Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Jeeps_Guns_Tanks

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

Recommended Posts

It seems kind of funny, on a drawing that is meh on dimensional accuracy, has so many little details, the rotor sight, and counterweight, but not the return rollers? 

 

Still, cool find. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, EnsignExpendable said:

I saw the famous Michael Sherman at Bovington. Interestingly enough, it has the red British "unarmoured" triangle screwed into the side. Was the tank actually made from mild steel or did they simply not want it to be sent into combat?

 

 

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it was made of regular steel, as like a production test or something.  Even so, it should be made into a runner!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know exact text for blackout and air heater instruction plates on early M4A2 instruments panel (or on any other if these instructions were the same)?

ljIvP2U.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, egorogr said:

Does anyone know exact text for blackout and air heater instruction plates on early M4A2 instruments panel (or on any other if these instructions were the same)?

ljIvP2U.png

I don't think I do, but I'll look through the M4A2 and M10 manuals as see if I can find anything. 

Share this post


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

I don't think I do, but I'll look through the M4A2 and M10 manuals as see if I can find anything. 

 

On page 341 and 342 in TM9-731B, (you can get it on my downloads page), has instructions on how to use the air heaters, and I assume the directions in the manual are pretty close to what's on the instrument panel. 

 

6046preheat-1600x505.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SNL G-104 for the M4A4 from 29 July 1943 shows a light switch that looks pretty similar:

LMOlKe9.jpg

 

After messing around a bit with the warning plate for the blackout switch, I've come up with

Quote

BLACK-OUT SWITCH

PRESS SPRING[?] BUTTON

BEFORE PULLING OUT TO

SERVICE LIGHT POSITION

[illegible] BLACK-OUT

 

fI4qExH.jpg

 

Pulling on the switch activated the blackout marker and taillights and blackout stoplight; to get to the second (service headlights and blackout stop light) or third (service stop lights with no other lights) detents you had to press the locking button on the left as you pulled the switch. Not much help, but it may be a start.

 

Edit: The last line may be "1ST STAGE - BLACK-OUT"?

Edited by DogDodger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, DogDodger said:

SNL G-104 for the M4A4 from 29 July 1943 shows a light switch that looks pretty similar:

LMOlKe9.jpg

 

After messing around a bit with the warning plate for the blackout switch, I've come up with

 

fI4qExH.jpg

 

Pulling on the switch activated the blackout marker and taillights and blackout stoplight; to get to the second (service headlights and blackout stop light) or third (service stop lights with no other lights) detents you had to press the locking button on the left as you pulled the switch. Not much help, but it may be a start.

OOOOHHh!!  Do you know where to get a copy of the G-104 for the M4A4?  I soooo want it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, Jeeps, I've had it forever and I think the site where I got it has shut down. Back in the day there was a guy, IIRC linked from the AFV News site, who was making copies of manuals and selling them. I forget his name and his site, but he actually did a good job: good quality copies as you can see above, spiral-bound with plastic covers (the thicker ones are three-hole bound, which allows for easy removal and scanning of pages). He had Canadian and British manuals as well.

uZA7fsC.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DogDodger said:

Sorry, Jeeps, I've had it forever and I think the site where I got it has shut down. Back in the day there was a guy, IIRC linked from the AFV News site, who was making copies of manuals and selling them. I forget his name and his site, but he actually did a good job: good quality copies as you can see above, spiral-bound with plastic covers (the thicker ones are three-hole bound, which allows for easy removal and scanning of pages). He had Canadian and British manuals as well.

uZA7fsC.jpg

 

Hmm damn, I want all the parts diagrams for the M4A4 so bad!  The guy over at Portrayal Press was going to look into if he could get a copy, but he never got back to me, even after three emails, and there were some other issues, so I doubt that will work out. 

 

I had a place in France or the Netherlands that did reprints bookmarked, but I can't find it and wasn't sure if they would ship to the US, and I'm not sure they had it anyway.  It's nice to see they are out there though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2018 at 4:15 AM, DogDodger said:

After messing around a bit with the warning plate for the blackout switch, I've come up with

 

fI4qExH.jpg

 

Pulling on the switch activated the blackout marker and taillights and blackout stoplight; to get to the second (service headlights and blackout stop light) or third (service stop lights with no other lights) detents you had to press the locking button on the left as you pulled the switch. Not much help, but it may be a start.

