Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

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. 

Because, "durabilty"/  Low stress means long life.

 

Walt could tell you, ever seen the mill for a M48 or M60 tank?  Holy shit.  a rodders dream. Absurdly overbuilt, massive cooling, gigantic valves. 

Any of the "Patton"mills in WW2 would have been stuffed in bombers,  just because of their power to weight ratios. 

 

A  late M60 tank in WW2  would have stunned the Germans.  Superb armor, immensely reliable, and the running gear. 

Like nothing they have seen.  A tiny automatic trans  coupled to a huge  air cooled V-12.

 

 

Great fun to imagine.

 

 

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

1 minute ago, Meplat said:

Because, "durabilty"/  Low stress means long life.

 

Walt could tell you, ever seen the mill for a M48 or M60 tank?  Holy shit.  a rodders dream. Absurdly overbuilt, massive cooling, gigantic valves. 

Any of the "Patton"mills in WW2 would have been stuffed in bombers,  just because of their power to weight ratios. 

 

A  late M60 tank in WW2  would have stunned the Germans.  Superb armor, immensely reliable, and the running gear. 

Like nothing they have seen.  A tiny automatic trans  coupled to a huge  air cooled V-12.

 

 

Great fun to imagine.

 

 

 

 

 

I always like to imagine what their reaction to Willow Run or the Fisher or Chrysler Tank Arsenals. They really had nothing comparable. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are the latest images I have fixed. I'm getting much better at fixing bad sections of the image, and I found a way to blur the pixilated scanned as black and white or worse, run through a photocopier, to actually make the shading, that the scanning process destroyed, looking pretty good again. 

 

This, 

f19-1-TURRET-AND-BASKET-SIDE-VIEW-IMPROV

 

Can look like this:

 

f19-1-TURRET-AND-BASKET-SIDE-VIEW-IMPROV

 

This level of improvement requires a lot more time. 

 

Some others.  This is what I've been doing, with a game or two of Warthunder thrown in. The M46 Tiger is rad. 

 

F394-Telescope-M70F-from-9-7018-improved

M4SERIESGUNNERSPERILATEMODEL-F19-14-FLAT

F414-Periscope-mount-M68-and-adapter-M4A

 

 

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

It's T8E1 in all the other places, must have been a typo. That makes sense, since the forged muzzle brake can't be easier to produce than cast.

 

Also there's a turret basket on the T23 turret? I thought the turret basket was eliminated on 76 mm Shermans.

Early t23 turrets had full baskets but as they improved it, the basket got smaller and smaller to the point it covered leas than half the floor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an interesting topic as, like with the Valentine, nobody appears to know where the name originated. In his book on the Firefly, Hayward gives a bit of background:

 

Quote

One point that needs to be made early is that the name Firefly is not included in any War Office or Ministry of Supply technical or policy files. Nor was it used by ministers, generals or senior officials in any filed correspondence that the author has seen whilst researching at the Public Records Office (PRO). Typically, it is referred to as Sherman 17-pdr (with many variations) or the official designation of 17-pdr armament C as used in the Sherman IC or VC for the M4 17-pdr and M4A4 17-pdr respectively.

 

The name was used at Brigade and Regimental level in Twenty-First Army Group unit war diaries from March, April and May 1944...These are mentioned as early as March and at the time of the first issues, so it does not seem to have had time to develop within units as a nickname...It is also worth noting that only some units used the name. Most of the units from the sample of war diaries examined still referred to their vehicles as Sherman 17-pdrs or Sherman VCs, not Fireflies...One other comment by Jeff Plowman was that he had not found any mention of the name Firefly by New Zealand units in Italy, where 17-pdr Sherman was used.

 

The issue of the name is further confused by the 24th Lancers use in a report from July in Normandy of the names 'Mayfly' and 'Mayflies' (WO171/849, 24th Lancers War Diary) . Sergeant Jack Moat, whom the author has interviewed, took Fireflies into action and had three shot out from under him...stated that he picked up his first example before D-Day in 1944 and always knew the 17-pdr armed Sherman as a Firefly...The name Firefly seems also to have been used for rearmed US Motor Gun Carriage [sic] M10Cs (commonly called Achilles, although in the files variations on M10 17-pdr is more usual). A 1944 caption at the Imperial War Museum for an M10 17-pdr refers to it as a Firefly.

 

What's the date on that Canadian document?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, EnsignExpendable said:

Turns out the Firefly wasn't really the Firefly

 

EAUWZ1g.png

 

To make things a bit more legible

Quote

For some reason, the origin of which is not clear, the Sherman mounting 17-Pdr gun has been named "Firefly". In point(?) of that this name has already been allocated to an entirely different equipment and will NOT be named for this 17-Pdr Sherman, which should be referred to as the 'Sherman V.C.".

 

The system of nomenclature(?) to be adopted in relation to Shermans carrying other than the 75 mm gun is as follows:

-"A" after the mark of tank indicates the 76 mm gun, e.g., SHERMAN IIA

-"B" after the mark of tank indicates the 105 mm How., e.g. SHERMAN IVB

-"C" after the mark of tank indicates the 17-Pdr gun, e.g. SHERMAN V.C.

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

This M4A1 Sherman tank that I saw in Nokesville this past weekend is the oldest running Sherman tank in the world.  I got to see it drive around and fire some blanks.  Pretty cool.

 

20170923_155102.jpg?w=610

Very nice, I bet that's not it's original gun mount!

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

Very nice, I bet that's not it's original gun mount!

Yes, very unlikely.  Those direct vision slits mark this is a very early production vehicle.  I couldn't get up high enough to see if it had the loaders hatch.  I'm going to guess the one piece final drive assembly is not original. They ran this vehicle during the re-enactment of a Marine assault on a bunker.  It fired some blanks and motored about while the Marines fired and advanced until they could use the flame thrower.  It was pretty cool.

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...