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

[DogDodger]

On 9/12/2018 at 11:41 PM, EnsignExpendable said:

Do you know when production of the M4 stopped at the Detroit Tank Arsenal, and how long refurbishment went on for after that?

Production there continued until the second quarter of 1945 according to Stansell and Laughlin.

[Mighty_Zuk]

Another Israeli variant of the good ol' Sherman. 

In 1958, Isaac Jacobson, commander of the 2nd maintenance center in Tel Hashomer, proposed to shorten the Sherman (I don't know which variant) by 30 centimeters, to make its silhouette somewhat closer to that of the T-54.

 

The new tank was called 'Degem Yud' (Model Yud). Yud is a Hebrew letter that sounds somewhat like Yehudi (Jewish), which symbolizes the circumcision the tank underwent.

[EnsignExpendable]

Apparently the real reason was that Yud is the smallest letter in the alphabet, according to the creator.

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

6 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Another Israeli variant of the good ol' Sherman. 

In 1958, Isaac Jacobson, commander of the 2nd maintenance center in Tel Hashomer, proposed to shorten the Sherman (I don't know which variant) by 30 centimeters, to make its silhouette somewhat closer to that of the T-54.

 

The new tank was called 'Degem Yud' (Model Yud). Yud is a Hebrew letter that sounds somewhat like Yehudi (Jewish), which symbolizes the circumcision the tank underwent.

 

Wow, that's crazy! I've never heard of that before, so they cut the hull down... Any more pics?  Any idea how hard/costly the project was?

[Mighty_Zuk]

4 hours ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

Wow, that's crazy! I've never heard of that before, so they cut the hull down... Any more pics?  Any idea how hard/costly the project was?

That is the only picture I could find, and this was taken from a blogger.

 

The project never really went beyond prototype stage, and all Shermans in the IDF continued their service with other modifications. So I assume this whole thing came at the cost of either high modification costs or close to non-existent ergonomics.

[Meplat]

4 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

That is the only picture I could find, and this was taken from a blogger.

 

The project never really went beyond prototype stage, and all Shermans in the IDF continued their service with other modifications. So I assume this whole thing came at the cost of either high modification costs or close to non-existent ergonomics.

They would have needed midgets/dwarves for the TD/BOG positions. 

[EnsignExpendable]

This photo shows one weakness of the Firefly really well. The gun had to be turned back during travel, so the radio bustle was right above the driver's hatch. If the tank went over a bump while he was driving with his seat up, he was liable to smash his head into the turret.

 

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

1 hour ago, EnsignExpendable said:

This photo shows one weakness of the Firefly really well. The gun had to be turned back during travel, so the radio bustle was right above the driver's hatch. If the tank went over a bump while he was driving with his seat up, he was liable to smash his head into the turret.

 

 

Did you know the M10 GMC turret when forward, didn't allow the driver or co-driver to open their hatches? That seems like a pretty huge flaw, for how well the crews liked the M10. 

[EnsignExpendable]

Huh, I've never heard of that one before. Yeah, that seems to be a downer.

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

25 minutes ago, EnsignExpendable said:

Huh, I've never heard of that one before. Yeah, that seems to be a downer.

 

Yeah, I think they fixed it on the M36 and surely the M18, but its interesting M10 crews with that flaw still preferred it to the M18. I think the M10 since it had no turret basket and an open turret, was much easier for the driver and co-driver to get out through the turret. 

[EnsignExpendable]

I recall reading a blurb about how the US Army disliked the name "Sherman" and preferred the soldiers to call it by its proper name, but begrudgingly agreed to let press releases targets at civilians to call it "Sherman" instead of Medium Tank M4. Does anyone know the source, by any chance?

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

8 minutes ago, EnsignExpendable said:

I recall reading a blurb about how the US Army disliked the name "Sherman" and preferred the soldiers to call it by its proper name, but begrudgingly agreed to let press releases targets at civilians to call it "Sherman" instead of Medium Tank M4. Does anyone know the source, by any chance?

 

No idea on the source, but it was almost universally called an M4 or Medium tank, but maybe in or Europe or Med, the US Troops who worked with or near the Brits, could have started calling them that? 

 

I feel a little dumb now, but I can't remember if they were Shermans or M4 and or Mediums or Easy 8s by Korea.  Today was long, and it's hot again, my eyelids are sunburned, along with my face... lol I forget to put sunscreen on when doing outdoor repair work... a lot. 

[DogDodger]

1 hour ago, EnsignExpendable said:

I recall reading a blurb about how the US Army disliked the name "Sherman" and preferred the soldiers to call it by its proper name, but begrudgingly agreed to let press releases targets at civilians to call it "Sherman" instead of Medium Tank M4. Does anyone know the source, by any chance?

This by chance? MG Barnes's order posted there notes that "there is a War Department Circular forbidding the use of nicknames in official and technical correspondence. The objective of this order involves public information channels only"

[EnsignExpendable]

Exactly what I was thinking of, thanks!

 

Another question, is this an M4 or an M4A2? Is it possible to tell from this angle?

 

[DogDodger]

Ehh, with that resolution and angle I'd (at least) consider it to be pretty difficult, but it looks like it might have air scoops on the rear hull? If so it would probably be an M4. Jeeps?

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

Yeah, I'm leaning M4 as well, but really hard to tell. 

[EnsignExpendable]

Thanks, guys!

[Azrael]

12 hours ago, EnsignExpendable said:

Exactly what I was thinking of, thanks!

 

Another question, is this an M4 or an M4A2? Is it possible to tell from this angle?

 

To me it looks like M4A2 Sherman. I mean looks similar to these
http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/sherman_types/m4a2/m4a2.html
http://www.pantser.net/wo2-france/w02-M4-ShermanIII.htm
And I am not an expert but shouldn't like M4 Sherman have "rounded" LFP, like this



Where M4A2 should have LFP angled like this

If I am wrong please do let me know

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

7 minutes ago, Azrael said:

To me it looks like M4A2 Sherman. I mean looks similar to these
http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/sherman_types/m4a2/m4a2.html
http://www.pantser.net/wo2-france/w02-M4-ShermanIII.htm
And I am not an expert but shouldn't like M4 Sherman have "rounded" LFP, like this



Where M4A2 should have LFP angled like this

If I am wrong please do let me know

There were M4s made with improved cast dif cover. I think the M4A4 was the only version that didn't.

[Scolopax]

I first thought the image was taken somewhere in the Mediterranean theatre, but then realized it could also (more likely) be California.  I assume the M4A2 could be found in use for training in the states, yes?

 

[Azrael]

58 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

There were M4s made with improved cast dif cover. I think the M4A4 was the only version that didn't.

Ok thanks for letting me know, then it is really hard to tell which one it is. 

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

Maybe looking at the hull antenna mount, some factories had fairy distinct versions.

1 hour ago, Scolopax said:

I first thought the image was taken somewhere in the Mediterranean theatre, but then realized it could also (more likely) be California.  I assume the M4A2 could be found in use for training in the states, yes?

 

Yep the only use by the US army of the m4a2 was in stateside training 

[EnsignExpendable]

Here's an even harder angle. Any way to tell from here?

 

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

18 minutes ago, EnsignExpendable said:

Here's an even harder angle. Any way to tell from here?

 

Well, there lifting eye on the front plate is mounted on a pad, not all the makers did that, that, combined with the MG mount, and radio mount, we might be able to figure it out. 

[DogDodger]

23 minutes ago, EnsignExpendable said:

Here's an even harder angle. Any way to tell from here?

 

 

I think the early suspension bogies point to it being an M4A2. The heavy-duty bogies were introduced by summer 1942, and the M4A2 was the only welded-hull tank in production before then. The first M4A3, which was the next welded-hull variant to be introduced, had the heavy-duty bogies.