Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


Recommended Posts

I've read somewhere, that the French liked to put the add-on armor on the tanks that did not need it. I think its the Sherman Minitia Site that has some pics of French tanks with the cheek armor added to the turrets that had the cast in thicker cheek, though I do not recall ever seeing extra armor for the driving hoods on small hatch tanks added to a large hatch hull before. 


Also, could it be a way to cover a penetration hole?  The Sherman Vegas Ron has, has a very odd looking repair that matches nothing else I have seen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

I've read somewhere, that the French liked to put the add-on armor on the tanks that did not need it. I think its the Sherman Minitia Site that has some pics of French tanks with the cheek armor added to the turrets that had the cast in thicker cheek, though I do not recall ever seeing extra armor for the driving hoods on small hatch tanks added to a large hatch hull before. 


Also, could it be a way to cover a penetration hole?  The Sherman Vegas Ron has, has a very odd looking repair that matches nothing else I have seen. 

Makes sense, akin to the Littlefield Jumbo I briefly dealt with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/31/2018 at 11:30 PM, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

So there is also the possibility of a restoration gone wrong there too. 

Well, just the "joe has a bunch of app-armor kits kit and orders to apply this kit to all tanks in this park, so joe gets to work", I've seen applied firsthand.

It's probably "wrong" in a technical sense, but "right" in that it probably was done by some government authority for reasons they did not comprehend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, EnsignExpendable said:

An M4A4 blueprint from AMX. Was there such a thing as a large hatch M4A4? I've never seen a photograph of one.







I'm not exactly sure that it is the correct designation, after all the other blueprint labelled as M4A4 show what seem to be a cast hull




My guess is that they put the wrong name tag when uploading the picture.

In both case the title on the blueprint itself only say  "Sherman tank armor"


AFAIK most of the French Sherman were M4A4 or M4A2 with sometimes A1 (76mm) and A3 given to replace the losses of the previous two (and only one known A3 E2).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This drawing is pretty mysterious, depending on how specific and accurate we think it might be. The M4A1 drawing features the air scoops/grouser compartments on the rear of the hull and the welded hull does not, which might indicate it's an M4A3 and not an M4 or M4A2. Like Jeeps mentioned, the presence of engine compartment doors would seemingly eliminate the M4A2, but might they be a little wide for an M4A3, since its aperture was constrained by exhaust pipes on either side? Also, the rear hull armor appears to go straight across at the sponson line, which would typically eliminate both the M4A2 and M4A3.  So it seems to simultaneously combine and lack features of all the large hatch welded hull tanks? :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, EnsignExpendable said:

More Sherman questions. By American measure, the Sherman turret ring is 69 inches across, but by Soviet measure, it's 1730 mm, which is slightly less. Was the American figure rounded, or were they measuring from the outside of the turret race? The Soviets only measured the diameter of the clear space.

Well those french drawings show 1950 mm for what I assume is just the size of the cut opening on hull top.


Canada had the M4's outside diameter of the turret ring as 2051 mm, the inside diameter of the ring is listed as 1752.6 mm. I can only assume that is being measured from before the ring is installed and then when the ring and all the mounting equipment is installed, it also may be factoring in that 65 mm extra for the bolt down area, but I'm unsure on that.


I don't have many Sherman photos with the turret off showing the turret ring installed so using the Ram as an example. Using 8Haussars photos from the war museum.



Turret ring listed as having a 1832 mm lower outside diameter, and a 1537 mm upper inside diameter. You can see quite well on the third photo just how much space is eaten up by it's turret ring design.











Link to comment
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...