Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Jeeps_Guns_Tanks

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

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

Never built those. I did have some sweet diecast tanks with working treads, and guns, that you could cock back and load a little red shell in the muzzle and press the antenna and it shot the little shell. 

 

Just now, Walter_Sobchak said:

My friend down the street had those when I was a kid.  They made a tiger and and chieftain.  

"Dinky" is the maker you are looking for. Matchbox  also had some  nominal 1/50 scale models  .  The other was Solido from France.

Only Dinky and Matchbox offered firing models, to my memory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

This is the one I was thinking of.

 

6b9e96a7887d491084159c58eaa1d3a7.jpg

Mine came in an updated package with a clear window, but that was the tiger I!  I kinda thought Dinky and Corgi were the same, I wonder if Corgi bought them out?

Share this post


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

Yeah, it's kinda funny too, those were not used all that long, but they end up on every tiger reproduction!

 

I wonder if it was because of Tiger 131 at Bovington? It was the most convenient example of a Tiger tank available for British model makers to use as a source.  And probably once one model was out there, the next company used it as a reference, and so forth and so on.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lindberg models are fucking terrible. The crewmen that come with the SdKfz 222 have their binoculars molded directly into their face so clumsily that they don't actually have any facial features.

 

But speaking of Shermans, Warspot wants me to do a recognition guide. I'm clear on the major stuff, like the turrets (old school/T23), suspensions (M3 style with the roller on top, the upgraded kind, HVSS), tracks, small/large hatch and associated UFP slopes (the large hatch ones have less sloping, right?), and obviously the major visual differences between the M4/M4A1/M4A2/M4A3/M4A4. Is there anything else I'm missing?

Share this post


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

Lindberg models are fucking terrible. The crewmen that come with the SdKfz 222 have their binoculars molded directly into their face so clumsily that they don't actually have any facial features.

 

But speaking of Shermans, Warspot wants me to do a recognition guide. I'm clear on the major stuff, like the turrets (old school/T23), suspensions (M3 style with the roller on top, the upgraded kind, HVSS), tracks, small/large hatch and associated UFP slopes (the large hatch ones have less sloping, right?), and obviously the major visual differences between the M4/M4A1/M4A2/M4A3/M4A4. Is there anything else I'm missing?

 

Gun mantlet and gun sights for 75mm gun as well as the absence or presence of loaders hatch.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

My fondness for the Sherman is probably second only to Jeeps.....I've got about a dozen done and another fifty-seven kits still to do in my stash.

Post some pics! More sherman pics the better.

Share this post


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

I remember my friend and I never did figure out what those black plastic things on the back were for (the engine snorkels)

Oh, the "Feifel" air filters?  Yeah those still turn up on Tiggers, in games, etc.

They were meant for North Africa.

Share this post


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

Lindberg models are fucking terrible. The crewmen that come with the SdKfz 222 have their binoculars molded directly into their face so clumsily that they don't actually have any facial features.

 

But speaking of Shermans, Warspot wants me to do a recognition guide. I'm clear on the major stuff, like the turrets (old school/T23), suspensions (M3 style with the roller on top, the upgraded kind, HVSS), tracks, small/large hatch and associated UFP slopes (the large hatch ones have less sloping, right?), and obviously the major visual differences between the M4/M4A1/M4A2/M4A3/M4A4. Is there anything else I'm missing?

They don't make their own molds.  I don't think Lindberg has made a mold since...Ever.. They buy old molds and reissue "vintage" kits.

Share this post


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

Lindberg models are fucking terrible. The crewmen that come with the SdKfz 222 have their binoculars molded directly into their face so clumsily that they don't actually have any facial features.

 

But speaking of Shermans, Warspot wants me to do a recognition guide. I'm clear on the major stuff, like the turrets (old school/T23), suspensions (M3 style with the roller on top, the upgraded kindill, HVSS), tracks, small/large hatch and associated UFP slopes (the large hatch ones have less sloping, right?), and obviously the major visual differences between the M4/M4A1/M4A2/M4A3/M4A4. Is there anything else I'm missing?

 

I'll check the thread when I get home from work, abd see if I can think of anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

Post some pics! More sherman pics the better.

 

Tricky at the minute, but I would be glad to once I get sorted out.....The only ones I have pictures of right now are the Airfix kit I posted earlier in this thread and a bunch of WIPs:

 

PrimeTimeTrio

Unimodel 1/72 M4A1s (with a lot of extras)

 

Strongly recommend the modellers here check out Britmodeller (& Missing Lynx if you don't already), invaluable source of information and there are some serious experten there who are always glad to help out with advice & tips.

Share this post


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

 

Gun mantlet and gun sights for 75mm gun as well as the absence or presence of loaders hatch.

 

 

Gun Mantlet is a good point. I can tell the difference between M34 and M34A1, anything else? 

 

Also only the British cut out a loader's hatch in old turret Shermans, right? It would probably help to have the proper numbers/terms for all of these things...

Share this post


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

 

Gun Mantlet is a good point. I can tell the difference between M34 and M34A1, anything else? 

 

Also only the British cut out a loader's hatch in old turret Shermans, right? It would probably help to have the proper numbers/terms for all of these things...

 

 

 

Hmm, note the M4 105 and M4A3 105 tanks have two ventilators on their turrets and a specific gun mantlet and gun mount. 

 

There were two types of 75mm turrets, a high and low bustle, but that's really in the weeds if you're mostly concerned with telling models apart. 

 

Don't forget about the Composite hull M4 tanks. 

Share this post


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

Yup, I already mentioned composites in my Firefly article, so I'll cover them again. Whats the difference between a high and low bustle turret? Is there a matrix of manufacturers and features specific to each one somewhere?

"high " and "low" had to do with the vertical height of the bustle.

A "low" had less space between the base of the bustle, and the engine deck when the gun was facing forward.

Share this post


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

"high " and "low" had to do with the vertical height of the bustle.

A "low" had less space between the base of the bustle, and the engine deck when the gun was facing forward.

 

Yeah, and when the large hatch hulls came out, the hinge point could rub the low bustle turrets, this could be fixed with some grinding. 

low_bustle_1.JPG'

high_bustle_1.JPG

more pics here

http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/turret_types/75mm_turrets.html

 

The pistol port also got removed them brought back. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another question, probably not about the Sherman specifically, what is mpq? I have some documents on Sherman trials, the M4E1 gave .77 mpg and 3.8 mpq in cross country trials when running on diesel fuel, for instance. 

 

Edit: never mind, I figured it out, it's oil consumption. Naturally it's measured with a different unit than fuel. 

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.  
       

×