Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Jeeps_Guns_Tanks

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

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Gurth said:

Funny/interesting: I came across this thread (and forum) when looking for information on the M4A4 to build a model of exactly this tank a while ago, and by now have managed to read it to the end and find … the tank that started me reading here in the first place.

 

It’s indeed a Sherman V, fitted with (the lower section of) the deep-wading trunks at the back of the hull. I could post more pics of this tank, if there’s interest, and of the other four (one Sherman V and three Crabs) that were close to it, and remained there for several years after the war.

Welcome to SH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks :)

 

Here are some more photos of the same tank:

 

0896.jpg

 

0944.jpg

 

It’s the one on the left in both. The tank in the background of the first photo is a Churchill AVRE.

 

d45e4c09-3439-f6f3-9ad2-a60481cbf67b.jpg

 

Does anybody know what the rectangular things on the front fenders are? They look like some kind of jerrycan holders, but don’t seem to be the right size for that.

 

c627aa65-c92b-e228-0971-9598833e174e.jpg

 

And in this one, I’ve been wondering what the round thing is that’s leaning against the turret. It might not be from a Sherman at all, of course, but I can’t figure it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gurth said:

Thanks :)

 

Here are some more photos of the same tank:

 

 

 

 

 

d45e4c09-3439-f6f3-9ad2-a60481cbf67b.jpg

 

Does anybody know what the rectangular things on the front fenders are? They look like some kind of jerrycan holders, but don’t seem to be the right size for that.

 

c627aa65-c92b-e228-0971-9598833e174e.jpg

 

And in this one, I’ve been wondering what the round thing is that’s leaning against the turret. It might not be from a Sherman at all, of course, but I can’t figure it out.

 

Looks like "Cherry" has all sots of improvised stowage on the glacis.  Just judging by the location and the other stuff, it may have been for an unditching beam or small fascine.

Since there is an AVRE in the mix, it may have also been used for carrying beach landing mesh.  Just a guess.

 

The "round bit" looks like a random chunk of material caught in the fuel tank scupper.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Gurth said:

Funny/interesting: I came across this thread (and forum) when looking for information on the M4A4 to build a model of exactly this tank a while ago, and by now have managed to read it to the end and find … the tank that started me reading here in the first place.

 

It’s indeed a Sherman V, fitted with (the lower section of) the deep-wading trunks at the back of the hull. I could post more pics of this tank, if there’s interest, and of the other four (one Sherman V and three Crabs) that were close to it, and remained there for several years after the war.

 

(LOL oops, I should have read to the end)  Please post more pic, I love the M4A4, since it has the most interesting motor. 

 

Welcome to the forum!

Share this post


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

 

(LOL oops, I should have read to the end)  Please post more pic, I love the M4A4, since it has the most interesting motor. 

 

Welcome to the forum!

You and your multibank lust :wub:..

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Meplat said:

You and your multibank lust :wub:..

 

 

 

Man, it's only gotten worse too, Walt sent me some docs on the Army's opinion on the various Sherman Motors, and the A57 was really a better choice than the R975. Even after all the changes to make the R975 a tank motor, without a very skilled driver they struggled to get 400 hours out of them. Once the bugs were worked out of the A57 it was solid, and the driver didn't need to be as careful with them. 

 

I am so pleased that there are insane people in Europe that are willing to keep a couple A57 powered Shermans working. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

Man, it's only gotten worse too, Walt sent me some docs on the Army's opinion on the various Sherman Motors, and the A57 was really a better choice than the R975. Even after all the changes to make the R975 a tank motor, without a very skilled driver they struggled to get 400 hours out of them. Once the bugs were worked out of the A57 it was solid, and the driver didn't need to be as careful with them. 

 

I am so pleased that there are insane people in Europe that are willing to keep a couple A57 powered Shermans working. 

 

Much as I like the R975, the GAA was by far the better engine.

 

The Chrysler Multibank I like just because ONLY Chrysler could get it to work. 

Share this post


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

 

Please post more pic

 

Will moving pictures of Shermans (these, plus Crabs) coming ashore under fire do? How about of Shermans firing on Germans (hey, that rhymes)? Plus the odd AVRE, more LVTs and M29Cs than you can shake a stick at, and as a bonus, Hawker Typhoons making attack runs?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIber1VFkn4

 

Edit: why doesn’t it embed the video? Or doesn’t this forum support that?

 

Quote

I love the M4A4, since it has the most interesting motor. 

 

You’re not going to say that anymore after you’ve tried fitting the 1/35th scale one by Resicast into a model.

 

Quote

 

Welcome to the forum!

 

Thanks :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

Looks like "Cherry"

 

That’s actually the codename of the LCT it was carried in :) The number 6 also refers to that — both were on all the Shermans Vs and Crabs carried in that particular landing craft.

 

Quote

has all sots of improvised stowage on the glacis.  Just judging by the location and the other stuff, it may have been for an unditching beam or small fascine.

 

 

It’s just a generic stowage rack, going by photos of the tanks in use in early November 1944:

 

025046.jpg

 

025026.jpg

 

“Cock o’the North” is on the right, behind the crowd, in both photos. The other one, “Bramble” (actually another LCT codename) is the tank that’s on the right in the first photos I posted, and also the one shown firing on German positions in the YouTube film I linked to above. All these photos appear to be stills from (the uncut version of) that film, as the picture below shows if you’ve watched the film:

 

025021.jpg

 

And a few more, of the tanks supporting Commandos:

 

025019.jpg

 

025041.jpg

 

025053.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some more pics of the same tanks, but now after the war.

 

Cock%20o'the%20North.jpg

 

This is Cock o’the North, but before its spare track links etc. were removed; it’s in the same place as the photo @EnsignExpendable posted, with the wooden wall behind it. Interestingly, it rides on T48 tracks and has those on its hull front, but for some reason there seems to be a length of T49 track on the turret. Unfortunately I’ve not found any other photos that show this side of the tank during or shortly after the war so I can’t tell if it was there during the war too. You can tell it’s a command tank, though, by the antenna mount on the right hull front, and the photo also shows there’s a bracket for probably an extra antenna on the right rear of the turret (the other Sherman V, let’s call it “Bramble”, has that too).

 

Talking of which:

 

Bramble%201.jpeg

 

Bramble%202.jpg

 

Bramble%203.jpg

 

This one I particularly like because it looks like someone cleaned a paintbrush on the side of the tank.

 

Bramble%204.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bunch of new posts today. 

 

M4A3-76w-HVSS-left-frontIMPROVED-wwith-l

Sherman Tank Site News Post 16: A few setbacks but some good content on the way. 

Well, the beginning of the year was looking good, then things on a work-related front went south, and I have not had as much time for the site. What time I had I was using on image improvements and had to cut back there due to some carpal tunnel syndrome issues.  I won’t bother you all with further personal stuff.

I’ve discovered the stash of Army Motors Magazines over at Radionerds, and have done a series of posts about them.

Sherman Tank Site Post 72: Army Motors, the Magazine of the Army Mechanic!

Sherman Tank Site Post 73: Articles from Army Motors Episode one, Give Your Tank a Brake!

Sherman news from around the net.

 

 

0_11b908_37bb4cff_orig.jpg M4A2 76 HVSS Sherman in Defender of the Fatherland Day Parade in Severomorsk (Click image for story) (Thanks to Looser on the SH forums for this one!)
The consequences of hitting a German 88-mm shell in the “Sherman”. 18+

The above link takes you post on LiveJournal with a video of a French crew removing a dead crew member, it is not for the faint of heart.  Another catch by Looser over on the SH forums.

 

Tank and AFV News new Video channel.

Our pal Walt from the Sturgeons House Forums, who runs Tank And AFV News, has a new video channel, and though it is not Sherman specific, it is doing book reviews and if you’re interested in Shermans, or Armor in general, you should give his page and videos a view! Support the fellow Armor loving guys out there!

Here are a few samples!

 

 

Peter Samsanov of Tank Archives does a Podcast on German Kill claim inflation!

 

Peter S and his Tank Archives site are powerhouses in revealing the truth about the prowess of Soviet Armor, and the imaginary prowess of German Armor!

Listen to Peter talk to Military History Verbalized about German Kill claims and the real numbers. Not directly Sherman related, but there are many mythical German kill claims in the west too.

 

I’m also going to include a few improved images I haven’t put up yet. 

 

Shermandomelightpartsimprovedf06-24m4a3g

tailights-sherman-improved-exploded-ii-F

M4-SERIES-LIGHT-SWITCH-SETTINGS-FLAT.png

 

That’s all for now, but don’t forget to check out or gear store if you want to wear Sherman Tank related gear.  It supports the site

!20180506_072827-1600x900.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://siberiantimes.com/other/others/news/73-years-late-an-american-tank-sent-to-stalin-is-almost-ready-for-first-mission-on-russian-soil/

Article from April, forgot to post here (i saw that news in Russian)

Sherman as lifted from Barents Sea

 

information_items_7379.jpg

 

Sherman as lifted from Barents Sea

 

Quote

...

It was this week flown from Murmansk region to Vladivostok - where it will be restored to working order 73 years after it was sent by the US to help the Soviets defeat the Nazis. 

...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm looking at a list of improvements added to the Canadian Grizzly tank, and it contains the following:

  • 2nd first aid kit and holder
  • 2" bomb thrower
  • Mine snake hatch
  • Red bird lamp & bracket
  • Hand grenade stowage
  • Spent cartridge bag removal

What is a mine snake hatch and a red bird lamp? I assume that the first is a hatch to drop mine-clearing detonation cord of some kind, but what's the second? A red tinted lamp that doesn't spoil your night vision maybe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EnsignExpendable said:

I'm looking at a list of improvements added to the Canadian Grizzly tank, and it contains the following:

  • 2nd first aid kit and holder
  • 2" bomb thrower
  • Mine snake hatch
  • Red bird lamp & bracket
  • Hand grenade stowage
  • Spent cartridge bag removal

What is a mine snake hatch and a red bird lamp? I assume that the first is a hatch to drop mine-clearing detonation cord of some kind, but what's the second? A red tinted lamp that doesn't spoil your night vision maybe?

 

I have no idea.  I searched around the webs.  Oddly enough, there is a modern company that makes bulbs named Redbird LED, but they were founded in 2006.  Probably not what they are talking about on the Grizzly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, EnsignExpendable said:

What is a mine snake hatch and a red bird lamp? I assume that the first is a hatch to drop mine-clearing detonation cord of some kind

 

Snake was a mine-clearing device that consisted of lengths of explosive-filled pipe (basically Bangalore torpedo) pushed across the minefield by the tank, and then detonated. I suspect the hatch is intended for easier access to that through the belly of the tank, so as not to expose the crewman to enemy fire. Not sure why they couldn’t use the escape hatch, but maybe this modification involved a hatch that wouldn’t drop to the ground and had to be lifted back into place?

 

13 hours ago, EnsignExpendable said:

 

but what's the second? A red tinted lamp that doesn't spoil your night vision maybe?

 

No idea, sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can see this hatch in the Cheiftans hatch where he does the M4A1, since it's actually a grizzly, and I think it was hinged. I've never heard of the light before either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

https://dambiev.livejournal.com/1170376.html

 

The Victory Parade in Verkhnyaya Pyshma on May 9, 2018 with rare armored vehicles

 

Vp2dDxICEx4.jpg

 

 

  Hide contents

Y51cfnDvPFc.jpg

 

xwmnleyVPMA.jpg

 

WnAYqVeOquE.jpg

 

5vUGbjMvHMs.jpg

 

 

Sweet photos, it's an earlyish M4, the gun mount is an M34, not M34A1, but the hull has upgrades, interesting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question: Would mid- to late-production M4A4s (with no direct vision blocks) have had the mesh shields around the turret basket as on early-production M4A4s, or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

Is it just me, or does this suspension look a bit like some sort of evil Aztec god?

 

sherman-horstmann-suspension.jpg?w=680

 

 

LOL it really does,  if you colored in the picture on the right with Aztec colors it would be perfect!  

Share this post


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

An M4, 105 if the pics are of the same tank. 

 

I don't think those pics are of the same vehicle.  The M4 was never given the HVSS suspension, at least as far as I know.  The tank in the bottom pic is probably an M4A3.  

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.  
       

×