Jeeps_Guns_Tanks Posted September 1, 2018 Author Report Share Posted September 1, 2018 I've read somewhere, that the French liked to put the add-on armor on the tanks that did not need it. I think its the Sherman Minitia Site that has some pics of French tanks with the cheek armor added to the turrets that had the cast in thicker cheek, though I do not recall ever seeing extra armor for the driving hoods on small hatch tanks added to a large hatch hull before. Also, could it be a way to cover a penetration hole? The Sherman Vegas Ron has, has a very odd looking repair that matches nothing else I have seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meplat Posted September 1, 2018 Report Share Posted September 1, 2018 12 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said: I've read somewhere, that the French liked to put the add-on armor on the tanks that did not need it. I think its the Sherman Minitia Site that has some pics of French tanks with the cheek armor added to the turrets that had the cast in thicker cheek, though I do not recall ever seeing extra armor for the driving hoods on small hatch tanks added to a large hatch hull before. Also, could it be a way to cover a penetration hole? The Sherman Vegas Ron has, has a very odd looking repair that matches nothing else I have seen. Makes sense, akin to the Littlefield Jumbo I briefly dealt with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnsignExpendable Posted September 1, 2018 Report Share Posted September 1, 2018 There's another symmetrical plate, so I doubt that there was a penetration in the other DV slit location too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeps_Guns_Tanks Posted September 1, 2018 Author Report Share Posted September 1, 2018 So there is also the possibility of a restoration gone wrong there too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted September 1, 2018 Report Share Posted September 1, 2018 Quote The units of the 6th Guards Tank Army pass through Bucharest during the start of the Bucharest-Arad (Romanian) operation; 31st August 1944 Jeeps_Guns_Tanks and EnsignExpendable 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meplat Posted September 4, 2018 Report Share Posted September 4, 2018 On 8/31/2018 at 11:30 PM, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said: So there is also the possibility of a restoration gone wrong there too. Well, just the "joe has a bunch of app-armor kits kit and orders to apply this kit to all tanks in this park, so joe gets to work", I've seen applied firsthand. It's probably "wrong" in a technical sense, but "right" in that it probably was done by some government authority for reasons they did not comprehend. Jeeps_Guns_Tanks 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meplat Posted September 4, 2018 Report Share Posted September 4, 2018 On 9/1/2018 at 3:14 PM, LoooSeR said: With a very sad looking '41-'42 Ford and some Stude deuces in the background. Jeeps_Guns_Tanks 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnsignExpendable Posted September 8, 2018 Report Share Posted September 8, 2018 An M4A4 blueprint from AMX. Was there such a thing as a large hatch M4A4? I've never seen a photograph of one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alzoc Posted September 8, 2018 Report Share Posted September 8, 2018 11 minutes ago, EnsignExpendable said: An M4A4 blueprint from AMX. Was there such a thing as a large hatch M4A4? I've never seen a photograph of one. Spoiler I'm not exactly sure that it is the correct designation, after all the other blueprint labelled as M4A4 show what seem to be a cast hull My guess is that they put the wrong name tag when uploading the picture. In both case the title on the blueprint itself only say "Sherman tank armor" AFAIK most of the French Sherman were M4A4 or M4A2 with sometimes A1 (76mm) and A3 given to replace the losses of the previous two (and only one known A3 E2). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeps_Guns_Tanks Posted September 8, 2018 Author Report Share Posted September 8, 2018 No, that upper one is a large hatch M4A3 or M4A2 hull and the lower is a large hatch M4A1 hull. They did make both 75 and 76mm large hatch M4A1s. So Alzoc is probably right on mislabeling. Alzoc 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnsignExpendable Posted September 8, 2018 Report Share Posted September 8, 2018 Well if they are the same size, then it's definitely not an M4A4!. How can you tell the difference between an M4A2 and an M4A3 hull? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeps_Guns_Tanks Posted September 9, 2018 Author Report Share Posted September 9, 2018 From the top, without the engine deck, I'm not sure you can tell what one it is, between the M4A2 and A3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeps_Guns_Tanks Posted September 9, 2018 Author Report Share Posted September 9, 2018 No, its an A3, since the A2 has no hole in the back of hull like the A3 does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogDodger Posted September 9, 2018 Report Share Posted September 9, 2018 This drawing is pretty mysterious, depending on how specific and accurate we think it might be. The M4A1 drawing features the air scoops/grouser compartments on the rear of the hull and the welded hull does not, which might indicate it's an M4A3 and not an M4 or M4A2. Like Jeeps mentioned, the presence of engine compartment doors would seemingly eliminate the M4A2, but might they be a little wide for an M4A3, since its aperture was constrained by exhaust pipes on either side? Also, the rear hull armor appears to go straight across at the sponson line, which would typically eliminate both the M4A2 and M4A3. So it seems to simultaneously combine and lack features of all the large hatch welded hull tanks? Jeeps_Guns_Tanks 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnsignExpendable Posted September 12, 2018 Report Share Posted September 12, 2018 Maybe the French were designing an improved cast and welded hull Sherman by combining all the features they liked about the existing ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That’s Suspicious Posted September 12, 2018 Report Share Posted September 12, 2018 Does anyone have any good documentation on the M4A6 and it’s engines? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnsignExpendable Posted September 12, 2018 Report Share Posted September 12, 2018 I actually just finished writing an article on the M4A6 for Warspot. @Jeeps_Guns_Tanks also has the RD1820 manual, IIRC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnsignExpendable Posted September 12, 2018 Report Share Posted September 12, 2018 Question of my own, did this production schedule ever come to pass? Was there such a thing as an M4 Hybrid with a 76 mm gun? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeps_Guns_Tanks Posted September 12, 2018 Author Report Share Posted September 12, 2018 Here's a link to the manual http://www.theshermantank.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/TM9-1756A-Model-RD-1820-Caterpillar.pdf On the M4 Hybrid 76, as far as I know, none built as far as I know. That’s Suspicious 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnsignExpendable Posted September 13, 2018 Report Share Posted September 13, 2018 Do you know when production of the M4 stopped at the Detroit Tank Arsenal, and how long refurbishment went on for after that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belesarius Posted September 13, 2018 Report Share Posted September 13, 2018 Oops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnsignExpendable Posted September 13, 2018 Report Share Posted September 13, 2018 The tank's buggered, gents, might as well make some tea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnsignExpendable Posted September 14, 2018 Report Share Posted September 14, 2018 More Sherman questions. By American measure, the Sherman turret ring is 69 inches across, but by Soviet measure, it's 1730 mm, which is slightly less. Was the American figure rounded, or were they measuring from the outside of the turret race? The Soviets only measured the diameter of the clear space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelm Posted September 14, 2018 Report Share Posted September 14, 2018 36 minutes ago, EnsignExpendable said: More Sherman questions. By American measure, the Sherman turret ring is 69 inches across, but by Soviet measure, it's 1730 mm, which is slightly less. Was the American figure rounded, or were they measuring from the outside of the turret race? The Soviets only measured the diameter of the clear space. Well those french drawings show 1950 mm for what I assume is just the size of the cut opening on hull top. Canada had the M4's outside diameter of the turret ring as 2051 mm, the inside diameter of the ring is listed as 1752.6 mm. I can only assume that is being measured from before the ring is installed and then when the ring and all the mounting equipment is installed, it also may be factoring in that 65 mm extra for the bolt down area, but I'm unsure on that. I don't have many Sherman photos with the turret off showing the turret ring installed so using the Ram as an example. Using 8Haussars photos from the war museum. Turret ring listed as having a 1832 mm lower outside diameter, and a 1537 mm upper inside diameter. You can see quite well on the third photo just how much space is eaten up by it's turret ring design. EnsignExpendable 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnsignExpendable Posted September 14, 2018 Report Share Posted September 14, 2018 That clears it up, thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.