Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

 

Wow, so I looked up Irzyk on Amazon, he has one book, called 'He rode up front for Patton', that is out of print and goes for big bucks, 300 to 700!

Irzyk is the guy that wrote up this defense of the Sherman tank right after WWII.  Its been available various places online and Zaloga included it in the appendices of his Patton VS the Panzers book.  He has also been in some of the crappy US TV documentaries.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

(M4A3E8, ultimate production Sherman) This is a work in progress, please feel free to comment, or help me with info and links.     Click here to see the new The Sherman Tank Websit

Hey guys, here's the first part of my new section in the Sherman doc, on Marine use of the Sherman.    I'm going to update the main post tonight. I've update every section in the doc with more info

11 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

Irzyk is the guy that wrote up this defense of the Sherman tank right after WWII.  Its been available various places online and Zaloga included it in the appendices of his Patton VS the Panzers book.  He has also been in some of the crappy US TV documentaries.

 

 

Oh yeah. It's one of my favorite sources to shut up sherman haters. I have a post about and it's on pdf on my downloads page.  I would love to meet him

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an odd one.....I recall a discussion from the Missing Lynx modelling forum about a Sherman subtype with suspension fitted with spacers to allow the use of tracks with double-duckbills, like this:

 

100_6236.jpg

 

The site where I found the image attributes this as a M4A1 Flamethrower:  http://www.odfever.com/folly/Galleries/M4A1/M4A1.htm

 

 

Here's another picture of a different vehicle with the same spaced suspension & double-duckbills, but with a chevron track:

 

m4a1e6_2.jpg

 

This one is described as an M4A1E6 on this page:  http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/m4a3e4/m4a3e4.html  But the description doesn't mention the changes to the suspension.

 

Hoping you might know the designation for this type (pretty sure it was a M4A1 variant, E4 or E6 does ring some bells), maybe you have a section on it, I'd quite like to build one as a curiosity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dammit, I stopped looking at E8.....I've seen stills of at least one of these tanks in action on ML, IIRC it was in US markings and had the Duckbills in situ, which was what drew attention to it in the first place (may have been an eBay find, there are a couple of guys there who specialise in trawling the site for pictures).  Sadly Photobucket utterly destroyed any realistic possibility of me finding it again in short order, if I happen upon it by chance you'll be the first to know. 

 

PS - Forgot to say cheers for the link, spot on, it has everything I should need, so.....Cheers!  :D

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

 

Why do you think it's been converted to an R975?

The A57 is really hard to find parts for on the USA.  I only know of two that run with the right motor.  Plus it looks like it has part of an m4a1 or m4 engine deck.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

The A57 is really hard to find parts for on the USA.  I only know of two that run with the right motor.  Plus it looks like it has part of an m4a1 or m4 engine deck.

 

Well Jeeps, your theory was close.  I found the auction catalog from the Normandy D-day Museum sale, and it says this tank is an M4A4 with a Ford GAA engine.  http://issuu.com/artcurialbpt/docs/3114?e=6268161/12789934

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2017 at 7:39 AM, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

Well Jeeps, your theory was close.  I found the auction catalog from the Normandy D-day Museum sale, and it says this tank is an M4A4 with a Ford GAA engine.  http://issuu.com/artcurialbpt/docs/3114?e=6268161/12789934

 

Interesting, a GAA is of course the best motor to swap in if you can get you mits on one. 

 

On 9/14/2017 at 8:09 AM, Walter_Sobchak said:

Hey Jeeps, was the T49 all metal track more common on UK Shermans?

 

Based only on picture evidence, I would say yes, but that was the prefered, or demanded track type for the Soviets too. You see it on some US tanks, but it seems pretty rare. The Brits also had some steel chevron type only they used commonly.  I think the T62. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

These are the latest Sherman drawings I've cleaned up. 

 

I'm working on the rest of the fuel system drawings, and will add a page dedicated to the M4s fuel system, starting with the M4A3. The Cupola drawing is the start of the drawings for the new upcoming turret page. 

 

I also have a ton of Corsair photos here. 

http://www.theshermantank.com/downloads-page-the-place-for-things-to-big-to-post-like-manuals/airplane-stuff/f4u-corsair-page-the-bent-wing-bird/

and a bunch of ship photos here,

http://www.theshermantank.com/downloads-page-the-place-for-things-to-big-to-post-like-manuals/airplane-stuff/f4u-corsair-page-the-bent-wing-bird/

 

Simply because I like ships and planes... 

Lt_Ira_Kepford_of_VF-17_returns_from_a_c

 

 

 

 

 

Engine-automatic-oil-filter-motor-explod

GAA-motor-mounts-improved-FLATT-1600x909

 

 

 

Fuel-shut-off-valve-control-exploded-vie

 

 

COMMANDERS-CUPOLA-7054771-ASSEMBLED-VIEW

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/12/2017 at 10:09 PM, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

E9

 

They did cover it over on Sherman Minutia.  

 

http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/e9suspension/e9suspension.html

 

I'm not sure if they saw any combat in WWII. 

Hunnicutt's book also has info on them. Without digging mine out of storage I recall a mention of them being fitted to the "Jumbos" as well.

On 9/13/2017 at 10:23 PM, Walter_Sobchak said:

I saw one of these M4A3E9's earlier this summer in Eastern Ohio.

 

20170624_123026.jpg?w=700&h=

They look goofy as hell with "normal" tracks.

On 9/14/2017 at 10:01 AM, EnsignExpendable said:

Weird that the R957 was the one that survived the longer, all the British documents I find about it complain that it's hot garbage.

 

Considering the British track record with tank engines in WW2, that's actually pretty funny.  The '975 on a bad day was better than a lot of the garbage the Brits stuffed under armor, well into the 70's.  *Cough L60*.

 

On 9/17/2017 at 10:44 PM, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

Interesting, a GAA is of course the best motor to swap in if you can get you mits on one. 

 

 

Rodders have discovered the GAA. IIRC there are a bunch of wacky one-off's built using the GAA as the mill.  It also was "rode hard and put away wet" too often. 

The 975 was a more primitive, but also more overbuilt engine than the GAA. A 975 will eat up abuse that would kill a GAA, and do it on one carb. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Meplat said:

Hunnicutt's book also has info on them. Without digging mine out of storage I recall a mention of them being fitted to the "Jumbos" as well.

They look goofy as hell with "normal" tracks.

 

Considering the British track record with tank engines in WW2, that's actually pretty funny.  The '975 on a bad day was better than a lot of the garbage the Brits stuffed under armor, well into the 70's.  *Cough L60*.

 

 

 

Rodders have discovered the GAA. IIRC there are a bunch of wacky one-off's built using the GAA as the mill.  It also was "rode hard and put away wet" too often. 

The 975 was a more primitive, but also more overbuilt engine than the GAA. A 975 will eat up abuse that would kill a GAA, and do it on one carb. 

 

 

Yeah, there is a guy in south America that has a GAA setup with a modern Ford ECM, turbos and fuel injection making 3000+ HP. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

 

Yeah, there is a guy in south America that has a GAA setup with a modern Ford ECM, turbos and fuel injection making 3000+ HP. 

Considering it's a 1000+CID mill at rest, with solid gear driven OH camshafts, in an absurdly underworked install, that is not shocking in the least. 

 

A GAA with a simple 6-71 blower  (all pre WW2 tech) would have yielded an easily produced and absurdly -powerful tank engine. 

 

Imagine early  North Africa  engagements, where late M3's and early M4's were leaving huge roostertails of dirt as  their supercharged GAA mills came to speed. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the GAA was one bad ass mill, it had forged rods, with full floating wrist pins, I can't find a source on if the pistons were cast or forged, but I'd bet forged, since everything else was so heavy duty. 

 

I'm really curious why the Army didn't try and get a little more power out of it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By Collimatrix
      Shortly after Jeeps_Guns_Tanks started his substantial foray into documenting the development and variants of the M4, I joked on teamspeak with Wargaming's The_Warhawk that the next thing he ought to do was a similar post on the T-72.
       
      Haha.  I joke.  I am funny man.
       
      The production history of the T-72 is enormously complicated.  Tens of thousands were produced; it is probably the fourth most produced tank ever after the T-54/55, T-34 and M4 sherman.
       
      For being such an ubiquitous vehicle, it's frustrating to find information in English-language sources on the T-72.  Part of this is residual bad information from the Cold War era when all NATO had to go on were blurry photos from May Day parades:
       

       
      As with Soviet aircraft, NATO could only assign designations to obviously externally different versions of the vehicle.  However, they were not necessarily aware of internal changes, nor were they aware which changes were post-production modifications and which ones were new factory variants of the vehicle.  The NATO designations do not, therefore, necessarily line up with the Soviet designations.  Between different models of T-72 there are large differences in armor protection and fire control systems.  This is why anyone arguing T-72 vs. X has completely missed the point; you need to specify which variant of T-72.  There are large differences between them!
       
