Amedeo Posted April 22, 2001 Share Posted April 22, 2001 I don't know whether this was already discussed ad nauseam, but... shouldn't all the Shermans with the 105mm be without the gyrostabilizer? Amedeo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Duquette Posted April 22, 2001 Share Posted April 22, 2001 somewhat related...I read somewhere that the assualt gun Sherman only had manual traverse. Is that true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Username Posted April 22, 2001 Share Posted April 22, 2001 I think everything has been discussed but that doesnt mean anything is done being talked about. Yep. 105 shermans had no gyros. I read a report where it was found by an armored battalion commander that his 105mm HEAT shermans were the only weapon that could take on panthers frontally but they couldnt use scoot'n'shoot tactics like other shermans. Gyros were over rated if you ask me and maybe were good for area fire from the MG, getting the range for the main weapon to shoot. Sort of on the fly range finding. In certain conditions (level ground, gyros dialed in, firing against turretless vehicles) they may have been usefull. But given the technology of the day, and knowing the real issues about servo systems; I can see why they may have been chrome plating for some tankers. Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amedeo Posted April 22, 2001 Author Share Posted April 22, 2001 Hmmm... I presume BTS won't address this inaccuracy, since it's now clear that no more patching of CMBO is programmed. Amedeo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amedeo Posted April 22, 2001 Author Share Posted April 22, 2001 BTW the 105mm armed M4A3 had both manual and power turret traverse, so I presume that all the 'assault gun' Shermans had. Amedeo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Duquette Posted April 22, 2001 Share Posted April 22, 2001 I think this is where I saw it. From “Small Unit Actions” Dept US ARMY 1946. Battle of Singling December 1944. This is part of the description regarding an engagement between elements of the 4th Armored Division and elements of the 11th Panzer Division. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>…be wiser to attempt to get the escaping SP from the flank by moving the 3d Platoon tanks through the west end of the town. He therefore had his own tank back between buildings No. 6 and No. 7, where he was covered from the west and could command the square, and called Lieutenant Cook. Cook's three tanks, his own, the one commanded by Sgt. Giles W. Hayward, and the 105 -mm assault gun, commanded by Sgt. Robert G. Grimm, were advancing on the town between the two southern trails. Later in the narrative regarding Sgt. Grimm’s 105mm assault gun Sherman They were moving when Grimm casually turned his field glasses to a pillbox on the ridge 1,200 yards north where he had seen a few enemy infantry minutes previously. He got his glasses on the spot just in time to see the long gun tube of the German tank's 75 flame and fire directly at him. The round hit nearby, and Grimm had a split second to decide whether to shoot back or run for it. He figured that his 105 without power traverse could not be laid in less than 20 seconds. That was too long. He threw his tank in gear and backed out of the garden. He had just started when a second round hit Hayward's tank on the sprocket, crippling it. In the next few seconds Hayward was hit four times and the tank began to burn. Gunner Cpl. Angelo Ginoli and the bow gunner Pvt. John H. Furlow were killed; Hayward and his loader, Pfc. Vern L. Thomas, were wounded. Grimm made good his escape through the opening between No. 9 and No. II. Outside, the tank bogged down in the heavy mud, and the crew evacuated while Grimm got Sowers to pull him out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I am assuming that Grimm’s Sherman 105mm assault gun power traverse was kaput or something at the time of this engagement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Duquette Posted April 22, 2001 Share Posted April 22, 2001 Than again maybe there wasn’t anything wrong with Grimms Power traverse in his Sherman Assault Gun, other than he never had powered traverse to begin with . From the Master of Sherman Tank history/development himself: R.P. Hunnicutt, “Sherman, A History of the American Medium Tank”. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Sherman's original design concept included the 105mm howitzer as alternate armament and shortly after the start of production in early 1942, work began to develop a suitable mount. Two pilot mounts were completed in November and were designated as the combination mount T70. They carried the 105mm howitzer M2Alwith a coaxial .30 caliber machine gun to the left of the howitzer. Provision was made for a direct sight telescope at the right side in front of the gunner. The heavy cast shield had a maximum thickness of 3 inches. The mounts were installed in two medium tanks M4A4 at Detroit Arsenal and they were designated by Ordnance Committee action as the medium tank M4A4EI. M4A4EI, serial number 5868, was shipped to Aberdeen Proving Ground where tests began on 7 December. The registration number of this tank was W-3057678. The other pilot, registration number W-3057717, was sent to the Armored Board at Fort Knox. Both tanks, were fitted with the Westinghouse power traverse and elevation gyrostabilizer. The range of elevation for the howitzer varied from +33 to –4 degrees. Stowage space was provided for 58 rounds of 105mm ammunition. Tests at Aberdeen and Fort Knox showed that the 105mm howitzer M2AI was extremely awkward to serve inside the tank turret. For example, after placing a round in the chamber, the loader had to reach across the top of the breech in order to close the breechblock. The continuous-pull type of firing mechanism proved unsatisfactory and the counterrecoil buffering was insufficient. The turret was also badly unbalanced so that the power traverse would not work properly if the tank was on a 30 per cent slope. As a result of the test program, the howitzer was redesigned to include a constant diameter recoil slide surface on the outside of the barrel. A yoke also was added to the breech ring for the attachment of the recoil cylinders. The breechblock was shortened and its operating handle relocated for easy access by the loader. A trip-off firing mechanism replaced the continuous-pull type. These modifications were approved at a Fort Knox conference in February 1943. At the same time, it was decided to eliminate the gyrostabilizer and power traverse from the production vehicles and to use a partial turret basket with seats for the commander, gunner, and loader suspended from the turret ring. A better direct sight telescope and increased 105mm ammunition stowage were also specified.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amedeo Posted April 22, 2001 Author Share Posted April 22, 2001 Docs describing US tanks in service in the Italian Army during the '50s shows that the M4A3(105) had power traverse. May be the earlier models didn't. BTW the various Firefly models should also have no gyrostabilizers IIRC. Amedeo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Duquette Posted April 23, 2001 Share Posted April 23, 2001 Pg 284 Hunnicutt. Apparently the M4A3 105 Assualt gun did eventually get upgraded with power traverse, but these mod's didnt reach reach Europe until the war had already ended. Presumably these are the assualt guns that ended up with the post war Italian Army. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Yeide Posted April 23, 2001 Share Posted April 23, 2001 Reports on tank gunnery and the separate tank battalions issued in May 1946 by the General Board, United States Forces, European Theater, confirm that the assault gun Sherman variant lacked power traverse during wartime. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonFox Posted April 23, 2001 Share Posted April 23, 2001 Yes I agree, Brit documents comment that the 105 was unsuitable for conversion to firefly for this reason. As an aside the Brits did use the Sherman 105 in Europe though not in large numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted April 23, 2001 Share Posted April 23, 2001 I wouldn't worry too much about the 105 having a gyrosabilizer. According to some posts in the Tips forum 105's will generally fire HE at enemy tanks rather than HEAT due to a TacAI problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echo Posted April 23, 2001 Share Posted April 23, 2001 I prefer my Gyros with a little sour cream and a side of fries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Duquette Posted April 23, 2001 Share Posted April 23, 2001 mmmmmm (Homer S.)...gyros....Light on the yogurt sauce for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts