Sherman Tank: What Went into It

[Michael Emrys]

2 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Haven't checked yet, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they used thicker plates on the sponsons in the M4A3(W) series...

Yes, I think the chap at the site I linked to says as much. Like I said, a fair amount of groggily information there.

Michael

[Splinty]

10 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Pausing to grab weapons or supplies only happens in training. That grease gun won't put the fire out.

 

I'm speaking as a former armored vehicle crewman (Bradley gunner), and a combat vet, although I admittedly have never had to bail from a hit one. . The grease gun may not put the fire out, but it will help keep those pesky enemy infantry at bay long enough to get to safety.

[db_zero]

3 hours ago, Splinty said:

I'm speaking as a former armored vehicle crewman (Bradley gunner), and a combat vet, although I admittedly have never had to bail from a hit one. . The grease gun may not put the fire out, but it will help keep those pesky enemy infantry at bay long enough to get to safety.

No doubt about what you're saying, but its also true the US Army of today is a far different one that was fielded in WW2. We have an all volunteer force that is far better trained and lead. WW2 we had a force that was largely conscripted and the level of training and selection not as rigorous as today.

If the stories are to be believed and I think there is ample evidence of it, the losses suffered by tank crews in Europe lead to many non trained personnel to be forced into manning tank positions-not an ideal situation. Also many tank that got knocked out were recovered and sent back into service, but the lingering smell of death was still present in the recovered vehicle. Today, they will usually be able to use chemicals to clean a recovered tank to remove the smell of death, although I'm sure there might be suspicion of a vehicle with a "new car" smell and word often gets around anyway.

I have little issue with bailed out crewmen in Black Sea blazing away with their assault rifles.

[Splinty]

8 hours ago, db_zero said:

No doubt about what you're saying, but its also true the US Army of today is a far different one that was fielded in WW2. We have an all volunteer force that is far better trained and lead. WW2 we had a force that was largely conscripted and the level of training and selection not as rigorous as today.

If the stories are to be believed and I think there is ample evidence of it, the losses suffered by tank crews in Europe lead to many non trained personnel to be forced into manning tank positions-not an ideal situation. Also many tank that got knocked out were recovered and sent back into service, but the lingering smell of death was still present in the recovered vehicle. Today, they will usually be able to use chemicals to clean a recovered tank to remove the smell of death, although I'm sure there might be suspicion of a vehicle with a "new car" smell and word often gets around anyway.

I have little issue with bailed out crewmen in Black Sea blazing away with their assault rifles.

That's my original post said experienced crewman. In WWII quite a few of those crew members would have survived having a tank or TD shot out from under them and learned the hard way.

[John Kettler]

Guys,

There are several first person accounts below from crewmen in Shermans who had to bail out. Call the circumstances excessively exciting! In one of them, the TC is shooting at the Germans with his .45. The first loss described was during the Battle of the Bulge right outside of Bastogne.

http://www.tankbooks.com/interviews/giffdarp1.htm

Another account by a different guy in another Sherman from the same unit. He says some of the reasons the Sherman tanks burned and exploded was extra cannon ammo lying on the floorboards, plus numerous grenades--including thermite, presumably, to destroy breech block (also MG cartridge per another story) and apparently fuel tank/s going up, too). Sometimes, TNT charges were carried to destroy vehicle and gear if it had to be abandoned. FM 18-15, TANK DESTROYER (covers M10, M36 and M5 towed) talks about this on page 124.

http://www.tankbooks.com/interviews/orval.htm

The bit earlier in the thread about the Panzer commander nearly strangling himself on his throat microphone cable (what else to call anything finger thick?) while wearing a steel helmet was quite intriguing, but the microphone cable for the Allied tanks caused similar problems and show up again and again, as seen in the links here. I do something similar to myself here at times when I stand up from my desk chair and go charging off to do something, only to be abruptly arrested by the innocuous looking slim wire on my headset. Battery powered version doesn't make sense considering my amount of use.

Sherman in PTO, likely Philippines, with applique armor. 

Sherman in PTO, likely Philippines, with applique armor. Image Credit: US Army Signal Corps via www.theshermantank.com, specifically this great article there #9 The Crew and Their Stations

I've tried to figure out what the drill was on personal weapons, but the info is contradictory. FM 17-76, the Crew Drill manual for the 105 mm Howitzer Sherman, makes no mention of taking personal weapons if the vehicle is hit (25). FM 17-67, the Crew Drill manual for the typical Sherman tank, shows that in the event of an exit from the escape hatch (on floor of tank hull), the crew drill begins mounted, and the crew exits weaponless. The principal use of the M3 SMGs is for dismounted action to protect the tank if disabled or at night, but they would be available, of course, for dismounted recon. From the same site as the OP is #40 The Small Arms of the US Army Tanker. Each man was issued a .45. It also explicitly breaks down the 12 grenades carried inside the tank, by type, as well as describing the not safety producing extra ammo carried by many tanks.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

 

[Vanir Ausf B]

10 hours ago, db_zero said:

No doubt about what you're saying, but its also true the US Army of today is a far different one that was fielded in WW2. We have an all volunteer force that is far better trained and lead. WW2 we had a force that was largely conscripted and the level of training and selection not as rigorous as today.

The tank crews that went ashore in Normandy were well-trained. The level of training went down as attrition took it's toll, but I question.the assumption that it was only a lack of training that lead to bailing unarmed. I think it was the experience of witnessing what armored vehicles do when you start poking holes in them and making common-sense adjustments to procedures.

 

[JeepsGunsTanks]

On 4/7/2017 at 4:46 PM, John Kettler said:

Guys,

There are several first person accounts below from crewmen in Shermans who had to bail out. Call the circumstances excessively exciting! In one of them, the TC is shooting at the Germans with his .45. The first loss described was during the Battle of the Bulge right outside of Bastogne.

http://www.tankbooks.com/interviews/giffdarp1.htm

Another account by a different guy in another Sherman from the same unit. He says some of the reasons the Sherman tanks burned and exploded was extra cannon ammo lying on the floorboards, plus numerous grenades--including thermite, presumably, to destroy breech block (also MG cartridge per another story) and apparently fuel tank/s going up, too). Sometimes, TNT charges were carried to destroy vehicle and gear if it had to be abandoned. FM 18-15, TANK DESTROYER (covers M10, M36 and M5 towed) talks about this on page 124.

http://www.tankbooks.com/interviews/orval.htm

The bit earlier in the thread about the Panzer commander nearly strangling himself on his throat microphone cable (what else to call anything finger thick?) while wearing a steel helmet was quite intriguing, but the microphone cable for the Allied tanks caused similar problems and show up again and again, as seen in the links here. I do something similar to myself here at times when I stand up from my desk chair and go charging off to do something, only to be abruptly arrested by the innocuous looking slim wire on my headset. Battery powered version doesn't make sense considering my amount of use.

Sherman in PTO, likely Philippines, with applique armor. 

Sherman in PTO, likely Philippines, with applique armor. Image Credit: US Army Signal Corps via www.theshermantank.com, specifically this great article there #9 The Crew and Their Stations

I've tried to figure out what the drill was on personal weapons, but the info is contradictory. FM 17-76, the Crew Drill manual for the 105 mm Howitzer Sherman, makes no mention of taking personal weapons if the vehicle is hit (25). FM 17-67, the Crew Drill manual for the typical Sherman tank, shows that in the event of an exit from the escape hatch (on floor of tank hull), the crew drill begins mounted, and the crew exits weaponless. The principal use of the M3 SMGs is for dismounted action to protect the tank if disabled or at night, but they would be available, of course, for dismounted recon. From the same site as the OP is #40 The Small Arms of the US Army Tanker. Each man was issued a .45. It also explicitly breaks down the 12 grenades carried inside the tank, by type, as well as describing the not safety producing extra ammo carried by many tanks.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

 

The Sherman in this pic is an M4 composite hull, the front hull is a big casting, welded to a welded rear hull. These saw action in the Pacific, and a number of them got turned into Composite hull IC Fireflys. These tanks had improved larger drivers and co drivers hatches, but still used dry ammo storage, the extra armor over the ammo racks was installed at the factory, and the cheek of this tanks turret was probably cast thicker, so the add on armor was not needed. 

The big change in ammo storage came when the M4A1, M4A2 and M4A3 tanks were upgraded with improved turrets, with the M1A1 76mm gun. All these tanks had the improved large hatch hulls, wet storage and commanders all around vision cupolas.  The real difference with wet storage was the location the ammo was stored was changed, instead of being in the sponsons, it was moved into the hull, in the floor under the turret. To make it easier to get to this ammo, the turret basket had half the floor removed. This location change, coupled with an 8 round armored ready rack made the ammo much less likely to be hit, and the location more than the wet racks made the difference, and the water jackets were dropped by the US right after the WWII. 

There were dry rack, 75mm M4A1 tanks made with cast hulls that incorporated the armor in the casting over the hull ammo racks. 

