The Sherman Tank Site: The Place For All Things Sherman Tank.

Welcome To The Sherman Tank Site 

The site started out as a thread on the Sturgeon’s House, and it grew into something so huge, I felt it needed its own page.  Check the introduction to get started or just jump around the sidebar index.  The best place to discuss the content of this website is the thread about it on the SH forum. The Sturgeon’s House Forum is a very interesting place if you have any interest in good information on a lot of subjects, information based, and no trolling, check it out.

Please feel free to comment on any post directly as well, it will have to be approved first, before it will show up.  The Number of Spam Bot comments I get is nutty.

Also feel free to let me know about any cool Sherman info you may have or mistakes I’ve made.  There is a thread about this over on the Sturgeon’s House forums.  You can contact me there or through this page at  TheShermantank.com@gmail.com

I plan on updating this site for as long as I can find out new and interesting information on Sherman tanks. Since I just found a ton of new TMs on the Sherman, I have plenty to write about.

The site has now been up over a year, and traffic has grown every month, with January of 2017 being the best month yet, with well over 17k visitors. The new Data Sheets I have done for the guns and tanks have been very popular. I will be adding more as time allows. I’ve been working on a Engine Data Sheet, the beta Ford GAA one is up for download. I’m still tweaking it, and I’ve started work on the GM 6046 as well. The GM 6046 Data Sheet is very close, and I have everything I need to do the A57 and R975 as well.

Due to the volume of data and the difficulties in finding specific posts, I’m adding pages on things like the tanks, guns and motors, and there will be an entry in the pull down menu for each. There are now pages for all Sherman models, all TD models, and I just need to add the Ic Firefly and Ram pages.  You can find them here

Check out the new post section: New Posts about the Sherman Tank, it’s systems or variants.

Shermans you can see in Real Life: The Planes of Fame Air Museum. NEW 4/30/17

The New M3 Lee Page: Lees and Lots of Them! NEW 4/30/17

The Sherman Differential: Normally just Lumped in with the Final Drives, BUT NOT HERE!NEW PAGE♠

The Sherman Transmission: A pretty robust, and advanced Transmission for the time. NEW PAGE♠

Post#68 The Chieftains Hatch Does the M4A1 , we review it. New Post 2/11!

 

Check out the updated sections: Post I’ve Added A Significant Amount Of New Information too. 

Right Now there has been to much updated to list, many pages have new images or captions all the new static pages on the specific Sherman models, or systems in the tank have seen numerous updates, almost daily for weeks.

 

 

Sad_Sack_1st_caption M4A2_75_Dry_Soviet_LargeHatch_76292ecf

M4A3E2s_in_service_MNG_1955

For more info on the site owner click here.

72 thoughts on “The Sherman Tank Site: The Place For All Things Sherman Tank.

  1. Hi Jon, I hope this all gets through this time. 🙂 I’m trying to figure out how to ID an early M4A3 from the front.

    I’m looking at a picture on the Sherman Minutia pages at http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/manufacturer/m4a3ford/m4a3ford_variants.html. It’s this particular colour image (not sure if it will render here but here’s the URL, anyway):

    http://the.shadock.free.fr//sherman_minutia/manufacturer/m4a3ford/m4a3ford_30.jpg

    Jon or anyone, are you able to tell me how is this early/small hatch vehicle identified as an M4A3 from the front view? I’m pretty good at distinguishing between the different types, but I generally have to see the top of the rear deck for grills/hatches or the rear for the straight angled plate versus the U-shape sort of thing and door/air cleaners. The spaces between the wheels/suspension units are not big enough to consider an A4 and the cast A1 is right out. So that leaves M4 or M4A3. I know the M4A3 was longer, is that anything to do with it?

    Thanks so much in advance for any help on this.

  2. This site is a great source of WW2 information.

    It would be nice to see some post war items. Especially the Chilean 60mm which were the last Sherman gun tanks to be in first line service.

    1. Adam
      Thanks for the comment! I would love to be able to visit Latrun, Israel has a very amazing tanking history, and they had some cool Shermans! Latrun has a very nice collection. Do you know of any running Shermans in Israel?

  3. Hello

    love the site, very informative. Soon we will be starting the restoration of M4A3E2 “Jumbo” # 73. She is one of 6-7 left in the world and the third ever in a private collection.
    We will have a web/facebook/instagram dedicated to the restoration. Once that is set up I would love to link to your page and enlist you to assist us in getting word of the restoration out to Sherman lovers everywhere.

    Thanks
    John

  4. Love your site!

    Question: How come some Shermans have tracks with no “cleets”? Most have a cleet, but thos with the the duckbills, and others it seems like, in some pictures have just a flat plate for the track piece.

    And also, what does the “w” mean in M4Ax (76)w?

    1. There were several types of Rubber track with no clear, but there were also several models with steel cleats, and one with a rubber chevron.

      All could take duckbills, but not while the bolt on grousers were in place, L in the image above.

      The W in any Sherman name is an indicator that it had Wet Ammo racks and all the ammo was installed in a armored ready rack of six to eight rounds on the turret floor or in the racks surrounded by water jackets in the hull floor.

      All factory born 76 tanks with the T23 turret, the M4A1 76W, the M4A2 76W and M4A3 76W, had wet ammo racks, and some late production 75 tanks had it as well. The wet part of the storage was discarded after the war, but the racks remained in the same location.

  5. Great write up! I wanted to make a few comments I think are relevant and interesting from a friend of the family who worked making the engines for ICBMs and then worked on the design of the Thermo-baric bunker-buster bombs, a 90 some year old officer from Patton’s Third Army, and two enlisted men I met at my Grandfather’s funeral. Sorry if it is long, and if I ramble.
    In WWII our soldiers fighting in Europe felt their equipment was better hands down that what they were fighting against in all departments save for tanks.
    First I want to say something that I really have not heard said online or in books, but absolutely huge advantages we had over the Germans in WWII was Dzus fasteners and Army/Navy or AN- fittings. Dzus fasteners were a clip/screw that was invented by an American who they Germans would have considered a sub-human that allow the panels that were attached to aluminum airframes to be remove and re-attached so service the components underneath with the twist of a common screwdriver. This fastener is one of the reasons we shot the Luftwaffe out of the sky. When our enemy’s planes took damage from air-to-air or ground-to-air fire they had to cut out rivets to remove the panels make repairs and then re-attach the panels with rivets. It was many times impossible to do in battlefield conditions, let alone in a timely manner. The Dzus fasteners allowed us to remove and re-attach panels with ease.
    The next huge advantage we had were AN- fittings. These fittings were developed to allow hoses that carried fluids, like hydraulic hoses, fuel cables, cooling lines, to be removed and then replaced with the turn of a wrench. All the Germans had were flare connections. It is very hard to cut and flare new connections in battlefield conditions quickly and reliably. This affected the enemy’s ability to make repairs to aircraft and tanks, all of which have many fluid lines. The German tanks were in many ways no less reliable that out machines. Everybody, Russians, Germans, British, French, and us all used the same equations and worked with the same parameters for power to weight, gearing, etc, and all these machines broke down where major components failed, or minor components failed. The difference was, with our tanks, you could just remove components from the vehicle as needed, make the repair, and then replace the components quickly, and with assurance that they connections you made would work. The Germans, on the other hand, had to cut apart their connections, and then cut and flare new ones, which they could not count on working reliably, and it drastically affected their unit readiness in combat.
    When the Germans invaded France in 1940 the French had much heavier tanks compared to anything the Germans had on the battlefield. When and if the Germans had to face the machines the French were able to inflict heavy losses on the much lighter German machines. The problem for the French was that these tanks were extremely limited by range, and speed, and therefore most of them were unable to meet the German spearheads, and for the ones that did, they were simply overwhelmed. When we rebuilt out Army for WWII we wanted to be the Germans in 1940, not the French, and we wanted lighter, more maneuverable tanks, and more of them on the battlefield than our enemy, and in this department the M4 was a resounding success.
    Before we entered the war two people, one of which was George S. Patton, another was in the Army Command, if we should pursue heavier tanks to field in battle, and both of them felt that a heavier tank was not necessary to win the war in Europe, and in fact, both were correct. Had we worked on tanks as we did airplanes, or naval vessels, and the way we did, it is quite possible that the Germans would have had to face US tanks more close to the M41 and the M46/47/48 tanks, when we came ashore in France, which would have completely obliterated anything that the Germans had, were planning to make, or dreamt of making, and in greater numbers than they could have ever produced.
