LeuCeaMia

Then:

 

 
Now:

Yuri Pasholok posted archive photos of a top secret German vehicle. Only two things are known about it: it has a crew of 4 and it was never penetrated in combat.
 

I'm going to miss the Minekaze's 10km torpedoes and super stealth

Is the El Camino a muscle car or a glorified pickup truck?

OK, maybe this is unfair to Robert Zubrin, but here's my drunken, late-night ranting on WHY HAVEN'T WE GONE TO MARS? WAAAAAH.

Ready for the short answer? OK: It takes a fucking long time to get to Mars.

(hopefully not too) Long answer:

Many people thought the Mars landings would be the natural follow-on to the epic Lunar landings of the late '60s and early '70s, and they weren't necessarily wrong. I still feel the Mars landings are a natural follow on, but there are some reasons besides shinking budgets, a loss of romance, and ennui that I feel are worth examining. I am not an expert, and I welcome anyone who is stepping in and telling my I am wrong, but I will nonetheless do my best to get this stuff right.
 
So, it might feel like a Mars mission would be just like a Moon mission, but with a bigger rocket and maybe a habitat and stuff, right? Well, that's accurate, but it's not everything. I don't claim to know everything about a Mars mission, but here's some stuff to think about. 

First, we have to understand that a hypothetical Mars mission is not like a hypothetical Lunar mission, and the most important differences have nothing to do with Mars itself! A trip to the Moon takes about three days. Coincidentally, a human can survive about that long with no resources whatsoever except air. This means that a Lunar mission needs to take along on-board supplies lasting for six days, and oxygen for six, and that's enough for the mission plus contingency. Now, the important part here is that the Lunar mission doesn't need to develop any living techniques to complete its mission. Simply, they can easily bring along what they need to survive.
 
For a Mars mission, it's several orders of magnitude more complicated. The mission takes a minimum of 130 days one way, if you have awesome high speed rockets. More realistically, 260 days is your one-way trip. That's close to 9 months of travel there, then 9 months back. Asking "how much weight of supplies would you need to supply one human on that trip?" is so complex as to be almost meaningless. Let's look at just water. A human needs several quarts of water per day to survive, just to drink. So for 260 days, one person would need about a metric ton and a half of water. That's for hydration alone, and more would probably be needed. It would be difficult to calculate exactly the delta-v needed to move a steadily-venting metric ton point five of water to Mars and back, but this alone represents a problem.

Can you do a Mars mission via supply alone? Clearly you can theoretically-speaking, but consider that the weight of daily supplies needed for a Mars mission would be 87 times that needed for a Moon mission, and then recall the size of the Saturn V rocket that took us to the Moon. Then add in the weight of ancillary supplies like medicine, etc, that would be needed because a Mars mission can't just abort. Being on a spaceship halfway to Mars is the remotest man has ever been by well over three orders of magnitude; a doctor in Antarctica by comparison has instantly available help. 
 
This is all to say a Mars mission has to be a self-sustaining ecosystem, barring mind-boggling available delta-v and awesomely huge launch vehicles with which to launch a tremendous amount of supplies. One hundred and twenty man-months' worth of MREs and water doesn't seem like such a big deal until you see how big the rocket(s) needed to take it to Mars and back have to be.

So we've recharacterized the problem. Clearly, getting to Mars isn't so hard. We've visited it by proxy loads of times. But now we realize that those probe missions weren't NASA just dicking around, they were actually dramatically lower intensity than a supplied Mars mission. To bring humans to Mars, we need to replicate the human ecosystem, and stick it on top of a rocket, or more likely in pieces atop multiple rockets. Replicating the human ecosystem sounds straightforward... Until you actually try it. This is Biosphere 2 (Biosphere 1 is Earth, yes, I know, nerds ruin everything):


 
Biosphere 2 was one of the first major projects in trying to replicate Earth's ecosystem apart from itself. I am not going to say that we learned nothing from Biosphere 2, but in the context of preparing for a Mars mission, Biosphere 2 did not result in a viable system for space exploration, so far as I can tell. For a start, Biosphere 2 is much, much too large to launch atop a rocket!

It sounds like I'm getting down on Biosphere 2, but I actually respect the effort quite a bit. It just isn't the result we need to get to Mars by 1995. However, there is another human habitation that has given us a much greater head-start towards a Mars mission than Biosphere 2:
 

 
Good ol' Alpha. I feel as though the public perception of ISS has been a little harder on it than it should be. A space station feels unglamorous. It doesn't feel daring, like stepping on the Moon was, and it doesn't feel dangerous or brave. ISS has gotten more popular in recent years, as its competition for the spotlight (particularly Shuttle) has faded, but it still never captured people's hearts like Apollo or even Shuttle did.

But really, ISS is kind of the Apollo 9 of the Mars effort. OK, that analogy doesn't go very far, but ISS is a crucial experiment - a long term one - in the process to going to Mars. We're putting people in space for very long periods of time, and seeing what exactly it is they need to survive up there. We now know exactly what technologies we need to perfect to supply and keep alive people during the twenty-month Mars mission, because we've already kept people alive in ISS for that and longer. And, we're making very significant strides:



To avoid getting into too much detail, and recognizing that I think I've made my point, I'll leave it there, adding one final thought. NASA is staffed by people who want to go to Mars. Every single person at NASA, from Charlie to the janitorial staff, probably hold as mankind's finest achievement the Apollo Moon landings, and they want to see that achievement topped by landing human beings on Mars. I would be willing to bet that NASA could get a direct order from Congress to in no way pursue a mission to Mars, and we would still make progress in deliberate, calculated, secret ways towards that goal. The perception (which I have been guilty of, too) that NASA is sitting on their ass and needs to get on with it, is probably less justified than we want to believe. Going to Mars will be hard, and there's no guarantee that we'll make it the first time. There are a lot of problems that need solved, a fuck ton of engineering to realize those solutions, and industrial quantities of bravery needed to execute them.

Putting people on Mars will be the greatest achievement in the history of mankind, until the next. Not because it is easy.
 

This has all been translated from my forum posts in Russian and from war game Reddit which is where it was originally posted and then moved to other forums and back here.
I dont care if you cant read it well
Overview: Romanian Socialist Republic’s Army is quite different from other NSWP armies and although have a lot of common equipment, there are important differences in some approaches.

Because of Ceausescu's obsession to produce everything in country and lack of trust from Soviets to sell better weaponry, Romanian Army was obliged to develop its own models and inspire even from Western army or collaborate with China. Economically it was bad and Ceausescu simply couldn't grasp the economics of the fact that you can't produce 100% of everything in country without bankrupting yourself.

Remember that TR-580 production started in 1977, it didn't matter that the T-72 was superior, as long as Rumnia could produce a tank - any tank - in country. Sure, later TR-85 was better and some Chinese and Western help was used but was still a medium tank rather than an MBT.

So, there was less money for acquisition from abroad, resulting in the acquisition of small numbers of advanced weaponry, and even those few were not top of the line. The T-72s Romanian Army got were the early T-72 Ural1, MiG-23s were MF version when others in the Warsaw Pact were buying MLs. Very few AT-4/5 were acquired because Rumania produced the antiquated Maliutka which was eventually upgraded with Western help. Upgraded local variants were not bad but not top of the line of course.

They stubbornedly pursued the license production of the useless RS-2US/A-90 and AA-2 R-3S/A-91 air to air missiles of 1950 and 1960 vintage MiG-21s - the backbone of the air force - while WP neighbours equipped theirs with R-13M, R-60 and R-3R. Some studies were made to design better missiles and local copies were constantly improved but in the end it was older equipment. And examples could go on. Later, these missiles were upgraded so somehow the gap was closed.

After 1990 Romania was bankrupt, and only little money was available for upgrades in the 90's but some of those upgrades proved very successful as MIG-21, still in service, with DASH helmet and Israeli avionics. There were not enough T-72s to upgrade, and not enough money to build TR-125s which was a fine tank for its time. Just like it was the case with the MiG-21 versus MiG-29 upgrade, former was dropped due to low number of planes and because maintenance should have been made in Russia. Many products were presented only at first military exposition after 1989 events which took place in 1999. But this is because at that time was the first public exhibition and were researched even from early 80s; it was a huge secrecy developed by weapons producers which was the norm during Ceausescu’s regime. Many others were dropped in late 80s/early 90s due to lack of finance and very few info are still available. Western helos were available (licensed SA-330, Alouette) and some very interesting protos (IAR – 317, probably only dedicated attack helo designed at that time by a WP country except USSR); also, collaboration of Romania with China in military research could give a deck with a selection of Soviet style tanks (T-55 with upgrades, basic T-72) and Romanian tanks with Chinese modern FCS, stabilizer and other stuff (TR-85M, TR-125).

......
 
 
 

I thought this deserves its own thread.
 
Where do you see tank design going in the next few decades?  Where do you think it should go?
 
Here is where I think things will go:
 
 
-Western tank development will be depressing.  Every country will want their own indigenous tank design, and upon learning that they are lolnotevenclose to competent to actually make a first-rate MBT, they'll ask someone who is and end up making something that is practically identical to a Leo 2 or Leclerc, only without parts interchangeability.
 
-Except for the tracks, ammo and engine, because all new Western MBTs will have the same Diehl tracks, MTU powerpack and Rheinmetall 120mm cannon.
 
-Anyone who deviates from this formula will soon learn that all the engineers who actually design tanks hung up their hats in the early 1990s, and that re-building that knowledge base is hard.  Being unwilling to put actual work into the problem, any tank designed that isn't based around these proven components will be a gigantic shitshow, and having wasted hundreds of millions of dollars, the country in question will throw up their hands and quietly buy T-90s or T-14s.
 
-The vast majority of tank armor will be increasingly refined NERA, possibly with perforated stand off screens or those wedge thingies from Leo 2A5 to improve performance against LRPs.  This fact, abundantly evinced by pictures of damaged tanks and tanks undergoing repair and overhaul, will continue to baffle and elude journalists.
 
-The USA, Turkey, Franco-German consortium, South Korea and Japan will be the only "Western" countries still able to produce MBTs, and all will heavily lean on German-designed tracks, engines and guns.  Turkish MBTs and other AFVs will be materially designed by South Korean firms to Turkish specifications.  Italy and the UK will both lose their ability to design MBTs, the UK will actually lose their ability to make them, which will be rationalized by saying that MBTs are obsolete.  Crystal ball cloudy for Poland, Czech Republic, and whatever tank production capability remains in Romania and former Yugoslavia.
 
-The Russians will re-acquire the lead they had in tank design throughout most of the Cold War, with the Chinese playing second fiddle.  Chinese first-line tanks will be quite good, but they will sell hilarious, hot-rodded type 59s to export customers (alongside hilarious hot-rodded J-7s) instead of their good stuff.  Russia will sell the good stuff, and once they manage to replicate the parts they needed to source from abroad, it will be really good.  The Ukrainian tank industry will remain gutted, and the glorious Kharkiv tank design lineage will fade into obscurity.

If anything, the portrayal of Hitler in Downfall is too sane.

I am, I must admit, a complete dilettante when it comes to military history.  I know that there has been critical analysis of Guderian's autobiography, Erinnerungen eines Soldaten, or Panzer Leader in English, but other than that I am ignorant of it.  Still, I found the book an interesting read, and at times amusing.  Amusing, I think, for reasons old Heinz would not immediately have appreciated:
 
 
Production rationalization is haaarrrdd!  Also, Guderian didn't even play World of Tanks and he knew that the aufklärungspanzer panther was a stupid idea.
 
 
Hitler cannot into tank tactics.
 
 
But just think of how dead it would kill a tank if it did hit!
 
 

WWII --- Polish resistance fighters rest by the fire during the Warsaw Uprising

 
The 28th (Māori) Battalion of the New Zealand Army performs a Haka (native war dance) before going to battle in Egypt during WWII

 
WWII --- Japanese soldiers celebrate victory next to a damaged steam locomotive (Hankou, China - October 1938)

 
Claude Monet seated with some paintings which sold in 1880 for 1,000 francs. They were worth 100 times that at the time of the photo, most likely taken in the mid-1920s, as Monet’s career was winding down and his eyesight was failing.

 
WWII --- U.S. soldier using an M2 flamethrower against a Japanese position at the Battle of Manila (Philippines - c. Feb 1945) 

 
Joseph Stalin with children 1935

Two North Vietnamese soldiers holding hands, circa 1975

 
One of only twenty ever made, a German Panzerkampfwagen A7V heavy tank makes it way to battle (France, 1918). The original Fascist Box tank

 
People celebrating the legalization of the Communist Party as the news were being spread, Spain, April 9th, 1977

 
Half naked soldiers preparing Christmas dinner at the mess in Guadalcanal, Solomon Islands during WWII December 25, 1942 by Ralph Morse

 
German soldiers on outpost duty near Antwerp, sharing their food with Belgian orphans, published in 191

 
1940: An air raid warden checks on children sleeping on hammocks strung between the train tracks in a London Underground station during the Blitz 

 
Dewey Beard aka "Wazu Maza" was the last know Lakota survivor of the Battle of Little Bighorn and the Wounded Knee Massacre. He lived to be 96. 1948

 
Two Japanese Imperial Marines who killed themselves by placing their rifle muzzles against their heads and pulling the triggers with their toes, rather than surrender to U.S. Marines, after the Japanese fought almost to the last man during the Battle of Tarawa

 
Sailors catch up on their tans while others load 14' shells aboard USS New Mexico, 1944

 
Injured man protesting Yeltsin's ruining of my nation, I wonder if you can guess who that is in the upper left

A man testing a prototype of a football helmet in 1912

 
Majdanek Concentration Camp 1944, soviet soldiers look on at a massive pile of human ashes, horrific.

 
Annie Edison Taylor, The first woman to survive going over Niagra Falls in a barrel.

 
Papa New Guinea during WWII, an advertisement for Atabrine, an anti-malaria drug.

 
1961, Disneyland Employee Cafeteria.

 
1936, the last ever public execution in The United States.

 
1903, The World Record for biggest black sea bass caught by Edward Llewellyn, alone. It Weighed in at 412lbs!

 
These ‘Punt Guns’ were banned in 1860. They were made for duck hunting and supposedly had the potential to kill 50 birds in one

Ambrose Burnslide, a Civil War General who, fittingly, was deemed the nickname ‘Sideburn’.

 
Hindenburg Disaster, May 6th, 1937

 
12. 1962, JFK and LBJ during The Cuban Missile Crisis. The US were hours away from World War III

There are only 2 known pictures of blues pioneer Robert Johnson. One of them was taken in a photobooth early 1930s.

 
Saturday evening bath, Spencer, Tennessee, 1939 - Kodachrome by J. Baylor Roberts 

 
 
Young Bernie Sanders speaking at a sit-in he organized as protest of segregated campus housing

 
Adolf Hitler inspects the remains of Char B №442 "LIEUTENANT DE GISSAC" - Crugny, France, 21st June 1940

 
Muslim Bandits, Xinjiang, China, ca.1915

 
Waiting in Trafalgar Square for the coronation parade of King George VI, London, 12 May, 1937 - by Henri Cartier-Bresson

 
The National Space Invaders Championship held by Atari in 1980, I was probably enjoying a beer induced nap in a hammock in Western CSSR while this was happening

 
Soviet rockets being fired at German positions during the Battle of Stalingrad, Winter of 1942/43.

 
Portrait of Chief Flying Hawk, Oglala Lakota, undated

 
A church service being conducted beneath the forward 15-in guns of HMS Queen Elizabeth off the coast of the Gallipoli peninsula during the Battle of Gallipoli, Jun 19 1915 

 
Serbian "Tiger" Paramilitary kicks a dead woman's body in Bijeljina, Bosnia, 1992

 
 
Russian children take cover as the Luftwaffe bomb their neighborhood. Stalingrad, 1942

 
The earliest known photograph of Abraham Lincoln. Taken by Nicolas H. Shepherd in Springfield, IL, probably in 1846

 
Japanese battleship "Yamashiro" launching a Sparrowhawk aircraft

 
Three members of the French resistance, 1944.

WWII --- Japanese aircraft in flames, struck by anti-aircraft fire from USS Hornet (Okinawa 3-18-45). The last respites of the war did not hesitate to claim as many young men's lives as possible 

 
Elm Street in Dallas, 1945

 
Man looks over the construction of the Glomfjord power plant, Norway, cirka 1920 

 
Grigori Rasputin with Alexandra Feodorovna and her children, the Russian royal family, 1908. They look like brats

 
Navy pilots on leave dancing with their dates in Hawaii (1944).

 
Bumper V-2, the first missile launched from Cape Canaveral, lifts off. July 24, 1950.

 
 
Four MPs read about German surrender in Stars and Stripes newspaper, May 1945 

 
Concorde flying over Djibouti (circa 1988-1989), escorted by French fighter jets since President François Mitterrand was on board. 

 
Partisans operating in the forests of Belarus - WW2 (September 1943)

 
WWII --- British "Hawker Hurricane" fighter is loaded with ammunition (France c. Sep 1939 - May 1940) 

 
December 4th 1943 possible scout plane from the USS Yorktown photographs Japanese air base on Kwajalein Atoll

 
Ibo separatist guerrilla near Biafra, Nigeria

 
(Colorized) Flight in its infancy: Wilbur Wright (of the Wright Brothers) clinging to his flying machine after an unsuccessful trial, December 14, 1903

 
Apollo 16 Astronaut Charles Duke (the 10th man out of 12 to walk on the moon) placed a photograph of his family on the surface of the moon a short distance from the landing module on their last day on the moon, April 24, 1972, this toke place less than 80 years after the previous photo

Russian prisoners of war lifting up an American soldier after the US 9th Army liberated them from their camp at Eselheide, Germany, 9th April 1945.

 
IRA Volunteer Derry, Northern Ireland (1971)

 
Soviet soldiers relaxing and reading the paper during the Battles of Khalkin-Gol, summer of 1939

A German civilian looks at a large poster portrait of Stalin on the Unter-den-Linden in Berlin, 3rd June 1945. 

 
Clay vodka bottle, parents owned alot of these,  Azerbaijan SSR, 1980s. They like to keep atleast one of the empty one's for memories, they were big fans of Stalin. Oviously this isnt one of mine but they looked exactly like this. There were tons of these in that region 

 
 
Wounded infantrymen smoking after Battle for Hill 598, Korea, 1952

 
Hungarian war correspondents with girls in occupied Soviet village. circa 1942

 
Four heavily armed German soldiers wearing gas masks and an early type of steel helmet called the Gaede which was introduced on the Vosges Front in late 1915. 

 
Crimean War casualties with amputated legs who were seen by HM Queen Victoria when she visited Chatham Hospital. Left to right - William Young, Henry Burland and John Connery. John Connery is holding his artificial leg - c1856. 

 
Two running men with Type-59 in the background at the Tiananmen Square crackdown Beijing, China

Brigadier Tony Wilson, officer commanding 5 Infantry Brigade, on the Falkland islands before the final battle - June 1982.

 
A German recovery crew, desperately tries to repair a disabled Panzer IV tank. Monte Cassino, Italy. January 1944

Mussolini "saluting" Guglielmo Marconi's coffin (july 1937)

 
 
WWII --- Dutch Resistance members (Winterswijk, Netherlands - c. April 1945) 
 

 
 
US boarding party from the USS Pillsbury attaches tow line on German U-boat captured by the American Navy Jun 4, 1944 

 
Armourers of the Women's Royal Naval Service (WRNS) re-arm a Hawker Hurricane aircraft at the Fleet Air Arm airfield at Yeovilton, Somerset, 2 September 1943 

 
Australian Light Horsemen, 1914

 
 
WWII --- Mother and daughter take refuge in an underground shelter, for protection against German bombing raids (London, England - c. Sep 1940 - May 1941) 

 
WWII --- German soldier in bunker, armed with a Kar98k rifle and M24 grenades, notice how the bottoms are already unscrewed for quick access

 
German soldiers on maneuvers around Metz, circa 1910

 
WWII --- Russian soldiers in combat, armed with SVT-40 rifles (Voronezh Front, Russia - October 1942) 

 
Private Henry "Black Death" Johnson, the latest recipient of the American Medal of Honor, presented for his bravery and gallantry in combat. 1918

 
Oleg Gazenko, the former director of the Institute of Biomedical Problems in Moscow (focused on basic problems of space biomedicine), holds aloft Belka and Strelka, among the first animals to orbit Earth and return safely (1960)

 
People flock around the battlecruiser HMS Hood during her Empire Cruise visit to New Zealand,1924.

 
Maj. J.D. McFarlane, USAAF, stops to have his picture taken on the way to Sweden. Copenhagen, March 1945 

 
Three female witch doctors stare at the camera with a little boy crouched at their feet. Around 1890s.

 
One example of a small demonstration to World War 1 across America. 1914-1918. 

 
Medal winners of the 1960 Olympic medals for light heavyweight boxing on the winners' podium in Rome, including a young Cassius Clay.

 
1970 - Deke Slayton (center) shows the adapter improvised by Ed Smylie so that carbon dioxide accumulating in Apollo 13's Lunar Module (LM) cabin could be removed using the Command Module's (CM) differently shaped lithium hydroxide canisters. 

 
Turkish prisoners being interrogated at Gallipoli, June 4th, 1915.

 
On June 3, 1965 Edward H. White II became the first American to step outside his spacecraft and let go, effectively setting himself adrift in the zero gravity of space 
 
 

I want to show you several late Soviet MBT designs, which were created in 1980s in order to gain superiority over NATO focres. I do think that some of them are interesting, some of them look like a vehicle for Red Alert/Endwar games. 
     
     Today, Russia is still use Soviet MBTs, like T-80 and T-72s, but in late 1970s and 1980s Soviet military and engineers were trying to look for other tank concepts and designs. T-64 and other MBTs, based on concept behind T-64, were starting to reaching their limits, mostly because of their small size and internal layout. 
 
PART 1
 
 
Object 292
 
   We open our Box of Communism Spreading Godless Beasts with not so much crazy attempt to mate T-80 hull with 152 mm LP-83 gun (LP-83 does not mean Lenin Pride-83). It was called Object 292.
 
 
 
    First (and only, sadly) prototype was build in 1990, tested at Rzhevskiy proving ground (i live near it) in 1991, which it passed pretty well. Vehicle (well, turret) was developed by Leningrad Kirov factory design bureau (currently JSC "Spetstrans") Because of collapse of Soviet Union this project was abandoned. One of reasons was that main gun was "Burevestnik" design bureau creation, which collapsed shortly after USSR case to exist. It means that Gorbachyov killed this vehicle. Thanks, Gorbach!
 
    Currently this tank is localted in Kubinka, in running condition BTW. Main designer was Nikolay Popov.
 
    Object 292, as you see at photos, had a new turret. This turret could have been mounted on existing T-80 hulls without modifications to hull (Object 292 is just usual serial production T-80U with new turret, literally). New Mechanical autoloading mechanism was to be build for it. Turret had special Abrams-like bustle for ammunition, similar feature you can see on Ukrainian T-84-120 Yatagan MBT and, AFAIK, Oplot-BM.
    Engine was 1250 HP GTD-1250 T-80U engine. 152 mm main smoothbore gun was only a little bit bigger than 2A46 125 mm smoothbore gun, but it had much better overall perfomance.
    This prototype was clearly a transitory solution between so called "3" and "4th" generation tanks.
 
    Some nerd made a model of it:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
 
........Continue in Part 2

You've seen them before; poorly edited videos with an alternating loop of John Phillips Sousa and Weird Al, purporting to tell you about the various design mistakes armored fighting vehicle designers have made over the years:
 

 
But does the maker of these videos one Blacktail Defense, know shit about AFV design himself?
 
Haha, no, no he does not.
 
Because of Sturgeon's House strict hate-speech enforcement laws, I am compelled to mention that Blacktail Defense is a furry.  So know that should you click any of the links to his material, you will need to decontaminate yourself per protocol DG-12-23A with bleach.
 
Blacktail Defense is a military reformer, a storied and interesting political movement in the United States that has gone from being a force of some consequence to being a ragtag group of scoundrels.  I'm not going to say that they weren't idiots and scoundrels when they were of consequence, n.b.
 
Military reformers are at they're strongest when they're on the attack.  They're a lot like creationists that way; when they can hurl invective at (mostly imaginary) weaknesses within whatever it is they hate, they can look like concerned citizens campaigning for the taxpayer's right to have their money spent wisely and the soldier's right to have the best practical equipment.
 
But give a military reformer some lined paper and a slide rule and tell them to come up with a design, rather than tear down an existing one, and you will quickly see that these people have no idea what they're talking about.
 
Ready?
 

 
This is taken directly from Blacktail's furaffinity page.  Careful analysis shows that, no, this man has no idea what the everliving fuck he's talking about.
 
Are you ready?  No, you're not, but let's go ahead anyway.
 
"The Tigerwolf may look vaguely similar to contemporary MBTs, such as the ubiquitous M1-series Abrams, but is in fact wrapped around a lot of design features and technology that are comlpetely alien to today's tanks."
 
 
Blacktail is going to prove to you that he's a better tank designer than all those idiots at Chrysler by designing a tank using technologies that didn't exist at the time of the design of the Abrams.
 
"For starters the crew is quite large, with a Commander, Driver, Gunner, TWO loaders, and an Engineer. Many designers favor a smaller crew, usually adding an autoloader to eliminate the Loader from the crew (like in the Russian T-64 through 90, the French Leclerc, and the Chinese Type 85 through 99)."
 
 
... What?
 
"However, there are a lot of problems with a smaller crew. First, autoloaders work at a painfully slow pace (14 seconds to reload in a T-72), which gives manual-loading tanks a huge rate-of-fire advantage (just 4 seconds in the M1A1 Abrams)."
 
 

 
"There's no autoloader either, as that only slows the ROF, requires smaller, less powerful and versitile ammo to be used, adds another complex, delicate set of moving parts to break, and only serves to expand the guantlet  of things that can hurt you inside the vehicle.In fact, the Tigerwolf's main gun ammo is extremely large and heavy, and probably would break an autoloader --- it's would be an incredible feat of strength for a single Loader crewman to load in under 10 seconds."
 
 
The Leclerc uses the same ammunition as the Abrams and Leopard 2.  As for his 145mm smoothbore howitzer ammunition breaking an autoloader, does he not know that the Pz 2000 SPG has an autoloader for its 155mm gun?  Of course he doesn't know that; Blacktail doesn't know what he's talking about.
 
"The engineer is useful as well, because the large size of the Tigerwolf --- coupled with it's simple drivetrain (most modern tracked vehicles have a deceptively simple drivetrain) and small, flat engine (compred to a "Vee" or gas turbine) make for easy engine maintnance[sic] and repairs from inside the tank --- there's no need to abandon it if you lose a sparkplug while under small arms fire."
 
 
Simple drivetrains, eh?


 
Note that per the graphic, the Tigerwolf has a diesel wankel.  Does Blacktail not know that diesel engines don't have spark plugs?  Of course he doesn't know that; Blacktail doesn't know what he's talking about.

(Diesel wankels don't exist.  Three companies have tried making them; Rolls Royce, John Deere and some Japanese company I CBA to look up.  None of the three ever got them to mass production.  I'm not sure what the problem was.)
 
"As for the armor, instead of using a large amount of steel and other metals, most of the Tigerwolf's armor is made up of thick panels and blocks of woven fabric Carbon 60 and 70 --- which are genarically[sic] known as "Fullerine". [sic]
Fullerine has ove 100 times the tensile strength of steel, it's 10's of times lighter, and theoretically could be manufactured quickly and inexpensively. Essentially, the Tigerwolf has a sort of "Super Kevlar" armor, but unlike current Kevlars (which are made of polimers[sic] or composites), fullerine does not have a molecular structure that distorts or melts under heat or pressure --- a single piece of this new type of armor can withstand MANY direct hits from rounds with tank-killing power, KE and CE alike."
 
