Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


Recommended Posts

  • 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

2 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

ol8pswkirw711.jpg

Hull down position?

 

 

 

Probably flooded out in a shell hole. Believe it or not, on Tarawa, probably where the pic was taken, they had not even come up with a way to waterproof the hull, so water up to the hull hatches meant dead tank for sure. I think if it got much higher than the hull machine gun, they were in trouble, and several tanks not lost, lost all turret power, since the slip ring for the electrical system was under the turret, and not waterproof. 

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

 

 

Probably flooded out in a shell hole. Believe it or not, on Tarawa, probably where the pic was taken, they had not even come up with a way to waterproof the hull, so water up to the hull hatches meant dead tank for sure. I think if it got much higher than the hull machine gun, they were in trouble, and several tanks not lost, lost all turret power, since the slip ring for the electrical system was under the turret, and not waterproof. 

I'm curious if LVTs just working well enough was the reason DDs didn't get used in the pacific at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be a good question to run by  Estes or Gilbert, my impression on this subject was there was literally almost no official communication between the Marines and Army about tank use and tactics. As an example of this, the Army and Marines both came up with the Infantry phone on the rear of the tank, and at roughly the same time, but did not share info.  The Marines had so little experience with medium tanks when they used them the first few times, they learned all kinds of lessons the hard way and lost more tanks to drowning and mechanical problems than the Japanese if I recall right.

 

They did try the float based floating Shermans on Okinawa, but they were not very successful, the floats would ground out before the tracks got a good bite, stranding the tank, unless the beach was perfect.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

New post on the site. 

 

the-echelon-system-of-maint-from-Army-mo

Sherman Tank Site Post 74: A  Guide Through The Maintenance Maze

While I was poking through some old issues of Army Motors, I ran into this fascinating little guide to the Armies maintenance system. Most people who have not dealt with some kind of large motor pool have no idea the large maintenance tail a big number of tanks or even trucks has.  A hell of a lot of men and equipment are required behind the front to keep the 5 men and their Sherman running in combat.

I thought this would be a good place to link to the new paper put out by Arthur Gullachsen on the Canadian Military History site. The report is called No Shortage of Tanks!: THe Canadian Army’s SYstem for the Recovery Repair and Replacement of A and B Vehicles and Major Weapons Systems. 

This fascinating report gives a very nice overview of the Canadian version of the echelon Maintenance system. Between the Army motors article and Arthurs Report, it covers just about any questions I could have come up with on how the Allied maintenance systems were run.

Special thanks to Hanno Spoelstra of the Sherman Register for finding the report!

the-maint-maze1-smaller.png

the-maint-maze2-smaller.png

the-maint-maze3-smaller.png

the-maint-maze4-smaller.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeeps, very sorry but I somehow missed this post. I hadn't mentioned it or posted pictures because I was making a joke about the car I had just gotten, although to be honest its name was probably upwards of 20% of the reason I was interested in it... Anyway, since we're on the subject and since you'd probably be among the handful of people who would have any chance of appreciating the license plate I ordered for this German M4, here's a picture. Apologies for the off-topic post, but didn't want you to think I had been ignoring you and rest assured if I did somehow manage to buy an actual tank I'd be posting everywhere about it! :) Now back to actual tanks.

kwA21aC.jpg

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

It was also easier to not put a DShK on top and paint stupid highlights, and yet they did it anyway.

Yeah, a work that was not needed for this job, which make all this look strange. 

"Highly motivated, low-skilled people - they are everywhere ..."

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

Here is a news story about it with subtitles

 

 

 

 

 

There is something Fishy about the restoration. I thought you could save metal that had been in salt water for long periods without putting it through some kind of process... 

 

The color and fenders are terrible. 

 

Still, gotta love them saving the Shermans from the sea. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

New posts!

M4A3-76w-HVSS-left-frontIMPROVED-wwith-l

Sherman Tank Site News Post 17:  Summer is here, I have all kinds of content for updates, but less time than I would like. 

I am always tweaking the site and doing minor edits, but in the past few weeks, I've had time for some more major projects. There have been a few minor projects worth noting as well.

The Editor over at  Tank and AFV News sent me some very interesting reports that give a very interesting look into the Army's search for a suitable tank Motor.

THE NEW REPORTS! (They are new to the site, not new)

Ordnance Development of the Wright-Continental R-975 Radial Engine: This report is very interesting. It shows how long, and just how far the Army and Continental went to try and improve the life of the R-975 tank motor. By the time they were done, it was almost a new motor, but still not a great tank motor. Good enough for sure, but no Ford GAA, or as reliable as even the A-57!

Ordnance Development of the Chrysler a-57 Multibank Tank Engine:  This report is just like the one on the R-975, but all about my favorite tank motor, the Mighty A-57! This motor became shockingly reliable for how complicated it was. What made it great was the complication only came in mating the five motors, the banks themselves were solid, wells designed, motors.

Ordnance Development of the Ford Tank Engines: The same report, this time for the Ford GAA, GAN etc. Very interesting, the GAA had a lot of developmental bugs. Aircraft motors, even Vs do not always make the best tank motors.

Ordnance Report on all Army Diesel Engines, June 43:   This report is not exactly like the three above, but close enough. It is a very interesting look into the GM diesel program and the other oddball diesel.

Memorandum on Tank motors: This report is more of a summary of the Tank motors as of mid-June of 1942.

These reports will give you a very good look into why the US Army chose the motors they did and the story behind getting each one to work as a tank motor. They are interesting stories in their own right.

Also new,

Sherman Tank Site Post 75, From the Army Motors Archive: Your M4 Tank Steering Brakes Should Work Gentle’n Easy

So you want to know how to fix that hard to steer Sherman, now you can find all the info you would ever need right here.

Sherman Tank Site Post 74: From the Army Motors Archive! The Maintenance Maze

You ever wonder how something like the US Army with the hundreds of thousands of vehicles it had, kept them running? Well, this post will help clear it up a little.

Tank and AFV News new Video channel has some new videos

Tank and AFV News is doing a Video History of Tanks, check it out, it's good stuff, and he will get to the Sherman at some point!\

Episode one!

https://youtu.be/gvH3Glbc1ng

Episode Two!

https://youtu.be/iQbhtINly1E

Episode Three!

https://youtu.be/ccANscv0sQg

Episode Four!

https://youtu.be/Sw5J37XXtpk

 

I also updated a few pages with some minor changes and tweaks.

The only one with changes with linking too is this one.

That's all for now!

 

 

 

 

Your M4 Tank Steering Brakes Should Work Gentle’n Easy. If not – Here’s what to do and how to do it. A Brand-new procedure – Easier, clearer, and completer than anything in your TM or Anyplace else. 

This Army Motors article is from May of 44s, issue of Army Motors, and outlines an easier and better way to adjust the Sherman or any other vehicle based on the M4 Chassis steering system. Don’t miss the complete section of Sherman Manual TM9-7018 Medium Tank M4A3,from September of 1954, posted below the Army Motors Story.

M4-Serier-Steering-Brakes-Should-work-Ge

M4-Serier-Steering-Brakes-Should-work-Ge

M4-Serier-Steering-Brakes-Should-work-Ge

M4-Serier-Steering-Brakes-Should-work-Ge

M4-Serier-Steering-Brakes-Should-work-Ge

M4-Serier-Steering-Brakes-Should-work-Ge

 

Read the pages of TM9-7018 Yourself, and compare:  Medium Tank M4A3, 1953 has this to say about the steering system and how to tune it.

This is the section of the last Army Manual on the Sherman, this should be the final authority on how to maintain the steering system on the Sherman.  It seems to match well with Army motors article. That’s no surprise, by 1944 the Sherman powertrain was very mature, and I’m sure they had the vast majority of the problems worked out by then.

The main difference is the Army motos article presents a specific chunk of the info found in this section of the manual and breaks it down with more pictures and simple instructions. This was a good thing, people have trouble with written directions, and pictures really help.  The biggest problem with written direction really is when it does not get read.

If I had to do the job, I’d want both and anything else I could get my hands on.  The common theme though, from the Army Motors Mags is, the vast majority of problems with army equipment, that caused tanks, trucks, or anything else mechanical to break down, was either lack of proper maintenance, or improper use. The biggest culprit being bad drivers, who actually drove bad, or neglected their duty to keep the vehicle properly maintained, or both.

One other interesting thing made clear by the Army Motors Article, is that the new double anchor braking system could be retrofitted into the older three-part differential cover. I didn’t want to assume anything, but the is instructions for adjusting the controls for the double anchor setup on the three part differential housing, so I think that settles. it.

TM9-7018-Section-18-Steering-Brakes-Page

TM9-7018-Section-18-Steering-Brakes-Page

TM9-7018-Section-18-Steering-Brakes-Page

TM9-7018-Section-18-Steering-Brakes-Page

TM9-7018-Section-18-Steering-Brakes-Page

TM9-7018-Section-18-Steering-Brakes-Page

TM9-7018-Section-18-Steering-Brakes-Page

TM9-7018-Section-18-Steering-Brakes-Page

TM9-7018-Section-18-Steering-Brakes-Page

TM9-7018-Section-18-Steering-Brakes-Page

TM9-7018-Section-18-Steering-Brakes-Page

TM9-7018-Section-18-Steering-Brakes-Page

 

TM9-7018-Section-18-Steering-Brakes-Page

TM9-7018-Section-18-Steering-Brakes-Page

TM9-7018-Section-18-Steering-Brakes-Page

TM9-7018-Section-18-Steering-Brakes-Page

TM9-7018-Section-18-Steering-Brakes-Page

TM9-7018-Section-18-Steering-Brakes-Page

TM9-7018-Section-18-Steering-Brakes-Page

TM9-7018-Section-18-Steering-Brakes-Page

TM9-7018-Section-18-Steering-Brakes-Page

Here are some other images of the steering brake system, from the technical and Ord manuals.

F249-Cross-secxtionmal-view-of-double-an

F252-Steering-brake-shoe-disassembled-do

P211-ORD-9-G-212-STEERING-BRAKE-MECH-SEC

Well, I hope that leaves few if any questions about adjusting and maintaining the Shermans brakes. I’m sure there are still some real-world tricks the men still working on the still running Shermans of the world could add too, but that will have to wait until I figure out how to find those people and interview them somehow.

My greatest hope would be one of the men out there restoring one of those beasts might even get the littlest bit of help from this post, because that would be awesome.

Thanks for reading people!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sherman-Ball-mount-7008929-from-Secondar

m4a2pullman_6.jpg

 

read some british report about M4A4, it syas that bow machine gun have bronze(on second photo shield is painted yelow, but ball look like bronze?) parts C and BB, does all shermans have same ? and is there any good blueprint or measures of B(shield) part(1-2 inch thick?) ? 

 

 

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...