Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Jeeps_Guns_Tanks

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

Recommended Posts

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

lB1axCi.png

 

 

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

 

https://i.imgur.com/Icrhjrh.png

 

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

8uHaJxq.png

 

5ZKUODy.png

 

RamIICastNov1941.jpg

 

 

 

 

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.  
       

×