I was in Koln in '74, and even with the passing of so many years, the feel of the war years is still there. Kinda creepy…
BTW, this info is from the History Channel’s episode of an old series called “Suicide Missions” (later renamed “Dangerous Missions” to be politically correct and less dramatic) on the crews of a Sherman tank featuring in depth interviews with the servicemen that manned the tank. It’s a worthy view if one ever gets the chance. I believe you can also purchase it from their site. Unfortunately, the HC tends to run the military stuff less and less. I used to really enjoy “Military Blunders” more than anything…
Cheers.
An interesting attemp of U.S “zimmerit” , this M4A2 “Comet” of the 4th tank batallion U.S.M.C is plastered with cement and wooden plancs in his sides in order to prevent the attachment of japanese magnetic mines.
The date of the picture in april 1945 in Iwo Jima.
Hi All.
Having a little trouble tracking down info on the sherman, M4A3E8(76)W
"Easy Eight . In Normandy.Any info would be great.
Cheer,s
There is Sherman topic in the america military Europe section, there you will find more.
Thanks for the info .
Definitley worth reading.
cheer,s
The M4 was a rush job, and designed by committee. The entire US tank development budget in 1939 was $85K. Utterly inadequate funding drove all the really creative people out of the War department. Then Hitler invaded Poland. Suddenly America needed tanks and needed them in a big hurry.
Needing a tank now the US rushed to build the M3 Grant. The Grant design centered on the M2 75mm cannon, a good weapon in the first few years of the war. Unfortunately, there was no time to design a turret for that weapon, so the M3 carried a casemated 75mm with limited traverse, and the 37mm turret off the M3 Stuart light tank. Despite its high silhouette and riveted construction, the M3 proved mechanically reliable and the 75mm was appreciated by Britsh tankers. But combat quickly exposed the flaws in the rushed design. The M3’s silhouette was even higher than the M4, and its riveted construction was vulnerable to spalling after a hit. But it bought time for the M4’s designers, and perfected the drivetrain. The design board worked with no information on any tank more advanced than the PzkW III or the early PzkW IV, armed with a short barrelled 75mm. The board assumed those vehicles would be the threat, and against them the M4 enjoyed the advantage, despite its high silhouette. The problem was that the Germans put most of their armor, including the newest Panther and Tiger tanks, into the Western Front. Worse, the more common PzKw IV proved easy to upgun.
As designed the Sherman had a crew of five, commander, gunner, loader, driver and assistant driver. This is considered a good tank crew for maintenance reasons, but was rarely achieved in combat due to casualties. The tank boasted 2 1/2 inches of armor plate on a front glacis plate inclined at 45 degrees, with 1 1/2 to 2 inches on the hull sides. Turret armor was 3-4 inches in the front, 2 on the sides, and there was a 5" mantlet surrounding the main gun. Armament for the M4 model was one short-barreled 75mm M2 cannon with a muzzle velocity of 2,050 feet per second. Later the M2 was replaced with the M3 75mm, a similar weapon. The original gun choice came out of a fight between the infantry and artillery, who felt the tank gun should have the same barrel life as an artillery weapon. That requirement mandated the selection of the low powered, short-barrelled M2, a fine peacetime weapon. US doctine at the time stated that tanks were for exploiting breakthroughs, not for fighting other tanks.That was the job of the US Tank Destroyer Force, and the US produced a number of capable vehicles in that role. Doctrine ignored that tanks are designed to fight on the front lines, while artillery pieces rarely see direct combat. When tank met tank, the M2 proved no match for the long guns installed in the Panther, Tiger, or later versions of the PzKw IV.
The M4 weighed 37 1/2 tons, and carried over the heli-coil suspension from the M3 Grant tanks. It was powered by a Continental R975C1 radial engine of 400 hp, with the transmission and final drive similar to the old M3 The continental radial was originally designed for aircraft and gave the tank a power to weight ratio of about 10 hp per ton, good for the time. The wide engine was installed at about a 45 degree angle. The driveshaft was angled and ran beneath the turret, forcing an elevated fighting compartment. The angled driveshaft gave the tank its characteristic high silhouette.
In early 1944 Shermans began to be adapted for a 76mm gun with a muzzle velocity of 2,650 fps, in a new, much-improved turret. The 76 was an enormous improvement, and gave the tank a fairer chance against is German opponents. However, HVAP armor piercing ammunition remained scarce throughut the war, and was reserved for tank destroyer use. Even with HVAP the gun did not quite equal the German KwK75L48 on the Panther. The 76mm gun was retrofitted to the M4A1 and M4A3. The M4A3 substituted a 500HP Ford GAA V-8, which was lower, more powerful and less finicky than the Continental radial. Wet ammunition storage was introduced, which greatly reduced vulnerability to catastrophic ammunition fires after a hit. The GAA would have allowed the tank to reduce its very high profile, but the hull was not changed in order to avoid interrupting production. The GAA became the engine of choice, and the A3 was the most common variant to see action in World War II. The M4A3E8 represented the final evolution of the Sherman. The ‘Easy Eight’ replaced the hard riding verticle volute suspension with a horizontal volute suspension system (HVSS) and added 23" tracks, greatly enhancing mobility. It came with the T23 turret and the 76mm gun. The ‘Easy Eight’ was retained after the war, and saw frontline duty in Korea.
