M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles

[jcf]

Madill Yarders photo gallery, a lot of them of the M4 based machines, both VVSS and HVSS types.
https://pbase.com/rustygrapple/madill_logging_equipment

Monster that used eight HVSS suspension assemblies.


Click on this link if the photo doesn't show:
https://pbase.com/rustygrapple/image/133146618

[apophenia]

More Madill yarders, these ones are O71 Yarders

[GTX_Admin]

M4A3(105)W HVSS with a T121 powered cupola armed with 2x .50cals:

[GTX_Admin]

A useful resource:  http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/manufacturer/m3grant/m3grant.html

http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/

[GTX_Admin]

Sherman with 40mm:






And there is a conversion kit available!!!

[GTX_Admin]

90mm Gun Motor Carriage, T53:

[GTX_Admin]

Applying concrete armour to Sherman:

[GTX_Admin]

Note the 'gun':

[dy031101]

While I am aware that round-turret 76mm-gun (M1 or equivalent, not the 17-pounder) Shermans do exist post-WWII, I don't really understand what they did to manage to avoid the need to adopt the bigger T23 turret......

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Cost.  Plenty of early M4 Sherman hulls post war that were surplus.  It was much cheaper to modify the gun mount to take the 76mm gun than to cast an entirely new turret to fit the older hulls. 

[Logan Hartke]

I don't really understand what they did to manage to avoid the need to adopt the bigger T23 turret......

As I understand it, it was nothing phyiscal, just a matter of perspective.



In 1942 and early '43, you don't have a specific need for the 76mm gun, but rather an anticipated future need for the gun. And you have to remember, US Ordnance is basically only considering the US Army's needs when they're developing new equipment. So when they put American troops in the turret and they complain about the lack of room to handle the larger ammunition, then the potential advantages of the extra penetration didn't seem to be worth it when weighed against the poorer HE effect (remember, that was the primary role and ammunition type used by US tanks during every stage of WWII), slower rate of fire, reduced ammunition capacity, and additional supply chain concerns. It wasn't an impossible fit, it just wasn't considered worth the downsides.



http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/turret_types/76mm_turrets.html

And they didn't specifically develop the new 76mm turret in response to these complaints so that the Sherman could mount the 76mm gun, but it was just that the new, larger turret developed for the T23 tank (Ordnance's replacement for the Sherman) had the same turret ring as the Sherman. By mid-1943, when the 76mm was reconsidered for the Sherman, 250 T23 tanks had been ordered and more orders were expected, so it wasn't a theoretical, paper design. This was a turret that was designed & developed, the castings existed, and the turret was already in production, so it was basically a drop in replacement that would just require changes to the hull ammunition racks.



http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/m4a3e4/m4a3e4.html

Now, after WWII, the equation is much different. Tank armor is getting thicker, not thinner. The 76mm gun has proved its worth and nobody wants a warmed up WWI French 75 anymore. We're not talking about making new turrets and new tanks. We're talking about making the most efficient use out of existing parts.

We're not worried about the US Army, these are only meant for export. We're not worrying about bulky American troops in the turret, complaining about being too cramped. We're talking about taking 100 tanks, sending them on a boat across the ocean, and never having to think about it again. You're not worrying about US Army doctrine and stepping on the shoes of the Tank Destroyer Command. These tanks could very well be the only tanks in the inventory of the MDAP recipient army. In that world, then squeezing the 76mm gun into the 75mm Sherman turret is just fine.



The British came to similar conclusions when they developed the Charioteer on converted Cromwell chassis after WWII. That was even tougher. They had to design a new turret entirely and still chuck one guy out of it to make the bigger gun fit. By comparison, the M4E6 compromise was great.

Cheers,

Logan

[Volkodav]

Timely post Logan, I just opened this topic to speculate about British and Commonwealth Shermans (and derivatives) had the war continued for longer, they been retained post war or even mobilized for an evolving scenario.  The idea was HVSS and 20pdr in T23 turret Shermans and Achilles tank destroyers, while the remaining small turret Shermans are regunned with 77mm HV.  None of this is because the British guns are better, but because these vehicles were meant to make up numbers in a rapidly expanded land force that was primarily equipped with Comets and Centurions.

Possible reasons, the Soviet Union supplies huge quantities of armour etc to China (and possibly thousands of "volunteers") during the Korean conflict and the Commonwealth forces have to mechanise asap.  I don't know what Canada, South Africa and New Zealands post war plans were but I know all three nations deployed significant armoured forces during WWII, while Australia's post war army was initially intended to be built around and regular Infantry Regiment of three battalions in one Brigade and a regular Armoured Brigade with five tank regiments (Centurion replacing Churchill) and two reserve Armoured Brigades each of five tank regiments (Comet replacing M-3 Grant and Matilda), with additional reserve Citizen Military Forces (CMF) cavalry regiments assigned as reconnaissance and anti tank units.  Due to economic reasons this never eventuated but had the threat justified it there obviously wouldn't be enough Centurions and Comets to go around, making modernised Shermans and M-10s ideal for the rapid expansion.  Initially issued as received, workshops would progressively bring them up to a common standard using kits that could be produced much faster than new build modern tanks could be delivered to Commonwealth forces.

[Logan Hartke]

Well, no question the 20 pdr you mentioned (and fitted in the Charioteer) was better than any of the contemporary American guns, my point was just that it came at a cost when it came to fitting it to a turret on the Cromwell hull. I actually think the Charioteer looks pretty good, but it was apparently not well thought of (and I can see why).

As to putting the 20 pdr in the T23 turret, that should work fine in the world of postwar compromised crew ergonomics. It's certainly no larger than the CN-105-57 the Israelis used, though I imagine the recoil force is comparable.

[Volkodav]

Well, no question the 20 pdr you mentioned (and fitted in the Charioteer) was better than any of the contemporary American guns, my point was just that it came at a cost when it came to fitting it to a turret on the Cromwell hull. I actually think the Charioteer looks pretty good, but it was apparently not well thought of (and I can see why).

As to putting the 20 pdr in the T23 turret, that should work fine in the world of postwar compromised crew ergonomics. It's certainly no larger than the CN-105-57 the Israelis used, though I imagine the recoil force is comparable.

The Charioteer was at best a compromise and more of a tank destroyer than a tank, with very thin armour on its two man turret.

I understand the reason the 17pdr wasn't installed in the T23 turret was there was simply no need as the 76mm was of comparable performance and Shermans so fitted were not available pre D Day when the Firefly conversions were required, even if it had been determined to be worth while converting them for logistical reasons.  The 20pdr is another matter entirely, a massive increase in performance, hence worth the effort combining with the reliable, adequately armoured Sherman Easy Eight, in the late 40s, early 50s as a mobilisation measure.

As for the 77mm, it seemed like a possibly beneficial upgrade for the small turret Shermans, providing better AT performance than the 75mm with less ergonomic compromise than the 17pdr or US 76mm.  The M-10 / Achilles would be an improvement in performance with minimal operational compromise, a more powerful M-36 equivalent.

Centurions would be the core of the independent Tank Brigades, Comets would equip the Reconnaissance Regiments, 20pdr Shermans would make up the lions share of the tanks in armoured divisions, while 77mm Shermans and 20pdr Achilles would support the infantry divisions in an anticipated conflict against Russia or China in the decade and a half after WWII.

[Story]

So the Yugoslavians wedged a 122mm main gun into an M4A3 in 1956.
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar-yugolsavian-prototypes-so-122/

[GTX_Admin]

Wicked:




Also of interest in that link is the version trialed with the engine from the T-34-85:

[Buzzbomb]

Now you blokes have gone and done it.
I have the Academy Lee kit out that has been lanquishing for a goodly while in the stash.
Was slated to be a Yeramba (running gear issues aside) but with so many other good options in this thread actual plastic hacking may commence.

So either APC option (leading) or a 40mm Bofors mounting (good use for the rather average Italeri Bofors)

Besides the new Miniart Lee/Grant offerings look much better basis for a Yeramba (Not as much interior to scratch up)  with a Bronco 25 Pounder rather than the Tamiya one I have put aside.

[GTX_Admin]

Random idea:  1946 extended WWII or even Korean War Sherman equipped with IR searchlight to allow night fighting.

[Story]

Contextualization, also good way to kill 45 minutes of quarantine time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ19oZRZqfc

[Old Wombat]

Contextualization, also good way to kill 45 minutes of quarantine time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ19oZRZqfc

Unfortunately, not available in Australia.

[ysi_maniac]

Swapping turrets between T-55 and Super Sherman M-51

[Mig Eater]

T72 tank destroyer, it uses the M10 hull fitted with a modified version of the Sherman 76mm turret with the roof cut out to make it open topped & a more angular rear fitted with a storage box.   

[apophenia]

T72 tank destroyer, it uses the M10 hull fitted with a modified version of the Sherman 76mm turret with the roof cut out to make it open topped & a more angular rear fitted with a storage box.   

I wonder, was the turret roof removed for situational awareness reasons or as a weight saving measure?

[Old Wombat]

Probably a bit of both. TD crews were strong proponents of open tops for their vehicles, as the better situational awareness gave them the first-shot advantage over most tanks.

However, they weren't so keen whilst it was raining or they were under artillery fire.

Trade-offs.

[apophenia]

Thanks. That makes sense. What's a little rain if you get a round or two off while your opponent is still faffing about with his periscopic sights?

But, yeah, shrapnel would be another matter