As for what the crews had for personal weapons, they all had a trusty 1911A1, and on the early Shermans, the tank had one Thompson, and they crew was instructed to take one of the .30 1919s with them if they bailed. 

The second Gen Shermans, IE anything with large hull hatches, each crew station had an M3 Grease gun handy. 

Check out this spec sheet for the Easy 8 Sherman.

 

Anyway, I hope that helps. 

 

 

 

[Michael Emrys]

JeepsGunsTanks,

Welcome to the forum! Excellent first post. My I ask where you found that spec sheet, and are there many more like that?

Michael

[JeepsGunsTanks]

21 minutes ago, Michael Emrys said:

JeepsGunsTanks,

Welcome to the forum! Excellent first post. My I ask where you found that spec sheet, and are there many more like that?

Michael

I made it, but its based on the ones in Hunnicutt's books, and he got his data from the Tech Manuals on the tanks. Typing that out in word was a nightmare, but once I had one, I at least had a nice template for the others!

I have a bunch more up on the website, check out  this page. 

http://www.theshermantank.com/the-sherman-tank-variant-page-pages-for-each-type-of-sherman-tank/

Each link leads to page for the tank, and should have a spec sheet and a gun data sheet.  I even have a review of the Combat Missions games up there somewhere!

 

 

[John Kettler]

JeepsGunsTanks,

Welcome aboard!

What a tremendous (on several levels of meaning) first post! Have a couple of brothers, both of spoke speak very good Sherman tank, and I bet they'd be impressed by what you so ably provided to us (not the objective form of the imperial We). Was unaware the US ever welded the front end of a cast hull Sherman on the body of a welded one. The closest I've seen was on "Tank Overhaul" where they did major hull surgery to create on usable Sherman hull from the wrecks of two. Quire the project to make happen and get done before much else could. Is TheShermanTank.com your site, or have you simply contributed to it? From what you've said, I can't tell one way or the other. Thanks again for a most informative post.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

The composite hull IC Firefly I had read about years ago, but was unaware that some had made their way into the PTO, although I bet that I have seen pics of them without really noting their import. One thing I had always wondered about the IC was how it came to be, whether their hulls were made in the US or fabricated in the UK. I believe their turrets, with the necessary modifications to accommodate the 17pdr, were cast in the UK, correct? Also the removal of the co-driver's position was done in the UK.

Michael

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Nice site. 

Just remembered I have 'Sherman Ic Firefly' by Wojciech J. Gawrych.....The composite hulls (Sherman Hybrids to us Brits) were delivered assembled and converted to Fireflies in the UK in the same fashon as the Sherman Vc.  If I'm reading things correctly, he gives a total of 795 composite hulls manufactured, (446 from Chrysler at Evansville, 289 from International Harvester at Quad Cities and 60 from the Chester & Lima Tank Depots).  Haven't found a total for the number of Ic Hybrid conversions yet.

The Osprey title on the Sherman Firefly is more illuminating as to the reasons that only the M4 & M4A4 hulls were chosen as the basis for the Firefly conversion:

Quote

A document dated November 1944 lists features that were essential in a Sherman required for conversion.  In the first place, apparently, only petrol-engined Shermans would do, which effectively ruled out the M4A2 (Sherman III). No reason is given, so unless there was some unexplained physical factor, then it can only have been connected with availability.....<<SNIP>>.....One important feature was that any tank suitable for conversion must have the wide type of gun mantlet that was classified M34A1 in American service. The reason for this becomes clear as soon as one examines the older alternative, the narrow M34 type, which clearly could not be adapted to mount the larger gun. And finally in this list of features, the hydraulic type of turret power traverse was also considered essential.

Edited April 14, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Sgt.Squarehead]

13 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

I believe their turrets, with the necessary modifications to accommodate the 17pdr, were cast in the UK, correct?

I believe the turrets were those that came with the tanks chosen for conversion and they were modified in the UK, see post above.   

[JeepsGunsTanks]

3 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I believe the turrets were those that came with the tanks chosen for conversion and they were modified in the UK, see post above.   

They were stock 75mm turrets modified to work with the 17 pounder. The back of the turret bustle was cut out and a armored box was added for the radio, so there would be a little room behind the gun. The gun mount, and mantlet armor were made by the Brits, and the 17 pounder gun itself had to be modified to fit into the new mount, so the guns were not interchangeable with the AT gun versions. They also cut in a loaders hatch, though, one of the reasons they liked the M4 composite hulls, was that many of the turrets already had a loaders hatch ,so they didn't have to cut one. The other advantage to the composite hulls were the larger drivers and co drivers hatches.  They also used their own telescopic sight. 

The US wanted to cease production on 75mm Shermans, but because the Marines and Brits still wanted them the M4A3 75 was kept in production a little longer, and all the M4A4 tanks in the US were sent back to the factory, overhauled, and shipped off to England, making the M4A4 or Sherman V very common UK tank. 

The best way to spot an M4A4 or Sherman V is the extra space between bogies, see below, the other Shermans have much smaller gaps, since the M4A4 was 12 inches longer. 

Here is one of the running Vc Firefly tanks.

Thanks for all the kind words about the Sherman Tank site, it's a labor of love so it's nice to hear people like it.  Don't miss out on the downloads page, I have a bunch of Sherman tank technical and field manuals you can download. All free. 

[JeepsGunsTanks]

8 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Nice site. 

Just remembered I have 'Sherman Ic Firefly' by Wojciech J. Gawrych.....The composite hulls (Sherman Hybrids to us Brits) were delivered assembled and converted to Fireflies in the UK in the same fashon as the Sherman Vc.  If I'm reading things correctly, he gives a total of 795 composite hulls manufactured, (446 from Chrysler at Evansville, 289 from International Harvester at Quad Cities and 60 from the Chester & Lima Tank Depots).  Haven't found a total for the number of Ic Hybrid conversions yet.

The Osprey title on the Sherman Firefly is more illuminating as to the reasons that only the M4 & M4A4 hulls were chosen as the basis for the Firefly conversion:

Thanks

I've read about the M4A2 Shermans not being suitable, but never heard why, there are minor hull layout differences, but I don't know that they are drastic enough to rule out the hull type though. It probably was more availability, the Soviets would only take the M4A2, they had taken a pair of M4A4s to test but ruled out the A57 motor as to complicated, and they refused the type. Since the Brits were fine with the M4A4, they got just about all of them, and most late production 75mm M4A2 tanks, and almost all the M4A2 76 tanks.   

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Pretty sure the M4A2(76) went mostly to the Soviets (2nd Guards Tank Army IIRC), we used the Sherman IIa M4A1(76), but I don't recall ever seeing a diesel 76 in British & Commonwealth markings (happy to be proven wrong though).

http://www.o5m6.de/M4A2_76(W).html

BTW.....Would I know you from any modelling forums at all?

[JeepsGunsTanks]

1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Pretty sure the M4A2(76) went mostly to the Soviets (2nd Guards Tank Army IIRC), we used the Sherman IIa M4A1(76), but I don't recall ever seeing a diesel 76 in British & Commonwealth markings (happy to be proven wrong though).

http://www.o5m6.de/M4A2_76(W).html

BTW.....Would I know you from any modelling forums at all?

I don't think they got any M4A2 76 tanks, the Brits were not all the fond of the M1A1/A2 gun, but they did get a large chunk of the early M4A2 75 tanks. The Russian crews really liked their Shermans.  

 

I post on occasion at Armorama, (rubicon on that forum) but there are guys over there who really really know their Sherman stuff, like Kurt Laughlin and Roy Chow. 

 

If you have played World of tanks you may know me from that forum, but I do not post there much anymore. 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I'm a member of Armorama but I don't post there, I'm mostly on Britmodeller these days.....Roy Chow I know of vaguely through Missing Lynx (very useful forum, Steve Zaloga's a member).

I don't play WOT at all.

Edited April 15, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[John Kettler]

JeepsGunsTanks,

Hugely appreciate your swapping out of your former kinetic avatar for the new static one! I look forward to your future posts, which I will now be able to read and study without a built-in distraction from what you present.

Regards,

John Kettler 

[JeepsGunsTanks]

No problem at all. 

[John Kettler]

JeepsGunsTanks,

Am trying to figure out your new avatar which, on my display at least, is very dark. I can see "Jeep" written there but have no idea what the like colored thing is above it.

Regards,

John Kettler

[JeepsGunsTanks]

It was a neon sign type thing with a girl, that flashed in an out. 

[Michael Emrys]

23 minutes ago, JeepsGunsTanks said:

It was a neon sign type thing with a girl, that flashed in an out. 

Yes, I think I can see that now. But what was it advertising?

Michael

[Vergeltungswaffe]

A neon sign with a girl?  Only one thing that could be advertising...

[Michael Emrys]

1 minute ago, Vergeltungswaffe said:

A neon sign with a girl?  Only one thing that could be advertising...

Maybe more than one: off the top of my head, booze and strippers. Probably an assortment of other illicit products and activities.

Michael