      Another issue, and one which remains contentious to this day, is the relation between the T-64, T-72 and T-80 in the Soviet Army lineup.  This article helps explain the political wrangling which led to the logistically bizarre situation of three very similar tanks being in frontline service simultaneously, but the article is extremely biased as it comes from a high-ranking member of the Ural plant that designed and built the T-72.  Soviet tank experts still disagree on this; read this if you have some popcorn handy.  Talking points from the Kharkov side seem to be that T-64 was a more refined, advanced design and that T-72 was cheap filler, while Ural fans tend to hold that T-64 was an unreliable mechanical prima donna and T-72 a mechanically sound, mass-producible design.
       
      So, if anyone would like to help make sense of this vehicle, feel free to post away.  I am particularly interested in:
       
      -What armor arrays the different T-72 variants use.  Diagrams, dates of introduction, and whether the array is factory-produced or a field upgrade of existing armor are pertinent questions.
       
      -Details of the fire control system.  One of the Kharkov talking points is that for most of the time in service, T-64 had a more advanced fire control system than contemporary T-72 variants.  Is this true?  What were the various fire control systems in the T-64 and T-72, and what were there dates of introduction?  I am particularly curious when Soviet tanks got gun-follows-sight FCS.
       
      -Export variants and variants produced outside the Soviet Union.  How do they stack up?  Exactly what variant(s) of T-72 were the Iraqis using in 1991?

      -WTF is up with the T-72's transmission?  How does it steer and why is its reverse speed so pathetically low?
       
       
    • By LoooSeR
      Hello, my friends and Kharkovites, take a sit and be ready for your brains to start to work - we are going to tell you a terrible secret of how to tell apart Soviet tanks that actually works like GLORIOUS T-80 and The Mighty T-72 from Kharkovites attempt to make a tank - the T-64. Many of capitalists Westerners have hard time understanding what tank is in front of them, even when they know smart words like "Kontakt-5" ERA. Ignoramus westerners!
       
       
         Because you are all were raised in several hundreds years old capitalism system all of you are blind consumer dummies, that need big noisy labels and shiny colorful things to be attached to product X to be sold to your ignorant heads and wallets, thats why we will need to start with basics. BASICS, DA? First - how to identify to which tank "family" particular MBT belongs to - to T-64 tree, or T-72 line, or Superior T-80 development project, vehicles that don't have big APPLE logo on them for you to understand what is in front of you. And how you can do it in your home without access to your local commie tank nerd? 
       
       
         Easy! Use this Putin approved guide "How to tell appart different families of Soviet and Russian tanks from each other using simple and easy to spot external features in 4 steps: a guide for ignorant western journalists and chairborn generals to not suck in their in-depth discussions on the Internet".
       
       
       
      Chapter 1: Where to look, what to see.
       
      T-64 - The Ugly Kharkovite tank that doesn't work 
       
         We will begin with T-64, a Kharkovite attempt to make a tank, which was so successful that Ural started to work on their replacement for T-64 known as T-72. Forget about different models of T-64, let's see what is similar between all of them.
       
       
       

       
       
         
       
       
      T-72 - the Mighty weapon of Workers and Peasants to smash westerners
       
         Unlike tank look-alike, made by Kharkovites mad mans, T-72 is true combat tank to fight with forces of evil like radical moderate barbarians and westerners. Thats why we need to learn how identify it from T-64 and you should remember it's frightening lines!
       

       
       
       
      The GLORIOUS T-80 - a Weapon to Destroy and Conquer bourgeois countries and shatter westerners army
       
         And now we are looking at the Pride of Party and Soviet army, a true tank to spearhead attacks on decadent westerners, a tank that will destroy countries by sucking their military budgets and dispersing their armies in vortex of air, left from high-speed charge by the GLORIOUS T-80!

      The T-80 shooting down jets by hitting them behind the horizont 
          
    • By EnsignExpendable
      Since I clearly have too much time on my hands, and Jeeps has a pretty cool tread going on, I decided that I'm going to do the same thing, but for T-34s. Here's a quick sample that I whipped up last night, I'm probably going to cover major exterior features of at least wartime T-34s and T-34-85s, then we'll see. I'll update the document in batches per organic time period rather than some arbitrary year-based cutoff. 
       
      Post constructive criticism and the T-34-iest pics you got
    • By SuperComrade
      About to read a (stolen) copy of



      Let the games begin!

×
×
  • Create New...