 

Edit: The last line may be "1ST STAGE - BLACK-OUT"?

Thank you!

 

As for air heater I got some thing like this:

Early:

AIR HEATER INSTRUCTIONS
1 TURN ON AIR HEATER SWITCH
2 WITH ENGINE THROTTLE WIDE OPEN
  ENGAGE STARTER
3 OPERATE PUMP WITH SMOOTH EVEN
  STROKES APPLYING A FIRM PRESSURE
  OF 10 POUNDS OR MORE OF PUMPING
  STROKE
4 WITH ENGINE RUNNING REGULATE
  THROTTLE AND TURN PLUNGER ALL THE
  WAY UNTIL LOCK ENGAGES
5 TURN OFF AIR HEATER SWITCH
WARNING
FOR COLD WEATHER STARTING ONLY


Late:

AIR HEATER INSTRUCTIONS
1 TURN ON AIR HEATER SWITCH
2 WITH ENGINE THROTTLE WIDE OPEN ENGAGE
  STARTER
3 RELEASE PUMP PLUNGER 1/2 TURN IN COUNTER
  CLOCKWISE DIRECTION AND OPERATE PUMP
  WITH SMOOTH EVEN STROKES APPLYING A
  FIRM EVEN PRESSURE OF 10 POUNDS OR MORE
  OF PUMPING STROKE
4 WITH ENGINE RUNNING REGULATE THROTTLE
  PUSH PLUNGER IN ALL THE WAY AND TURN
  CLOCKWISE UNTIL LOCK ENGAGES
5 TURN OFF AIR HEATER SWITCH
WARNING
FOR COLD WEATHER STARTING ONLY

 

Another question is about early splithatch cupola.

"Son of Sherman" book says the earliest cupola part number was D51050, if I got it right.

But it seems to me the number on this photo is D51045.

us117b.jpg

 

So was the D51050 cupola not the first but the second type actually?

Does anyone know what were part numbers for the hatches of this type of copola or any oher split hatch type? Are there any good examples?

Are there any good references for D51050 cupola, so that the number is visible clearly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this is interesting. Perhaps D51045 is a subcomponent of the turret hatch assembly rather than the part number for the entire assembly itself. SNL G-104 from 1 August 1945 for the M4, M4A1, and M4(105) does indeed call D51050 the turret hatch race ring  for "first type hatch, M4, M4A1." However, what is D51045 in the picture is listed instead as part number D78013:

GRQjNm4.jpg

 

It's tough to tell if the periscope door in your picture is D51027 or D51047, but the latter part number is listed in the M4, M4A1, and M4(105) SNL as "DOOR, turret hatch, w PERISCOPE OPENING (first type hatch)." If we assume that the picture does indeed show D51047, that's a bit of corroborating evidence, and the other door might be 51049.

QPxoof1.jpg

 

t7soJtv.jpg

 

In the first entry on this page of the Sherman Minutia Website, we can see that there was a change introduced to the first split-hatch cupola design that resulted in a physical change to the ring, so maybe the different part numbers are related to this? But bottom line, D51045 doesn't show up in either of the SNLs I have that detail the split-hatch TC's cupola, so this is conjecture on my part at this point.  Does it show up in any of your references, Jeeps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd guess Lima Locomotive Works, which was the first factory in production in February 1942. The fixed hull MGs were eliminated in March 1942. Pacific Car and Foundry didn't begin production until May, and their first production tanks had the holes for these MGs welded shut. Pressed Steel Car Co. began production in March and its earliest tanks had the bow MG holes, but their early tanks also featured riveted lower hulls, which it looks like this tank lacks.

 

Also, assembling tanks in a vest, tie, and fedora is classy as a sonofagun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, DogDodger said:

I'd guess Lima Locomotive Works, which was the first factory in production in February 1942. The fixed hull MGs were eliminated in March 1942. Pacific Car and Foundry didn't begin production until May, and their first production tanks had the holes for these MGs welded shut. Pressed Steel Car Co. began production in March and its earliest tanks had the bow MG holes, but their early tanks also featured riveted lower hulls, which it looks like this tank lacks.

 

Also, assembling tanks in a vest, tie, and fedora is classy as a sonofagun.

 

 

DD is right on here.

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.  
       

×