Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Jeeps_Guns_Tanks

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

Recommended Posts

On 12/16/2018 at 12:26 AM, Walter_Sobchak said:

Are those real photos of Herr Speer in a Sherman tank? 

 

 

Probably, this is a really famous 1st AD tank the Germans captured in Tunis, if you look close you can see markings were they put the armor thickness numbers on the hull in various spots. 

 

 

25 minutes ago, DogDodger said:

Looks like the collector ring box, but upside-down.

 

 

Yeah. Interesting, I think that's the cutaway tank in one of the museums, are they restoring it or something, it seems like the older pics I've seen everything is in better shape. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2018 at 2:31 PM, EnsignExpendable said:

@Jeeps_Guns_Tanks you've probably seen this photo a million times, but I'm adding it as a reference anyway. The stationary gun mantlet is marked as 85 mm thick. Is that the thickness throughout, or is it thinner around the sides? Similar question about the turret, where does the armour change over between 3 inches and 2 inches in thickness?

 

9f3583ecc5f9180af1739d0fbd93113d.jpg

Just two bits worth of opinion, but it's a casting, it will thin at the edges to accomodate the fasteners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/2/2019 at 6:24 PM, EnsignExpendable said:

Here's the inside of a Canadian M4A2E8. What's the orange cylinder in the middle? Looks like it could be the turret basket foundation or something like that, except the E8 shouldn't have one.

 

IS1BR4v.jpgfff

Slip-ring box. For electrical stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2019 at 9:02 AM, egorogr said:

Hello. What was the part number of the M34 mount 75mm gun cradle?

Is there any good reference of foundry symbol and part number on cradle?

You mean the DWG or the casting number?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/13/2019 at 4:07 PM, DogDodger said:

Stole this picture of an interesting jigsaw puzzle from a Sherman Facebook group.

rppJxAe.jpg

 

They tried to make an Easy Eight out of an M4A4?  They even added onto the front hull armor to make it look like a large hatch hull and put a bigger bustle on the rear of the turret.  Weird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC the Firefly was never supposed to carry a .50 cal, the mount on the commander's cupola is for a rangefinder.

 

Here's a fun photo. I see the additional mudguards on this tank, but the suspension is VVSS. Is this an M4A1E9? This is the biggest resolution I have, sorry.

 

NTw9hsK.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are tons wrong with that image, I mean, HVSS was put on the M4A4 hull fairly regularly by the IDF.  But who puts the wrong mantlet on, and who either stretches a big hull hatch or rebuilds the whole front of the tank? I mean, you could probably but the front of an M4A3 large hatch hull and weld it on an M4A4 hull, but why?

 

Where is this thing anyway?

Share this post


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

IIRC the Firefly was never supposed to carry a .50 cal, the mount on the commander's cupola is for a rangefinder.

 

Here's a fun photo. I see the additional mudguards on this tank, but the suspension is VVSS. Is this an M4A1E9? This is the biggest resolution I have, sorry.

 

NTw9hsK.jpg

 

 

looks like an E9, without the duckbills, but since they were fragile, they are probably in one of the boxes on the back deck.

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.  
       

×