    As for the Germans, and the tanks they developed after the Panzer IV: When the Germans entered Russia in 1941 they started to see T-34 tanks, and some KV-1 tanks, and the only thing that they had on-hand to engage and knock out these machines, besides artillery, was their 88mm Anti-Aircraft guns, so that is what they used. German artillery in WWII was mostly horse-drawn, and therefore was not reliably around the front because the mechanized forces that created the front outpaced it. (The US artillery was mechanized and the Germans could count on it being at the front as they were always pummeled by it on breakouts – just ask their veterans of Normandy and the Bulge)
    Then the trickle of T-34 tanks turned into a torrent and this sent panic through the German tank corps, and up the chain of command. First came dedicated anti-tank guns in high velocity 75mm, and 88mm, first the shorter 88mm that was the same as the Flak 88, and would be mounted on the Tiger 1 and then a longer length and higher velocity 88mm that would be mounted on the Tiger 2, and in the meantime a bunch of tank destroyer vehicles like the Nashorn to combat these heavier Russian tanks.
    Even the Panthers and Tigers were compromises, just like the M4.
    In Russia one of the reasons why the Germans were able to destroy so many Russian tanks was that the Russians were not as concerned about training their tankers and many if not most Russian tanks they faced were not equipped with radios. The Russians just sent them forward with the idea that there would be so many more Russian tanks than German tanks, they Russian would win just by attrition. However, the German tanks, which did have radios, heavy frontal armor, and excellent guns for engaging tanks, were able to work in coordinated fashion and take out many Soviet machines. Since the Soviet tank crews couldn’t communicate with each other, they were not able to engage the Germans as a team, and they lost of lot of men and material to the Germans.
    The terrain in Russia and the Soviet tactics, were suited to the idea that you can deploy these special dedicated heavy tank companies to engage the enemy where needed to plug holes in the line and stop armored breakouts, and in worked. There was also a psychological impact on the German soldiers that these machines had. “We’re going into battle with Tigers, so don’t worry the Russian have us outnumbered 5-1” So in that sense the Tigers were not a total flop. When the Russians wanted to attempt an armored breakthrough, they would mass tanks and then send them forward at the Germans, and this was a perfect scenario for Tigers to be setup in defensive and knock out the oncoming enemy. When the Russian really did well manhandling the Germans it was when the use broad fronts because you couldn’t put a your extra-special forcers in the way of the attack. That is what Tigers were for, and in a sense, they worked.
    The Panther was a little different. It was supposed to be a T-34 killer and when integrated into the ranks of the German armored divisions of mostly Panzer IVs, allow them operational advantage when engaging the enemy.
    In the West it was the opposite of the east. Our tankers were well trained, knew how to use their vehicles, had radios, and were not going to give the Germans an easy shooting gallery. You can make the case, our tankers were better trained than their German counterparts. This is why aces like Micheal Whitman, who for years with his crew destroyed enemy tanks died within two months of facing the British and Americans.
    Also our military figured that the Germans would be sane, and deploy these heavier machines east where they would be needed to face the Soviet tanks, but in German fashion they deployed them everywhere, probably because of the psychological affect they had on their troops, but “they were crazy” is also an acceptable answer too!
    I also do not think that even their biggest fan would say, “Tigers were instrumental in stopping operation Market Garden” or “In Italy the Tiger tank allowed the Germans to maintain the strategic upper hand, although they were continually falling back into defensive positions.” Tiger tanks and Panther tanks were not successful in containing the Allied beach heads at Normandy, or in providing a deep penetration in the Ardennes, nobody can dispute that.
    What the Tigers did was create a “Tigerphobia” in that our men knew these things were out there, and made them a lot more nervous when engaging the enemy. However, many of the losses we suffered were at the hands of German AT guns in the same caliber as the 88s on the Tigers, or the 75 on the Panther, or at the hands of machines like the Panzerjager 38T, Panzerjager IV, that incorporated these guns into a mechanized platform that was easy to conceal and when used in conjunction with friendly terrain, could produce a lot of kills. Why so many reports of Tigers do not coincide with where Tiger tanks were actually deployed.
    What is also just silly is how the Panther and Tigers have been turned by the gaming industry into 1940s Main Battle Tanks, which they were not. In fact, nobody in the 1940s was making MBTs. It was the idea of incorporating the firepower of tanks like the Tiger with the maneuverability and availability of the M-4 or T-34 that created the MBT concept later.
    What can be said, is that we were successful in doing what we set out to do, and we had the maneuverability and speed we needed with the M-4 to win the war. Was is a miracle machine? No. Was the Tiger? it wasn’t either.
    Great write up and good defense of the tank that won us the war!

  6. Hi,

    My uncle was a tank crewman in the 6th Armored Division in WW2. He was killed in action in France in October 1944.

    I build models with my son, and I would like to build a Sherman with him in honor of my uncle. Is there a way I can find out which specific Sherman version was in use in the 6th Armored in Oct 1944? I realize that it was probably a mix of versions, but I would still like to get a range of possibilities.

    Unfortunately, I don’t know which sub unit he was in, although one person suggested that given the date and place where he was killed, that it was probably TF 15, which included the 15th Tank Battalion and a platoon from the 69th Tank Battalion.

    Thanks!

    1. Adam
      By October of 44 they would have still have a lot of M4 and M4A1 75 tanks, but they would be receiving increasing numbers of M4A3 75 tanks and M4A1 76w tanks as well and M4A3 76W tanks. Check out the Sherman menu at the top of the page for info on each sub type.

      Also check this site out, if you don’t already know about it.

      http://www.super6th.org/6ad.htm

      1. Thanks for the quick reply! As I figured, a mix of versions, but thanks for narrowing it down a bit.

        I have seen the site that you mentioned.

        I’m really happy that I discovered your site. It’s great!

          1. Hello Pep,

            Thanks for that! I knew about the first Facebook group, which I joined. But I didn’t know about the other one. I’ll try there as well.

    2. Adam, have you searched for an “After Action Report” for units in the 6th armored? My dad was in the 748th tank Btln. and you can find the AAR on line. It covers daily operations for April/May 1945. Hope this helps.

  7. One question I have not been able to find an answer for.

    The infantry like the Sherman with the 75s because it had a good HE shell (and good against anti tank guns which has to be a warm an fuzzy for a tank guy.

    The tankers like the 76 cause it gave them a chance tank on tank.

    What was the reason that a 76 shell could not be loaded to the same setup as a 75 HE wise?

    I have heard velocity, but as far as I know, there is no reason you could not have a reduce powder charge for you HE 76mm shell?

    Trajectory changes but that seem a simple adjustment and or dual scale scope.

    1. I think the shell walls had to be thicker to deal with the added stress from the higher velocity. The Brits post war solved this on the 17 pounder, just like you mentioned, a reduced charge, and a new set of lines in the sight.

      I think the weaker HE performance is largely overblown with the m1A1 guns, and you never hear much of complaint about the 3 inch guns performance, and it used the same HE shells and the M1A1/A2 guns.

  8. Hello. I am looking for maintenance reference material on the M51 with the VT-8-450 BI Cummings in it. I am trying to figured out if the engine bolted right in and/or how they adapted to make it fit.

  9. Hi. Mark Castro here. I work for the Governor of Bataan Province in the Philippines. We are building a new provincial capitol building which when done envisions to display WWII vehicles as well as other memorabilia as an homage to the valor of our warriors. We call our new capitol building “The Bunker”. May I ask your readers help to point me in the right direction because we would like to install 3 machines: an m4 sherman (or an m3 stuart), a Boeing p-26 peashooter, and preferably a Mitsubihi A6M2 Zero (or a Val dive bomber) inside an atrium. Any elp would be much appreciated. THank you very much and more power to your blog

  10. Think Your site is great!!

    One of my favorite American tanks is the Sherman

    I work in a building in Brooklyn Ohio Where during the war they built Shermans and Torpedoes.I had the privilege of working with a gentleman who’s father actually tested the tanks at this location ( Not to be confused with the Cleveland IX plant). Its exciting to know they were built here also.

  11. I was a tank commander in Vietnam. I have 7 books in print and a DVD all about American tanks called Tanks a Century of Dominating the Battlefield. This is a great web site. Very informative. Good work!

    Clyde Hoch

    1. Clyde
      I really liked your book “Tracks”, I’m going to have get all the others now too! May take a little time, the wife is tight with the money! Thanks for checking my site out and the kind words.

