Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


Recommended Posts

  • 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

Are those Filipino M4s and crew? 

 

Yeah, they were; the picture is circa 1950 according to the person who originally posted it  although we used them till the 60s.

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20110817024010/http://www.lightarmordivision.net.ph/post-war.htm

Post-War Era

During the “Liberation” of the Philippines, American forces brought hordes of armored vehicles. The backbone of the armored forces, however, was the M4 Sherman medium tank which was far superior than any existing Japanese armor at that time.

After the end of the war, the President of the Philippines ordered the redesignation and reorganization of the 103rd and 15th Military Police Companies into the 1st and 2nd Light Tank Companies, respectively effective 25 July 1946.

A Light Tank Company under the Armored Training Group, Philippine Ground Force, was organized on 1 December 1947 at Camp Floridablanca (now Basa Air Base), Pampanga to teach the post war Philippine Army of the rudiments of tank warfare. Other combat arms training units for various ground force units were also established.

On 21 February 1949, the unit was deactivated and a Light Tank Company under the Infantry Training Group was organized. At the start of the 1950s, the Light Tank Company was transferred to the Artillery Training Group but existed only for a few months. The Company was equipped with 14.7-ton M5A1 Stuart light tanks and 30.3-ton M4 series Sherman tanks.

Part of the organization of the newly activated Battalion Combat Teams was a tank company. Of the ten (10) BCTs organized at the time of the outbreak of the Korean War, only the 10th BCT (Motorized) has a properly trained and equipped tank company for employment in conventional warfare. In late 1949, the battalion was equipped with about twenty nine (29) M4 Sherman medium tanks. Hence, the 10th BCT was sent to Korea on 7 August 1950. Its seventeen (17) Shermans and an 29.6-ton M10 Wolverine tank destroyer were shipped ahead but were unfortunately destroyed by the communist human wave during the Allied retrograde to the Pusan Perimeter.

The “men of armor” share with the 10th BCT's most famous exploit in the Battle of Yultong, North Korea from 22 to 23 April 1951, when its nine hundred (900) officers and men stood its ground against a large formation of the Red Chinese Army that attempted to rupture the United Nations’ line of defense.

The 10th BCT’s Tank Company (no tanks and fighting as infantrymen), led by Captain Conrado Yap was killed in this counterattack aimed at recovering the bodies of Lieutenant Jose Artiaga, Jr., and a platoon of seventeen (17) men who died defending their position. Yap succeeded in retrieving some of the cadavers, but was himself mortally wounded by intense enemy fire.

The Medal of Valor (MV) was posthumously awarded to Captain Yap while Lieutenant Artiaga received a posthumous Distinguished Conduct Star (DCS) for their heroism by President Elpidio Quirino.

Seven (7) 18.4-ton M24 Chaffee light tanks were issued by the U.S. forces to the Reconnaissance Company and figured in major operations of the PEFTOK forces. One of such shining moments of the Filipino’s mounted action against the communist tide was demonstrated in the Battle of Solmori where the first Filipino armor casualties were recorded in the Korean War.

After a year of stint in Korea, the 10th BCT was relieved by the 20th BCT and the heroism of the Recon Company of the relieving unit was continued earning the respect of the United Nations forces as well as the enemy.

On the triangular patch of the 10th BCT is the motto “Steady . . . On!” No one seems to realize that it is a command known only to armor personnel. The triangular shape of the patch resembles that of the U.S. Army Armored Divisions.

After the 10th BCT, no other PEFTOK unit had a tank unit but maintained their Recon Companies which were equipped with M24 Chaffee light tanks and M16 Multiple Gun Motor Carriage (an M3A2 half track mounted with quad Caliber .50 HMG).

On 1 July 1955, the 301st Medium Tank Company (Separate) was activated10 from the former Tank Company, 19th BCT and placed under the PA Training Command. Half a month later, the Armor School was activated at Fort William McKinley. The bulk of the equipment used by this company for training purposes were M4 Sherman medium tanks and M24 Chaffee light tanks. The unit was deactivated on 16 February 1958.

Today, M24 Chaffee tanks are on display at the Lingayen capitol grounds but are erroneously painted with Japanese emblem thinking that they were part of the Japanese invasion force armor in December 1941.

With the reactivation of the 1st Infantry Division on 1 March 1956, a Divisional Reconnaissance company was also established. This was formed out of the BCT reconnaissance companies and served as the reconnaissance, covering and security mission force of the only combat-ready division of the Army at that time.

In September 1958, the 1st Tank Battalion under Major Rafael Zagala was activated with the 9th BCT as the nucleus. Its equipment came from the 7th and 9th BCT Tank Companies totaling to about thirty-four (34) M4 Sherman medium tanks.

In the later part of the 1950s, then Major Zagala recommended to the Army hierarchy the purchase of 23.5-ton M41 Walker Bulldog light tanks from the excess inventory of the Republic of Korea Army. Negotiations were made through the U.S. Government and by early 1960s seven (7) M41 tanks were delivered to the Philippine Army.

On 1 March 1961, “B” and “C” Companies of the 1st Tank Battalion were unfilled and later during the year, the entire unit was deactivated.13

On 16 August 1963, the Armored Cavalry Troops, 1ID was activated and on the same day, the 1st Reconnaissance Company was redesignated as the Tank Company, 1ID.14

The existence of the latter was short-lived because on 1 August 1966, it was unfilled and its personnel and equipment were absorbed by the Armored Cavalry Troop.

During the Vietnam War, the Philippines sent A 2,000-man contingent, Philippine Civic Action Group to Vietnam (PHILCAGV) with the mission “to win the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people through civic action responses through construction of roads, schools, hospitals, and set up aid stations to medically treat Vietnamese civilians. Part of its security component is an Armored Cavalry Platoon of M41 Walker Bulldogs M113A1 Armored Personnel Carriers.

The Armored Cavalry Troop was upgraded into a squadron size on 1 March 1971 with then First Lieutenant Victor U Garcia as its first Squadron Commander.

The M41 light tanks acquired in early 1960s figured prominently in support of the Philippine Civic Action Group to Vietnam (PHILCAV) in the mid-1960s and in the defense from the infamous siege of Jolo by the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) headed by Prof. Nur P. Misuari on 7 February 1974 that lasted for two days.

On 1 April 1974, the Squadron was redesignated as the 1st Light Armor Battalion, 1ID and other similar units were activated in other divisions and separate brigades of the Army.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The differential and final drive case looks like it's rounded and ribbed for pleasure an early small hatch M4 instead of the Jumbo's thickened wedge shape?

 

 

Yeah, that and it should have plain sprockets, not the Chrysler fancy ones. The Sprockets probably came with the early final drive case and what happened to its original case? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The differential and final drive case looks like it's rounded and ribbed for pleasure an early small hatch M4 instead of the Jumbo's thickened wedge shape?

 

 

Yeah, that and it should have plain sprockets, not the Chrysler fancy ones. The Sprockets probably came with the early final drive case and what happened to its original case? 

 

 

Yeah, that's not a Jumbo housing.  Probably a postwar stuff-together for "issue" to VFW posts or city parks.  You can see the missing bitsa all over the poor thing.

 

The "found art" aspect of the hull MG mockup is amusing as well.

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...