 
Ah yes, fullerenes; every hack futurist's favorite crutch.
 
Fullerenes have many interesting and useful properties, but their large-scale bulk mechanical properties may not be that amazing.  Many materials have amazing strength at small scales, but disappointing strength at macro scales.  Sapphire whiskers are an example.
 
Moreover, high tensile strength (which is what fullerenes have going for them), does not necessarily imply that a material will make good armor.  The properties that make materials effective against high-velocity threats are somewhat esoteric.  Aluminum alloys, for instance, have a better strength to weight ratio than does steel, and while several of them do protect better on a weight basis than steel against lower velocity threats like artillery fragments and small arms fire, suffer badly against high-velocity penetrators and HEAT threats due to sheer failure modes that only exist at those higher velocity ranges.
 
Also, why the fuck does Blacktail think that "Kevlars" melt under pressure?  Aramids don't melt.
 
"Even though it's much larger than an M1A1 Abrams, the Mk.75 Tigerwolf is over 30% lighter, and can swim over water obstacles, rather than slog though on the bottom. And because it floats, there are no depths that it cannot cross."
 
 
This is how big a 40 tonne boat is.
 
"Also important is it's low ground pressure, stemming from it's low 40-ton weight, super-wide tracks, low height, and enourmous horizontal size --- it has the ground pessure of a "Light Track" vehicle, like the M113 Gavin. This is important because almost half the world's surface is closed to heavy tracks (again, the M1A1 Abrams), due to thier height, ground pressure, and high centers of gravity.
The Tigerwolf can directly cut across many areas that no existing or projected MBT will ever be able to --- not to mention traverse certain terrain features, such as bridges and paved roads, without damaging them."
 
 
Is Blacktail under the impression that it's ground pressure that damages bridges?  Jesus, if that were true the last thing you'd want to get anywhere near a bridge is a car.
 
"As the Tigerwolf has 40% more power and torque than the M1, and weighs 30% less, it is 40% faster and could probably accelerate as quickly as a Humvee. This would make contemporary tanks very hard-pressed to cut-off a Tigerwolf, and no current or projected tanks could ever hope to pursue a Tigerwolf.
Other advantages offered by the powerpack include a small number of moving parts, extremely low vibration and ocillation (inherent to Wankel Rotaries; not in piston engines), low heat emissions (less than in 700+ degree piston engines, or 1500+ degrees in Gas Turbines), a very small, flat, light engine block, and stonger individual components than in any current or projected tank engine, and a 5-speed AT, to take advantage of the high engine output. "
 
 
Uh huh...
 
So this is a magical wank(el) engine that has equal SFC to a diesel, rather than falling between a diesel and a turbine as existing ones do.
 
"Other advantages offered by the powerpack include a small number of moving parts, extremely low vibration and ocillation (inherent to Wankel Rotaries; not in piston engines), low heat emissions (less than in 700+ degree piston engines, or 1500+ degrees in Gas Turbines), a very small, flat, light engine block, and stonger individual components than in any current or projected tank engine, and a 5-speed AT, to take advantage of the high engine output."
 
 
WHAT THE FUCK KIND OF TURBINE REJECTS HEAT AT 1,500 DEGREES?!  The highest turbine inlet temperature on record is 1,600C!
 
Per Honeywell, AGT-1500's exhaust temperature is 500 C, but it's unclear if that is before or after it enters the recuperator.
 
And if he's using bullshit Imperial units he's still wrong.
 
If you don't know the difference between heat rejection temperature and turbine inlet temperature, you have no business discussing turbines.
 
"All tanks require high firepower, and the Mk.75 Tigerwolf has plenty of it. The large size of the Tigerwolf's hull and turret enables a heavier-caliber howitzer to be used than on any tank currently in service --- a 145mm Smooth-Bore Howitzer. Because the German-designed M256 120mm smoothbore (M1A1, M1A2, Leopard 2, etc.) has a 40% larger punch than the British-designed M67 105mm Rifled-bore (the standard to which ALL other tank guns are judged --- used on too many tanks to list), the Tigerwolf's gun probaly has at least 20% more punch than the M256 --- enough to outrange any of today's tank guns, with enough penetration to destroy an M1A1 from well beyond it's maximum gun range."
 
 
Any fictional Main Battle Wank needs to have a smitey, terrifying weapon... I'm not sure why Blacktail has saddled his design with a howitzer.
 
Also, how many places on Earth are there where you can even see further than the engagement range of an M1's armament?
 
"The Co-Axial MachineGun (COAX) fires 7x50mm rifle rounds, which combine the low cost and recoil of the 5.56x45mm NATO round, with the accuracy and penetration of the 7.62x51mm NATO round. 7mm rounds would also have a smaller casing daimeter than a 7.62mm round, which when coupled with significantly larger magazines and canisters, means the Tigerwolf totes one hell of a lot of MG ammo. As such, it is unlikely that a Tigerwolf will have to resupply MG ammo during a battle, and may even have thousands of rounds to spare --- if it is supporting friendly troops, the Tigerwolf may be able to spare a few thousand rounds for them."
 
 
Someone doesn't know the difference between case head diameter and caliber.
 
"A smooth ride and steady aim are achieved through hydropneumatic suspension and stabilization (versus the comparatively rougher torsion and hydraulics used in current and projected tanks) . The gun, turret, and hull each have thier own stabilization. While each of these are mechanically independant, they are balanced and co-ordinated via computer (which also feeds stability data to the gunnery computer, adjusting the GPS crosshairs in real time). This is unlike current tanks, whose ballistics comuters only react indirectly to the actual stability of the vehicle."
 
 
I don't know what any of this means, except that Blacktail doesn't know how suspension and stabilization work.
 
 
That's all I can stand.  I'm done.  Go read it if you want to, or not, whatever.

Part II
 
 
Combat Performance: How Well it Killed Stuff.
 
   When Sherman went into combat in British hands in the North African desert in October of 1942, it was bar none, the best tank in the world. It had a better gun and more armor, along with good or better mobility than all the axis tanks it faced. It wouldn’t have a German peer until the Panzer IV was up-gunned and even then, the best version of the Panzer IV was barely a match for a 75mm armed Sherman and totally outclassed by the later 76mm armed tanks.
   
   The basic small hatch Sherman was found to be fine for the job all the way through the invasion of Italy. The introduction of the Tiger and Panther did not seem like a big deal to the US Army so they didn’t really plan for them. In the Tigers case they were right; it was rare and more or less useless waste of German resources. The Panther was to become much more common, but if you really look at its performance, not that great of a threat. In most cases in when they met in Europe, the Sherman won.
 
   The Sherman, even the version armed with the 75mm gun, could still deal with the heavier Nazi German tanks, as long as it had room to move around. Much noise has been made about how it was a death trap after the D-Day landings and the Panther and Tiger tore it up in the bocage. This is a myth. There is pretty good evidence the US Army only faced maybe two or three Tiger I tanks, in Europe, ever. The Panther was more common, but also got roughly handled in just about every battle it faced Shermans in.
 
   The German’s rarely used the Panther in the bocage country because it’s long gun made it hard to use in the tight quarters and reliability problems were ever present with this tank. The tank the Sherman faced in US hands was the Panzer IV and various StuG assault guns, neither of which outclassed the Sherman in any real way. But they did have the advantage of being on the defense. Post war studies by the US Army showed the Sherman was more effective than German armor at this point; the claims of the Sherman being a death trap were false. Even early Sherman tanks were no more likely to burn than any other tank and the later war wet ammo rack tanks were the safest tanks of the war. German tanks used gasoline and gas was not found to be a major cause of fires in destroyed Shermans, ammo fires were. See the links in the data section for info on this. Most Sherman losses were due to anti-tank guns, and mines, and not so much tank on tank action.
 
   When Operation Cobra was kicked off, the first use of large hatch hull, wet ammo rack, 76mm armed Shermans took place. The M4A1 76 being the model used first followed by A3 76 tanks within weeks. These tanks were not well received across the board, with some units preferring the 75mm armed tanks because facing armor was rare even then and the 75mm gun was better at taking out anti-tank guns and infantry, and could still deal with any German armor they encountered. Some units welcomed the better anti-tank capability even if it wouldn’t kill a panther from the front unless at very short range.
 
   By the battle of the bulge, the M4A3E8 and M4A3E2 Jumbo were showing up for combat use. The Jumbo had much thicker armor and were loved by their crews. By the close of the Bulge, German armor would become very rare, but even so more and more 76mm armed Shermans would be issued. By the end of the war the ratio would be near 50%. The Army also wanted to stop production on the 75mm gunned M4s in 1945, but the USMC and the British still had requirements for the 75mm gun tanks so it stayed in limited production.
 
   There was a bit of a scandal about the Sherman being no good in the in the press back in the States about the time of the Bulge, but in reality, the Sherman was really having its shining moment during that battle and performed very well against German armor that was supposedly better. Bad movies aside, the Sherman more than held its own in that battle. This is covered in Steven Zaloga’s Armored Thunderbolt.
 
   By the time the next generation replacement showed up, the M26, the war was all but over, and only a handful would see combat. In many ways the M26 was inferior to the M4. Due to its slightly shortened development and testing time, it had a few reliability problems. It was still so reliable that it would have put any German tank to shame though.
 
   I will cover specific battles in this section as well, but will add them later. With notes.
 
 
WWII Variants: Things Built Using the Great M4 Chassis
 

M10:
   The M10 was a tank destroyer mounting a 3 inch anti-tank gun. It used the M4A2 chassis and the GM 6046 to power it. These tanks only had a M2 .50 caliber machine gun other than their main gun. The turret lacked power traverse. It had a five man crew and was generally liked by its crew. The American TD force was deemed a failure, but not because the vehicles performed badly, it was the doctrine that failed to pan out. It was used until the end of the war, and many TD battalions preferred it over the faster M18. 
 

M36:
   Another tank destroyer based on the Sherman chassis, basically an M10 with a new turret mounting a bigger gun. These tanks mounted the 90mm M3 gun. Often this tanks turret was fitted to otherwise stock M4A3 hulls due to a shortage of M10 hulls. These tanks had full power traverse. These TDs were well liked because the M3 worked well on both Armor and soft targets, since the M3 had a nice HE shell.
 

M32:
   Was a recovery vehicle based off the M4A3. These vehicles would be used to get other tanks unstuck, or recover knocked out tanks and then help with their repair. There were other tank recovery vehicles based on the Lee chassis that filled the same role.
 
Sherman Accessories:
 
Duplex Drives:
   Several types of Sherman tank had a kit added to them, it was a large skirt that surrounded the Shermans hull and made it float. Two propellers were added to the rear idler wheels. This system worked well as long as the water was calm. It was not very calm on D-Day, in Normandy and a lot sunk. Several were recovered and are on display in France. They tried to use these tanks to cross some of the bigger German rivers with limited success towards the end in Europe.
 

Dozers:
   A dozer blade kit was available for all Sherman models and later adapted to fit on HVSS tanks. This dozer kit was the most effective way of punching through hedgerows. A tank company would get one dozer blade equipped tank into the HQ platoon, if there were enough kits to go around.
 
Hedge Row cutters:
   Hedge Row cutters were developed during the fighting in the hedgerows of Normandy, They were basically section of tank traps from the beach, cut into crude cutting blades and mounted to the front of a Sherman tank.  They allowed the Sherman to charge through a hedgerow, cutting a Sherman wide hole through it. They probably looked scary to the Germans too.
 
Calliope: A Sherman with Rockets!
 
The E9 kit:
 
 
The Crew and their Stations: The Human Part of the Tank
 
Commander:
   The commander sat in the back right side of the turret directly behind the gunner. His job was to command the tank. This meant he took the orders from the platoon leader or company commander, and made his tank perform the tasks he’d been given to accomplish the mission. He had the radio in the bustle of the turret to his rear to help him. To do this he could stand on his seat with his head and shoulders out of the tank, and direct the crew over the intercom. Only he could transmit on the radio, but the others could listen. They could all talk to each other on the intercom. On early M4s, when ‘buttoned up’ or when the tank was all closed up with its hatches closed, the commander only had his rotating copula periscope. Later version of the Sherman had an all-around vision cupola, discussed earlier, that provided a much better view around the tank for the commander. As some of the charts show in the data section, this was the most dangerous crew station. The commander spent a lot of time with his head stuck out, when the rest of the crew was buttoned up, it made him a prime target for basically anyone and anything being shot at the tank.
   His job in combat was to call out directions to the driver, and call out targets for the gunner. He had a site vane mounted on the roof of the turret to use outside, by using it and his turret override; he could put the gunner roughly on target by rotating the turret. If he was the platoon leader or company commander, he would be calling out directions to the other tanks and trying to sort, what everyone was doing out, and keep things under control as much control as he could over the tanks in his company.
   He was responsible for the tank up to a point, and had to make sure the crew kept up on all the required maintenance to keep the tank in proper running order. He was also responsible for the wellbeing of his crew. The commander was for obvious reasons, the most experienced man in the tank in most cases.
 
Gunner:
   The gunner was usually the next senior man in the tank. He sat right in front of the commander, and used the commander’s hatch to get in and out. He had his own set of turret controls, and only he could control the guns elevation. Along with the gun controls, he had all the controls for the stabilizer in front of him.  In early Shermans, he only had a periscope with a reticle, it had a fixed 6x power zoom, but also could be looked through with no zoom. Later gunner’s had the periscopes and a direct view scope. He was dependent on the commander to get him near a target, and then took five to six seconds for him to pick up the target. This took a much longer time on German tanks like the Panther, with gunner target acquisition times in the minutes, not seconds.
   The gunner controlled the main gun, and the coaxial mounted M1919A4 .30 caliber machine gun. Each was fired with a foot pedal on the gunner’s foot rest. You would think the gunner would have the best view out, but in tanks, most of the time, at least in the older models, their view was very limited, but for the era, the Sherman was better than most other tanks.
   
