Beyond The Sprues
Modelling => Ideas & Inspiration => Land => Topic started by: Jeffry Fontaine on January 21, 2012, 05:51:41 AM
-
Rob Haelterman's 1/72nd scale what-if model JagdSherman (http://www.arcarm.com/Gal01/001-100/gal052-Jagdsherman-Haelterman/00.shtm)
(http://www.arcarm.com/Gal01/001-100/gal052-Jagdsherman-Haelterman/01.jpg) (http://www.arcarm.com/Gal01/001-100/gal052-Jagdsherman-Haelterman/00.shtm)
(Click on image to view article. Image source: Rob Haelterman/ARC-Armor (http://www.arcarm.com/))
-
Cool- I want to do something like that one day.
Invited?
-
Yep dang nifty. Dude needs to be here.
-
Interesting concept, however the name is silly and this line is a bit baffling:
"I have always wondered why the Allies never worked on anything resembling the “Jagdpanzer” style of vehicles" ...
Huh? Has he never heard of the Su-85 and Su-100? How about Archer?, OK the gun doesn't stick out the front,
but the concept is the same.
The US did work on fixed casemate, 3" gun Tank-Destroyers, the T24 of 1940/41 and the T40 of early 1942, which was based on the T24. The T40 was standardized as the M9 in April, 1942 and was to enter immediate production, however the Tank Destroyer Board didn't like the vehicle from the speed or mobility standpoints. Production was also a problem as there were only 27 of the Model 1918 3in guns available, thus the project was cancelled.
(http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/selfpropelledguns/usspg-T40.jpg)
Also it can be argued that the Christie originated the layout:
(http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/lighttanks/uslt-M1936.jpg)
Model 1932
(http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/lighttanks/uslt-M1935A.jpg)
Model 1935A
(http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/lighttanks/uslt-M1935B.jpg)
Model 1935B
(http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/lighttanks/uslt-M1936-trackonly.jpg)
Model 1936
-
thats cool... 8)...i like that. can relate to how the guy is thinking since i did a couple of tank destroyers based on the Crusader
the thing is that the Archer and M9 are a slightly different design to the casement style since they have open tops, which is what i think this guy was after
-
Another take (background story wise) on this might be to say that the conversion was done by the USSR who also used Shermans supplied under Lend Lease. Maybe some were converted into Su-Shermans?
-
Early Archers had an open top, the later vehicles had a roof.
As to the name, and in keeping with the Brit originated 'name after US Generals' theme:
the Berdan, after Hiram Berdan, commander of the 1st and 2nd United States
Volunteer Sharpshooter Regiments of the Union Army.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiram_Berdan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiram_Berdan)
http://www.berdansharpshooters.org/About_Us/Original/original.index.htm (http://www.berdansharpshooters.org/About_Us/Original/original.index.htm)
Anyhoo, for a number of physical reasons a Jägdpanzer IV layout is more likely than a Jägdpanther
layout.
(http://www.missing-lynx.com/gallery/german/images/jagdpanzerivl70bm_4.jpg)
-
Another take (background story wise) on this might be to say that the conversion was done by the USSR who also used Shermans supplied under Lend Lease. Maybe some were converted into Su-Shermans?
Good idea. And certainly believable.
Her are two quick bashes of a Su-85 casemate and gun on an M4A1 hull.
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/ChernayaAkula/WhIf/Sherman-Su-85-mash.jpg)
-
Just found this on Missing-Lynx (http://www.missing-lynx.com/):
Peter Horvath posted images of his work in progress on a 1/35th scale model of an Pakistani Army M4 Sherman tank armed with a 76mm gun from Russian PT-76 amphibious tank/reconnaissance vehicle. (http://www.network54.com/Forum/110741/thread/1336301789/An+Pakistan+in+India)
Click on image or html to view additional images.
Image of the real vehicle captured by the Indian Army and now on display in India.
(http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt271/rozsda/Sherman07.jpg) (http://www.network54.com/Forum/110741/thread/1336301789/An+Pakistan+in+India)(Image source: Peter Horvath)
The commanders cupola is also different, I do not recognize it as OEM for the Sherman. Anyone know what vehicle it was originally from?
-
Without a clearer picture (either model or photo) it's a little hard to judge, but it looks German. My first thought was StuG or Leo.
Thanks for sharing.
John
-
My guess is that the cupola is British. Possibly from a Cromwell or Comet. I did a Google image search but had trouble coming up with a definitive match.
-
My guess is that the cupola is British. Possibly from a Cromwell or Comet. I did a Google image search but had trouble coming up with a definitive match.
Definitely not stock equipment for a Sherman. The images of the model show the cupola in almost every image but not in sharp enough detail to tell what it is. At first glance I thought it might have originated with a Chieftain or Centurion but I was just guessing at that point. Still interesting to see something different such as this.
-
Always thought these ex Israeli Shermans with 60mm guns were pretty cool.
(http://en.valka.cz/attachments/8318/Sherman_M-60_03.jpg)
Might make some cool Whifs like in South African service if they couldn't buy numbers of second hand Cenutrions in the 70s and 80s.
-
Another JagdSherman conversion. This time the subject is based on the rather old Tamiya M4A3E2 Sherman Jumbo kit.
Click on html to view images at Track-Link.net
JagdSherman by Pidara Maxime (http://www.track-link.net/gallery/8261)
-
i like that one .....giving me ideas again 8)
-
Another JagdSherman conversion. This time the subject is based on the rather old Tamiya M4A3E2 Sherman Jumbo kit.
Click on html to view images at Track-Link.net
JagdSherman by Pidara Maxime ([url]http://www.track-link.net/gallery/8261[/url])
Just saw that today. I may have to convert the Italeri M7 into something like that.
-
If I had to guess,I'd say the cupola is definatly British. There were some Shermans that used British cupolas.
-
dug up this old thing I worked on a while ago.
(http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h199/Wyrmshadow3/Whif/supershermanTD.jpg)
-
For the Shermanphile amongst us, there is a web page called the Sherman Minutia Website (http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/index.html) that has some interesting topics on the intricacies of determining which variant of the M4 Sherman you are looking at or modeling.
Click on image or html to visit the website.
(http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/index.jpg) (http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/index.html)
-
The IDF were the coolest at converting SHermans! IF I was a good scratchbuilder, I could build variants until I pass!
-
Found off World of Tank forum (http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/77630-new-american-tanks/):
Top- "M4 IP", with more sloped armours. Would look like it's trying to beat the Panther if it could take the 17 pounder......
Middle- M4 with Christie suspension. :-*
Bottom- Another M3-based turreted tank; this time the idea came from the Americans themselves.
-
The M4 with Christie suspension would be interesting to model.
-
The M4 with Christie suspension would be interesting to model.
Yes, it would ! soooo ... DO IT !!!!
Here's my Sherman Prototype with torsion-bar suspension ...
(http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s34/hobgrot/mg2.jpg)
-
:)
-
Roland Aßmann has put together a rather interesting kit bash involving an M4 cast hull and a few T-34 components that you can view at this link: What if... T 68 Sovsherman (http://diekleinemodellwelt.plusboard.de/t-68--und-quot%3Bsovsherman-und-quot%3B--was-waere-wenn-t6524.html)
Same images are posted at Missing-Lynx forums at this link: What if... T 68 Sovsherman (http://www.network54.com/Forum/110741/thread/1358434799/What+if...+T+68+Sovsherman)
-
That's a very attractive design/creation. :)
-
Yep, a very interesting combining of parts to come up with something that looks purposeful.
-
An interesting what-if/April Fool's model of the Tracked Vehicle Land Speed Record Holder based on a Sherman tank. The Sher-Moon built by Mark Neville (http://www.network54.com/Forum/110741/thread/1364754304/The+Sher-moon+saltshaker)
Click on image or html to view additional images at Missing-Lynx forums.
(http://i857.photobucket.com/albums/ab136/Derhetzer/shermoon6_zps01605602.jpg) (http://www.network54.com/Forum/110741/thread/1364754304/The+Sher-moon+saltshaker)
(Image source: Mark Neville/Missing-Lynx Forums (http://www.network54.com/Forum/110741/thread/1364754304/The+Sher-moon+saltshaker))
-
M4A2/SU-100 bash in-progress on Missing-Lynx. LINK (http://www.network54.com/Forum/110741/message/1365830446/What+if+Israeli+Sherman+Variant) Cool background story, too. :)
(http://gallery3.kitmaker.net/data/28284/IMG_01333.JPG)
-
Outstanding! Invited?
-
An interesting what-if/April Fool's model of the Tracked Vehicle Land Speed Record Holder based on a Sherman tank. The Sher-Moon built by Mark Neville ([url]http://www.network54.com/Forum/110741/thread/1364754304/The+Sher-moon+saltshaker[/url])
Click on image or html to view additional images at Missing-Lynx forums.
([url]http://i857.photobucket.com/albums/ab136/Derhetzer/shermoon6_zps01605602.jpg[/url]) ([url]http://www.network54.com/Forum/110741/thread/1364754304/The+Sher-moon+saltshaker[/url])
(Image source: Mark Neville/Missing-Lynx Forums ([url]http://www.network54.com/Forum/110741/thread/1364754304/The+Sher-moon+saltshaker[/url]))
*chuckle* I can just see one of those, equipped with road tracks, tearing up the major streets around Moon's facility in Santa Fe Springs, CA. That stretch of Norwalk Blvd. would never be the same.
-
According to the bottom of this link's entry (http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php?/topic/127387-europe-tech-tree-planned-medium-tanks-from-russian-forum/page__st__60__pid__2905124#entry2905124), Yugoslavia tried arming the M4 Sherman with a modified 122mm field gun.
-
Is that a 76mm muzzle brake?
(http://data.primeportal.net/tanks/dan_reed/m3a1/m3a1_01_of_40.jpg)
Cheers,
Logan
-
Is that a 76mm muzzle brake?
([url]http://data.primeportal.net/tanks/dan_reed/m3a1/m3a1_01_of_40.jpg[/url])
Cheers,
Logan
It sure looks like it. That looks to be a post war mod,where they mounted a 76 mm in a standard 75 mm turret.
-
No, those have far longer barrels and rarely had muzzle brakes.
Cheers,
Logan
-
It looks like the wrong shaped muzzle brake, anyway. Looks circular instead of ovoid, to me. I suspect someone found a Sherman without a gun and welded a spare tube they found somewhere with a muzzle brake on it, onto the mantlet.
-
Oh, I agree completely, rickshaw. That was my thought, as well. Maybe an M1A2 76mm cut down? The 37mm on the Stuart appears fake, too. Regardless, it gives the Sherman an unusual profile.
Cheers,
Logan
-
Some images of a very nice looking What if - 100mm Sherman SP built by Paul Roberts (http://www.network54.com/Forum/47209/thread/1382210664/What+if+-+100mm+Sherman+SP) and uploaded to Missing-Lynx.
Click on thumbnail or html to view.
(http://gallery3.kitmaker.net/data/28284/IMG_04231.JPG) (http://www.network54.com/Forum/47209/thread/1382210664/What+if+-+100mm+Sherman+SP)
-
Oh wow! Very believable indeed! He needs an invite if he hasn't been sent one already 8)
-
Oh wow! Very believable indeed! He needs an invite if he hasn't been sent one already 8)
Yes, official invite sent now waiting to see if he will join us :)
-
What the…
(http://i.imgur.com/JsSHW2F.jpg)
-
What the…
([url]http://i.imgur.com/JsSHW2F.jpg[/url])
A mine roller I do believe.
-
The more I read about the M4A6,the more I like it. It had a Caterpillar designed multi fuel engine. It was mounted onto a composite M4A4 hull,which was simply a longer hull version of the M4 composite. When I get home,I am going to see how well a Comet turret fits onto a Sherman hull.
-
And here was me thinking the minenraumer was weird! :-\
-
Another:
(http://i.imgur.com/PDL0kbi.jpg)
-
Details of the last two can be found here (http://www.strijdbewijs.nl/tanks/sherman/mineng2.htm)
-
Is that some kind of M4 Crab alternative? ???
Or is it a clear-lane marking vehicle?
Given its look, I'd be calling it the "Mantis". ;)
(Oops! Missed the last post before I wrote this one.)
-
http://i.imgur.com/JsSHW2F.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/JsSHW2F.jpg)
old skool donk
-
I recently posted some quick & dirty tank concepts on my profiles thread (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=144.msg73307#msg73307), but in case anyone didn't see them there, I thought I'd post the relevant profiles here, as well. The following images are only mockup concepts, not finished profiles. I made them for my own reference and hadn't intended to post them anywhere, but I know there's a number of tank buffs on the forum and I thought they might be interested in the concepts.
There isn't a real backstory to these. I have a few Excel files that I update pretty regularly where I have outlined my "ideal" Table of Organization & Equipment (TOE) if I had my pick of WWII equipment. It's just a little exercise that I use to help me evaluate the relative merits and disadvantages of equipment in WWII. It also helps to understand the problem of things such as "why did Germany use so many different types of trucks?"
Anyway, to permit the interoperation of different types of equipment, I do allow myself a limited amount of equipment swapping for comparable armament, engines, radios, etc. So, here are some examples of the designs I've gone with.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v132/loganov/Profiles/OD-M36E4-Firefly.png)
This is the final variant of the Sherman, which would be my standard medium tank of the war.
The initial 1942 M4A1 would be almost unchanged from the historical vehicles. I haven't given it a ton of thought, but I'd likely replace the M3 75mm gun with the 7.5cm KwK 40 from the PzKpfw IV, extend the turret bustle a little bit à la Firefly to better accommodate the longer 75mm gun and the radio, and that's about it. The standard turret is fine, the VVSS suspension is fine, and the R975 engine is fine, at least for mid-WWII.
Very soon thereafter, however, I'd switch to the M4A2 with the GM 6046 engine and the M4A3 with the Ford GAA engine. The lower silhouette of these engines would allow the switch to the lower hull height of the M10 tank destroyer. For this, imagine an M10 hull, but with the hull machine gun and thicker frontal armor of the Sherman retained. I won't bother showing a preview of this, because the forum's very own wandering engineer mocked up a very similar concept himself here (http://i1154.photobucket.com/albums/p532/wandering_engineer/M7Thomas.jpg).
By 1944, however, there are even better options available. For the armored divisions, at least, I'd adopt the torsion bar suspension of the M4A2E4 (https://worldoftanks.com/dcont/fb/imagesforarticles/chieftains_hatch/m4a2e4/m4e4frontleft.jpg). As soon as possible, I'd also switch the gun out for the British QF 17-pdr, supported in smaller numbers by howitzer armed tanks for HE firepower. I'd adapt this to the "T23 turret", eventually upgrading that to the "Jumbo" turret, again extending the turret rear to account for the 17-pdr's greater recoil. Finally, I'd increase the frontal hull armor to 102mm by 1944, also like the Jumbo. Unlike the Jumbo, however, side armor would remain the same as the standard tank in an effort to keep the overall weight down. In case anyone is wondering about all these modifications, they were all incorporated on Sherman variants at one point or another. For example, for the last year of the war, Patton had his Third Army Shermans fitted with the glacis armor plates from knocked out tanks, effectively doubling their frontal armor.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v132/loganov/Profiles/OD-M36E4-122.png)
I mentioned earlier that the Fireflies would be supported by howitzer-armed tanks to make up for the Firefly's lack of HE firepower. Due to my choice of standard army howitzer, this gun would be the Soviet U-11 122mm howitzer. It is scaled to fit and seems to work pretty well. This would also be the standard armament for Sherman engineering tank variants.
Anyway, I thought some of the forum's tank buffs would like to see some of these concepts since the modifications really affect the appearance of the vehicles, especially the Sherman. It also emphasizes how much like a Lego kit the Sherman was given all the different pieces they tried on it.
Cheers,
Logan
-
Here's something Panzerserra was playing with that I thought some folks here might like.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4xE2Ma9uXWM/U5RK3rF-xqI/AAAAAAAAaHU/cHXg2iSY7-g/s1600/Grant+CDL+009.jpg) (http://panzerserra.blogspot.com/2014/06/grant-cdl-case-report.html)
Cheers,
Logan
-
You do know how tall the standard M3 medium was? That's about half a metre taller! The driving experience would be, to say the least, "interesting" while trying to find a hill to hide behind might be a bit difficult... :o
-
Yes, I do like it. Turret looks fitting for a M3.
One of the modern 25mm Bushmaster turrets on top and a 76mm main gun from late M4 or M41 would be nice upgrade.
Spread reactive armor around on hull.....
-
An old idea of mine:
(http://i.imgur.com/nDgUwf7.jpg)
The new turret is that of a M8 HMC with an "aftermarket" armoured cover and having the howitzer replaced with a 6-pounder/57mm tank gun......
-
Jumbo Shermans were heavily overloaded and very prone to mechanical problems. The suspension/gear train/engine were pushed to their limits. It was an emergency response to the need for an assault tank (and resulted in something extremely reminiscent of an "I" tank). Personally, I think the US Army would have been better off adopting the Churchill Mk.VII.
Postwar, the Jumbos were scrapped because of their unreliability and because they didn't fit into post-war US Army thinking on how armour should be employed. Of course, there was no guarantee the next war, like the last war, was going to conform to that thinking. The M26 offered similar performance in everything except protection, so that was going to be the next assault tank.
I don't think that's fair, Rickshaw. The Sherman Jumbo was unreliable...compared to the standard M4A3. I've heard the late Jacques Littlefield discuss the M4A3E2 Jumbo and had very favorable opinions on it mechanically when compared to contemporary heavy tanks. There were also numerous requests from US commanders for as many more Jumbos as could be procured. I've attached one such request from Eisenhower where he asks for as many as possible, armed exclusively with 76mm guns.
That brings up another good point in the comparison to the Churchill VII. You could arm the Jumbo with the 76mm gun, not so the Churchill. There's certainly no reason you couldn't have built Jumbos with HVSS suspension and the US had plans to do just that if the war had gone on significantly longer. As it was, only 61 Jumbos were lost in combat and the majority of the surviving serviceable Jumbos were shipped back to the US for conversion to HVSS-equipped flamethrower tanks for the proposed invasion of Japan.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Ascout/AEB1-80-3D.jpg)
Here's an example of one such Jumbo converted to the T33 flamethrower configuration with HVSS. The majority of Jumbos were never converted as the was ended before these plans could be put into effect. About 100 of them remained in US depots in 1948. These were eventually refurbished and reissued to National Guard units in the 1950s. Here's a picture of at least two with the Minnesota National Guard in 1955. They weren't declared obsolete until 1957.
(http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/manufacturer/m4a3e2jumbo/M4A3E2s_in_service_MNG_1955.jpg)
The M4A3E2 would have been just fine with HVSS. The postwar Israeli M51 Super Shermans were even heavier at 46 tons and hundreds of them ran all over the world just fine for decades, boasting an over 90% serviceability rate three decades after being built and long after anyone operated significant numbers of Churchills. Heck, Chile operated them until 2005 and Paraguay operated VVSS Shermans until at least 2006.
The Churchill VIIs would have been far more of a headache. Even on the best of days they were mechanically troublesome and high maintenance. They couldn't be upgraded with 76mm guns, didn't share commonality with standard US Army M4A3 Shermans, and were more than 10 kph slower than the Jumbo. I really can't see any advantage over the Jumbo, especially in US Army service.
(http://www.curragh.info/images/gallery/churchill1a.jpg)
I think the worst thing to say about the Jumbo was that they never built enough of them.
Cheers,
Logan
-
No advantages, Logan? The Churchill could go places the Sherman never could. It could climb mountains which earnt it the nickname in Tunisia and Italy of "Mountain Goat". I agree it couldn't be armed with a 76mm gun but it didn't need one. It's role was infantry support - the same as the Jumbo's. The 76mm HE round had significantly less HE filling than the 75mm round and much thicker walls, this made it less lethal. Jumbos nor Churchills were intended to be taking on enemy armour. They were intended to support directly infantry in the assault.
By war's end, the Churchill was very reliable, so much so that in the final advances into Germany it was actually running as far and averaging speeds equal to that of the Cruiser tanks (which included the Sherman) with few problems. It had armour as thick and a suspension which was designed to carry it, coupled with a gearbox and engine which could propel it, if necessary up slopes no ordinary Sherman let alone a Jumbo could hope to match. For the specialist role (for the US Army) of a "breakthrough" tank, IMO it made more sense to adopt the Churchill than use the uparmoured Sherman. Just as they should have adopted the Churchill AVRE, rather than trying to use Shermans for such a role.
