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

[Tied]

my mistake. im confused 

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

What was the purpose of foot wraps?

[EnsignExpendable]

What was the purpose of foot wraps?

 

To look sexy as fuck

 

They are a cheap replacement for socks, but more importantly, they can be combined with low boots in order to keep the mud out, like so:

 

The tight fit of the wraps over your leg as opposed to the loose fit of the opening of tall boots meant that they were superior to tall boots, especially when crawling.

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

New post!

 

Soviet Shermans: The USSR Was a Big Sherman User, and They Liked it

The Soviet Union received three American Medium tank types in large numbers. They received the Lee, and M4A2 75 and 76 tanks. Only the UK would use more M4A2 tanks, though they received only five armed with the 76mm gun, they got far more of the 75mm armed M4A2s.  The Soviets also received a pair of M4A4 tanks for evaluation, but rejected them because of the motor.  My impression from the things I’ve read says, they liked the all of them, well not the A4, but liked the Shermans more than the Lee.

Now let’s cover each tank model.  

M3 Lee: The Basic Lee

The Lee was not considered a very good design by the Soviet Union, you can read their evaluation here, on Archive Awareness, but it was not all negative. They liked the transmission, differential and final drives, and in particular the steering and brake mechanism.  They felt the R975 air cooled motor was not a great fit for tanks, for all the reasons they are not fit for tanks, mainly the size limitations they put on the tank, and as gasoline AC engines, they don’t have good low end torque, make driving harder.  They disliked the 75mm guns position, and lack of sites on the machine guns.

One thing I found very interesting, is in the summer, they could pack up to 10 SMG infantry into the Lee, along with the regular 7 man crew, making it into a makeshift APC. The thing would be packed full of people though.  The report says all weapons could be fired on the tank while those 10 men were stuffed in, so I guess the US Army or Brits didn’t try this because they liked comfort or something.

The Lee did not fare well against the upgraded Panzer IV with long 75, and they lost a lot of them, but they never stopped using them, they just did what the British did and sent them off to secondary theaters, were tanks were useful, and no enemy tanks were around.  Against poorly equipped, in AT weapon, Infantry, the M3 Lee was a monster of a tank. The 75mm had a great HE round, it was packed with machine guns, and had a 37mm that could sling canister.  The Soviets received 1386 M3 Lee tanks.

M4A2 75 dry: Early Small Hatch 75mm Shermans with Drivers Hoods

The Soviets received 1990 M3 75mm gun armed M4A2 Shermans. I don’t have a list of who made the early M4A2 tanks they got. They were competing with the Marine Corps and the French and Brits on priority for these tanks, and most went to the Brits.  I’ve looked through a lot of pictures of Soviet M4 tanks, or “Emcha” as they seemed to call them, the small hatch 75 tanks seem rarer than the large hatch 75 and 76 tanks.

This Post on Archive Awareness indicates, they received several hundred very early M4A2 tanks. One of the big indicators of this is the section where they talk about the suspension having the Lee style top mounted return roller, which could be jammed with mud, but then they received later models, where this return roller was moved to bracket mounted to the side of the suspension unit.

Another interesting part of that document is the problems they had with injectors, and lubrication problems with the pistons.  The Army reported similar problems with early model M4A2s, with the Air cleaners, cooling system and clutches, but nothing about the injectors.  This post on AA also indicates injector issues, but was overall positive on the M4A2.  Maybe the Soviets used low quality diesel and the injectors didn’t like it. At any rate, these issues would have been worked out by the time they started getting improved models.

M4A2 large hatch Dry: Late Model 75mm, 47 degree Large Hatch Hulls, but with Dry Ammo Racks

By late 1943 a new version of the M4A2 was going into production, and it had the improved 47 degree, single piece front armor plate, with large driver and co drivers hatches. These would be the first tanks to get this improvement.  By the time this model went into production, priority for diesel powered Shermans was going to the Soviets, since that was the only model they wanted, and the Brits would take the M4A4.

These improved large hatch hulls still used the dry ammunition rack setup of the early small hatch hulls, but they had the applique armor applied at the factory, and the 75mm turrets had an improved casting thickening the area that had required welded on additional armor on the older turrets. The Turrets had a oval loaders hatch and a pistol port as well, though the commander still got the older split hatch cupola with the 50 caliber mount built into it.

