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

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.

219241_original.jpg

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

219241_original.jpg

 

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

EXwDnBP.png

 

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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"

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

hvIWXj5.png

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
kAHNJc7.jpg
WUllgZC.jpg

Where M4A2 should have LFP angled like this

4H2FzDk.jpg

khTIlGf.jpg
If I am wrong please do let me know

Link to post
Share on other sites
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
kAHNJc7.jpg
WUllgZC.jpg

Where M4A2 should have LFP angled like this

4H2FzDk.jpg

khTIlGf.jpg
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 

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

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

 

IEQl02y.png

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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...