Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Jeeps_Guns_Tanks

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

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, EnsignExpendable said:

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. 

 

Yeah the R975 had pretty high oil consumption, but none of the others did. It was the nature of the beast, the R975 being an aircraft radial. 

Share this post


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

 

Yeah the R975 had pretty high oil consumption, but none of the others did. It was the nature of the beast, the R975 being an aircraft radial. 

Yes and no..  Engines of that time were (overall) pretty thirsty.  Examples like the GAA were exceptions.  it was not uncommon to have attachments to one's car that metered oil to lubricate the valves.

So, for a radial aircraft engine forced into ground service, the 975 performed superbly. Oil consumption was not it's major issue. (I'd put hydrolock and plug fouling ahead).

 

Share this post


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

TT36iEV.png

 

Very interesting Sherman. The hull MG is welded up like on the Firefly, but it's not a Firefly! Converted back after the war, maybe?

 

 

Yeah, looks like an IC composite, you can still see the radio box and the square loaders hatch. 

Share this post


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

TT36iEV.png

 

Very interesting Sherman. The hull MG is welded up like on the Firefly, but it's not a Firefly! Converted back after the war, maybe?

 

Is there another picture of the front of the turret?  How do you know it's not a Firefly?  What country are those uniforms?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sherman tanks (unidentified model) purchased through public donations, showcased to the public that bought them. Year 1955 I believe.

 

5003.jpg

 

5001.jpg

 

Also a poster calling civilians to donate:

Spoiler

5002.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting picture for sale on Ebay.  This is supposed to be Italy 1944.  The Sherman tank in the background still has the old style suspension bogies with the return roller directly on top instead set to the back.

 

sherman-with-m3-style-bogies.jpg?w=680

 

My guess would be 1st Armored Division.  They were the first US armored unit to see action so they would have had some pretty early model M4 tanks, and they ended up in Italy after 1943.

Share this post


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

Sherman tanks (unidentified model) purchased through public donations, showcased to the public that bought them. Year 1955 I believe.

 

5003.jpg

 

5001.jpg

 

Also a poster calling civilians to donate:

  Hide contents

5002.jpg

 

 

 

 

Looks like a small hatch M4 with a depot level upgrade post-war, since it has the all-around vision cupola, and they made it on few small hatch M4s during the war. The US was probably giving them out like door prizes in the 50s if you were on their good side. 

Share this post


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

Interesting picture for sale on Ebay.  This is supposed to be Italy 1944.  The Sherman tank in the background still has the old style suspension bogies with the return roller directly on top instead set to the back.

 

sherman-with-m3-style-bogies.jpg?w=680

 

Some of those early M4A1s note it has the M34 gun mount but is not a DV tank, made it all the way to the end of the war in the MTO. A few in the ETO too on the tank companies that transferred.  

I don't think the MTO tanks got priority on the upgrades. 

4 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

Wreckage_of_American_and_German_Tanks_of

 

Often captioned, something stupid like, "all the Shermans destroyed on D-Day", but it's just a big wrecking yard in Normandy. 

Share this post


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

 

 

Looks like a small hatch M4 with a depot level upgrade post-war, since it has the all-around vision cupola, and they made it on few small hatch M4s during the war. The US was probably giving them out like door prizes in the 50s if you were on their good side. 

 

Unfortunately for Israel in that period, they were not on our good side and their M4's usually came from third party sources.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

Unfortunately for Israel in that period, they were not on our good side and their M4's usually came from third party sources.  

 

 

Yeah, they even got some from junkyards like you posted in Europe, and then rebuilt them.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

 

Yeah, they even got some from junkyards like you posted in Europe, and then rebuilt them.   

 

I seem to recall reading that the very first M4 they had didn't have a gun, so they rearmed with a German or Italian artillery piece.  I'll have to look it up.  They also stole a Cromwell or two from the British with some inside help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/25/2018 at 7:59 PM, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

Some of those early M4A1s note it has the M34 gun mount but is not a DV tank, made it all the way to the end of the war in the MTO. A few in the ETO too on the tank companies that transferred.  

I don't think the MTO tanks got priority on the upgrades. 

 

Often captioned, something stupid like, "all the Shermans destroyed on D-Day", but it's just a big wrecking yard in Normandy. 

 

Yeah, I doubt they were sending out Renault R-35s to fight on D-Day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/27/2018 at 11:23 AM, EnsignExpendable said:

 

Yeah, I doubt they were sending out Renault R-35s to fight on D-Day.

I think one of the first Panzer or Panzer Grenadier Divisions encountered by the US in the Cotentin Peninsula was equipped with captured French armor.  It might have been the 17th SS Panzer Grenadier division, which was short of equipment and using old french crap.

 

Edit: On second thought, I think this is probably where those R-35 tanks came from:

 

Fourteen R 35 tanks, used to train tank drivers, equipped the 100. Panzer-Ersatz-Bataillon (100th Panzer Replacement Battalion) in the German Seventh Army in 1944. On 6 June 1944, they were among the first Armee-Reserveunits sent into combat near Sainte-Mère-Église to oppose the American airborne landings in Normandy. Supporting a counterattack by the 1057th Grenadier Regiment, R35s penetrated the command post of the U.S. 1st Battalion 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment before being destroyed by bazooka fire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hoping someone here knows: were British Sherman Vs delivered with or without appliqué armour on the hull sides? That is to say, would that have been applied in Britain, but with plates pre-painted in American olive drab that appears darker in b&w photos than the British SCC 15 olive drab that the rest of the tank would have been painted in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stansell and Laughling say, "At CDA [Chrysler Defense Arsenal], the glacis [applique] armor was first installed in early August 1943. The exact date of the introduction of the side plates is not known, but CDA's M4 composites starting [sic] getting theirs in late August 1943. It's safe to assume that they were installing them on the M4A4 line at the same time. It's also interesting to speculate that some M4A4s left the factory with front applique only." And later, "Once a vehicle was issued to troops--either stateside or overseas--it was rarely modified. Most, if not all, applique appears to have been installed by the factories or by the tank depots before issue or during a remanufacturing program." Chrysler rebuilt 1610 M4A4s destined for the British by October 1944, so it seems from their research that it might be rare for the applique armor kits to have been installed in Britain. On the other hand, if Chrysler started adding the applique armor in August 1943, over a year of M4A4 production had already elapsed, and 6173 M4A4s had been produced by the end of the second quarter of 1943, which would leave potentially 4563 tanks that were built before the applique armor was added to the factory line and which also didn't get run through the remanufacturing program. So bottom line: who knows? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question arose because I’m building a model of a specific British tank, and in most of the photos I have of it, it looks like the armour plates are darker than the rest of it. However, I’m now beginning to think that the tank is in American OD and wasn’t overpainted entirely by the British, since on close inspection, most or all the British additions (like the track stowage racks on the hull front) are darker than the rest of the tank, as is a patch of paint on the hull side which — if this theory is correct — could be a touch-up job with SCC 15.

 

Does this sound plausible or am I barking up the wrong tree completely?

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.  
       

×