I'm not suggesting that the US Army abandon the Sherman, just that there was a better vehicle available for the assault role.
-
Riight Brian, let's create a whole new logistics chain to support a machine that has zero in common
with any other US armoured vehicle. Wasn't going to happen, the war was won by the Allies because of intelligent decisions on reliability, standardization and mass production, unlike the idiots in Nazi Germany who were so enamored of their own genius that they produced over-complicated, unreliable über-machines
that in some cases weren't even backwards compatable to earlier variants. Any push on the Allied side to
push orphan machines on any country's forces would have been a strategic blunder.
As the saying goes, amateurs discuss tactics, professionals discuss logistics.
-
So, this would explain why the USAAF was willing to do exactly that, Jon when it adopted the Spitfire and the Mosquito for photo-reconnaissance?
What about the US Army's willingness to adopt the Sherman Firefly?
The reality is that a "whole logistic train" gets created when and if required to support a piece of equipment when its required by the military to do a job.
It's not as if it wouldn't be the first time the US Army had adopted a foreign piece of equipment, if they thought they needed it.
Generally, yes, it can cause problems if not handled sensibly but I believe the US Army could do that. Its not as if I'm suggesting that they adopt the Churchill to replace the Sherman or anything like that. I am suggesting that for a specialist role, there was no reason not to, except for the NIH issue.
Now as this is WHIF, imagine the US Army then being able to utilise the whole range of specialised armour which was successfully designed and built on the Churchill chassis and perhaps even contribute a few "Funnies" of their own.
-
It would seem that Israel in its early struggles against its neighbours had a myriad of different armoured vehicles such as Patton, Centurion, and different models of Shermans. They seemed to have done fine even while resulting logistical complication lasted.
Although it'd be conceivable that each family of tanks got upgraded to common standards so as to promote commonality......
-
Actually how about a deep hull Churchill, with an additional 20 or 30 cm superstructure fitted above the tracks, using the Ford V8 of later Shermans which would also provide a larger diameter turret ring?
-
Being able to climb steep mountains isn't the most valuable trait in Western Europe, however, and that's where the majority of US Army formations were fighting at that time. Despite that, the Sherman was no slouch in this area. The Sherman was noted by German in Italy for being able to climb mountains they could not. The US Army noted the same thing about the Sherman in Korea compared to the M26 and M46. Finally, the Israeli Shermans were used in the Six Day way to climb steep mountain trails that Centurions could not. The Sherman was good enough to handle the slopes encountered in Western Europe.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Churchill_Tanks_in_Italy%2C_July_1944_TR2018.jpg)
Doesn't need the 76mm gun? It looks like Eisenhower was wrong in the memo, I guess. That's all he wanted on Jumbos. As the US Army found out, you don't get to decide what threats you encounter. There's no "infantry only, please" box you can check before the battle.
Yes, I think it does show the US Army's willingness to adopt the Firefly. Or, more accurately, it's unwillingness. The 17pdr was the best AT gun in Western service from 1943-45. Why do you think none saw combat with the US Army in WWII? They didn't want the logistic headache. The half-hearted, way too late attempt to acquire too few Fireflies during the last year of the war is—if anything—evidence of the US Army's desire to complicate its logistics chain. And that was just a new ammunition type! The Churchill VII would have everything BUT a new ammunition type.
(https://worldoftanks.com/dcont/fb/image/17probtripod.jpg)
Now, I can see a limited adoption of the Churchill VII by US units in Italy where Commonwealth forces represented a larger percentage of the overall Allied strength, its low top speed was less of a disadvantage, it's mountain goat nature was more of an advantage, and the US wasn't sending new equipment their way, anyway. Even then, I think it's a bit of a wash. Also, I think the organization of Churchill variants into independent battalions of "Funnies" would also be fine, even for operations in NW Europe, but the US Army found that they really didn't need most of them. I think they were right. Crocodiles were useful, as were Sherman Crabs, but the Sherman with the dozer blade was about the only engineer tank the US really "needed". Things like the DD tanks, Leaflet tanks, etc. proved to be more trouble than they were worth for their very limited operations. They were "cool", but not worth the trouble.
It would seem that Israel in its early struggles against its neighbours had a myriad of different armoured vehicles such as Patton, Centurion, and different models of Shermans. They seemed to have done fine even while resulting logistical complication lasted.
That's absolutely true, but none of those vehicles were as much trouble to maintain as the Churchill. Also, the only British tank of the group, the Centurion was much loved by the Israelis and certainly the best of the three, but that was only after the Israelis replaced the engine and transmission with American ones. The Israeli comments on the Meteor engine are not...flattering.
Again, as you note, they did what they could to standardize the types they had. They standardized on the HVSS and Cummins engine for all their myriad of Sherman variants. They replaced the guns on early Centurions and the M48s with the L7 105mm, gave them both the engine from the M60 (which they had just started using), and gave both the Centurion and M48 the same Allison transmission.
Finally, I don't know if you've ever been to Israel, but it's a VERY small country. You can get from the northern end to the southern end in just a matter of hours. Because of this, conflicts are—by their very nature—short, sharp engagements. As a result of all this, logistical variety is less of an issue than it was for the United States in WWII. Reliability is just as important, but it wasn't necessary for everything to be the same.
Cheers,
Logan
-
Poor examples Brian, the majority of the borrowed Spitfires (it was not officially adopted and never received a US designation) were operated in the UK and the F-8 Mosquitos were Canadian built and had Packard built Merlins. The handful of other borrowed PR Mosquitos were used in concert with the RAF meteorological flights. The logistics chain for both types was in place.
Using the Churchill in the field would have required adding a new support chain to an already complex, and often overtaxed, supply organization. Different engine, different suspension system, different fasteners etc., etc.
Logan's HVSS Jumbo is far more likely and logical.
-
Jon, I'd suggest you really don't understand how military logistics works. Adding a new "supply train" isn't as difficult as you might believe, particularly if it's a specialist item.
You want another example, the 25 Pdr. Used by US Army counter-battery units in Italy and NW Europe because it had a longer range than the US standard field gun the 105mm Howitzer. Yes, they drew upon the existing British supply chain just as the two aircraft types did but they operated well away from the British Army, deep inside the US Army. Operating the Churchill would have been done in a similar fashion. A supply demand would come from a unit to a forward supply unit and from there to a rearward one, which would in turn make a demand on the nearest British depot where Churchill spares would have been stocked. A certain level of spares would obviously be held at each supply unit and as they were depleted, they would be replenished from the rear as required. In reality, it wouldn't matter where the stores originated, be it in the US or the UK as far as the user unit was concerned. The US logistics system was quite capable of fulfilling such demands and massive quantities of spares were held along the logistics chain, stretching from manufacturer to forward unit. It worked for US manufactured spares, why wouldn't it work for UK manufactured ones? As we are talking relatively small quantities of vehicles, used in a specialist role, the US Army logistics system would have been able to cope with it IMO.
-
Like to see one of you excellent armor builders do a modernized M3. Thermal sights, laser range finder, turret inspired by Bradley, 76/90mm main gun, reactive armor, appropriate satcom etc antennas.
-
The Bradley turret is too large to fit on the turret ring of the M3 Lee, but you definitely do one of those little Sharpshooter turrets with the 25mm Bushmaster. You might even get an LAV-25 or Warrior size turret on it, but even those are probably too big.
I think about the coolest turret you could put on M3 Lee for postwar use, though, is the M163 20mm Vulcan turret, especially the Machbet upgrade with Stingers.
(http://en.valka.cz/files/machbet_3_102.jpg)
Lloyd Bridges never would've been killed if Lulubelle had had one of those!
Cheers,
Logan
-
M163 20mm Vulcan turret - that works :)
LAV-25 or Warrior size turret should fit given the flexibilty of styrene/profile imagineering !
Do main gun and the rest to see how modernized the M3 can be.
A while back someone here did a 1970/80s modernized B-17 profile. Loved it 8)
There is a SEA service F7F build too.
-
Well, the way I see it, you've got 3 basic ways to go with the main armament in the hull.
The obvious upgrade is something like the 90mm Cockerill or similar 90mm gun. We know they fit in place of short 75mm guns, so there really shouldn't be any problem. That seems a bit boring to me, though, so I'd look at two other possibilities.
(http://www.paradata.org.uk/files/imagecache/medium/files/pictures/oto-melara-mod-56-105mm-pack-howitzer-%283%29.jpg)
The first is something like the OTO-Melara Mod 56 105mm pack howitzer. There's a few advantages to this one, as well. One is the ammunition availability. You can use standard US 105mm ammo, which is readily available...anywhere, really. It's a definite firepower upgrade over the 75mm when it comes to HE. It's also capable of indirect fire, allowing you to use the M3 Lee as an SPG in a pinch. The other advantage is that the kind of countries that would be likely to retain the M3 Lee postwar (third world nations in Asia or South America) are the same nations that would be likely to have a few Mod 56s lying around.
(http://www.auctionsamerica.com/images/lots/LC14/LC14_r0068_04.jpg)
The other option is to eschew any firepower upgrade and just go with a more sensible, smaller weapon that doesn't give you any less firepower, but does give you more interior volume and more interesting ammunition options. That is the British 76mm L5A1 or L23A1 gun found in the Saladin and Scorpion AFVs. They're more compact than the old M3 75mm gun, don't lack for HE, and fire the nifty little HESH round. Supposedly, Kuwaiti Saladins firing HESH knocked out Iraqi T-72s in 1990. That's a nice option the old 75mm doesn't have.
There are some other options that seem like they'd work for "fit", but extend too far forward and dig into the ground. The 60mm HVMS comes to mind, for instance. I just don't think it'd work.
(http://n2.hk/u/attachments/day_111122/20111122_f1ae98618a643635bf10sF3p4NPnwnf0.jpg)
Now, you want to know the totally crazy, Warhammer-esque option? Something stubby but huge like the 152mm Shillelagh or 165mm Royal Ordnance L9/M135. Need that city block taken out? Bring in the M3 Lee.
Cheers,
Logan
-
I just found out that there is going to be a movie centred around a Sherman tank crew called "Fury":
www.youtube.com/watch?v=q94n3eWOWXM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q94n3eWOWXM#ws)
Panther and Tiger fans are "very active" in the YouTube comment section though ;D
-
Yep, I started a thread on it awhile back. 8)
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=4542.0 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=4542.0)
Appears the M4s and the Tiger are REAL!
-
Here are images of one of the evaluation test vehicles of the M7 Medium Tank "General Thomas" as it would appear during the Sicily campaign. It is an Academy M10 chassis (with applique armor added on front and sides) with a Nichimo M4 turret with an aftermarket M1A1 76 mm L52 gun barrel that I lengthened by 5 caliber lengths to reflect the M1 76mm L57 gun. Comments are welcomed. Next in line is a M7 Firefly or M7 with all welded hull with T23 turret.
-
Looks very convincing with your stowage arrangements. Great work!
-
Wow! Cool! 8)
-
:)
-
As this is a wiff site, how about the US, lacking a heavy tank of their own that could go head to head with a Tiger (as encountered in North Africa), adopted a licence built version of the Churchill to serve in that role of heavy tank and as a counter to the Tiger for the Normandy landings. Raised engine deck to fit a US engine as well as other changes to simplify the logistics chain and improve reliability and performance of the base vehicle. Perhaps a widened hull to permit an increase in turret ring diameter and the fitment of a 76mm gun as required, or at least a modified turret to permit the same.
-
Volkodev, by the time the Churchill modifications are completed, these vehicles would be facing T-34s in Korea. Once you start making a change here and there, it never stops, especially since you would probably be building it with SAE spec fittings, etc. Between the US and GB, there would be a lot of different construction techniques, off the shelf doodads, etc. Anyway, the US had a heavy tank, the M6. IIRC, they decided not to put it into production as more M4s could be built with a given amount of raw material, and transports could carry more M4s per a given ship's capacity.
However, this is a WHIF site. Build what you want, how you want it, and ignore the trolls.
-
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 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=1936.0)
-
(http://i.imgur.com/bEjFnjW.jpg)
-
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: [url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=1936.0[/url] ([url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=1936.0[/url])
It does if you are fitting a Sherman turret and engine ;)
-
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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY)
Cheers,
Logan
-
Love the bit about most German Generals having never heard of Patton! ;D
-
That video has given me an idea. ;D
-
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.
-
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.
-
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! ;)
-
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.
(http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/manufacturer/m4composite/SC339088b.jpg)
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.
(http://tankdestroyer.net/images/igallery/resized/2301-2400/654th_Co_B__2nd_Pltn_Janssen_McDonald_Hanson__Dosher-2313-650-500-100.png)
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.
(http://www.aviarmor.net/tww2/photo/usa/medium_t23/t23e4_1.jpg)
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.
(http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/Armoured%20Vehicles/Images/grantph_8.jpg)
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.
(http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/manufacturer/m4a2largehatches/m4a275_28.JPG)
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.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/M31-ARV-batey-haosef-2.jpg/640px-M31-ARV-batey-haosef-2.jpg)
Cheers,
Logan
-
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?
-
Wheeled Kangaroo and Priest
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/drawTanks/Kangaroo_PriestW.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/drawTanks/Kangaroo_PriestW.jpg.html)
-
:)
-
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/drawTanks/m10_update.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/drawTanks/m10_update.jpg.html)
-
Real life variant:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JtZpEndeS0w/U3seEyBmalI/AAAAAAAAZvU/h6TVezY6XAk/s1600/Grant+Command+001.jpg)
A scratch build of one can be seen here (click on image below):
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_F9ZoVvg-Rc/U3zFO97loeI/AAAAAAAAZzQ/wCuJxXL0Eng/s1600/Grant+Command+040.jpg) (http://panzerserra.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/grant-british-command-tank-case-report.html)
-
What if Bunderwehr were allowed in 1948 maybe? or France exports these kind of tanks to ME countries?
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/drawTanks/King_Tiger_Sherman.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/drawTanks/King_Tiger_Sherman.jpg.html)
-
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
-
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?
-
Conversion of M-3s into assault guns with a cupola or MG turret replacing the 37mm turret.
-
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 (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
-
Again ... perhaps more plausible
What if Bunderwehr were allowed in 1948 maybe? or France exports these kind of tanks to ME countries?
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/drawTanks/ShermanPanther.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/drawTanks/ShermanPanther.jpg.html)
-
Surprised: that tank & turret combo works. :)
-
ISherman variants with AMX-30 bits
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/drawTanks/ISherman_variants.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/drawTanks/ISherman_variants.jpg.html)
-
found this at https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/174338-arbre-tanknologique-france/page-6 (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)
(http://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints-depot-restricted/tanks/ww2-tanks-us/m4a4_sherman_fl10_1956-38691.jpg)
(hope it has not been posted already)
-
@ 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"(?).
-
(https://tankandafvnews.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/m3-vismod.jpg)
(https://tankandafvnews.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/m3-vismod1.jpg)
(https://tankandafvnews.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/m3-vismod-2.jpg)
“Crack that Tank” 1943 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taHFUKKKmJM)
https://tankandafvnews.com/2016/05/21/from-the-vault-crack-that-tank-1943/ (https://tankandafvnews.com/2016/05/21/from-the-vault-crack-that-tank-1943/)
Cheers,
Logan
-
That is one funky costume. ;D
-
Sherman Infantry Support Tank armed with the 25pdr/95mm Howitzer
-
Meet the Super M3 Lee. Impressive !
Likely a one off prototype. Is only picture I seen.
Must be larger version than production tanks.
see attached
-
Slowly working my way through Nick Moran's The Chieftains Hatch videos on YouTube and watching video 2 on the M-3 Grant I was struck by how much room there was in the turret and got wondering if it could have taken a larger gun, i.e. a 6pdr. If not something that large maybe a 47mm or something fully automatic, alternatively a 3" or 75mm howitzer for a close support version.
It was also very interesting in video 1 where he mentioned the Dept. of Ordinance were quite happy to approve the M-3 medium without the turret, i.e. effectively as an assault gun, but it was the Infantry that insisted on the 37mm, presumably according to the video, as an anti infantry weapon using flechette, as well as the more obvious anti armour role. Maybe an MG turret could have been an option instead.
-
Well, remember, you Aussies put twin 25 pdrs or a 17 pdr in a turret that had the same diameter turret ring as the Lee. The Sentinel turret in that configuration sure wasn't comfy, but everything's a tradeoff. Theoretically, you probably had the room to put a 17 pdr in the Lee hull and a Sentinel turret with another 17 pdr on top of it, but that would be pretty silly. Not as silly as a TOG, but then again, few WWII tanks were.
Cheers,
Logan
-
Dear god no, something like that would just look at a 1 deg. side slope and topple over!
Makes me wonder though why they didn't just do a Ram, i.e. no sponson gun and a 6pdr or 75mm in the turret. Loved the M-3 as a kid but the more I look at it the less sense it makes. That the beauty of Morans videos, where possible he looks into the source documentation of why things were done, in this case the thinking was medium tanks were for infantry support therefore needed lots of anti infantry weapons, i.e. lots of machine guns and a field gun meaning the configuration was set by the time real world lessons showed that something like the Sherman was what was needed.
-
AIUI, the M3 medium was an emergency design while the final, M4 was worked out with it's main armament in a fully revolving turret. The M3 Medium was developed from the M2. The siting of the main gun in the hull led to all sorts of tactical problems, such as how to site the vehicle hull down, which in the M3 Medium left most of the hull actually exposed as it needed it's main gun to be able to fire. It also led to hull weak points in and around the gun mounting (but we won't mention the inclusion of hull doors, which led to even worse weakness) and prevented the hull from being able to be fully sealed against the ingress of gas.
Personally, I've always felt that the vehicle sans main gun and turret would have made an excellent basis for an APC. Admittedly with side doors for debusing it would still have been an improvement over the RAM Kangaroo. If say, the MG turret from the M3 Lee was added to the hull top that would have been a large improvement.
It's best use as a gun tank turned out IMHO to be the SW Pacific/Burma theatre, where it's problems didn't affect it as greatly.
-
The M-3 was probably more the spiritual successor to the M-7 than anything else, an assault gun bodged into a tank that became an SPG. Had they just made it a stug type it may have actually seen even wider service and been more useful.
-
Makes me wonder though why they didn't just do a Ram, i.e. no sponson gun and a 6pdr or 75mm in the turret. Loved the M-3 as a kid but the more I look at it the less sense it makes. That the beauty of Morans videos, where possible he looks into the source documentation of why things were done, in this case the thinking was medium tanks were for infantry support therefore needed lots of anti infantry weapons, i.e. lots of machine guns and a field gun meaning the configuration was set by the time real world lessons showed that something like the Sherman was what was needed.
It makes sense as long as you accept that the M3 Lee's turret ring was too small to accept an M2 or M3 75mm gun. There are clear examples where they were able to workably cram just such a gun in a turret with that diameter turret ring. In hindsight, I think something like the Ram II, but mounting an M3 75mm gun in the turret would have been the right way to go instead of the Lee, at least until the M4 Sherman was ready to go, but, again, that's with the benefit of hindsight. The Lee also had the advantage over the Ram of being designed originally in the riveted construction, which allowed it to get into production before the large hull castings of the Ram or the M3A1 Lee were ready. That's not to say that an equivalent couldn't have been developed, it's just that it wasn't.
Three years ago, I wrote a paragraph to close out a lengthy discussion where the various members of the TO&E Yahoo group were debating the merits of the M3 Lee. It still sums up my feelings on the tank pretty well and seems to apply here, too.
I think we're all saying the same things here, though, just in different ways and with different levels of enthusiasm. The M3 Lee/Grant was a very flawed vehicle; flawed in both concept and operation. It was a compromise at every level. Its layout, armament, and armor construction weren't what the designers wanted, let alone the users. But, it was the only thing available at the time. Also, when compared to its even more flawed contemporaries, it was the best thing available to British forces in North Africa until the advent of the Sherman tank, and it presented a serious threat to every German tank on the battlefield short of the Tiger. It was also the first British tank to pose a credible threat to German anti-tank guns. How does the saying go? In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king. Well, for 5 months from May 1942 until October 1942, the Grant was the king of British tanks.
Cheers,
Logan
-
It would be interesting to compare the timings of the development of the M-3 to those of the 6pdr and in particular the US interest in it as a Tank Destroyer Gun, prior to its adoption as an infantry anti-tank gun. I have a feeling the M-3 had already been baselined, if it wasn't already in production, by the time a US 57mm could have been available.
