PDA

View Full Version : The M4 Sherman Tank



Pages : [1] 2

Gen. Sandworm
05-07-2005, 01:22 AM
Named after Civil war General Sherman. Who was known for his famous "march to the sea" The Sherman is a very interesting tank. To most allied soliders they were called "purple heart boxes" but the did help change the tide of war in many conflicts. More Sherman tanks were made than all than all of the German tanks of WW2. In my opinion, engineering disaster or not, this tank help changed the war. Just as much as the Russian T-34.

http://www.michiganhistorymagazine.com/extra/tanks/images/sherman.jpg

Sherman Tank infront of the Arc de Triumph. Spl???

Preatorian
05-07-2005, 11:18 AM
Funny notes:
- about 2000 M4A2 General Sherman tanks (with disel instead gasoline engine) was provided to USSR during WWII as part of Lamd Lease programm. After end of WWII Soviet Goverment have returned a part of Shermans, part stay in USSR and after re-arming used as tractor in railroad's repairing trains in Ukraine and North Kaukaz.
Last M4A2 Sherman without turret was in use till 1996 as a traktor in station Morozovskaya n North Kaukaz !!!

http://www.battlefield.ru/lendlease/lend_tank/sherman_17.jpg
That M4A2 General Sherman was used as railroad tractor till 1996. Now is it part of exchibition in WWII Museun in Moskow.
Few Sherman was sended to metal recycle factory in 1995... sad.

Israel army used M4 Sherman in wars 1967 and 1973...
Last battle use of Sheran tanks was in Civil War in Yugoslavia in 1991-1995.

Sturmtruppen
05-07-2005, 10:13 PM
Sherman tank,


officially M4 GENERAL SHERMAN, main battle tank designed and built by the United States for the conduct of World War II. The M4 was the most widely used tank series in the war, being employed not only by the U.S. Army and Marine Corps but also by British, Canadian, and Free French forces. The M4 was employed in North Africa, Sicily, Italy, and western Europe and throughout the Pacific Theatre. A total of 49,324 tanks was produced in 11 plants between 1942 and 1946.

When World War II began in 1939, the United States lagged far behind the major European states in the development of tank technology and armoured warfare doctrine. The fall of France in May 1940 awoke and alarmed the United States. The German army had defeated France in a matter of weeks through the use of a new operational doctrine based on fast-moving, massed armoured formations supported by air power. America's leaders became convinced that the U.S. Army needed a new main battle tank at least equal to that employed by the Germans and that it had to adopt German operational doctrine. To that end, in July 1940 the War Department authorized the development of a new medium tank, and it also authorized the organization of the first armoured divisions. By the time the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941, the United States had five armoured divisions organizing and training for war in Europe.

The first American main battle tank employed in combat in World War II was the M3 General Grant. The British fought with this tank in North Africa as early as 1941. The M3 was the result of a crisis atmosphere that was prevalent immediately following the fall of France. It is likely that no tank in history ever went from design to production faster than the General Grant. Its major defect was its gun mount: the 75-millimetre gun was carried in a sponson in the right front of the hull and could traverse only 15 degrees to each side--a major disadvantage in tank battles. However, the M3 was only an interim measure. Production ceased in late 1942, when the M4 went into full production.

The M4 prototype debuted in 1941 and was accepted for production that October. Its designers consciously emphasized speed and mobility, limiting the thickness of the armour and the size of the main gun, thereby compromising on firepower and survivability. The M4's main armament was a short-barreled, low-velocity 75-millimetre gun, and its armour thickness was a maximum of 75 millimetres and a minimum of 12 millimetres (3 inches and 0.5 inch, respectively). The tank had a maximum speed of 24 to 29 miles (38 to 46 kilometres) per hour and a range of 100 to 150 miles, depending on the series (M4 to M4A3E2). The M4 carried a crew of five--commander, gunner, loader, driver, and codriver/hull gunner. The vehicle weighed around 33 tons, depending on the series. A typical power plant was a 425-horsepower gasoline engine.

The M4 entered active service with the British in North Africa in October 1942. It was roughly in the same class as the German Panzerkampfwagen IV (Pz. IV), which at that time weighed 26 tons, had a road speed of 20 miles per hour, and mounted a 60-millimetre gun. Later model German tanks were much improved, so that, by the time of the Normandy Invasion in June 1944, the M4 was outclassed by superior tanks such as the Pz. V Panther and the Pz. VI Tiger. The American penchant for mass production tended to stymie innovations in technology, and American doctrinal thinking tended to remain stuck in the pre-war period, when the tank was seen as primarily an infantry support weapon. As a result, the M4 was not up-gunned until late in the war, and American, British, and Canadian tank crews consistently faced better German tanks. The M4 had a faster rate of fire and greater speed, but both the Panther and Tiger had significantly greater range and accuracy. The German tanks were also more survivable. Consequently, it took superior numbers for Anglo-American forces to defeat German armoured formations. The most notable effort to break the Germans' qualitative advantage was the "Firefly," a Sherman equipped with a 76.2-millimetre (or "17-pounder") long-barreled gun.

For the Normandy Invasion and subsequent campaigns on the European continent, the M4 was retrofitted with special-purpose devices by both the Americans and the British. The British added flails (a system of rotors and chains) to clear paths through minefields, and American servicemen added jury-rigged plows for breaking through hedgerows in the bocage country of Normandy. Perhaps the most famous variation was the "Duplex Drive," or DD, tank, a Sherman equipped with extendable and collapsible skirts that made it buoyant enough to be launched from a landing craft and make its way to shore under propeller power. The M4 also was transformed into the M32 Tank Recovery vehicle and the M4 Mobile Assault Bridge carrier. Numerous devices of all sorts were fitted onto the Sherman's versatile, reliable chassis, making it the workhorse of the Anglo-American armies of World War II.

http://ablecd.wz.cz/vendeta/imagpro/sherman.jpg
http://www.members.shaw.ca/junobeach/images/juno-4-8.1-Sherman%20tank.jpg
http://bcoy1cpb.pacdat.net/Sherman_tank_-_Bomb_D365.jpg

sherman tank details:http://history.acusd.edu/cdr2/WW2Pics/82609.jpg

crabtastic
05-08-2005, 05:43 AM
Developed by the Americans, used as a euphamism for stroking one out by British and Commonwealth Forces ever since... :wink:

Gen. Sandworm
05-11-2005, 09:33 AM
All i know is that i would not want to be in one of these when i see the Panther or Tiger tank coming. :shock: Good thing these were pretty fast for a tank. :?


If you have ever been to America you can see the surplus of these that we had. That and artillery. Just about every American town has an American Legion (Usually a bar for Veterans) and you will see either a Sherman tank or an Artillery peice in front somewhere. :D

Sturmtruppen
05-13-2005, 05:49 PM
All i know is that i would not want to be in one of these when i see the Panther or Tiger tank coming. :shock: Good thing these were pretty fast for a tank. :?


If you have ever been to America you can see the surplus of these that we had. That and artillery. Just about every American town has an American Legion (Usually a bar for Veterans) and you will see either a Sherman tank or an Artillery peice in front somewhere. :D

it`s nicer when you have some panzershreck / bazooka to defeat enemy tanks.

what about panzer?

BDL
05-15-2005, 03:09 PM
The Germans called the Sherman a "Tommy Cooker" because they burned so easily when hit :shock:

I know it took a Brit to give it a decent gun (Firefly with 17 pdr) :wink: , but it gave us the numbers to overcome better German tanks.

Wouldn't fancy facing a King Tiger in one though.

Preatorian
05-15-2005, 05:09 PM
The Germans called the Sherman a "Tommy Cooker" because they burned so easily when hit :shock:

By same reason soviet soldiers called brittish "Valentine" Mk I and mk III "Mathilda mk II" (with 40mm cannon) tanks a "mobile crematorium" ans "coffin on tracks" ... about 2400 various brittish tanks was delivered in USSR by lend-lease.

Sturmtruppen
05-16-2005, 08:33 PM
The Germans called the Sherman a "Tommy Cooker" because they burned so easily when hit :shock:

By same reason soviet soldiers called brittish "Valentine" Mk I and mk III "Mathilda mk II" (with 40mm cannon) tanks a "mobile crematorium" ans "coffin on tracks" ... about 2400 various brittish tanks was delivered in USSR by lend-lease.
:lol:

Dani
05-17-2005, 07:18 AM
Sherman tank,

Click here for a detailed interactive image.
officially M4 GENERAL SHERMAN, main battle tank...

Erwin , when you quote, please add the url or at least cut the embarassing phrases. :lol:

Sturmtruppen
05-17-2005, 12:23 PM
Sherman tank,

Click here for a detailed interactive image.
officially M4 GENERAL SHERMAN, main battle tank...

Erwin , when you quote, please add the url or at least cut the embarassing phrases. :lol:

I cutted the info from lots of sites,so,that`s the ressult.

i will cute phrases when i have time.

Dani
05-17-2005, 12:24 PM
OK

pdf27
05-17-2005, 02:23 PM
The Germans called the Sherman a "Tommy Cooker" because they burned so easily when hit :shock:

By same reason soviet soldiers called brittish "Valentine" Mk I and mk III "Mathilda mk II" (with 40mm cannon) tanks a "mobile crematorium" ans "coffin on tracks" ... about 2400 various brittish tanks was delivered in USSR by lend-lease.
:lol:
And would you care to explain exactly what is funny about large numbers of Soviet soldiers dying due to inferior equipment? :evil:

Gen. Sandworm
05-17-2005, 02:37 PM
The Germans called the Sherman a "Tommy Cooker" because they burned so easily when hit :shock:

By same reason soviet soldiers called brittish "Valentine" Mk I and mk III "Mathilda mk II" (with 40mm cannon) tanks a "mobile crematorium" ans "coffin on tracks" ... about 2400 various brittish tanks was delivered in USSR by lend-lease.
:lol:
And would you care to explain exactly what is funny about large numbers of Soviet soldiers dying due to inferior equipment? :evil:

I agree i dont find it funny. At least the Soviets came up with a tank that was pretty good. The Sherman was an engineering disaster. Just goes to show that superior technology is not always the answer. Superior numbers...and well proved in many cases....can turn the tides of war.

Sturmtruppen
05-22-2005, 06:05 PM
USA had a better tank than sherman in their army???

FW-190 Pilot
05-24-2005, 02:57 AM
USA had a better tank than sherman in their army???
of course they do, sherman tank is just light tank imo

Firefly
05-25-2005, 02:16 PM
There were several versions of the Sherman in the allied inventory.

The Sherman 1 was first used in action in north Africa by the brits, it had the edge on Rommels panzers, was more vesatile and for the first time in allied armies packed a good punch while being survivable and very manouverable.

The Sherman was constantly upgraded and by the time it reached Normandy appeared as the Sherman 76 in the US army, the 76 while still not able to defeat a Panther/Tiger head on at range could defeat it closer in. A specially modified version was called the Sherman Jumbo, this had a lot of extra plate added to it and was quite formidable, there are numerous accounts of the Jumbo taking frontal hits from Panther/Tiger and surviving. Although there were only a couple of hundred Mods carried out.

The Brits did a Mod that put the most effective allied AT gun, the 17 pounder into the Sherman, thus creating the most effective allied tank of ww2, the Sherman Firefly. To carry out this Mod the gun had to be revolved round 90 degrees so that it basically lay on its side. This meant that the crew was reduced to 4 from 5 men and the gunner had to load left handed. For normandy each tank platoon would consist of 1 Firefly and 3 normal Sherman. The job of the normal Shermans was to distract the German armour long enough for the Firefly to engage the enemy. by the end of the war there was enough production to equip every sherman unit with Fireflies.

Another little known fact was that all versions of the Sherman had a gun stabiliser, making it much more effective on the move, unlike the Axis or even soviet vehicles. It was also extremely reliable and easy to maintain compared to the complicated Axis vehicles.

This made it a formidable weapon as there were always lots available as opposed to the Axis vehicles which were so complicated that they broke a lot. It was also built in more numbers than any other tank in ww2 and in my opinion the equal or better of a T-34 85.

A much maligned vehicle, undeservedly so.

Have a look:

http://www.britannica.com/normandy/week3/sherman01.html?ref=news0604nmview

Sturmtruppen
05-25-2005, 02:26 PM
There were several versions of the Sherman in the allied inventory..........


good work! :D

Northax
06-12-2005, 10:08 AM
I was watching a show on The Military Channel the other day, and they said the Sherman widely used in WWII was not meant to be a main battle tank, but an Infantry Support unit. That's why it had such light armor and such a small cannon.

Sturmtruppen
06-12-2005, 02:56 PM
I was watching a show on The Military Channel the other day, and they said the Sherman widely used in WWII was not meant to be a main battle tank, but an Infantry Support unit. That's why it had such light armor and such a small cannon.

really?,but the sherman finished as the most ussed tank in the united states army during ww2.sadly,i don´t have military channel :( ,but i have history channel,and it has some nice videos of ww2,some of them in color!.

Bladensburg
06-12-2005, 08:40 PM
I think the problem was that the US just didn't get around to building a proper medium or heavy tank, finding it easier and cheaper to churn out Shermans. It almost seems a little cynical as the Shermans inadequacies probably got a lot more tankies killed than would have been had there been a better tank available in sufficient numbers, they almost seem to have calculated that they could afford to expend men more easily than retool.
The British on the other hand knew the weaknesses of the tank and also (probably because of the Regimental system - losses are more difficult to hide than "pipeline" replacement) knew that they couldn't afford the loss of men, hence the Firefly and the continuation of the British tank programme.
I often wonder how much quicker tanks like the Comet or Centurion could have been available if the US could have been persuaded to contribute to their design and production. After all it is far more space and cost efficient to ship in a completed product from the US.

Sturmtruppen
06-24-2005, 06:02 PM
http://gifsjas.webcindario.com/imagenes/guerra/gtanque4.gif
:D

zerkalli
07-03-2005, 05:12 AM
USA had a better tank than Sherman : M 26 Pershing


M 26 Pershing was manufacturated for first time in november 1944 by Fisher Tank Arsenal, Detroit Tank Arsenal (Chrysler).

Primary Armament :

90mm Gun M3
Calibre 90 mm
Muzzle Velocity 853 m/sec
Shell Weight 11 Kg

Other Designation(s) M26 (T26E3) Pershing
Engine Ford GAF
Type & Displacement V8, 18.0 liters
Horsepower (max.) 500hp@2600rpm
Power/Weight Ratio 11.9 hp/tonne
Gearbox 3 forward, 1 reverse
Fuel Gasoline (Petrol)
Range on/off road (km) 161
Mileage (liters/100km) 517 on road
Fuel Capacity (liters) 832
Speed on/off road 40 km/h

Firefly
07-03-2005, 05:17 AM
I often wonder how much quicker tanks like the Comet or Centurion could have been available if the US could have been persuaded to contribute to their design and production. After all it is far more space and cost efficient to ship in a completed product from the US.

I have often wondered the same thing as the Centurion especially was far better than anything the western allies had at the time or for a few years to come.

2nd of foot
07-03-2005, 06:47 AM
I think it had more to do with the concept of tank use in the USA. The US looks on tanks in the old light cavalry way. Once a break through has been produced they move into the rear area and create havoc. With this concept on the use of the tank not as a heavy weapon but as an exploitation weapon the need to change is not there. The Sherman suits the light cavalry/exploitation role as its name implies called after General Sherman. British tank design had 3 levels, light, cruiser and infantry support. It was only with experience that they changed and developed the Sherman. The US looked a the Matilda early on in the war (pre 42) and dispelled the concept but liked the powered traverse.

StalingradK
07-29-2005, 12:34 PM
Alot of US tanks were not really tanks, they were artillery on a tank bed, the Allies' "tank" on the Western front could be better described as a bazooka team. And the military channel is AWESOME, every cable/sat company should have it :P GO DIRECT TV!

Firefly
07-29-2005, 01:46 PM
Alot of US tanks were not really tanks, they were artillery on a tank bed, the Allies' "tank" on the Western front could be better described as a bazooka team. And the military channel is AWESOME, every cable/sat company should have it :P GO DIRECT TV!

Please inform us of the Artillery tanks? And what they were used for?

Hanz Lutz
07-29-2005, 02:21 PM
I dont know nothing about Artillery tanks I search on google and i can find nothing.

Firefly
07-29-2005, 03:45 PM
I dont know nothing about Artillery tanks I search on google and i can find nothing.

Ah good old google.

Well, there was the Sherman 105

The Priest again 105

The Bishop - UK 25 lbdr ( i think, not exactly sure though)

Then of course there were the TD's

not artillery tanks though..........

Anyone know about the TD's?

Check this out:

http://www.onwar.com/tanks/usa/

And for the British armour

http://www.onwar.com/tanks/uk/index.htm

Hosenfield
07-29-2005, 04:46 PM
"This made it a formidable weapon as there were always lots available as opposed to the Axis vehicles which were so complicated that they broke a lot. It was also built in more numbers than any other tank in ww2 and in my opinion the equal or better of a T-34 85.

A much maligned vehicle, undeservedly so."


i think the t-34 /85 is better then the sherman in tank vs tank. its armor is better sloped.

the sherman's greatest asset was that it was a good at pursuit and a good infantry killer thanks to its fast moving turret with a small gun. i would equate the regular sherman the equal of the t-34/76.