These tanks seemed to have been photographed much more than the small hatch 75 tanks, but I do not have a lot of photos of either. By the time these tanks were being produced, all the major reliability issues would have been worked out.  

M4A2 76W: The Soviets were the Second Biggest User of 76mm Shermans

Production of the 75mm armed Sherman was reduced, as Sherman production was streamlined down from the 10 factories that were producing it, to the three that would  finish it off, Fisher, Chrysler, and Pressed Steel Car.  The Soviet Union received 2073 M4A2 tanks with the 76mm M1A1 gun.  This was just about Fishers whole production run on the 76mm armed M4A2.

These tanks would have started out with wet racks, all around vision cupolas, a split loaders hatch and an M1A1 76mm gun without a barrel threaded for a muzzle brake.  A few may have even had T23 turrets without the ventilator on the rear. These would quickly be replaced with M1A1C guns with threaded barrels with a protective cap over the threads, and the split loaders hatch would be replaced with the smaller oval hatch.  These tanks would eventually be produced in the “Ultimate” configuration, with the M1A2 gun, and HVSS suspension.

These thanks saw extensive combat use with the Soviet Union, use with Guards units. My understanding is the Russians liked the M4A2 76w tanks just fine, and used them in elite units, but this has no reflection on their feelings about the tank compared to their own T-34-85 tanks.  T-34s were used in Guards units as well, and some units had both, as we can see from this AA post.  By that point in the war the Sherman and T-34 were pretty close in abilities.

M4A4: They Received Two, and that was Enough to Convince them, They Wanted No More

The Soviets sent a group of officials and engineers to check out the Chrysler Defense Arsenal,  to review the world famous tank factories abilities, and the tank they were currently making, the M4A4. This visit took place between December of 42 to February of 43, for more details, see this post on AA.

After being given a chance to drive the M4A4 on the proving grounds and being given lectures and demonstrations of its A57 gas motor, the Soviets decided that the M4A4 was better than the M3 Lee, but inferior to the M4A2 with GM Diesel they were already receiving through lend lease. They decided the factory was impressive, but really not producing a very good tank.

Even though the Soviets showed little interest in the M4A4 tanks, two were sent to them for evaluation anyway. You can read their impressions here, but as before when they tested it in the US, they felt the motor was to complicated to be reliable.  

[Walter_Sobchak]

M4A4 for sale.

 

http://www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C563480

[Sturgeon]

Hmmm, looking at Hunnicutt the M7 Medium had a turret ring only 5" thinner than the Sherman's. That's... Actually quite a bit better than I originally thought. Of course, the M7 wasn't worth producing, it was too similar to the Sherman, but that does raise my estimation of it somewhat.

 

I mean, I had assumed the M7 had limited turret volume, but actually:

T-34/76: 56"

T-34/85: 63"

M7 Medium: 64"

M4 Sherman: 69"

So basically, it has the fully capability to mount the 76mm M1A1, the 17 pdr, the Soviet 85mm, a whole host of powerful, competitive guns for that period. The M3 was really just scratching the surface of what the chassis could accommodate.

[Walter_Sobchak]

Hmmm, looking at Hunnicutt the M7 Medium had a turret ring only 5" thinner than the Sherman's. That's... Actually quite a bit better than I originally thought. Of course, the M7 wasn't worth producing, it was too similar to the Sherman, but that does raise my estimation of it somewhat.

 

I mean, I had assumed the M7 had limited turret volume, but actually:

T-34/76: 56"

T-34/85: 63"

M7 Medium: 64"

M4 Sherman: 69"

So basically, it has the fully capability to mount the 76mm M1A1, the 17 pdr, the Soviet 85mm, a whole host of powerful, competitive guns for that period. The M3 was really just scratching the surface of what the chassis could accommodate.

Its the one advantage to those big flat sided sponsons - a big turret ring.

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

It's surprising they went to the trouble to build a factory, then killed the program. You would think they could have replaced at the M3/M5 light tanks with it, or forced it on the Marines, or something. 

[EnsignExpendable]

You should start rumours of a Special Company #100 equivalent for the Marines where all the shit that never made it into production goes to fight.

[Belesarius]

You should start rumours of a Special Company #100 equivalent for the Marines where all the shit that never made it into production goes to fight.

AH.com like typing detected.

[Sturgeon]

Does anyone know why the in-game M7/75 has the wrong mantlet?

It's weird because the M7/57 has the correct one.

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

Does anyone know why the in-game M7/75 has the wrong mantlet?

It's weird because the M7/57 has the correct one.

 

Nope, other than Wargamings modelers are bad at accurate fine details. 

 

looking agt it, its almost like they didn't update the 75 mantlet, but it should be the same anyway, I think. 

 

It's also funny they only put of a few of the tools on it, it has the brackets for more, like the shovel and tanker bar, but they only put the pick or maddox and it's handle on the turret.

Edited March 31, 2016 by Jeeps_Guns_Tanks

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

Cool image found by Hanno Spoelstra of the Sherman Register

[Khand-e]

And alot of those states are fucked soon after the war ends and they have no production or industry demands left to fill.

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

Yeah, several of the Sherman makers went under shortly after the war.  Who knows how many of those 700 firms went under after the Sherman contracts dried up. 

[Walter_Sobchak]

Truly, this constitutes an abuse of history.

 

[EnsignExpendable]

At least the paint protected the metal from rust for a while.

[Walter_Sobchak]

I found this image from some old magazine.  While I am as much of a Sherman as fan as anyone, this probably qualifies as pure propaganda.

 

[EnsignExpendable]

Impossible, only Russians make propaganda.

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

I found this image from some old magazine.  While I am as much of a Sherman as fan as anyone, this probably qualifies as pure propaganda.

 

 

Not pure propaganda, It did have a very good powertrain, (Transmission, differential, steering and brakes.), tracks and suspension.   That's also a terrible, I mean really horrible Sherman drawing. 

[SuperComrade]

Pakistani M4A1 with 76 mm gun (Yuri Pasholok's LJ)

[EnsignExpendable]

What's the thing welded to the suspension?

[Bronezhilet]

What's the thing welded to the suspension?

I think an adapter for a dozer blade.

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

I think an adapter for a dozer blade.

 

I can barely make it out on my phone,but Bronze is right it's for the m1 dozer blade kit

 

You can find out more info on it here... 

 

http://www.theshermantank.com/sherman/dozers-the-m1-and-m1a1-dozer-blade-kit/

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

Massivly updated section. 

 

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.

 

One of the things that really set the Sherman apart from its piers, and gave it very good longevity, was the size of the turret ring. The Shermans was 69 inches, positively huge for when it was designed, the early T-34 had a 56 inch ring, and the later version with 85mm gun had a 63 inch turret ring. Nazi Germans are not very good in this area,  PIII having a 60 inch ring,  PIV having only 63 inches, and the Panther only having a 65 inch ring. Even the Tiger wasn’t huge, at 70 inches! So what makes the size of the ring important? It is one of several factors that determine the maximum size gun you can mount on the tank. The other factors are the mechanical reliability of the vehicle and its load capacity, and how good the country building the tank was at making recoil absorption systems for the guns. The combination of automotive reliability, load capacity, turret ring diameter, and turret size allowed the Sherman to be up gunned for decades. These factors were far more important than armor thickness when it came to the Shermans longevity. That the Sherman received more powerful guns than the Panther had, or could have had, is just one more reason why the Sherman was such a great tank, and better than the Panther.

 

Now let’s talk about turret drive motors.  There were three types on 75mm Shermans.

 

Oilgear: All models of Sherman tank had both powered and manual turret traverse. They did try various brands and types though. The preferred on the early Shermans was the hydraulic mechanism made by Oilgear Company. The Oilgear unit was both more precise because it had veritable sensitivity, and more robust since it was able to keep the turret spinning even with minor flaws in the race or ring gear, than the other choices. Oilgear could not keep up with all the factories producing Shermans, so they had to go to other companies.

 

The Oilgear unit was hydraulic, but powered by its own electric motor that spun a hydraulic pump and turbine setup to rotate the turret. The whole assembly was small enough to be mounted to the side of the turret, with a fair amount of room for the gunner.

 

Logansport: This Turret drive was very similar to the Oilgear unit, just not as precise, nor as good at dealing with imperfections in the turret race or ring. This unit was so similar the electric motor powering the hydraulic pump and turbine used the same reduction gears as the Oilgear unit.

The Logansport unit used the same mounting bracket as the Oilgear unit as well. The sensitivity to problems with the tolerances on the turret ring would make this drive more likely to fail from minor damage that the Oilgear unit would shrug off.

 

Westinghouse: The Westinghouse unit was just a big electric motor hooked to reduction gears. Since the motor ran at a faster speed, it had to be adapted to the stabilizer system, but was still able to fit the same space and use all the mounting brackets of the other systems.

 

The Westinghouse unit had the same problem with minor flaws in the race or sensitive to tightness in the ring gear.

Now, this would be a quality assurance problem at the factory in most cases. IE, when the tank got to the end of the line, and the QA inspector rotated the turret, and it screeched and slowed down over 10 degrees of rotation, it would be rejected, and sent to the factory’s QA shop to be fixed.  Battle damage might have caused some problems as well, but if the tank took enough of a hit to damage the teeth on the ring, or gear, it was probably going to be knocked out, and in really bad shape. That speculation based on how well many turret rings held up after years on firing ranges, when the wreck they were in was restored into a beautiful working tank.

 

On the later T23 turrets, the Oilgear system was used for traverse control and an improved Westinghouse stabilizer was used as well.

 

The Westinghouse stabilizer: All models of the Sherman but the 105 armed tanks had a stabilizer to control the main guns in elevation while on the move. It used a gyroscope and hydraulic power pulled from the turret drive system to keep the gun steady in the vertical while on the movie. The system is often disregarded as an advantage by detractors, for a few reasons, but none are valid in a technical sense. The stabilizer was a very advanced piece of kit, and something the Germans could not copy, and never installed a similar system on a wartime tank. That it was complicated and the crews lacked training in using it, doesn’t mean it didn’t work and offer advantages to crews who bothered with it.

 

The original stabilizer was a little complicated to setup properly, since many armor units received their tanks and maybe some manuals for them, when they formed, they often did not have a single man in their company who really knew how to make the stabilizer really work. This lead to it being turned off by a lot of early war crews. The wrongheaded belief the equipment was useless followed that. The Army did a test on it and found the stabilizer, when setup, and used by a crew who knew how to use it, it helped a great deal in getting off a fast first shot, when the tank came to stop to shoot.  If the tank rocked, the gun stayed more or less on target. This was a big advantage to getting that all important first shot/hit in combat.

 

The Westinghouse stabilizer was improved and simplified in the second generation Shermans, the large hatch 75 and 76 tanks would have gotten it.  It was easier to setup and maintain, and the Army worked on getting crews trained on it.  

 

 

 

The standard 75mm Turret:  The Sherman’s First Turret, It Had Many Minor Changes

 

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 for the gunner either. The gunner had to rely on the M4 periscope to aim 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. Many of these turrets had a weak spot in the armor due to an area machined to fit the turret drive. This area was covered with additional armor on once the problem was discovered.

 

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, often only covering half the turret with added armor on the mantlet to protect the new telescopic site. The new factory 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, eliminating the need for the welded on cheek armor.

 

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. Due to a shortage of all around vision cupolas, many 75mm turrets with  a loaders hatch ended up with the old split style commanders hatch.

 

When hull production switched over to the 47 degree frontal armor configuration, and they went with the large driver and loaders hatches on the M4, M4A2 and M4A3 production, the 75mm turrets needed modification. The hinge for the larger drivers and co  drivers hatches stuck up higher than the older small hatch hulls, they could interfere with the turrets rotation, since they barely cleared the bustle were the radio was mounted in the back of the turret. The first solution was to notch the bustle a little, but they also changed the turret casting, raising the whole bustle area and making the top of the turret flatter.   

 

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.

 

For the very best in minute detail on this subject, please check out the Sherman Minutia site. One minor bit of trivia about the original style turret, the D50878, and D78461 castings, the ones produced for the 105 armed tanks were unique, in that they had an extra armored ventilator cast in. So the 105mm turrets really are 105mm only. I’m still not sure if there is a 1/35mm Sherman M4 105, or M4A3 105 with the correct turret.

 

The T23 Turret: Developed For the Failed T23 program, It Found a New Purpose on The Sherman

 

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 M1A1 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 turreted 76mm gun tanks, had wet ammunition storage, as did the Jumbo tanks, tanks, but not all large hatch hulls did. The M4 (105), M4 composites, and M4A2 large hatch 75mm tanks all had dry ammo racks.