JeepsGunsTanks
-
Posts
11 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by JeepsGunsTanks
-
-
4 hours ago, John Kettler said:
Someone else will need to tell us the exact model/s used in this Battle of Bloody Gulch (had forgotten how intense that was) scene from "Band of Brothers," but note well how the .50s are mounted and employed at 7:05, 7:39, and continuing. If the Ma Deuces can be simply rotated forward while staying in the turret and engaging that way, then why are there crewmen outside of the turrets and behind them? I haven't read the book, but so can't comment on what's said there about this. Also, from what I recall reading, the film had top period experts involved throughout. Seems to me that putting the Ma Deuce operators on the engine decks would be about as counterintuitive as it gets if all that had to be done was rotate the mount forward and fight while ensconced inside the turret but unbuttoned. Audie Murphy did the same thing in his MoH action at Holtzwihr, Belgium. He had no choice but to fight from there, for the M10 was dead and the .50 mount was to the turret rear.
Regards,John Kettler
They show the commander firing the .50 from his hatch at least once in you clip.
They also mounted extra M1919 machine guns on a mount in front of the Commanders hatch late in the war.
Check out this video for more info on how the early rotation copula mounts work.
-
4 hours ago, John Kettler said:
-
On 6/6/2017 at 11:46 AM, IanL said:
Start there.
So, the cutter was tactically useful on a significant scale: therefore included. A roof on a tank destroyer that, don't for get, was used for anti tank work not infantry support is not significant on the same scale at all: therefore effort better spent on something else.
Army TD battalions got used in the infantry support role fairly commonly. In these cases, it was also not uncommon to see the crew mount extra machine guns on the turret, I can't find it right now but there is a pretty famous photo of an M10 with 2 extra,m1919s mounted on the forward part of the turret and there may have been an extra .50. I'm going to have to dig the photo up now, I don't think I have it on my site...
The M10 got used on the Pacific of all places! In the infantry support role as it's primary job.
M10s on Leyte
M10s somewhere in New Guinea.
Here's one in the ETO supporting the doughs
-
It was a neon sign type thing with a girl, that flashed in an out.
-
No problem at all.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
Ma Deuce on CM Shermans--My Cognitive Dissonance
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted
This is the caption info.
An M4A3 76w HVSS tank is climbing up a muddy road in this HUGE image. Note the commander has an M1919 mounted in front of him. The caption says 11th US Armored Division Einheiten Der Germany 1945. You can see a Jumbo and another A3 76 tank, this one VVSS in the background.
There is a really nicely done colorised version I'm having trouble finding, it's a great pic though, just os much going on.