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 weeks later...
On 7/16/2018 at 9:41 AM, Wiedzmin said:

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?) ? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lt7rgP00Pos.jpg

 

one more about bronze

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

 

 

 

 

lt7rgP00Pos.jpg

 

one more about bronze

 

I've never heard of the part being bronze before, and since its a gun mount, the part is not in the G104 parts lists, so I don't have a good description of the part either.  I'll ask over on the Sherman mailing list and see if they have any idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2018 at 5:57 AM, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

The biggest problem with written direction really is when it does not get read.

 

Comparing US Army TMs from the 1940s–60s to those of the 1980s and beyond shows this very clearly: the former have walls of text with airbrushed photographs showing the main things to do (and the older the manual, the fewer the photos), the latter mainly have line drawings that illustrate every little step in the procedure, with relatively short bits of explanatory text to go with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/31/2018 at 2:53 AM, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

I've never heard of the part being bronze before, and since its a gun mount, the part is not in the G104 parts lists, so I don't have a good description of the part either.  I'll ask over on the Sherman mailing list and see if they have any idea.

at least on M4A4 tested by brits it was bronze, and seems to be bronze on some restored tanks 

WhEPpzf.jpg

AT.100 Ballistic test of hull and turret of general Sherman tank (courtesy of Fu_Manchu)

 

btw maybe you know exact thickness of bow MG shield ? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, whelm said:

was this one ever posted?

  Hide contents

 

 

Chase vehicle at 4:34 shows the speed

 

I love that video.  How often do you get to a Sherman hauling ass down a road, I wouldn't be surprised if NO other Sherman owner gets their tank out of second gear,  and would be actually surprised if any ran them at max speed, in fifth like these guys did! Hell, the music isn't even horribly annoying, and they stop it later in the video! It a shame really, mechanical things like to be used, and getting the engine up to speed, and keeping it there is good for them. Same with the Tranny and powertrain, heat that gear oil up and really get it moving around!  Who wants to see a tanking puttering along at walking speed, like they are afraid it's going to break down like some German tank, I wanna see them hauling ass!! 

 

 

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

75 mm gun with a cast hull, but a travel clamp in the front? If I'm not mistaken, that's a Grizzly!

An M4A1 of some kind for sure, but going by the single piece lower front and the larger rear plate I think it was originally a late M4A1 hull.

 

Either way should be rocking a Radial in that thing unless they modified it to take something else. Doesn't seem to have an info about what it was using and I tried and failed to see if I could find more on that specific tank but no luck. The video was apparently made to show off the new tracks they had made.

 

Would be interesting to know if they played around with the engine at all or is it stock to get those speeds. M3/M4's had it governed to 2100 rpm? I believe and 2400 rpm could be done for short periods.

 

Interestingly the Canadians seemed to like to push the R-975 harder in the Ram then the US did in the M3 and M4, I'm unsure if this applied to the Grizzly as well.

 

Ram I and early II's

 

Normal engine speed  2200 rpm   (M3's during this period 2100 rpm)
May run at 2400 rpm in emergency

 

In later Ram II's the manual (1943) states the engine is now governed at 2400 rpm with a surge of 100-150 rpm allowed. This is backed up with the memo from Oct 1943 stating the Ram was faster on roadways then the M4A1 due to being governed at a higher rpm. Probably also why the manual and other sources state it's sustained cruising speed is 25 mph while in the M4 it's 21 mph. No idea on actual max but probably peaked at about 30 mph if you look at newspaper articles from the period that state 30mph max, a few tests they did like the Horstman suspension test checking deflection (27 mph tested) towing the 17 pdr (28 mph tested) the sexton (governed to 27 mph) Ram M10 spec sheet (30 mph short periods) it's clear it's higher for short periods then 25 mph.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It sure sounds like an R975 to me. The gear ratios in the Sherman and Grizzly are the same, so the only speed differences would come from the Engine RPM Governer, and who knows how the one on that tank is set, assuming its and R975, and R975 powered Shermans are still pretty common. They complicated all mechanical little contraptions with weights and springs and finding people who even know what one is, in today's day and age is almost a miracle.  I'm pretty sure even back when these tanks were new, the governors were not something the crew was allowed to mess with. If it broke, they took it off, sent it back for repair and put a repaired one on, that was delivered on a truck and came from a parts depot. 

 

I'm going to have to watch again and really look the back end over.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the rear dogdodger is correct the exhausts have been lowered quite a bit.

 

as for the tampering

 

aYR5UIn.png

 

None of these orders seemed to stop crews, every month or so there's a new order or such in the war diaries about how crews keep speeding heavily and it needs to stop.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it probably varied a lot unit to unit how much they tolerated. Back then Officers could make things pretty miserable for men who blatantly broke the rules. Once in combat they would have less time to care, but I bet tampering was way less common in units still in the US training. 

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...