HOME | DD
focallength β Restored M4 Sherman
Published: 2007-09-15 15:35:19 +0000 UTC; Views: 5214; Favourites: 143; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
This is a nice example of a late production M4 Sherman tank. It has the newer suspension and wider tracks and the larger 76mm gun with muzzle brake. My significant other's late father was a gunner in a Sherman with the 4th Armored Division in Europe in WW2.Related content
Comments: 68
Glad you like it. I used to know someone whose father was a Sherman gunner.
π: 0 β©: 1
I love all Sherman tanks.
That sounds awesome! The stories he could tell. Is he still alive?
π: 0 β©: 0
I know. I've seen them for sale. A tad bit out of my price range.
π: 0 β©: 1
My ex-girlfriend's late father was a gunner in the Sherman in the 4th Armored Division in WW 2.
π: 0 β©: 1
That's very interested I respect your ex girlfriends father he went though hell and back and if you want I can make the American tanks first in honor of him and other American soldiers
π: 0 β©: 1
He had some interesting stories. You can make the tanks in whatever order you want.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
I guess he had a lot foΒ interesting stories and thank you for replying and in honor of you and him and the other ww2 vets I'm going to do the USA tanks first
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm sorry to say this but I need to go ill be right back
π: 0 β©: 0
I'd love to here the purr of a Sherman's engine sometime.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
It's more of a rumble.
π: 0 β©: 1
The sound also depends on which variant it is. The early ones use a radial aircraft engine and the later ones used a "V" type engine.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yup. Check out the chart in this article.Β en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Shermβ¦
π: 0 β©: 1
which do you prefer more, the sherman firefly or sherman croc?
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm partial to the M4A3, since that's the version my ex-girlfriend's dad was a gunner in during WW 2 in the 4th Armored Division in Patton's Third Army in Europe.
π: 0 β©: 1
So the standard Sherman then?
π: 0 β©: 1
More or less. There was no real "standard" Sherman. There were several production variants and countless field modifications. Not too many Shermans remained "stock" once they reached the troops.
π: 0 β©: 1
Take a look at photos from the period.
π: 0 β©: 0
No, it's a late production Sherman with a 76mm gun with a muzzle brake. My roommate's late father was a gunner in the Sherman and he confirmed this and I also checked my references. The Firefly has a 90mm gun with a longer barrel and a much different turret but they based it on the late production welded hull Sherman.
π: 0 β©: 1
Nope, a Firefly is a US made Sherman with a British 17 pounder anti-tank gun, which is 3 inches or just over 76mm. I'm not an expert, and it's hard to tell from this angle, but the Firefly gun is a bit longer and had more of a punch against armour. The gun mantles are similar and this could be either, there was a lot of mix n match going on during production, although all Fireflies had two hatches atop the turret (I can't tell from this angle). Most Fireflies had dazzle camouflage on the end of the barrel to disguise them since they could take out a Tiger or a Panther and the Germans began targeting them more aggressively. Did you notice if it had a rotary engine or a V8? To my knowledge non of the Fireflies got the Ford engines.
π: 0 β©: 1
You're right about the Firefly. The barrel was substantially longer and they had an addition on the back of the turret to counterbalance the longer barrel. This is definitely an M4A3E8 with a 76mm with a muzzle brake. So far as I know, the Firefly was exclusive to the British armored forces. They did have a program to put a 90mm on the Sherman in the US, but it was canceled and then revived after the experiences with German armor. The introduction of the Pershing negated the need to add the 90mm to the Sherman.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well there was the M36 tank hunter which was a 90mm on a Sherman chassis, and they produced around 1800 of those if I recall correctly. The main reason I doubted this is an A3E8 is because there is no bellows visible on the gun mantle, as there is on the image in David Porter's Essential Vehicle Identification Guide;Β a quick search of Wikipedia shows a picture of anΒ M4A3E8 at the Patton Museum of Cavalry and Armor, Fort Knox, Kentucky, and it has the same mantle as this image, which leads me to believe that the bellows may have been removed on both, or there may have been two variants of the M4A3E8.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Not all of them had the bellows and it may have not been put on this example. There was only one factory variant of the M4A3E8, but there may have been plenty of field modifications. The bellows may have been removed in the field to ease maintenance and the fact that the canvas tended to rot in wet weather. The M36 was a tank destroyer, as they called them back then, but didn't have the heavier armor of the Sherman. The M36 was designed for "shoot and scoot" tactics. I've seen a lot of photos of the Sherman M4A3E8 without the bellows, which leads me to believe that the crews removed them in the field.
π: 0 β©: 1
That would make sense. As to the M36, in your original comment you'd said something about a Sherman with a 90, a description which the M36 sort of fits.
π: 0 β©: 1
What happened was there was a program started to upgun the Sherman early on but it was cancelled and then restarted after the invasion. It was strictly a test program. The M36 used the Sherman chassis, along with more than a few other adaptations, but was not a tank per se, rather a tank destroyer, which was designed to move in, destroy some tanks and then get out, since they didn't have the heavier armor plating. They were a stopgap measure until a tank that could go up against the Panthers was introduced, which was the Pershing, which was introduced late in the war but was very effective against the German armor.
