Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, EnsignExpendable said:

Another question, probably not about the Sherman specifically, what is mpq? I have some documents on Sherman trials, the M4E1 gave .77 mpg and 3.8 mpq in cross country trials when running on diesel fuel, for instance. 

 

Edit: never mind, I figured it out, it's oil consumption. Naturally it's measured with a different unit than fuel. 

 

Yeah the R975 had pretty high oil consumption, but none of the others did. It was the nature of the beast, the R975 being an aircraft radial. 

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

3 hours ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

Yeah the R975 had pretty high oil consumption, but none of the others did. It was the nature of the beast, the R975 being an aircraft radial. 

Yes and no..  Engines of that time were (overall) pretty thirsty.  Examples like the GAA were exceptions.  it was not uncommon to have attachments to one's car that metered oil to lubricate the valves.

So, for a radial aircraft engine forced into ground service, the 975 performed superbly. Oil consumption was not it's major issue. (I'd put hydrolock and plug fouling ahead).

 

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

TT36iEV.png

 

Very interesting Sherman. The hull MG is welded up like on the Firefly, but it's not a Firefly! Converted back after the war, maybe?

 

 

Yeah, looks like an IC composite, you can still see the radio box and the square loaders hatch. 

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

Interesting picture for sale on Ebay.  This is supposed to be Italy 1944.  The Sherman tank in the background still has the old style suspension bogies with the return roller directly on top instead set to the back.

 

sherman-with-m3-style-bogies.jpg?w=680

 

My guess would be 1st Armored Division.  They were the first US armored unit to see action so they would have had some pretty early model M4 tanks, and they ended up in Italy after 1943.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Sherman tanks (unidentified model) purchased through public donations, showcased to the public that bought them. Year 1955 I believe.

 

5003.jpg

 

5001.jpg

 

Also a poster calling civilians to donate:

  Hide contents

5002.jpg

 

 

 

 

Looks like a small hatch M4 with a depot level upgrade post-war, since it has the all-around vision cupola, and they made it on few small hatch M4s during the war. The US was probably giving them out like door prizes in the 50s if you were on their good side. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

Interesting picture for sale on Ebay.  This is supposed to be Italy 1944.  The Sherman tank in the background still has the old style suspension bogies with the return roller directly on top instead set to the back.

 

sherman-with-m3-style-bogies.jpg?w=680

 

Some of those early M4A1s note it has the M34 gun mount but is not a DV tank, made it all the way to the end of the war in the MTO. A few in the ETO too on the tank companies that transferred.  

I don't think the MTO tanks got priority on the upgrades. 

4 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

Wreckage_of_American_and_German_Tanks_of

 

Often captioned, something stupid like, "all the Shermans destroyed on D-Day", but it's just a big wrecking yard in Normandy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

 

Looks like a small hatch M4 with a depot level upgrade post-war, since it has the all-around vision cupola, and they made it on few small hatch M4s during the war. The US was probably giving them out like door prizes in the 50s if you were on their good side. 

 

Unfortunately for Israel in that period, they were not on our good side and their M4's usually came from third party sources.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

Unfortunately for Israel in that period, they were not on our good side and their M4's usually came from third party sources.  

 

 

Yeah, they even got some from junkyards like you posted in Europe, and then rebuilt them.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

 

Yeah, they even got some from junkyards like you posted in Europe, and then rebuilt them.   

 

I seem to recall reading that the very first M4 they had didn't have a gun, so they rearmed with a German or Italian artillery piece.  I'll have to look it up.  They also stole a Cromwell or two from the British with some inside help.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/25/2018 at 7:59 PM, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

Some of those early M4A1s note it has the M34 gun mount but is not a DV tank, made it all the way to the end of the war in the MTO. A few in the ETO too on the tank companies that transferred.  

I don't think the MTO tanks got priority on the upgrades. 

 

Often captioned, something stupid like, "all the Shermans destroyed on D-Day", but it's just a big wrecking yard in Normandy. 

 

Yeah, I doubt they were sending out Renault R-35s to fight on D-Day.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/27/2018 at 11:23 AM, EnsignExpendable said:

 

Yeah, I doubt they were sending out Renault R-35s to fight on D-Day.

I think one of the first Panzer or Panzer Grenadier Divisions encountered by the US in the Cotentin Peninsula was equipped with captured French armor.  It might have been the 17th SS Panzer Grenadier division, which was short of equipment and using old french crap.

 

Edit: On second thought, I think this is probably where those R-35 tanks came from:

 

Fourteen R 35 tanks, used to train tank drivers, equipped the 100. Panzer-Ersatz-Bataillon (100th Panzer Replacement Battalion) in the German Seventh Army in 1944. On 6 June 1944, they were among the first Armee-Reserveunits sent into combat near Sainte-Mère-Église to oppose the American airborne landings in Normandy. Supporting a counterattack by the 1057th Grenadier Regiment, R35s penetrated the command post of the U.S. 1st Battalion 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment before being destroyed by bazooka fire

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hoping someone here knows: were British Sherman Vs delivered with or without appliqué armour on the hull sides? That is to say, would that have been applied in Britain, but with plates pre-painted in American olive drab that appears darker in b&w photos than the British SCC 15 olive drab that the rest of the tank would have been painted in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stansell and Laughling say, "At CDA [Chrysler Defense Arsenal], the glacis [applique] armor was first installed in early August 1943. The exact date of the introduction of the side plates is not known, but CDA's M4 composites starting [sic] getting theirs in late August 1943. It's safe to assume that they were installing them on the M4A4 line at the same time. It's also interesting to speculate that some M4A4s left the factory with front applique only." And later, "Once a vehicle was issued to troops--either stateside or overseas--it was rarely modified. Most, if not all, applique appears to have been installed by the factories or by the tank depots before issue or during a remanufacturing program." Chrysler rebuilt 1610 M4A4s destined for the British by October 1944, so it seems from their research that it might be rare for the applique armor kits to have been installed in Britain. On the other hand, if Chrysler started adding the applique armor in August 1943, over a year of M4A4 production had already elapsed, and 6173 M4A4s had been produced by the end of the second quarter of 1943, which would leave potentially 4563 tanks that were built before the applique armor was added to the factory line and which also didn't get run through the remanufacturing program. So bottom line: who knows? :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The question arose because I’m building a model of a specific British tank, and in most of the photos I have of it, it looks like the armour plates are darker than the rest of it. However, I’m now beginning to think that the tank is in American OD and wasn’t overpainted entirely by the British, since on close inspection, most or all the British additions (like the track stowage racks on the hull front) are darker than the rest of the tank, as is a patch of paint on the hull side which — if this theory is correct — could be a touch-up job with SCC 15.

 

Does this sound plausible or am I barking up the wrong tree completely?

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.

Guest
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...