Author Topic: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles  (Read 98054 times)

Offline Wyrmshadow

  • Likes to reinvent the wheel
    • Deviantart page
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #75 on: November 11, 2014, 12:34:50 AM »

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #76 on: December 03, 2014, 04:14:42 PM »
This is not just a Whif site, it is open to any and all forms of modeling.

Anyhow, a modified Churchill post belongs in the Churchill thread, as it has nothing in common
with the M3/M4 family of medium armoured vehicles.

Churchill: http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=1936.0


It does if you are fitting a Sherman turret and engine  ;)

Offline Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #77 on: June 08, 2015, 09:41:56 PM »
Great video, worth your 45 min. I knew about much of this, but they still corrected a few myths in my own mind, as a Sherman fan. Like the one about "Ronson".

Myths of American Armor. TankFest Northwest 2015

Cheers,

Logan

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #78 on: June 09, 2015, 07:12:24 PM »
Love the bit about most German Generals having never heard of Patton!  ;D

Offline Feldmarschall Zod

  • Kitbasher extroinadaire
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • I hope that's not the sound he makes...
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #79 on: June 09, 2015, 09:40:50 PM »
That video has given me an idea. ;D
Every time you eat celery,an angel vomits in a gas station bathroom. Tanks rule. I know the load is late,but the voices tell me to pull over and clean the guns.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #80 on: June 09, 2015, 11:34:07 PM »
Thinking on it British casualty and loss figures make sense as I believe from Normandy, with manpower being limited, the British deliberately traded tanks for lives.  Attacks that would ideally have significant infantry support were conducted primarily by tanks on the basis that tanks could be replaced but infantry couldn't.  The US on the other hand had far greater manpower reserves and fought their battles accordingly.

An interesting piece, thankyou for posting the link.  Not much startling or new but I always appreciate the chance to read or listen to the result of original research.  The Sherman was a good tank, perhaps its greatest strength, like most US vehicles, its reliability, combined with perfectly a good enough gun and armour.  It never seeks to amaze me that people rave about the T-34 and Panther with their sloped armour but ignore the same characteristic on the Sherman, interestingly it was part of the specification of the Crusader and Covenanter but not the Cromwell.

The comments on transport and the need to fit standard rail cars, being one of the reasons the M-26 was not desired at the front is quite telling as this is given as the reason British tanks were afflicted by limited turret ring diameter, not an issue for the Sherman as the design accepted greater height to gain a larger turret ring diameter, an obvious solution the British could have adopted but didn't.  At the end of the day the Sherman benefited from being designed and perfected after the war started, in a country that was immune to the attacks on and damage to infrastructure that plagued the other major players, with considerable assistance from experienced allies.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #81 on: July 19, 2015, 02:47:43 PM »
Something just struck me about earlier discussions about the logistical advantages of the Sherman over other allied types in that there were seven standardised Sherman models with five different engines (diesel and petrol), two turrets (with different guns), cast and welded hulls of different lengths and this doesn't count the Jumbo or Firefly variants.  Basically the M-4 was a family of similar looking vehicles produced in very different configurations at different locations concurrently, it wasn't even a case of incremental improvements, it was very different versions being built at the same time to do the same job.  It wasn't even a case of versions being built for different missions, i.e. infantry support, battle tank version for the armoured divisions, a version for the marines, or even specific export versions for allies.  Logistics must have been quite challenging to sort out to say the least.

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #82 on: July 20, 2015, 09:04:18 AM »
Something just struck me about earlier discussions about the logistical advantages of the Sherman over other allied types in that there were seven standardised Sherman models with five different engines (diesel and petrol), two turrets (with different guns), cast and welded hulls of different lengths and this doesn't count the Jumbo or Firefly variants.  Basically the M-4 was a family of similar looking vehicles produced in very different configurations at different locations concurrently, it wasn't even a case of incremental improvements, it was very different versions being built at the same time to do the same job.  It wasn't even a case of versions being built for different missions, i.e. infantry support, battle tank version for the armoured divisions, a version for the marines, or even specific export versions for allies.  Logistics must have been quite challenging to sort out to say the least.

Not really.  The fUSSR and the Marines got the diesel engined versions.  The British got the petrol engined versions, the US Army the other petrol engined ones and the multi-bank version was used for training!   ;)

Offline Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #83 on: July 20, 2015, 10:04:25 AM »
Rickshaw is quite right. Nobody was dealing with the headache of all those variants because nobody was operating that many variants in one unit. It's not like they were assigned variants from the entire production run of the Sherman at random.