This could have been an option for the M-3 medium (maybe even the M-3/5 light) instead of the 37mm and even provided the option of adopting the UK ROQF 75mm for any vehicle using the 6pdr. The thing that struck me was the huge amount of 37mm vs 75mm stowage in the Lee/Grant, indicating that it was seen as the primary weapon rather than the sponson gun. Perhaps it could even have been mated to a new turret on an evolved M-2 without a sponson gun at all.
That would have been interesting, a turretless M-3 medium assault gun operating along side a mechanically identical, structurally very similar M-6 57mm turreted tank.
-
I have a feeling the M-3 had already been baselined, if it wasn't already in production, by the time a US 57mm could have been available.
I can check in the great new book (https://www.amazon.com/American-Breechloading-Mobile-Artillery-1875-1953/dp/0764350498/) that I got a couple of months ago, but I strongly suspect that you're right. Heck, British 6 pdr armed tanks weren't really showing up on the frontlines before the Grant, either, so I can't imagine US production would have been faster.
That would have been interesting, a turretless M-3 medium assault gun operating along side a mechanically identical, structurally very similar M-6 57mm turreted tank.
Again, that sounds pretty similar to a Ram or even that M3 Grant command tank.
(https://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints-depot/tanks/tanks-m/m3-grant-command-tank.png)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v722/Panzerserra/M3%20Grant%20Command%20Tank/GrantCommand005.jpg)
The Ram really was an impressive design and just as impressive is how quickly the Canadians got it into production. Even so, though, it barely beat the Sherman. I'm still surprised at just how short of a window the Lee existed for. It's such an interesting tank to read about, because even its designers didn't have much love for it. They knew it was completely a stop-gap; the best they could do with what they readily had on hand. It was a thrown together design that was largely intended to get modern-ish tanks on hand as quickly as possible to start getting production experience, training experience, and operational experience. US units in North Africa never even would have seen combat with the M3 Lee had the 1st Armored Division not been ordered to give up their M4 Shermans to the British in preparation for El Alamein.
Cheers,
Logan
-
On the 6pdr the US actually may have been able to get it into production sooner as the gun design was ready by 1940 and the issue preventing an earlier entry to service was the design of the carriage and also the urgent need to replace equipment lost during the battle of France. The US had greater industrial capacity plus no urgent need to replace lost equipment, I suppose what it would come down to is when exactly the US became interested in the 57mm/6pdr.
-
And when the British transferred the design. But I agree it's a neat "what if" that might have been possible if the right decisions had been made in the right places at the right times.
Cheers,
Logan
-
Just had a thought on the Grant, how about a Grant Kangaroo with the sponson gun plated over and perhaps the 37mm turret removed as well, or at least replaced with something requiring less internal volume.
-
Perhaps something a little like this...
(http://i.imgur.com/zz7sTJJ.png)
-
Perhaps something a little like this...
([url]http://i.imgur.com/zz7sTJJ.png[/url])
Yep pretty much.
-
Two syrian possibilities.
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/drawTanks/Hybrid-M4-PanzerIV.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/drawTanks/Hybrid-M4-PanzerIV.jpg.html)
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/drawTanks/Hybrid-M4-T34.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/drawTanks/Hybrid-M4-T34.jpg.html)
-
Here, in first drawing, I combine the turret of M10 and the hull of M4A3E8, my favourite components in the vast and complicated (at least, for me) field of US armor during WWII. Second is a conversion in a kind of recce or command version, with gun reduced to 50 mm or so.
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/drawTanks/M4_command_recon.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/drawTanks/M4_command_recon.jpg.html)
-
How about an M18 with an M4 Sherman turret?
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/drawTanks/M18_M4A3E8.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/drawTanks/M18_M4A3E8.jpg.html)
-
Updated power plant
Rooikat turret with 76mm gun
-
Found via Facebook. 1/35 T31 Demolition tank. Dated 2011.
(https://www.mojehobby.pl/zdjecia/1/1/1/2166_rd.jpg)
(https://www.mojehobby.pl/zdjecia/5/0/1/2166_rd.jpg)
(https://www.mojehobby.pl/zdjecia/7/7/0/2166_rd.jpg)
(https://www.mojehobby.pl/zdjecia/3/9/0/2166_rd.jpg)
(https://thumbs.worthpoint.com/zoom/images1/1/0613/04/35-cromwell-productions-crca103-t31_1_03b92fa153fac12fe427953c5857da31.jpg)
(https://i.redd.it/hp4iys4qtfa11.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/17/72/a1/1772a1750515059c505da33c35cc19f1.jpg)
https://www.mojehobby.pl/gallery/1-35-T31-Demolition-tank-2165093.html (https://www.mojehobby.pl/gallery/1-35-T31-Demolition-tank-2165093.html)
-
That was a real tank! It looks like it came out of an anime.
-
That was a real tank! It looks like it came out of an anime.
[chicken-egg]Reality came first [/chicken-egg]
-
I did not see these here and thought that I would post them as it is an interesting one-off Sherman. I found it on Armorama and Sabinga said that there would be more info in their next book on the Sherman. I am currently waiting to hear back from them on what volume it will be. Here is the link to Armorama, if that is allowed https://www.armorama.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=SquawkBox&file=index&req=viewtopic&topic_id=271635&ord=&page=1 (https://www.armorama.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=SquawkBox&file=index&req=viewtopic&topic_id=271635&ord=&page=1)
-
Early George Barris custom work? :P ;)
-
Early George Barris custom work? :P ;)
One might think!
-
That chopped Sherman looks really cool! :smiley:
-
On a somewhat serious note:
Obviously they were trying to lower the (very high) silhouette/profile of the M4 but that chop would have reduced the crew space from good to unworkable! :icon_crap:
When you consider that even a difference of an inch or two in any dimension can make the difference between an acceptable workspace to a cramped one, taking a foot off the top was not meant for crew comfort & would, therefore, have seriously negatively impacted the combat efficiency of the vehicle, which, along with speed, was its big advantage over German armour.
I wonder if that was a post-war modification, when the low-profile Soviet armour was the big threat? ???
Nicholas Moran (a.k.a. The Chieftain) would not have been happy with this one! :o
-
It is actually an IDF attempt at modifying the Sherman.
I would guess that the loss of working space and comfort caused by the chop job is why it was not pursued further. I could see the low-profile armor that the IDF was facing as the reason this was looked at and made. Of course you could always limit your tankers to say 5"6"/1.7 meters in height for the driver and assistant driver.
I do have to wonder what weight savings were realized by this reduction in material.
-
It is actually an IDF attempt at modifying the Sherman.
I would guess that the loss of working space and comfort caused by the chop job is why it was not pursued further. I could see the low-profile armor that the IDF was facing as the reason this was looked at and made. Of course you could always limit your tankers to say 5"6"/1.7 meters in height for the driver and assistant driver.
I do have to wonder what weight savings were realized by this reduction in material.
That explains it! :smiley:
(Also explains the strange quasi-British uniform in the 2nd photo that had me a tad baffled.)
That's what the Soviets did - 5' 6" was tall for a Soviet tanker.
A few tons but most of the weight is turret, engines & drive train, so not as dramatic as one might think.
-
It is actually an IDF attempt at modifying the Sherman.
I would guess that the loss of working space and comfort caused by the chop job is why it was not pursued further. I could see the low-profile armor that the IDF was facing as the reason this was looked at and made. Of course you could always limit your tankers to say 5"6"/1.7 meters in height for the driver and assistant driver.
I do have to wonder what weight savings were realized by this reduction in material.
That explains it! :smiley:
(Also explains the strange quasi-British uniform in the 2nd photo that had me a tad baffled.)
That's what the Soviets did - 5' 6" was tall for a Soviet tanker.
A few tons but most of the weight is turret, engines & drive train, so not as dramatic as one might think.
I wonder if it would bring an M4A3E2 back to close the same weight as an E8?
-
That’s extremely cool looking although, like Old Wombat said, you have to wonder about the interior space. I guess you have to compare it to other low slung tanks of the same era like the M24, M18 tank destroyer or even the M26. Other considerations are how much ammo and equipment you could store and whether the existing turret basket could be modified to fit.
Obviously, the IDF didn’t pursue it past the prototype stage. Possibly, it just didn’t work too well or possibly, the availability of more modern tanks like the Centurion and M48 made them feel it wasn’t necessary. Then again, there’s the extensive work to create the M51 and the various Sherman-based SPGs, so who knows?
-
The Yeramba was an Australian self-propelled howitzer built after the end of the Second World War in the late-1940s. They were produced by mounting the 25 pounder gun howitzer on an American M3A5 Grant tank hull:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Yeramba_spg_%28AWM_p04301_007%29.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Yeramba_%28AWM_P0430106%29.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Yeramba_%28AWM_P04301-004%29.jpg)
-
Random idea: anti aircraft version of M3
-
That’s extremely cool looking although, like Old Wombat said, you have to wonder about the interior space. I guess you have to compare it to other low slung tanks of the same era like the M24, M18 tank destroyer or even the M26. Other considerations are how much ammo and equipment you could store and whether the existing turret basket could be modified to fit.
Obviously, the IDF didn’t pursue it past the prototype stage. Possibly, it just didn’t work too well or possibly, the availability of more modern tanks like the Centurion and M48 made them feel it wasn’t necessary. Then again, there’s the extensive work to create the M51 and the various Sherman-based SPGs, so who knows?
(http://www.hillbrothersstudios.com/ebayimages/largewwii-1422081610-67102.jpg)
I don't think it's unworkable, but it was probably an unworkable conversion. The main thing driving the Sherman's height was the radial engine in the M4, M4A1, and M4A6, coupled with a front-mounted transmission. The drive train had to run through the fighting compartment and the turret basket was above that, so that's why it was so tall, relatively. The M10 and M36 had the drive shaft in the same place, but they refused to use the radial engines (instead sticking with the twin 6 cylinder diesels or the Ford V-8) and opted not to use a turret basket, so they had lower overall heights.
(http://www.lonesentry.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/m10-tank-destroyer-cross-section.jpg)
Cousins to the M4 tank were the T20 series. They achieved a lower silhouette while still using most of the same components as the Sherman a different way. They kept the turret basket, but moved the transmission to the back of the vehicle and again opted against the very big radials. Finally, the M18 Hellcat (although largely unrelated to the Sherman) stuck with the giant radial and the front-mounted transmission, but again opted against a turret basket (like the M10 and M36). While not as short as the T20 series, it was a good deal lower than the Sherman.
(http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/pics/m18hellcatcross.jpg)
There's more than one way to achieve this, it just depends on your priorities and what components you have to work with. You can see that with Chrysler's proposed 90mm Sherman. They again abandoned the radial and changed the orientation of the drive shaft to keep the turret basket and front mounted transmission, but still achieve a lower overall height.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-rFLl_SeQnI8/VDSNmYsGOkI/AAAAAAAABrk/xu2Mcqc0PC0/s1600/sherman.jpg)
So, if you designed it that way from the start, you could build it so that it was workable (albeit with a few trade-offs), but if you're trying to convert an existing Sherman, you may have a hard time finding places for everything. Almost all of the above solutions got wider. That's not obvious in the cutaways, obviously, but that's not something that happened with the "chopped" IDF Sherman. It was just a new loss as far as volume was concerned. It also may have worked alright, but just not been worth the conversion cost. I bet a cutaway of the IDF Sherman would have done something similar to the Chrysler redesign, though.
Cheers,
Logan
-
Again, that’s rather cool! At first glance, you think it’s a Sexton but then you notice the partially riveted hull, the somewhat different side profile and most obviously, the M3 side doors. It’s not a simple conversion either, having a rebuilt hull and upgraded, later style Sherman VVSS. I’m sure the interior was significantly altered as well.
-
So far, the little bit I’ve been able to learn about this chopped Sherman is that it was a one off test vehicle, produced sometime between 1958 and 1965. Tom Gannon mentions it in a couple of his books but didn’t have accessed or publishing rights to the few known photos of it. It was built in one of the IDF’s major repair facilities and named Degem Yod after the facility’s commander, Major Yitzhak Jakobson.
The best guess is that it simply wasn’t judged to be a cost effective conversion.
Still, it demonstrates that it would be possible to build a lower hull Sherman with a high degree of validity. Since I’m a Sherman fan, this looks like a great Whif World project for me!
-
So far, the little bit I’ve been able to learn about this chopped Sherman is that it was a one off test vehicle, produced sometime between 1958 and 1965. Tom Gannon mentions it in a couple of his books but didn’t have accessed or publishing rights to the few known photos of it. It was built in one of the IDF’s major repair facilities and named Degem Yod after the facility’s commander, Major Yitzhak Jakobson.
The best guess is that it simply wasn’t judged to be a cost effective conversion.
Still, it demonstrates that it would be possible to build a lower hull Sherman with a high degree of validity. Since I’m a Sherman fan, this looks like a great Whif World project for me!
THat is the information I gathered from the thread over on Armorama as well. I still have not heard back from Sabinga about what book more information on the chopped Sherman is in. It would be cool to do as a one-off pressed into service during the 6-Day War to shore up an under strength alongside M50's.
-
Of course, & I'm very sure Logan's aware of this, the M10, M18 & M36 were all tank destroyers, not tanks, &, as such, were designed for a different fighting style to the M4, so were able to dispense with the turret basket much more easily, & were less heavily armoured, so didn't require the power provided by the aero-radial.
I'm figuring it's a unique & relatively unknown modification, so I'd be tempted to do it RW, based on the photo's you have, & plonk it onto a competition table of other M4's & watch the hackles rise. ;D
-
And going into pedantic JMN mode, the M36 and M18 both have partial turret baskets, with the M36 having a vaguely similar design to wet stowage Shermans. I included the M10/M36 and M18 as a relative size comparison with a lowered Sherman even though they aren’t technically tanks.
-
The Yeramba was an Australian self-propelled howitzer built after the end of the Second World War in the late-1940s. They were produced by mounting the 25 pounder gun howitzer on an American M3A5 Grant tank hull:
There is still an existing Yeramba at the Armour Museum at Puckapunyal:
(http://www.aussiemodeller.com.au/Images/History2014/Edwards/Yeramba/YERAMBA-FRT-V.jpg)
(http://www.aussiemodeller.com.au/Images/History2014/Edwards/Yeramba/YERAMBA-RAAC-V.jpg)
(http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/Armoured%20Vehicles/Images/yeramba_1.jpg)
(http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/Armoured%20Vehicles/Images/yeramba_3.jpg)
(http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/Armoured%20Vehicles/Images/yeramba_4.jpg)
There is an article about how to construct a Yeramba here: http://mheaust.com.au/Aust/gallery/Yeramba/Yeramba.htm (http://mheaust.com.au/Aust/gallery/Yeramba/Yeramba.htm)
-
Of course, & I'm very sure Logan's aware of this, the M10, M18 & M36 were all tank destroyers, not tanks, &, as such, were designed for a different fighting style to the M4, so were able to dispense with the turret basket much more easily, & were less heavily armoured, so didn't require the power provided by the aero-radial.
I'm figuring it's a unique & relatively unknown modification, so I'd be tempted to do it RW, based on the photo's you have, & plonk it onto a competition table of other M4's & watch the hackles rise. ;D
Exactly. They weren't supposed to be fighting from the move, either, but from pre-selected ambush positions. That's also why they weren't equipped with gyro-stabilizers. Under those conditions, a turret basket is-if anything-a greater inconvenience. In fact, they cut away large portions of the M4 Sherman's turret basket for that very reason. To get at ammunition better.
And going into pedantic JMN mode, the M36 and M18 both have partial turret baskets, with the M36 having a vaguely similar design to wet stowage Shermans. I included the M10/M36 and M18 as a relative size comparison with a lowered Sherman even though they aren’t technically tanks.
True, but the point is that they protrude into the hull less than the original M4's design.
Cheers,
Logan
-
Wombat, I think one would look good with a display of other IDF Shermans and really confuse people.
Rickshaw, thank you for posting the additional photos of the Yeramba!
-
Haven't seen this one mentioned yet - by a pwtomczak
M3 Lancer Tank Destroyer
Experimental Tank Destroyer built on an M3 Grant Hull
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/americanscalemodel/airfix-1-76-m3-lancer-td-t1603.html (https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/americanscalemodel/airfix-1-76-m3-lancer-td-t1603.html)
Among the tanks used by the 8th Army in this battle, was a prototype tank destroyer built on the chassis of the M3 Grant tank. While the Grant tank was key to some earlier successes in the desert war, the 75mm waist gun had less AT penetration than the 37MM turret gun. The tank itself was tall and hard to hide. To solve both issues, the hull of a grant tank was used as a mount for the new 17 Pounder AT gun. To reduce overall height and increase ammo storage, the turret was removed from the Grant Chassis. To mount the fairly large 17ponder gun in the hull sponsoon, the gun was turned 90 degrees on its side.
(https://images49.fotki.com/v662/photos/3/2276863/13865124/IMG_9366-vi.jpg)
-
Fine build in 1/76. Looks larger. 1/35 armor builder otta go do this.
Remembering reversed Lee/Grant build on BTS from a while back. Great ingenuity and skill put into it. :smiley:
-
Wait... that's 1/76? No way! :icon_surprised:
-
:smiley:
-
Love the idea, though the backstory might be stretching it a tad given the 17pdr only really entered service in early 1943.
-
Love the idea, though the backstory might be stretching it a tad given the 17pdr only really entered service in early 1943.
Maybe for Tunisia? Loads of obsolete Lee/Grant hulls laying about by early 43...
-
Maybe for the latter stages.
-
An Australian version like this might also be an idea...
-
How about a Molins gun?
-
Interesting but wouldn't a standard QF 6-pounder be just as likely?
-
Interesting but wouldn't a standard QF 6-pounder be just as likely?
By the time the sponson 75mm was insufficient to manage Axis tanks ass a dedicated tank destroyer, the 6 pdr was also becoming insufficient (notwithstanding that it was still used in infantry units until the end, mind), for the different tactics used by self propelled AT guns you needed something harder hitting like the 17 pdr. The Mollins/6 pdr really wouldn't be useful enough to warrant such a conversion.
Paul
-
I would only imagine it as being part of some sort of field mod.
-
Post WWII some Australian Citizen Military Force Cavalry regiments used the M-3 Grant into the 50s, while others were assigned to the AT role with towed 17pdrs, see where I'm going with this?
-
What if the Australians purchased some RAMs from the Canadians? I could easily see aRAM II in Australian markings:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Ram_cfb_borden_2.JPG)
-
BTW, here is a photo of the sole Ram Gun Tractor with QF 3.7-Inch (94mm) Heavy AA Gun:
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rqq3s_MFY6Q/Wwj0ml57tTI/AAAAAAAAClk/W2xy3Uim3kAUWt2Uplf3ETvLy2VM3nKHgCLcBGAs/s1600/Ram%2BGT.png)
-
Australia received 777 Grants and Lees during the war, I wonder how many were still usable post war?
How about Australia decides to mechanise the CMF and introduces a major upgrade programme for the M-3 to equip this force covering tank, tank destroyer, SPG and APC, plus other support variants. The idea is to provide a training capability rather than a deployable one, but have the personnel and units up to speed, lacking only modern equipment.
I write that and then straight away find and read this
http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/Armoured%20Vehicles/m3ph_1.htm (http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/Armoured%20Vehicles/m3ph_1.htm)
-
I write that and then straight away find and read this
[url]http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/Armoured%20Vehicles/m3ph_1.htm[/url] ([url]http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/Armoured%20Vehicles/m3ph_1.htm[/url])
Yep, that pretty much answers your questions. Here is Pt 2: http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/Armoured%20Vehicles/m3ph_2.htm (http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/Armoured%20Vehicles/m3ph_2.htm)
-
Now I'm just waiting for one of our more knowledgeable members to comment on the feasibility of upgrading the RAACs Matilda fleet with the same bits.
The Matilda with its superior protection would have been a no brainer as the main tank while the M-3 with its extra volume would have been ideal for all the required armour support vehicles, even APCs and ACVs, as well as the usual / actual ARV, BARV, AEV, SPG, GMC, SPAAG anyone?
Thinking how cool an ultimate M-3 FOV with HVSS would look (and of course the HVSS Matilda ;))
-
Australia used the Matilda until ~1954 in the CMF. It was simply too good a vehicle to let go apparently. The major problem with the Matilda was that it was simply too small to upgrade all that much. A new engine? Yes. A new gearbox? Yes. A new gun? No, the turret ring is too small to support a larger turret. The British tried in 1941-2 to add a larger turret ring with a square boxy turret reminiscent of the later cruiser tanks like the Cromwell with a 6 Pdr but decided it wasn't worth the effort.
I could imagine them putting a casement gun on the hull, perhaps like the Valentine's Archer could work, armed with perhaps a 6 Pdr? The hull might be a bit small for a 17 Pdr.
-
Australia used the Matilda until ~1954 in the CMF. It was simply too good a vehicle to let go apparently. The major problem with the Matilda was that it was simply too small to upgrade all that much. A new engine? Yes. A new gearbox? Yes. A new gun? No, the turret ring is too small to support a larger turret. The British tried in 1941-2 to add a larger turret ring with a square boxy turret reminiscent of the later cruiser tanks like the Cromwell with a 6 Pdr but decided it wasn't worth the effort.
I could imagine them putting a casement gun on the hull, perhaps like the Valentine's Archer could work, armed with perhaps a 6 Pdr? The hull might be a bit small for a 17 Pdr.
It actually had the same size turret ring as the Churchill (54"), therefore could take a Churchill turret, i.e. 2pdr, 3", 6pdr, 75mm, 95mm depending on version. The GM 6046 was designed for the Matilda so would fit, the suspension bogies were bolted on the sides of the hull and could be replaced with something else under widened / modified track guards.
17pdr I definitely would used the surplus M-3 hulls for that application.
-
Australia used the Matilda until ~1954 in the CMF. It was simply too good a vehicle to let go apparently. The major problem with the Matilda was that it was simply too small to upgrade all that much. A new engine? Yes. A new gearbox? Yes. A new gun? No, the turret ring is too small to support a larger turret. The British tried in 1941-2 to add a larger turret ring with a square boxy turret reminiscent of the later cruiser tanks like the Cromwell with a 6 Pdr but decided it wasn't worth the effort.
I could imagine them putting a casement gun on the hull, perhaps like the Valentine's Archer could work, armed with perhaps a 6 Pdr? The hull might be a bit small for a 17 Pdr.
It actually had the same size turret ring as the Churchill (54"), therefore could take a Churchill turret, i.e. 2pdr, 3", 6pdr, 75mm, 95mm depending on version. The GM 6046 was designed for the Matilda so would fit, the suspension bogies were bolted on the sides of the hull and could be replaced with something else under widened / modified track guards.
Turret rings were slightly different between the Matilda and the Churchill. The Matilda had a turret ring of 54.3inches while the Churchill had one of 54.2 inches.
So, it appears it could take a larger turret but they never fitted one. Why? More than likely 'cause they decided it would be cramped and unfightable. The Matilda was fitted with a larger turret, as I have already related. It was not considered a successful marriage. They needed a larger turret to carry a larger gun and it's ammunition and crew. The Matilda was incapable of supplying that.
17pdr I definitely would used the surplus M-3 hulls for that application.
So why hang onto the Matilda?
-
Australia used the Matilda until ~1954 in the CMF. It was simply too good a vehicle to let go apparently. The major problem with the Matilda was that it was simply too small to upgrade all that much. A new engine? Yes. A new gearbox? Yes. A new gun? No, the turret ring is too small to support a larger turret. The British tried in 1941-2 to add a larger turret ring with a square boxy turret reminiscent of the later cruiser tanks like the Cromwell with a 6 Pdr but decided it wasn't worth the effort.
I could imagine them putting a casement gun on the hull, perhaps like the Valentine's Archer could work, armed with perhaps a 6 Pdr? The hull might be a bit small for a 17 Pdr.
It actually had the same size turret ring as the Churchill (54"), therefore could take a Churchill turret, i.e. 2pdr, 3", 6pdr, 75mm, 95mm depending on version. The GM 6046 was designed for the Matilda so would fit, the suspension bogies were bolted on the sides of the hull and could be replaced with something else under widened / modified track guards.
Turret rings were slightly different between the Matilda and the Churchill. The Matilda had a turret ring of 54.3inches while the Churchill had one of 54.2 inches.
So, it appears it could take a larger turret but they never fitted one. Why? More than likely 'cause they decided it would be cramped and unfightable. The Matilda was fitted with a larger turret, as I have already related. It was not considered a successful marriage. They needed a larger turret to carry a larger gun and it's ammunition and crew. The Matilda was incapable of supplying that.
17pdr I definitely would used the surplus M-3 hulls for that application.
So why hang onto the Matilda?
The Churchill was designed to take the Matilda Turret, hence the similar ring size. I've read a couple of books that ask why the Churchill turret wasn't used on the Matilda, the only thing I can think of is initial Churchill turrets were manufactured in the US while UK production was sorted, suggesting a shortage. Initially the Churchill was seen as a failure and was facing cancellation, then once it was proven the decision had already been made to replace the Matilda with the Valentine and Churchill. I suppose the other possibility is that the Centaur and Cavalier (more to the point their unreliable Liberty engines) were not seen as suitable for combat, especially in comparison with the M-3 and M-4, meaning there was excess production of usable turrets that may have been worth using to upgrade the well protected Matilda.
The biggest problem the Matilda had was it was difficult and time consuming to manufacture compared to the Valentine and Churchill. Its suspension and drivetrain could have easily been upgraded, more so than the Churchill, however its cast, ground and bolted hull was painfully time consuming to fabricate compared to the other options from mid war onwards.
Production of an improved Matilda was not viable in the UK but the US could have done it quite well, they however preferred to concentrate on their own designs, a no brainer really. Production in Australia could have made sense, the cast bolted hull being suitable for local fabrication, using imported US power plant and suspension, perhaps even US fabricated turrets, would have made things even easier. All irrelevant really as by the time production could have ramped up, other tanks were already being delivered.
What intrigues me is the upgrade options to keep a useful vehicle, the government was not interested in replacing, in service for longer. A big issue is obsolescence, as discussed on the ANZAC Steel site with the reference to replacing M-3 components with more readily available M-4 items, if these same components could be used on the Matilda, it would not only improve performance and reliability, it would reduce cost of ownership.
The Matilda was judged a more suitable tank for SEA / South Pacific than the M-3, which is why the tank brigades deployed transitioned to the Matilda from the Grant / Lee.
-
BTW, here is a photo of the sole Ram Gun Tractor with QF 3.7-Inch (94mm) Heavy AA Gun:
Dayum! Have never seen that photo of the Ram GT before. Bloody nice find!
Can get a limited idea of what the rear fighting compartment and engine deck layout was!
Paul
-
Some more shots for you:
(https://external-preview.redd.it/Fz_KJGZyvQTikm9CTpygo0hcLquXaaX5jN7EVcIrdHA.jpg?auto=webp&s=02dcbfe6832df79cfb39cc1ba0a712cefbbec94c)(https://external-preview.redd.it/-vzmDHfXnltvLwwCPjDpyfQt4QwGJLXzrPfhvXnSDAU.jpg?auto=webp&s=87ff604778473517bcc85be681a034e1d3c1827f)(https://i.redd.it/m6t13uq54ggz.jpg)(https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/patetlao/12322974/388298/388298_original.jpg)(http://www.ww2incolor.com/d/520120-4/01878)(https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/nemarluk/55307936/194531/194531_original.jpg)(https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/patetlao/12322974/388689/388689_original.jpg)(https://forum.warthunder.com/uploads/monthly_2017_06/0st6Oqj.png.75c17f92958659dc91a8c9d83e8b5bef.png)
-
Ta! Had seen most of these before, but two new ones: in the left 2nd row and the bottom right. Also these are obviously at two different stages in the development.
Will have to go through the Ram development book and see if it speaks to these being one hull or two and if these are converted (deconstructed) actual Rams or incomplete Ram lower hulls pulled from production before being assigned serial numbers and bought especially for this program.
Paul
-
Communist Chinese M4A2, rearmed with a Chi-Ha’s 37mm gun due to lack of 75mm ammunition
(https://i.imgur.com/mHe94xh.jpg)
-
That's supposedly the only photo of that conversion too. Here is a profile to give people a better idea of the appearance:
(https://i.imgur.com/B2qBpyu.png)
Source (https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/china/m4a2-sherman-in-chinese-service/)
-
Cheers! For some reason, that PLA Sherman had to be combined with the Ram Gun Tractor ...
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg164679#msg164679 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg164679#msg164679)
-
An M51 Super Sherman modified to look like a WW2 Sherman
https://old.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/eqfkbo/an_m51_super_sherman_modified_to_look_like_a_ww2/
Might be more appropriate for a "Korean War / Cold War goes hot (1949-1959)" build up.
-
Oops
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/55/65/0d/55650d81512eb5dcfea9b7c7bf66c6dc.jpg)
-
42 Images of Sherman Wrecks
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/military-vehicle-news/43-images-of-sherman-tank-wrecks.html (https://www.warhistoryonline.com/military-vehicle-news/43-images-of-sherman-tank-wrecks.html)
-
Diorama potential, particularly in the smaller scales.
(https://i.imgur.com/ycxNMIR.jpg)
-
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.
(https://a4.pbase.com/o3/68/981868/1/133146618.dqA9Zm3B.1HEF052BW.jpg)
Click on this link if the photo doesn't show:
https://pbase.com/rustygrapple/image/133146618
-
More Madill yarders, these ones are O71 Yarders
-
M4A3(105)W HVSS with a T121 powered cupola armed with 2x .50cals:
(https://preview.redd.it/z2zbx02ilfs41.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=9bc26c11abef08ad5745f20463bd52253360d392)
-
A useful resource: http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/manufacturer/m3grant/m3grant.html (http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/manufacturer/m3grant/m3grant.html)
http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/ (http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/)
-
Sherman with 40mm:
(https://i.redd.it/ru1mrxboahb41.png)
(https://i.redd.it/240m09d1deu01.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/fa/d8/7d/fad87d8d5dc54b606f828357be162396.png)
And there is a conversion kit available!!!
(http://www.missing-lynx.com/reviews/usa/p7hg_img_27/fullsize/01_fs.jpg)
(http://www.missing-lynx.com/images/hiddendoort52conversionreviewcs_2.jpg)
(http://www.missing-lynx.com/images/hiddendoort52conversionreviewcs_1.jpg)
-
90mm Gun Motor Carriage, T53:
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/firearmcentral/images/1/1c/T53_GMC_Shield_img1.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20191016075051)
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/firearmcentral/images/1/1d/T53_GMC_img1.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20191016074442)
-
Applying concrete armour to Sherman:
(https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/8391627529_f3315d7561_c-jpg.466811/)
-
Note the 'gun':
(https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/d358ec87766d46d6bb149930c5d91ff9-jpg.499386/)
-
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......