π: 0 β©: 1
Interesting, I've never heard of that, but then Shermans are kind of like VW Beetles, there were a lot of side projects. Just out of curiosity, are you sure you aren't confusing with the 105mm howitzer version? The Firefly proved itself more than capable of destroying a Panther at range, that's the reason the Germans targeted them specifically; they knew a normal Sherman couldn't touch them above a few hundred yards, but the Firefly and Grizzly (a Canadian-made Sherman with wider track, heavier armour and a 76) could. The M36 could also engage from farther away, and the major difference was in the roofless turret, which made it lighter and more nimble than a Sherman, allowing for fire and run tactics. Like the M10 they replaced, they were a purpose built tank destroyer.
π: 0 β©: 1
The M7 "Priest", called that because the machine gun ring looked like a preacher's pulpit, used the Sherman chassis and originally used the M3 chassis. I've familiar with the M7, the Sherman and the Firefly. You have to remember that when the US entered the war, the tank was seen as an infantry support weapon, not as a tank killer. Obviously, that philosophy changed rather quickly. The beauty of using the Sherman chassis and running gear meant that you had spare parts for all your AFV's and didn't need to have unique parts for any of them, at least when it came to treads, engines and such.
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh I wasn't talking about the Priest, there was an M4 Sherman tank with a 105mm HowitzerΒ in the turret. And while the US doctrine for tanks as infantry support was in line with the British and French at the time, the Germans had long since found another purpose for them. A couple of books I might recommend are Guderian's "Achtung - Panzer!" and "Death Traps" by B.Y.Cooper, the former written before the second world war and the later written after the war.
You might also find this video interesting: youtu.be/Bj0AzL95Weg
π: 0 β©: 1
Okay. Forgot about that one. That was the M4(105). They built about 800 of them in 1944-45. Tamiya makes a kit of that one. I've heard of the Guderian book but not the other one. One of the problems is that the US military (at the time) tended to be hidebound and was preparing to fight the last war, and not the next one. Patton had read Rommel's book and knew what the German tactics were but no one would listen. Same thing happened to Billy Mitchell in the '20's about airpower, especially naval airpower.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
US Military doctrine was heavily influenced by the French, who had been influencing the American military since the war of independence, and even more heavily after providing them with the m1897 75mm field gun (arguably the most important weapon of the 19th Century) in the late 1800s. The difference between the French and the Americans was that, because of a more liberal education, Americans could think for themselves, and if a squad leader got killed, someone invariably stepped up to replace them, a definite advantage in combat. The Marines, on the other hand, were more heavily influenced by the British. Since the French had the largest army (in terms of soldiers) in 1914, doctrine was not to economize men (Napoleon once boasted that he "spent" 30000 lives a month!). When the AEF landed in 1918 (mostly because Pershing insisted that they trained before sending them; France had mandatory military service, so most French civilians had basic military training). France developed the tank as a breakthrough weapon (as did the British), and despite many smart people (like Mitchell, Patton,Β Spaatz, etc) trying to change things, complacency won the day. After all, the allies did win the war, though not for the reasons they believed (just as many people think Japan lost because of the atomic bomb, which isn't true; they lost because they ran out of oil, the bomb just shortened the war by a few months). An interesting note is that Guderian's methodology was heavily influence byΒ B. H. Liddell Hart, a fact he acknowledges in his book. There have been many examples of the brass not listening to the field in pretty much all armies (except possibly the Israelis), it's human nature. Did you know that Yamamoto's plan to attack Pearl Harbor was plagiarized from aΒ February 1933 US Navy conducted fleet exercise in Hawaii that included a mock attack on Pearl Harbor; the attack was successful far beyond what the Japanese achieved, yet the Japanese were able to use the same plan with a few minor variations eight years later. I am a student of history because I agree with Santayana.Β
"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." - George Santayana
π: 0 β©: 1
Considering that Yamamoto studied in the US in the 1920's, his using a plan from an American source doesn't surprise me. I've been a student of history for a long time, but you can always learn something new. I also agree with Santayana.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
It what events this taken? Is it in anniversary of World War II?
π: 0 β©: 1
It was taken at the Mid-Atlantic Air Museum's World War 2 Weekend in 2000. It's an annual event. The museum is located at the regional airport in Reading, Pennsylvania.
π: 0 β©: 1
The next one starts today and goes until Sunday.
π: 0 β©: 1
Ok, because this June 6 is the anniversary of D-Day.
π: 0 β©: 1
I know. My late uncle was in the invasion.
π: 0 β©: 1
Was this down Reading? I haven't seen a Sherman down there the last few years.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah. It was at the WW 2 weekend they have there.
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh I know, I go down every year. I just couldn't find a Sherman. Plenty of German units however.
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>