M3 Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles

[Son of Damian]

When first introduced to combat, at El Alamein in October of '42, the Sherman was one of the best tanks in the world

After that the Germans introduced their next generation of tanks and those were quite a bit better than what the Sherman could muster.

US armored warfare doctrine envisioned few tank on tank engagements. Instead, tanks like the Sherman were designed specifically for infantry support.

It's been some thing of a problem for the US military during its history to go along with doctrines created in peace time rather than battefield realities.

But by Oct 42 the Panther and Tiger were all ready in production and would be used in significant numbers at Kursk and Kasserine the next spring and summer. And encounters with these tanks at Kasserine should have taught the US Army that the Sherman can't support the infantry in the face of these new German tanks. Not to mention the Germans had plentiful numbers of AT guns designed to take out heavier Russian tanks.

The signs that the Sherman was and would increasingly be fodder were there, the Army just didn't notice.

eventually we made over 49,000 of the things

For and interesting comparison how many tank destroyers did the US produce during the war?

[jcf]

It's been some thing of a problem for the US military during its history to go along with doctrines created in peace time rather than battefield realities.

Not unique to the US military, rather its a feature of all military forces everywhere, throughout time.

For and interesting comparison how many tank destroyers did the US produce during the war?

Around 11,000 or so of three main types: M10(3"), M18(76mm), M36(90mm)

The story gets a bit confusing as some of the M36 series were converted M10s.

Cheers, Jon

[Jeffry Fontaine]

The one thing that I find intriguing about the M4 Sherman was its versatility, like the F-4 Phantom, the M4 was capable of doing many things, just not good at any one thing.  

So with that in mind, what could be done to build a better M4 SHerman?  I had been toying with the idea of an M4 that was wider than the later versions.  The extra width would have allowed a larger turret ring to be installed and that would have allowed a larger turret to be fitted.  There was a prototype built with the turret of an M26 Pershing fitted to it as a test and development vehicle.  It was a bit cramped with that larger turret and ring fitted to the standard Sherman hull.  It is one of my favorite Sherman variants.  

Taking that idea and going a bit further, the extra width of the hull would have allowed the later Continental 12 cylinder AVDS1790 to be fitted to the engine compartment and that would have allowed for a higher horsepower to weight ratio, basically putting more horses under the hood and giving the Sherman some additional speed and maneuverability.  Of course all of this expansion would increase the overall weight of the vehicle so the tracks would have to be even wider to allow the ground pressure to remain somewhere close to the original M4.  

What does this do for you?  Well for me, it makes me think that if the M4 had been widened like that, then the next logical step would have been to see the later Continental AVDS-1790 series diesel engines fitted to the Sherman to give it better survivability and fuel economy.  With the diesel engines, comes more upgrades so you could see something like a RISE Passive M4 Sherman fitted out with all of the bells and whistles of the M60A3.  

Forgot to mention that during all of these changes, the front drive set up would also have to go since the wider hull would also need to be lengthened to accommodate the greater volume of the Continental AVDS-1790 power pack.  So why not make it a rear drive set up as well?  This would free up the front to become a full fledged fighting compartment without the mechanical obstacles of the drive shaft and transmission being in the way.  With the relocation of the drive train to the rear of the vehicle, you could then place the driver in the center of the hull and have just one access hatch.  The need for a co-driver and hull mounted machine gun would by this time no longer be necessary.  I would suggest using the torsion bar suspension system but it looks odd on the M4, perhaps that could be the last change in a long line of changes to the Sherman but for now, there is nothing really wrong with keeping the HVSS.  

Like I said, this has been something I have been thinking about for a while and the changes to the Sherman hull would be drastic, the end result would be something the size of the M-48/M-60 series tank with the easily recognized features of the M4 Sherman hull.  Sort of like our continuation of the M4 like the Russians did with the T-44, T-54, T-55, and T-62 series tanks, all of which resembled the original T-44 with moderate changes to the design over the years as they continued to make it better.  

Some more ideas for the Sherman:

SPAAG variant with the turret from the M19 or M42 Duster mounted on the HVSS hull. 
Panther turret on the M4 HVSS hull.  Markings for a French, early German Bundeswehr, Egyptian, Israeli, Argentine vehicle. 
T-34/85 turret on the M4 HVSS or VVSS hull (maybe with Yugoslavian markings). 

What do you think?

[philp]

Thanks for starting this thread.

I have actually been toying with a Sherman idea for the last couple of days.
My thought is to counter the Panthers and Tigers in the Normandy hedgerows, they designed a JagdSherman idea.  Kinda like the Jagdpanther, extra armor added to the front, no turret, 90mm gun mounted to deal with the cats.

