Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Jeeps_Guns_Tanks

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

Recommended Posts

Who is the Caernaervon named after? I did the standard Wiki and saw a dozen or so Earls of Caernarvons and while they seem the average sort of English peers, none of them seemed to stand out in a military way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is the Caernaervon named after? I did the standard Wiki and saw a dozen or so Earls of Caernarvons and while they seem the average sort of English peers, none of them seemed to stand out in a military way.

 

It's a plot to annoy a small welsh village. The village of caernarvon did actually complain about it, and I suspect it's related to why you only see that place called caernarfon now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was kind of bored and testing my Sherman identification chops going through Armored Attack 1945, and calling out the model, and a rough idea of when it was produced, and who produced it, in some rare cases. So when I got back to my desk I decided to see just how many flaws I could find in the WOT Sherman models. I don't know if this will make it into the Sherman Doc, but I figured it would be fine for the thread at least. Plus it's a shameless bump. 

 

The T5, US, M4.

Well for starters, it’s got the fancy sprockets, I’m pretty sure only CDA used, and they never produced M4A1 tanks. Also, the second turret choice is wrong, they never put the T23 turret on small hatch M4A1s. They could have made the improved turret, a late model 75mm turret, with loaders hatch, and this would have made a more accurate model, and these turrets even got the M1A1 gun in post war modifications.

The 105 gun was never mounted in a T23 turret, so that’s a glaring flaw.  The 105 was also never mounted on a small hatch hull.

The hull is a very production hull, since it has un-welded shut direct view ports for the driver and co-driver,  but mid production suspension with the bolt on roller and skid.

Other than those flaws, it’s a pretty model, and if you put the stock turret on, with the 75mm gun, it’s a decent sample of a late early production M4 tank.

 

The T6, US, M4A3E8

This is a very old model in the game and it’s pretty ugly, it’s also decent for how ugly it is. The major flaw is having the 75mm and 105mm guns available in the T23 turret. They also could have made the stock turret the early T23 turret with the two large hatches, the all around vision copula for the commander and the old split commanders hatch for the loader.  Then the improved version of the T23 turret should be the updated turret, and it should have the all around vision copula, and the oval loaders hatch. 

I hope they give the model an update or at least give it a cleaned up version of the Fury model. It’s still one of my favorite tanks in game. They could put together a pretty nice E8 from parts of all the updated models they’ve done.

 

The T6, US, M4A3E8 Fury.

A pretty good 76 E8. The only big flaws if you can even call them that since WOT isn’t WWII exclusive, but Fury was, so here goes.

The ventilator between the front hull hatches has a cover. WWII Shermans did not have these covers. It has post war torsion bar engine hatch springs. I don’t think these made it into WWII either but I’m not 100% sure. The tracks were only used on post war E8 tanks.

 

The T5, US, M4A3E2 Jumbo

This model is nearly perfect now they that they updated it, that is if you keep it stock. As soon as you add the T23 turret or the M1A2 gun, it’s a fantasy tank. Also, the 105 was never put on the tank, but I have it on good authority it wouldn’t take much effort to mount.

 

The T5, US, M4A2E4

This is another old and ugly model. The main flaw I can tell from the only photo I can see is it has to many fuel filler caps.  Maybe one day this tank will get an update using the hull and turret from the Brit M4A2 tank model.  It should be a really easy one to do.  

 

The T5, British, Sherman III

This model suffers many of the same flaws as the US M4 model. The hull is more accurate, with the correct early suspension to go with the very early production M4A2 hull since it has all three hull machine guns and direct vision ports for the driver and co-driver.

With the stock turret in place and the M3 75mm gun this is a very pretty model of a tank that may have fought at El Alamein.

It does have a fancy sprocket, but there may have been an early Sherman producer other than CDA to use them, I’m just not positive. I’ll have to go study some more Son of a Sherman and the minutia site.

This hull type never got the later T23 turret, and the Brits did not take many deliveries on 76mm tanks that had it. The ones they did take, they shunted off to the MED or gave them to the Poles and French. They could have handled this the same way the M4 could be fixed, eliminate the T23 turret.

 

The T6, British, Firefly IC hybrid.

As far as I can tell this model is nearly perfect, but only when configured in the final configuration with the final 17 pounder, and the improved turret. The stock turret, was rarely used with this hull, since this model uses the Hybrid M4 hull that uses a large hatch cast front portion and welded rear hull.  The Brits really liked this version of the M4 for Firefly conversion since they already had a loaders hatch, so they didn’t have to cut one in, saving time. Plus of course the larger hull hatches were always nice.

So in the when set up with the IC turret and 17 pounder gun, this model is one of the prettiest and most accurate in the game and the most accurate of the Shermans.

Edit. 

Looking at this model again, there is a twist, it's using a recycled early turret with cheek armor welded on and the cut in hatch, but not the right one. I'll have to recheck this too... 

Edited by Jeeps_Guns_Tanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote some stuff on postwar usage of M4s for some countries. There are still more countries I haven't touched yet and some nations Wiki states that used M4 don't seem to have ever used the thing. I tried to source all the info, but I am lazy. Some of this stuff has contradictions so I'd like some peer review.

 

 

Australia:


Despite contributing many men to the Allied War effort and having more than 750 M3 Medium tanks, Australia only received a grand total of 3 M4 Shermans. The first M4 was an M4A2(75) received via the British in mid 1943. The vehicle was trialed north of Melbourne until the middle of 1944. Two more M4s, this time 2nd generation M4A1(75)s also from the British in order to compare the M4 with the Churchill in New Guinea. One of these vehicles had a composite hull. The Australians also brought their M4A2 to the trials as well. The M4A2 was fitted with steel tracks which were worn down quickly and the M4A2 was removed from the trials. The M4A1s were deemed superior to the Churchill in reliability and visibility but the Churchill’s greater slow speed maneuverability, armor, and terrain clearing properties had the Australians wanting over 500 Churchills which was later reduced to 51 by the end of the war. After the war one M4A1 was used as a target but the M4A2 and the composite hulled M4 were saved and are on display in Australia.


Source: 1

 

 

China:


Chinese forces aligned with the KMT received 34 M4s along with other AFVs during WWII. These saw against the Japanese in China and Burma. M4s were used by the Chinese nationalists during the Chinese Civil War against Communist forces. The PRC is not known to have operated the M4. Taiwan/RoC still operates the M36 on islands close to the mainland.

 


Cuba

 

Cuban forces received 7 M4A3(76)Ws in 1957 and saw action during the Battle of Santa Clara against rebels led by Che Guevara. The rebels captured the vehicles and rode victoriously into Havana on the Shermans including one vehicle being the ride of Fidel Castro. Under Castro’s Govt. the M4s were quickly phased out of service in favor of Soviet tanks such as the T-34/85 and the T-54/55. It is believed an M4 was used by the Cuban Army against the invasion at the Bay of Pigs before being completely replaced.

 

Source: 1

 

Egypt:

 

Egypt possessed a number of M4s from Great Britain after WWII and used at least 3 of these in the 1948 war against Israel. Egypt received more M4A4s and M4A2s from Britain after the war, but soon supplemented its armored forces with Soviet armor.

 

In the 1956 Suez Crisis, Israeli forces knocked out or captured 40 M4 mk. 3 tanks in Operation Kadesh.Just before the Suez Crisis, Egypt then a number of M4A4s converted in France adding the AMX-13’s FL-10 turret to the vehicle as well the M4A2’s GM 6-71 twin diesel engine. The gun on the FL-10 turret, the SA50, was basically the same weapon as the 75 mm gun on the Israeli M-50 “Super Shermans” At least one of these vehicles saw fighting in 1956. These M4s along with older model M4s saw fighting in the 1967 War. Around 50 of these vehicles were lost in the conflict to Israeli forces. By the 1973 War, the M4s had been entirely replaced by Soviet Armor.

 

Sources: 1 2

 

India:

Indian units during WWII were equipped with Sherman Vs from Lend Lease to fight in Burma. After WWII, these Sherman Vs were kept in service with the Indian Army after independence and were in use well into the 1960s. India also bought 200 M4A1E4(76)s and M4A3E4(76)s from the US in the 1950s. A number of M4s were modified with the French 75 mm CN 75-50 cannon and the Soviet 76 mm D-85 cannon. These modifications were likely done in India and acquired the guns from their own AMX-13 and PT-76 tanks.

 

Indian Shermans found their use in the 1965 War with Pakistan who also had M4s along with M48 Pattons. 332 Indian M4s were present in the conflict and helped provide support to the Centurions in the Battle of Assal Uttar which dozens of Pakistani vehicles were destroyed. M4s remained in service with the Indian Army until 1971. India also possessed a number of Sexton SPGs which were in service until the 1980s.

 

Sources: 1

 

Iran/Iraq:

Iran received an unknown number of M4A3(105) and M36s from the United States after WWII and were at least still in use in 1980 as Iraq had captured a number of M4s and M36s during the Iraq-Iran War. These Iranian M4s seem to be the last M4s to see combat. Iraq also captured at least a single Israeli M-50 Sherman as well during its involvement in the Israeli-Arab Wars. These do not seem to be used in either Gulf War by Iraq.

 

Sources: 1 2

 

Japan:

In its campaigns against enemies armed with the M4, the Japanese never seemed to have captured an intact Sherman. It wasn’t until 1954 when Japan received 254 M4A3E8s from the US in order to build up the JSDF. These M4s were replaced by the indigenous Type 61 tank during the 1960s.  

 

Nicaragua:

Nicaragua received 4 M4A1E4(105) Shermans from the United States. These were in service during the Nicaraguan Civil War in which M4s were used in Urban Warfare against the FSLN until 1979.

 

Paraguay:

Paraguay received 3 M4 VC Fireflies from Argentina in the 1970s and these were later replaced by 3 Argentinian Sherman Repotenciados armed with the French 105 mm gun along with other Argentine upgrades. It is still believed that these M4s are still in service.

 

 

Pakistan:

Pakistan was on the receiving end of the largest single postwar M4 purchase in which 547 M4A1E4(76)s were given to Pakistan by the United States during the 1950s. Around 300 M4s saw their fair share of combat in the Indo-Pakistan wars in both 1965 and 1971. After 1971 war the Pakistani Army retired the M4 from service.

 

Peru:

 

Peru received a total of 51 M4A3 Shermans from deals from the US after the Rio Pact was signed in the late 1940s. They were replaced by T-54/55s by 1978.

 

South Africa:

 

South African units during WWII used M4(75) as the mainstay of 6th Armored Division in the Italian Campaign. South Africa’s 6th Armored also had a number of Sherman “Fireflies” and M10 in service in Italy. These vehicles were left in Europe, but in 1946 the South African Army purchased 67 M4 1As(armed with 76 mm guns), 15 M4 1B(armed with the 105 mm), and 15 M4 1C(armed with the 17 pdr).These were eventually replaced by Comets and later Centurions as South Africa’s main battle tank. The M4 1Bs saw their service life extend into the 1970s, but the 1A and 1C were retired after being training vehicles in the late 1960s.

 

Source: 1

 

Syria:

 

Syria is to have believed to possess 51 to 52 M4 Shermans in the early 1950s. It is not believed they saw any significant combat with the Syrian Army in its wars against Israel. A picture of a turretless Syrian M4 exists and is believed to be converted from a vehicle left by the Allies after WWII, but its true designation and purpose is obscure.

 

Source: 1

 

Turkey:

 

Turkey, despite being neutral until 1945, requested for nearly 500 M4s to create 2 armored divisions in 1943. Turkey did receive 34 M4s that were no longer fit for service, but 25 of which were integrated into two armored  brigades after supposed maintenance in 1943.

 

Source: 1

 

Uganda:

In 1969 Uganda purchased 12 M4A1(76)W tanks from Israel with slight modifications such as smoke dischargers and a new radio, soon before Idi Amin took over the Ugandan govt. These were the first armor to see service ever in Uganda and were used as a propaganda tool of Amin’s regime. It is believed some of these M4s saw combat in Uganda’s invasion of Tanzania which M4A1s and T-34/85s led the Ugandan Army, but were beaten by the Tanzanians which had Type 59s.. In the conflict the M4s went months without maintenance and nearly half of the original 12 vehicles were likely lost in combat. After the war, and the overthrow of Amin, an M4A1 was used in General Tito Okello’s coup of Uganda, and a reported 3 were in possession of the Army in 1999.

 

Source: 1 2

 

Yugoslavia:

During WWII, the Balkans saw intense combat between the Yugoslav Partisans and the Axis powers and their puppets. As Tito gained enough power and prestige to be recognized as the true leader of Yugoslav resistance. After the war the defiant Tito withdrew from the USSR’s influence and acquired American vehicles, including the M4A3E4 which were originally fitted with the M3 75 mm gun but were retrofitted with the M1A1 76 mm gun. This gave the Yugoslavian M4s an appearance of being “fireflies” which they were not.

 

Yugoslavia also attempted to use the M4 to develop their own vehicles. The first attempt was the M-634 which mated the M4 with the T-34’s V-2 diesel engine. This project, codenamed “Violin” was initiated in 1956 and saw a limited production of 5 vehicles . Many minor issues plagued the project which lumbered on and spawned side projects such as an upgunned M4, a bridge-layer, and an armored dozer. The M-634’s V-2 was marginally better than the original Ford GAA, but the project was cancelled in 1966 as the effort seemed to be a drain on time and energy. The proposed upgunned M-634 was given the designation SO-122 as it was armed with the Soviet A-19 122 mm cannon, which was used on the IS series of tanks as the D-25T. The SO-122 was completed in 1961 and tested the following year. It was originally developed as a tank destroyer, but as tests revealed the A-19 lacked the penetration of the D-10 100 mm gun, the SO-122 was regarded as a infantry supporting SPG. It only had 2 degrees of gun depression and 10 degrees of elevation which limited its utility such as lacking the ability to fire indirectly. It was able to reach speeds of 42 to 50 km/h with the V-2R engine. The SO-122’s turret was highly modified to fit the A-19 with up to 30 round of 122 mm ammo and a gunsight taken from the Su-100. The bow machine gun was removed from the SO-122 to make room for more ammo. The total weight of the vehicle was 33.5 tons. 96 SO-122s were planned but the project was cancelled alongside the M-634 and scrapped. Another SO-122 project existed which sought to place the M-38 122 mm howitzer onto a turretless M4, this never made it past the prototype stage.

 

Yugoslavia used other variants of the M4 such as the M36, the M36B1, and M32B1. An interesting project the Yugoslavs did with the M36 was they attempted to mate the M36 with the T-54’s V-55 engine, much in the same way the M-634 was created. This saw limited production. The M36s continued to see service with Yugoslav forces until its dissolution. Many factions used M36s during the 1990s conflict in former Yugoslavia.

 

Source: 1 2

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeeps, do you have any more info on the Sherman's that were used for radiation sampling at the Trinity test? I'd post pictures, but I am on phone (I believe the armament was removed and they had a bunch of equipment mounted on the back.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeeps, do you have any more info on the Sherman's that were used for radiation sampling at the Trinity test? I'd post pictures, but I am on phone (I believe the armament was removed and they had a bunch of equipment mounted on the back.)

 

I have no information on that, anything you want to post would be great!

 

 

I wrote some stuff on postwar usage of M4s for some countries. There are still more countries I haven't touched yet and some nations Wiki states that used M4 don't seem to have ever used the thing. I tried to source all the info, but I am lazy. Some of this stuff has contradictions so I'd like some peer review.

 

Great stuff, If you don't mind, I'll throw them into the word doc after they are the way you want them and credit you for the section.  And man, I feel shamed now, you have source notes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best Sherman.

 

pDpKKxW.png

wicked and radical in the same sentence?

 

if he managed to put a 'wizard' in there it would be so 90s that you would see people wearing it on t-shirts despite the fact that they were located in a testicle for the vast majority of the 90s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

It's a late production, small hatch M4A2. Did they crimp the barrel like that to demill it or was it a range target or something?

 

It seems to be one of the tanks with casting marks for foundries that for some reason put marks for other foundries on the parts they made...  Ill get into this more later, I'm still looking the pics over and catching up on teh forums. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

After looking the pictures over a bit, I think its a 1943, or early 1944 production tank built by Pullman. The radio bracket and drivers hoods look like their work. it has an early single casting front differential cover, that at fits late 43, plus that's when they eliminated the pistol port on the turret, and this tank does not have one. 

 

Another interesting thing, is it never got any of the upgrades to cover the drivers hoods and hull sponson ammo with extra armor, though the turret has the extra cheek armor cast in and a full mantlet with telescopic sight. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Jeeps, I ran across this on part of my FB feed yesterday, and I thought it might be interesting for you.  Forum was being retarded last night so I couldn't post it.  I just remembered and went back and found the link.

 

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/military-vehicle-news/civilian-shermans-after-the-war-they-went-to-work.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By Sturgeon
      The subject of this initial post is going to be much more specific than the title, but since it will probably evolve into an broader debate anyway I figured I might as well roll with it.
       
      Over the past few weeks, I've been watching the recent Burns' documentary on the Vietnam War. In it, I noticed something I had suspected for a long time: At the height of the M16's troubles in Vietnam, VC and NVA forces were primarily equipped with (probably Chinese) derivatives of the Type 3 milled AK-49. Almost all the images in the documentary up to 1969 of North Vietnamese forces that show enough detail to tell depict milled receivered guns with lightening cuts. Images from a quick GIS support this:
       

       

       

       

       

       







       
      Virtually all of these weapons are Type 3s, and it's very likely that the vast majority of them are Chinese Type 56s (which came in both removable, and fixed folding bayonet versions).
       
      Interestingly, Type 1 AK-47s did actually see service in Vietnam as well - AFAIK the Chinese never made Type 1s, so this would necessarily have to be a Russian gun!


       
      OK, so what's the significance of all this? It's certainly no secret that the Type 3 AK was a prevalent rifle during this time period in Vietnam. Consider that, in contrast to the M16 of 1970, the M16 of 1968 and prior was a very troubled weapon. Bad ammunition, lack of chrome lining, and lack of support in the form of cleaning kits made the gun very difficult to use and keep clean. Due to teething troubles that had little to do with the design itself, the M16 failed right when soldiers and Marines needed the support of a reliable rifle most - in the brutal fighting of 1960s Vietnam. The rifle also had (minor) durability issues, on top of this. The lower receiver buffer tower was a weak point of the design, as were the handguards. The plastic bridges of the cooling vents at the top of the two piece handguards are in a number of photos shown to be broken off - not a good thing when it is these that are supposed to protect the rifle's gas tube from damage. There's little evidence to suggest that the durability problems were a significant issue (though they would be fixed in the A2 version of the 1980s), but on top of the functioning issues they must have given the US soldier or Marine of the time period a very negative impression of their weapon. This impression was only made worse by the ubiquity of the Type 3 AK among enemy troops.

      In contrast to the M16, the Type 3 AK was a weapon with nearly 20 years development behind it. What teething troubles there were with the Kalashnikov's basic design (and there were some serious ones) had been winnowed out and patched over long since. Further, the Type 3 AK with its solid forged, milled receiver represents perhaps the most durable and long-lasting assault rifle ever developed. This was not on purpose, in fact the Soviets desired a rifle that would be almost disposable. The later AKM, which perfected the stamped sheet metal receiver the Russians truly desired, was lifed by its barrel. When the barrel was shot out, the rifles were intended to be discarded (a practice that continues today). American rifles - including the M16 - were designed to be rearsenaled and rebarreled time and time again, serving over many decades and tens of thousands of rounds, potentially. The Type 3 AK, which was designed as a production stopgap between the troublesome Type 1 of 1947-1951, and the AKM, used a heavy-duty receiver not due to Russian durability requirements, but their desire for expediency. A rifle with a milled receiver could enter production - albeit at greater cost per unit - much earlier, while Russian engineers perfected the stamped model. As a side effect, they produced a highly durable weapon, whose receiver could serve virtually indefinitely (as the Finns proved recently).
       
      To US troops, this must have seemed like a huge slap in the face. Why did these rice farmers get a durable, reliable weapon, while Uncle Sam fielded the toylike "junk" M16 to his finest? On top of everything these troops were dealing with - body count quotas, vicious close-range ambushes, friendly fire, and all else, it's no surprise that the veterans who went through that feel very strongly about the M16. It didn't matter that the AK overall was a much less refined and effective weapon in theory than the M16, or that the M16 by 1970 was a quite mature and reliable weapon, the morale hit of having a rifle so inferior in reliability and durability gave the M16 a reputation in those early years that it has barely shaken even today. 
    • By Vicious_CB
      http://soldiersystems.net/2018/05/14/nswc-crane-carbine-mid-length-gas-system-testing-shows-increased-performance/
       
      So in Crane's testing of the URG-I vs M4A1, the numbers make sense except for this one. Maybe you ballistic gurus can answer this because I have no idea.
       

       

       
      How can you have 2 significantly different mean muzzle velocities at 100 yards when they both started off with nearly the same muzzle velocity, out of the same length barrels with the same twist rate? It cant be stability since that is based on starting velocity and twist rate.  Is there some kind of magic that the midlength gas system imparts on the bullet that causes it to have less velocity decay or is this just a statistical artifact? 
       
    • By sevich
      I realize that sandbags provide little to no armor protection, but soldiers still used them on tanks. Would they mitigate the effects of HE warheads, or the blastwave of HEAT warheads?
    • By Walter_Sobchak
      This is a must watch for all Sherman tank fans.  
       

×