Sherman Main gun
- Thread starter MacArther
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Joe2
Banned
The T-34 was developed in 1940, mate
Joe2
Banned
Matt308
Glock Perfection
Cheers, Matt! It took me YEARS to figure all that out!
You know I've got all that info in a great tanks of the world book, but your pics were brilliant. Wish I had such running pictorials for every hull type.
I even left out one or two things, such as the MkI Hybrid - not sure of the USA term - which had the cast glacis of the M4A1 welded onto the welded hull of the M4. And there was the Jumbo assault tank - M4A3E2 - with 100mm of armour on the glacis, and 150mm on the turret front... and suspension problems!
As I said, there were early production MkI and MkII (M4 and M4A1) vehicles which had direct vision blocks and/or M3 medium type return roller - see photo below.
And, to add to the fun, many parts were interchangeable, so early production tanks could often be retrofitted with later pattern parts!
As I said, there were early production MkI and MkII (M4 and M4A1) vehicles which had direct vision blocks and/or M3 medium type return roller - see photo below.
And, to add to the fun, many parts were interchangeable, so early production tanks could often be retrofitted with later pattern parts!
Attachments
I've just found this site - looks promising.
Battlefront - Producers of fine metal and resin miniatures
And this:
Sherman Register - British designations
Battlefront - Producers of fine metal and resin miniatures
And this:
Sherman Register - British designations
Joe2
Banned
I thought the m36 was called Slugger
It was refered to as both.
Some units like the 100th called it the Slugger but some units called the Jackson. I think Jackson was the official name because the US has almost allways name there tanks after famous Generals ie. Pershing, Sherman, Jackson, Abrams, etc...
Some units like the 100th called it the Slugger but some units called the Jackson. I think Jackson was the official name because the US has almost allways name there tanks after famous Generals ie. Pershing, Sherman, Jackson, Abrams, etc...
Correct. Slugger, like Jumbo, was only a nickname.
As far as I know, the last operational Jacksons were in Yugoslavia during the break-up war. Quite a career!
That is true, and if I can find them somewhere in my thousands of pics from Kosovo that I took when I was there, I have some pics of some Jacksons that were destroyed by allied airpower during the Balkans war.
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
I estimate that the US in particular could have saved a lot of lifes and shortened the war in case they took over the soviet T-34 design in 1941 (which by then -hands down- was the best tank avaiable to the allies) , rebuild it with US necessaritys (better radio, higher quality RHA-armour instead of cast one, better optics, US gun and -more importantly- APC-shells) and mass produce it from mid 1942 on. By 1944 they could have a very potent tank in considerable numbers.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
I agree.
Although the gun selection might have been better served by one of the British types.
Not really, compared to the German forces the T-34 and Sherman were on equal level. Both used the same massed numbers approach to defeating the German machines. If the Allies had managed to mass produce a T-34 with OQF 17pdr with Allied creature comforts then you're talking mean machine!
syscom3
Pacific Historian
The ballisitcs protection of the T34 was superior to that of the Sherman.
One reason the Sherman was knocked out so easily is the large number of "perpendicular" parts of the hull and turret.
The Sherman was infact vulnerable frontally all the way out to 1,500m if engaged by the StuG or PzIV, and 3,000m if engaged by a Tiger Ausf.E or Panther (Although a hit at this range would be a lucky one)
Against the Tiger Ausf.B, well, even a distance of 4 km isn't gonna save you then. Infact a Nashorn once took out a IS-2 past 4km - now thats pretty amazing.
Now the T-34, well Tiger crews claimed head on kills as far away as 3.8km, so I'm guessing the protection was about the same as the Sherman. (The T-34 does have an overall better shape though)
Against the Tiger Ausf.B, well, even a distance of 4 km isn't gonna save you then. Infact a Nashorn once took out a IS-2 past 4km - now thats pretty amazing.
Now the T-34, well Tiger crews claimed head on kills as far away as 3.8km, so I'm guessing the protection was about the same as the Sherman. (The T-34 does have an overall better shape though)
schwarzpanzer
Senior Airman
- 662
- Aug 8, 2005
The T34 did have better armour than the Sherman, particularly the sides/rear, but the Sherman had thicker armour and usually 'hillbilly armour' like track links etc.
The T34 could also carry an 85mm gun, maybe even the US's 90mm? (A 100mm was tried).
The thing was, the T34 'brewed up' more violently than the Sherman - often taking out any nearby infantry.
It needs to be remembered that the Tiger's development was also speeded up by encounters with the French tanks and particularly the MatildaMkII. It also created 2 of the Tiger's trade marks; thick armour and an 88mm gun.
As for PzIV production, well I would say it compared well with the T34. The best bet probably being the Daimler-Benz Panther proposal, with a more rearward turret. The main problem with the Panzers was, I feel, the Maybach engines. Much better a Meteor-alike Daimler-Benz unit, developed from the DB601/605?
The T34 could also carry an 85mm gun, maybe even the US's 90mm? (A 100mm was tried).
The thing was, the T34 'brewed up' more violently than the Sherman - often taking out any nearby infantry.
It needs to be remembered that the Tiger's development was also speeded up by encounters with the French tanks and particularly the MatildaMkII. It also created 2 of the Tiger's trade marks; thick armour and an 88mm gun.
As for PzIV production, well I would say it compared well with the T34. The best bet probably being the Daimler-Benz Panther proposal, with a more rearward turret. The main problem with the Panzers was, I feel, the Maybach engines. Much better a Meteor-alike Daimler-Benz unit, developed from the DB601/605?
Glider
Captain
The only point that I would disagree with was that the T34 brewed up more violently than the Sherman. The Sherman was notorious for brewing up hence the various nicknames given to it by both the Allied and Germans e.g. 'Ronson' because they always lit first time, every time.
The T34 with its diesel engine, lack of highly inflamable hydraulic fluids and better designed armour was always more capable of taking damage and giving the crew time to escape.
Many improvements were made to the Sherman to improve the situation in particular the installation of water jackets around the ammunition and some diesel powered versions. However, as a basic design to take damage the T34 had the edge.
The T34 with its diesel engine, lack of highly inflamable hydraulic fluids and better designed armour was always more capable of taking damage and giving the crew time to escape.
Many improvements were made to the Sherman to improve the situation in particular the installation of water jackets around the ammunition and some diesel powered versions. However, as a basic design to take damage the T34 had the edge.
Vassili Zaitzev
Master Sergeant
If I remember correctly, didn't the Israelis use modified Shermans in the six-day war in 1967.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
