Author Topic: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles  (Read 38492 times)

Offline The Big Gimper

  • Any model will look better in RCAF, SEAC or FAA markings
  • Global Moderator
  • Cut. Cut. Cut. Measure. Cut. Cut. Crap. Toss.
    • Photobucket Modeling Album
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #120 on: February 01, 2019, 08:33:45 PM »
Found via Facebook. 1/35 T31 Demolition tank. Dated 2011.















https://www.mojehobby.pl/gallery/1-35-T31-Demolition-tank-2165093.html

« Last Edit: February 01, 2019, 09:06:55 PM by The Big Gimper »
Work in progress ::

I am giving up listing them. They all end up on the shelf of procrastination anyways.

User and abuser of Bothans...

Offline Frank3k

  • Excession
  • Formerly Frank2056. New upgrade!
    • My webpage
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #121 on: February 02, 2019, 12:57:09 AM »
That was a real tank! It looks like it came out of an anime.

Offline Story

  • Nicht mein Zirkus, nicht meine Affen...
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #122 on: March 05, 2019, 08:03:56 AM »
That was a real tank! It looks like it came out of an anime.

[chicken-egg]Reality came first [/chicken-egg]

Offline Zaskar24

  • Newly Joined - Welcome me!
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #123 on: July 09, 2019, 08:14:05 AM »
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

 

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • ‹ber Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #124 on: July 09, 2019, 01:40:51 PM »
Early George Barris custom work? :P ;)

Offline Zaskar24

  • Newly Joined - Welcome me!
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #125 on: July 09, 2019, 06:10:35 PM »
Early George Barris custom work? :P ;)

One might think!

Offline ChernayaAkula

  • Was left standing in front when everyone else took one step back...
  • Global Moderator
  • Putting the "pro" in procrastination since...?
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #126 on: July 10, 2019, 06:57:55 AM »
That chopped Sherman looks really cool!  :smiley:
Cheers,
Moritz

"The appropriate response to reality is to go insane!"

Offline Old Wombat

  • "We'll see when I've finished whether I'm showing off or simply embarrassing myself."
  • "Define 'interesting'?"
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #127 on: July 10, 2019, 09:35:30 AM »
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
"This is the Captain. We have a little problem with our engine sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and, ah, explode."

Offline Zaskar24

  • Newly Joined - Welcome me!
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #128 on: July 10, 2019, 10:01:56 AM »
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.

Offline Old Wombat

  • "We'll see when I've finished whether I'm showing off or simply embarrassing myself."
  • "Define 'interesting'?"
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #129 on: July 10, 2019, 12:25:27 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2019, 12:27:56 PM by Old Wombat »
"This is the Captain. We have a little problem with our engine sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and, ah, explode."

Offline Zaskar24

  • Newly Joined - Welcome me!
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #130 on: July 10, 2019, 06:13:02 PM »
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?

Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #131 on: July 11, 2019, 03:59:46 AM »
Thatís 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 didnít pursue it past the prototype stage. Possibly, it just didnít work too well or possibly, the availability of more modern tanks like the Centurion and M48 made them feel it wasnít necessary. Then again, thereís the extensive work to create the M51 and the various Sherman-based SPGs, so who knows?

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #132 on: July 11, 2019, 04:23:59 AM »
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:



All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #133 on: July 11, 2019, 04:40:39 AM »
Random idea:  anti aircraft version of M3
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #134 on: July 11, 2019, 04:53:26 AM »
Thatís 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 didnít pursue it past the prototype stage. Possibly, it just didnít work too well or possibly, the availability of more modern tanks like the Centurion and M48 made them feel it wasnít necessary. Then again, thereís the extensive work to create the M51 and the various Sherman-based SPGs, so who knows?




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.



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.



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.



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