  12. Look folks, I;ve worked on M4’s and other WW2 armor (including German).

    If you want solid info on the M4 in all it’s unabashed glory, and cannot be asked to pay the toll for one of Hunnicutt’s books, then -THIS- is the place.

    If you susbscribed into the bullshit about the M4 being a “death trap” I’m sure you can ind many other sites that will feed into your fantasies.

    Otherwise, as someone who has actually worked on WW2 armor, this site is impressive in it’s honesty and candor.

    Well done sir.
    Well done.

    1. I have always bristled at the idea that the Sherman was a bad tank, or as the curator at the Aberdeen Proving Ground Museum put it, a piece of junk. I suspect that much of the complaints came from British troops. How can I find out what models of the Sherman were used by the British? Where can I find out about British armor doctrine and how it differed from US doctrine? The Sherman was more than a match for the German Mark V but no tank (except one Soviet) could do well against the Panther, Tigers or the 88mm anti-tank gun.

      Also. everyone raves about the sloped armor of the T34, but why is the sloped armor on the Sherman ignored? The Sherman did not have armor as thick as the T34 but it was sloped.

      1. Sherman had thicker frontal armour but with less slope. 51 to 63.5 mm depending on the design and from 55 to 47 deg. again depending on the design

        The T-34 had a 45mm front plate at 60 deg. The T-34 had better side armour. But it’s turret was thinner.

      2. I have a severe problem with this post. I was a volunteer at Aberdeen for over 10 years, led many tours there including some to storage areas not normaly open to regular visitors. I knew both the long term director DrJack Atwater and the Curator Ed Heasley. I never heard either of them call the Sherman a ‘piece of junk’. I would like to see this person provide some proof to his claim that either of these professionals (I have sometimes seen Dr Atwater referred to as the curator) made this statement.

      3. Shermans used by the English used Chrysler Multibank engines which were 5 of the Chrysler 6 cyl. flathead blocks on a common crankcase geared to 1 flywheel and clutch.

    2. Respectfully, I think there’s an awful lot of revisionism going on about the Sherman. I have an original of Hunnicutt’s book and several other books as well. The death trap thing is perhaps a bit over-hyped; if you read of German, British, and for the past 10 or so years, the accounts being made more available of Soviet armour accounts you see the very same fear of fire in all sorts of different machines. However, there were issues, otherwise there would not have been the concern with what Zaloga calls “generation 1.5” and the applique armour panels as part of the 43/44 upgrades to the small hatch sherman hulls.

  13. Dear Sirs

    I have just been pointed at this site and wonder if you could help with some pictures of the moulds used for the hulls of the m4a1 and the turrets please

    Re

  14. Congratulations on a fantastic website. It really is one of the most comprehensive Sherman Tank references I have found on the interwebs.

    I do have a quick question that I couldn’t find the answer to though; do Shermans have a brake light? I’m building an RC M4A3E2 and want to get the tail lights as accurate as possible. I found your excellent description and diagram about the service and blackout lights but I’m unsure what the top rectangular light is for?

    1. Bronson,
      Thanks for the compliment, and that’s the idea for the site, to be the place for all things Sherman tank.

      The M4A3 series had tail lights. This post here, covers it in some detail, let me know if it doesn’t have the info you’re looking for.

      1. Thanks, that’s where I found the excellent diagram and description but I’m still not clear on one of the lights. If the bottom two rectangular lenses are for blackout tail lights and the top oval shaped lens is the service tail light, what is the top rectangular lens for? I was thinking maybe a brake light but was it used at all?

        1. Bronson,
          Good question, I always assumed one of them worked as a brake light, but I don’t know for sure. I’ll poke arounds manuals tonight and see if I can come up with more info.

  15. Most diesel Sherman tanks were sent Lend-Lease to the Soviet union for fuel compatibility with other Soviet tanks
    These also had mostly all steel tracks reasoning probably less paved roads in the Eastern front that would be destroyed and steel longer lasting in extreme conditions. Also maybe steel better on ice?

    1. Econobiker,
      I think in the Russian Tanker Dimitry Loza’s interview on I remember, linked in my links, he confirms they prefered the steel tracks because the rubber block tracks with no tread made the tank handle like a “cow on ice”. He also mentioned they liked how durable the tracks were.

      It seems the Brits got more of the 75mm M4A2 tanks, and the USSR got just about all the M4A2 76 tanks.

  16. Hi!
    My father served with the 44th tank battalion and was assigned to the 1st Calvary. He was a “tank commander” (Sgt.) and saw action in the Philippines, and ended the war in the Japan spending his last 6 months there. Dad passed away suddenly in 1989, and of course I’ve had a lot of questions that he can not answer.

    My reason for writing is that I want to build a model of the Sherman tank that would be appropriate for that theatre and time. Of course there are many varieties and different model kits out there, and I want to do this right.

    Could anyone out there give me an idea as to the type Sherman that was used there, and of course if there is any model out there that would be most appropriate.

    Thank you all!
    Bill Anderson

      1. Hi,
        Forgive my ignorance……Is a composite hull one with cladding outside. What is it made of?

        Was there a significant difference between the Sherman M4s in the European theatre vs the Pacific? I realize different “guns” could be mounted as well as flame throwers, etc.

        Really would like to put a model together to represent as accurately as I can. Ironic that most of the Sherman kits are made in Japan/China….

        1. Bill,
          They found most of the welding time spend building welded hull M4 tanks was done putting the front plate together, casting the whole hull from Molten Steel was of course quicker and more cost effective, but not all the Sherman factories had the steel casting facilities that could handle huge castings like that. The Composite Hull M4 Sherman was a compromise, the front hull was made from a large casting, the rest was welded together like a normal welded hull version. This saved the welding time, and the smaller casting for the front hull was easier to produce than a full hull casting.


          This is an M4 composite hull, notice how the front is curved and this was the cast part, made by pouring molting steel into a big mold, but the rest of the tank is just like a normal welded hull M4.

          It could have also been like this Sherman a large hatch M4A3 75W tank.

          This model of the Sherman solved the welding problem in an even easier way, they just made the whole front plate from one rolled steel plate. This redesign also resulted in bigger hatches for the driver and co-driver.

          Both of these tanks could have been used in the Philippines, but I’ve seen more composite hulls in images than M4A3 75w tanks, for what that’s worth.

          Also I’m pretty sure Dragon has a very nice M4 composite hull PTO tank in their 1/35 line.

          http://www.dragonusaonline.com/item_detail.aspx?ItemCode=DRA6441

          1. THANK YOU!!! Your first example (rounded front) with the 75 somehow rings a bell with my memory of Dad’s conversations.

            BTW, Dad left me with a few stories – a couple funny ones, some sad ones, and a couple horrific ones. Dad was pretty humble, never knew him to lie or exaggerate. I would love to commit these to “paper”, but don’t know where to pass them along – or for that matter if anyone is interested. Any ideas ?

          2. Bill
            You’re welcome. Glad I could help! I would love to see pics of the kit as it comes along!

            I would love and be honored to host your Dad’s stories, the life of tankers fascinates me. I of course understand if your not interested.

          3. Bill,
            I was poking around trying to confirm what tanks the 44th used, and confirmed, composite hulls, just like that Dragon kit.
            There is a pretty large 44th Tank Battalion Gallery at this site
            12th Armored Division Web Site

            I also found these images




            Plus this image for a decals for the battalion in 1/35

          4. Hi,
            Well, I ordered the Dragon #6441 model (Ebay) of the composite M4.

            I would be pleased to pass along Dad’s stories to your site. I think it best if I write them up and send them via personal email, so that you may edit them as appropriate.

            Thank you,
            Bill Anderson

          5. Hi,
            Well, the Dragon kit of the “M4 Sherman composite hull pto” arrived today. I’ve been building model kits since the mid ’50s, and have a pretty extensive model railroad with all kit built structures and cars.

            That said, this model is something else! It has over 330 parts including some brass etchings. I happily found that the instructions actually give two paint schemes for tanks of the 44th Battalion in Manila, which is the outfit my Dad was with.

            I will not be working on the tank model for awhile, but I will post pics when there are some worth posting.

            Thanks again for the guidance!
            Bill Anderson
            Spring, Texas

    1. Bill,
      Begin by researching 1st Cavalry in the theater specifically Philippines related to armor Sherman and othe tanks Staurts?.you’ll start to develop information and pictures (save copies to your computer or take pics with your phone camera from books) related to the tanks. If you can narrow down to your father’s organization or sister units in the 1st Cav. similarly equipped you’ll have answers close enough to build from. In this day and age almost every Sherman variant either has a complete kit or a resin cast modification kit to develop an existing model into the version of the Sherman sub-variant model.
      I know thst some of the early Pacific theater Sherman’s were composite hull models (cast front glacis plates with hull remainder welded not cast) but I’m not sure if these were in the Philippines.
      Rrgards,

  17. Some interesting things I have found on the sherman while digging in the archives.

    Most know the photo of the M4 with the T26 turret slapped on it that was done up as a mock up to show off, and most authors will leave it at that suggesting thats all that ever happened.

    But they also had a M4A3E8 hull mount the T26 turret with the 90mm and they tested it for at least 2000 miles. They went as far as to weigh the tank up to 102,000 lbs for that. They were looking at a possible replacement for the jumbo at the time.

    There was another little paragraph about the T26 turret noting it would fit in any 69″ turret ring and they then listed off a few vehicles such as the M4 and T14. (They went as far as doing the same to the M6 in 1944, details are not to clear if they finished building and testing this one, but all of the design plans are finished and were stored in an archive for future reference)

    1. Hi!
      I “assumed” that the Dragon kit of the M4 composite Sherman would indicate the tank color. They give decal directions for the M4 in Manila and Leyte and color for things like machine guns and shovels but not the tank body.

      After looking at various pics, I’m a bit confused. Colors I’ve seen or various shades of olive green, gray, or khaki. Was the color “whatever” or was their a standard for those Sherman composites that found themselves in the Philippines?

      1. Bill
        Sorry it’s taken me so long to get back to you. The book, US Army Camouflage markings in WWII by Jim Mesko says the Shermans used by the Army in the pacific were mostly the base olive drab the army painted everything with. Camo was not used as often as in europe, and it wasn’t standardised. From what the books said, it was mostly bands of brown paint over the olive drab paint. In many cases what looks like a camo paint job may just be mud and dirt.

        By the point in the war you are building the Sherman for, they didn’t have the white stars painted on the tanks anymore either.

      2. Bill: The tank’s prescribed paint was done at the factory, not at the theater. All M4s left the factory in standard Olive drab. Whether they went to the PTO or ETO was not dictated in the contract orders.

        My favorite paint for 1/35 US subjects is Tamiya Olive Drab, lightened with some Dark Yellow

        1. Thanks all!
          Olive drab it will be, without the stars. In the pics I recall, I never saw the stars so that makes sense. One of those unanswered questions I have is if (and what) Dad’s tank was named.

          Ha, just had a hand operation so I won’t be modeling for awhile!

      3. “Olive Drab” tended to change shades depending on what it was applied over, what it was thinned with, how it was applied, and how it weathered.

        I have yet to see two WW2 vehicles with the same identical shade of OD (unless they’ve been freshly repainted).

        For the most part if you hedge toward a brownish green version of OD you should be fine, as the read lead primers tended to impart a slight browninsh tinge to the color as it wore.

  18. Great site, beautiful photos. You only missed the Brazilian Shermans. After the war (Brazil fought in Italy, 1944-45) many M-4s were acquired by this country and used until the 60’s.

  19. Love your posts, man. People seem to ignore that the Sherman served in various places for several more decades than the big cats, whereas the latter fizzled out of the proverbial armored workplace in less than a decade into the postwar era.

    I actually noticed while watching Greatest Tank Battles on the military channel that you get a much better picture of the Sherman when you completely ignore the narrator (who pretty much overhypes everything). You never actually hear our boys (the allied and particularly US veterans) actually explicitly say that the Sherman is a bad tank. and when you hear the panther needing THREE shots to take a Sherman down and the German tanks having C-rate firing mechanisms, well…

    Also, I need to ask: where did you get those awesome pictures from?

    1. Thanks for the compliments; I found most of the pictures on WarAlbum.ru WorldWarphotos.com, and a mix of any place that had Sherman pics that I ran into over the last decade.

  20. I really love the rare photos of the Sherman and the rest of the tanks in action in which you don’t get many as these from other sites.

      1. You are welcome….the more I see the more inspire with my build, by the way….
        Do you have any photos on M4A3E8? as right now, I am building a model on this Sherman and with the inspiration from the movie Fury. I love to see others conversations and what the tank crew do to their tanks.

  21. I love your site!… this is the best thing I’ve come across in years! …keep up the good work man!…I have your site on a constant open tab!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *