Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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

Recommended Posts

So I've been working on this page.




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


Sherman Tank Fuel Systems: The Complete fuel Systems for each Sherman model, eventually.

I have good manuals for the A57, Ford GAA and GM 6046, but do not have a good manual for the R975, at least one installed in a Sherman tank. I do have one for an SPG, but the fuel tanks are very different.  I’m sure I’ll find TM9-731AA someday even if I have to order it from  a company in France! For now, the wife is not convinced this is a good place to spend money, but I may be able to convince her in the future.

The Ford GAA fuel system for the M4A3, M36B1 AND M10A1 vehicles. 

The Fuel system in the Ford GAA equipped vehicles are all pretty similar, but for now this will focus on the M4A3 75 and 76 tank hulls, and this would include the M36B2. Even these tanks have a slightly different fuel tank layout.

Fuel-tanks-and-lines-plan-view-f03-6IMPR Fuel-lines-side-view-F03-8IMPROVED-FLAT-

These images show the layout of the fuel tanks in the M4A3,  it also shows the routing of the fuel lines and gives all the part numbers for the items shown. 

By today’s standards the fuel system on the M4A3 is very simple. It has a lot in common with automotive systems of the time, and this technology didn’t change much all the way up into the 80s when fuel injection started to become more common on gas powered US automobiles.  Anyone who’s ever worked on a carbureted vehicle wouldn’t be lost working on the M4A3 Sherman.


The carburetors were conventional two barrel carbs from Bendix-Stromberg, and I’m sure just about anyone familiar with a 2 barrel carb could rebuilt one.  The linkage tying the two carbs together was pretty simple and actuated one carb, then the other, making tuning them easier, though, good mixture and fuel distribution to the cylinders had to be pretty uneven.



There was an interesting addition to the carbs, they added a carburetor adaptor, with its own set of butterfly valves, these were controlled by the engine’s throttle governor,  and as the motor reach max RPM, this butterfly valves in the adapter would actually close to prevent the engine from overspeeding.





Depending on the model, the Sherman had four fuel tanks, in dry storage tanks and the M36B1, they have four tanks, but they work like two big tanks, and have one filler and shut off valve per pair on the back deck.  On the wet hulls, the fuel tanks are separated into four individual tanks, each with its own filler and shut off valve.  The tanks were steel, and easy to remove, with the motor out, for repair.


There were filters on each tank  on the wet tanks, while the dry tanks had a filter up on top of the engine compartment, just before the fuel pump. The fuel pump was cam driven off a port on the motor,  and one version was actually an ACDelco part, and it was a pretty typical diaphragm fuel pump.




One interesting feature of the fuel system was the hand priming pump in the drivers position. This was on all models, though it varied from in the dash to mounted in front of the driver for its location.  This allowed the driver to pump a little fuel right into the intake to help get the massive beast started.


The  fuel shutoff valves were operated from inside the tank. They were on the rear firewall and depending on the type of fuel tanks there were two or four of them. If you review the pictures above and below, you will note, the tank layout diagrams show 4 tanks and 4 fuel shut off valves for the wet tanks, and the two tanks made from four tanks, with two shut off valves for the dry tanks, but the firewall photos show only two cut off valve handles on the late firewall, can one handle turn off two tanks?






The fuel tanks were accessed from the rear engine deck, there were five armored covers, or three, two or four for the gas tanks, and one for the gas tank for the auxiliary generator. In the images below you can see the various rear deck configurations.








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

If you look close, you can see a weld line, right above the angled part of the added armor over the ammo rack, these are the composite hull M4's so a welded M4 hull with a big M4A1 like casting welding to the front to reduce welding time.  The improved large hatch welded hulls eliminated most of the welding the composite hull was designed to eliminate so the got phazed out. 


Chrysler produced M4s, M4A4s, M4A3 76 and 105 tanks, and the M26, and I'm probably forgetting something. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, EnsignExpendable said:

Ooh, here's a fun bit to rile up the wehraboos



Anyone who has experience with tracked vehicles knows it has more to do with ground pressure, tractive effort and the tractive material, than simply "teh trax". 


Sadly most box-boos think a fat broad track equals "bettar".  

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, EnsignExpendable said:

Ironically, Shermans with extended end connectors showed poorer traction somehow. I'd dive deeper into the subject, but the Mud and Snow Committee documents are incredibly fucking boring. 

Yep, because tractive effort versus  applied power upon a given surface is a far more complex "thing" than many want to consider. Especially people just focused on "whull muh tonk". 


That is a lot of what made that early T-34 "plank" track make sense.  It would work when few others would, short of a full on pedrail system. 

Link to post
Share on other sites


News Post 14: Happy New year! 2017 was a good year for the Sherman Tank Site, 2018 should be even better!

The Sherman Tank site has been up for just over two years.  The website is paid up for another year, and I have some very  interesting books on the way that should expand the selection of rare technical drawings.  I do not know how the quality on these new manuals coming will be, so, I don't know how much cleanup work there is to do, and I'm not even through 25% of the M4A3 stuff I currently have.

I got some interesting new books for Christmas.

Patton's Juggernaut, The Rolling 8-ball, 8th Tank Battalion of the 4th Armored Division, 15 extraordinary Achievements.  by Albin Irzyk. 

He commanded the 8th Tank Battalion in the 4th AD and liked the Sherman. You can find his defense of it, called Tank versus Tank here.  I think this is going to be a great book, and General Irzyk will be 101 tomorrow!

I also got, Forging the Thunderbolt, by Gillie, it looks to be a very good history on the US Armored forces from the beginning until 45.

Last but not least I have a Armored Strike Force, the photo history of the 70th Tanks Battalion in WWII, by Roberts

I also have TM9-731A the M4A1 manual! I am super excited. If that wasn't enough, I have the ORD 9 G207 Illustrated Parts Listing for M4A1 Sherman Tank.

I have high expectations for the Sherman tank site in the coming year. I will try and do at least one new content page or post a week, and one news post a month.

I think the two latest things are:

WOT versus WT, part II a new review

And the Ford GAA fuel system page


Also, one final note, I wanted to link to the Jocko Podcast. Jocko, is a retired US Navy Seal Officer and is interested in Military History and self improvement through improved leadership, and uses book reviews and actual in person interviews with many of the authors.  His subjects range from the Rape of Nanking, to his own experiences in Ramadi, but has also had men like the intriguing Dr Jordan peterson, if you can't find an interesting subject or two in his well over 100 podcasts, well, I don't know what to say about that.

My favorite is Ep is 95 with Captain Charlie  Plumb and Army Air Force P-38 pilot Jim Kunkle. The three men have a very interesting 3 hour conversation with Jim, with some stories about Charlie mixed in and both men are interesting and have fascinating stories to tell.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, EnsignExpendable said:

Wow, those are some really good numbers. I've just broken 100k pageviews per month for December 2017 (according to Google Analytics, anyway). What's your secret?


I have no idea, clearly your content is more interesting, maybe Russian stuff isn't as popular still.   Maybe it's all the photos, I get lots of link back from Pinterest.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

A solid pretty good on the G-207   this TM9-731, is usable but not good.  The one they are sending should be almost original level quality. I've already got a good diagram on the third, rarely seen hydraulic turret drive system though. So now I'll be able to do a good post on all three types, the Westinghouse all electric, the Oilgear system, and the Generic system, that looks like a german version of the Oilgear.... well not that bad, since it worked.  


I'll now be able to do a R975 specification booklet with really great parts drawings, like I did for the ford GAA. 




The odd drive system

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/30/2017 at 10:26 PM, Meplat said:

Yep, because tractive effort versus  applied power upon a given surface is a far more complex "thing" than many want to consider. Especially people just focused on "whull muh tonk". 


That is a lot of what made that early T-34 "plank" track make sense.  It would work when few others would, short of a full on pedrail system. 


You ain't kidding.  I dare anyone to actually read Chapter 14 of Ogorkiewicz's Technology of Tanks, "Soil-Vehicle Mechanics".

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2018 at 12:07 AM, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

How cool is this?


That's how most radials are laid out. The real interesting bit is on the cranks for mills turning Hydromatic constant speed props, because then you need to be pumping oil to the front(splined) section for it's governor and to run the pitch change piston.


9 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:


You ain't kidding.  I dare anyone to actually read Chapter 14 of Ogorkiewicz's Technology of Tanks, "Soil-Vehicle Mechanics".

If you're dealing with tracked vehicles of any kind it should be required reading.  That chapter is great if you're wondering why you see bogged down excavators and tracked skid-steers. (other than cranial rectal inversion syndrome on the part of operator or supervisor).



Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Hmmm I'm trying to think were I saw numbers for that, I don't think it's in the normal manuals.   I'll poke around though.  Seems hard to believe a good American Ton would be that much heavier than a British Ton,  maybe that's the extra weight of the gun and mount on the 17 pounders?

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...