-
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.
-
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.
(http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/manufacturer/m4a1psc/m4a1_psc50.JPG)
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.
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/world-war-2/images/4/48/T23.jpg)
http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/turret_types/76mm_turrets.html (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/BMY.jpg)
http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/m4a3e4/m4a3e4.html (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.
(http://elfnet.hu/images/haditechnika/harckocsik/fv4101/fv4101_torony.jpg)
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
So the Yugoslavians wedged a 122mm main gun into an M4A3 in 1956.
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar-yugolsavian-prototypes-so-122/
-
Wicked:
(https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Yugoslav-M4-SO-122-1.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/7G569I1.jpg)
Also of interest in that link is the version trialed with the engine from the T-34-85:
(https://i.imgur.com/2moTCEE.jpg)
-
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. :D
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.
-
Random idea: 1946 extended WWII or even Korean War Sherman equipped with IR searchlight to allow night fighting.
-
Contextualization, also good way to kill 45 minutes of quarantine time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ19oZRZqfc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ19oZRZqfc)
-
Contextualization, also good way to kill 45 minutes of quarantine time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ19oZRZqfc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ19oZRZqfc)
Unfortunately, not available in Australia. ::)
-
Swapping turrets between T-55 and Super Sherman M-51
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/T-55_M51_swap(1).jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (https://app.photobucket.com/u/ysi_maniac/a/e58f1c54-aee2-42c9-bc15-f72ec22af374/p/cf49ace0-7bbe-4e57-9d94-8eda9e931bba)
-
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.
-
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?
-
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. 8)
However, they weren't so keen whilst it was raining or they were under artillery fire. :o
Trade-offs. ;)
-
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 :o
-
As Wombat said it was for both, it needed to be lightened to fit the M10 hull & the TD board love their open topped tanks anyway...
Interest in the design didn't last that long & it was canceled in favor of the M18 Hellcat.
-
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/M51_T34.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (https://app.photobucket.com/u/ysi_maniac/a/e58f1c54-aee2-42c9-bc15-f72ec22af374/p/0b0dd354-3f8f-4c6a-89f5-51c225ea7dbf)
To install this french 105mm gun in some other WWII turrets could be a good Idea IMO.
-
May be too tall, but, why not?
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/M4A3E3_M47.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (https://app.photobucket.com/u/ysi_maniac/a/e58f1c54-aee2-42c9-bc15-f72ec22af374/p/064df54a-144b-476a-9a7d-3a4bb9fe27ae)
-
Diorama potential
(https://i.imgur.com/wKGnguR.jpeg)
-
:smiley:
-
Carcas of a Sherman used to move sand at the mine near Oranjemund, Namibia. Owned by Namdeb, vehicles can enter the mine property but never ever leave.
An ingenious idea followed the second World War, with the introduction of ex-military surplus
Sherman tanks to be used as tractors. The Sherman's eventually replaced the mules and soon
after were converted into platforms for stackers which were used in conjunction with small
bucket excavators. Dumping into mined-out areas became a successful methodology following
the use of this system.
https://www.saimm.co.za/Conferences/DiamondsSourceToUse2003/007-Badenhorst.pdf (https://www.saimm.co.za/Conferences/DiamondsSourceToUse2003/007-Badenhorst.pdf)
Rambling Grandpa Simpson style reminiscence about these things
refitting the tanks consisted of installing a 60 horse squirrel cage motor and switchgear, and a small solenoid operated hydraulic brake system that acted on the drive shaft. All driven from a single external wheel system mounted on one side of the tank plus emergency stops on both sides. the wheel accessed single and double track drive as required so that the tank could be steered. The very effective braking unit operated on the dead man system i.e if the operator's hand was removed from the control wheel the tank stopped. It was virtually idiot-proof and I never recall even the most raw recruit ever making a mistake with that system. While all that was going on the fitters mounted a swivelling conveyor belt stacking system on top. The whole was designed in-house, creating a very economical way of equipping the mines in the postwar years when imported machinery was impossible to access. No idea who the brain was behind it but he certainly deserved kudos. Most things were done on that basis in those days. I recall resurrecting ancient Siemens Schucker AC motors with brush rings and lead bearings and putting them into service when all else failed. I think most sparkies today would look askance if asked to pour a lead bearing, scrape it to tolerance and refit it to a motor that dated back to the days of Augustus Stauch. There must be dozens of them still lying around in the desert, particularly in G area. These tanks were still in use as stackers when I left in '67 so they must have been scrapped later than that.
(https://i.imgur.com/M0FiAMm.jpeg)
-
Phoney Baloney Neubaufahrzeug built on a Lee tank for training purposes, as seen in this film.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taHFUKKKmJM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taHFUKKKmJM)
(https://i.imgur.com/ShJN5dL.png)(https://i.imgur.com/pwNShC8.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/545bCGr.png)(https://i.imgur.com/Xjyiyte.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/im8sYOS.png)(https://i.imgur.com/cCxTt03.png)
Oddly enough, all of the filming only captures the tank's right side. Here's a left side, in case your imagination needs it.
(https://i.imgur.com/K08fLJQ.jpg)
He'll tell you all about 'em - he's a tanker, he should know.
(https://i.imgur.com/4CTFtri.png)
-
Look at the Sherman turrets, left and right of frame.
(https://i.imgur.com/FAt2Fpm.jpg)
A Surrendered Schwimmwagen Kfz1 Type 166 (WH 1641890) and a BMW 75 Motor bike & side car with other vehicles of the 278. Infanterie Division (Wehrmacht) at the Brenner Pass, on the Italian - Austrian Border. May 1945.
(The 278 I.Division emblem was a black figure of a Pomeranian Grenadier holding a musket bordered by a shield)
The 278.ID were manning defence fortifications near the Brenner Pass. It surrendered to the 5th and 7th US Armies in May 1945.
It was originally assigned to LXXVI Panzer Corps defending the Gothic Line,and after heavy losses the 278th was formed into a Volksgrenadier Division in early 1945.
It was later transferred to 1.Fallschirmjäger, defending the Brenner Pass where most of the Division was encircled, the remainder later surrendered on the May 2, 1945
(Colourised by Richard James Molloy from the UK)
-
Look at the Sherman turrets, left and right of frame.
What about them?
-
Look at the Sherman turrets, left and right of frame.
What about them?
Welded bustle racks that resemble those on the later M48s, filled with soft armor (like sandbags)
-
Went searching for a bigger resolution of the Sherman T6 as found on pg.1 of this thread.
(https://drawingdatabase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/m4-sherman-t6-1941.gif)
-
"Sherman 'Eyal' Observation Tank - the turret was removed and a hydraulic system was installed that is capable of raising an observation platform to a height of 27 meters/90 feet. It was commissioned by the IDF as a mobile observation along the Suez Canal during the War of Attrition until the Yom Kippur War"
(https://i.redd.it/v46mp9ff1ws81.jpg)
SOURCE (https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/u15xx8/sherman_eyal_observation_tank_the_turret_was/) on reddit
:o Breezy, but big NOPE energy!
Distance to horizon calculator says 5km at eye level, about 6.8km standing on a tank and a whopping 21km from the platform. Neat!
-
:smiley:
-
IDF
-
Diorama potential, particularly with forced perspective (1/72nd AIRFIX Bailey Bridge in background?)
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/ab/d4/67/abd4670bb8089f7a27d9e68df711634a.jpg)
-
Still in service today:
(https://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/news/2023/november/Paraguays_army_still_uses_World_War_2_US_Stuart_and_Sherman_tanks_for_training_3.jpg)
See here (https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_november_2023_global_security_army_industry/paraguays_army_still_uses_world_war_2_us_m3_stuart_and_m4_sherman_tanks_for_training.html) for more details
Edit: Link fixed - CA
-
'Interim Ram' ... playing with the Canadian Ram tank timeline (using the MiniArt M3 Lee box-art as my basis).
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg215923#msg215923
-
Those two guys look more like cops. Talk about militarizing the police!
-
Those two guys look more like cops. Talk about militarizing the police!
Indeed. And that Sherman looks like it has been buffed up to a nice sheen. Hardly 'tactical' ???
But, since Paraguay hasn't been involved in a foreign conflict since the 1932–35 Chaco War, I guess it is fair to describe the Fuerzas Armadas as primarily an internal paramilitary police force. ;)
-
Is that a different gun or does the picture angle make it look huge?
-
Is that a different gun or does the picture angle make it look huge?
Yup, that's an Argentine copy of the French CN-105-57 gun. The vehicle is a 1977 ex-Argentinian Sherman Repotenciado - a diesel-engined Firefly rebuild. -- https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar-argentina-sherman-repotenciado/
According to Janes, these Sherman Repotenciados served (until 2018) with the REP (Regimiento Escolta Presidencial) alongside White M2s and M3 Stuarts. So, that explains the polished-up paintwork.
-
"M4A2 Sherman without wheels and suspension mounted on a float and used as a patrol boat on the Rhine by the French Forces maritimes du Rhin. Built in 1954 and in service until the organisation was disbanded in 1966."
(https://scontent-lga3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/434485965_336232149461321_5043257476751739060_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p180x540&_nc_cat=104&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5f2048&_nc_ohc=TwlVFoMIo2wAb50SSDy&_nc_ht=scontent-lga3-2.xx&oh=00_AfBn5fX7DmDOzTXUdWlIkzrbLFBacQ0B2wCSfVAg5QGpQQ&oe=66186984)
-
:smiley:
-
Inspiration for another gunboat :smiley:
-
One I hope to have built by October this year;
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Malkara-M3-Grant/i-VHb2XPP/0/DvFQwTzPTm4XnhVHxwcRHB5drkTtnjMRp7582LfQd/X3/DSCN8145-X3.jpg) (https://photos.smugmug.com/Malkara-M3-Grant/i-khGpGrZ/0/FDPzJ5hwp77vjfQBKzSM6TDGTT44BGKRLfwnc4mqW/X3/IMG_2773-X3.jpg)
It's an Australian M3 Grant modified for use as a mobile observation post during the Malkara test firings.
-
:smiley: