get some nice kits cheap, and these kits are not like the Tamiya 15 dollar 80s kits, they are really nice with just a few fixes needed. If you ever see the old Soviet Lend Lease M4A2 76 w VVSS tank kit for sale cheap, grab it up, it’s a very nice kit.

Their current Sherman kits are all top not and if you are an experienced model builder, I would highly recommend them if they have a Sherman model you want to put together in their kit line.

 

Some kit reviews:

 

DRA 6083 Dragon M4A1 76W Operation Cobra: I built this one, and really like it.

This kit is one of the early, pre smart kits, good Sherman kits, I don’t know if it’s in production anymore but I still see it offered for sale in places. Released in 2006, it had a lot of nice features and only a few minor flaws.  The biggest of the minor flaws was the upper hull shape is a tad off. The tank can be built up like the one the US Army coolest tanker, Lafayette Poole,  used ‘In the Mood II’. The kit comes with a stranded metal wire for the tow cable, a nice photo etch sheet for the grouser covers, light guards, periscope guards and the tow cable latch and a few other small things. It also came with an aluminum M1A1 barrel and two brass 76mm shells.

I would say this kits biggest flaw is the tracks that come in the box. They are of the individual link T48s, but they do not look right. They are also very easy to damage while handling because the pins for the end links are small. I would replace these with AFV Club or Bronco tracks.  For a much more in depth review, check out this one over on Armorama. I would recommend this one to anyone looking to build a nice M4A1 76w, if they can find it cheap online and get upgraded tracks to go with it.

 

DRA 6183 Dragon M4A3E8 Thunderbolt VII: Great kit if you can find it.  

This kit was the first expensive Sherman, and I built it right when it came out back in 2006, in fact my wife got a little angry with me for spending more money then I said I was going to on that particular trip!

The kit was pretty cutting edge at the time and it comes with a bunch of metal bits for the suspension units, since they work like the real ones. It also comes with an aluminum barrel for the main gun and some phot etch for the fenders.  Compared to the more modern Asuka and Tamiya kits, this one would take a bit more work to make really nice, but you could probably get it for cheaper. Some hatches will need the cast nub handles removed and replaced with wire ones etc., but of the kits available this has the best suspensions.  I would love to build this kit again, if I could get it cheap considering it’s age. For an open box review of this kit, check out this one on Armorama, it was done around the time the kit came out and was one of the reasons I wanted it so much.

 

Tasca/Asuka: The Luxury Sherman Kit Maker

From what I can gather Tasca is now Asuka, I’m not sure if it’s a name change or if Tasca went under and Asuka bought all the molds, in either case, they produce a very high quality kit. They came onto the market in mid-2000 and jumped right to the front of the pack in quality Sherman tank 1/35 case plastic kits.  The kits always look very well made, the instructions look good, they are not overly fiddly in most, sounds perfect right? Well then you get to the cost and lack of anything extra in the box, not a huge deal on a cheap kit, but something you kind of grow to expect from a pricey kit.  In my opinion, for the price, that’s not enough, and in almost all cases, I went with the Dragon option, and got more goodies, and a kit that will take a little more effect to make look nice, but not that much more. I think though, more than anyone else’s kits, these build into very nice kits out of the box without much extra effort required.

For a little while Asuka seemed like it was going to have a much smaller lineup, but they seem to be dropping M4 kits all over the place now. I’m not going to review the kit, so much as comment on it as I list them.  

 

Italeri: Old and dying

These guys have been around since before I was into modeling, back into the early 80s or longer ago. They also do not seem like they have the capital to drop the money into really making new cutting edge kits. This is slowly killing them off, since they are the cheap option, that Dragon has moved into with their old kits.  They’ve partnered with Tamiya a bit, but still didn’t produce anything special. I do not see a bright future for these guys. That said, the make ok kits. If you just want a kit to have fun building, these guys fit the bill and they are much better than the really old cheap Tamiya stuff.

 

Academy: Slowly Withering Away

This company has almost the same story as Italeri, they just haven’t produced enough good new stuff to be much of a player.  I could find a total of 4 kits from Academy for sale on Luckymodel.com.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...