Viceroy Posted October 22, 2000 Share Posted October 22, 2000 Brits called the various Shermans I-V. Anyone able to tell me what the Sherman II, III and IV were in US parlance? Thanks, BTW I did a search for this info... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navare Posted October 22, 2000 Share Posted October 22, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Viceroy: Brits called the various Shermans I-V. Anyone able to tell me what the Sherman II, III and IV were in US parlance? Thanks, BTW I did a search for this info... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sherman II = M4a1 Sherman III = M4a2 Sherman IV = M4a3 Source: The Great Tanks of WW2 Roger Ford. ------------------ Navare "I am determined to prove a villian..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
109 Gustav Posted October 22, 2000 Share Posted October 22, 2000 What about V? I'm curious now. ------------------ Charon doesn't make change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullethead Posted October 22, 2000 Share Posted October 22, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What about V? I'm curious now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This was of course the M4A4, the coolest Sherman on style points, due to it having the Chrysler A-57 Multibank engine. 30 cylinders, made from 5 separate straight-6 truck blocks mounted on a common crankshaft. This model of Sherman was 11" longer than the others, to make room for this engine, and was the basis for most Fireflies. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von shrad Posted October 22, 2000 Share Posted October 22, 2000 Wow. Cool tidbit Bullethead. A common crank huh? Was this an exception or did others use that design? VS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
109 Gustav Posted October 22, 2000 Share Posted October 22, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bullethead: This was of course the M4A4, the coolest Sherman on style points, due to it having the Chrysler A-57 Multibank engine. 30 cylinders, made from 5 separate straight-6 truck blocks mounted on a common crankshaft. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And flames painted on the side panels, fuzzy dice, and racing tires. Thanks for the info. ------------------ Charon doesn't make change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullethead Posted October 22, 2000 Share Posted October 22, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Wow. Cool tidbit Bullethead. A common crank huh? Was this an exception or did others use that design?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The A-57 Multibank engine was kludged together early in WW2 when the US was gearing up for full-scale war production. At that time, the standard tank engine was an aircraft radial job but production priority for these suddenly had to switch to airplanes, so there was a big hunt for new tank engines. This is why there were so many M3Ax and M4Ax tanks. All the A designations except A1 meant a different engine than the original Mx. The A-57 was part of this, a hasty expedient based on a lot of off-the-shelf components. It was used in both the M3A4 and the M4A4, both of which had extended hulls. I don't know how many M3A4s were built, but there were 7499 M4A4s. Almost all of these went to the Brits, however. The A-57's design had 1 bank of 6 cylinders vertical on top. Below this were 2 more banks forming a 130^ vee, and below them were the other 2 banks forming a 167^ vee. Each bank had its own crank, but all 5 of these were geared to a common central shaft for power output. In effect, it was 5 complete Chrysler 6-banger truck engines geared together. It had a total of 1253 cubic inches, developed 425 horsepower, and weighed 5375 pounds. The only other engine I can think of with any similarity is the Napier Sabre, which powered the Hawker Typhoons and early Tempests. This thing had 24 cylinders arranged in an H pattern as seen from the front. 4 banks of 6 jugs each, 2 pointing up and 2 down. Each half of the engine had its own crank serving 12 jugs and these were geared to a central prop shaft. Oh yeah, it had sleeve valves, too, for extra style points. This engine could produce over 2000 hp and move planes at over 400 knots. However, it was designed this way from scratch instead of being a kludge like the A-57. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria. [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 10-22-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailor Malan Posted October 22, 2000 Share Posted October 22, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bullethead: The only other engine I can think of with any similarity is the Napier Sabre, which powered the Hawker Typhoons and early Tempests. This thing had 24 cylinders arranged in an H pattern as seen from the front. 4 banks of 6 jugs each, 2 pointing up and 2 down. Each half of the engine had its own crank serving 12 jugs and these were geared to a central prop shaft. Oh yeah, it had sleeve valves, too, for extra style points. This engine could produce over 2000 hp and move planes at over 400 knots. However, it was designed this way from scratch instead of being a kludge like the A-57. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Do you know what the development history was of the A-57? Because the Napier Sabre was a pig, and took a long time to mature (early Typhoons were famous for engine unreliability, and a tail that fell off!) Interesting OT about Tempests, there were 3 prototypes developed at the same time, Mk1 (Napier Sabre IV or V), Mk11 (Bristol Centaurus, radial), and MkV (Sabre II). The MkV antered service first (April 1944), the Mk11 second (Oct 44), and the Mk1 never did (cancelled due to engine problems) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullethead Posted October 22, 2000 Share Posted October 22, 2000 Sailor Malan said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Do you know what the development history was of the A-57? Because the Napier Sabre was a pig, and took a long time to mature (early Typhoons were famous for engine unreliability, and a tail that fell off!)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Other than what I've posted above, I know very little about the A-57, except that at some point it was simplified to some extent. For example, each bank originally had its original water pump, but eventually these were replaced by 1 common pump. But I'd expect that the A-57 had a fairly smooth development process in general. After all, despite being a hasty lash-up, its main components were tried-and-true, so the main problems would have been involved with getting them to work together, instead of making each part function. The Sabre had a different sort of development stress, due to different circumstances. Its main problem was that its development (as that of the Typhoon) was given low priority in 1940 to concentrate on Hurricanes and Spitfires. Then once the Battle of Britain was over, it was ordered essentially off the drawing board and pressed into service before adequate testing. Hence it and its associated hardward (prop feathering device, for example) experienced serious problems early on. But these were eventually overcome and by 1944 or so it was about as reliable as other frontline engines. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts