Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Jeeps_Guns_Tanks

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

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

ol8pswkirw711.jpg

Hull down position?

 

 

 

Probably flooded out in a shell hole. Believe it or not, on Tarawa, probably where the pic was taken, they had not even come up with a way to waterproof the hull, so water up to the hull hatches meant dead tank for sure. I think if it got much higher than the hull machine gun, they were in trouble, and several tanks not lost, lost all turret power, since the slip ring for the electrical system was under the turret, and not waterproof. 

Share this post


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

 

 

Probably flooded out in a shell hole. Believe it or not, on Tarawa, probably where the pic was taken, they had not even come up with a way to waterproof the hull, so water up to the hull hatches meant dead tank for sure. I think if it got much higher than the hull machine gun, they were in trouble, and several tanks not lost, lost all turret power, since the slip ring for the electrical system was under the turret, and not waterproof. 

I'm curious if LVTs just working well enough was the reason DDs didn't get used in the pacific at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be a good question to run by  Estes or Gilbert, my impression on this subject was there was literally almost no official communication between the Marines and Army about tank use and tactics. As an example of this, the Army and Marines both came up with the Infantry phone on the rear of the tank, and at roughly the same time, but did not share info.  The Marines had so little experience with medium tanks when they used them the first few times, they learned all kinds of lessons the hard way and lost more tanks to drowning and mechanical problems than the Japanese if I recall right.

 

They did try the float based floating Shermans on Okinawa, but they were not very successful, the floats would ground out before the tracks got a good bite, stranding the tank, unless the beach was perfect.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New post on the site. 

 

the-echelon-system-of-maint-from-Army-mo

Sherman Tank Site Post 74: A  Guide Through The Maintenance Maze

While I was poking through some old issues of Army Motors, I ran into this fascinating little guide to the Armies maintenance system. Most people who have not dealt with some kind of large motor pool have no idea the large maintenance tail a big number of tanks or even trucks has.  A hell of a lot of men and equipment are required behind the front to keep the 5 men and their Sherman running in combat.

I thought this would be a good place to link to the new paper put out by Arthur Gullachsen on the Canadian Military History site. The report is called No Shortage of Tanks!: THe Canadian Army’s SYstem for the Recovery Repair and Replacement of A and B Vehicles and Major Weapons Systems. 

This fascinating report gives a very nice overview of the Canadian version of the echelon Maintenance system. Between the Army motors article and Arthurs Report, it covers just about any questions I could have come up with on how the Allied maintenance systems were run.

Special thanks to Hanno Spoelstra of the Sherman Register for finding the report!

the-maint-maze1-smaller.png

the-maint-maze2-smaller.png

the-maint-maze3-smaller.png

the-maint-maze4-smaller.png

Share this post


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

Not sure if this has been posted before.  It's one of the tanks used in the filming of Kelly's Heroes.

 

2qvtnr5.jpg

 

That poor Sherman, what have the dirty, scummy, smelly, hippies done to it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeeps, very sorry but I somehow missed this post. I hadn't mentioned it or posted pictures because I was making a joke about the car I had just gotten, although to be honest its name was probably upwards of 20% of the reason I was interested in it... Anyway, since we're on the subject and since you'd probably be among the handful of people who would have any chance of appreciating the license plate I ordered for this German M4, here's a picture. Apologies for the off-topic post, but didn't want you to think I had been ignoring you and rest assured if I did somehow manage to buy an actual tank I'd be posting everywhere about it! :) Now back to actual tanks.

kwA21aC.jpg

Share this post


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

It was also easier to not put a DShK on top and paint stupid highlights, and yet they did it anyway.

Yeah, a work that was not needed for this job, which make all this look strange. 

"Highly motivated, low-skilled people - they are everywhere ..."

Share this post


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

Here is a news story about it with subtitles

 

 

 

 

 

There is something Fishy about the restoration. I thought you could save metal that had been in salt water for long periods without putting it through some kind of process... 

 

The color and fenders are terrible. 

 

Still, gotta love them saving the Shermans from the sea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New posts!

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

Sherman Tank Site News Post 17:  Summer is here, I have all kinds of content for updates, but less time than I would like. 

I am always tweaking the site and doing minor edits, but in the past few weeks, I've had time for some more major projects. There have been a few minor projects worth noting as well.

The Editor over at  Tank and AFV News sent me some very interesting reports that give a very interesting look into the Army's search for a suitable tank Motor.

THE NEW REPORTS! (They are new to the site, not new)

Ordnance Development of the Wright-Continental R-975 Radial Engine: This report is very interesting. It shows how long, and just how far the Army and Continental went to try and improve the life of the R-975 tank motor. By the time they were done, it was almost a new motor, but still not a great tank motor. Good enough for sure, but no Ford GAA, or as reliable as even the A-57!

Ordnance Development of the Chrysler a-57 Multibank Tank Engine:  This report is just like the one on the R-975, but all about my favorite tank motor, the Mighty A-57! This motor became shockingly reliable for how complicated it was. What made it great was the complication only came in mating the five motors, the banks themselves were solid, wells designed, motors.

Ordnance Development of the Ford Tank Engines: The same report, this time for the Ford GAA, GAN etc. Very interesting, the GAA had a lot of developmental bugs. Aircraft motors, even Vs do not always make the best tank motors.

Ordnance Report on all Army Diesel Engines, June 43:   This report is not exactly like the three above, but close enough. It is a very interesting look into the GM diesel program and the other oddball diesel.

Memorandum on Tank motors: This report is more of a summary of the Tank motors as of mid-June of 1942.

These reports will give you a very good look into why the US Army chose the motors they did and the story behind getting each one to work as a tank motor. They are interesting stories in their own right.

Also new,

Sherman Tank Site Post 75, From the Army Motors Archive: Your M4 Tank Steering Brakes Should Work Gentle’n Easy

So you want to know how to fix that hard to steer Sherman, now you can find all the info you would ever need right here.

Sherman Tank Site Post 74: From the Army Motors Archive! The Maintenance Maze

You ever wonder how something like the US Army with the hundreds of thousands of vehicles it had, kept them running? Well, this post will help clear it up a little.

Tank and AFV News new Video channel has some new videos

Tank and AFV News is doing a Video History of Tanks, check it out, it's good stuff, and he will get to the Sherman at some point!\

Episode one!

https://youtu.be/gvH3Glbc1ng

Episode Two!

https://youtu.be/iQbhtINly1E

Episode Three!

https://youtu.be/ccANscv0sQg

Episode Four!

https://youtu.be/Sw5J37XXtpk

 

I also updated a few pages with some minor changes and tweaks.

The only one with changes with linking too is this one.

That's all for now!

 

 

 

 

Your M4 Tank Steering Brakes Should Work Gentle’n Easy. If not – Here’s what to do and how to do it. A Brand-new procedure – Easier, clearer, and completer than anything in your TM or Anyplace else. 

This Army Motors article is from May of 44s, issue of Army Motors, and outlines an easier and better way to adjust the Sherman or any other vehicle based on the M4 Chassis steering system. Don’t miss the complete section of Sherman Manual TM9-7018 Medium Tank M4A3,from September of 1954, posted below the Army Motors Story.

M4-Serier-Steering-Brakes-Should-work-Ge

M4-Serier-Steering-Brakes-Should-work-Ge

M4-Serier-Steering-Brakes-Should-work-Ge

M4-Serier-Steering-Brakes-Should-work-Ge

M4-Serier-Steering-Brakes-Should-work-Ge

M4-Serier-Steering-Brakes-Should-work-Ge

 

Read the pages of TM9-7018 Yourself, and compare:  Medium Tank M4A3, 1953 has this to say about the steering system and how to tune it.

This is the section of the last Army Manual on the Sherman, this should be the final authority on how to maintain the steering system on the Sherman.  It seems to match well with Army motors article. That’s no surprise, by 1944 the Sherman powertrain was very mature, and I’m sure they had the vast majority of the problems worked out by then.

The main difference is the Army motos article presents a specific chunk of the info found in this section of the manual and breaks it down with more pictures and simple instructions. This was a good thing, people have trouble with written directions, and pictures really help.  The biggest problem with written direction really is when it does not get read.

If I had to do the job, I’d want both and anything else I could get my hands on.  The common theme though, from the Army Motors Mags is, the vast majority of problems with army equipment, that caused tanks, trucks, or anything else mechanical to break down, was either lack of proper maintenance, or improper use. The biggest culprit being bad drivers, who actually drove bad, or neglected their duty to keep the vehicle properly maintained, or both.

One other interesting thing made clear by the Army Motors Article, is that the new double anchor braking system could be retrofitted into the older three-part differential cover. I didn’t want to assume anything, but the is instructions for adjusting the controls for the double anchor setup on the three part differential housing, so I think that settles. it.

TM9-7018-Section-18-Steering-Brakes-Page

TM9-7018-Section-18-Steering-Brakes-Page

TM9-7018-Section-18-Steering-Brakes-Page

TM9-7018-Section-18-Steering-Brakes-Page

TM9-7018-Section-18-Steering-Brakes-Page

TM9-7018-Section-18-Steering-Brakes-Page

TM9-7018-Section-18-Steering-Brakes-Page

TM9-7018-Section-18-Steering-Brakes-Page

TM9-7018-Section-18-Steering-Brakes-Page

TM9-7018-Section-18-Steering-Brakes-Page

TM9-7018-Section-18-Steering-Brakes-Page

TM9-7018-Section-18-Steering-Brakes-Page

 

TM9-7018-Section-18-Steering-Brakes-Page

TM9-7018-Section-18-Steering-Brakes-Page

TM9-7018-Section-18-Steering-Brakes-Page

TM9-7018-Section-18-Steering-Brakes-Page

TM9-7018-Section-18-Steering-Brakes-Page

TM9-7018-Section-18-Steering-Brakes-Page

TM9-7018-Section-18-Steering-Brakes-Page

TM9-7018-Section-18-Steering-Brakes-Page

TM9-7018-Section-18-Steering-Brakes-Page

Here are some other images of the steering brake system, from the technical and Ord manuals.

F249-Cross-secxtionmal-view-of-double-an

F252-Steering-brake-shoe-disassembled-do

P211-ORD-9-G-212-STEERING-BRAKE-MECH-SEC

Well, I hope that leaves few if any questions about adjusting and maintaining the Shermans brakes. I’m sure there are still some real-world tricks the men still working on the still running Shermans of the world could add too, but that will have to wait until I figure out how to find those people and interview them somehow.

My greatest hope would be one of the men out there restoring one of those beasts might even get the littlest bit of help from this post, because that would be awesome.

Thanks for reading people!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sherman-Ball-mount-7008929-from-Secondar

m4a2pullman_6.jpg

 

read some british report about M4A4, it syas that bow machine gun have bronze(on second photo shield is painted yelow, but ball look like bronze?) parts C and BB, does all shermans have same ? and is there any good blueprint or measures of B(shield) part(1-2 inch thick?) ? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Northen Fleet Sherman:

Some footage in the begining, Historical restoration unit and and vehicles that were restored from 4:50. Sherman - from 12:29. Restpration took 1.5 months.

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.  
       

×