Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

Never built those. I did have some sweet diecast tanks with working treads, and guns, that you could cock back and load a little red shell in the muzzle and press the antenna and it shot the little shell. 

 

Just now, Walter_Sobchak said:

My friend down the street had those when I was a kid.  They made a tiger and and chieftain.  

"Dinky" is the maker you are looking for. Matchbox  also had some  nominal 1/50 scale models  .  The other was Solido from France.

Only Dinky and Matchbox offered firing models, to my memory.

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, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

Yeah, it's kinda funny too, those were not used all that long, but they end up on every tiger reproduction!

 

I wonder if it was because of Tiger 131 at Bovington? It was the most convenient example of a Tiger tank available for British model makers to use as a source.  And probably once one model was out there, the next company used it as a reference, and so forth and so on.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lindberg models are fucking terrible. The crewmen that come with the SdKfz 222 have their binoculars molded directly into their face so clumsily that they don't actually have any facial features.

 

But speaking of Shermans, Warspot wants me to do a recognition guide. I'm clear on the major stuff, like the turrets (old school/T23), suspensions (M3 style with the roller on top, the upgraded kind, HVSS), tracks, small/large hatch and associated UFP slopes (the large hatch ones have less sloping, right?), and obviously the major visual differences between the M4/M4A1/M4A2/M4A3/M4A4. Is there anything else I'm missing?

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

Lindberg models are fucking terrible. The crewmen that come with the SdKfz 222 have their binoculars molded directly into their face so clumsily that they don't actually have any facial features.

 

But speaking of Shermans, Warspot wants me to do a recognition guide. I'm clear on the major stuff, like the turrets (old school/T23), suspensions (M3 style with the roller on top, the upgraded kind, HVSS), tracks, small/large hatch and associated UFP slopes (the large hatch ones have less sloping, right?), and obviously the major visual differences between the M4/M4A1/M4A2/M4A3/M4A4. Is there anything else I'm missing?

 

Gun mantlet and gun sights for 75mm gun as well as the absence or presence of loaders hatch.

 

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

I remember my friend and I never did figure out what those black plastic things on the back were for (the engine snorkels)

Oh, the "Feifel" air filters?  Yeah those still turn up on Tiggers, in games, etc.

They were meant for North Africa.

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

Lindberg models are fucking terrible. The crewmen that come with the SdKfz 222 have their binoculars molded directly into their face so clumsily that they don't actually have any facial features.

 

But speaking of Shermans, Warspot wants me to do a recognition guide. I'm clear on the major stuff, like the turrets (old school/T23), suspensions (M3 style with the roller on top, the upgraded kind, HVSS), tracks, small/large hatch and associated UFP slopes (the large hatch ones have less sloping, right?), and obviously the major visual differences between the M4/M4A1/M4A2/M4A3/M4A4. Is there anything else I'm missing?

They don't make their own molds.  I don't think Lindberg has made a mold since...Ever.. They buy old molds and reissue "vintage" kits.

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

Lindberg models are fucking terrible. The crewmen that come with the SdKfz 222 have their binoculars molded directly into their face so clumsily that they don't actually have any facial features.

 

But speaking of Shermans, Warspot wants me to do a recognition guide. I'm clear on the major stuff, like the turrets (old school/T23), suspensions (M3 style with the roller on top, the upgraded kindill, HVSS), tracks, small/large hatch and associated UFP slopes (the large hatch ones have less sloping, right?), and obviously the major visual differences between the M4/M4A1/M4A2/M4A3/M4A4. Is there anything else I'm missing?

 

I'll check the thread when I get home from work, abd see if I can think of anything else.

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

Post some pics! More sherman pics the better.

 

Tricky at the minute, but I would be glad to once I get sorted out.....The only ones I have pictures of right now are the Airfix kit I posted earlier in this thread and a bunch of WIPs:

 

PrimeTimeTrio

Unimodel 1/72 M4A1s (with a lot of extras)

 

Strongly recommend the modellers here check out Britmodeller (& Missing Lynx if you don't already), invaluable source of information and there are some serious experten there who are always glad to help out with advice & tips.

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

 

Gun mantlet and gun sights for 75mm gun as well as the absence or presence of loaders hatch.

 

 

Gun Mantlet is a good point. I can tell the difference between M34 and M34A1, anything else? 

 

Also only the British cut out a loader's hatch in old turret Shermans, right? It would probably help to have the proper numbers/terms for all of these things...

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

 

Gun Mantlet is a good point. I can tell the difference between M34 and M34A1, anything else? 

 

Also only the British cut out a loader's hatch in old turret Shermans, right? It would probably help to have the proper numbers/terms for all of these things...

 

 

 

Hmm, note the M4 105 and M4A3 105 tanks have two ventilators on their turrets and a specific gun mantlet and gun mount. 

 

There were two types of 75mm turrets, a high and low bustle, but that's really in the weeds if you're mostly concerned with telling models apart. 

 

Don't forget about the Composite hull M4 tanks. 

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

Yup, I already mentioned composites in my Firefly article, so I'll cover them again. Whats the difference between a high and low bustle turret? Is there a matrix of manufacturers and features specific to each one somewhere?

"high " and "low" had to do with the vertical height of the bustle.

A "low" had less space between the base of the bustle, and the engine deck when the gun was facing forward.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Meplat said:

"high " and "low" had to do with the vertical height of the bustle.

A "low" had less space between the base of the bustle, and the engine deck when the gun was facing forward.

 

Yeah, and when the large hatch hulls came out, the hinge point could rub the low bustle turrets, this could be fixed with some grinding. 

low_bustle_1.JPG'

high_bustle_1.JPG

more pics here

http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/turret_types/75mm_turrets.html

 

The pistol port also got removed them brought back. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another question, probably not about the Sherman specifically, what is mpq? I have some documents on Sherman trials, the M4E1 gave .77 mpg and 3.8 mpq in cross country trials when running on diesel fuel, for instance. 

 

Edit: never mind, I figured it out, it's oil consumption. Naturally it's measured with a different unit than fuel. 

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...