StalingradK
07-30-2005, 01:36 AM
What I mean is that they are really just a cannon on top of a tank bed, the operators have no cover because you can't go inside unless you need to fix engines 'n' what not, but the driver would stand to the right of the cannons and drive it with regular tank controls

http://www.baltexpress.ru/musgal/artillery/tank.jpg

Firefly
07-30-2005, 06:01 AM
"This made it a formidable weapon as there were always lots available as opposed to the Axis vehicles which were so complicated that they broke a lot. It was also built in more numbers than any other tank in ww2 and in my opinion the equal or better of a T-34 85.

A much maligned vehicle, undeservedly so."


i think the t-34 /85 is better then the sherman in tank vs tank. its armor is better sloped.

the sherman's greatest asset was that it was a good at pursuit and a good infantry killer thanks to its fast moving turret with a small gun. i would equate the regular sherman the equal of the t-34/76.

I dont see how? Please give me your reasons and I will give you mine, thanks...

Jamminjustin
08-02-2005, 10:41 PM
I love the Sherman even if everyone hates it. :D American industry just poured them into Europe and gave them to everyone to use. I dont care how good a tank is, it cant take on 20 Shermans at once. The Sherman was a masser just like the Russain infantry. So ya ofcourse it has highdeath tolls but it still won the war didn't it? Speed was its advange and it could run circle around Tigers but its armor and weapons sucked!
Should of made it bigger and added more armor and fire power then you'd have a kick butt tank

Hosenfield
08-02-2005, 11:26 PM
T-34 is the tank that won the war. it came out at the right time, in the right numbers. pushed the germans away from moscow.


if your read "death traps" by the 3rd armored ordance manager(cooper), he says that the sherman was less manuverable then the tiger panzer, panther, and panzer IV in non-road conditions due to very thin treads and lack of ground-bearing pressure.

3rd armored suffered 580% permanent tank losses in the western front. thats around 1400-1500 tanks lost in one armored division...

he talked about how by the ardennes offensive, so many tanks were wia or kia that they could only field an average of 3-4 men for each tank. there were always plenty of tanks, but the personnel losses slowed down the advance to berlin.

in comparison, the germans lost a grand total of 1300-1400 tanks in the normandy battles.

the only time the sherman dominated in manuverbility were on paved roads, which most tank battles don't take place.

cooper says the only advantage of the sherman was that it was super reliable, with only 1 out of 10 in the shop due to engine trouble. in comparison, 1/3 of german tanks were in the shop.

the sherman was there when it was needed, and often fought tank-less german infantry with panzerfausts.

the other advantage was the turret speed was faster then the panther's and panzer ivs'. i believe it was 18 to 22.

Firefly
08-03-2005, 07:36 AM
T-34 is the tank that won the war. it came out at the right time, in the right numbers. pushed the germans away from moscow.


if your read "death traps" by the 3rd armored ordance manager(cooper), he says that the sherman was less manuverable then the tiger panzer, panther, and panzer IV in non-road conditions due to very thin treads and lack of ground-bearing pressure.

3rd armored suffered 580% permanent tank losses in the western front. thats around 1400-1500 tanks lost in one armored division...

he talked about how by the ardennes offensive, so many tanks were wia or kia that they could only field an average of 3-4 men for each tank. there were always plenty of tanks, but the personnel losses slowed down the advance to berlin.

in comparison, the germans lost a grand total of 1300-1400 tanks in the normandy battles.

the only time the sherman dominated in manuverbility were on paved roads, which most tank battles don't take place.

cooper says the only advantage of the sherman was that it was super reliable, with only 1 out of 10 in the shop due to engine trouble. in comparison, 1/3 of german tanks were in the shop.

the sherman was there when it was needed, and often fought tank-less german infantry with panzerfausts.

the other advantage was the turret speed was faster then the panther's and panzer ivs'. i believe it was 18 to 22.

I agree with a lot of this. The Sherman wasnt confined to roads however. But would have struggled in certain terrain. The reliability factor was a huge bonus for the Allies. The German tanks were in many ways superior, Gun, Armour, Optics etc. But reliability played a huge factor. Also remember 1 thing, Tanks are not designed to fight other tanks primarily. The Sherman as stated before was designed as a fast moving cavalry type tank. The very fact that they were used against infantry only is what should happen.

Some good points though, do you have the ISBN for that book?

Hosenfield
08-03-2005, 03:25 PM
isbn 0-89141-722-2

another advantage of the sherman, is that it was available in such large numbers that every infantry division had one battalion of shermans and one battalion of tank destroyers attached.

compared the german infantry divisions, who usually had at the very most one company of tank detroyers/assault guns. most german infantry divisions in fact had a mere 12-24 man-handled anti-tank guns.

so often, it was 12-24 75mm paks,panzerfausts, panzershrecks, vs 100+ allied tanks/tank destroyers.

Firefly
08-03-2005, 03:43 PM
Thanks for that.

Also we come to the other Allies. The brits had the Firefly, mounting the only allied gun that could take on the Panzers at range.

Allbeit it was still the flimsy firefly and was not superior in any way, but did have a bite against german armour.

It was probably the supreme Sherman of the war. And by the wars end the Uk armour was equipped mainly with this.

Hosenfield
08-04-2005, 03:54 AM
i think in the western front, most of the panzers were older panzer IVG-Js, which are similiar to the sherman in armor but superior in cannon and optics.
however, they weren't as dominating as panthers or tigers. meaning that the sherman was somewhat on even ground with this model.

most panthers and almost all of the ~14-16 or so operational tiger battalions were sent to the russian front to combat the tougher t-34/85s and JS IIs.

i believe only 4 tiger battalions were deployed in the west, which is a mere 200 tigers. according to wolfgang schenider's tigers in combat 1,2, they accounted for about 2,000 allied tanks. then the rest were withdrawn and earmarked for operation spring awakening.


so panthers, and tigers weren't as great as a threat.

and, only 1/3 of german armor was present in the west in the last year.

Firefly
08-04-2005, 04:34 AM
according to wolfgang schenider's tigers in combat 1,2, they accounted for about 2,000 allied tanks. then the rest were withdrawn and earmarked for operation spring awakening.


Slight correction here. No German Tanks were pulled back for Op Spring Awakening.

They were all lost. hardly any german Equipment left falaise.

Hosenfield
08-04-2005, 04:38 AM
panzer divisions/tiger battalions were pulled out after the ardennes offensive.
the tiger battalion that pulled out of the bulge had light losses.


yeah, falaise claimed 300 abandoned panzers. i think most panzer divisions left with betwen 5-35 panzers. but 25,000 halftracks/trucks made it out though.

Firefly
08-04-2005, 08:17 AM
panzer divisions/tiger battalions were pulled out after the ardennes offensive.
the tiger battalion that pulled out of the bulge had light losses.


yeah, falaise claimed 300 abandoned panzers. i think most panzer divisions left with betwen 5-35 panzers. but 25,000 halftracks/trucks made it out though.

utter Mince!

Most German transport were horses.

Hosenfield
08-04-2005, 08:27 AM
1/4 werer motorized.mechanized in normandy. not to mention seized french vehicles

Man of Stoat
08-04-2005, 08:34 AM
1/4 werer motorized.mechanized in normandy. not to mention seized french vehicles

therefore 3/4 were non-motorised, i.e. foot / horse-drawn.

Hosenfield
08-04-2005, 08:50 AM
yes, but practically all the horses were killed/left in falaise. the amount of seized personal vehicles were staggering. before the pocket was narrowing, more then 100,000 german troops escaped. then 60,000 more when it closed. also, fuel that was earmarked for the panzers were given to the vehicles, since there was no reasonable way for the fuel guzzling panzers to escape...

Nickdfresh
01-22-2006, 12:36 PM
The Germans called the Sherman a "Tommy Cooker" because they burned so easily when hit :shock:

I know it took a Brit to give it a decent gun (Firefly with 17 pdr) :wink: , but it gave us the numbers to overcome better German tanks.

Wouldn't fancy facing a King Tiger in one though.

(I apologize for kicking this thread up, but this seems to be a worthy, timeless discussion piece).

The Germans and Americans also referred to the M-4 Sherman as a "Ronson." It was a morbid allusion to the Ronson lighter company's slogan, "always lights on the first strike."

My source for this is an excellent History Channel prgram under the title of a series that was called "Suicide Missions," a series that focused on the worst jobs one could have in the wartime military. Driving a Sherman was one apparently. The series was later renemed to "Dangerous Missions," I assume there was some objections by vets that felt they weren't out to get killed intentionally. But this is without a doubt the best program I've seen on this. It featured a series of interviews with WWII vets including American, British, Germans, and Canadian. I highly recommend seeing it if you haven't, some of the first hand stories told by vets are amazing, and the program also discusses upgrades to the tank that met with limited success, and the introduction ot the M26 Pershing tank at the end of the War, and why it wasn't introduced earlier.

Actually, they have it for sale on DVD, but $25 seems a little steep for an hour program.
http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=72391&browseCategoryId=&location=&parentcatid=cat580012&subcatid=

Nickdfresh
01-25-2006, 12:33 PM
I like the Sherman provided it was an upgrade, the essential problem with the vehicle was that the majority had the same gun and armor as the initial 1942 versions. The Firefly and the American M4A3E2 ("easy-eight") version certainly gave the crews a fighting crack at a Panther, or at least equaled he Panzer MkIV (since there were actually few Panthers, and very few Tigers, in Normandy)....

No German or Soviet tank went on in front line service for over two years of the war without significant upgrades. I think the main problem here was that the 500-600HP FORD engine was a major limiting factor. One simply could not just weld more armor on without sacrificing speed and performance, and Patton wanted a fast tank, not a heavy one. It was also hard to retool American factories churning these engines out, and R & D was often sacrificed in favor of mass production, even the Pershings that supplimented the Shermans late in the War still were drastically underpowered because a new, more powerful, engine was never developed until after the War...

Firefly
01-25-2006, 01:23 PM
They did produce a Diesel engined version that saw service with the Soviets and in the Pacific.

There was also the Sherman 'Jumbo' which had thicker frontal armour than a Tiger 1 or Panther, very few of these were produced though.

Nickdfresh
01-25-2006, 09:42 PM
Here's a nice sight dedicated to the various Sherman models:

http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/pics/m4sherman.html

PLT.SGT.BAKER
01-26-2006, 04:24 PM
(off topic) Right now im making an M4 sherman plastic model 1:35 scale, its coming along great!

Nickdfresh
01-26-2006, 10:13 PM
They did produce a Diesel engined version that saw service with the Soviets and in the Pacific.

There was also the Sherman 'Jumbo' which had thicker frontal armour than a Tiger 1 or Panther, very few of these were produced though.

True, but diesel engines are more expensive, and complex. And the Ford V-8 could be cracked out by the hundreds per day, if not more.

I wasn't aware the diesel saw more action in the Pacific, interesting. You'd think more'd been sent to the ETO since the Japanese had a hard time knocking out ANY Allied tanks...

Yeah, unfortunately, they only made about 250 "Jumbos." I really don't think the Allies took into account the human factor of tanks crews being killed, wounded, and traumatized from facing the technologically superior German tanks.

PLT.SGT.BAKER
01-27-2006, 12:52 PM
(off topic) My M4 Sherman is complete!

Nickdfresh
01-28-2006, 10:52 AM
(off topic) My M4 Sherman is complete!

That's not off-topic. I wouldn't mind modeling once again, since it's relaxing and might be good for my budding hypertension.:D

But, it's hard to find quality, detailed model kits anymore...

PLT.SGT.BAKER
01-28-2006, 11:03 AM
I bought the M4 from Tamiya. :D

Feldwebel
03-02-2006, 05:41 AM
Official designation: M4A3
Common designation: Sherman IV
Type: Medium Tank
Manufacturer: Ford, Grand Blanc
M4A3 Production: 12,596
Total M4 Production: Approx. 49,234
Engine: GAA-III V-WC
Horsepower: 400 at 2,600 rpm
Crew: 5
Weight (tons): 32.3 Gearbox: Synchromesh, 5 forward 1 reverse
Length (meters): 7.52 Speed (km/hr): 47
Width (meters): 2.68 Range (km): 130
Height (meters): 3.25 Radio: SCR528, Push-button (FM)- voice-operated

Standard Armament: One 75mm - 105mm, One .50 cal AA, One .30 cal coaxial, One .30 cal hull
Traverse: 360° (36°/sec) powered
Elevation: +25° to -10°
Ammunition: 97, 300, 4750


Armour (mm): Front Side Rear Top/Bottom
Turret: 75 50 50 25
Hull Upper: 50 38 38 25
Hull Lower: 38 38 38 12


Here is a bit more information about the sherman :roll:

arhob1
03-03-2006, 06:11 PM
Sturmtruppen wrote:


The American penchant for mass production tended to stymie innovations in technology, and American doctrinal thinking tended to remain stuck in the pre-war period, when the tank was seen as primarily an infantry support weapon. As a result, the M4 was not up-gunned until late in the war, and American, British, and Canadian tank crews consistently faced better German tanks.

That's exactly why I don't like the Sherman. Whenever I see one I think of young men being sent to war in inferior equipment. If a Government sends its young men off to fight they have a duty to at least provide them with equipment which will match that of the enemy in terms of firepower and protection. Ease of maintenance and superior numbers is always nice to have but I can't look at these things without thinking about the unfairness of being sent to war in something that the enemy could pick off at a far greater range than I could hit back.

Now a Firefly would be a completely different kettle of fish, if only the Sherman had teh Firefly's gun from day one then things would have been completely different.

PLT.SGT.BAKER
03-03-2006, 09:34 PM
Sturmtruppen wrote:


The American penchant for mass production tended to stymie innovations in technology, and American doctrinal thinking tended to remain stuck in the pre-war period, when the tank was seen as primarily an infantry support weapon. As a result, the M4 was not up-gunned until late in the war, and American, British, and Canadian tank crews consistently faced better German tanks.

That's exactly why I don't like the Sherman. Whenever I see one I think of young men being sent to war in inferior equipment. If a Government sends its young men off to fight they have a duty to at least provide them with equipment which will match that of the enemy in terms of firepower and protection. Ease of maintenance and superior numbers is always nice to have but I can't look at these things without thinking about the unfairness of being sent to war in something that the enemy could pick off at a far greater range than I could hit back.

Now a Firefly would be a completely different kettle of fish, if only the Sherman had teh Firefly's gun from day one then things would have been completely different.

The u.s. really didnt' want to have tanks to engage in battles with other tanks. They want'ed a tank that is fast lightweight to be used as infantry support and a scouting tank.

Nickdfresh
03-06-2006, 10:43 PM
I heard that Patton was against the deployment of heavier tanks like the M26 Pershing, to augment the Sherman. I guess he felt that they weren't needed and would have just slowed things down... What people tend to forget was that the bulk of the German armored forces were not Tigers. They had a few more Panthers around, but really I'm under the impression that the Tigers and Panthers where the center piece of the battle, while they're ranks were filled out by support Jagdpanzers and Panzer MkIVs, which an upgraded Sherman "Easy-8," Fire-Fly, or Jumbo could easily handle. Only if they had actually done what the Germans had done with the MkIV, and upgraded a 1942-vintage Sherman tank with additional armor and a high velocity gun... That's what is criminal I think, two years is an eternity in warfare...

Strina-Croatia
04-09-2006, 01:28 PM
Did u know that we used american tanks from various periods of time 9n this war ???

Nickdfresh
04-16-2006, 11:44 PM
Do you mean WWII Yugloslavia?

Panzerknacker
04-22-2006, 09:43 PM
Some pics of the post Normandy landings engagementes.


Sherman M4A2 del 47th Dragoons destroyed in Lingeres, it have 5 penetration en the thickest sector of the frontal armor.

http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/183/panzer549ef.jpg


M-10 with 17 punder gun, destroyed near Villers bocage, probably by Tigers from de 101 SS.

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/1913/m104ya.jpg


Closer view, the german officer carry a infantry tank destruction.

http://img371.imageshack.us/img371/9366/m1025nh.jpg


Sherman destroyed near the town of Fontenay-le-Pesnil, his victor a Panther from Kampzgruppe wunsche was knocked out a meters away.

http://img388.imageshack.us/img388/5333/sherman37zs.jpg

Digger
09-27-2006, 07:48 PM
G'day,

Sorry this is a late note in this thread as I only joined recently. One of the limiting factors in US tank design was the transport equation. All US tanks at the time were required to fit within the US railroad loading guages.

US companies did design and build some 'super heavy' types, but the Pershing was the first such US 'heavy' tank to fit into the transport criteria.

Regards to all,
Digger.

Nickdfresh
09-27-2006, 08:50 PM
Very true, the U.S. also designed some tanks that would have flattened the Tiger I. But they were expensive to produce and difficult ship over to the Atlantic.

Digger
09-27-2006, 08:54 PM
G'day,

I know some of the designs which lost out to the Pershing were quite formidable. I no longer have the reference source, but wasn't one design a 140ton tank destroyer specifically designed to take on the German super heavies?

Regards to all,
Digger.

Nickdfresh
09-27-2006, 09:05 PM
G'day,

I know some of the designs which lost out to the Pershing were quite formidable. I no longer have the reference source, but wasn't one design a 140ton tank destroyer specifically designed to take on the German super heavies?

Regards to all,
Digger.


See George's thread on the M26 here. (http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3398)

Scroll down to the bottom of his enormous first post and read the T-29 to T-34 "heavy tank projects" that were never adopted, although I believe one did see eventual post war service in evolutionary form. But suffered from the same problems as most enormous tanks: slow, unreliable, easy to flank by smaller, faster tanks, etc.

Digger
09-28-2006, 03:05 AM
Got it Nick, thanks.

Regards to all,
Digger.

FW-190 Pilot
09-29-2006, 08:32 AM
anyways, my english teacher said that the Shermans are inspired by Canadian tank before the war?

Panzerknacker
09-29-2006, 08:36 PM
Hmmm.. not completely correct.


http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/474/dibujotc1.jpg

Nickdfresh
09-29-2006, 10:47 PM
Excellent find PN. I've always wondered why the Canadian Army used M4 Sherman chasises as APCs since this seemed to be a bit of a waste, now I know what it actually was...

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/can/RAM-Kangaroo.jpg
http://www.1cacr.org/pics/ram_02.jpg
The Ram Kangaroo APC.

Panzerknacker
09-30-2006, 11:12 PM
The Ram was in some aspects better than the early Shermans, especially in the frontal armour.

As APC it was much better than the equivalents half tracks like the SdKfz 251, but a bit expensive.

Anti
10-01-2006, 04:45 PM
The Germans called the Sherman a "Tommy Cooker" because they burned so easily when hit :shock:

I know it took a Brit to give it a decent gun (Firefly with 17 pdr) :wink: , but it gave us the numbers to overcome better German tanks.

Wouldn't fancy facing a King Tiger in one though.

Wasn't this primarily in the early years when some fool designer decided that storing the ammunition inside the tank just next to the engine was a good idea? Too bad, the idiot wasn't informed that engines get hot. The idea of the Tommy Cooker was born after some Shermans burst out in flames without the Germans having to shoot it...

Nickdfresh
10-02-2006, 10:51 AM
The Ram was in some aspects better than the early Shermans, especially in the frontal armour.

As APC it was much better than the equivalents half tracks like the SdKfz 251, but a bit expensive.


No question. I wonder if the Canadians can lay claim to adopting the first fully tracked, modern APC to see service, or at least combat? I can't think of any dedicated armored personnel carrier that wasn't a half-track at the moment.

Anti
10-02-2006, 06:03 PM
@Nickdfresh:

I assume the old tin can APC in the shape of the Mark IX (WWI era) doesn't qualify to be 'modern'? ;) I couldn't find any fully tracked APC's in WWII, so I guess the Canadians indeed were the first.

Nickdfresh
10-02-2006, 08:35 PM
@Nickdfresh:

I assume the old tin can APC in the shape of the Mark IX (WWI era) doesn't qualify to be 'modern'? ;) I couldn't find any fully tracked APC's in WWII, so I guess the Canadians indeed were the first.

Yeah, I think the Mark IX never saw combat, and it's operational life was cut short by post war budget cuts and it didn't really seem to be very practical.

BTW, the Sherman was also called the "Ronson" by the Germans, after the American lighter that was also popular in Europe at the time.

The slogan of the Ronson? "Always lights on the first strike." --Oooof!

http://www.combatmission.com/articles/usmedtanks/pics/M4-5.jpg

PLT.SGT.BAKER
10-06-2006, 10:55 PM
All tis a shame that neither the allies or te axis tried experimenting with different types of armor besides iron and steel.

Gutkowski
10-07-2006, 08:20 AM
Here is some info that I have found
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm

redcoat
10-07-2006, 05:59 PM
No question. I wonder if the Canadians can lay claim to adopting the first fully tracked, modern APC to see service, or at least combat? I can't think of any dedicated armored personnel carrier that wasn't a half-track at the moment.
The Bren or Universal carrier ;)

Nickdfresh
10-07-2006, 07:12 PM
The Bren or Universal carrier ;)


Well, you might have point there. I didn't even think of that one admittedly. But I did qualify "modern," meaning the Ram Kangaroo was fully enclosed, thereby its crew could be protected from air-bursts.

pdf27
10-22-2006, 03:19 PM
Couple of points about the Sherman:
1) It was the biggest, heaviest tank that could be landed by the landing craft designs of the time. To build a bigger landing craft you would have to use proper naval construction techniques, rather than the mass production bodges historically used. This means that for every tank heavier than a Sherman you build, you're losing maybe 20 Sherman sized tanks. Remember also that when you're a Landser with no more armour than the shirt on your back the Sherman is a fearsome beast.
2) The majority of cases of Shermans brewing up suddenly were related to the loose storage of ammunition in the tank (due to resupply problems in Normandy). When this stopped and they went back to the normal wet stowage, the problem virtually vanished overnight.

redcoat
10-27-2006, 04:41 PM
2) The majority of cases of Shermans brewing up suddenly were related to the loose storage of ammunition in the tank (due to resupply problems in Normandy). When this stopped and they went back to the normal wet stowage, the problem virtually vanished overnight.
The problem with the stowage was a design fault, it had nothing to do with any supply problem, Wet stowage was only introduced on later models, when as you have stated, the problem went away

ps What do you mean, you didn't see it ????

Nickdfresh
10-27-2006, 05:08 PM
Ha! that's an interesting pic. I'd really like to know the back story around it. I'm assuming the Sherman was knock-out as well...

redcoat
10-27-2006, 05:21 PM
Ha! that's an interesting pic. I'd really like to know the back story around it. ..
It quite an amusing story
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&targetRule=10&xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F09%2F12%2Fdb1202.xml
ps, when the crew member of the Sherman and the German crew both shared the same fox-hole I wonder if they exchanged insurance details ;) :mrgreen:

Nickdfresh
10-27-2006, 07:06 PM
Excellent story, thanks...

Panzerknacker
10-27-2006, 07:24 PM
Very interesting picture, there was few kingtigers in Normandy, most of them belong to the 503 heavy batallion, the majority of them were knocket out by the naval gunfire and the allied aviation.

http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/6171/m4a320sherman20front20lww0.jpg

Panzerknacker
10-30-2006, 06:38 PM
M4A1 (cast steel) in Tunis.

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/7735/sherman22mr8.jpg


And in the difficult Italian front.

http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/1558/sherman2hi4.jpg


Some crew tough that the rounded cast surfaces of the hull was more prone to deviate the AP shells....not very true.

Panzerknacker
11-03-2006, 09:19 AM
Close support 105 mm armed Sherman in northern Italy. Winter camo.

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/2972/105mmdo3.jpg

Nickdfresh
11-03-2006, 04:07 PM
Panzerknacker, any info on how the 105mm performed in a direct fire, anti-tank role?

Panzerknacker
11-03-2006, 06:36 PM
Sorry no, I only have information of engaments by the 75 mm and 76 mm gun variants, I guess that the 105 mm Shermans was used mostly for destroy pillboxes and entrenched infantry in towns and so, because they have no AP ammo for the Howitzer. Off course a shot of that 4 inches and more shell can cause damage to a Panther a Tiger and destroy lighter armor, but it was not the purpose.

Firefly
11-04-2006, 01:03 PM
The 105 did have an HC shell though. I dont know how many Tanks it killed but it had the capacity.

Panzerknacker
11-04-2006, 03:55 PM
Hollow Charge..?

In this case it had a good change against the heavy armor, but I think those were to fight off concrete emplacements.

With AP ammo I was meaning some king of armor piercing composite, or capped steel core shell.

George Eller
11-08-2006, 11:20 PM
-

01

From: "British and American Tanks of World War II", by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, Arco Publishing Company, 1975, (p 114 - 117 )

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/7797/m4sherman01ve7.jpg

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/3998/m4sherman02fw8.jpg

http://img484.imageshack.us/img484/8373/m4sherman03ik3.jpg

http://img484.imageshack.us/img484/9633/m4sherman04du9.jpg

(CONTINUED BELOW)

-

George Eller
11-08-2006, 11:21 PM
-

(CONTINUED FROM ABOVE)

02

From: "British and American Tanks of World War II", by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, Arco Publishing Company, 1975, (p 118 - 121 )

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/6343/m4sherman05ru0.jpg

http://img484.imageshack.us/img484/8721/m4sherman06zb7.jpg

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/4508/m4sherman07ew7.jpg

http://img484.imageshack.us/img484/1958/m4sherman08ix3.jpg

(CONTINUED BELOW)

-

George Eller
11-08-2006, 11:22 PM
-

(CONTINUED FROM ABOVE)

03

From: "British and American Tanks of World War II", by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, Arco Publishing Company, 1975, (p 122 - 125 )

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/8558/m4sherman09px2.jpg

http://img484.imageshack.us/img484/4196/m4sherman10cm4.jpg

http://img484.imageshack.us/img484/201/m4sherman11lc7.jpg

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/3669/m4sherman12ti2.jpg

(CONTINUED BELOW)

-

George Eller
11-08-2006, 11:23 PM
-

(CONTINUED FROM ABOVE)

04

From: "British and American Tanks of World War II", by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, Arco Publishing Company, 1975, (p 126 - 129 )

http://img484.imageshack.us/img484/8632/m4sherman13im6.jpg

http://img484.imageshack.us/img484/4743/m4sherman14lt4.jpg

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/843/m4sherman15eu5.jpg

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/3721/m4sherman16yd9.jpg

(CONTINUED BELOW)

-

George Eller
11-08-2006, 11:24 PM
-

(CONTINUED FROM ABOVE)

05

From: "British and American Tanks of World War II", by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, Arco Publishing Company, 1975, (p 130 - 133 )

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/4679/m4sherman17ew4.jpg

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/7788/m4sherman18va0.jpg

http://img484.imageshack.us/img484/2140/m4sherman19tu1.jpg

http://img484.imageshack.us/img484/1198/m4sherman20gf2.jpg

(CONTINUED BELOW)

-

George Eller
11-08-2006, 11:25 PM
-

(CONTINUED FROM ABOVE)

06

From: "British and American Tanks of World War II", by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, Arco Publishing Company, 1975, (p 134 - 137 )

http://img484.imageshack.us/img484/8406/m4sherman21di7.jpg

http://img484.imageshack.us/img484/3069/m4sherman22uf3.jpg

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/4017/m4sherman23iq8.jpg

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/5130/m4sherman24pq0.jpg

-

redcoat
11-09-2006, 12:41 PM
Sorry to be a party pooper, but you do need to be careful how much material you post copied directly out of books.
It could cause problems for the forum due to copyright infringement.

George Eller
11-10-2006, 12:15 PM
Sorry to be a party pooper, but you do need to be careful how much material you post copied directly out of books.
It could cause problems for the forum due to copyright infringement.
-

Site Faq
http://www.ww2incolor.com/site-faq.html

Guess I'll need to do more research on the "Fair Use" and "Fair Dealing" Doctrines.

-

Panzerknacker
11-13-2006, 06:37 PM
As long George continue to post the sources of this images there will be no problem.

Very good info, impressive the T-31 demolition tank no idea that some version like that exist.

George Eller
11-18-2006, 09:10 PM
As long George continue to post the sources of this images there will be no problem.

Very good info, impressive the T-31 demolition tank no idea that some version like that exist.
-

Thanks Panzerknacker,

Here is some more info on M4 Shermans with 105mm howitzer.

-

M4 (105mm):
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/usa/tanks_medium/m4_sherman.html


The construction of 2 pilot models based on the M4A4 were authorized by the Ordnance Committee in December 1942. It was tested at the Aberdeen Proving Ground and at Fort Knox, Kentucky. After some modifications it was Standardized in August 1943.

Were intended to replace the M8 Howitzer Motor Carriages that were in Battalion Headquarters Companies and Medium Tank Battalions. The 105 mm Howitzer, M4, was mounted in a Combination Gun Mount, M52.

There was a partial turret basket in the cast turret. The gunner was provided a fighting seat, the commander a convoy seat, and the loader a riding seat. These all rotated with the turret. The cupola had 6 prismatic vision blocks of 3" laminated, bullet-resistent glass.

There was a floor placed over the power tunnel. A pintle was provided for towing an ammunition trailer.

Detroit Arsenal (2-9/43): 800.

105 mm howitzer installed in place of 75 mm in turret. A pintle for towing a trailer was installed.

-

Sherman M4A3 (105)
http://www.battlefront.co.nz/Article.asp?ArticleID=265


The last models of Sherman to be mentioned for US forces are the 105 howitzer armed tanks and the Sherman "Jumbo". The howitzer armed Shermans equipped the assault gun platoons in armoured battalions and were all built on either M4 or M4A3 47degree glacis plate hulls but the "wet stowage" was replaced by armoured bins for ammo stowage.

-

Re: Artillery version of M4 Sherman tank
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/G104/message/5317


Some pictures and a bit of information (in German) can be found at
http://www.panzerbaer.de/guns/bw_pzh_m7b2_priest-a.htm

Hope this helps.
Have a nice day :-)

Henrik Teller
DK - 6270 Toender
http://www.armyvehicles.dk
(Danish Army Vehicles Homepage)
E-mail: webmaster@...

-

Sherman M4 105mm Howitzer tanks
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/G104/message/5320


Henrik and other G105 members here is another book that has some information on
the M4 (105mm Howitzer tank and tha tank gun.

"The American Arsenal, subtitled, The World War II Official Standard Ordnance
Catalog of Small Arms, Tanks, Armored Cars, Artillery, Antiaircraft Guns,
Ammunition, Grenades,Mines, Etcetera" Introduction by Ian V. Hogg

Page 30 has the 105mm tank, and page 182 has informationabout the gun.

It was published in 1996 by Stackpole books, in the USA, and by Greenhill Books,
in the UK.
It is ISBN 1-85367-254-8. You can probably find a copy on Amazon dot Com used
books.

Good hunting,

Rich Lowry
San Francisco

-

The History of the M4 Sherman 105mm Howitzer
http://www.tamiya.com/english/products/56014sherman/sherman_expl.htm

-

Medium Tank M4(105mm) Sherman
http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m4sherman.html#M4(105)


105mm Howitzer with 66 rounds.
The British named 105mm howitzer Shermans by adding a "B" suffix, making M4(105) Sherman IB.
One hundred-five millimeter howitzer tanks retained the turrets of the 75mm gun tanks, but lacked stabilization and power traverse. Early models also lacked a tank commander's cupola and loader's hatch. The small oval loader's hatch was added, as well as the TC's cupola. These tanks also did not have a turret basket, but a partial platform suspended from the turret ring. Wet ammunition stowage was not instituted on 105mm howitzer Shermans, but the ammunition stowage racks were armored.

-

Medium Tank M4A3(105mm) Sherman
http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m4sherman.html#M4A3(105)


105mm Howitzer with 66 rounds.
A British M4A3(105) would be called Sherman IVB.
The first M4A3(105)s lacked a commander's vision cupola and power turret traverse. Powered traverse was later incorporated, but VE Day came before it could see action. An armored cover for the direct sight telescope to the right of the howitzer was developed in late production vehicles to protect the turret interior from small arms fire.

-

Medium Tank M4(105mm) Horizontal Volute Spring Suspension Sherman
http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m4sherman.html#M4(105)HVSS


105mm Howitzer with 66 rounds.
M4(105) HVSS became Sherman IBY in the British naming style. The final 841 M4(105) produced were fitted with HVS suspension.

-

Medium Tank M4A3(105mm) Horizontal Volute Spring Suspension Sherman
http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m4sherman.html#M4A3(105)HVSS


Under the British system of tank naming, M4A3(105) HVSS would be called Sherman IVBY.

-

Panzerknacker
11-19-2006, 01:18 PM
Nice, do you have any info about the anti-bunker ammo used in the 75mm and 105 mm guns ?

I rear in the ospreys "Panther Medium Tank" of Bryan Perrret that this ammo was the only capable of defeat the glacis armor in the Pz V.

( Without counting the 76mm HVAP)

Panzerknacker
01-11-2007, 06:45 PM
You agree...on what ?

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g61/angelh_01/ShermanM4A1fabricaChrysler.jpg

VonWeyer
01-11-2007, 07:03 PM
Great shot. Do you know what factory that is Panzerknacker.

Panzerknacker
01-11-2007, 07:29 PM
I think is the State arsenal of Detroit city .

VonWeyer
01-12-2007, 02:46 AM
Cheers.

GermanSoldier
01-12-2007, 03:43 PM
Yes I believe the Sherman tank was a well made tank, but I would not want to be a crew member in that tank on the western front.

curahee
01-12-2007, 04:25 PM
USA had a better tank than sherman in their army???
Yes of course M-6, m-26, t-29,t-31. t-98, to name a few. The m-4 could be mass prodcued more quickly and took up les space in transport. That why nearly 50,000 M-4 alone were built for the war in just 4 years.

Panzerknacker
01-12-2007, 06:24 PM
Good for the others but not enough for you :D

BTW this is the general wich originate the name W.T Sherman.

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/union-generals/sherman/pictures/general-william-tecumseh-sherman.jpg

Nickdfresh
01-12-2007, 08:57 PM
"War is hell." Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman

Panzerknacker
01-12-2007, 09:01 PM
He had a hellish appearence. :neutral:


Sherman jumbo.

http://www.battlefront.co.nz/Images/weapons/Sherman-Jumbo.jpg

Nickdfresh
01-12-2007, 09:36 PM
If only they produced more of those...

I would really like to know how effective units comprised of nearly all "Firefly" Shermans or "Easy-Eight" Shermans would have fared. Certainly they would have done better, though they were still outclassed by Panthers and Tigers, and they suffered the disadvantage of nearly always being on the offense.

Panzerknacker
01-15-2007, 09:13 PM
Jumbos in combat.

Here are 2 Jumbos hit by 88's
The first Jumbo had 1 hit bounce of the glacis and 2 off the mantlet before a 4th entered through the gunsight opening in the mantlet.

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/9639/jjjkkl0002yl3.jpg



Another Jumbo, this a tougher one, that was disabled by a mine. It then took 8 hits from 88's. 7 failed to penetrate and only one (no.3) got in and set it alight.

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/1240/jumbo2ndph2.jpg



http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/8513/jumboistgs0.jpg

PLT.SGT.BAKER
01-17-2007, 09:16 PM
I like General Sherman. Good general.

Thats one tough sherman to survive direct hits from 88's.

Panzerknacker
01-18-2007, 06:55 PM
Only in Jumbo models.

Flammpanzer
01-21-2007, 11:42 AM
BTW, the Sherman was also called the "Ronson" by the Germans, after the American lighter that was also popular in Europe at the time.

The slogan of the Ronson? "Always lights on the first strike." --Oooof!

I heard and read that also quite often, BUT remember that all tanks catched fire easily when properly hit by a HOHLLADUNG (satchel load in english?) or by a other anti tank devices. if such a thing penetrates the armor, the heat inside the vehicle is deadly in most cases.

my grandfather was a TIGER I gunner (unteroffizier) and he told me that most crews from hit tanks that survived had burnings.

jens

PLT.SGT.BAKER
01-21-2007, 06:25 PM
really a shame that the jumbo models weren't used in the early years of the war,but if they had been then there would be a possibility that the germans came up with "newer" weapons and tanks.

Panzerknacker
01-21-2007, 07:58 PM
HOHLLADUNG (satchel load in english?)



Flammpanzer the Hohlladung is not satchel charge but a Hollow charge.

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3357

Nickdfresh
01-21-2007, 08:55 PM
I heard and read that also quite often, BUT remember that all tanks catched fire easily when properly hit by a HOHLLADUNG (satchel load in english?) or by a other anti tank devices. if such a thing penetrates the armor, the heat inside the vehicle is deadly in most cases.

my grandfather was a TIGER I gunner (unteroffizier) and he told me that most crews from hit tanks that survived had burnings.

jens

Very true. But the Sherman had the disadvantages of having armor that was a little too thin for 1944, a petrol/gasoline engine, and it initially had ammunition that was stowed in a very flawed manner. These were rectified somewhat on later models, but not completely...

Flammpanzer
01-25-2007, 12:39 PM
Flammpanzer the Hohlladung is not satchel charge but a Hollow charge.

thanks, I did not found the right english term in my brain so fast ... :cool:

jens

Panzerknacker
01-25-2007, 07:05 PM
No problem I am always trying to help :D


Hafthohlladung.

http://i18.tinypic.com/2ztfvxu.jpg

Nickdfresh
01-25-2007, 10:22 PM
Didn't the German Wehrmacht use a sizable number of M-4 Shermans? I recall flipping through a book on it many years ago.

Anyone have information on it's primary roles? Modifications? The German's regard for it? Etc.

redcoat
01-26-2007, 07:33 AM
Didn't the German Wehrmacht use a sizable number of M-4 Shermans? I recall flipping through a book on it many years ago.

Anyone have information on it's primary roles? Modifications? The German's regard for it? Etc.
From what I've read there were only a small number used, and this was only on a ad hoc basis, in that a unit would make use of any that was captured in a reasonable condition until it either broke down, or suffered battle damage, at which point it would be discarded.
I have not heard of any modifications, but if there were it would have had to have been done at a local level.
In German service the M4 series was known as the Pz Kpfw M4 748(a)

Panzerknacker
01-26-2007, 08:30 AM
A photo of german sherman, captured British Sherman VC "Firefly" (armed with 17 pounder gun) in Normandy, 1944.


http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/fot07.jpg

GermanSoldier
01-28-2007, 11:39 AM
A German Sherman. I never heard about one of those.

Pro-Kit
02-05-2007, 01:38 AM
But the Sherman had the disadvantages of having armor that was a little too thin for 1944, a petrol/gasoline engine, and it initially had ammunition that was stowed in a very flawed manner.

Weren't most tanks, including all German tanks, powered by gasoline/petrol engines? That would seem to be a 'problem' with tank design in general, and not a disadvantage owned by the Sherman specifically. If a tank's propensity to brew-up is exacerbated by having a gasoline engine, a Tiger would be, and was, just as vulnerable as an M4 in this regard.

Various articles, History Channel shows and what not, will usually point to the Sherman's engine when the "Ronson" issue is discussed (along with armor and stowage), yet they never take any points away from the Panther on account of its equally fire-prone gasoline/petrol engine. I wonder why the petrol=brew-ups stigma is so often only attached to the Sherman. Seems unfair because, with the wet stowage improvement, the Sherman was actually the only tank of the era (gasoline powered or otherwise) to employ a measure designed specifically to protect itself from brew-ups.

Flammpanzer
02-05-2007, 11:52 AM
the russian T-34 had diesel engines and if you watch fotos or film-sequenzes of hit T-34, you will see that they also brew up in most cases. again, I personally think that the sort of engine is not so important to answer the question if a tank brews up easily or not. if hit properly by the right device, any tank (even modern ones) will catch fire fire and burn like hell. it is intersting because you might think that such a machine only consists of steel. maybe it is a factor how the whole wiring is done in the engine compartment, and so this area will easily catch fire (cooling slots!) if hit by a molotov cocktail or flamethrower.

jens

redcoat
02-05-2007, 04:46 PM
:shock: discussed (along with armor and stowage), yet they never take any points away from the Panther on account of its equally fire-prone gasoline/petrol engine. I wonder why the petrol=brew-ups stigma is so often only attached to the Sherman. Seems unfair because, with the wet stowage improvement, the Sherman was actually the only tank of the era (gasoline powered or otherwise) to employ a measure designed specifically to protect itself from brew-ups.
That's incorrect other tanks did have measures to deal with the problem, the Panther for example, had protected stowage bins for its ammo.

Pro-Kit
02-05-2007, 06:11 PM
Well then, scratch my last.

In what manner was the Panther ammo protected? Did the bins just have extra armor? Was it standard on all models, or was it added later in production?

Panzerknacker
02-05-2007, 06:42 PM
the russian T-34 had diesel engines and if you watch fotos or film-sequenzes of hit T-34, you will see that they also brew up in most cases.


Well, If a hollow charge round (like the one in Panzerfaust, RPzB54, etc) hit a T-34 fuel tank it ignited no matters if diesel because it unleah a fire jet with 4000 degrees celcius ....so in that aspect there was no much difference.


But yes the T-34 was much less prone to cath fire and explode that The Sherman.


Seems unfair because, with the wet stowage improvement, the Sherman was actually the only tank of the era (gasoline powered or otherwise) to employ a measure designed specifically to protect itself from brew-ups.


Teorically yes, some Shermans had a thing called "Wet magazine" wich was a water deposit wich broke up in impact and showered the ammo, but I dont know how effective it was.

It worth to note that The M4a2 had disel engines, 1 x Grey Marine 6-71 Model 6046 (375 HP)

pdf27
02-05-2007, 07:07 PM
Various articles, History Channel shows and what not, will usually point to the Sherman's engine when the "Ronson" issue is discussed (along with armor and stowage), yet they never take any points away from the Panther on account of its equally fire-prone gasoline/petrol engine. I wonder why the petrol=brew-ups stigma is so often only attached to the Sherman. Seems unfair because, with the wet stowage improvement, the Sherman was actually the only tank of the era (gasoline powered or otherwise) to employ a measure designed specifically to protect itself from brew-ups.
Ultimately it comes down to supply issues in Normandy. Due to the situation (lack of a suitable port and major logistics problems) tank crews carried far more ammunition than the tank was designed to, usually having it just lying loose around the tank. When hit, they brewed up every time. When they broke out and the supply situation was normalised, they stopped doing this and reverted to the wet stowage. The problem with it brewing up when hit went away, but the tank's reputation never recovered.

Pro-Kit
02-05-2007, 07:14 PM
A great deal of the later production Shermans, including all of the 76mm armed tanks, used the wet stowage system. There's lots of claims out there that state it was plenty effective, but they tend to lack any hard facts and figures. I assume the wet stowage was well recieved by the tankers. Various sources say things from "less likely to brew up" and "reduced casualties" to "drastically reduced instances of brewing up" (I've read at least one claim where a percentage of improvement was given and it was very high.)...But I've never read any extensive official studies of the system specifically.

Like the USMC M4A2s, the Shermans lend-leased to the Russians also used diesel engines. It would be interesting to find out if they were more, equally, or less likey to brew up when compared to the T34s they were serving along side of.

Nickdfresh
02-10-2007, 10:29 PM
I'd imagine they were more likely to brew up since the M-4s armor was less effective than the T-34s. That coupled with the fact that the Shermans were employed in an exposed offensive role against concealed German armor and infantry in hedgerows with anti-tank weapons during Normady, there's no question that the Sherman was at a disadvantage.

Panzerknacker
02-25-2007, 11:14 PM
Interesting story, Sherman vs Tiger in Italy:

http://www.752ndtank.com/Cecina.html


http://www.752ndtank.com/images/Dadon14620x410.jpg

Ace Tankkiller
02-25-2007, 11:38 PM
This is a good story,it also gives the details on where to hit the tank with what weapons which is kinda cool.

Panzerknacker
02-26-2007, 06:55 PM
Indeed, a normal 75mm gun Sherman knocking out a Tiger 1...that is something you dont see every day.


http://www.zeppelin-museum.dk/D/german/heute/sherman/sherman4.jpg

Panzerknacker
03-07-2007, 09:34 PM
Some footage of this armored vehicle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9xpvbBGkkg

Nickdfresh
03-08-2007, 09:11 PM
Indeed, a normal 75mm gun Sherman knocking out a Tiger 1...that is something you dont see every day.


http://www.zeppelin-museum.dk/D/german/heute/sherman/sherman4.jpg

Actually it did happen, it only took three to five Shermans being destroyed first, most of the time...

Panzerknacker
03-08-2007, 09:25 PM
In here you got the penetration tables for U.S tank guns, the normal APC penetrate 64 mm of armor at 400-500m, the side and rear armor in the Tiger H was 80mm so you figure.


http://www.wwiivehicles.com/usa/guns.asp


http://www.o5m6.de/M4A2_75mm_Russia_2.jpg

pdf27
03-11-2007, 04:42 PM
Actually it did happen, it only took three to five Shermans being destroyed first, most of the time...
So what? The US could replace them. What actually happened most of the time was that the Shermans were up against unsupported German infantry. When compared to an infantry shirt, the Sherman is a very heavily armoured beast indeed.

Panzerknacker
03-11-2007, 05:01 PM
When compared to an infantry shirt, the Sherman is a very heavily armoured beast indeed.


Quite a remarkable statement.

Panzerknacker
03-11-2007, 07:51 PM
Russian tankers memoires on M4 sherman:

http://www.iremember.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=85&Itemid=19

Dmitriy Fedorovich, on which American tanks did you fight?


- On Shermans. We called them "Emchas", from M4 [in Russian, em chetyrye]. Initially they had the short main gun, and later they began to arrive with the long gun and muzzle brake. On the front slope armor there was a travel lock for securing the barrel during road marches. The main gun was quite long. Overall, this was a good vehicle but, as with any tank, it had its pluses and minuses. When someone says to me that this was a bad tank, I respond, "Excuse me!" One cannot say that this was a bad tank. Bad as compared to what?
- Dmitriy Fedorovich, did you have just American tanks in your unit?
- Our 6th Guards Tank Army (yes, we had six of them) fought in Ukraine, Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Austria. We ended the war for us in Czechoslovakia. Then they rushed us to the Far East and we fought against Japan. I briefly remind you that the army consisted of two corps: 5th Guards Tank Stalingrad Corps on our own T-34s and 5th Mechanized Corps, in which I fought. For the first time this corps had British Matildas, Valentines, and Churchills.
- They delivered the Churchill later.
- Yes, a bit later. After 1943 we largely declined British tanks because they had significant deficiencies. In particular, they had 12-14 h.p. per ton of weight at a time when good tanks had 18-20 h.p. per ton. Of these three British tanks, the best was the Valentine produced in Canada. Its armor was streamlined but more importantly, it featured a long-barreled 57mm main gun. My unit switched over to American Shermans at the end of 1943. After the Kishinev Operation our corps became the 9th Guards Mechanized Corps. I missed to tell you that every corps consisted of four brigades. Our mechanized corps had three mechanized brigades and one tank brigade, in which I fought. A tank corps had three tank brigades and one mechanized brigade. Yes, we had Shermans in our brigade at the end of 1943.
- But the British tanks were not withdrawn from service, so they fought until they were gone. Wasn't there a period when your corps had a mixture of tanks, both American and British? Were there any problems associated with the presence of such a broad variety of vehicles from different countries? For example, with supply and maintenance?

--------------

- Well, there were always problems. In general, the Matilda was an unbelievably worthless tank! I will tell you about one of the Matilda's deficiencies that caused us a great deal of trouble. Some fool in the General Staff planned an operation and sent our corps to the area of Yelnya, Smolensk, and Roslavl. The terrain there was forested swamp. The Matilda had skirts along the sides. The tank was developed primarily for operations in the desert. These skirts worked well in the desert-the sand passed through the rectangular slots in them. But in the forested swamps of Russia the mud packed into the space between the tracks and these side skirts. The Matilda transmission had a servomechanism for ease of shifting. In our conditions this component was weak, constantly overheated, and then failed. This was fine for the British. By 1943 they had developed a replacement unit that could be installed simply by unscrewing four mounting bolts, pulling out the old unit, and installing the new unit. It did not always work this way for us.

In my battalion we had Senior Sergeant (Starshina) Nesterov, a former kolkhoz tractor driver (Kolkhoz is sort of farm - Valera), in the position of battalion mechanic. In general each of our tank companies had a mechanic and Nesterov was it for the battalion. At our corps level we had a representative (whose name I have forgotten) of the British firm that produced these tanks. At one time I had it written down, but when my tank was hit everything I had in it burned up -photographs, documents, and notebook. We were forbidden to keep notes at the front, but I did it on the sly. Anyway, this British representative constantly interfered with our efforts to repair separate components of the tank. He said, "This has a factory seal. You should not tinker with it!" We were supposed to take out a component and install a new one. Nesterov made a simple repair to all these transmissions. One time the British representative came up to Nesterov and asked him, "At which university did you study?" And Nesterov replied, "At the kolkhoz!"
The Sherman was light years better in this regard. Did you know that one of the designers of the Sherman was a Russian engineer named Timoshenko? He was some shirt tail relative of Marshal S. K. Timoshenko.
The Sherman had its weaknesses, the greatest of which was its high center of gravity. The tank frequently tipped over on its side, like a Matryoshka doll (a wooden stacking doll). But I am alive today thanks to this deficiency. We were fighting in Hungary in December 1944. I was leading the battalion and on a turn my driver-mechanic clipped a curb. My tank went over on its side. We were thrown around, of course, but we survived the experience. Meanwhile the other four of my tanks
went ahead and drove into an ambush. They were all destroyed.

- Dmitriy Fedorovich, the Sherman had a rubber-coated metal track. Some contemporary authors point to this as a deficiency, since in combat the rubber might be set on fire. With the track thus stripped bare, the tank is disabled. What can you say in this regard?

- On the one hand this rubber-coated track was a big plus. In the first place, this track had a service life approximately twice that of steel track. I might be mistaken, but I believe that the service life of the T-34 track was 2500 kilometers. The service life of the Sherman track was in excess of 5000 kilometers. Secondly, The Sherman drove like a car on hard surfaces, and our T-34 made so much noise that only the devil knows how many kilometers away it could be heard. What was the bad side of the Sherman track? In my book, Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks, there is a chapter entitled "Barefooted". There I wrote about an incident that occurred in August 1944 in Romania, during the Jassy-Kishinev Operation. The heat was fearsome, somewhere around 30° C. We had driven approximately 100 km along a highway in a single day. The rubber linings on our support rollers got so hot that the rubber separated and peeled off in long pieces. Our corps paused not far from Bucharest. The rubber was flying around, the rollers had begun to jam up, the noise was terrible, and in the end we had been stopped. This was immediately reported to Moscow. Was this some kind of joke, an entire corps had halted? To our surprise, they brought new support rollers to us quickly and we spent three days installing them. I still don't know where they found so many support rollers in such a short time. There was yet another minus of rubber track. Even on a slightly icy surface the tank slid around like a fat cow. When this happened we had to tie barbed wire around the track or make grousers out of chains or bolts, anything to give us traction. But this was with the first shipment of tanks. Having seen this, the American representative reported to his company and the next shipment of tanks was accompanied by additional track blocks with grousers and spikes.

If I recall, there were up to seven blocks for each track, for a total of fourteen per tank. We carried them in our parts bin. In general the American representative worked efficiently. Any deficiency that he observed and reported was quickly and effectively corrected.
One more shortcoming of the Sherman was the construction of the driver's hatch. The hatch on the first shipment of Shermans was located in the roof of the hull and simply opened upward. Frequently the driver-mechanic opened it and raised his head in order to see better. There were several occasions when during the rotation of the turret the main gun struck this hatch and knocked it into the driver's head. We had this happen once or twice in my own unit. Later the Americans corrected this deficiency. Now the hatch rose up and simply moved to the side, like on modern tanks.
Still one great plus of the Sherman was in the charging of its batteries. On our T-34 it was necessary to run the engine, all 500 horsepower of it, in order to charge batteries. In the crew compartment of the Sherman was an auxiliary gasoline engine, small like a motorcycle's one. Start it up and it charged the batteries. This was a big deal to us!
For a long time after the war I sought an answer to one question. If a T-34 started burning, we tried to get as far away from it as possible, even though this was forbidden. The on-board ammunition exploded. For a brief period of time, perhaps six weeks, I fought on a T-34 around Smolensk. The commander of one of our companies was hit in his tank. The crew jumped out of the tank but were unable to run away from it because the Germans were pinning them down with machine gun fire. They lay there in the wheat field as the tank burned and blew up. By evening, when the battle had waned, we went to them. I found the company commander lying on the ground with a large piece of armor sticking out of his head. When a Sherman burned, the main gun ammunition did not explode. Why was this?

Flammpanzer
03-12-2007, 10:57 AM
So what? The US could replace them. What actually happened most of the time was that the Shermans were up against unsupported German infantry. When compared to an infantry shirt, the Sherman is a very heavily armoured beast indeed.

very true. but dot underrate the widespread of the panzerfaust in all sort of infantry, so the crew inside the armored beast might not feel too safe and superior, especially in uncommon surroudings.

jens

ww2admin
03-12-2007, 11:36 AM
Not the best pic, but here's some Shermans getting shot at in the firing range;)

Panzerknacker
03-13-2007, 06:15 PM
Nice, some kind of bazooka shooting range. :)

Wolfgang Von Gottberg
03-13-2007, 07:02 PM
Does anyone know if the Sherman kicked some major *** in the Pacific? The Japanese didn't have very good tanks... LOL

Panzerknacker
03-13-2007, 07:16 PM
Sure they did, the Marines Shermans found little respectable oposition:

Check this:

http://www3.plala.or.jp/takihome/history.htm

http://www3.plala.or.jp/takihome/history2.htm


http://www3.plala.or.jp/takihome/95.JPG

Panzerknacker
03-18-2007, 07:24 PM
The differences in the cartrigde used by the 75mm (left) and 76 mm High velocity cannons, unfortunately this later gun came too late for severla Sherm,an crew who had to fought desperately against the Panther and other heavy german AFVs.


http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/7667/76mmkx5.jpg

Gutkowski
04-10-2007, 10:27 PM
Found a bunch of good info on the JUMBO
http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m4sherman.html#JUMBO

Panzerknacker
05-11-2007, 06:53 PM
That is something you dont see everyday unless you live in san Diego, Sherman rollin over a car.:rolleyes:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCg4xSq1ezE&NR=1

tankgeezer
05-11-2007, 07:31 PM
Very not bad! we love our Shermans here, and a good car squash is always a crowd pleaser. I guess the auto driver was feeling a little flat,,,,;)

Nickdfresh
05-12-2007, 10:15 AM
So what? The US could replace them.

Tell that to the crews, which were in chronic short supply by mid-1944. Many of whom began the War cleaning out the insides of knocked out Shermans at rear repair-depots.


What actually happened most of the time was that the Shermans were up against unsupported German infantry. When compared to an infantry shirt, the Sherman is a very heavily armoured beast indeed.

True enough. But they were vulnerable on their flat, slopeless sides to Panzerfaust ambushes in the Norman hedgerows. But certainly were very efficient against infantry.

I just wish the US and Britain had modernized most of their Shermans to the Fire Fly and "Easy-Eight" standard...

Panzerknacker
05-12-2007, 09:06 PM
Tell that to the crews, which were in chronic short supply by mid-1944. Many of whom began the War cleaning out the insides of knocked out Shermans at rear repair-depots.



Agreed completely.

Notable color footage of Shermans, the overtuned one seems to be blasted by a mine made with 50 kg jap aviation bomb.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-7JZIHsRN0

battleaxe
05-15-2007, 03:26 PM
a good looking tank

Panzerknacker
08-01-2007, 08:36 PM
Sherman TE31 mine clering tank performing his duty near the town of Beggendorf in the border of France-Germany winter 1944.

http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/1122/dibujomx3.jpg


The big sturdy steel rollers gave this vehicle the nickname "aunt Jemina" for reasons that are unknown to me.

Nickdfresh
08-01-2007, 08:44 PM
I assume because they resemble a stack of pancakes turned up on their sides...

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d76/steven_of_idp/auntjemima.jpg
The llady of breakfast: Aunt Jemima!

:D

Cheers:

Panzerknacker
08-01-2007, 08:56 PM
Oh...no chance to know that for an argentine guy with italian backgrounds :rolleyes:

Thanks nick.

Nickdfresh
08-01-2007, 09:27 PM
Oh...no chance to know that for an argentine guy with italian backgrounds :rolleyes:

Thanks nick.


LOL :D It's better than some of the other Sherman nicknames, such as "The Ronsan." :shock:

tankgeezer
08-01-2007, 10:45 PM
MMMMMM,,,,,,, Pancakes,,,,

Panzerknacker
08-02-2007, 08:39 PM
The "lulu" a mine clearing device adapted by the canadian and british tank formations.

http://i16.tinypic.com/637ev77.jpg


And the best in this task ,the british Sherman Crab.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Sherman_crab_flail_tank.jpg

tankgeezer
08-03-2007, 10:56 AM
Was there another version called the scorpion? I read something once about a flail tank named after the British scorpion flail, sometype of weapon I guessed.

Panzerknacker
08-04-2007, 08:00 PM
I olny found a anti mine tank with the name Scorpion, but is a british Matilda.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Matilda-Scorpion.jpg

pdf27
08-05-2007, 06:06 AM
LOL :D It's better than some of the other Sherman nicknames, such as "The Ronsan." :shock:
To be fair, that particular problem wasn't down to a design fault with the Sherman but to the way it was operated. The Allies were having supply difficulties with ammunition in Normandy, so the Sherman crews started carrying a lot of loose ammunition inside the tank. While the proper ammo storage had water jackets and the like to protect the charges and shells from blowing up, the loose ammo had no such protection and hence this would brew up very, very easily when hit. Once the breakout from Normandy occurred and supply improved enough that crews stopped doing this, the problem more or less went away.


True enough. But they were vulnerable on their flat, slopeless sides to Panzerfaust ambushes in the Norman hedgerows. But certainly were very efficient against infantry.
Name one other western (or indeed German for that matter) tank with sloping side armour. The only one I can think of is the Valentine, and that was hopelessly obselete by the time of Normandy.


Tell that to the crews, which were in chronic short supply by mid-1944. Many of whom began the War cleaning out the insides of knocked out Shermans at rear repair-depots.
Happily, on condition that you in turn tell the infantry that they're not allowed to have tank support for their attacks because you've radically cut down tank production to make life a bit safer for the tank crews. In terms of overall casualties, the Infantry will suffer 10 times worse casualties for lack of tank support than the tankers will suffer through having an inferior tank.
Remember that the performance limit on the Sherman was weight driven, and that in turn was driven by landing craft construction methods. The only way to get a tank heavier than a Sherman ashore is to use full on naval shipbuilding techniques in a proper shipyard. Shermans and smaller can use mass-produced in a factory type landing craft. I can't quote remember the numbers, but that difference is worth something like 1-2 years in getting Overlord launched as well as something like 10 times as many tanks getting ashore.

Panzerknacker
08-05-2007, 02:45 PM
Considering the penetration power of the Panzerfaust a sloped armor wouldnt made much difference.

pdf27
08-05-2007, 05:00 PM
Sorta-kinda. If you've got sloped armour then the rocket is more likely to simply glance off or maybe have the plasma jet not pointing straight into the tank. There's a benefit in protection terms, but you lose a lot of internal volume and hence the whole tank is significantly heavier for the same internal volume (internal volume is fixed by the crew, habitability and firepower requirements).
It's also worth noting that no modern tank I'm aware of has sloping side armour...

Panzerknacker
08-07-2007, 07:31 PM
The JS-2 used sloped armor in almost every corner...the panzefaut still get trough.

Interestingly a solution used wich had some effect was a solid layer of sandbags, since the sand steal a lot of the heat produced by the Panzerfaust hollow charge reducing penetration, however was useles agaist kinetic energy projectiles.

tankgeezer
08-07-2007, 08:52 PM
The JS-2 used sloped armor in almost every corner...the panzefaut still get trough.

Interestingly a solution used wich had some effect was a solid layer of sandbags, since the sand steal a lot of the heat produced by the Panzerfaust hollow charge reducing penetration, however was useles agaist kinetic energy projectiles. Agreed P.K. The speed of the shaped charge jet stream is too fast to be distorted by sloped armor. By the time the delivery vehicle (rocket body) can begin to bounce away, the stream has penetrated the armor, and done its mischief.the burn time for the charge is 20 or fewer milliseconds,and stream velocity was certainly over 20,000 fps,(modern stream velocities are 30-35,000 fps.) so velocity at impact, and angle of incidence, are irrellevant, it will make a hole.

pdf27
08-08-2007, 06:06 AM
Agreed P.K. The speed of the shaped charge jet stream is too fast to be distorted by sloped armor. By the time the delivery vehicle (rocket body) can begin to bounce away, the stream has penetrated the armor, and done its mischief.the burn time for the charge is 20 or fewer milliseconds,and stream velocity was certainly over 20,000 fps,(modern stream velocities are 30-35,000 fps.) so velocity at impact, and angle of incidence, are irrellevant, it will make a hole.
Sorry, you misunderstand me - I was referring to fusing issues. There is a chance (probably not a big one, but I don't know anything about Panzerfaust fuses) that sloped armour would cause the warhead to bounce a bit before firing the fuse. Hitting dead-on perpendicular is more likely to set the fuse off.

Nickdfresh
08-08-2007, 12:24 PM
To be fair, that particular problem wasn't down to a design fault with the Sherman but to the way it was operated. The Allies were having supply difficulties with ammunition in Normandy, so the Sherman crews started carrying a lot of loose ammunition inside the tank. While the proper ammo storage had water jackets and the like to protect the charges and shells from blowing up, the loose ammo had no such protection and hence this would brew up very, very easily when hit. Once the breakout from Normandy occurred and supply improved enough that crews stopped doing this, the problem more or less went away.

I know. But the namesake stuck. Of course the gasoline engine didn't help though. But then again, the Panther also ran on petrol, so it's hard to fault US planners for that, even though a diesel version of the Sherman was available. Whether the engine was too difficult or expensive to produce in numbers, I do not know...


Name one other western (or indeed German for that matter) tank with sloping side armour. The only one I can think of is the Valentine, and that was hopelessly obselete by the time of Normandy.

No allied tanks, although indeed the Pershing had a very low hull profile as did the Centurion. But of course, the Centurion never saw combat and the M-26 was only used in small numbers at the tale-end...

And no Panzers had sloping armor, but the Jagdpanzer did:
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/4635/tanks/pz4/jagdpanzer4_vomag.jpg

And the Panther had some sloping armor, though not all-the-way around.

But one thing German tanks did have was modifications such as track skirts and applique armor which could somewhat negate the first shot of a 2.36" Bazooka round...


Happily, on condition that you in turn tell the infantry that they're not allowed to have tank support for their attacks because you've radically cut down tank production to make life a bit safer for the tank crews. In terms of overall casualties, the Infantry will suffer 10 times worse casualties for lack of tank support than the tankers will suffer through having an inferior tank.

I don't agree with that at all, mate. The real problem here was in the US strategic planning in the use of armor, and some fundamental mischaracterizations of the use of tanks in The Battles for Poland and France.

One of the central problems was the core belief that tanks would not fight other tanks, and the Sherman was designed to destroy infantry and battlefield fortifications while rapidly maneuvering as tanks destroyer battalions of both men and machines would take care of the offensive threat posed by the panzers. Not everyone in America felt this way however.

There were essentially three convergent planning factions regarding the use of armor by US, and by default, Allied nations. The US Army's Ordinance Dept., the Armored Forces Board, and Army Ground Forces Command. The OD wanted to mount a heavier 90mm gun in the Sherman, while the AFB wanted to produce a limited number of M-26 Pershings (about 500 or so) as sort of a complement not unlike how the British Army fielded numbers of 17-pounder "Firefly" Shermans to augment the relatively weak 75mm gunned M-4s...

The criminal here (for lack of a better word) was Ground Forces Command, that essentially refused to up-gun Shermans or deploy heavier tanks because they mistakenly believed that tank killers units and AFVs such as the M-10 would be sufficient to do the job. They weren't. GFC even went to the extent of forbidding any modifications of the M-4, cannon wise, brilliantly reasoning that tankers with heavier, high velocity guns, would neglect their primary missions of fire and maneuver and merely seek duels with panzers.:rolleyes:



Remember that the performance limit on the Sherman was weight driven, and that in turn was driven by landing craft construction methods. The only way to get a tank heavier than a Sherman ashore is to use full on naval shipbuilding techniques in a proper shipyard. Shermans and smaller can use mass-produced in a factory type landing craft. I can't quote remember the numbers, but that difference is worth something like 1-2 years in getting Overlord launched as well as something like 10 times as many tanks getting ashore.

Sorry man. But it was flawed doctrine, not production, that was the problem here. The industrial capacity of the US would permit quick upgrades of the Sherman to reduce losses. But few were undertaken until the flaws in that doctrine were realized. I really don't think it was too much to ask that at least 50% of the versions of the Shermans deployed by D-Day be either the "Easy-Eight" or Firefly models. I also believe the US Army could have deployed a few hundred Pershings to the ETO had they really wanted too without great difficulty. While I realize there were space and weight limitations on sea transport, and at least a number of 75mm Shermans were desirable since this was more than adequate to provide fire support to infantry, I highly doubt production or timetables were the problem. Getting them across the Atlantic or the channel, maybe. But the number of Shermans produced was in far excess of what was actually deployed or needed...

Nickdfresh
08-08-2007, 12:28 PM
Considering the penetration power of the Panzerfaust a sloped armor wouldnt made much difference.


I agree. Most were probably fired point-blank by German SS and Wehrmacht concealed in the hedgerows...

In any case, they could have fired them into the rear engine compartments or simply knocked the tracks off...


The JS-2 used sloped armor in almost every corner...the panzefaut still get trough.

Interestingly a solution used wich had some effect was a solid layer of sandbags, since the sand steal a lot of the heat produced by the Panzerfaust hollow charge reducing penetration, however was useles agaist kinetic energy projectiles.

Correct. Allied tankers also used logs or field modifications of add-on metal plates. And of course, track skirts or applique armor, the kind the Germans mounted on their numerous upgrades of the MKIV panzer, may also have minimized the damage...

The problem was ultimately solved by the combination of using hedgehoppers (forks mounted ad hoc on the front of Shermans), bulldozer variants of the Sherman, and the creative use newer tactics and explosives to circumvent planned German positions and defenses...

tankgeezer
08-08-2007, 01:25 PM
Sorry, you misunderstand me - I was referring to fusing issues. There is a chance (probably not a big one, but I don't know anything about Panzerfaust fuses) that sloped armour would cause the warhead to bounce a bit before firing the fuse. Hitting dead-on perpendicular is more likely to set the fuse off. I get what you are saying, and on the surface, it may seem probable to have that happen, but Shaped charge warheads are all base fuzed, the initiator is in the tip, usually some sort of piezo device,but firing trains of various sorts could have been used. which would then trigger the base fuse, starting the formation of the stream.The explosive filler must begin burning from the base to properly form the shockwave in the filling, and create the stream. This process happens within a few thousandths of a second, not long enough to allow for any real deflection of the warhead.The entire process taking less than 20 thousandths of a second to finish the job.
Its all just too quick. Even in cases of extremes of impact angles, the failure to function rate would be insignificant.Initiator function is designed to work at any attitude, as long as the initiator strikes the target. As to what damage it will do, that depends upon what part of the vehicle is before the stream when it forms.

Panzerknacker
08-08-2007, 07:37 PM
Sorry, you misunderstand me - I was referring to fusing issues. There is a chance (probably not a big one, but I don't know anything about Panzerfaust fuses)


it was a normal base fuse as the standar hollw charge proyectiles, it is possible that the grenade could bounce but not likely, the Panzerfaust projectile is slow so his fly path is a parabole, and if well aimed the grenade should hit the armor in a descendat trajectory...thus eliminating the effect of a sloped plate.



Correct. Allied tankers also used logs or field modifications of add-on metal plates. And of course, track skirts or applique armor, the kind the Germans mounted on their numerous upgrades of the MKIV panzer, may also have minimized the damage...


And sandbags, a lot of sandbags, note this M4 Easy Eight in France, 1945.

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/77/shermandw8.jpg

Nickdfresh
08-08-2007, 08:50 PM
Nah. That's just camoflauge, so the Germans thought it was a roving bunker.;)

Panzerknacker
08-08-2007, 09:11 PM
The sand was very fashionable in those days, this is a 76mm Sherman from the 25 Battalion, 14 armored div.

http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/6849/sherman001jx1.jpg

Nickdfresh
08-08-2007, 10:21 PM
The sand was very fashionable in those days, this is a 76mm Sherman from the 25 Battalion, 14 armored div.

http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/6849/sherman001jx1.jpg

Notice the cage bars on the side, for detonating a Panzerfaust warhead before it hits the armor...

tankgeezer
08-08-2007, 10:33 PM
Sloped armor was intended to defeat kinetic A.P. by deflection. If it did begin to penetrate the plate, the round would tip into the the plane of the armor. The axis of the projo would rotate to a more perpendicular attitude. while this is a function of the mechanism of penetration, it also loads huge amounts of lateral stresses onto the projo, the hope being to cause it to fracture, and break up, defeating it. This is the concept in use with the modern multi layered armor used by Nato forces. (in the case of kinetic rounds) Shaped charge is another story.

Tham
08-11-2007, 03:55 PM
I've always been puzzled about "shells bouncing off the armor of the Tiger or Panther" thing.

Wouldn't say, even the basic 75 mm gun of the earlier Shermans, which could penetrate some 76 mm 30-degree sloped armour at 500 yards, have been able to BORE at least halfway (and cause quite a bit of damage) into the German tanks' frontal armor, rather than simply "bouncing off" ?

Frankly, I don't think the German tanks were really that much more heavily armored than the Shermans, with some 5 to 6 inches frontal, despite being angled, and the Tiger's front wasn't even sloped, so I am quite puzzled about their famed "invincibility".

The Sherman, while having 2 1/2 inches of frontal hull armor, had a relatively good slope of about 45 degrees.

tankgeezer
08-11-2007, 06:17 PM
I've always been puzzled about "shells bouncing off the armor of the Tiger or Panther" thing.

Wouldn't say, even the basic 75 mm gun of the earlier Shermans, which could penetrate some 76 mm 30-degree sloped armour at 500 yards, have been able to BORE at least halfway (and cause quite a bit of damage) into the German tanks' frontal armor, rather than simply "bouncing off" ?

Frankly, I don't think the German tanks were really that much more heavily armored than the Shermans, with some 5 to 6 inches frontal, despite being angled, and the Tiger's front wasn't even sloped, so I am quite puzzled about their famed "invincibility".

The Sherman, while having 2 1/2 inches of frontal hull armor, had a relatively good slope of about 45 degrees.Its a matter of physics, A projectile, whether Ap shot, or shell, is several times longer than its diameter.As it impacts the target plate, the point, (ogive) rapidly decelerates as it pushes into, and begins to force the armor plate to flow around it. The rest of the projectile, is still moving, compressing the body of the projectile towards the point. If the point for whatever reason cannot move through the plate quickly enough, the moving mass of the unencumbered part of the projo will begin to tumble, and spin the projo off in some other direction,or the combination of compressive, and lateral stresses will become too great, and the projo will break up losing all of its energy. in the case of an AP shell, the fuze delay may initiate the filling too early, or at least before the projo passes through the plate, destroying the projo. lastly, if the armor just stops the incoming round, it will bounce back (equal and opposite reaction) away from the target, leaving what dent it may, and nothing more.
sloped armor can help defeat kinetic AP. but in the real world of a tank to tank fight, the relative angles of flight trajectory, and vehicle attitudes on uneven ground surfaces, may negate the benefits of sloped armor as much as support it. Hot rolled face hardened welded armor is much tougher than cast armor (similar thickness) of the same period. The advent of shaped charge warheads made all of the forgoing a mute point. There is more to it than this, but I'm typing on the fly.

Carl Schwamberger
08-14-2007, 02:02 AM
sloped armor can help defeat kinetic AP. but in the real world of a tank to tank fight, the relative angles of flight trajectory, and vehicle attitudes on uneven ground surfaces, may negate the benefits of sloped armor as much as support it.

A couple decades ago a accquaintance did a analysis of possible angles of forntal armor and turret gun mantel or turret face. He set paremeters for likely vertical angles or pitch from the ground surface and for horizontal angle or yaw from the axis of a attackers gun barrel. After running several thousand examples though the program he observed that the larger percent of the time the angle increased vs decreased. I never got a look at his numbers but got a description from him and another who used the analysis for a miniatures game of tank on tank combat. They told me he tried several different ranges for possible difference in horizontal angle and found that the average angle increased significantly, unless the probability of a strict headon aspect was especially high.

Panzerknacker
08-31-2007, 08:09 PM
3 images of a Sherman tank commander bailing out wounded of his vehicle after being hit by a 75mm round from a panther in the city of Köln (Cologne) 6th march 1945.

http://img393.imageshack.us/img393/9454/shermanot7.jpg

http://i5.tinypic.com/4kwlgcp.jpg


http://i17.tinypic.com/61nkle8.jpg

Nickdfresh
08-31-2007, 09:48 PM
3 images of a Sherman tank commander bailing out wounded of his vehicle after being hit by a 75mm round from a panther in the city of Köln (Cologne) 6th march 1945.

http://img393.imageshack.us/img393/9454/shermanot7.jpg

http://i5.tinypic.com/4kwlgcp.jpg


http://i17.tinypic.com/61nkle8.jpg


That's from the film "High Noon in Cologne." The tanker's leg was severed and he bled to death...

The Panther was stalked, then destroyed by three consecutive hits from an M-26 Pershing's 90mm gun. It burned for three days...

I think George posted the YouTube video of the sequence in the Pershing thread...

tankgeezer
09-01-2007, 02:36 AM
I was in Koln in '74, and even with the passing of so many years, the feel of the war years is still there. Kinda creepy....

Panzerknacker
09-01-2007, 10:24 AM
You are correct Nick.

This is the clip.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqH_WEqNK5Y

Nickdfresh
09-01-2007, 11:15 AM
BTW, this info is from the History Channel's episode of an old series called "Suicide Missions" (later renamed "Dangerous Missions" to be politically correct and less dramatic) on the crews of a Sherman tank featuring in depth interviews with the servicemen that manned the tank. It's a worthy view if one ever gets the chance. I believe you can also purchase it from their site. Unfortunately, the HC tends to run the military stuff less and less. I used to really enjoy "Military Blunders" more than anything...

Cheers.

Panzerknacker
09-06-2007, 07:55 PM
An interesting attemp of U.S "zimmerit" , this M4A2 "Comet" of the 4th tank batallion U.S.M.C is plastered with cement and wooden plancs in his sides in order to prevent the attachment of japanese magnetic mines.

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/500/cometth3.jpg

The date of the picture in april 1945 in Iwo Jima.

del
09-30-2007, 09:47 AM
Hi All.
Having a little trouble tracking down info on the sherman, M4A3E8(76)W
"Easy Eight . In Normandy.Any info would be great.

Cheer,s

Panzerknacker
09-30-2007, 05:30 PM
There is Sherman topic in the america military Europe section, there you will find more.

del
10-01-2007, 05:18 AM
Thanks for the info .
Definitley worth reading.
cheer,s

del
10-02-2007, 03:46 AM
The M4 was a rush job, and designed by committee. The entire US tank development budget in 1939 was $85K. Utterly inadequate funding drove all the really creative people out of the War department. Then Hitler invaded Poland. Suddenly America needed tanks and needed them in a big hurry.

Needing a tank now the US rushed to build the M3 Grant. The Grant design centered on the M2 75mm cannon, a good weapon in the first few years of the war. Unfortunately, there was no time to design a turret for that weapon, so the M3 carried a casemated 75mm with limited traverse, and the 37mm turret off the M3 Stuart light tank. Despite its high silhouette and riveted construction, the M3 proved mechanically reliable and the 75mm was appreciated by Britsh tankers. But combat quickly exposed the flaws in the rushed design. The M3's silhouette was even higher than the M4, and its riveted construction was vulnerable to spalling after a hit. But it bought time for the M4's designers, and perfected the drivetrain. The design board worked with no information on any tank more advanced than the PzkW III or the early PzkW IV, armed with a short barrelled 75mm. The board assumed those vehicles would be the threat, and against them the M4 enjoyed the advantage, despite its high silhouette. The problem was that the Germans put most of their armor, including the newest Panther and Tiger tanks, into the Western Front. Worse, the more common PzKw IV proved easy to upgun.

As designed the Sherman had a crew of five, commander, gunner, loader, driver and assistant driver. This is considered a good tank crew for maintenance reasons, but was rarely achieved in combat due to casualties. The tank boasted 2 1/2 inches of armor plate on a front glacis plate inclined at 45 degrees, with 1 1/2 to 2 inches on the hull sides. Turret armor was 3-4 inches in the front, 2 on the sides, and there was a 5" mantlet surrounding the main gun. Armament for the M4 model was one short-barreled 75mm M2 cannon with a muzzle velocity of 2,050 feet per second. Later the M2 was replaced with the M3 75mm, a similar weapon. The original gun choice came out of a fight between the infantry and artillery, who felt the tank gun should have the same barrel life as an artillery weapon. That requirement mandated the selection of the low powered, short-barrelled M2, a fine peacetime weapon. US doctine at the time stated that tanks were for exploiting breakthroughs, not for fighting other tanks.That was the job of the US Tank Destroyer Force, and the US produced a number of capable vehicles in that role. Doctrine ignored that tanks are designed to fight on the front lines, while artillery pieces rarely see direct combat. When tank met tank, the M2 proved no match for the long guns installed in the Panther, Tiger, or later versions of the PzKw IV.

The M4 weighed 37 1/2 tons, and carried over the heli-coil suspension from the M3 Grant tanks. It was powered by a Continental R975C1 radial engine of 400 hp, with the transmission and final drive similar to the old M3 The continental radial was originally designed for aircraft and gave the tank a power to weight ratio of about 10 hp per ton, good for the time. The wide engine was installed at about a 45 degree angle. The driveshaft was angled and ran beneath the turret, forcing an elevated fighting compartment. The angled driveshaft gave the tank its characteristic high silhouette.

In early 1944 Shermans began to be adapted for a 76mm gun with a muzzle velocity of 2,650 fps, in a new, much-improved turret. The 76 was an enormous improvement, and gave the tank a fairer chance against is German opponents. However, HVAP armor piercing ammunition remained scarce throughut the war, and was reserved for tank destroyer use. Even with HVAP the gun did not quite equal the German KwK75L48 on the Panther. The 76mm gun was retrofitted to the M4A1 and M4A3. The M4A3 substituted a 500HP Ford GAA V-8, which was lower, more powerful and less finicky than the Continental radial. Wet ammunition storage was introduced, which greatly reduced vulnerability to catastrophic ammunition fires after a hit. The GAA would have allowed the tank to reduce its very high profile, but the hull was not changed in order to avoid interrupting production. The GAA became the engine of choice, and the A3 was the most common variant to see action in World War II. The M4A3E8 represented the final evolution of the Sherman. The 'Easy Eight' replaced the hard riding verticle volute suspension with a horizontal volute suspension system (HVSS) and added 23" tracks, greatly enhancing mobility. It came with the T23 turret and the 76mm gun. The 'Easy Eight' was retained after the war, and saw frontline duty in Korea.

The M4A2 used two GM 6-71 diesel engines. It fought for Russia because the US Army preferred gas engines in order to simply fuel logistics. The M4A4 used a Chrysler A57 Multibank engine. The motor was cobbled together by linking five 6 cylinder auto engines. Five water pumps cooled the original versions. They were powerful enough, and proved reasonably reliable but very complex and thus required a lot of maintenance. A4's mostly went to British Service, and the Brits added one of their 17 pounder guns to the tank, creating the Sherman Firefly, which was capable of killing Panthers and Tigers at long range.

In combat the Sherman proved to be inadequately armored, readily killed at long range by German Panther and Tiger tanks. This led to a specialized 'jumbo' Sherman which was used for assaults at the cost of speed and higher ground pressure. Panzerfausts penetrated the standard tank easily, as did the famed German 88. The Sherman's gunpower was also inadequate, meaning it could only kill Panthers or Tigers with side or rear hits, where the armor was thinner. Except for the 'Easy Eight' Shermans lacked cross-country maneuverability relative to the later German tanks, whose wide tracks had been designed with experienced gained on the Russian Front. In short, the Sherman often fared poorly against German armor. But Western tanks outnumbered their German opponents by more than 20 to 1 before the Battle of the Bulge.

The M4 was not without its virtues. It was quite reliable, provided you had spare spark plugs, which the Continental radial was notorious for fouling. The rubber track system had extraordinarily long life, and on the road it was very fast and fuel efficient. Which meant that while it was a poor weapon for creating a breakthrough, it was a fine weapon for exploiting one. The later M26 Pershing had a high velocity 90mm gun, lower profile, lots more armor, lower silhouette and lower ground pressure. In other words, it was a superior combat weapon in every way, quite capable of taking on a Tiger. To be fair, the M26 was only available on film at the time of choosing our D-Day tank. However, British experience in North Africa had already shown the Sherman's flaws. Factories began welding on additional armor in 1943, long before the Normandy invasion.

The M4 also enjoyed two other advantage over all German tanks, a gyroscopic mount for its main gun and a powered turret. That mount allowed the tank to shoot accurately on the move. Unfortunately, lack of confidence in the system made shooting on the run a rare thing during the war. If more tankers had chosen to shoot on the run, the Sherman's combat record might have been better. But the powered turret meant they got the first shot off more often than not.

The Sherman chassis served as the basis for many armored vehicles. It was the basis for the M10 and M36 Tank Destroyers armed with the 76mm or the much more powerful 90mm gurn. and several self propelled artillery pieces. The most famous was the M7 Priest self-propelled 105mm howitzer, a popular and long-serving weapon. The British 17-pounder equipped Shermans were effective, but the long gun was distinctive and German gunners soon learned to shoot at the Fireflies first. The M4A3E8 with the Ford GAA engine, the horizontal volute suspension system (HVSS), wide tracks and 76mm gun was the main version retained for US service after the war, It offered a fine ride and cross country mobility comparable to the best German tanks. The version was later shipped to Israel. The Israelis upgunned the tank to 105mm, and it served with distinction in the Six Day War.

Modified Shermans continued to serve into the 1960's and early 1970s. Today they are often found on display in front of armories and veterans organizations, usually with the 75mm gun.



To be correct German tanks like the PzKw IV had powered turrets earlier in the war, but they were deleted from later models to simplify production, and increase fuel capacity. The gyroscopic mount was unique, but there is little evidence that Sherman gunners trusted their capability to shoot on the move.

Panzerknacker
10-02-2007, 06:28 PM
To be correct German tanks like the PzKw IV had powered turrets earlier in the war, but they were deleted from later models to simplify production, and increase fuel capacity. The gyroscopic mount was unique, but there is little evidence that Sherman gunners trusted their capability to shoot on the move.

Yea, the gyro stabilization was very advertised by the Sherman manufacturers... but who used it in combat ?

The info I ve found is very scarce about this subject.

Carl Schwamberger
10-04-2007, 09:23 PM
Yea, the gyro stabilization was very advertised by the Sherman manufacturers... but who used it in combat ?

The info I ve found is very scarce about this subject.

It strictly depended on the battalion/company leaders. In the few battalions where the tank gunners were required to paractice suffciently at target shooting the gyro proved usefull. Those seem to be in the minority. Combat experince taught many battalions the values of extra drill and the number of extra proficient units rose in 1945.

Most of the tank units that came to Europe in 1944 had zero combat experince. Most assumed that since they had completed the unit training syllabus and scored well on the gunnery training program they were combat ready. The veterans of the Armored Divsion that fought in Tunisia and Sicilly, or a couple of the British Armored Divsions could have told them otherwise.

redcoat
10-05-2007, 09:13 PM
Just as an aside.

It should be noted that technically the name 'Sherman' should only be used for M4 series tanks in British service, as this is the name given to the M4 tank by the British, but it has never been officially adopted by the US Army.

Nickdfresh
10-06-2007, 12:42 PM
I agree that the Sherman was "not a bad tank." It was in fact a very good tank that with modifications and upgrades, was on par with the real "backbone" of the German armored corp, the Panzer MkIII/IVs (whose initial versions were also dated, but had received newer guns and armor add-ons, engine upgrades, suspension, etc. - unlike the original M-4 Sherman). In addition to the British Firefly, the US also produced better Sherman tanks called the M-4A1E8 "Easy-Eight."

And you're wrong that the Western Allies didn't produce tanks that were on par with the Panther or Tiger. The M-26 Pershing (http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3398) could have been every bit as effective...

OLD RSM
11-22-2007, 05:07 PM
Hi Guy's
M4A2 E8 Sherman in Canadian Service
Royal Canadian Legion – Charleswood Branch No. 100
The Sherman Tank Memorial
History of the Tank
This tank, Model M4A2 76mm (W) HVSS serial number 69139 was built by the Fisher Tank
Division, of General Motors, Detroit Michigan, in April of 1945.
One of 2915 of this particular model built between May 1944 and May 1945, it was intended for
delivery to Russia under the Lend-Lease program, but the shipment was cancelled at the end of
the European war in May of 1945. This is one of the last models of Sherman tank built. A total of
49,243 of all versions were built from 1942-1945.
The Canadian Army had used earlier versions of the Sherman than in Italy and North-West
Europe from 1943, but all these tanks were disposed of in Europe at the end of the war.
In 1946, to equip the post-war Canadian Army, 300 M4A2 Shermans were purchased from the
USA at a cost of $1,460 each. They served with the Regular force until the adoption of the
Centurion tank in 1958 and Militia unit the last ones were retired in 1970. A number of them
became range targets and several become monuments such as this one. A few have been restored
to running condition in private ownership.
The nomenclature of the tank decodes as follows:
M4 – Model Number, A2 – Diesel Engines, 76mm – calibre of main gun,
(W) – Pressurized wet stowage of ammunition, HVSS – Horizontal Volute Spring Suspension.
The Fort Garry Horse Museum and Archives – June 2003 www.fortgarryhorse.ca
Markings
The vehicle carries the marking of The Fort Garry Horse (Militia) for the period 1946-1959.
Arm of Service Sign The left front and left rear carry the arm of service sign of the Royal
Canadian Armoured Corps. A square with read and yellow halves, divided diagonally. Above, a
2-inch white bar carries the unit’s abbreviated name “FGH (M)”
Formation Sign The right front and right rear carry the Prairie Command shield. Prairie
Command was the organization responsible for Saskatchewan, Manitoba and NW Ontario. After
1959, Prairie Command was absorbed by Western Command, and the Green Western Command
flash was carried until 1968 and the unification of the Canadian Forces.
Unit Name. In the mid-1950’s the unit name in the form “FORT GARRY HORSE (M)” was
added to the sides of the vehicles located in Winnipeg for recruiting purposes.
Turret Markings. A yellow triangle on the turret indicated “A” Squadron of the regiment. A
square was used to indicate B Squadron, a Circle for C Squadron, and a Diamond for D
Squadron.
Paint
Overall Semi-Gloss Olive Drab, Federal Standard number 24087. Manufactured by Gillespie
coatings, Texas. Available in Canada through Willys Acres RR#2 3224 Conc 7. Oro Station ON,
L0L 2E0 (705) 835-5739
It takes two gallons to paint the entire vehicle with a professional spray gun and compressor.
Thin the paint with Synthetic Enamel reducer, ratio Paint: Reducer 2:1
Rubber road wheels and support rollers – Tremclad Flat Black, painted by brush.
Grease points on wheels – highlighted in red.
Markings. Gloss Red, Yellow and White Tremclad spray paint.
Re-painting – 2003
The tank was repainted in June 2003 by volunteers Gord Crossley, RSM of The Fort Garry
Horse, and Don Trueman and Doug Young of Prairie Command Military Vehicles Collectors
Club.
Tasks performed.
1. Manufacture and install covers for periscope and vision block openings (10)
2. Remove surface rust and apply rust-proofing
3. Paint and apply markings
4. Clean memorial plaque

OLD RSM
11-22-2007, 08:30 PM
Hi Guy's
This is 1 of 2 M4A2E8 on pads a third one is running in Winnipeg

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r289/OLDRSM/cdn-m4a2.jpg
Cheers

kallinikosdrama1992
11-24-2007, 07:42 AM
it seems to me more like an m10 destroyer . I dont mean that you are wrong , i just say this variant has many similarities with the m10 . I am talking about the view of the tank

tankgeezer
11-24-2007, 06:25 PM
it seems to me more like an m10 destroyer . I dont mean that you are wrong , i just say this variant has many similarities with the m10 . I am talking about the view of the tank

That is an M-4, flat hull sides, fairly flat turret sides, closed top turret. The M-10 has sloped side armor, and an open turret. pictured below.

tankgeezer
11-24-2007, 06:31 PM
Hi Guy's
This is 1 of 2 M4A2E8 on pads a third one is running in Winnipeg

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r289/OLDRSM/cdn-m4a2.jpg
Cheers
thanks for posting that A2, I've read about them, but never seen one . Good pic.

Nickdfresh
11-24-2007, 06:37 PM
it seems to me more like an m10 destroyer . I dont mean that you are wrong , i just say this variant has many similarities with the m10 . I am talking about the view of the tank

I think you're confused because the M-4A1/2E8 "Easy Eight" has a more angular hull that the M-4...

kallinikosdrama1992
11-25-2007, 08:57 AM
yeah . i think you are right . from the pictures i've saw it is more angular to the turret and also in the back side of the armor

Nickdfresh
02-19-2008, 10:48 AM
Good overall article on the M-4 Sherman: www.2ndinfdiv.com/component/option,com_kb/page,articles/articleid,3/

gumalangi
02-28-2008, 01:59 AM
Man,. this tank is something,. it event served well years long after WW2,.

HAWKEYE
04-12-2008, 06:31 PM
Needing a tank now the US rushed to build the M3 Grant. The Grant design centered on the M2 75mm cannon, a good weapon in the first few years of the war. Unfortunately, there was no time to design a turret for that weapon, so the M3 carried a casemated 75mm with limited traverse, and the 37mm turret off the M3 Stuart light tank. Despite its high silhouette and riveted construction, the M3 proved mechanically reliable and the 75mm was appreciated by Britsh tankers.

I'm wondering if you wrote this or are you quoting a source? Since the naming of the vehicles was a distinctly British thing you should know that the M3 was first called the "Lee" and when it was up graded with a roomier cast turret that variant was named the "Grant" as far as I know the Grant version was only used by the British. Neither the Lee nor the Grant had a turret from the M3 "Stuart".

Lee on the right Grant on the left
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/M3-Lee-latrun-2.jpg

M3A1 Stuart, note the turret:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/M3-Stuart-Fort-Knox-1.jpg

The one thing about the M4 brewing up was that we used 100 octane aviation gas in our tanks where the Germans did not. This tended to fire up quicker than the poorly refined fuel they were using. The Germans would also keep shooting a tank until it burned so that it could not be put back into service (note most photos show multiple hits, why if it burned from the first one?). A burned tank's armor was compromised by the intense heat, unburned tanks could be back in sevice in two or three days depending on how long it took to get it back to a service depot.

As the Russian report stated, the M4's ammo did not explode during a fire like the T-34 's did. This must mean that the newer wet storage methods were working.

Churchill
04-12-2008, 07:26 PM
I like how on the first picture, there are blocks in front of the track. I don't think those blocks would put up much of a fight if the tank started to move.

HAWKEYE
04-28-2008, 12:37 PM
They would if it was just rolling down a grade but not if it was under power.

Churchill
04-28-2008, 04:30 PM
That's true, which is why I never said they couldn't, but would only be hard pressed.

Anyway, how would the design of the turret affect the tank's preformance? If the gun fits in one, why use time you could be using to build the first one to build the other one?

HAWKEYE
04-28-2008, 04:47 PM
The British wanted to move the radio gear up into the overhanging turret and eliminate the 7th crewman. It also, though just barely, lowered the tank's silouette.

Churchill
04-28-2008, 04:53 PM
That thing had 7 people in it? Wow... that must have been cramped.

HAWKEYE
04-28-2008, 06:07 PM
Check out the M3 Lee thread there's 3 pages of info on them.

7 guys
http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/3341/leeoy0.jpg

Churchill
04-29-2008, 04:10 PM
Sweet, nice caption too.

herman2
04-30-2008, 01:21 PM
The Americans did have a better tank than the Sherman. It was called the A-67 prototype. Due to its high costs the prototype was not mass produced and the Sherman had already been canvassed as the best tank by political lobby groups that had an economic interest in its production. There were fewer than 200 A-67's built but there appearance in the battle against Rommel proved them to be much superior than the Sherman. As far as I know, it was cheaper to build the Sherman because it wasn't known that there was a better tank at the time. Refer to recent released declassified articles on U.S. tank prototypes:2007 Military files.

Nickdfresh
04-30-2008, 06:11 PM
The Americans did have a better tank than the Sherman. It was called the A-67 prototype. Due to its high costs the prototype was not mass produced and the Sherman had already been canvassed as the best tank by political lobby groups that had an economic interest in its production. There were fewer than 200 A-67's built but there appearance in the battle against Rommel proved them to be much superior than the Sherman. As far as I know, it was cheaper to build the Sherman because it wasn't known that there was a better tank at the time. Refer to recent released declassified articles on U.S. tank prototypes:2007 Military files.


Hi Herman, welcome.

On topic, was the A-67 in any way related to the M-27 tank? The M-27 was the genesis of the T-20/23 projects which ultimately paved the way for the Pershing/Patton series of tanks (but the M-27 was rejected by Army Ground Forces Command, for no real good reason)...

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6197

Nickdfresh
10-03-2008, 09:25 AM
Bump!

ww11freak34
10-06-2008, 09:15 PM
the gun was waek and the armor was ok

Churchill
10-06-2008, 10:24 PM
It was very mobile, and easily produced tank. It wasn't meant to take on the heavier tanks(Tiger and King Tiger), it was more of an infantry support tank.It could also be easily modified into other forms, ex.: Crab, Crocodile, etc.

ww11freak34
10-12-2008, 02:55 PM
it was fast,had ok armor, and great agility, an ok gun as well

Nickdfresh
10-12-2008, 04:30 PM
It was very mobile, and easily produced tank. It wasn't meant to take on the heavier tanks(Tiger and King Tiger), it was more of an infantry support tank.It could also be easily modified into other forms, ex.: Crab, Crocodile, etc.


It was also highly upgradable, into variants such as the "Firefly" or "Easy-Eight" with the 76mm gun. Provided it had tungsten ammo, and applique armor, the tank was pretty much a dead wash with the Soviet T-34...

The great weakness of the tank, the fact that it was never improved until after Normandy was a mitigatable fault...

http://images4.fotki.com/v50/photos/1/133612/552463/m4_a3_76_04-vi.jpg

A site with a lot of very nice pictures of pretty Shermans:

http://anonymous-generaltopics.blogspot.com/2008/05/m4-sherman-medium-tank.html

Chevan
10-15-2008, 03:21 AM
Sherman was actual counterpart of T-34. The medium mass-prodused tank.
Having the better electrical equipment but bit thin armor and speed ,Sherman did has an soft carriage.
BTW it was still effective agains Tigers.
I read a story of soviet panzer vet who told as group of lend-lise Shermans were hunting for german Tiger in ambush.
The group of 2-3 Shermans wait the moving Tiger. First Sherman open fire under bottom of Tiger, targeting the track. If track was broken( if not the first Sherman retreats, rest Shermans start to fire on Tiger , covering first) the Tiger stops and turn the turret searching the first Sherman that fired.First Sherman move back , hiding in ambush.In that same time other Shermans open fire , targeting side of Tiger where the armor was weaker.
This tactic helped to destroy the figure of Tigers in the East.
It was risky tactic but our boys always were desperate , you know.:)
The other way of fight with Heavy germans panzers was to shot the Fire-Ammo down under bottom the Tiger, set it on fire.

ww11freak34
10-15-2008, 09:03 AM
i found this picture of a sherman in iraq isnt that wierd

Churchill
10-15-2008, 04:17 PM
It's probably an Israeli Super Sherman. I wonder why the truck has the Polish flag though.

pdf27
10-15-2008, 04:28 PM
Probably because it is Polish? The Poles were among about 3 countries to provide troops for the original invasion of Iraq, and have been there intermittently since.

Chevan
10-16-2008, 12:34 AM
Polish Sherman?
hahha ha:)
Poles did have enough modernized T-72 since 1990, not to use ww2 raritet.

pdf27
10-16-2008, 02:28 AM
Look at the photo - it's a Sherman on a Polish Lorry (a Mercedes one at that), rather than a Polish Sherman. Although I suppose it might be a Polish Sherman now :D.

Chevan
10-16-2008, 08:50 AM
Look at the photo - it's a Sherman on a Polish Lorry (a Mercedes one at that), rather than a Polish Sherman. Although I suppose it might be a Polish Sherman now :D.
Well may be this is Polish ...now.
Is this a resault the program of re-arming the Polish Army according to NATO standards:)
The "newest" NATO's wearpon , that makes be so proud now:);)

Nickdfresh
10-16-2008, 09:37 AM
Well may be this is Polish ...now.
Is this a resault the program of re-arming the Polish Army according to NATO standards:)
The "newest" NATO's wearpon , that makes be so proud now:);)

:lol:

More seriously, I thought the Poles made a nice variant of the T-72/80 MBT...

aly j
10-16-2008, 11:45 AM
The Sherman Tank was a crap enginerring design. In my own opinion that is, The only reason
that they turn the war around is that the Sherman tanks just reproduced like rabbits.
The Tiger Tank just couldet keep up.Pretty smart thinking from the Americans.

Chevan
10-16-2008, 01:09 PM
....... Although I suppose it might be a Polish Sherman now :D.

....or do you mean Poles have stealed that Sherman:)?
Their habits are still actual in Iraq:D:mrgreen:

Chevan
10-16-2008, 01:19 PM
The Sherman Tank was a crap enginerring design. In my own opinion that is, The only reason
that they turn the war around is that the Sherman tanks just reproduced like rabbits.

So lets drink for our "rabbits" T-34 and Shermans that have buried all the slowly moved monstrous Tigers finally:)
Indeed it was a GIANT and SERIOUS advantage - the ability of our medium tanks to be mass prodused was amazing. I read the ONLY soviet indusry was capble to produce about 2000 of chassis for T-34 ( that also were used for Sy-85/100) per MONTH since 1943.
As i know Totaly have been produced about 50 000 of T-34 all of modification and about 35 000 Shermans during the war.
for the compare the Germans couldn't produce more then 5 500 of Panthers and ONLY 1260 Tigers1/2.
They did no have any chances..

Churchill
10-16-2008, 04:12 PM
Look at the photo - it's a Sherman on a Polish Lorry (a Mercedes one at that), rather than a Polish Sherman. Although I suppose it might be a Polish Sherman now :D.

That's what I was pointing out... That the truck was Polish...:neutral:

aly j
10-16-2008, 10:29 PM
So lets drink for our "rabbits" T-34 and Shermans that have buried all the slowly moved monstrous Tigers finally:)
Indeed it was a GIANT and SERIOUS advantage - the ability of our medium tanks to be mass prodused was amazing. I read the ONLY soviet indusry was capble to produce about 2000 of chassis for T-34 ( that also were used for Sy-85/100) per MONTH since 1943.
As i know Totaly have been produced about 50 000 of T-34 all of modification and about 35 000 Shermans during the war.
for the compare the Germans couldn't produce more then 5 500 of Panthers and ONLY 1260 Tigers1/2.
They did no have any chances..

Im shell skocked, I got a positive feed back from another member.:D

Nickdfresh
10-16-2008, 11:15 PM
That's what I was pointing out... That the truck was Polish...:neutral:


Actually, it's German. ;)

Nickdfresh
10-16-2008, 11:16 PM
Im shell skocked, I got a positive feed back from another member.:D

Not really...

aly j
10-17-2008, 09:44 AM
Not really...

what did chevan mean then. Was he teasing me was he.

tankgeezer
10-17-2008, 02:17 PM
One can never be sure with our dear friend Chevan, He has a well developed sense of humor. So much so that it is exceedingly difficult to know who he is funnin'....
As to the M-4 series of tanks, they were a very well developed vehicle.And were very reliable although not designed for the task to which they found themselves impressed. Mass produced in their thronging hoards, crewed by both Noble, and common, it was the brave hearts of those crews and not just the machine itself that made the victory.

Churchill
10-17-2008, 05:52 PM
Actually, it's German. ;)

Made by a German car company, with a Polish flag on it.

Chevan
10-20-2008, 02:53 AM
Not really...
Why i can't be positive to him , Nick?:)
Is mr aly j one of those little nazi who attacked forum recantly?

Chevan
10-20-2008, 02:58 AM
One can never be sure with our dear friend Chevan, He has a well developed sense of humor. So much so that it is exceedingly difficult to know who he is funnin'....

oh common mate.
Not as much developed sense of humor as the ugly the knowledge of english. What makes me to do a funny logical mistakes sometimes.
But not in that case.

tankgeezer
10-20-2008, 06:06 PM
oh common mate.
Not as much developed sense of humor as the ugly the knowledge of english. What makes me to do a funny logical mistakes sometimes.
But not in that case. Face it dear friend, you are a funny man. your English is fine enough too. (Many natives here do not speak as well as you do.) The problem with U.S. English is that pretty much any word can be used to say most anything.. Very confusing to many. some here no longer know how to say what they mean. (if they knew it to begin with):mrgreen:

Panzerknacker
10-20-2008, 06:59 PM
The end of the line for a Sherman, used as target for 30 mm shaped charge projectiles, not sure if those are complete penetration tough.

http://i36.tinypic.com/2v1qaad.jpg

Churchill
10-20-2008, 09:11 PM
Sorry about ignoring your post PK, but if the Israelis were contributing a Super-Sherman, why not contribute a Merkava?

tankgeezer
10-20-2008, 11:32 PM
Yep,, looks like they went through alright,,(whistles in the wind)

aly j
10-21-2008, 01:34 AM
Why i can't be positive to him , Nick?:)
Is mr aly j one of those little nazi who attacked forum recantly?

Hey Chevan,

Be positive too me all the time:D. He says those things cause he doest like me that much.
Im not a little nazi that attacks the forum, im not a stevey. You spelt recently incorrectly,sorry i had too mention the spelling mistake.
Why are you calling me Mr Aly j? Im not a MR. I dont call you guys mrs,ms,or miss.:confused:

Chevan
10-21-2008, 10:49 AM
Hey Chevan,

Be positive too me all the time:D. He says those things cause he doest like me that much.

That's what exactly bothers me.
He don't like you too much , but why?
I just ask him.( Nickdfresh):)
My personal 2-years experience here prompts me that if Nick doesn't like somebody - this is true sign:)
But probably he is just mistaking and you are a good lad indeed:)
I personaly wish nothing bad to you and WILL positive to you ALL the TIME( while you will be)


Im not a little nazi that attacks the forum, im not a stevey. You spelt recently incorrectly,sorry i had too mention the spelling mistake.

So you are not nazi , good new from me.
And thanks for you 've the corrected me.


Why are you calling me Mr Aly j? Im not a MR. I dont call you guys mrs,ms,or miss.:confused:
But how can i call the man in my first post to him, think yourself.
misus?

aly j
10-21-2008, 11:03 AM
That's what exactly bothers me.
He don't like you too much , but why?
I just ask him.( Nickdfresh):)
My personal 2-years experience here prompts me that if Nick doesn't like somebody - this is true sign:)
But probably he is just mistaking and you are a good lad indeed:)
I personaly wish nothing bad to you and WILL positive to you ALL the TIME( while you will be)

So you are not nazi , good new from me.
And thanks for you 've the corrected me.

But how can i call the man in my first post to him, think yourself.
misus?



Hey Chevan,
Nickdfresh doest like me cause im not up too his standards about ww2.
He has not mistaking me for someone else.
Nothing bad will happend to me, only if i keep out of nickdfreash way.
Im not actually a lad. Im a girl.
I thought you called me a man cause you address me as a Mr. Mr means man.
Cheers.

Chevan
10-21-2008, 11:13 AM
Hey Chevan,
Nickdfresh doest like me cause im not up too his standards about ww2.
He has not mistaking me for someone else.
Nothing bad will happend to me, only if i keep out of nickdfreash way.
Im not actually a lad. Im a girl.

A nice blond?
So why Nick doesn't like lady?:)
It should be such fascinating to learn Nick's ww2 standards for ..girls:)


I thought you called me a man cause you address me as a Mr. Mr means man.
Cheers.
Because i though you were a MAN:)
Sorry....

Nickdfresh
10-21-2008, 08:03 PM
A nice blond?
So why Nick doesn't like lady?:)
It should be such fascinating to learn Nick's ww2 standards for ..girls:)
...


I don't dislike "her" because she's a girl. In fact, we've had some very good female posters that I wish would post more.

I think she's a troll that is completely disingenuous and seeks to troll the forum, either through ignorance or through feigned stupidity...

aly j
10-22-2008, 01:57 AM
I don't dislike "her" because she's a girl. In fact, we've had some very good female posters that I wish would post more.

I think she's a troll that is completely disingenuous and seeks to troll the forum, either through ignorance or through feigned stupidity...

Well where are those female posters?
I think RS and youreself scared the s**t out of those female posters.
I wouldet blame them for not comming back.
I am not a troll, im just not smart like you and RS are.
If i went to uni and got a degree like RS, i would be just as smart as you and RS are.
Any way, why would any one put a member as a mod if they been banned from another forum?
May be you should take a hard look at youreself Nickdfreash, to find out why you were banned.

Chevan
10-22-2008, 05:38 AM
Well where are those female posters?
I think RS and youreself scared the s**t out of those female posters.
I wouldet blame them for not comming back.
I am not a troll, im just not smart like you and RS are.
If i went to uni and got a degree like RS, i would be just as smart as you and RS are.


But you are a nice girl , don't you:)?
Why don't you wish to try a learn a bit from smart adults?Instead of to irritate them?


Any way, why would any one put a member as a mod if they been banned from another forum?
May be you should take a hard look at youreself Nickdfreash, to find out why you were banned.
Damn ,Nick , what was that forum where you have been banned from?:)
RothArmy maybe:);)?

pdf27
10-22-2008, 05:54 AM
Any way, why would any one put a member as a mod if they been banned from another forum?
As one of the people involved in selecting Nick and George for invitations to become new mods, I think I'm competent to answer that one. The reason is that we look at how someone behaves on this forum, rather than stalking them around the internet. You will often find mods on various forums (and RS* this is NOT an excuse for you to have a go here) who ban people for what I would regard as capricious reasons - for example if they are too good at arguing in support of a position that a mod dislikes, or if they simply irritate a mod by their presence. This is NOT a policy we follow here, save in exceptional circumstances.
Accordingly, we ignore past history in other forums when selecting mods, and go entirely on their posting history on this site (which must be comprehensive in quality, time and volume - so those of you who make 200 posts a day will **NOT** be getting an invitation from General Sandworm to become a mod as soon as you reach 2000 posts!),

Nickdfresh
10-22-2008, 07:16 AM
Well where are those female posters?
I think RS and youreself scared the s**t out of those female posters.
I wouldet blame them for not comming back.

No one "scared" anyone, and some do come back occasionally. They may not have the interest level in WWII that some here do, or are more interested in some of the narrow sociological aspects then than to the weapons and operations aspects. Or they may have had a specific interest to be addressed, so they aren't regular posters as such but do post here occasionally.


I am not a troll, im just not smart like you and RS are.
If i went to uni and got a degree like RS, i would be just as smart as you and RS are.

One doesn't need a uni degree to be smart (or knowledgeable rather, as that what we're talking here), one just needs a little initiative, interest, and to be willing to do a little reading as I really didn't learn that much about WWII at university. I doubt Rising Sun* did either. Above all, I think someone needs to have an actual interest in the war that goes beyond watching "Military Blunders" or "Dogfights" on the History Channel. And I'm not sure you even bother...

I think I've told you several times, and this had been mirrored by others besides the Mod staff and RS*, that you need to do a little (even online at Wiki) research before starting a thread and provide your own opinions. Otherwise you're just spamming or creating dupe threads, but then again, that might be the whole purpose of your exercise...


Any way, why would any one put a member as a mod if they been banned from another forum?

May be you should take a hard look at youreself Nickdfreash, to find out why you were banned.

I was a Mod here before I was banned there, sugar. And perhaps that reflects poorly on their forum, not me. In any case, I'm, re-registered there and am allowed to post under a different username on the WWII topics. But that site, while having some very knowledgeable posters, is kind of lame anyways. I also occasionally post at a couple of other WWII sites, such as Otto's forum, in which I was not banned but feel I've modded at two other boards besides this one, so, obviously I have some grasp at what I'm doing. And one of the reasons I think I was modded here was probably very similar to the reason I was banned at the board in question, because I stood up and debated, sometimes heatedly, people that I thought were knowingly and willfully (or just ignorantly) misrepresenting history for their own extremist and apologist aims..

I think stalking around the internet is actually a sign of either mental illness or of troll behaviour, and I've seen what some term "internet-weirdos" do it. I know this because I dealt with a lot of it at the Van Halen site I used to mod, including dozens of music industry "insiders" and people who used it as their sole social network rather than as a place to stick to the subject and communicate solely on that basis. And I'm pretty sure, at least to an extent, you're the one misrepresenting yourself on the web, along with your "42-year old" Canadian teacher friend, not me. And that is the essence of trolling. ;) I know, because I have actually trolled and have been banned for doing it (I've actually have been banned from a few boards such as at a U2 board, Sammy Hagar site, and a "Three Doors Down" board) a few years back. So I know very well what you're doing, and have been far more tolerant of you than the pompous dummy that banned me. I guess the difference is that I sort of consider WWII to be sacred as millions perished in untold misery. And I also think a good troll involves wit and comic timing not, not just attention getting and stupidity. Something that is sorely lacking here..

Maybe you should tell us how you know all this anyways? I mean, that would be a good deal of research or prior knowledge on your part.

But, I kind of have a theory that involves you and Herman. That theory being that you're a couple of kids (mid-teens probably) that know each other from another site, and decided to troll here in tandem. You probably IM each other too, since you're always in each others' wakes...And that we're undergoing a resulting "mass-troll." Only, it seems your idea of trolling is spelling words wrong and being what we used to call an "attention whore." It's kind of boring and it's really getting old.

Regards,

Nickdfresh

aly j
10-22-2008, 08:43 AM
No one "scared" anyone, and some do come back occasionally. They may not have the interest level in WWII that some here do, or are more interested in some of the narrow sociological aspects then than to the weapons and operations aspects. Or they may have had a specific interest to be addressed, so they aren't regular posters as such but do post here occasionally.



One doesn't need a uni degree to be smart (or knowledgeable rather, as that what we're talking here), one just needs a little initiative, interest, and to be willing to do a little reading as I really didn't learn that much about WWII at university. I doubt Rising Sun* did either. Above all, I think someone needs to have an actual interest in the war that goes beyond watching "Military Blunders" or "Dogfights" on the History Channel. And I'm not sure you even bother...

I think I've told you several times, and this had been mirrored by others besides the Mod staff and RS*, that you need to do a little (even online at Wiki) research before starting a thread and provide your own opinions. Otherwise you're just spamming or creating dupe threads, but then again, that might be the whole purpose of your exercise...



I was a Mod here before I was banned there, sugar. And perhaps that reflects poorly on their forum, not me. In any case, I'm, re-registered there and am allowed to post under a different username on the WWII topics. But that site, while having some very knowledgeable posters, is kind of lame anyways. I also occasionally post at a couple of other WWII sites, such as Otto's forum, in which I was not banned but feel I've modded at two other boards besides this one, so, obviously I have some grasp at what I'm doing. And one of the reasons I think I was modded here was probably very similar to the reason I was banned at the board in question, because I stood up and debated, sometimes heatedly, people that I thought were knowingly and willfully (or just ignorantly) misrepresenting history for their own extremist and apologist aims..

I think stalking around the internet is actually a sign of either mental illness or of troll behaviour, and I've seen what some term "internet-weirdos" do it. I know this because I dealt with a lot of it at the Van Halen site I used to mod, including dozens of music industry "insiders" and people who used it as their sole social network rather than as a place to stick to the subject and communicate solely on that basis. And I'm pretty sure, at least to an extent, you're the one misrepresenting yourself on the web, along with your "42-year old" Canadian teacher friend, not me. And that is the essence of trolling. ;) I know, because I have actually trolled and have been banned for doing it (I've actually have been banned from a few boards such as at a U2 board, Sammy Hagar site, and a "Three Doors Down" board) a few years back. So I know very well what you're doing, and have been far more tolerant of you than the pompous dummy that banned me. I guess the difference is that I sort of consider WWII to be sacred as millions perished in untold misery. And I also think a good troll involves wit and comic timing not, not just attention getting and stupidity. Something that is sorely lacking here..

Maybe you should tell us how you know all this anyways? I mean, that would be a good deal of research or prior knowledge on your part.

But, I kind of have a theory that involves you and Herman. That theory being that you're a couple of kids (mid-teens probably) that know each other from another site, and decided to troll here in tandem. You probably IM each other too, since you're always in each others' wakes...And that we're undergoing a resulting "mass-troll." Only, it seems your idea of trolling is spelling words wrong and being what we used to call an "attention whore." It's kind of boring and it's really getting old.

Regards,

Nickdfresh

Chevan, Yes im a quite nice shy girl, i wish i had more guts.

Hi PDF and Nickdfreash,
I know i can be a pain but i still love ww2, anyways if everyone was serious wouldet it be a bit boring?
I just think Nickdfreash that can you be a bit more gentle with me, i dont mean baby me, but if i say something stupid, why dont you say it in a nice way and i take more notice of what you are saying to me.
Like right now, you talking to me like im human and i respect what you a saying from you.
Pdf ,Dont worry i was not posting so many times so i can be mod, i know i never be a mod.
I will go and check out online wilki,when im not feeling lazy.
I hope you didt mean im a whore like the real thing did you?
Herman and i are not in each other wakes never been.
I like herman, and i never meet herman before i came on here.

Aly j

herman2
10-22-2008, 11:03 AM
No one "scared" anyone, and some do come back occasionally. They may not have the interest level in WWII that some here do, or are more interested in some of the narrow sociological aspects then than to the weapons and operations aspects. Or they may have had a specific interest to be addressed, so they aren't regular posters as such but do post here occasionally.



One doesn't need a uni degree to be smart (or knowledgeable rather, as that what we're talking here), one just needs a little initiative, interest, and to be willing to do a little reading as I really didn't learn that much about WWII at university. I doubt Rising Sun* did either. Above all, I think someone needs to have an actual interest in the war that goes beyond watching "Military Blunders" or "Dogfights" on the History Channel. And I'm not sure you even bother...

I think I've told you several times, and this had been mirrored by others besides the Mod staff and RS*, that you need to do a little (even online at Wiki) research before starting a thread and provide your own opinions. Otherwise you're just spamming or creating dupe threads, but then again, that might be the whole purpose of your exercise...



I was a Mod here before I was banned there, sugar. And perhaps that reflects poorly on their forum, not me. In any case, I'm, re-registered there and am allowed to post under a different username on the WWII topics. But that site, while having some very knowledgeable posters, is kind of lame anyways. I also occasionally post at a couple of other WWII sites, such as Otto's forum, in which I was not banned but feel I've modded at two other boards besides this one, so, obviously I have some grasp at what I'm doing. And one of the reasons I think I was modded here was probably very similar to the reason I was banned at the board in question, because I stood up and debated, sometimes heatedly, people that I thought were knowingly and willfully (or just ignorantly) misrepresenting history for their own extremist and apologist aims..

I think stalking around the internet is actually a sign of either mental illness or of troll behaviour, and I've seen what some term "internet-weirdos" do it. I know this because I dealt with a lot of it at the Van Halen site I used to mod, including dozens of music industry "insiders" and people who used it as their sole social network rather than as a place to stick to the subject and communicate solely on that basis. And I'm pretty sure, at least to an extent, you're the one misrepresenting yourself on the web, along with your "42-year old" Canadian teacher friend, not me. And that is the essence of trolling. ;) I know, because I have actually trolled and have been banned for doing it (I've actually have been banned from a few boards such as at a U2 board, Sammy Hagar site, and a "Three Doors Down" board) a few years back. So I know very well what you're doing, and have been far more tolerant of you than the pompous dummy that banned me. I guess the difference is that I sort of consider WWII to be sacred as millions perished in untold misery. And I also think a good troll involves wit and comic timing not, not just attention getting and stupidity. Something that is sorely lacking here..

Maybe you should tell us how you know all this anyways? I mean, that would be a good deal of research or prior knowledge on your part.

But, I kind of have a theory that involves you and Herman. That theory being that you're a couple of kids (mid-teens probably) that know each other from another site, and decided to troll here in tandem. You probably IM each other too, since you're always in each others' wakes...And that we're undergoing a resulting "mass-troll." Only, it seems your idea of trolling is spelling words wrong and being what we used to call an "attention whore." It's kind of boring and it's really getting old.

Regards,

Nickdfresh


Nick I resent you implying Theories that have no FACTS. If you think so positively that I am in contact with Aly J, then go into my Private messages and see if I have ever PM’d her and conceived this web domination Theory that you have concocted . If you don’t have that ability then I give the Admin full permission to do this. For the last time, I do not know Aly J nor do I speak to her off the web just to annoy you, if that’s what you think. I like you. Personally I was a lot happier annoying you alone; I don’t need the extra help. As a moderator your neutrality appears bias when you accuse me of something which I am not. Then you accuse me of being in my mid-teens. Well, that is a compliment because I wish I was. I provide productive and interesting feedback to the majority of threads that I am able to participate in. I may add humour where it is befitting and may be perceived as jerky to some, but look at the response I get when I make fun of PDF’s Krugerand Molecular Theory. Don’t tell me that wasn’t funny..come on come on….anyways, why do you keep bringing my name into the web when you respond to Aly J. If you got a beef with her, talk to her without using my name and ruining my fine reputation. I have come along way since I joined and I have tried to be respectful to all, but when you keep dragging my name into threads and implying I am secretly talking to Aly J, because I have nothing better to do, them Troll on you, then maybe you have been reading to many Nazi novels. I don’t mean to be rude, but Please stop laying my name on the line with your feedback to Aly J. I personally like her because she speaks up for herself and expresses her democratic opinion , even if it is a tad too often…but that’s another story. Lastly, I think you guys get a kick out of dragging her through the mud, because the site is a bit dry at times and slow, and the bitch-slapping appears to lift the gravity of the seriousness. Yes this is a serious site, but a little humour doesn’t hurt. I can quote so many RS comments which are humorous. I bet if he made a joke of the Krugerand-rutterbager theory(what ever its called), that he’d get a less tense response than the one I did. Thank You for your time and sorry if my wording may appear a bit critical, but I trust my view is taken in stride.