DogDodger

Thanks; Samsonov's blog is a valued bookmark, and I have his Sherman book pre-ordered. In a cursory search of his blog, I failed to find the articles complaining of the M4A4 overheating and leaking. Indeed, in this article Pasholok says of the A57, "This monster had its upsides as well. The design worked quite reliably and had sufficient power for a medium tank," "The experimental tank travelled for 6500 km. Trials showed that the experimental engine needed a little more work, but overall it performed well," "The tanks turned out to be quite reliable, but service turned into a nightmare for its crews. Each engine had its own water pump with its own linkages" [this was changed with the 1304th engine produced for the M4A4, where a single water pump served all engines], "The British became active users of the M4A4. Why would they use a tank that the Americans rejected? Short answer: reliability. According to data given to the GBTU by the British, the M4A4 (Sherman V) was the most reliable tank from the M4 family. The mean distance between refurbishments was 3200 km for the M4A2 (Sherman III), but 4000 km for the Sherman V. This explains why the British were not fazed by difficulty of servicing the engine." Pasholok relates that during Soviet trials of the M4A4, "The only advantage of this engine was that it worked flawlessly. The only problems during the trials were with the running gear and oil filter. The oil consumption was much less than the gasoline: only 2 L for 118 hours of work."
 
I mentioned Exercise Dracula in addition to the APG tests, where the M4A4 gave no issues beyond fuel thirst.

Thanks; Samsonov's blog is a valued bookmark, and I have his Sherman book pre-ordered. In a cursory search of his blog, I failed to find the articles complaining of the M4A4 overheating and leaking. Indeed, in this article Pasholok says of the A57, "This monster had its upsides as well. The design worked quite reliably and had sufficient power for a medium tank," "The experimental tank travelled for 6500 km. Trials showed that the experimental engine needed a little more work, but overall it performed well," "The tanks turned out to be quite reliable, but service turned into a nightmare for its crews. Each engine had its own water pump with its own linkages" [this was changed with the 1304th engine produced for the M4A4, where a single water pump served all engines], "The British became active users of the M4A4. Why would they use a tank that the Americans rejected? Short answer: reliability. According to data given to the GBTU by the British, the M4A4 (Sherman V) was the most reliable tank from the M4 family. The mean distance between refurbishments was 3200 km for the M4A2 (Sherman III), but 4000 km for the Sherman V. This explains why the British were not fazed by difficulty of servicing the engine." Pasholok relates that during Soviet trials of the M4A4, "The only advantage of this engine was that it worked flawlessly. The only problems during the trials were with the running gear and oil filter. The oil consumption was much less than the gasoline: only 2 L for 118 hours of work."
 
I mentioned Exercise Dracula in addition to the APG tests, where the M4A4 gave no issues beyond fuel thirst.

The rear hatch for the loader may very well have been his primary egress method, since there was no loader's hatch on the roof... The Sherman indeed had no loader's hatch until October 1943, and a small hatch is better than no hatch.
 
Where can we read of reliability issues of the M4A4? Thanks! G. Macleod Ross, a member of the British Purchasing Commission, says of engine testing when there was discussion of dropping the A57 from production: "...four engines of each type [Ford GAA, R975, GM 6046, Chrysler A57 were] being run in their respective tanks. Only four engines completed 400 hours when the trial was stopped. Of these four, three were Chrsyler A57 engines, while the fourth Chrysler entrant logged 339 hours to failure." Likewise, the M4A4 seemed to give no undue issues during Exercise Dracula.

FWIW...

FWIW...

Definitely the best book I've seen on Czech AFVs of that era. The English version has drawings as well--both apparently from the factories and from HL Doyle--but they are regular pages that aren't removable.

 
Also, a couple hundred pages of Kursk left, and then I'll move this to the front of the line.

Definitely the best book I've seen on Czech AFVs of that era. The English version has drawings as well--both apparently from the factories and from HL Doyle--but they are regular pages that aren't removable.

 
Also, a couple hundred pages of Kursk left, and then I'll move this to the front of the line.

Is this what you're talking about? Not 100% legible but I think it's the closest I have. Taken at the Memorial Day event at Ft. Knox on 26 May 2007. Link to original: click

Some shots and footage of the Americans in Wartime Museum's EFV automotive test rig:
 

That's exactly right Jeeps. Here's a comparison between this vehicle and an M74 (since I don't have a direct comparison handy of an HVSS tank). Lord_James, the M4A1 was the cast-hull variant, so it wouldn't have the sharp edges on the upper hull.

That's exactly right Jeeps. Here's a comparison between this vehicle and an M74 (since I don't have a direct comparison handy of an HVSS tank). Lord_James, the M4A1 was the cast-hull variant, so it wouldn't have the sharp edges on the upper hull.

I think that beautiful Sherman started out life as an M4A4, look at the wheel spacing at .42. 

Some shots and footage of the Americans in Wartime Museum's EFV automotive test rig:
 

Some shots and footage of the Americans in Wartime Museum's EFV automotive test rig:
 

Going a bit old school in Virginia over the weekend:
 

Some shots and footage of the Americans in Wartime Museum's EFV automotive test rig:
 

Going a bit old school in Virginia over the weekend:
 

Some shots and footage of the Americans in Wartime Museum's EFV automotive test rig:
 

Some shots and footage of the Americans in Wartime Museum's EFV automotive test rig:
 

Took me a while to figure it out, but the vehicle that first appears at 0:57 would seem to be UDI's test rig for the Advanced Assault Amphibian Vehicle, a project that would become the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (which GDLS won the contract to further develop.)  I am surprised this thing is still around and in private hands.

Going a bit old school in Virginia over the weekend:
 

Going a bit old school in Virginia over the weekend:
 

Going a bit old school in Virginia over the weekend:
 

I've had Lawrence's comically large tome on Kursk for four years or so and have just started reading it, having been previously intimidated a bit by its sheer size and scope. I mean, it has the word "Prokhorovka" on the spine...horizontally. And it weighs 12 pounds.

 
So far, Lawrence is definitely thorough, and there are first-person accounts to balance out the archival research. I can't really form an opinion of his analysis of the battle yet since I'm only on page 359, where the actual battle begins.

 
I'll keep everyone posted.

I like books about tanks so much that I even wrote one myself.
 
https://www.mortonsbooks.co.uk/product/view/productCode/15014