Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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

Recommended Posts

Bunch of new content I'm hosting, mostly unit histories I picked up here and there. 


Unit Histories

Paths of Armor: The history of 5th Armored Division. 396 high quality pages of history on the 5th AD. 

The Combat history of the Super Sixth:  182 pages, ok scan with a lot of very good info.

 You can read their unit history here: Impact, the battle history of the Tenth Armored Division

A history of the 12th Armored Division: Hellcats   98 pages, good scan.

the 13th Armored division: A history of the Black Cats from Texas to France, Germany and Austria and back to California  

The 68th Tank Battalion in combatUnit history 68th Tank Battalion, 57 good quality pages.

717th Tank Battalion recordA short history of the 717, 78 ok pages.

The combat story of the 743rd Tank Battalion: Move out Verify. This unit was in it from D-day to the surrender of the Germans. 194 pages and good quality scan.

752nd Tank BnThis history is for the 752 who spent their whole war in Italy. It makes for an interesting contrast. 85 ok quality pages.

Battle history of A battery 391st Armored Field Artillery BattThis one is just one A battery, and is 120 ok pages

Our battalion: 89th tank destroyer battalion history  This one is 97 pages, ok scan quality.

782nd Tank Battalion: Treat’em Rough A short history of this Tank unit, 37 pages, ok scan.

782nd Tank Battalion: Treat’em Rough A short history of this Tank unit, 37 pages, ok scan.

New pages: 

Sherman Tank Turrets and Turret components.

Sherman Tank Fuel Systems: Fuel tanks, Lines, and Valves, plus Carbs and Injectors

And now for the images. 



Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

(M4A3E8, ultimate production Sherman) This is a work in progress, please feel free to comment, or help me with info and links.     Click here to see the new The Sherman Tank Websit

Hey guys, here's the first part of my new section in the Sherman doc, on Marine use of the Sherman.    I'm going to update the main post tonight. I've update every section in the doc with more info

9 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:


Hmm, I see some Bren guns sticking out behind the TC in the background.  I would guess Commonwealth, but I don't recall them using helmets.



Hmmm yeah, but note the guys in berets in the background as well, and the funky wire sight in front of the main commander.  Maybe UK crews used helmets in Italy? Maybe they are something odd like South Africans. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This photo seems to be of the same scene, and the source caption states that they're Sherman V's.  Some good general armor photos in with that link.





Sherman V tank armed with a 75-mm Gun, 5th Canadian Armour Regiment, 8th Princess Louise (New Brunswick) Hussars, Italy, 2 Mar 1944.  (Library and Archives Canada  Photo, MIKAN No. 3599666 and 3599664)


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/11/2017 at 1:10 PM, Scolopax said:

Not that there were any expectations, but the M4 model in COD:WW2 is poop.  Also, the front armor of a Panzer IV is apparently impenetrable at close range.



That is a wholeshittonof "wat" in one image.

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

A lightly chipped M4A1





.30" M2AP.  Makes wee little craters.  I bet there was a pile of tungsten steel/hardened steel "pencils" around that tank.


Also, I wish I had not shot up all the M2AP I used to have, but damn, it used to be cheap, and accurate. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

French armament 1940 makes the claim on pg. 94 that :


● Tank construction technology and Somua S35 tank
The Somua S35 was intended to be produced in the USA but due to WW2 that never happened. All what the French learned about casting technology was transferred to the USA and that inspired more or less the turret of the Lee, the hull of the M3A1 and the Sherman general design. The conception/design of the future M4 Sherman is in fact partly inspired by these studies and French engineers were present in the US "Ordnance" during debriefing meetings in Washington beginning July 1940. But what is sometimes heard about the Sherman being directly linked to the Somua S35 is an urban myth.


Is it known if there is any validity to such an assertions, that the Sherman was influenced heavily by the Somua S35? Frankly it sounds sort of like an attempt at face saving by "yeah we lost, but the silly Americans used our superior technology to build their tanks", but I mean, that's why I'm asking. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The short answer is no. The long answer is kind of, but not really.


In 1940, Canada was starting up its own tank brigade, and a decision was made to arm it with domestically produced tanks. Producing the Cruiser Tank Mk.VI at Canadian factories was impossible, so a decision was made to use the American Medium Tank M3 chassis to build a tank that isn't shit. At this point, the Somua S35 was actually considered for production (among many other designs from other nations), but ultimately rejected. The result of this process was the Ram tank, a cast hull on the M3's riveted chassis. The Canadians actually ended up hiring one of the French guys who worked on the S35 to help with setting up casting production.


Some historians argue that the Ram influenced the Sherman, but that is rather unlikely. The Ram entered production first, but the Medium Tank T6 was already completed by the time a sample arrived at Aberdeen. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
7 hours ago, EnsignExpendable said:



Interesting opinion, considering that a) the Sherman V ended up being the Commonwealth's most numerous tank and b) the Wright engines were the least reliable of them all in 1944 tests.

While a absurdly sturdy AC mill, the Wright is a pain to deal with in armored installations.  I suspect a lot of the "unreliability" stemmed from "Fuck turning it through before we start it" or "Nah, those lower valves don't need adjustment".


Same kind of normal human nonsense that cause that fucked up APG report on the T-34. 

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



Interesting opinion, considering that a) the Sherman V ended up being the Commonwealth's most numerous tank and b) the Wright engines were the least reliable of them all in 1944 tests.



What's kinda funny was they could have a preference for the R975, but uncle Sam wanted them so he so he told the Brits they could take the A57 and have lots of tanks or get a few M4 and M4A1's when we had no demand, and or when the Ford GAA had its bugs worked out. It's also impressive the A57 ended up being the most reliable, considering its near German level of complexity!



Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By Collimatrix
      Shortly after Jeeps_Guns_Tanks started his substantial foray into documenting the development and variants of the M4, I joked on teamspeak with Wargaming's The_Warhawk that the next thing he ought to do was a similar post on the T-72.
      Haha.  I joke.  I am funny man.
      The production history of the T-72 is enormously complicated.  Tens of thousands were produced; it is probably the fourth most produced tank ever after the T-54/55, T-34 and M4 sherman.
      For being such an ubiquitous vehicle, it's frustrating to find information in English-language sources on the T-72.  Part of this is residual bad information from the Cold War era when all NATO had to go on were blurry photos from May Day parades:

      As with Soviet aircraft, NATO could only assign designations to obviously externally different versions of the vehicle.  However, they were not necessarily aware of internal changes, nor were they aware which changes were post-production modifications and which ones were new factory variants of the vehicle.  The NATO designations do not, therefore, necessarily line up with the Soviet designations.  Between different models of T-72 there are large differences in armor protection and fire control systems.  This is why anyone arguing T-72 vs. X has completely missed the point; you need to specify which variant of T-72.  There are large differences between them!
      Another issue, and one which remains contentious to this day, is the relation between the T-64, T-72 and T-80 in the Soviet Army lineup.  This article helps explain the political wrangling which led to the logistically bizarre situation of three very similar tanks being in frontline service simultaneously, but the article is extremely biased as it comes from a high-ranking member of the Ural plant that designed and built the T-72.  Soviet tank experts still disagree on this; read this if you have some popcorn handy.  Talking points from the Kharkov side seem to be that T-64 was a more refined, advanced design and that T-72 was cheap filler, while Ural fans tend to hold that T-64 was an unreliable mechanical prima donna and T-72 a mechanically sound, mass-producible design.
      So, if anyone would like to help make sense of this vehicle, feel free to post away.  I am particularly interested in:
      -What armor arrays the different T-72 variants use.  Diagrams, dates of introduction, and whether the array is factory-produced or a field upgrade of existing armor are pertinent questions.
      -Details of the fire control system.  One of the Kharkov talking points is that for most of the time in service, T-64 had a more advanced fire control system than contemporary T-72 variants.  Is this true?  What were the various fire control systems in the T-64 and T-72, and what were there dates of introduction?  I am particularly curious when Soviet tanks got gun-follows-sight FCS.
      -Export variants and variants produced outside the Soviet Union.  How do they stack up?  Exactly what variant(s) of T-72 were the Iraqis using in 1991?

      -WTF is up with the T-72's transmission?  How does it steer and why is its reverse speed so pathetically low?
    • By LoooSeR
      Hello, my friends and Kharkovites, take a sit and be ready for your brains to start to work - we are going to tell you a terrible secret of how to tell apart Soviet tanks that actually works like GLORIOUS T-80 and The Mighty T-72 from Kharkovites attempt to make a tank - the T-64. Many of capitalists Westerners have hard time understanding what tank is in front of them, even when they know smart words like "Kontakt-5" ERA. Ignoramus westerners!
         Because you are all were raised in several hundreds years old capitalism system all of you are blind consumer dummies, that need big noisy labels and shiny colorful things to be attached to product X to be sold to your ignorant heads and wallets, thats why we will need to start with basics. BASICS, DA? First - how to identify to which tank "family" particular MBT belongs to - to T-64 tree, or T-72 line, or Superior T-80 development project, vehicles that don't have big APPLE logo on them for you to understand what is in front of you. And how you can do it in your home without access to your local commie tank nerd? 
         Easy! Use this Putin approved guide "How to tell appart different families of Soviet and Russian tanks from each other using simple and easy to spot external features in 4 steps: a guide for ignorant western journalists and chairborn generals to not suck in their in-depth discussions on the Internet".
      Chapter 1: Where to look, what to see.
      T-64 - The Ugly Kharkovite tank that doesn't work 
         We will begin with T-64, a Kharkovite attempt to make a tank, which was so successful that Ural started to work on their replacement for T-64 known as T-72. Forget about different models of T-64, let's see what is similar between all of them.

      T-72 - the Mighty weapon of Workers and Peasants to smash westerners
         Unlike tank look-alike, made by Kharkovites mad mans, T-72 is true combat tank to fight with forces of evil like radical moderate barbarians and westerners. Thats why we need to learn how identify it from T-64 and you should remember it's frightening lines!

      The GLORIOUS T-80 - a Weapon to Destroy and Conquer bourgeois countries and shatter westerners army
         And now we are looking at the Pride of Party and Soviet army, a true tank to spearhead attacks on decadent westerners, a tank that will destroy countries by sucking their military budgets and dispersing their armies in vortex of air, left from high-speed charge by the GLORIOUS T-80!

      The T-80 shooting down jets by hitting them behind the horizont 
    • By EnsignExpendable
      Since I clearly have too much time on my hands, and Jeeps has a pretty cool tread going on, I decided that I'm going to do the same thing, but for T-34s. Here's a quick sample that I whipped up last night, I'm probably going to cover major exterior features of at least wartime T-34s and T-34-85s, then we'll see. I'll update the document in batches per organic time period rather than some arbitrary year-based cutoff. 
      Post constructive criticism and the T-34-iest pics you got
    • By SuperComrade
      About to read a (stolen) copy of

      Let the games begin!

  • Create New...