The M4A2 used two GM 6-71 diesel engines. It fought for Russia because the US Army preferred gas engines in order to simply fuel logistics. The M4A4 used a Chrysler A57 Multibank engine. The motor was cobbled together by linking five 6 cylinder auto engines. Five water pumps cooled the original versions. They were powerful enough, and proved reasonably reliable but very complex and thus required a lot of maintenance. A4’s mostly went to British Service, and the Brits added one of their 17 pounder guns to the tank, creating the Sherman Firefly, which was capable of killing Panthers and Tigers at long range.
In combat the Sherman proved to be inadequately armored, readily killed at long range by German Panther and Tiger tanks. This led to a specialized ‘jumbo’ Sherman which was used for assaults at the cost of speed and higher ground pressure. Panzerfausts penetrated the standard tank easily, as did the famed German 88. The Sherman’s gunpower was also inadequate, meaning it could only kill Panthers or Tigers with side or rear hits, where the armor was thinner. Except for the ‘Easy Eight’ Shermans lacked cross-country maneuverability relative to the later German tanks, whose wide tracks had been designed with experienced gained on the Russian Front. In short, the Sherman often fared poorly against German armor. But Western tanks outnumbered their German opponents by more than 20 to 1 before the Battle of the Bulge.
The M4 was not without its virtues. It was quite reliable, provided you had spare spark plugs, which the Continental radial was notorious for fouling. The rubber track system had extraordinarily long life, and on the road it was very fast and fuel efficient. Which meant that while it was a poor weapon for creating a breakthrough, it was a fine weapon for exploiting one. The later M26 Pershing had a high velocity 90mm gun, lower profile, lots more armor, lower silhouette and lower ground pressure. In other words, it was a superior combat weapon in every way, quite capable of taking on a Tiger. To be fair, the M26 was only available on film at the time of choosing our D-Day tank. However, British experience in North Africa had already shown the Sherman’s flaws. Factories began welding on additional armor in 1943, long before the Normandy invasion.
The M4 also enjoyed two other advantage over all German tanks, a gyroscopic mount for its main gun and a powered turret. That mount allowed the tank to shoot accurately on the move. Unfortunately, lack of confidence in the system made shooting on the run a rare thing during the war. If more tankers had chosen to shoot on the run, the Sherman’s combat record might have been better. But the powered turret meant they got the first shot off more often than not.
The Sherman chassis served as the basis for many armored vehicles. It was the basis for the M10 and M36 Tank Destroyers armed with the 76mm or the much more powerful 90mm gurn. and several self propelled artillery pieces. The most famous was the M7 Priest self-propelled 105mm howitzer, a popular and long-serving weapon. The British 17-pounder equipped Shermans were effective, but the long gun was distinctive and German gunners soon learned to shoot at the Fireflies first. The M4A3E8 with the Ford GAA engine, the horizontal volute suspension system (HVSS), wide tracks and 76mm gun was the main version retained for US service after the war, It offered a fine ride and cross country mobility comparable to the best German tanks. The version was later shipped to Israel. The Israelis upgunned the tank to 105mm, and it served with distinction in the Six Day War.
Modified Shermans continued to serve into the 1960’s and early 1970s. Today they are often found on display in front of armories and veterans organizations, usually with the 75mm gun.
To be correct German tanks like the PzKw IV had powered turrets earlier in the war, but they were deleted from later models to simplify production, and increase fuel capacity. The gyroscopic mount was unique, but there is little evidence that Sherman gunners trusted their capability to shoot on the move.
To be correct German tanks like the PzKw IV had powered turrets earlier in the war, but they were deleted from later models to simplify production, and increase fuel capacity. The gyroscopic mount was unique, but there is little evidence that Sherman gunners trusted their capability to shoot on the move.
Yea, the gyro stabilization was very advertised by the Sherman manufacturers… but who used it in combat ?
The info I ve found is very scarce about this subject.
It strictly depended on the battalion/company leaders. In the few battalions where the tank gunners were required to paractice suffciently at target shooting the gyro proved usefull. Those seem to be in the minority. Combat experince taught many battalions the values of extra drill and the number of extra proficient units rose in 1945.
Most of the tank units that came to Europe in 1944 had zero combat experince. Most assumed that since they had completed the unit training syllabus and scored well on the gunnery training program they were combat ready. The veterans of the Armored Divsion that fought in Tunisia and Sicilly, or a couple of the British Armored Divsions could have told them otherwise.
Just as an aside.
It should be noted that technically the name ‘Sherman’ should only be used for M4 series tanks in British service, as this is the name given to the M4 tank by the British, but it has never been officially adopted by the US Army.
I agree that the Sherman was “not a bad tank.” It was in fact a very good tank that with modifications and upgrades, was on par with the real “backbone” of the German armored corp, the Panzer MkIII/IVs (whose initial versions were also dated, but had received newer guns and armor add-ons, engine upgrades, suspension, etc. - unlike the original M-4 Sherman). In addition to the British Firefly, the US also produced better Sherman tanks called the M-4A1E8 “Easy-Eight.”
And you’re wrong that the Western Allies didn’t produce tanks that were on par with the Panther or Tiger. The M-26 Pershing could have been every bit as effective…
Hi Guy’s
M4A2 E8 Sherman in Canadian Service
Royal Canadian Legion – Charleswood Branch No. 100
The Sherman Tank Memorial
History of the Tank
This tank, Model M4A2 76mm (W) HVSS serial number 69139 was built by the Fisher Tank
Division, of General Motors, Detroit Michigan, in April of 1945.
One of 2915 of this particular model built between May 1944 and May 1945, it was intended for
delivery to Russia under the Lend-Lease program, but the shipment was cancelled at the end of
the European war in May of 1945. This is one of the last models of Sherman tank built. A total of
49,243 of all versions were built from 1942-1945.
The Canadian Army had used earlier versions of the Sherman than in Italy and North-West
Europe from 1943, but all these tanks were disposed of in Europe at the end of the war.
In 1946, to equip the post-war Canadian Army, 300 M4A2 Shermans were purchased from the
USA at a cost of $1,460 each. They served with the Regular force until the adoption of the
Centurion tank in 1958 and Militia unit the last ones were retired in 1970. A number of them
became range targets and several become monuments such as this one. A few have been restored
to running condition in private ownership.
The nomenclature of the tank decodes as follows:
M4 – Model Number, A2 – Diesel Engines, 76mm – calibre of main gun,
(W) – Pressurized wet stowage of ammunition, HVSS – Horizontal Volute Spring Suspension.
The Fort Garry Horse Museum and Archives – June 2003 www.fortgarryhorse.ca
Markings
The vehicle carries the marking of The Fort Garry Horse (Militia) for the period 1946-1959.
Arm of Service Sign The left front and left rear carry the arm of service sign of the Royal
Canadian Armoured Corps. A square with read and yellow halves, divided diagonally. Above, a
2-inch white bar carries the unit’s abbreviated name “FGH (M)”
Formation Sign The right front and right rear carry the Prairie Command shield. Prairie
Command was the organization responsible for Saskatchewan, Manitoba and NW Ontario. After
1959, Prairie Command was absorbed by Western Command, and the Green Western Command
flash was carried until 1968 and the unification of the Canadian Forces.
Unit Name. In the mid-1950’s the unit name in the form “FORT GARRY HORSE (M)” was
added to the sides of the vehicles located in Winnipeg for recruiting purposes.
Turret Markings. A yellow triangle on the turret indicated “A” Squadron of the regiment. A
square was used to indicate B Squadron, a Circle for C Squadron, and a Diamond for D
Squadron.
Paint
Overall Semi-Gloss Olive Drab, Federal Standard number 24087. Manufactured by Gillespie
coatings, Texas. Available in Canada through Willys Acres RR#2 3224 Conc 7. Oro Station ON,
L0L 2E0 (705) 835-5739
It takes two gallons to paint the entire vehicle with a professional spray gun and compressor.
Thin the paint with Synthetic Enamel reducer, ratio Paint: Reducer 2:1
Rubber road wheels and support rollers – Tremclad Flat Black, painted by brush.
Grease points on wheels – highlighted in red.
Markings. Gloss Red, Yellow and White Tremclad spray paint.
Re-painting – 2003
The tank was repainted in June 2003 by volunteers Gord Crossley, RSM of The Fort Garry
Horse, and Don Trueman and Doug Young of Prairie Command Military Vehicles Collectors
Club.
Tasks performed.
- Manufacture and install covers for periscope and vision block openings (10)
- Remove surface rust and apply rust-proofing
- Paint and apply markings
- Clean memorial plaque
Hi Guy’s
This is 1 of 2 M4A2E8 on pads a third one is running in Winnipeg
Cheers
it seems to me more like an m10 destroyer . I dont mean that you are wrong , i just say this variant has many similarities with the m10 . I am talking about the view of the tank
That is an M-4, flat hull sides, fairly flat turret sides, closed top turret. The M-10 has sloped side armor, and an open turret. pictured below.
thanks for posting that A2, I’ve read about them, but never seen one . Good pic.
I think you’re confused because the M-4A1/2E8 “Easy Eight” has a more angular hull that the M-4…
yeah . i think you are right . from the pictures i’ve saw it is more angular to the turret and also in the back side of the armor
Good overall article on the M-4 Sherman: www.2ndinfdiv.com/component/option,com_kb/page,articles/articleid,3/