Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Jeeps_Guns_Tanks

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

Recommended Posts

I just watched a 1942 movie called Saboteur, directed by Alfred Hitchcock, it was pretty good. 

 

On a side note, it has to be cheaper to keep a tank running, at least a WWII tank, than say a WWII airplane, right?    Airplanes have inspections and certifications that have to be redone, once a tank is running, keeping it that way seems like it would be much easier, as long as you have the equipment to deal with the weight of various tank parts.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been slacking a bit, work got stressful, for stupid reasons, and trying to edit images when tired means I fall asleep while doing it. I did finish this one. 

GM6046rearimproved-FLAT-HUGE-SMALLER-160

 

I've been working on a cleanup on the R974C-4 cross section but it has been very time consuming and still needs several hours of work. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Jeeps_Guns_Tanks  Do you by any chance have a clear picture of the rear hull plate and exhaust system of a M4A2(76)W without a deflector? 

 

The detail of the radiators in the hull overhang is what I'm mostly after.....A friend who normally builds aircraft has turned his hand to a Sherman, but the Italeri kit he bought doesn't have the correct rear hull for a M4A2, let alone the exhausts or radiators, but he's a detail fanatic so he will want to correct it! 

 

His thread is here:  http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235031387-135-m4a2-76mm-wet-sherman/

 

I've done my best to help out but images of this area seem to be very scarce.....There used to be at least one good image out there, because I used it when I built my own 1/76 Tarawa Sherman, but I'm ****** if I can find it now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think there are more in the G104, I just haven't got that deep. 

 

Interesting fact, the A2 the Radiator was exposed behind the deflector, so it was really vulnerable to damage, a German with a normal rifle could just walk up and shoot a hole in it, or just jam a bayonet into the fins and tubes. I know I've got photos of this somewhere.  The way the A3 did it, the Radiator was fully protected, being set back further in the hull. 

 

M4A2-radiator-install-late-II.png

M4A2-radiator-install-late-M38B2.png

 

 

N4A2-late-radiator-install.png

 

M4A2-radiator-install-early.png

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2018 at 8:17 PM, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

On a side note, it has to be cheaper to keep a tank running, at least a WWII tank, than say a WWII airplane, right?    Airplanes have inspections and certifications that have to be redone, once a tank is running, keeping it that way seems like it would be much easier, as long as you have the equipment to deal with the weight of various tank parts.  

For the most part, "yes".  Both still deteriorate at a frightening rate when not used, but armor is much easier to deal with, as it does not fall from a great height when it fails.

 

You need a lot of specialized equipment to deal with either, unless your collection consists solely of a Daimler scout car and a L4 Grasshopper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://andrewbek-1974.livejournal.com/701412.html

Results of Sherman being hit by German shell (possibly 88 mm). NSFW

Spoiler

 

 

Quote

   On August 13, 1944, Sherman, named "l'Ourcq" from the 501 regiment of the Free French forces, was advancing through the forest of Orne department when a German shell (presumably 88 mm) hit it. The driver Lafon managed to take the tank back and leave the tank, same for the eighteen-year-old gunner Duilon. The shell struck the turret above and to the right of the gun mask, next to the patch of the additional armor, flew through the whole turret, smashed the radio station, cut almost in half the commander Boucle and decapitated Kadio (loader). This was the sixteenth attack of Boucle, whose brother was killed during the English attack on Mers-el-Kebir, and a native of Peru, Cadio loved poetry and exhilarated everyone in Libya, citing Cyrano de Bergerac. Despite the danger of shelling, the driver's assistant, Vercher, a Spaniard and a veteran of the Civil War, returned to the tank in an attempt to put out the fire and help crew members, but everything is clearly visible on the video

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's some hardcore stuff, I'm glad it is not in color... I've seen stills like that, but never video.  The tank looks like a late production large hatch M4A2.  

 

The tank was probably repairable, though might need a new turret, I don't know that they would bother at that point in the war.  I like the Lee based M31 ARV. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Meplat said:

For the most part, "yes".  Both still deteriorate at a frightening rate when not used, but armor is much easier to deal with, as it does not fall from a great height when it fails.

 

You need a lot of specialized equipment to deal with either, unless your collection consists solely of a Daimler scout car and a L4 Grasshopper.

@Meplat

 

For a tank I would guess some sort of crane with enough capacity to lift the powertrain, turret and motors would be required for the tank, just off the top of your head, what else? Powerfull welder, heavy-duty cutting torches? How do you even get all the little specialty tools listed in the TM's, make them yourself?

 

 

I would think it would be somewhat similar in that you need a crane for lifting aircraft motors too, is it large size tools, like sockets and wrenches bigger than 1 inch?  

 

Do you time a Merlin or V1710 with a timing light?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

@Meplat

 

For a tank I would guess some sort of crane with enough capacity to lift the powertrain, turret and motors would be required for the tank, just off the top of your head, what else? Powerfull welder, heavy-duty cutting torches? How do you even get all the little specialty tools listed in the TM's, make them yourself?

 

 

I would think it would be somewhat similar in that you need a crane for lifting aircraft motors too, is it large size tools, like sockets and wrenches bigger than 1 inch?  

 

Do you time a Merlin or V1710 with a timing light?

Oh.. OH this post!

 

Yes, a common 3 ton engine crane would do.  Pallets to take the mill and engine. "Cribbing is always your friend" when dealing  with tanks.

Also, HUGE wrenches. And you will break them.  Harbor Freight, cause  Snap-On will tell you to fuck off after the second swap. I have personally experienced this.

You do end up making a lot of tooling.  You'd best be a semi-competent machinist, cause you will be making tools, and parts, and fixtures, etc...

 

Learn to work on and repair forklifts, because YOU WILL NEED ONE.  It will be your most used tool, other than a 12 Oz ball peen, and a 12" crescent wrench.  Buy the BIGGEST you can afford.

 

ALL  engines can be timed with either a light, or a pointer.  If it lights at first crank, who the fuck cares how you timed it?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My latest improved image. 

 

The interior light may seem humble, but I get a fair number of searches on it. I plan on doing on Sherman tank interior and exterior lighting system post and page soon. 

Shermandomelightpartsimprovedf06-24m4a3g

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/30/2018 at 10:23 PM, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

My latest improved image. 

 

The interior light may seem humble, but I get a fair number of searches on it. I plan on doing on Sherman tank interior and exterior lighting system post and page soon. 

Shermandomelightpartsimprovedf06-24m4a3g

These still turn up, NIB, if one ever wanted some interesting light fittings. There is a more modern variant that is squared off, that also is occasionally found.

Both are very well made.

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.  
       

×