Storyline goes something like this:

The strong armor of the Panther and Tiger was a rude awakening for Sherman drivers who were being taken out at ranges well beyond their ability to hit back.  This was especially true in the bocage where 1 tank could hold up the advance for hours or more.
As a stop gap measure, until the Pershing could be put in place, a Sherman tank buster, the Meade, was designed kind of like the Jagdpanther.  The turret was removed and a superstructure added to hold the 90mm gun used in the M-36.  Extra armor was added to the front end so it could go into a slugging match with its German adversaries.  The design was quickly approved and a dozen Sherman chassis served as the basis for the new weapon.  These were shipped immediately to France and were the spearhead in Operation Cobra that finally became the breakout needed.  
Once out of the Hedgerow country, however, their slower speed and weak side armor became a hindrance.  They were used piecemeal in a couple of battles with one available during the defense of Bastogne.

[dy031101]

This was going to be part of the thread on tanks for the Reserves and Guard but I would prefer to keep these threads as single subjects only, so with that in mind, here we go...

It'd make sense because the original thread concentrates on upgrades and scrapped-togethers, not really brand-new manufactures.

But hey, a widened M4 hull with a larger turret comparable with those of M48 or even M60...... I'm eagerly trying to imagine......

There was a prototype built with the turret of an M26 Pershing fitted to it as a test and development vehicle. It was a bit cramped with that larger turret and ring fitted to the standard Sherman hull. It is one of my favorite Sherman veriants.

Other than being cramped, how was the test result?

[jcf]

Your steroided Sherman sounds a lot like the M6 Heavy.



M6A2E1 with 105mm gun.


M6 page(Text is in Polish)

Jon

[philp]

Also want to try a Sherman Mech.  Some one had a pic of one on a while ago that got the juices flowing.  Isn't there a game about these, War Krieg or something like that.

Ah, here it is:


Arrgh, dang Picasa is a pain to use.

[GTX]

What about a Sherman Sturmgeschütz - i.e. remove the turret and place the main gun in a semi-fixed mount low down in the hull like these:




Regards,

Greg

[dy031101]

If someone can scratchbuild an entire turret, how would you think of a CT-CV turret (tested on 8 x 8 Piranha) on a Sherman hull for something radical?

[jcf]

What about a Sherman Sturmgeschütz - i.e. remove the turret and place the main gun in a semi-fixed mount low down in the hull like these:




Regards,

Greg

A bigger packaging problem than the Stug, the Stugs were crowded, a Sherman version would be horrible.


A layout similar to the Jagdpanzer Kanone would probably work better on a Sherman hull.


Jon

[dy031101]

Would the turret of a M551 Sheridan fit into the existing Sherman turret ring?

That'd be for a turreted assault gun.

Is there any other contemporary turret that could offer better ballistic protection than the old Sherman turret while still able to accommodate the CN-105D1 gun?

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Would the turret of a M551 Sheridan fit into the existing Sherman turret ring?  That'd be for a turreted assault gun.  Is there any other contemporary turret that could offer better ballistic protection than the old Sherman turret while still able to accommodate the CN-105D1 gun?

I see no reason why you could not just mount the 152mm Gun/Missile Launcher from the M551 into the M51 Isherman Turret.  There is plenty more room inside of that turret than what was found inside the M551 turret. 

Increasing armor protection will come at a cost in mobility with a reduction in speed and subsequent increase in vehicle weight.  Armor is good, but it is better to be able to get around the field at higher speed and use terrain for concealment and protection.  The M4 Sherman was able to go over terrain that was otherwise closed to German heavy tanks such as the Tiger and Panther due to the higher weight and ground pressure which prevented their access.  This issue can be addressed by putting more surface area in contact with the ground with more road wheels and wider tracks but at some point this will work against you instead of in your favor. 

Jon's suggestion for a JPK90 style upper works on a Sherman hull to create a tank destroyer is great idea provided you move the drive train to the rear and keep the forward section of the hull for the fighting compartment. 

[dy031101]

I see no reason why you could not just mount the 152mm Gun/Missile of the M551 in the M51 Isherman Turret.  There is plenty more room inside of that turret than what was found inside the M551 turret.

Fair enough. 

Increasing armor protection will come at a cost in mobility with a reduction in speed and subsequent increase in vehicle weight.  Armor is good, but it is better to be able to get around the field at higher speed and use terrain for concealment and protection.  The M4 Sherman was able to go over terrain that was otherwise closed to German heavy tanks such as the Tiger and Panther due to the higher weight and ground pressure which prevented their access.

I'm not necessarily looking for one with thicker armour (hence more weight), but one that is, say relatively efficient at deflecting incoming fire.

Internal space is still paramount, hence the mentioning of CN-105D1 gun......

[SinUnNombre]

Hey everyone. Since Wal-Mart has stopped selling model kits, my local one has been dumping off their remaining kits for bargain prices. So the stash has been swelling with minimal outlay. I picked up 3 copies of 21st Century's 1/32 M7 Priest for $3 a pop. Diecast hull and plastic everything else. Naturally, I have no idea what to with them. I've read on Wiki of an APC version build by ANZAC troops called the Kangaroo. Maybe convert one and paint it in Iraeli colors, as we all know of their history of bodged-together APCs. What else couls be done with one?  Thanks for your input.

Jon

[jcf]

ANZAC?
Oy, the Kangaroo was a Canadian conversion.

Jon