Loader:
   The loaders job was to service the 75mm M3 gun, and the co-ax .30 caliber machine gun. The commander or gunner would call out the ammo type for the main gun, and the loader would load the gun and yell “Up!” and the gunner would know the gun was ready to fire.”(A good gunner would hear the breach closing and know before the loader spoke)  He was supposed to watch the belt on the co-ax, and make sure the gun didn’t run dry. He was also supposed to be trained on how to clear a problem with the main gun or machine guns. Even canons can have duds, or shell problems, or even just break.
   The loaders station was on the left of the gun, opposite of the gunner. He had a lot of space to move around, and a fold up seat. He also had a fully rotating periscope on the roof above him for his viewing pleasure.  In early Shermans the loader had twelve ready rounds around the base of the turret, with another eight in a ready rack at his feet. This was the primary reason so many early Shermans burned, anything that penetrated the turret or the hull and hit those exposed rounds would set off a chain reaction explosion, destroying the tank, and often killing most of the crew. This problem was figured out pretty fast and the twelve exposed rounds were deleted and an armored four round ready rack replaced it the eight round one. Later armor was added to the inside and outside of the sponson ammo boxes.
   If a lot of firing was taking place, the loader was a very busy guy, on early Shermans the sponson racks, even without all the turret ready ammo, he had a fair number of easy to get to ammo racks for the main gun, but since the turret basket was screened, he could only get to them with the turret at certain bearings. With the switch to all ammo but the ready ammo in the floor of the hull, his job got much harder. On the wet ammo rack tanks, he would have to pull open doors in the bottom of the turret basket, then open an armored box and pull ammo from it. He had to know what was in all the ammo boxes, and was responsible for what got loaded into where.
   The loader on some models also had a 2 inch smoke mortar to load and fire at the commander’s desire. It was a short lived feature. It protruded into the loader space and was not well liked by that member of the crew.    
   After spending some time as a co-driver, a crewmember may be moved up to loader. A good loader was important, the 75mm and later 76mm guns were capable of very fast rates of fire, but only if the loader could keep up. When he wasn’t scrambling around the floor of the turret opening armored doors in the floor to find ammo to feed the gun, he was another set of eyes. On early tanks using his periscope, on later ones he could stick his head out of his own hatch. Many crews mounted extra machine guns to the roofs too, and if there was one on the loaders hatch it would be his to shoot. Some units would put the M2 .50 mount in front of the loader, and put a .30 Cal M1919A4 on a mount in front of the commander.
   Early to well into later production 75mm gun armed Shermans did not have a loaders hatch. This meant if the loader had to bail out, he had to get around the main gun to do it. The main gun had a folding recoil guard to help with this. It would be a very hard thing to do if the tank was burning or the loader was wounded and the tank filled with smoke.        
 
Driver:
   The driver and co-driver were separate from the turret crew; they sat in the forward part of the hull. They could only climb into the turret if the turret was rotated to line up the holes in the turret basket, with the drivers compartment. The transmission sat between the driver and co-driver and only the driver had a set of controls. Only the driver had any instruments as well. On early tanks the drivers and co drivers hatches were oval shaped and small, and required the man to twist to get through. On very early tanks he had a rotating periscope in his hatch, and a direct view port with an armored cover. The view ports were removed from production and extra armor was added over them. This was done very quickly when it was found bullet splash could get through even a closed port. They were also a big ballistic weak spot in the armor.
   The driver needed to be able to drive the tank, often without knowing what he was driving into, trusting the eyes of the other crew members and commander to keep him out of trouble. He needed to know what his tank could drive over and climb, and what it couldn’t. Getting your tank stuck in the mud was an embarrassing thing to do. If it was really stuck, it might require more than one tank to pull it out. The crew would get a lot of heat for that type of thing.
   Driving the tank was important, and the driver had to work well with the commander. A savvy co driver could be moved into this spot, or a good loader, would be given a shot. The position was roomy and fairly comfortable as tank positions go. He had a good view forward from a fixed periscope, and rotating one built into the drivers hatch. The seat could also be adjusted up, and the tank driven with drivers head stuck out. In the movie Tank with James Garner, you get a lot of shots of him driving the tank with his head stuck out.
 
Co-driver:
   The co-drivers position was the on the right front of the hull and has its own hatch. The position had no controls or instrument panel. This position had a .30 caliber M1919A4 machine gun, aimed by tracer through the periscopes. This gun had a very limited fire arc and wasn’t very effective, but the extra crew member was nice to have around to help keep the tank up and running.  
   This was the position most new tankers started in. As they learned how the tank worked they got moved around. Not all crew changes were due to loses. You could have a man transfer out or be sent to rear for a disciplinary situation, to leave, or some other reason. Crew members could be moved from tank to tank. If another Sherman lost its commander and no one in it was ready to replace the man, a really good gunner or driver might get pulled out of another tank to take it over. Crews were kept together for as long as practical though. The co-driver was the closest to the escape hatch built into the floor of the tank; it was right behind the seat, and would be the best way for the driver and co-driver to get out of the tank in some cases, or the only way if the turret was in the wrong place.
   These five men were responsible for keeping the tank running. This meant keeping up on a long list of daily chores from checking track tension and adjusting it, to tighten the bolts on the each end link on both sides of the track run, to checking the oil and radiator fluids, or the batteries. There were also numerous things that had to be hit with a grease gun, others that had to be adjusted. Depending on the motor type various engine maintenance tasks had to be done. Plus cleaning and maintaining the main gun, and all the machine guns, loading ammo and fuel. Getting food and eating, and other person chores all had to be done as well. Many tanks ended up piled with extra gear to help make the tankers lives easier. They only had to keep the tank up to a point, if it needed major work, like a new transmission or engine; a company or battalion level maintenance crew would come and help, ideally, or a replacement tank would be issued.  
 
Tank Infantry Communication: They couldn't at first.
 
   M4 tanks, and US Armor in general couldn’t talk to the infantry they were tasked to support. When I first read about the communication problems between tankers, and the ‘doughs’ they were fighting with I was surprised. It’s hard to believe in today’s world; talking to people inside a vehicle right next to you would be a problem, like send a text right bro? Well not back in the forties, they did have two way radios, but the technology used vacuum tubes, because transistors had not been invented, and they were not very reliable, and had a limited number of radio frequencies they could talk on. They also had the problem that tank radios, and infantry radios did not share frequencies.
   So Shermans would be sent to support Infantry, usually say a separate tank battalion would send a platoon over to regiment of infantry, often the battalion would be assigned to the same infantry division for a long period of time so they could get used to working with the same people. This helped, but in combat they still had real communication problems, no matter how long they had worked together in training. This problem didn’t really come to the top until after D-Day when the Sherman was supporting infantry in the bocage country, and close cooperation was needed. A platoon could be broken down further to support smaller units as well, and it wasn’t unheard of for a single tank to support a company, though they really tried to at least keep tanks paired up.
   Things would normally go well communication wise before the shooting started; at least the tank commander would be riding with his head stuck out; so he could talk to the infantry riding on his tank or walking around it. A savvy infantry officer may be up on the tank talking to the commander. Once the tank started taking enough fire for the crew to close those hatches, everything changed. No amount of yelling or even banging on the tank would get the crews attention. Since the tanks and infantry were not on the same radio nets, if they wanted to get orders to the tank through the radio, they had to radio up to battalion or regiment level, get someone to find the tank battalion commander, or someone who could talk to the tank on the radio, and then hope, they could get that actual tank on the net during the firefight. This did not work well. Often it took a man standing in front of the tank and waving his arms to get them to open up, this clearly was not an ideal solution either, and even when the commander did pop his head out, he had a very hard time hearing anything with his helmet on.
   If the tank unit and infantry units got to train together, and had been working together for a long time, this was less of a problem than a tank battalion assigned to a new infantry division with no combat time and little tank/infantry training. This lack of commination became a clear and prominent problem in the bocage fighting in Normandy, when infantry wouldn't be able to warn the tank they were working with of an imminent threat in a timely manner. The infantry would often be forced to fall back from the tanks leaving them alone, and easy targets for enemy infantry close assaults.
   Various solutions were improvised in the field; they tried using the infantry’s handy talky from inside the tank, but the tanks electrical system caused to much interference. They also tried giving company level infantry headquarters spare tank radios, mounted to a back board, but they were really to heavy to be practical, and not common enough to be all that useful. Some smart tanker figured out if you poked the handy talkie’s antennae out of the hatch, it worked, and that was the best solution for a little while. They also tried rigging up field telephones, with spools on the back of the tanks to let out the phone wire as they advanced, but the wire broke easily and restricted how the tank could move.
   The best solution was worked out by Operation Cobra, and many tanks went into combat sporting it. The fix was mounting an EE-8 field telephone in a .30 caliber ammo box on the back of the tank. This phone was wired into the tanks intercom so anyone could walk up and say, “Hey! You blind Sonsobitches!! Shoot the machine gun nest over to the right, that house you’re shooting up is empty, you stupid bastards!!” or something to that effect. This of course could get the infantry guy, who wanted to talk to the tank shot, since he had to stand up behind the tank, but they still haven’t come up with something better, and M1A2 Abrams tanks are getting infantry phones installed on them now.
   The Marines came up with this solution as well, but faster, since they used the M4 for much less time than the Army. They did come up with it around the same time as well, in July of 44. They found it essential for working in close with the fellow marines. The Japanese at this point were using man powered shaped charges on a pole, or magnetic mines, and the tanks really depended on the infantry around them to be their eyes. Marine tanks operated buttoned up once the shooting started, without the phone, they were much less effective.
 
The Radios: I don’t know much about tank radios, but I will when done with this section.
 
   The Sherman tank came with a SCR 508, 528 or 538 radio set. Command tanks had an additional SCR 506 mounted in the right front sponson. This let the tank listen on the net for the HQ he answered to while still talking to his own unit. The main radio set also had the tank intercom built into it. This intercom allowed the crew to talk to each other, but not transmit on the radio, only the commander could do that.
 
Here is a fascinating transcript of a marine tank company’s radio chatter, taken by a US destroyer off shore during the fighting on
Okinawa. You can find this on page 64 of Michael Greens M4 Sherman at War.
 
“This is Red Two, Red One; heartburn says that he is ready to start shooting at those pillboxes”
“Tell Heartburn I can’t receive him. You will have to relay. Tell him to give us a signal and well spot for him”
“Red Two wilco”
“Heartburn, raise your fire. You’re firing right into us”
“That’s not Heartburn, Red Two, That’s a high velocity gun from our left rear. I heard it whistle. Red One out.”
“Red Three, this is Red One. Can you see that gun that’s shooting into us?”
“Red One, I think that’s our own gunfire.”
“Goddamnit, it’s not, I tell you. It’s a high velocity gun and not a howitzer. Investigate or there on your left. But watch out for infantry; they’re right in there somewhere”
“Red Two, tell Heartburn down fifty, left fifty”
“Red Two wilco”
“Red Three, what are you doing? Go south west!”
“I’m heading south west Red One.”
“For Christ sake, get oriented. I can see you, Red Three. You are heading are heading northwest. Fox Love with hard left brake. Cross the road and go back up behind that house”
“But”
“I don’t know why I bother with you, Red Three. Yellow One, take charge of Red Three and get him squared away. And get that gun; it’s too close.”
“Red One from Red Two, Heartburn wants to know if we are the front lines”
“Christ yes we’re plenty front right now”
“This is Red Two, artillery on the way”
“Red one wilco”
“Red One from Yellow One. I can see some Japs setting up a machine gun about 100 yards to my right”
“Those are our troops Yellow One, don’t shoot in there”
“The man at my telephone -  I think he’s an Officer, - says we have no troops in there.”
“Yellow Two, go over there and investigate. Don’t shoot at them; that man at the telephone probably doesn’t know where the troops are. If they’re Japs, run them over.”
“Yellow One, wilco.”
“Go ahead, Yellow Two. What in God’s name are you waiting for?”
“I’m up as far as I can go and still depress my  machine guns.”
“The hell with your machine guns! I told you to run over them! Run over them, Goddamnit; obey your orders!”
“Yellow Two, wilco”
“Yellow One, what have you to report on that machine gun?”
“Red One, a Jap stood up and threw a grenade at us so I gave him a squirt.”
“Did you run over that gun like I told you?”
“No. Red One, we put an HE into it and wrecked it.”
“Christ, won’t you people ever learn to conserve your ammunition…”
“Red One from Green Two, I’m stuck between two trees.”
“Green Three stand by him. After the infantry has cleared up around there, get your assistant driver out and tow him clear.”
“Green Three, wilco”
“While you’re waiting, Green three, keep an eye out on that house on your right. I see troops coming out of there with bottles in their shirts.”
“Can I send my assistant driver over to investigate?”
“Stay in your tank”
“Yellow One, from Red Three, where are you going?”
“Red One from Green Four. I am moving out to take out a pillbox the infantry pointed out I will I will take care of it and let them catch up.”
“Where is it, Green Four?”
“In that clump of bushes to my right.”
“Can you see it? It is all right to fire? Wait Green four”
“Green Four wilco”
“Green Four, you better not fire. The 4th Marines are over there somewhere.”
“Run up on the box and turn around on it”
“It’s one of those coconut log things. It looks like it my be to strong to squash. Is it all right if I fire into the slit?”
“Affirmative, but be careful, wilco”
“Red One, this is Hairless. We’ve got some Japs bottled up in two caves in Target Area Four Baker. We’d like you to leave two tanks to watch them.”
“You know damn well that’s infantry work. We’re a mobile outfit, not watchdogs. Put your saki drinkers in there.”
“Ok Harry, Red One out.”
“All tanks start ‘em up. Move out now. Guide right and form a shallow right echelon. As soon as we hit the flat ground around the airfield, spread out to one hundred and fifty yard interval. Al right, move out, move out
                                                                                                                           
Armor: Not as bad as people like to say it was.
 
   The M4 had well balanced armor in the same class as the other medium tanks of the war. We have covered ‘welded’ and ‘cast’ hulls, but even the ‘welded’ tanks used many cast parts welded to the plates. In either case all M4 Shermans used rolled homogenous, or cast homogenous, steel armor. It was well balanced between hardness and ductility and was resistant to spalling and cracking, and was easy to repair and weld.  All versions cast or welded had sloped frontal armor, but the early welded Shermans had a lot of weak spots due to all the welding lines, and thinner armor used in the driver’s hoods. This was solved by adding external plates in front of the hoods. Over time the front plate was simplified to eliminate as many welds as possible, and the later large hatch hulls used a single plate.  Most early welded Shermans used cast armor plates welded together to form the front hull plates.
   A mid production M4 Sherman had 2 inches of armor at 56 degrees. The hull sides were 1.5 inches at 0 degrees, the rear was also 1.5 inches at 0 to 10 degrees. The hull roof was .75 of an inch thick and floor 1 inch under the driver, and a .5 inch everywhere else. This version of the Sherman was welded, the front plate was made from many smaller plates welded together, with the cast fittings welded in place as well. This was a lot of welding, and one of the reasons why the cast version was well liked from a manufacturing perspective because it took a lot less man hours to produce, the problem was, not all the factories could do the large castings.  The highbred hulls were a solution to the casting capacity problem, since more factories could handle the much smaller front casting the highbred used a casting on the front of the hull, and the rest of the hull was welded and very similar to the standard M4 hull.
   In some cases, when cast parts were called for, but there was a shortage, a particular tank maker might come up with their own built up part instead of cast fitting. This is one of the major reasons why there are so many little details differences between each factories version of the tank, they each left a signature in the fittings they used and how they installed them. These details are the thing of nightmares for a scale modeler who really needs to get the details right, the classic ‘Rivet Counter’ could be driven insane.
   The M4 would have a cast, 75mm gun turret. These turrets had 3.5 inch thick gun shields, a 2 inch rotor shield, and 3 inches of armor at 30 degrees on turret face. The sides were 2 inches, and the rear 1. The top was 1 inch thick. This turret armor was the same throughout the 75mm turret run, though many early castings had a weak spot on the frontal armor, near the gunner, this was covered with a large section of welded on armor, and the casting was improved in later versions of this turret, thickening the armor over the weak spot so the add on armor was not needed. This is much better armor than say the armor on the PIV, and very similar to the armor on the T-34. Most of this mid production tanks would not have a loaders hatch, unless it was retrofitted at a major tank factory.
   A mid production M4A1 would have the same turret, but the hull armor was cast and would be 2 inches at 37 to 56 degrees. The rest of the armor, with the exception of a few places in the hull roof as thin as .5 of an inch was the same, and there was a contour difference inside the hull. Many of the cast fittings welded onto the M4 would be cast directly into the hull of an M4A1. All spare parts would be interchangeable between these two tanks.
   The Sherman's armor was pretty good against 37mm and 57mm anti-tank guns. It was ok against 75mm guns like the one mounted on later production PIV tanks. Anti-tank guns larger than 57 mm could be hard on the Sherman and some guns could cut through them like butter. This was no surprise to the US Army, and they had a whole plan worked out to use infantry, artillery, and air support in conjunction with tanks to help them deal with anti-tank guns and other tanks. The Shermans M3 75mm main gun was a very good gun for handling AT guns, it was accurate, had a high rate of fire and an excellent HE round. Even a tank with armor as good as the M26 Pershings or Jumbo was still vulnerable to AT guns 75mm and larger, being able to flank that AT gun or strong point was more important that being able to slug it out in the long run. Without AT guns, enemy infantry had a very tough time with the Sherman, and even the Panzerfaust wasn’t all that effective unless used very close to the tank, and if the Shermans had infantry working with them and could hang back a bit, the Panzerfausts were much less effective.
   In the Pacific Shermans would really help defeat the Japanese, and then be forgotten about, barely mentioned in most books on the PTO. You may not hear much about the M4 in the Pacific, but it saw a lot of action. A few of these Shermans are still out there, some rotting away in the surf for tourist to play about on Saipan and I think Guam too. There’s still an M4A3 rotting away on Iwo Jima. The Japanese saw them as the most serious threat they would face, and used some desperate tactics to kill them. Basically the Japanese used man powered mines and shaped charges, and or the largest caliber guns that could be aimed at the tanks. They also had a rare but effective 47mm AT gun as well. In many cases, just getting the tanks ashore killed a large number of them off with things like holes or shell craters in reefs.
   Later production tanks with the improved large hatch hulls, in some cases would still had the 75mm gun turret, these tanks would all have final production turrets with loaders hatches and cast in improved cheek armor, or early turrets retrofitted with the armor and hatches.  Most of the large hatch hulls would have wet ammo racks, but a few large hull tanks, mostly M4A2 75mm tanks got the large hatches but standard ammo racks, with the add on armor.
   These large hatch welded hulls had a simplified one piece front plate. It was now 2.5 inches thick at 47 degrees. The improved final drive (lower hull) housing offered 4.25 to 2 inches of armor. The rest of the hull armor thickness stayed the same, but it was not only stronger from being thicker, but many of the ballistic weak spots and welding joints were gone. Even these later large hatch hulls, only produced at three factories, have many minor cosmetic differences. The M4A1 received and improved large hatch casting, and its frontal armor and slope changed as well. It was 2.5 inches at 37 to 55 degrees and the rest of the hull remained the same thickness.
   Many of these large hatch hulls had the larger and T23 turret. This turret had a 3.5 inch thick gun shield, a 2 inch rotor shield and front armor of 3 inches. The sides were 2 inches thick and the rear 1, the top was also 1 inch thick. All these turrets had loaders hatches. They were also made from castings, just like the 75mm turrets.
   Many tank divisions modified their tanks with add on armor. The most common was sand bags. They many units came up with very elaborate steel frames welded to the hull to hold the sand bags in place. Even though army tests showed that sandbags did not help much, this was still popular. Patton banned their use in his 3rd Army. Another thing they came up with was adding a several inch thick layer, usually three to four, of concrete, to the front and sometimes the sides of the tank.  This armor was little better than the sandbags.
   There was a field armor upgrade that did work well; it was employed extensively by Patton’s 3rd Army. By this point in the war, late 44, early 45, there was an abundance of large hatch 75, and 76mm tanks in use. They would take the armor from knocked out tanks, often large hatch Shermans, and cut off the whole front plate, and weld it onto the front of a M4A3, A3E8, or even A1 tanks. They would also add an armored plate extended over the differential housing, in many cases. They would also upgrade the turret armor by adding extra plates around on the turrets cheeks on 76mm turrets. One famous example of this upgrade package is General Creighton Abrams’s person tank, an M4A3E8 76 tank, named Thunderbolt VII. This armor package was found to be almost as effective as the Jumbos armor, and didn't put as much strain on the tanks automotive bits as the sandbags and concrete. Steven Zaloga’s Armored Thunderbolt and Armored Attack books have extensive pictures of all the armor modifications and their use in action.   
 
(Armored thunderbolt VII) 

(sandbag armor)

(concrete armor)
         
Suspensions and Tracks: It Suspends, and gets laid
 
   M4 tanks came with three types of suspension the early VVSS, VVSS and HVSS. In the link above about Sherman details you can see all the changes the basic VVSS system went through. The VVSS suspension went from the basic two road wheel one return roller no support module as seen on the Lee, to the later production VVSS modules that had a bolt on return rollers, that could be bolted to either side of the suspension unit, and sheet steel track supports and much beefier structures that were still useable on either side of the hull. The suspension was one of the parts of the tank that went through so many minor changes, keeping track of them is out of the scope of what this document is meant to do. The Sherman Minutia site does a great job of covering these changes. These changes had little effect on the performance of the tank; think of them more of fine tuning of the basic design for strength, longevity, and ease of manufacture. 
   What would be the final VVSS, with the return roller that could be swapped to either side, was developed for the M3A4, with the A57 multibank motor. The combo of heavier hull and engine was putting the basic VVSS suspension with the built in return roller under to much stress and causing premature failures. The heavy duty unit was developed to solve this problem was later standardized as the M4 suspension type, though, the bolt on roller and skids would still receive improvements, a beefier skid, and a spacer to lift the return roller, and later a new assembly that raised the return roller higher, the core remained the same. The M3A4 would be the only version of the Lee to receive the heavy duty VVSS suspension units from the factory. 
   The VVSS was later replaced by the HVSS system that had double the track width but still remained a bolt on module. It was very well received and used on many late production Sherman models and a few of the variants. It solved the floatation problem with the narrow tracks with few drawbacks.  Thousands of 75mm Shermans received this suspension coupled to large hatch wet hulls. This would become the preferred suspension type for US Army Shermans, and many 75mm hulls either lost the suspension or had its 75mm turret removed and replaced with a T23 turret and 76mm M1A2 gun after the war
   This type of system, that could be unbolted, was much easier to work on or fix when damaged than an internal torsion bar suspension or Christie suspensions found on other tanks. Changing the one bogey setup, or even two and putting the track back together was a lot easier than trying to get the stub of a broken torsion bar out of the hull so a new one could go in. 
   An experimental Sherman with torsion bar suspension was produced and found to be little better than the basic VVSS tanks, and no better than the HVSS tanks and production was never considered.
 
Tracks:  They're a weapon too
   The Sherman VVSS had at least 14 different types of track, and there was another 4 types for the HVSS. I will cover them in more detail later. Most of the track types were ways to minimize the amount of rubber used in the tracks or to produce an all steel track, as good as the basic rubber and steel T41 track.
   The narrow VVSS tracks limited the Shermans mobility in soft mud, sand, boggy terrain. The Tiger and Panther tanks were better off road than the VVSS Shermans. It’s a good thing they were so rare, and there was a limit to how much mud they could deal with. The mud also accelerated the maintenance problems both these tanks faced and eventually mud got so deep in late 44 no take could go off road much until the ground froze.
    The Army came up with a field expedient solution called a “duck bill” end connector. The was an end connector with a sheet steel foot welded to it, when bolted in place on the track it added several inches to the tracks width in soft terrain. The only drawback was they broke off fairly easy, but were easy enough to replace.  This was a very popular and widespread modification, and many little local factories in France were contracted to produce them.
 
 
Guns: Things That Go Boom and Ratta-Tat-Tat
 
   The M3 75mm gun was a great tank gun for the time, and was based on a well-liked WWI French field gun. When introduced it could punch through any German tank it faced, from just about any angle. It’s a myth the Sherman was designed to only support infantry, though it’s primary role was not anti-armor, it was still designed to face other tanks.  The gun worked well in the infantry support role as well, with an effective HE and WP smoke round, and a canister round. This gun had a very high rate of fire in the Sherman (20rpm) and was mated with a basic stabilization system. This system did not allow shooting on the move accurately, but did allow the sights and gun to be put on the target faster when the tank came to a stop to shoot. No world war two tanks could shoot on the move with a real chance to hit even a stationary tank sized target. With a twenty round a minute rate of fire, the Sherman could pump out a lot of HE in support of the infantry, and it was not unheard of for the tanks to be used as artillery. The Sherman tank was equipped with all the gear to act as artillery if needed and was a regular occurrence in the MTO.
Tanks with the 75mm gun carried between 104 and 97 rounds of main gun ammo.
   Much of the later large hull tanks were produced with a larger turret to accommodate the M1 family of 76mm guns. This gun had some issues. The M1 and M1A1 often came without muzzle brakes. When firing during dusty conditions the view of the target would be obscured by dust stirred up from the guns blast, the fix for this was for the commander or another crewman to stand away from the tank and talk to the crew over the intercom, via a long wire, and correct the shots onto target. Not a great fix...The final fix was muzzle brakes; it took a little while for supply to catch up with demand but they were showing up on Shermans in Europe by late 44.
   Another problem was the gun was not a huge improvement over the M3 75mm as a tank killer, and was not as good as an HE thrower. As mentioned before, several tank divisions didn’t want the improved Shermans at first. The penetration problem would be partially solved with HVAP ammunition, but by the time it was common, German tanks to use it on were not.   Post war, ammunition would be further improved and there would be no shortage of HVAP ammo in Korea.
   The M1 series of guns were also stabilized, but it was the same system used with the 75mm gun, offering limited advantages. The Nazi Germans never fielded a stabilization system of any kind on their tanks. Tanks with the M1, and M1A1 guns carried 71 main gun rounds in wet storage racks in the floor, with an armored 6 round ready rack on the turret floor.
   One gun that I have not covered so far is the US 105mm M2/M4 howitzer, the versions of the Sherman with this gun were developed to replace the M7 Priest, but never fully did so during WWII.  They were used in the same role, or in limited direct support roles. These tanks did not have a stabilized gun or wet ammo racks, but did have the large hatch hull. All 105 Sherman tanks, either M4 (105)s or M4A3 (105)s were produced exclusively by Chrysler. 105 tanks carried 66 rounds of main gun ammo, in dry ammo racks.
 
Gun specs:

 
   The vast majority of Sherman tanks came with two M1919A4 Browning .30 caliber machine guns.  Some very early versions came with four. This machine gun was a solid, proven, design and served well in the fixed coax mount or ball mounts on the Sherman. These guns were the same type issued to the infantry, and the tanks were even issued a whole tripod kit for use with the tanks machine guns. They carried almost 6500 rounds of .30 caliber ammunition. I won’t spend to much time on this gun, it did its job well, and large books on the subject are already out there. See Collectors Grade Publications book on the subject.
   The Shermans all came with an M2 .50 caliber machine gun mounted on the turret roof. On early tanks the mount was in an awkward place and hard for the commander to use from inside the tank. This was not improved until the T23 76mm turret and later production 75mm turrets went into production. Most of the time this machine gun was used by the infantry riding along with the tank to protect it. The gun was well liked, but the mount was not, and the tanks carried little ammo for this gun, only 600 rounds.  The M2 heavy machine gun was an excellent anti material and personnel weapon, but not much of an AA gun. Most crews under the rare air attack would rather take their chances buttoned up behind the armor than trying to shoot the plane down.  It was well liked for shooting up anything that might hide a German anti-tank gun as well, since it could be used at pretty long range.
   Some tankers would move the M2’s mount so the loader could fire it, and then mounted a smaller M1919A4 for the commander. This was a popular modification late war on tanks with the T23 turret.
   The tanks also had a dozen hand grenades, 16 rounds for the two inch smoke grenade launcher, and 900 rounds in magazines for their M3 SMGs. Each crew member was issued one. On early tanks it was a Thompson issued instead of the M3.     
 
Turrets: They Rotate, and have Guns.


 
   The Sherman had two turret types the 75mm turret, and the later T23 turret with the M1 series of 76mm guns. The Jumbo had an up armored version of the T23 turret.
   The standard 75mm turret started out with a stubby rotor shield that just covered the base of the 75mm gun. These early turrets didn’t have a direct telescopic sight either. The gunner had to rely on the M4 periscope to site the gun. The turret had one large hatch for the whole turret crew to get in and out from and a pistol port on the loaders side that could be propped open and spent 75mm shells dumped out.  The loader and commander had fully rotating periscopes to view the world through, the commander’s periscope was in his hatch, the loaders right above his station, and the middle of the turret roof had an armored ventilator. 
   The small rotor shield and lack of telescopic sight were some of the first production line changes, and older tanks were field modified with kits to update them. The new full size rotor shield covered the majority of the turret face with much thicker armor. The next big change was a weak spot in the right side of the casting where a thin spot was made while machining the turret for the gun mount was discovered, and armor was welded on the outside of the turret to thicken it back up. Tanks were retrofitted with this armor in the field, and later the casting was changed to include the thicker armor over the area.
   At some point while all the above was going on someone decided the pistol port was a weak spot and it had to go. So they started welding them closed at the factory, and then the casting had them removed. Then the men in the field went ape poop, and they put it back in, around the time the ultimate 75mm turret went into production, with the thicker armor cast in, the pistol port back, a new all-around vision cupola for the commander and an oval hatch for the gunner.  This would be the final configuration of the 75mm turret. The tolerances used by US tank factories were close enough turrets cast at one factory could be used at another with no modifications. Many older surplus turrets left over from the tank retriever conversion program were used in later production, with all the updates added, and a hatch cut in for the loader.
   The turret drive motor was either an electric motor driven hydraulic system or a strait electric motor driven system. The hydraulic system was the preferred, but when that system was in short supply the electric system was substituted.  The 75mm turret could rotate 360 degrees in 15 seconds with the power traverse. It had a manual traverse system as well, and elevation was handled through a manual wheel.
   While the 75mm turret was still in production and being improved, the T23 turret, taken from the failed T23 medium tank project, went onto the Sherman with the M1 gun on the big hatch, wet ammo rack hulls. This turret was larger and could fit the 76mm gun with much more comfort than the basic 75mm turret. All T23 turrets had loaders hatches, though early production T23 turrets used the hatch that had been the commanders hatch on older Shermans for the loaders hatch and used the new all-around vision cupola for the commander. This didn’t last long; it was found the narrow area between the two large hatches on the roof was a weak spot. The big loaders hatch went away and an oval hatch went in.  These turrets had the same traverse speed as the 75mm turret and the same ROF.
   The T23 turret came in around 4000 pounds heavier than the 75mm turret. The automotive systems of the Sherman tank were strong enough to support the extra weight without any real change in performance or longevity. The drivetrain didn’t receive any changes at all as far as I can tell, and only the Jumbo tanks got a different gear ratio in the differential. All the extra weight in sandbags, concrete and real armor did shorten the life of the automotive components but not by a significant amount.  
   All T23 turrets, 76mm gun tanks, had wet ammunition storage, as did the Jumbo tanks.
 
The motors: Why so many, and why the weird ones?
   The Sherman had four different motors that made it into production tanks. The R975 radial, The GM 6046 ‘twin’ diesel, the A57 multibank, and the Ford GAA V8.  There was also a Caterpillar motor they were playing with I’ll cover at some point.
   There are several reasons the US went with the radial aircraft engine instead of a dedicated power plant, and this was mostly due to lack if money to develop tanks and there drive trains between wars. When the US got serious about tank motors, there was a limited number of choices and the R975 was the best one. Then they turned to the US auto industry for other motor ideas.
   GM came up with their twin bus motor 6046 and it was well liked right from the beginning. Then Chrysler came out with the nutty but fantastic A57. The US Army didn’t like either, and didn’t want to even use them for training. If the British hadn’t been willing take the A57 versions, the Army would have regulated them to training use only. It wouldn’t be until Ford figured out the bugs in the GAA v8 that the army would make the switch from the R975.
 

(image courtesy of the Sherman Minutia site.)
The Continental R975 C1/C4:
Type: 9 cylinder, 4 cycle, radial
Cooling system: Air Ignition: Magneto
Displacement: 973 ci Bore and stroke: 5x5.5 inches Compression Ratio: 5.7:1
Net Horsepower:C1/C4 350/400 hp Gross Horsepower: C1/C4 400/460 hp
Net Torque: C1/C4 800/ft-lb/940/ft-lb Gross Torque: C1/C4 890ft-lb/1025ft-lb
Weight: 1212lbs dry Fuel: 80 Octane gasoline Engine Oil Capacity: 36 quarts
   This motor was a license built version of the Wright R-975 built by Continental for tank use. It had been around nearly ten years and used in civil aviation before the army started putting it in tanks, starting with the M2 medium in 1939 and would go on to produce more R-975s than Wright ever would, 53,000 motors. The military version put out more horsepower than the civil version as well.  This was a solid and reliable tank motor, but not ideal. It was a little underpowered, and had to be revved up a lot to get the tank moving. The Army considered this a superior choice over the 6046 diesel and A57 motors.  This motor would be swapped into M4A4 hulls by the French post war.
 

(image courtesy of the Sherman Minutia site.)
The General Motors 6046:
Type: 12 cylinder, 2 cycle, twin in-line diesel
Cooling system: Liquid Ignition: compression
Displacement: 850 ci Bore and stroke: 4.25x5 inches Compression Ratio: 16:1
Net Horsepower: 375 Gross Horsepower: 410
Net Torque: 1000ft-lbs Gross Torque: 885-lb
Weight: 5110 lbs. dry Fuel: 40 cetane diesel oil Engine Oil Capacity: 28 quarts
   First used in the M3A3 and M3A5 and then in the M4A2. This motor tied two GM super charged truck diesels together on a common crank case. The motors could be run independently, so if one was damaged the other could be used to get the tank back to a repair depot, or to keep fighting. The engine weighed more than the R975, but had better torque characteristics, and the tanks with this motor handled low speed operation better because of the superior torque. 
This version was ruled out for use by the Army because they didn’t want to complicate the tank supply chain by adding another fuel to it. This motor was well liked by its users, and the only version of the Sherman the Soviet Union would take via lend lease were the ones powered by this motor.  The Army testing of this motor found it was as reliable as or more so than the R975.
 

(image courtesy of the Sherman Minutia site.)
The Chrysler A57 multibank:
Type: 30 cylinder, 4 cycle, multibank
Cooling system: Liquid Ignition: Battery
Displacement: 1253 ci Bore and stroke: 4.37x4.5 inches Compression Ratio: 6.2:1
Net Horsepower: 370 Gross Horsepower: 425
Net Torque: 1020ft-lbs Gross Torque: 1060ft-lbs
Weight: 5400 lbs. dry Fuel: 80 octane gasoline Engine Oil Capacity: 32 quarts
   This motor was a bit of an orphan in US Service. It powered the M3A4 and M4A4. The Army used the motor for training, and tried to pawn a few off on the Marines. That lasted about two months at the Marine Tank School. The ever growing need for tanks by the British ultimately solved what to do with the tanks that ended up with this motor. They would end up taking over 8000 of them. Chrysler sent tech reps to England with these tanks and showed the maintenance crews how to keep them running.  This worked well and the engines served their purpose with little trouble. Often powering the best pure AT version of the Sherman, the Sherman VC firefly.  This motor saw a lot of use, during the war, and after with many countries being given Firefly Shermans to help out their recovery military. Some even ended up in South America, but I’m not sure what versions. This is my favorite Sherman motor, because it so absurdly complicated, it’s almost German, but actually worked, so not German at all.
 

(image courtesy of the Sherman Minutia site.)
The Ford GAA:
Type: 8 cylinders, 4 cycle, 60 degree V8
Cooling system: Liquid Ignition: Magneto
Displacement: 1100 ci Bore and stroke: 5.4 x 6 inches Compression Ratio: 7.5:1
Net Horsepower: 450 Gross Horsepower: 500
Net Torque: 950ft-lbs Gross Torque: 1040 ft-lbs
Weight: 1560 lbs. dry Fuel: 80 octane gasoline Engine Oil Capacity: 32 quarts
   The Ford GAA only made it into one Lee as a test bed, in one tank. But it powered a lot of Sherman's, both large and small hatch. It would go on to be the motor of choice for the US Army for the rest of the war, and in the next tank, the M26. Just look at the numbers above and compare them to the rest of the motors. The GAA is really a much better motor for a tank in the Shermans weight range. This tank was not lend leased to the other allies in large numbers if at all. The USSR may have gotten one to evaluate, the UK too, but the Army wanted to switch over to this and stop using R975 powered tanks. After the war, the only Sherman's they kept were M4A3 76 w tanks, and over time they converted as many of these to HVSS suspension as possible. They went as far as swapping T23 turrets from M4A1 76 W tanks onto M4A3 75 hulls. The army would produce several other gas powered tank engines, but none would really shine like this one did in the Sherman.

(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 Website!
 
All content is still discussed and previewed in this thread. If you have feedback or want to help with the content, this thread is the best place to do it. 
 
 
 
The Epic M4 Sherman Tank Information Post.
SHERMAN: M4: M4A1: M4A2: M4A3: M4A4: M4A6: M50: M51
 
   The Sherman tank over the last several decades has had its reputation severely soiled by several documentaries, TV shows, and books, all hailing it as a death trap, engineering disaster, or just a bad tank. The Sherman tank may be the most important, and arguably the best tank of the war.  The only other contender for the best tank award would be the Soviet T-34. These two tanks are very comparable and would fight each other in later wars, staying very comparable through their service lives.
 
   This post will cover why the Sherman was a better tank than anything Germany, Italy or Japan produced during the war, on both a tactical and strategic level. I will not be reproducing the work of others, and will link to the places that already cover some information. I will cover all the major changes made to the each Sherman model.
 
   I will try and cover the many post war variants as well, but that could take months, there are a lot of variants of this venerable tank, including ones that involve putting the engine from one hull type into another hull type and or tanks modified by other countries with no feedback from the American designers. I’ll try and get civilian use in here as well. Some variants have heavily modified turrets, or replaced it with a new one.
 
Basic Sherman History: The Big Stuff
 
   To really know why the Sherman was designed the way it was, you have to know about the M3 Lee. The M3 was the predecessor of the M4. It was based on M2 medium, the US Army’s only foray into modern medium tank design, and was the fastest way a tank could be designed with a 75 mm M3 canon fitted. The US lacked the jigs to make a turret ring big enough to house a gun that large in a turret; the Lee went into production while the turret ring problem was being solved, by mounting the gun in a sponson mount. It had become clear to the US Army that the 75mm canon would be needed based on feedback from the British, and observations of how the war was developing in Europe.  
One of the reasons for the reliability of the M4 design was the use of parts that started their design evolution in the M2 medium and were improved through the M3 production run. Over the life of M3 Lee and M4 Sherman the designs were continually improved as well, so a final production, M3, or M4A1, bared little resemblance to an initial production M3 or M4A1, yet many parts would still interchange. This is one of the reasons the Israelis had so much success updating the Sherman to the M50 and M51, these tanks used early small hatch hulls, that never had HVSS suspension installed, but the hulls took the updated suspension with few problems.
   
   When the Lee went into production, though it was far from an ideal design, it still outclassed the German and Italian armor it would face, and its dual purpose 75mm gun would allow it to engage AT guns with much more success than most British tanks it replaced. It was reliable, and well-liked by its users. When the British got enough Shermans, the Lees and Grants were sent to the Far East and saw use until the end of the war fighting the Japanese. The Lee excelled at infantry support, since it had a 37mm canon that could fire canister rounds, along with the 75mm gun and a lot of machine guns. Many of these Lee tanks ended up in Australia after the war.
 
 
Lee variants:  The Combat RV
 

(early M3 Lee)
 
M3 Lee:
 
   This was the first version of the tank and used a riveted hull with the R975 radial engine powering it, the suspension and tracks were very similar to the M2 medium.  Early production tanks had an M2 75mm instead of the improved M3 gun. These tanks had a counter weight mounted on the shorter barrel. All Lees had a turret with 37mm M5 gun. The early production version had two hull mounted, fixed .30 caliber machine guns, another mounted coaxially with the 37mm gun, and another in a small turret, mounted on top of the 37mm turret for the commander.
 
   They built nearly 5000 of these tanks. The M3 was improved on the production line with things like removal off hull machine guns, and hull side doors. The mini turret mounted M1919A4 was not a popular feature, and was hard to use, but it remained on all Lees, and were only deleted from the Grant version produced exclusively for the British.
 
   If this version had a major flaw, it would be the riveted armor plates could shed rivets on the inside of the tank and these rivets bounced around like a bullet. This was bad for the crew, but, rarely resulted in a knocked out tank. A field fix for this was welding the rivets in place on the interior of the tank.  Most of the M3 Lees produced went to the British. 
 

(cast hull M3A1)
 
M3A1 Lee:
   This version of the Lee had a cast hull, and R975 radial power. It was really the same as the base Lee in most respects including improvements. 300 built. These cast hull tanks have a very odd and distinctive look. They look almost like a M3 Lee was melted. This hull casting was huge and more complicated than the M4A1 casting. Most of these tanks were used in the United States for training.
 
M3A2 Lee:
   This Lee had a welded hull and the R975 powering it. 12 built. This version was more of a ‘proof of concept’ on welding a hull than anything.
 
M3A3 Lee:
   Another welded hull but this one powered by the GM 6046 Twin Diesel. 322 built, like the base Lee, with the same improvements. This is the first vehicle the 6046 was used in, and most of the bugs were worked out on this model.
 
M3A4 Lee:
   This version had a riveted hull and was powered by the A-57 multibank motor. This motor was so large the hull had to be stretched for it to fit; it also required a bulge in the top and bottom of the hull to fit the cooling fan. They also had to beef up the suspension, and the suspension units designed for this would become standard units on the Sherman. This would be the only version of the Lee with the improved bolt on offset return roller VVSS, otherwise this tank was very much like the base M3. 109 built. This motor’s bugs were worked out on this tank and would go on to power a large chunk of Sherman production. 
 

(Monty's M3A5)
 
M3A5 Grant:
   Another welded hull, powered by the GM 6046 Twin diesel with a new bigger turret to house British radios. 591 built. This new turret deleted the small machine gun turret on the roof of the 37mm turret. This version was used only by the British. The famous General Montgomery’s personal M3A5 is on display in England, at the Imperial War Museum in London. 
 
. . .
 
   The majority of Lee and all Grants saw service with the British, and many Lees went to the Soviet Union. They were generally well liked by both nations and more reliable than most of its British and German contemporaries.  These tanks were better than the enemy tanks they faced until the Germans up gunned the Panzer IV series. When they were replaced with M4s of various types the M3 were shipped to the Far East for use in Burma and New Guinea. The Japanese had no tank that could take on a Lee, let alone a Sherman. Using soldiers as suicide bombers, and mines still worked though, there was also a pesky 47mm AT gun, but it was rare.
 
   They saw limited use in the US Army’s hands some seeing combat in North Africa, because US combat units lost their Shermans to replace British losses, and a few were used in the PTO. The Sherman owes it success to the lessons learned producing the Lee and from its use in combat.  The 75mm gun and automotive systems, even the more complicated ones, would be perfected in the Lee and re-used in M4, and the Sherman only had one motor not tested in the Lee first.  Many of the Lee variants were produced at the same time and the numbering system was more to distinguish between hull and engine types, not to model progression like in aircraft, and other tanks.  This practice was carried over to the M4 series as were all the engines used in the Lee.
 
   Many people familiar with the way the United States designated aircraft during the war figure it was carried over to tanks and think an M3A1 was an improved M3, and an M3A2 was an improved A1. This is not the case, as many of these versions were produced at the same time, and they all received the same sets of improvements, though some factories took longer to implement things than others.
 
   The M4 went into production as soon as the jigs for the turret ring were produced and ready to be used. Production actually started on the cast hull M4A1 first, with the welded M4 following right behind it. Like the Lee, there were many version of the Sherman in production at the same time. There are many photos of Lee’s coming off the production line, with Shermans in the line right behind the last Lee, so there was no real gap in production between the two tanks at most of the factories.
 
 
The Sherman variants: The Design Matures
 
 
   First off, Americans referred to the Sherman as the M4, or M4 Medium, or Medium, the Sherman name was not commonly used until post WWII. The British came up with the name for the M4 and referred to it with their own designation system that will be covered in more detail later. They also named the Lee, and Stuart, and at some point the US Army just stuck with the naming scheme. The full story behind this is still a minor mystery, with US war time documents confirming the ‘general’ names were at least used on paper by the US Army during the war.
 
   Now let’s cover the factory production versions of the Sherman. Also keep in mind, it is very hard to define just how a Sherman may be configured without really knowing where and when it was produced. In some rare cases, large hull, 75mm armed Shermans got produced with normal ammo racks, when the norm for large hatch hull tanks was wet ammo racks. 
 
 
. . .
 

(this is a very early production M4 with DV ports that are not welded closed and have not had armor added over them)
 
M4 Sherman:
    These tanks used the same R975 motor as the M3, and M3A1. The vast majority of the bugs in this automotive system were worked out before the M4 even started production. This really helped give the Sherman its reputation for reliability and ease of repair. The M4 had a welded hull with a cast turret mounting the M3, 75mm gun. Early variants had three hull machine guns, and two turret mounted machine guns. The hull guns were all M1919A4 .30 caliber machine guns, two fixed, and one mounted in a ball mount for the co-drivers use. The fixed guns were deleted from production very rapidly. The turret armament remained unchanged for the whole production run: Using the M3 75mm gun with the M1919A4 coaxial machine gun and M2 .50 caliber mounted on the roof. The turret would be the same turret used on all early Shermans and would be interchangeable on all production Shermans. This version was not produced with the later improved T23 turret but did get some large hatch hulls in special variants.
   
    There were two variants of the M4 to be built with the large hatch hull. The first, the M4(105) was a large hatch hull mated to the 105mm howitzer, on the M52 mount, in the standard 75mm turret. These hulls did not have wet ammo racks or gyro stabilizers, and the 105mm turrets had an extra armored ventilator, the only turrets to have them. The M4 (105) gun tanks had a special mantlet, with four large screws in the face, unique to 105 tanks. Production started in February of 44, and continued well into 45, with late production M4(105) tanks getting HVSS suspension. These tanks were used as replacements for the M7 Priest in tank units, and spent most of their time being used as indirect fire support, like the M7 they replaced.
   
    One other variant of the M4 to get the large hatch hull(100 or so small hatch casting were made as well), this was the M4 ‘hybrid’, this hull was welded, but used a large casting very similar to the front of the M4A1 on the front of the hull. It was found that most of the welding hours building the welded hull tanks were spent on the glacis plate. They figured by using one large casting, incorporating the hatches and bow gun would save on welding time and labor costs.
 

(This is an M4 hybrid, large hatch tank. but with no wet ammo racks)
 
   These M4 hybrids were used by the British to make Ic Fireflies. They liked the 75mm turret these tanks came with since they already had a loaders hatch, this saved them time on the conversion since they didn’t have to cut one.
 
 
   These large hatch M4s did not get the improved T23 turret, but did have wet ammo racks and all the large hatch hull improvements. Most of these tanks were shipped to Europe or the Pacific, making survivors rare.   
 
 
   The M4 along with the M4A1 were the preferred US Army version of the Sherman until the introduction of the M4A3. This tanks was made in five factories from July of 42 to March of 45, 7584 produced.
 
 

(this image is a small hatch M4A1 with DV ports welded closed and add on armor over them, not the very early turret with small mantlet. The suspension on this tank was probably updated from the early built in roller type during a depot rebuilt. Image from the awesome sherman minutia site)
 
M4A1 Sherman:
   This was virtually the same tank as the M4, with the same motor and automotive systems and armament. The key difference was the cast upper hull. This huge upper hull casting was one piece. This was a very hard thing to do with casting technology at the time, and something the Germans could not have reproduced, they lacked the advanced technology, and facilities needed to do so. Everything from hatches to wheels, and turrets, and guns were interchangeable with the M4 and other Sherman models. This version saw production longer than any other hull type. It also saw all the upgrades like the improved large hatch hull with wet ammo racks, the T23 turret with 76mm gun, and HVSS suspension system. It was 30 of these M4A1 76 HVSS tanks that were the last Shermans ever produced. The M4A1 was also the first to see combat use with the improved M1 gun and T23 turret during operation Cobra. Three factories produced 9527 M4A1s with all turret types from Feb 42 to July of 45.
 
   The US Marines used one Battalion of these tanks on the Cape Gloucester campaign, small hatch M4A1 75 tanks. This was the only use of this tank by the Marines. 
 

(M4A2 75 mid production with improved drivers hoods, from this angle you can not tell the difference between an M4 M4A2, M4A3, image courtesy of the sherman Miniutia site)
 
M4A2 Sherman:
   This version of the Sherman used a welded hull nearly identical to the M4, but with a pair of vented armored grates on the rear hull deck. The M4A2 tanks used the GM 6046 twin diesel. This version was produced with all the improvements the other types got, like the large hatch hull with wet ammo racks, the T23 turret with improved M1 gun, and HVSS suspension. This version would see very limited combat in US hands, most being shipped to Russia with a few early hulls going to the Brits and USMC. This was the preferred version for Soviet lend lease deliveries, since the USSR was using all diesel tanks. It was produced in six factories with 10,968 of all turret types produced from April of 42 to July 45.
   
   A little trivia about this version, the Sherman used in the movie Fury, was actually a late production M4A2 76 HVSS tank. The only way you can tell a late A2 from a late A3 is by the size of the armored grills on the back deck. They did a great job of hiding this area in the movie.
   
   The Marines operated a lot of small hatch and a fairly large number of large hatch M4A2 tanks, until the supply of 75mm armed version dried up in late 1944. Then they switched over to large hatch M4A3 75w tanks, but there were some A2 holdouts amongst the six battalions. 
 

(this is an M4A3 large hatch 75mm tank, it has wet ammo racks and a hatch for the loader.)
 
M4A3 Sherman:
 
   This would be the base for what would be the final Sherman in US Army use, seeing action all the way out to the Korean War in US Army hands. This tank had a welded hull just like the M4, A2, and A4, but used a new motor. The Ford GAA V8, this motor took some time for its bugs to be worked out, so unlike say, the Nazi Germans, the US Army didn’t use it until it was ready for serious production. When it was, it became the preferred US Army version of the tank in both the 75mm and 76mm armed tanks. It would see all the improvements, and be the first hull type to take the HVSS suspension system into combat for the US Army. The M4A3E8 or M4A3 tank with T23 turret and HVSS suspension bolted on would be the final and ultimate US Army Sherman. It would be produced in three factories with all turret types, 12,596 built in total between June 42 and June of 45.
 
   After WWII when the Army wanted to standardize on one Sherman type, any M4A3 large hatch hull they could find would have a T23 turret and HVSS suspension installed on it. The Army was so thorough in these conversions no M4A3 large hatch 75mm gun tanks are known to have survived with the original turrets installed.  Any M4A1 HVSS 76 and M4A2 HVSS 76 tanks in Army inventory would have been robbed of their suspensions and turrets so they could be installed on M4A3 large hatch hulls.
 
(an M4A3E2 Jumbo with correct M3 75mm gun)
The M4A3E2 Jumbo, Fishers fat and special baby!
 
   FTA was the sole producer of one very special variant of the Sherman, the M4A3E2 Jumbo. This version of the Sherman was the assault Sherman, though not expressly designed for it, was manufactured to be able to lead a column up a road and take a few hits from German AT guns or tanks so they could be spotted without having to sacrifice the tank. It had a lot of extra armor, and could take a lot of hits before being knocked out, but was still not impervious to German AT gun fire. Only 254 of these tanks were produced, and all but four were shipped to Europe for use by the US Army. They were all armed with the M3 75mm gun. There was a surplus of M1A1 76mm guns in Europe due to an aborted program re arm 75mm Sherman tanks with the guns. Many of the Jumbo’s ended up with these guns, but none were ever factory installed.
 
   The tank was no different in automotive components from the M4A3 tanks, with the sole difference being the slightly lower final drive gear ratio, going from a 2.84:1 ratio in the base Shermans, to 3.36:1 on the Jumbos. This reduced the top speed slightly but helped the tank get all the extra armor moving. The Jumbos were well liked by their crews and in great demand; no more were built though, the only batch being produced from May to July of 1944.   Had the invasion of Japan been needed, a special Jumbo with larger turret that included a flame thrower was considered, but we all know how that story ended.
 
   This version of the Sherman was issued to the Marines when the M4A2 75mm tanks went out of production. The version they would have been issued, would all have been large hatch M4A3 75w tanks,  and they may have gotten some with HVSS.    

(this is an M4A4, the best way to tell is the extra space between the road wheels)
 
M4A4 Sherman:
 
   This tank is the oddball of Sherman tanks. It had a welded hull and used the A-57 multibank motor. A tank motor made from combining five car motors on one crank case. As complicated as this sounds, it was produced in large numbers and was reliable enough to see combat use, though not in American hands in most cases. In US use they tried to limit it to stateside training duty. The Brits found it more reliable than their native power plants, and liked it just fine. This version never got the improved large hatch hull or T23 turret with M1 gun. Most were shipped to the Brits via lend lease and many were turned into Vc Fireflies, making it the most common Firefly type. The Free French also got at least 270 of these tanks in 1944. The Chinese also received these tanks through lend lease but not many. The US Marines operating these tanks in the states as training tanks, 22 of them for two months before they were replaced by M4A2s. This tank had a longer hull, like its Lee cousin to accommodate the big A-57 motor. It was the first Sherman version to go out of production. It was produced in one factory (CDA) from July of 42, to November of 43 with 7499 built.
 
   The A4 has the honor of being the heaviest and largest standard Sherman. The larger hull to accommodate the A57 motor, and the motor itself added weight. The British used these tanks extensively in combat. These tanks show up in British test reports as well, often pitted against tanks like the Cromwell in reliability or other tests, and usually coming out ahead. Anyone who has ever changed the spark plugs on their car should really be able to appreciate how hard a motor made by tying five six cylinder automobile engines together, on one crank would be. 
 
. . .
 
   All Sherman variants share a lot of details and most spare parts interchange. Only the motors really call for different parts. All early Sherman tanks had 51mm of armor at 56 degrees on the front hull, and 76mm on the front of the turret. The 56 degree hulls are called small hatch hulls because the driver and co-driver had small hatches that forced them to twist sideways to get in and out. They also started out with direct vision ports along with periscopes for crew vision. Even the cast tanks matched these specs and the hatches from a cast tank could be used on a welded tank.  These early hulls had some of the ammo racks in the sponsons above the tracks. Not a great place for ammo, but not an uncommon one for it either. As they improved the hull, they added plates over the direct vision ports and eventually removed them from the castings. Large plates were eventually welded over the ammo racks on the sides, and this extra armor was eventually just added into the casting on the cast hulls. It’s safe to say no small hatch tanks were factory produced with a 76mm gun or improved T23 turret.
 
   The major hull change came when they upgraded the drivers and co drives hatches making them bigger. They also thickened the front armor to 64mm but reduced the slope to 47 degrees to fit the new driver’s hatches.  The M4 (hybrid and 105 only), M4A1, A2, and A3 were produced with these improved large hatch hulls. Many of these improved large hull tanks had the original 75mm gun and turret. Even the M4A3 with HVSS suspension was produced with the 75mm gun and turret. Most of the large hatch production was with the new and improved T23 turret.  These larger hatch hulls would still accept the majority of the spares the older hulls used and the lower hull remained largely unchanged and would accept all the suspension types. Any large hatch M4A3 hull was likely converted to an M4A3 76 HVSS post WWII.
 
   Through the whole production run minor details were changed. The suspension saw many different version before the final HVSS type was produced. The track types also changed and there were many variants made from rubber and steel, or steel. There were even at least six different types of road wheel! There are so many minor detail changes, the scope is to big to cover in this post, needless to say, the only other tank I know of with so many minor changes over the production run was the Tiger, and in the Tigers case it’s just sad, with so few produced, it means almost no two tigers were the same. This was not the case for the Shermans and the changes did not slow production down at all and in many cases were just different because a particular part, like an antenna mount, or driver’s hood, could have been sourced from a different sub-contractor, and the parts may look different, but would function exactly the same. Tiger parts are not good at interchanging without modification, and a crew a craftsmen to custom fit them. The changes made to the Sherman were either to incorporate better parts, or to use a locally made substitute part for one in short supply, so making their own version allowed them to continue production without a slowdown.
 
   To really get a handle on these differences there are two really great sources.
 
   This is the easy, way: Sherman Minutia site  a great site that really covers the minor detail changes on the Sherman tank very well.  You can spend hours reading it and looking over the pictures. It explains little of the combat history of the Sherman but covers the minor changes on the vehicles themselves very well. You can spend hours on this site learning about minor Sherman details. It is also a primary source for this post.
 
   Another great way is to get a copy of: Son of a Sherman volume one, The Sherman design and Development by Patrick Stansell and Kurt Laughlin. This book is a must have for the Sherman plastic modeler or true enthusiast. It is filled with the tiny detail changes that took place on the Sherman production lines from start to finish. They cover everything from lifting eyes to ventilators, casting numbers, to most minor change to the turrets. Get it now before it goes out of print and the price skyrockets. I liked it so much I bought two!
 
   The turret saw continual change as well, but remained basically the same. The 75mm gun never changed but its mount and sighting system did. The turret lost the pistol port, and then gained it back. It gained a rotor shield over time and an extra hatch. All these detail changes are covered on the site above and in the Son of a Sherman book. The important thing to note was the tank saw continual improvement to an already reliable, and easy to produce design. The Sherman was easy to produce for an industrial nation like the USA, but beyond Nazi Germany’s technical capabilities for several reasons, like large casting and the gun stabilization system, or even multiple reliable motors to power the tens of thousands of tanks made.
In the basics section I’m only going to cover one more thing. The Sherman tank was not as blind as the tanks it faced. The M4 series, from the first production tank, to the final Sherman that rolled off any of the production lines, were covered in periscopes or view ports for the crew. The gunner had a wide angle periscope that had incorporated the site for the main gun, and they very quickly added a telescopic site to go with it. The commander had a large rotating periscope in his rotating copula. The loader had a rotating periscope and the driver and co-driver had two, one in their hatch, and another mounted in the hull right in front of them once the DV ports were deleted (non-rotating). Later version added a direct vision cupola and a periscope for the loader in his new hatch. All these periscopes could be lowered and the port closed, and if damage easily and quickly replaced from inside the tank. All this gave the Sherman an advantage in spotting things outside the tank; they were still blind, just not as blind as most of the tanks they would face. Finding an AT gun in a bush could be very challenging for any tank, and infantry if not scared off by the presence of a tank in the first place can sneak up on one pretty easy.
 
   This was a big advantage when it saw combat and throughout the tanks career it was always one of the best if not the best tank of the war. It was reliable, the crew had a good chance of spotting enemies before other tank crews, the gun was stabilized, fast firing, and accurate. It was as good or better than most of the tanks it faced, even the larger German tanks. These tanks were largely failures, with only long debunked Nazi propaganda propping up their war record. The Sherman has the opposite problem.
 
Sherman Builders: Just How Many Tank Factories Did the US Have Anyway?   
They Had 10 and 1 in Canada.
 
   Most of the information in this section will be a summation of the section in Son of a Sherman. Other stuff I had to dig around on the internet for. Anyone who has more info on the tank makers, please feel free to contact me.  Parts from all these tank makers would interchange. Many used the same subcontractors. I don’t think anyone has tried or if it’s even possible to track down all the sub-contractors who contributed parts to the Sherman at this point. Some of the manufactures were more successful than others, some only producing a fraction of the total Sherman production, others producing large percentages. By the end of production, all the US and her allies needs for Shermans were being handled by just three of these factories.
 
American Locomotive (ALCO)
   ALCO also produced M3 and M3A1 Lees, and made Shermans up to 1943. They were a fairly successful pre-war locomotive manufacturer founded in 1901 in Schenectady, New York. They also owned Montreal Locomotive works. ALCO made several version of the Sherman, and stayed in the tank game until the late 50s, helping with M47 and M48 production. The company went under in 1969.
 
Baldwin Locomotive Works (BLM)
   Baldwin was another early producer, building three versions of the Lee, The M3A2, M3A3, and M3A5. They mostly built small hatch M4s, with just a handful of M4A2(12). They were out of the Sherman game by 1944 and out of business by 72. They were founded in Philly in 1825, and produced 70,000 steam locomotives before it died.
 

(M4A4 and M3s being built side by side at CDA, photo courtesy of the Sherman Minutia site )
 
Chrysler Defense Arsenal (CDA)
     Chrysler Defense Arsenal is kind of special. It was a purpose built tank factory, funded by the US Government, and managed and built by Chrysler.  Construction on the factory started in September of 1940. Completed M3 Lee tanks were rolling of the line by April of 1941. This was before the factory was even finished being built. It was built to stand up to aerial bombing. They produced M4A4, and M4 tanks as well and M4 105s, M4A3(105)s, and M4A3 76 tank and nearly 18,000 of them. Chrysler was the sole producer of M4A3E8 76 w Shermans, or the tank commonly known and the Easy 8. They produced 2617 units, but post war many A3 76 tanks were converted over to HVSS suspension. A very big chunk of the overall Sherman production came from this factory and it went on to produce M26 Pershing tanks.
   
    Chrysler built this factory in a suburb of Detroit, Warren Township Michigan. Chrysler used it’s many other facilities in the Detroit area as sub manufacturers, and many of their sub-contractors got involved too. CDA not only produced the tanks, it had the capacity to pump out huge numbers of spare parts.  CDA lived into 90s before Chrysler defense systems got sold off to General Dynamics. It took part in making the M26, M46, M47, M48, M60 and M1 tanks.
 
Federal Machine & Welder (FMW)
   I couldn’t find much out about FMW, Son of a Sherman says they were founded in Warren Ohio in 1917. They produced less than a thousand M4A2 small hatch tanks.  They were slow to produce them, making about 50 a month. They were not contracted to make any more Shermans after their first 540 total, 1942 contract.  They did build some M7, and M32 tank retrievers. They were out of business by the mid-fifties.
 
Fisher Tank Arsenal (FTA)
    Fisher Tanks Arsenal (FTA) has a lot of common with Chrysler Defense Arsenal, except this time Uncle Sam went to Fisher Body, a division of General Motors. Fisher decided to build the tank plant in Grand Blanc, south of Flint Michigan. The factory broke ground in November of 1941 and the first M4A2 Sherman rolled off the line in January of 1942, before the factory was fully built.
 
   The M4A2 was something of this factory specialty, in particular early on, with them producing a large number of the small hatch M4A2 sent off to Russia, and a few of the rarer large hatch 75mm gun tanks, around 986 small hatch tanks, and about 286 large hatch tanks.
   
   They also produced nearly 1600 large hatch, 76mm gun tanks, or the M4A2 (76)w. These tanks went exclusively to Russia as part of Lend Lease. These tanks were ordered over four different contracts and the final ones off the production line were all HVSS tanks. The HVSS suspension may have seen combat with the Russians before the US Army used it. Oddly, this factory also produced M4A3 76w tanks, but never with the HVSS suspension. Fisher produced a significant number M4A3 and Large hatch 75mm tanks at their factory, but nowhere near their M4A2 production.
 
Ford Motor Company (FMC)
   Ford was a surprisingly small player in the Sherman tale. They are very important in that they developed the Ford GAA V8 covered earlier, and a lot of spare parts. But they only produced 1690 small hatch Shermans between June of 42 and Oct 43. They built a few M10s as well. All these tanks and tank destroyers were produced at their Highland Park facility.  After 1943, they stopped building tanks, and wouldn’t get back into until the 50s, and even then it was just for a large production run over a short time, of M48s.
 
Lima Locomotive Works (LLW)
   Lima was one of the first producers of the cast hull M4A1. It did not produce any Lee tanks. Its production capacity had been taken by locomotives to the point just before Sherman production started. They produced the first production M4A1, that was shipped to England, named ‘Michael’, and it’s still on display at the Bovington Museum. They produced Shermans from February of 42, to September of 1943, producing M4A1s exclusively, and they built 1655 tanks.  The war was a boon for Lima, they’d been in business since 1870, and the contracts from the military for locomotives really helped them out. Post war, they failed to successfully convert to diesel electric locomotives and merged with another firm.
 
Montreal Locomotive Works (MCW)
    MLW was owned by American Locomotive. They produced some wacky Canadian tank based off the Lee chassis, called the Ram, and Ram II, these floppy creations were only armed with a 2 pounder in the Rams case, and a 6 pounder, in the Ram IIs case, and they produced almost 2000 of the wacky things, what’s that all aboot? They eventually got around to producing a proper Sherman tank, the M4A1 “Grizzly”, producing only about 188 tanks. A very few had an all metal track system that required a different sprocket. Other than that, there was no difference between a grizzly and an M4A1 manufactured by any other Sherman builder. Don’t believe the Canadian propaganda about it having thicker armor!
 
Pacific Car & Foundry (PCF)
   PCF was founded in 1905 in Bellevue Washington. The only west coast tank maker, PCF produced 926 M4A1s from May of 1942, to November of 1943. As soon as production stopped they started production on the M26 tractor, the truck portion of the M26 tank transporter. They never got back into tank production, but still exist today as PACCAR Inc., one of the largest truck makers in the world. 
 
Pressed Steel Car (PST)
   PSC was one of the big boys of Sherman production, and they also produced the final M4s made, a group of 30 M4A1 76 HVSS tanks. PSC was founded in Pittsburg in 1899, but their tank factory was in Joliet, Illinois. They were the second manufacturer to make the tank and across all the versions they made, they produced 8147 Sherman tanks.  
 
  They started tank production with the M3 Lee in June of 41, and stopped production on that in August of 1942. They then produced the M4A1 from March of 42, to December of 43, and the standard M4 from October of 42 to August of 43.
   
   They were one of the final three tank makers to stay in the tank making business after 1943, along with CDA and FTA. PSC would produce large hatch M4A1 76 tanks, including HVSS models late in the run, totaling more than 3400 M4A1 tanks. They produced 21, M4A2 76 HVSS tanks, towards the end of 45.
   
   They were out of business by 56, with no tank production after those final 30 M4A1 76 HVSS tanks. 
 
Pullman Standard (PSCC)
     Pullman Standard was a pretty famous luxury train passenger car maker, and another company that made rolling stock combined into one company. Pullman Palace Car Co was founded in 1867, or there about. I’m sure some train geek will be dying to fill me in on the company’s history but I’m not really going to look deeply into it. It does make for one of the more interesting stories about a Sherman tank producer. Their main tank factory was in Butler, Pennsylvania. And they helped produce some Grant tanks before they started Sherman production.
   They produced the M4A2 from April of 42 to September of 43, and produced 2737 tanks. They also produced 689 standard M4 Sherman tanks from May of 43, to September of 43.  Soon after these contracts were finished the US Government broke the company up due to some anti-trust complaint.  
 
…
 
   The thing to remember about all the Sherman makers is each one had a small imprint on the tanks they produced. So, yes, an M4A1 small hatch tank was the same no matter who made it and all parts would interchange with no modification needed, but the tanks from different makers still had small, cosmetic differences. They may have been something like nonstandard hinges on the rear engine doors to the use of built up antenna mounts instead of cast. Or wide drivers hoods or narrow, to where the lift rings on the hull were and how they were made or even Chrysler's unique drive sprocket they put on all their post A4 tanks.  None of this meant the parts couldn't be salvaged and used on another Sherman from another factory without much trouble. Some factories may have produced tanks faster than others, but they all produced them within the contracts specification or they were not accepted.

I don't think all of the famine deaths can be attributed to Stalin. Yes, he might have made it worse through mismanagement (willful or otherwise), but it's not as though he personally caused the wheat to die or rain to not fall. That probably drops the total down to about 5-6 million. Add in excess deaths in gulags, etc., and you're back up into the 6-7 million range.
 
I'd like to make the point that this is what happened when Stalin held power for over 20 years. Yes, 7 million people dying is horrible, but if a certain other asshole had ruled a similar area for over two decades, the death toll would have been at least an order of magnitude higher.