Something just struck me about earlier discussions about the logistical advantages of the Sherman over other allied types in that there were seven standardised Sherman models with five different engines (diesel and petrol), two turrets (with different guns), cast and welded hulls of different lengths and this doesn't count the Jumbo or Firefly variants.  Basically the M-4 was a family of similar looking vehicles produced in very different configurations at different locations concurrently, it wasn't even a case of incremental improvements, it was very different versions being built at the same time to do the same job.  It wasn't even a case of versions being built for different missions, i.e. infantry support, battle tank version for the armoured divisions, a version for the marines, or even specific export versions for allies.  Logistics must have been quite challenging to sort out to say the least.


That's a definite misrepresentation of the situation. Few militaries used more than two engine variants concurrently. The hull construction didn't matter because the main components were interchangeable. You could take the turret off of a welded hull Sherman and put it on a cast hull Sherman and vice versa. You could even mix and match portions of the hull. That was the case with the M4 Composite. It had the front hull of an M4A1 and and the rear hull of an M4.



They were far from a maintenance nightmare because you rarely had more than one engine type in a unit and almost everything else was interchangeable. They were modular, like a LEGO kit or a modern M4 carbine. You could mix and match pieces to suit your needs.

"Sure, you could theoretically mix and match, but how often was that done?"

Well, you'd be surprised, actually. All those 76mm Sherman Jumbos were done in the field by taking 76mm guns out of normal Shermans. Heck, even the 76mm turret itself was just nabbed from the T23 family intended to replace the Sherman. The M36B1 was possible because you could take the turret from a standard M36 and plop it on a Sherman hull. And on that note, the M36 itself was just a new turret on an otherwise standard M10 or M10A1 hull. The M10, M10A1, M36, M36B1, and M36B2 use just two engines—the same GM 6046 diesel and Ford GAA gasoline engines used in the M4A2 and M4A3, respectively.



Also, many of those options were effectively incremental upgrades, just with overlap in production. The Ford GAA was a replacement for the Continental R975, The T23-style turret replaced the original turret, the 76mm was a replacement for the 75mm, and the HVSS running gear replaced the VVSS. The suspension on the Sherman was merely a continuation of that originally introduced on the M2 Medium Tank, widened for use on the M3 Lee, then used again on the M4 Sherman, where is saw the most upgrades.



Again, so they could make these sorts of changes, but how often did they?

Well, the best-known examples of this was the replacement of the running gear and engines was the Israeli Shermans. Most of those started off as VVSS Shermans with various gun and engine types. They then purchased HVSS suspension units, and eventually new engines for their different variants. Ones with the smaller 75mm and 105mm turrets got the French 75s to become M50s and the 76mm turrets got the French 105s to become M51s.

Probably my favorite case where the components were swapped, though, is the one from your home country, Volkodav. The M3 Lees and Grants operated by the Australian Army were kept on after World War Two ended, but there was no longer a ready supply of M3 Medium Tank components and those from the M4 Sherman were superior and compatible. As a result, for a while after WWII, you had M3s running around Australia with Sherman running gear. It is for that reason that you'll often read that the M7 Priest and M12 GMC were M4 Sherman variants when they were, in fact, M3 Lee variants. At least, when they first came out they were, by the time their product was finished, they were using Sherman components.



The reason why you saw so many Sherman variants was because you could mix and match with little consequence. Many US units had both M4 and M4A1 Shermans in the same unit because they were automotively identical. They used the same turret, gun, suspension, and engine. Then the US Army decided to replace those with the new M4A3, which still used the same gun, turret, and suspension, despite having the new engine. As more firepower became necessary, they went to the M4A3 76mm, which shared the same hull, engine, and suspension with existing M4A3s. Finally, the US started switching over to the new HVSS M4A3 76s, which used the same hull, engine, turret, and gun as the existing M4A3 76s. So, it was all incremental and you didn't generally have VVSS M4A1 75s operating in the same battalion as HVSS M4A3 76s, at least not for very long.

That's more extreme than most units, too. The Marine Corps, for example, was the primary American user of the M4A2, because having the option of selecting a diesel powered tank, allowed them to just use Navy fuel stocks (since they were hogging all the diesel during wartime anyway). The Army didn't mess with the M4A2 for the most part and during WWII, the Marine Corps didn't much use the M4, M4A1, or M4A3. The Americans basically didn't use the M4A4 at all during WWII, forcing those on the British instead, who weren't in a position to be picky given that all of their tanks were worse than even a Sherman with that A57 Multibank. It was that mix and match capability that allowed US industry to convert 12 M4A2 Shermans to M32B2 recovery vehicles specifically to support the USMC units operating M4A2 diesel Shermans.



Your assertion is that having M32, M32B1, and M32B2 variants of the Tank Recovery Vehicle would complicate logistics. Quite the opposite, in fact. It simplified it.

The three piece transmission housings on the early Shermans? Many of those were eventually replaced with the single piece cast nose, or even the later sharp nose transmission housing. They were largely interchangeable, so that's what some operators (like the Israelis) did.

In fact, this variety was often an advantage rather than a disadvantage. It allowed early production equipment to be updated quickly and easily as time progressed. M3 Lees were converted into M31 Tank Recovery Vehicles with some updated suspension components from Shermans. Early model Shermans were refurbished into M32 Tank Recovery Vehicles, sometimes with HVSS suspension later on. M7 Priests built on M3 Lee chassis later got cast hull noses when they were refurbished.



Cheers,

Logan

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #84 on: November 25, 2015, 08:30:59 AM »
Using its turret to rehabilitate WWII-era medium tanks.

like the Egyptian's did with their M4s?

I remember hearing that M4 upgraded with FL-10 turret by Egypt has inferior ergonomics than the M50 from Israel because of the hull height.  Does it have anything to do with where a Sherman loads its ammo stowage?
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Offline ysi_maniac

  • I will die understanding not this world
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #85 on: December 17, 2015, 02:43:03 PM »
Wheeled Kangaroo and Priest


Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #86 on: December 18, 2015, 03:07:22 AM »
 :)
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline ysi_maniac

  • I will die understanding not this world
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #87 on: December 18, 2015, 05:49:31 AM »

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #88 on: January 01, 2016, 05:25:47 AM »
Real life variant:



A scratch build of one can be seen here (click on image below):

All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline ysi_maniac

  • I will die understanding not this world
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #89 on: January 16, 2016, 03:07:26 PM »
What if Bunderwehr were allowed in 1948 maybe? or France exports these kind of tanks to ME countries?

« Last Edit: January 18, 2016, 09:58:09 AM by ysi_maniac »

Offline Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #90 on: January 16, 2016, 03:18:08 PM »
I shudder to think of what that would look like scaled. It may look neat on a lower M10-style hull with HVSS suspension, though...

Cheers,

Logan

Offline finsrin

  • The Dr Frankenstein of the modelling world...when not hiding from SBA
  • Finds part glues it on, finds part glues it on....
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #91 on: January 16, 2016, 03:56:50 PM »
Suggestion:  Any you armor builders/drawers considering what to do next.  How about a M3 Lee/Grant with reactive armor blocks.  Armament could be 25mm Bushmaster with 7.62 coax in turret and 76mm or 90mm main gun.  M4A3E8 rolling gear?  Modern sensors?

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #92 on: January 16, 2016, 10:51:12 PM »
Conversion of M-3s into assault guns with a cupola or MG turret replacing the 37mm turret.

Offline Cliffy B

  • Ship Whiffer Extraordinaire...master of Beyond Visual Range Modelling
  • Its ZOTT!!!
    • My Artwork
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #93 on: January 17, 2016, 07:40:30 AM »
Conversion of M-3s into assault guns with a cupola or MG turret replacing the 37mm turret.


Well you had the M7 Priest as an SPG conversion of the M3 Lee that was produced. Also the T40 as a tank destroyer conversion that was made but then canceled before the production run as begun.  Could use those as a basis for another conversion.

http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=922

I always wanted to see a full, non-turreted TD conversion of an M4 with a big 90mm or 105 howitzer similar to how the Russians made the SU-85 from the T34.  May have to get some plastic and have fun but one of the armor guys on here will prob do a better job.  I'm a ship guy after all  ;D
"Radials growl, inlines purr, jets blow!"  -Anonymous

"Helos don't fly.  They vibrate so violently that the ground rejects them."  -Tom Clancy

"If all else fails, call in an air strike."  -Anonymous

Offline ysi_maniac

  • I will die understanding not this world
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #94 on: January 18, 2016, 09:59:18 AM »
Again ... perhaps more plausible
What if Bunderwehr were allowed in 1948 maybe? or France exports these kind of tanks to ME countries?


Offline finsrin

  • The Dr Frankenstein of the modelling world...when not hiding from SBA
  • Finds part glues it on, finds part glues it on....
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #95 on: January 18, 2016, 10:15:06 AM »
Surprised: that tank & turret combo works. :)

Offline ysi_maniac

  • I will die understanding not this world
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #96 on: January 19, 2016, 01:51:44 AM »
ISherman variants with AMX-30 bits


Offline abtex

  • Newly Joined - Welcome me!
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #97 on: February 13, 2016, 10:25:17 PM »
found this at https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/174338-arbre-tanknologique-france/page-6
(It seems to be a What If forum. Has a number of different France vehicles)

(hope it has not been posted already)

Offline Jacques Deguerre

  • Older and fatter but not wiser.
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #98 on: February 13, 2016, 11:00:44 PM »
@ ysi_maniac: I really like those Shermans with the AMX30 turrets. Of course, the version with just the gun and mantlet works as a sort of proto- M51 Isherman.

@abtex: I've always thought that M4/FL10 was a cool tank, in an odd sort of way. While this version is more or less real world, a version based on another Sherman variant with HVSS and either the 90 or 105mm guns would be really neat and uh, "Whiffy"(?).

Offline Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer