I clearly like Sherman tanks, Jeeps, Guns, Tanks in general, and WWII history. WWII Aircraft are cool, as is the F-14.
View all posts by Jeeps_Guns_Tanks →
Bibliography and sources: So here are all my sources
So yes, I know the site would be better with a list of sources, and this is going to be that post for now. I will also, as I review and rewrite all the articles over time, add them to each post.
Data
A bit about the site, and myself, I’m just a guy who really likes WWII history, and more specifically, WWII tank history. I am not an expert on the Sherman, but I do know a hell of a lot about it, and I have a lot of opinions about it as well, and much of this site is me sharing that opinion. The hard data is not my opinion, the specifications, and other details are not my opinion and come from many different sources. Most of these are listed in the book review and links section. There is even a data post with a whole lot of useful information in picture format of various documents.
First and foremost, most of the minutia details come from reading the Sherman Minutia Website a lot and looking through the Son of a Sherman book. Between these two sources, you can answer almost any question about a production detail on a Sherman you may have, and the nice thing about the SMW is it’s always being updated. I only cover these details in a very general way, I could never do it as well as the book or site.
My next big source of information is period literature and manuals. If you haven’t noticed, I have a very large selection of technical manuals and field manuals on my website, all available for download, for free. I’ve collected a huge number of the things over the years, most in PDF format, but a few in real paper, and I’ve read a hell of a lot of them. I am missing a few key Technical Manuals, like one on the M4/M4A1, I have the M4A2, A3 and A4 covered though, and several TDs and the Lee. I’m pretty confident I could start up and drive around and M4A2 or A3 or even A4 and adjust the clutch linkage and do a host of other maintenance tasks from reading through the manuals on how to do them. These old tanks are so similar to old cars is funny, and if you know a good bit about old cars the manuals should be very easy to follow, the big difference is the size of the tools and weights involved.
Along with the TM and FMs, I’ve hosted a lot of other documents I’ve found on the internet, from battalion and division histories, the very interesting Combat Lessons booklets the DOD put out during WWII, and I’ve taken information from all these sources.
Now for the books, so many books, most of these I own, and love, but a few I only have in PDF. I already mentioned Son of a Sherman Volume one. If you have any interest in the Sherman tank, you should by the book while it’s in print and reasonable in price, it’s fantastic. It also had some of the better info I used in the factories post. It’s to late to get this book at regular price now, and new and used copies are going for 300 to 700 bucks!
Sherman: A History of the American Medium Tank, by RP Hunnicutt is the holy grail of Sherman books. It is filled with so much information about the production history, use, design, modifications, and hard specifications, that much of the data on this site comes from this book. The gun chart data came from here, all the data sheets, and a lot of the future things that almost made it came from here as well. This book is currently in print again, for 60 buck paperback, 70 hardbacks. Buy it now, before it goes back into the hundreds after going out of print. Though slightly dated in is the short history of battle sections, it is still an amazing book, and really the only hard technical history of the Sherman that is really great. Also always keep your eye out for an original printing, the photos are much better.
Armored Thunderbolt: The US Army Sherman in WWII, by Steven Zaloga this book, when combined with Son of a Sherman and RP Hunnicutt’s Sherman book will give you a very good knowledge base on both the technical and historical histories of the tank, and if you throw in Son of a Sherman you have all the minute details covered. With these three books, you can really get a good idea how wrong the pop culture opinion of the Sherman and German armor in general really is. So a little more about this book, Zaloga covers both the design history, though not in minute detail, (You will not find detailed specification sheets or a breakdown of the exact details of the differences in all Sherman models) but he does cover much more of the politics and decision making that led to some of the key problems that popped up with the Sherman, US Tank design, and armor tactics. In this book and several Interesting interviews, he really covers why Belton Cooper of Deathtraps fame was so wrong. He also has a lot of the numbers in his book backing up the Sherman performing in battle better than the Panther. Zaloga is a prolific writer and has put a lot down on paper about the Sherman, and I’ve read almost all of it, aside from a few older Osprey New Vanguard books. This man, almost as much as R.P. Hunnicutt is responsible for bringing out the truth about the Sherman tank.
The Tank Killers, Steel Victory, and the Infantry’s Armor, by Harry Yeide, These books are another big source they are really great books covering the use of Tank Destroyers and the Separate Tank Battalions. Yeide is both knowledgeable and easy to read, and I will continue to buy every book he puts out.
Marine Tank battles of the Pacific by Oscar Gilbert, in comparison, to Sherman use elsewhere, until recently info on the Shermans use in the Pacific was pretty light. This book is specific to the Marines and covers more than just Shermans use, but it does a pretty good job of covering each battle, and most of the info, along with some histories from the Marine Corps was used for the old Tarawa post. His book on Marine tank use in Korea also has some Sherman use covered and is a good read as well.
Tanks in Hell by Oscar Gilbert and Romain Cansiere is a very recent and very detailed study of the use of Marine Shermans on Tarawa. It is the most detailed history available on the Shermans use in that battle and clears up some mysteries and misconceptions. It was a great read and I just finished it up.
There are so many books on the Sherman out there, I’ve tried to read any I could, but the ones listed are the best and most important. I do not read books just on the Sherman tank, and at one time was what one could consider a wehraboo, and I know the guy who invented the word too, so I have that going for me. Anyway, while a wehraboo, I collected some of the premium good source books on German tanks. Reading through Panther Tank by Thomas L Jentz started me down the path to salvation, the combat readiness reports found in that book; even on the late model G Panther are truly pathetic, though it is really a beautiful book, Jentz was only against listing source material. I also have Panther and its Variants by Walter Speilberger, another beautiful book, filled with beautiful illustrations on a tank so unreliable to be almost useless. I have Jentz’s two books on the Tiger, D.W to Tiger I and Tiger I&II Combat tactics. Also very nice books but based on old outdated historical information when it comes to the unit histories, but boy are the pictures great. I have Speilburger’s books on the Panzer III and IV, both great books, and the subject matter is more interesting since these were the real stars of the German tank design, in that at least they worked and offered real value to the German Army. I’ve read Tigers in the mud and even enjoyed it. There are of course more, but that covers the really big stuff/good stuff.
Other important sources are sites like Archive Awareness, who author takes Russian Soviet-era archive documents and translates them and offers opinions on them. He has some very interesting information on the Sherman tank on his site, and far more on Russian tanks and German lies. Some say he is biased, but if he is, it’s against the Nazi propaganda that still lives on to stink up the world, and I’m fine with that. Other good sites include Tank and AFV news, and the Lone Sentry.
The Chieftains Hatch of Wargaming fame, like him or not has produced some very interesting new information about various tanks, and his publication of the French post-war report on Panther use is a real eye-opener and was groundbreaking info. I have links to many of his very interesting posts in the links section. Like World of Tanks or not, they have dropped a lot of real cash on restoring real tanks, and paying real researchers to unearth interesting tank information, they deserve some real credit for furthering the modern understanding of Armor. Wargaming also got a lot of armor experts in one place as a panel for their Operation Think Tank series and let the crowd ask questions, it is on YouTube and filled with very interesting info.
If I have it listed on my links, information from their website has probably contributed to a post on this site.
Now a final bit about sources and this site, all the information in the various posts is true to the best of my knowledge and sources. Some information, mostly image captions are very generic and often wrong, and many helpful people have posted corrections, and I’m always grateful for it this help. If you think I’m wrong on something, and you can back it up with sourced info, by all means, contact me through the site email, or posting a comment so I can correct any mistakes. I try and keep the site from being about my ego in any way, and will listen to reasonable people with reasonable arguments and most importantly, data and source info to back it up. Don’t bother if your ‘source info’ originated with a German wartime SS source, their wartime numbers are not at all accurate, and even the German army discounted them.
On a final note, am I a fanboy of the Sherman, in a sense, I suppose, but a true fanboy does not understand the flaws of their subject of obsession, and in my case, that’s not true. I know theSherman had flaws, it like all things created by man, was an engineering tradeoff, and the ones they chose, were the right ones for the US Army in WWII, and even Shermans armed with only the 75mm could have carried the day in Europe. Or that’s my opinion anyway, but don’t let my opinions scare you away from all the hard data on the site.
After just over two years in operation, this site has grown past 350,000 words, with a huge number of Sherman photos and drawings, many of the drawings pretty rare. I have more information on the motors and powertrain of the Sherman series than any site on the net. This site has more technical manuals, and field manuals on the Sherman and US Armor use than any site I know of.
This site is largely a one-man operation, and with that much content there will be typos and grammar mistakes, and I apologize and fixe them when I find them. This site has been funded out of my own pocket, and if you count book purchases, the cost has gotten significant, but the content will always remain free, and ad-free.
Soviet Shermans: The USSR Was a Big Sherman User, and They Liked it
Soviet crew posing in front of their large hatch hull, M4A2 75 dry, tank.
The Soviet Union received three American Medium tank types in large numbers. They received the Lee, and M4A2 75 and 76 tanks. Only the UK would use more M4A2 tanks, though they received only five armed with the 76mm gun, they got far more of the 75mm armed M4A2s. The Soviets also received a pair of M4A4 tanks for evaluation but rejected them because of the motor. My impression from the things I’ve read says, they liked the all of them, well not the A4, but liked the Shermans more than the Lee.
M4A2 76w, late production, with an M1A2 gun.
Now let’s cover each tank model.
M3 Lee: The Basic Lee
Knocked out Soviet M3 Lee tanks
The Lee was not considered a very good design by the Soviet Union, you can read their evaluation here, on Archive Awareness, but it was not all negative. They liked the transmission, differential and final drives, and in particular the steering and brake mechanism. They felt the R975 air-cooled motor was not a great fit for tanks, for all the reasons they are not fit for tanks, mainly the size limitations they put on the tank, and as gasoline AC engines, they don’t have good low-end torque, make driving harder. They disliked the position of the 75mm gun, and lack of sites on the machine guns.
Soviet M3 Lee, If you look closely you can see grousers installed on the tracks
One thing I found very interesting, is in the summer, they could pack up to 10 SMG infantry into the Lee, along with the regular 7 man crew, making it into a makeshift APC. The thing would be packed full of people though. The report says all weapons could be fired on the tank while those 10 men were stuffed in, so I guess the US Army or Brits didn’t try this because they liked comfort or something.
A column of Soviet M3 Lee tanks.
The Lee did not fare well against the upgraded Panzer IV with long 75, and they lost a lot of them, but they never stopped using them, they just did what the British did and sent them off to secondary theaters, where tanks were still useful, and no enemy tanks were around. Against poorly equipped, in AT weapon, Infantry, the M3 Lee was a monster of a tank. The 75mm had a great HE round, it was packed with machine guns, and had a 37mm that could sling canister. The Soviets received 1386 M3 Lee tanks.
M4A2 75 dry: Early Small Hatch 75mm Shermans with Drivers Hoods
Early M4A4 with DV ports in Russian Museum. One of two sent to the USSR for testing.
The Soviets received 1990 M3 75mm gun armed M4A2 Shermans. I don’t have a list of who made the early M4A2 tanks they got. They were competing with the Marine Corps and the French and Brits on priority for these tanks, and most went to the Brits. I’ve looked through a lot of pictures of Soviet M4 tanks, or “Emcha” as they seemed to call them, the small hatch 75 tanks seem rarer than the large hatch 75 and 76 tanks.
This Post on Archive Awareness indicates, they received several hundred very early M4A2 tanks. One of the big indicators of this is the section where they talk about the suspension having the Lee style top mounted return roller, which could be jammed with mud, but then they received later models, where this return roller was moved to bracket mounted to the side of the suspension unit.
Another interesting part of that document is the problems they had with injectors and lubrication problems with the pistons. The Army reported similar problems with early model M4A2s, with the Air cleaners, cooling system, and clutches, but nothing about the injectors. This post on AA also indicates injector issues but was overall positive on the M4A2. Maybe the Soviets used low-quality diesel and the injectors didn’t like it. At any rate, these issues would have been worked out by the time they started getting improved models.
M4A2 large hatch Dry: Late Model 75mm, 47-degree Large Hatch Hulls, but with Dry Ammo Racks
M4A2 75 dry large hatch tanks in action
By late 1943 a new version of the M4A2 was going into production, and it had the improved 47-degree, single piece front armor plate, with large driver and co-drivers hatches. These would be the first tanks to get this improvement. By the time this model went into production, priority for diesel-powered Shermans was going to the Soviets, since that was the only model they wanted, and the Brits would take the M4A4.
An final production M4A2 75 dry tank
These improved large hatch hulls still used the dry ammunition rack setup of the early small hatch hulls, but they had the applique armor applied at the factory, and the 75mm turrets had an improved casting thickening the area that had required welded on additional armor on the older turrets. The Turrets had a oval loaders hatch and a pistol port as well, though the commander still got the older split hatch cupola with the 50 caliber mount built into it.
These tanks seemed to have been photographed much more than the small hatch 75 tanks, but I do not have a lot of photos of either. By the time these tanks were being produced, all the major reliability issues would have been worked out.
M4A2 76W: The Soviets were the Second Biggest User of 76mm Shermans
Soviet M4A2 76w with a split loaders hatch somewhere in Germany or Austria
Production of the 75mm armed Sherman was reduced, as Sherman production was streamlined down from the 10 factories that were producing it, to the three that would finish it off, Fisher, Chrysler, and Pressed Steel Car. The Soviet Union received 2073 M4A2 tanks with the 76mm M1A1 gun. This was just about Fishers whole production run on the 76mm armed M4A2.
Shot of a factory fresh M4A2 76w tank at the General Motors Proving Ground
These tanks would have started out with wet racks, all around vision cupolas, a split loaders hatch and an M1A1 76mm gun without a barrel threaded for a muzzle brake. A few may have even had T23 turrets without the ventilator on the rear. These would quickly be replaced with M1A1C guns with threaded barrels with a protective cap over the threads, and the split loaders hatch would be replaced with the smaller oval hatch. These tanks would eventually be produced in the “Ultimate” configuration, with the M1A2 gun, and HVSS suspension.
M4A2 76w with Russian Infantry loaded aboard.
These thanks saw extensive combat use with the Soviet Union, use with Guards units. My understanding is the Russians liked the M4A2 76w tanks just fine, and used them in elite units, but this has no reflection on their feelings about the tank compared to their own T-34-85 tanks. T-34s were used in Guards units as well, and some units had both, as we can see from this AA post. By that point in the war the Sherman and T-34 were pretty close in abilities.
M4A4: They Received Two, and that was Enough to Convince them, They Wanted No More
After being given a chance to drive the M4A4 on the proving grounds and being given lectures and demonstrations of its A57 gas motor, the Soviets decided that the M4A4 was better than the M3 Lee, but inferior to the M4A2 with GM Diesel they were already receiving through lend lease. They decided the factory was impressive, but really not producing a very good tank.
Even though the Soviets showed little interest in the M4A4 tanks, two were sent to them for evaluation anyway. You can read their impressions here, but as before when they tested it in the US, they felt the motor was to complicated to be reliable.
Dmitriy Fedorovich, on which American tanks did you fight?
On Shermans. We called them “Emchas”, from M4 [in Russian, em chetyrye]. Initially they had the short main gun, and later they began to arrive with the long gun and muzzle brake. On the front slope armor there was a travel lock for securing the barrel during road marches. The main gun was quite long. Overall, this was a good vehicle but, as with any tank, it had its pluses and minuses. When someone says to me that this was a bad tank, I respond, “Excuse me!” One cannot say that this was a bad tank. Bad as compared to what?
Dmitriy Fedorovich, did you have just American tanks in your unit?
Our 6th Guards Tank Army (yes, we had six of them) fought in Ukraine, Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Austria. We ended the war for us in Czechoslovakia. Then they rushed us to the Far East and we fought against Japan. I briefly remind you that the army consisted of two corps: 5th Guards Tank Stalingrad Corps on our own T-34s and 5th Mechanized Corps, in which I fought. For the first time this corps had British Matildas, Valentines, and Churchills.
They delivered the Churchill later.
Yes, a bit later. After 1943 we largely declined British tanks because they had significant deficiencies. In particular, they had 12-14 h.p. per ton of weight at a time when good tanks had 18-20 h.p. per ton. Of these three British tanks, the best was the Valentine produced in Canada. Its armor was streamlined but more importantly, it featured a long-barreled 57mm main gun. My unit switched over to American Shermans at the end of 1943. After the Kishinev Operation our corps became the 9th Guards Mechanized Corps. I missed to tell you that every corps consisted of four brigades. Our mechanized corps had three mechanized brigades and one tank brigade, in which I fought. A tank corps had three tank brigades and one mechanized brigade. Yes, we had Shermans in our brigade at the end of 1943.
But the British tanks were not withdrawn from service, so they fought until they were gone. Wasn’t there a period when your corps had a mixture of tanks, both American and British? Were there any problems associated with the presence of such a broad variety of vehicles from different countries? For example, with supply and maintenance?
Well, there were always problems. In general, the Matilda was an unbelievably worthless tank! I will tell you about one of the Matilda’s deficiencies that caused us a great deal of trouble. Some fool in the General Staff planned an operation and sent our corps to the area of Yelnya, Smolensk, and Roslavl. The terrain there was forested swamp. The Matilda had skirts along the sides. The tank was developed primarily for operations in the desert. These skirts worked well in the desert-the sand passed through the rectangular slots in them. But in the forested swamps of Russia the mud packed into the space between the tracks and these side skirts. The Matilda transmission had a servomechanism for ease of shifting. In our conditions this component was weak, constantly overheated, and then failed. This was fine for the British. By 1943 they had developed a replacement unit that could be installed simply by unscrewing four mounting bolts, pulling out the old unit, and installing the new unit. It did not always work this way for us. In my battalion we had Senior Sergeant (Starshina) Nesterov, a former kolkhoz tractor driver (Kolkhoz is sort of farm – Valeri), in the position of battalion mechanic. In general each of our tank companies had a mechanic and Nesterov was it for the battalion. At our corps level we had a representative (whose name I have forgotten) of the British firm that produced these tanks. At one time I had it written down, but when my tank was hit everything I had in it burned up -photographs, documents, and notebook. We were forbidden to keep notes at the front, but I did it on the sly. Anyway, this British representative constantly interfered with our efforts to repair separate components of the tank. He said, “This has a factory seal. You should not tinker with it!” We were supposed to take out a component and install a new one. Nesterov made a simple repair to all these transmissions. One time the British representative came up to Nesterov and asked him, “At which university did you study?” And Nesterov replied, “At the kolkhoz!”
The Sherman was light years better in this regard. Did you know that one of the designers of the Sherman was a Russian engineer named Timoshenko? He was some shirt tail relative of Marshal S. K. Timoshenko.
The Sherman had its weaknesses, the greatest of which was its high center of gravity. The tank frequently tipped over on its side, like a Matryoshka doll (a wooden stacking doll). But I am alive today thanks to this deficiency. We were fighting in Hungary in December 1944. I was leading the battalion and on a turn my driver-mechanic clipped a curb. My tank went over on its side. We were thrown around, of course, but we survived the experience. Meanwhile the other four of my tanks went ahead and drove into an ambush. They were all destroyed.
Dmitriy Fedorovich, the Sherman had a rubber-coated metal track. Some contemporary authors point to this as a deficiency, since in combat the rubber might be set on fire. With the track thus stripped bare, the tank is disabled. What can you say in this regard?
On the one hand this rubber-coated track was a big plus. In the first place, this track had a service life approximately twice that of steel track. I might be mistaken, but I believe that the service life of the T-34 track was 2500 kilometers. The service life of the Sherman track was in excess of 5000 kilometers. Secondly, The Sherman drove like a car on hard surfaces, and our T-34 made so much noise that only the devil knows how many kilometers away it could be heard. What was the bad side of the Sherman track? In my book, Commanding the Red Army’s Sherman Tanks, there is a chapter entitled “Barefooted”. There I wrote about an incident that occurred in August 1944 in Romania, during the Jassy-Kishinev Operation. The heat was fearsome, somewhere around 30° C. We had driven approximately 100 km along a highway in a single day. The rubber linings on our support rollers got so hot that the rubber separated and peeled off in long pieces. Our corps paused not far from Bucharest. The rubber was flying around, the rollers had begun to jam up, the noise was terrible, and in the end we had been stopped. This was immediately reported to Moscow. Was this some kind of joke, an entire corps had halted? To our surprise, they brought new support rollers to us quickly and we spent three days installing them. I still don’t know where they found so many support rollers in such a short time. There was yet another minus of rubber track. Even on a slightly icy surface the tank slid around like a fat cow. When this happened we had to tie barbed wire around the track or make grousers out of chains or bolts, anything to give us traction. But this was with the first shipment of tanks. Having seen this, the American representative reported to his company and the next shipment of tanks was accompanied by additional track blocks with grousers and spikes. If I recall, there were up to seven blocks for each track, for a total of fourteen per tank. We carried them in our parts bin. In general the American representative worked efficiently. Any deficiency that he observed and reported was quickly and effectively corrected.
One more shortcoming of the Sherman was the construction of the driver’s hatch. The hatch on the first shipment of Shermans was located in the roof of the hull and simply opened upward. Frequently the driver-mechanic opened it and raised his head in order to see better. There were several occasions when during the rotation of the turret the main gun struck this hatch and knocked it into the driver’s head. We had this happen once or twice in my own unit. Later the Americans corrected this deficiency. Now the hatch rose up and simply moved to the side, like on modern tanks.
Still one great plus of the Sherman was in the charging of its batteries. On our T-34 it was necessary to run the engine, all 500 horsepower of it, in order to charge batteries. In the crew compartment of the Sherman was an auxiliary gasoline engine, small like a motorcycle’s one. Start it up and it charged the batteries. This was a big deal to us!
For a long time after the war I sought an answer to one question. If a T-34 started burning, we tried to get as far away from it as possible, even though this was forbidden. The on-board ammunition exploded. For a brief period of time, perhaps six weeks, I fought on a T-34 around Smolensk. The commander of one of our companies was hit in his tank. The crew jumped out of the tank but were unable to run away from it because the Germans were pinning them down with machine gun fire. They lay there in the wheat field as the tank burned and blew up. By evening, when the battle had waned, we went to them. I found the company commander lying on the ground with a large piece of armor sticking out of his head. When a Sherman burned, the main gun ammunition did not explode. Why was this?
Such a case occurred once in Ukraine. Our tank was hit. We jumped out of it but the Germans were dropping mortar rounds around us. We lay under the tank as it burned. We laid there a long time with nowhere to go. The Germans were covering the empty field around the tank with machine gun and mortar fires. We lay there. The uniform on my back was beginning heating up from the burning tank. We thought we were finished! We would hear a big bang and it would all be over! A brother’s grave! We heard many loud thumps coming from the turret. This was the armor-piercing rounds being blown out of their cases. Next the fire would reach the high explosive rounds and all hell would break loose! But nothing happened. Why not? Because our high explosive rounds detonated and the American rounds did not? In the end it was because the American ammunition had more refined explosives. Ours was some kind of component that increased the force of the explosion one and one-half times, at the same time increasing the risk of detonation of the ammunition.
It is considered noteworthy that the Sherman was very well appointed on the inside. Was this true?
It was true. These are not just words! They were beautiful! For us then this was something. As they say now, “Euro-repair”! This was some kind of European picture! In the first place, it was painted beautifully. Secondly, the seats were comfortable, covered with some kind of remarkable special artificial leather. If a tank was knocked out or damaged, then if it was left unguarded literally for just several minutes the infantry would strip out all this upholstery. It made excellent boots! Simply beautiful!
In your book “Commanding the Red Army’s Sherman Tanks” you wrote that the 233rd Tank Brigade’s M4A2 Shermans were armed not with the short-barreled 75mm but the long-barreled 76mm main gun in January 1944. Wasn’t this a bit early? Didn’t these tanks appear later? Explain one more time which main guns were mounted on the Shermans of the 233rd Tank Brigade.
Hmm, I don’t know. We had very few Shermans with the short-barreled main gun. On the whole, ours had long-barrels. Not just our brigade fought on Shermans. Perhaps these were in other brigades. Somewhere in the corps I saw such tanks, but we had the tanks with the long barrels.
Dmitriy Fedorovich, there were personal weapons in each Sherman that arrived in the USSR, Thompson submachine guns (also known as the Tommy gun). I read that rear area personnel stole these weapons and that few tanks arrived in units still equipped with them. What kind of weapons did you have, American or Soviet?
Each Sherman came with two Thompson submachine guns, in caliber 11.43mm (.45 cal), a healthy cartridge indeed! But the submachine gun was worthless. We had several bad experiences with it. A few of our men who got into an argument were wearing padded jackets. It turned out that they fired at each other and the bullet buried itself in the padded jacket. So much for the worthless submachine gun. Take a German submachine gun with folding stock (MP-40 SMG by Erma -Valeri). We loved it for its compactness. The Thompson was big. You couldn’t turn around in the tank holding it.
The Sherman had an antiaircraft machine gun Browning M2 .50 caliber. Did you use it often?
I don’t know why, but one shipment of tanks arrived with machine guns, and another without them. We used this machine gun against both aircraft and ground targets. We used it less frequently against air targets because the Germans were not fools. They bombed either from altitude or from a steep dive. The machine gun was good to 400-600 meters in the vertical. The Germans would drop their bombs from say, 800 meters or higher. He dropped his bomb and departed quickly. Try to shoot the bastard down! So yes, we used it, but it was not very effective. We even used our main gun against aircraft. We placed the tank on the upslope of a hill and fired. But our general impression of the machine gun was good. These machine guns were of great use to us in the war with Japan, against kamikazes. We fired them so much that they got red hot and began to cook off. To this day I have a piece of shrapnel in my head from an antiaircraft machine gun.
Did German aircraft inflict significant losses on your equipment? In particular, what can you say about the Henschel Hs-129?
Not every time, but it did happen. I don’t remember the Henschel; perhaps there was such an airplane. Sometimes we were able to avoid bombs. You could see them coming at you, you know. We opened our hatches, stuck out our heads, and instructed our drivers over the intercom: “The bomb will fall in front of us”. But in general there were cases when tanks were hit and set on fire. Losses from these attacks did not exceed 3-5 tanks in the battalion. It was more common for a single tank to be damaged or destroyed. We faced much greater danger from panzerfaust gunners in built-up areas. In Hungary I recall that I was so tired that I told my deputy to lead the battalion while I slept. I went to sleep right there in the fighting compartment of my Sherman. Around Beltsy they had dropped ammunition to us by parachute. We took one parachute for ourselves. I used this parachute for my pillow. The parachute was made from silk and didn’t let the lice in. And I was sound asleep! Suddenly I woke up. Why? I awoke from the silence. Why the silence? It turns out that attacking aircraft had set two tanks on fire. During the march many things were piled up on the tanks: crates, tarpaulin. The battalion had halted, shut off engines, and it had become silent. And I woke up.
Did you lock your hatches during combat in built-up areas?
We absolutely locked our hatches from the inside. In my own experience, when we burst into Vienna, they were throwing grenades at us from the upper floors of buildings. I ordered all the tanks to be parked under the archways of buildings and bridges. From time to time I had to pull my tank out into the open to extend a whip antenna and send and receive communications from my higher commander. On one occasion, a radio operator and driver-mechanic were doing something inside their tank and left the hatch open. Someone dropped a grenade through the hatch from above. It struck the back of the radio operator and detonated. Both were killed. Thus we most certainly locked our hatches when we were in built-up areas.
The primary defeating mechanism of HEAT (hollow-charge) ammunition, of which the panzerfaust was one type, is the high pressure in the tank, which disables the crew. If the hatches were kept slightly open, would this not provide some degree of protection? A special order was issued before our forces entered Germany.
This is true, but just the same we kept our hatches locked. It might have been different in other units. The panzerfaust gunners most often fired at the engine compartment. If they were able to set the tank on fire, like it or not the crew had to get out. And then the Germans shot at the crew with a machine gun.
What were the chances of survival if your tank was hit?
My tank was hit on 19 April 1945 in Austria. A Tiger put a round straight through us. The projectile passed through the entire fighting compartment and then the engine compartment. There were three officers in the tank: I as the battalion commander, the company commander Sasha Ionov (whose own tank had already been hit), and the tank commander. Three officers, a driver-mechanic, and a radio operator. When the Tiger hit us, the driver-mechanic was killed outright. My entire left leg was wounded; to my right, Sasha Ionov suffered a traumatic amputation of his right leg. The tank commander was wounded, and below me sat the gunner, Lesha Romashkin. Both of his legs were blown off. A short time before this battle, we were sitting around at a meal and Lesha said to me, “If I lose my legs I will shoot myself. Who will need me?” He was an orphan and had no known relatives. In a strange twist of fate, this is what happened to him. We pulled Sasha out of the tank and then Lesha, and were beginning to assist in the evacuation of the others. At this moment Lesha shot himself.
In general, one or two men were always wounded or killed. It depended where the shell struck.
How did you co-operate with the infantry during combat?
By TOE the tank brigade had three tank battalions of 21 tanks each and a battalion of submachine gunners. A submachine gun battalion had three companies, one for each tank battalion. We had this three-battalion structure only in late 1943 and early 1944. All the rest of the time we had two tank battalions in the brigade. Our submachine gunners were like brothers to us. On the march they sat on our tanks. They kept warm there, dried their things, and slept. We drove along and then stopped somewhere. The tankers could sleep and our submachine gunners protected our tanks and us. Over the course of time many submachine gunners became members of our crews, initially as loaders and later as radio operators. We divided our trophies equally: they with us and we with them. Therefore they had an easier time of it than ordinary infantrymen.
During combat they sat on the tanks until the firing started. As soon as the Germans opened fire on our tanks, they jumped off and ran behind the tanks, frequently protected by its armor from enemy light machine gun fire.
If it happened that the tanks were limited in maneuver and speed, did you maneuver your infantry or halt them?
Nothing like that. We did not pay any attention to them. We maneuvered and they maneuvered themselves behind us. There were no problems. It would have been worse for them if we had been knocked out, so let them run behind us.
Was the tank’s speed limited in the attack? By what?
Of course! We must been fire!
How did you fire, from short halts or on the move?
Both ways. If we fired on the move, the speed of the tank did not exceed 12 km/h. But we rarely fired on the move, only in order to incite panic in the enemy ranks. Primarily we fired from short halts. We rushed into a position, stopped for a second, fired, and moved ahead.
What would you like to say about the German Tiger?
It was an extremely heavy vehicle. The Sherman could never defeat a Tiger with a frontal shot. We had to force the Tiger to expose its flank. If we were defending and the Germans were attacking, we had a special tactic. Two Shermans were designated for each Tiger. The first Sherman fired at the track and broke it. For a brief space of time the heavy vehicle still moved forward on one track, which caused it to turn. At this moment the second Sherman shot it in the side, trying to hit the fuel cell. This is how we did it. One German tank was defeated by two of ours, therefore the victory was credited to both crews. There is a story about this entitled “Hunting With Borzois” in my book.
The muzzle brake has one significant shortcoming: a cloud of dust is raised during firing from a weapon thus equipped, giving away one’s position. Some artillerymen attempted to counter this, for example, by wetting down the ground in front of their cannons. What countermeasures did you employ?
You’re correct! We might have packed the ground and covered it with our tarpaulins. I don’t recall any special problems.
Were your tank sights blinded by dust, dirt, or snow?
There were no special difficulties. Snow, of course, could blind us. But not dust. The sight on the Sherman did not protrude. On the contrary, it was recessed into the turret. Therefore it was well protected against the elements.
Dmitriy Fedorovich, our tankers who fought on the British Churchills pointed out the weak heater in the crew compartment as a deficiency. The standard electric heater was inadequate for the conditions of the Russian winter. How was the Sherman equipped in this regard?
The Sherman had two engines connected by a coupling joint. This was both good and bad. There were cases when one of these motors was disabled in battle. Then the coupling joint could be disengaged from the crew compartment and the tank could crawl away from the fight on one engine. On the other hand, there were powerful fans located above both engines. We used to say, “Open your mouth and the wind came out your ass!” How the hell could we get warm? There were such strong drafts of air! Perhaps there was heat coming from the engines, but I will not tell you that it was warm. When we halted, we immediately covered the engine compartment with our tarpaulin. Then it stayed warm in the tank for several hours; we slept in the tank. Not for nothing did the Americans give us fleece-lined coveralls.
Were there norms of ammunition consumption for the tank?
Yes there were. In the first place, we took one basic load (BK -boekomplekt -a full set of ammo. For example the IS-2’s BK = 28 shells. -Valeri) with us going into battle. We took an additional BK on the outside of our tanks during long raids. When I raced into Vienna, for example, my commander personally ordered us to take two BK: the normal load inside and the second on the armor. In addition, we carried up to two cases of trophy chocolate on each tank and found additional provisions for ourselves. We were “on our own”, so to speak. This meant that if we had to conduct a raid somewhere deep in the rear, we offloaded rations and in their place took ammunition. All of our wheeled supply vehicles were American 2 ?-ton Studebakers. They always brought the ammunition forward to the battalion.
There is one other thing I want to say. How did we preserve our (Soviet) ammunition? Several rounds covered by a thin layer of grease, in wooden crates. One had to sit for hours and clean this grease off the rounds. American ammunition was packed in cardboard tube containers, three rounds banded together. The rounds were shiny clean inside their protective tubes! We took them out and immediately stowed them in the tank.
What kind of rounds did you carry in the tank?
Armor-piercing and high explosive. There was nothing else. The ratio was approximately one-third HE and two-thirds AP.
Did the crew receive a concussion when a round hit the tank, even if it did not penetrate the armor?
Generally, no. It depended on where the round hit. Let’s say that I was sitting in the left side of the turret and a round struck near me. I heard this hit but it did not harm me. If it struck somewhere on the hull, I might not hear it at all. This happened several times. We would come out of an engagement and inspect the tank. In several places the armor would show an impact, like a hot knife that had cut through butter. But I did not hear the round impacts. Sometimes the driver would shout, “They’re shooting from the left!” But there was no overwhelming sound. Of course, if such a powerful gun as the JSU-152 hit you, you heard it! And it would take off your head along with the turret.
I want also to add that the Sherman’s armor was tough. There were cases on our T-34 when a round struck and did not penetrate. But the crew was wounded because pieces of armor flew off the inside wall and struck the crewmen in the hands and eyes. This never happened on the Sherman.
What did you consider the most dangerous opponent? A cannon? A tank? An airplane?
They were all dangerous until the first round was fired. But in general, the antitank cannons were the most dangerous. They were very difficult to distinguish and defeat. The artillerymen dug them in so that their barrels literally were laying on the ground. You could see only several centimeters of their gun shield. The cannon fired. It was a good thing if it had a muzzle brake and dust was kicked up! But if it was winter or raining, what then?
Were there cases when you did not see from your tank where the fire was coming from, but your SMG infantry did see? How did they guide you to the source of the fire?
Sometimes they pounded on the turret and shouted. Sometimes they began to fire in the direction with tracer bullets or fired a signal rocket in that direction. And then, you know, when we went into the attack, the commander often looked around from the turret. None of the periscopes, even in the commander’s cupola, gave us good visibility.
How did you maintain communications with your commander and other tanks?
By radio. The Sherman had two radio sets, HF and UHF [high frequency and ultra high frequency], of very good quality. We used the HF for communications with our higher commander, with brigade, and the UHF for communications within the company and battalion. For conversation inside the tank we used the tank intercom system. It worked great! But as soon as the tank was hit, the tankers first action was to throw off his helmet and throat microphone. If he forgot and began to jump out of the tank, he would get hung up.
For the full interview, click the link and check out the I remember site.
Rocket powered and recoilless AT weapons: The Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck
A propaganda shot of an RPzB54/1
The Panzerfaust: Hereby known as AT stick, was a cheap, recoilless, man portable, AT weapon, the Germans mass produced in two major versions
The Panzerfaust is really a generic term for a series of weapons that started with the Faustpatrone and ended with the Panzerfaust 100. The combined total production on these cheap AT weapons was over six million. That’s like 122 per Sherman tank made, of course that’s a silly way to look at it, since they were divided up and sent to every German front, and were used on every tank the Germans faced.
Faustpatrone
Faustpatrone or Panzerfaust 30: No not a German Tequila, a mediocre AT stick
The Faustpatrone was not very good, but it was the first of its type developed, a very primitive recoilless AT grenade flinger. The launch tube had the propellant, a small black powder charge. The head held the warhead, and had a stem with folding fins to stabilize it that fit into the tube. It had to be held a certain bay to use, and was ‘aimed’ with a simple folding sheet metal site. Aiming was basically point it grossly at the tank while standing or kneeling, and it’s within 100 feet, the closer the better, it might hit the tank. The max range was 100 feet, and it could penetrate up to 140mm of armor, but it could not reliably detonate on sloped armor, and was almost useless against the T-34. It could penetrate the side of most Sherman models. This AT stick was in production into 1945, probably because it was cheap and simple, even the kids the Nazis used could fire it. Getting close enough to a tank to use one of these effectively, would only happen if the Shermans doughs had been killed or run off, or they were fighting in very heavy forest or an urban area. They were issued to troops starting in August of 1943.
Panzerfaust Klein 30: A Slightly Better AT Stick
Faustpatrone and Panzerfaust 30
The Panzerfaust 30 was an improved Faustpatrone that went into production before they knew everything that was wrong with the Faustpatrone. This was basically a Faustpatrone with a better firing mechanism, and aiming device. Its effective range was the same 100 or so feet. It could also penetrate up to 140mm of armor, but did not handle sloped armor any better than the Faustpatrone. Now, that does not mean these AT weapons couldn’t penetrate the front of a tank with sloped armor, it was just more likely to fail then on vertical armor.
Panzerfaust 30s
Panzerfaust 60: The Last Faust to See Real Combat Use
This was another partial improvement, a return of the bigger warhead with 200mm of penetration, another improvement to the firing mechanism and a better sight with three apertures for 30, 60, and 80 meters. This would be the last commonly seen AT stick, but there would be one more.
Maybe a Panzerfaust 60
Panzerfaust 100: This AT Stick Was Produced but Was Only Used In the Final Months of the War
This Panzerfaust was the final wartime improvement of the war. It was slightly bigger than the Panzerfaust 60, and had slightly better range, up to 164 yards, and this was a big improvement. The sights also had luminous paint on them to aid in low light shooting. Hitting at that distance would be largely luck.
. . .
As the war progressed after the Normandy invasion, and as German Armor became more rare, the percentage of kills these weapons accounted for climbed. They were only effective when you take into account the numbers deployed, you would often have 8 or more German Infantry launching this at the lead tank in a column, three might hit, two might penetrate, and often when they did penetrate, they did little damage. They would still knock the tank out of the battle, but afterwards, the same crew would climb in and check it out, and drive it back to the battalion repair depot if it was mobile.
To counter this, the tanks as always, had to work closely with infantry assigned to protect specific tanks. These men would keep a 40 yard safe area around the tank, or ahead of it. When in urban terrain the doughs would be expected to clear the houses ahead and on the sides of the tank. The tanks would also be blasting any buildings that seemed like a threat ahead of the doughs. If these tactics were adhered too, trying to use an early AT stick was suicide, and the later ones would give the Nazi a better chance of hitting, finding places to use that extra range was tough though. The Nazi could be clever, they made it work, and a lot of Shermans, and other allied armor paid the price.
Now all this may seem like I’m poo pooing the Panzerfaust, and I don’t mean too, there is no infantry AT weapon that was safe and easy to employ, they all, from every nation, were often more deadly to the user. All Infantry AT weapons have to be employed well within the tanks most effective range, back then the only card the tank didn’t hold was vision. It had armor, the poor grunt might have a fighting hole, bunker, cave, large tree, bushes, or a wrecked vehicle to hide behind or use as cover, and much of that was not proof against the M3 75mm gun. The one huge advantage grunt had, was he could see what was going on, sometimes not well, but always better than a tank. This is why tanks need their own grunts to counter the enemy infantry with AT sticks if there was any kind of cover for the infantry to hide in. Once the bullets start flying, a tank often buttoned up, making it easy for infantry to sneak up on, if alone. In the cases tanks were sent into heavy forest or urban settings without infantry, they paid a steep price.
The Panzerfaust was also better, in all versions, at penetrating armor than the US Bazooka. As a result, in some cases, captured Panzerfausts were employed by US troops in some limited cases. The Panzerfaust was one of the best German weapons produced, like all things German of WWII, a tad overrated. It was a good, solid, man portable infantry anti-tank weapon that was cheap and easy to produce, not the best by any means, but still a good weapons system. I do have several things I will mention, but are opinion, or I don’t have a good source for it yet. The first, is, I bet the dud rate on the warheads was very high, but I can’t find any numbers for it, if anyone has them, please let me know. The other would be, I’ve read somewhere the warheads had a tendency to blow up when fired, killing the firer, and anyone near him. Still trying to find the source on it, but it does sound feasible considering the Nazis used slave labor in their arms industry.
Now Let’s talk About German AT Rocket Launchers: Mainly the One They Stole From the US of A, and Made Better, DAMN Nazis!
This will cover the Panzerschreck, or Raketenpanerbuchse 54. So far my source for all this has been the US Army Manual, TME 30-451, Handbook on German Forces, and it doesn’t have much on dates of use or how common these things were. There weapons were never as common as the Panzerfaust, but were designed to work with them in a defensive net.
The Panzerschreck RPzB 43: Or Germany’s Steals the Bazooka Design and improved it Before the US Did, These Improvements Came at a Cost, As Always.
An early Panzerschreck with all the silly junk the firer had to wear.
The Panzerschreck was an enlarged copy of the US Bazooka. Apparently these things back blast was so bad due to the rocket propellant used, the operator had to use a special suit with a face protecting hood, with gas mask. It was much larger, and heavier than the Bazooka, but could penetrate up to 100 for the early versions, and 160mm of armor later in the war when the improved the rockets. They were a little over 5 feet long, and weighed just over 20 pounds; it was 88mm, compared to the US Bazookas 60mm. They produced more smoke than the bazooka, and the smoke was more toxic. These weapons, like the bazooka used a trigger system hooked to a little electrical generator, which produced enough electricity to ignite the rocket motor, firing the weapon. These weapons could shoot accurately out to about 150 yards.
The Panzerschreck RPzB 54: A Refined Version, that Fixed some of the Problems the Germans Introduced
This version was an improved version of the 43, with a shield built in to protect the firer from back blast and gases, this of courses added weight, bring this version up to a hefty 24 pounds! If this version had a flaw, it was the weight. The shield allowed the crews to despense with the special clothing and gas masks that had been needed to operate it.
Improved RPzB 54/1The Panzerschreck RPzB 54/1: A Lighter Shorter 54, to make It More Handy
This was the final version of the Panzerschreck, and was a simplified lighter version of the 54, making for an easier to use weapon. The US Army would not have a comparable weapon until the M20 Bazooka developed right at the end of the war.
Aircraft Gallery 1: Mixed high resolution Aircraft photos
F4U-1D Corsair about to be catapulted from the USS Block Island. Note the harness attaching the plane to the catapult shuttle.A P-51D hoisted onto, or off of a CVEA nice high resolution shot of the 5000th P-38 built, this one a nice P-38J. This plane would later be repainted and shipped off to the frontA P-38H-5-LO being used to test the aircraft’s feasibility as a fighter bomber, huge image. A very nice color version can be found in Warren Bodie’s Book, The Lockheed P-38 Lighting, pretty much the best book on the aircraftA series of photos of partially disassembled P-38s being moved through an English town.A series of photos of partially disassembled P-38s being moved through an English town.A series of photos of partially disassembled P-38s being moved through an English town.A early P-38, maybe an F or G, probably in North Africa, named ‘Sad Sack’Colonel Charles McDonald, and his P-38L name Putt Putt Maru. This man commanded the 475th Fighter Group, the only all P-38 fighter groupCharles Lindbergh with Tommy McGuire, the second highest scoring US Ace at 38 kills. He would be killed a few months after this photo was taken. These two men flew several combat missions together, even though Lindbergh was a civilian.A P-38 having it’s guns tested at night. I saw this photo as a kid, and it stuck with me for years, and I still have the old Aero P-38 book the photo was in. This image is much higher qaulity thoughFour P-38s, early models, probably G or H models, in the Pacific. Due to shortages of everything in the Pacific, early model P-38s saw longer life than they would in other theatres, and they would do anything within reason to keep a P-38 in the airA huge photo of a very icy P-38, either somewhere in Alaska like Dutch Harbor, or in Greenland probably an E or F modelA beautiful, huge photo of an P-38H-5-LO, over California, probably on a acceptance test flight. This one has a pair of 165 gallon drop tanks late summer 1943The same P-38H-5-LO from the last photo, slightly different angle, over the mountains near LAAn P-38F named Japanese Sandman IIMarine F4F-4s over Guadalcanal late 1942Captured A6M Zero fighter from belowA B-25J with some odd writing on it.A famous three shot sequence of one B-17 dropping its bombs, and knocking the vertical stabilizer of another B-17A famous three shot sequence of one B-17 dropping its bombs, and knocking the vertical stabilizer of another B-17A famous three shot sequence of one B-17 dropping its bombs, and knocking the vertical stabilizer of another B-17A B-24 H or J about to blow upBoeing B-17F radar bombing through clouds over Bremen, Germany, on Nov. 13, 1943. An A-26 Invader dropping some bombsP-47Ds 73rd FS 318th FG 7th AF being ferried to Saipan on USS Manila Bay CVE-61. Attacked during refueling operations east of Saipan (appx 15.00, 147.00) by four Aichi Val dive bombers.A photo taken from one B-17, of another in heavy flack on their bomb run. The one we can see is a B-17GA P-61 Black Widow night fighterB-17 doing what B-17 didThis may be the coolest war time shot of a B-17G I’ve ever seen. Those are probably the Alps in the background
Computer Games that have Sherman Tanks in them: WWII and or Sherman Tank games
There have been far more games with Sherman tanks in them than I can really cover here, I’ll just try and cover the ones currently available. I’ll start with the biggest tank game of all time.
World is a great game. I could be accused of being biased, I do have over 20k games in the beta, and a little more than 15K since release. I’ve been playing computer games since I was a kid, in the 80s, on an old Apple II. Since my dad was also a military history nut, and like computer games as well, I got to play an awful lot of games involving tanks, going as far back as SSI’s Panzer Commander game, and Kampfgruppe games, and then SSI’s last Hurrah, Steel Panthers.
Random in game shot with interface turned off.
World of Tanks is a different type of tank game, since it is really arcade based, but it’s very fun. The problem with most simulator type tank games is they take to long, and then you finally make contact, miss the camping sniper tank and die. They claim to be realistic, but really, when they get past the set PVE scenarios, are not more realistic in PVP play then the arcade games, because of the limitations of the platform. War Thunder suffers from this along with a lot of other problems.
An M7 medium on fire, in game shot, interface off, as you can see the HD game is very nice looking.
Having played WOT from the almost the beginning, having started in the early closed beta, before there were any other tech trees than the German and Russian lines, I really know the game. I saved up free exp and gold (you got like 200 gold a day) before the American Tank release, so I have a T29 the first day it came out. This was back in the old days when if you ran over a dog house, (since removed) a dog yelped, before the whiners got them to soften it up.
An M3 Lee and A-20 light that killed each other in a live game, interface turned off
I clearly still like the game, since I still play, though Clan Wars nearly burnt me out. I am glad I was in a clan good enough to get the special tanks for the first three campaigns. PBKAC was a great clan, and they kept me around long after my skills had become low rung in the clan. The real problem with clan wars is the time it takes. Now compared to games like Worlds of Warcraft or other MOLRPG games, the CW in WOT is great, and far less time consuming, but it’s still an hour or two 3 to 5 nights a week, or more of the clan was really active. They also went a long way to make being active give you some in game extras. As for all the whining about CW sucking etc., or the game in general, especially from the elite class of players, whining is the in thing, talking shit about something you’re good at and play all the time seems to be the thing with elite gamers. I’ve seen in in every PVP game I’ve played, and I’ve played a lot.
This is what Clan Wars in World of Tanks looks like, this pic has the full interface in place. This is not the stock interface, I use Webium’s Modpack
My thoughts? Negative whiners suck, if you don’t like something, don’t bore us with the crying and moaning, leave and find something else to do. Does the game have issues? Sure, what game doesn’t? Do they make the game less fun? Yes, Arty I’m looking at You, but they do not make it so bad, you need to dbase yourself and whine about it like a little wimp. State your case to the people who mater, and then either move on and or deal with it until fixed. No one wants to hear you cry.
A nice glamour shot of an M24 Chaffee shooting, in game footage, interface off
How this all relates to Shermans? Well, as a PVP tank versus tank Arcade game, where you start with old, weak tanks, and by killing other players, win exp and credits to unlock and buy new tanks. The game is free to play. Though there is a play element, it really only makes advancing in the game easier and quicker, and really offers no in game PVP advantage. You start running into Sherman tanks or Lees really, at Tier 4. You get the Basic M4 Sherman at Tier 5 and the M4A3E8 and Jumbo at Tier 6. There are some other Shermans in the game, The British line has an M4A2 Sherman III at T5, and the Firefly IC Composite hull at T6. There is also an M4A2E4 Sherman as a rare tank given out to beta players with more than 3000 games. The latest Sherman to be added is the French M51 105mm Sherman tank, as a premium. I’ll discuss each tank and it’s model below.
M3 Lee: The Combat RV in WOT, Tier 4, US Medium Tank
The M3 Lee got an HD update early in the HD update process, but it’s still a fairly decent HD model. The biggest flaw I can really see is they have the points on the sprocket stabbing through the track end connectors, instead of between them. The model is an early production M3, with the 37mm gun lacking the counter weight needed to work with the stabilizer for that gun. It still has hull side doors, another sign of an early model. It has the two fixed forward firing hull machine guns that were eliminated early on as well.
The tank in game has a reputation for being poor. There are a few reasons for this, one, it’s a holdover from when the games matchmaking spread was larger, so the M3 would see T7 tanks, and it’s one shotable to many of these. That has been fixed. Another reason is the large crew, for the tank to shine, it needs a 100% crew, and many of the advanced crew skills help this tank. With a almost three skill crew, a rammer, binocs, and enhanced gun laying drive, I was in the top 50 players in the Lee the last I looked, and with this crew and setup, in a T4 match, the tank is a monster, and not as a sniper TD wanabee. It high damage for tier, high rate of fire gun, make it deadly even up close at T4, and it can shoot fairly well on the move!
Both the model, and tanks in game performance are very good.
M3 Grant: The Combat Caravan, Tier 4, British medium Tank
This HD model was added a little later than the M3 Lee, and they fixed the problem with the tracks. They put the Grant specific turret on it, without the machine gun cupola, and added sand shields. The 37mm gun lacks a counter weight, and the hull has the paired machine guns, and I’m not sure if that was the case with the Grants, I’ll have to look. It’s still a very nice model of the Grant.
In game, it plays like a Lee, but you can put the 6 pounder on it in place of the 75mm. I don’t like the swap, and do not actually play this tank much, though I have one in the garage. When I want a T4 tank, I play the Lee since it’s crew is better.
Overall the tank and model are both good in game.
M4 Sherman: The M4A1 Mishmash, T5 US Medium.
What can I say about this model, well other than it’s a mess, it’s also historically impossible. If you put the 75mm turret, the and M3 gun on it, it’s almost passible, but still has later heavy duty suspension on a direct vision hull with fixed hull machine guns and three piece differential that would not have had that suspension, and should have the suspension on the M3 Lee. There are also many little accuracy problems with the model, the driver and co drivers hatches are off a little, the suspension units are not spaced evenly. The model only gets more accurate if you put the top turret and gun on. Since it’s a small hatch M4A1, it should not get the T23 turret. These were only installed on M4A1, A2 and A3 large hatch hulls.
What they need to do to fix the model is, remove the T23 turret, add a later 75mm turret with full gun mantlet at the upgrade turret, and allow the M1A1 gun to be the top gun on that turret. They also need to fix the mantlet of the 105 model on this turret, it’s all wrong, but would be easy to fix on the full mantlet 75mm turret, though it really needs a second ventilator, and no 105 M4A1s were ever made.
Anyway, in game, it’s a very good T5 Medium. At one point, before the HEAT nerf, the M4 was actually very OP, as were all the 105 derp tanks, like the Panzer 4. Since, it’s been balanced, and a decent tank. You can run it will all guns and still contribute to your teams win. Even it’s basic 75mm gun can take on a KV an pen it from the front. Derping in it is more art than science now, but still viable, but the best gun overall is the M1A1.
The tank is good in game but the model is subpar as the HD models go. It is supposed to get a model update soon, so hopefully they fix it.
M4A2 Sherman III: This Model, as First Unlocked is Very Pretty and Accurate, T5 British medium
This model, as unlocked is one of the best HD models in the game. The model is a M4A2 Sherman III, with a 75mm M3 with the shorty, no ear mantlet, DV ports, fixed hull MGs, sand skirts, and the proper turret box the Brits added. It also has the proper, early Lee style suspension bogies. The hull may be a touch to long since the wheel spacing looks a little wide. One final flaw may be the antenna bracket near the co-driver. It looks like a type not installed on M4A2 tanks with the fixed hull guns, but that’s a detail only the geekiest of Sherman geeks would get so faulting Wargaming on it is a tad unfair.
The Model goes south when you add the upgrade turret, a T23 turret, that is wrong for a small hatch hull. They could solve this the same way I suggested with the M4, or they could update the M4A2 hull to a large hatch hull and ad a later set of T5mm turrets to fix it. It is a fine looking T23 turret though, and it’s not like it couldn’t have been built, and there are a few Franken Shermans around with the T23 turret on the wrong, small hatch hull, this is not something Wargaming needs to put on the critical fix list.
It plays in game just like the American M4 T5 Sherman. It can hold its own in any match with any of its guns.
M4A2E4: One of the Oldest Models in the Game, and not Very Pretty, T5 US Premium Medium
This tank is fairly rare on the US Server, since it was a Beta Reward tank. If I recall right, it is purchasable as a premium tank on the Euro an Russian Servers. It is a classic Premium tank, in that it is not as good as it’s fully upgraded T5 piers, but its slightly better than a stock T5 tank. This was an experimental M4A2 with torsion bar suspension, and they now have all the parts to make a very nice model for this tank, but who knows when they will.
They could fix it by taking the Sherman III hull, and the turret off the Firefly IC minus the 17 pounder and loaders hatch.
The tank in game is a pretty decent T5 medium tank. The gun is decent, the armor is decent, the mobility is decent if it’s flat or you start on a hill. Honestly, I play it because it’s rare, and I like tanks that are not the ‘best’, and it can play my best crew. It will never go on sale again though, since it has improved match making, and that makes up for its flaws, since it will not see T7 matches at all. I’ll never sell mine.
A premium tank in WOT is a tank you can buy for gold, or real money through the WOT website. You can also win them through events and missions. They allow you to put any crew from the same class tank into it without retraining, and they get an experience bonus from the tank. This makes the tanks nice for training a crew, but also nice for making extra cash, using your best crew. Premium tanks also make more money than regular tanks. There are a lot of premium tanks in the game, and they range from T2 to T10, and a few over the years have been considered overpowered and removed from sale, but not the game. Most are balanced on the weak side.
M4A3E8: Ugly Old Model, But Still A Great Tank, T6 US medium
This tanks model was one of the original models in the game, well, it has been unchanged since the American line was released in beta and the model shows it. It’s plain ugly and looks out of place in a game that has come really far graphics wise since its release.
In game once fully upgraded this tank is everything a medium tank should be, mobile over all terrain types, decent armor, and fairly good gun. It has good gun handling, and can shoot well on the move. Some like the Cromwell better, since it’s a little faster, and has a slightly better gun, but I think the Easy8 still holds its own. The thing really keeping this tank rare, and probably holding back the HD model is the Fury Premium tank, basically a E8 with a stock turret and slightly slower, with an ok HD model based on the Movie tank.
M4A3E8 Fury: An American Premium Medium, Just Like the Tank in the Movie Fury, T6 US Premium Medium
Turrets can be blown off, if you get hit in the ammo rack, or hit someone there
Fury was a big deal in the WOT community; it had a lot of tie ins with the game and War gaming, including this premium tank. The model is HD, but not the best one around but it’s still better than the Model on the T5 M4 Sherman. I’m not sure if it’s still for sale, but since it’s basically a slightly nerfed E8, it will probably be available on and off for years.
The Model does show off what a late war Sherman looked like from a storage perspective, and has all kinds of junk draped on the tank. You can see the same kind of thing in period photos. The Model has the wrong sprockets though, showing they based it directly off the tank in the Movie that was NOT an M4A3 76 HVSS tank, but it was an M4A2 76 HVSS tank made by FTA, not CDA.
It plays just like the E8, but it makes very good money. It came with a crew with the same names as the movie crew as well. Everything said about the E8 above applies to this tank, meaning it’s a pretty good medium tank too.
M4A3E2 Jumbo: A Good HD model, but a Confused Tank In Game, T6 US Medium
The Jumbo model is very good. It just has a few minor flaws, the first being it has CDA not FTA sprockets. ONLY FTA made Jumbo tanks so their plain sprockets were the only ones used. It also has sand skirts, and they were removed before being deployed into combat. The other problem with the model comes with the upgraded turret, basically a T23 turret, with the Jumbo mantlet, IE a fantasy turret. Very few tanks have completely fabricated configurations like this, and I suspect they did this for balance reasons, since the M1A2 gun in the full armor turret may have tipped this tank just a tad to the OP side. This leaves you with a choice, good armor, or good firepower, since if you chose the top turret and gun, you can be easily penned anywhere on the turret but the mantlet, thus defeating the whole purpose of the jumbo.
I run mine with the 105 derp gun, not historically correct, but not impossible either. At T6 the 105 Derp is really at the bottom end of its effectiveness, and I would run the M1A2 if they let you put it in the stock turret, but nope… The Jumbo is a good tank, it’s armor can bounce a lot, with good angling and clever terrain use you can really bounce a lot of stuff. I’ve got almost 300 battles in mine, but really prefer a more mobile tank.
All Wargaming needs to do to fix the model is remove the second turret, and make the top gun the M1A1 off the T23. They could then remove the skirts and put plain sprockets on it and the model would be perfect. Oh, they also need to swap out all the road wheels for the stamped plain ones.
Sherman IC Composite Firefly: This Model is all Kinds of Good, T6 British Medium
This model is good overall in both the stock, and fully upgraded configurations, but does have a few minor problems. Someone should really send the modelers, who do the Shermans at Wargaming a copy of Son of a Sherman, but really, these models are very nice, and some of the best of the Sherman models. Problem one, these composite hull M4 tanks, were large hatch hulls, built by CDA, by this point, they should have the fancy CDA sprocket, like wrongly used on the Jumbo. The next model problem involves the turret, the stock turret has no loaders hatch, and all if not the vast majority of M4 Composite hull tanks had a loaders hatch. There may have been a batch early on that didn’t but I’m trying to confirm this. In any case, by the time production really got going the M4 Composite production tanks were getting late production 75mm turrets with loaders hatches cast in, or were using older turrets left over from the ARV program and updating them by adding cheek armor and cutting a loaders hatch in. This means the upgraded turret on the IC Composite Firefly should have a oval loaders hatch not the British square one.
Other than these minor things the model is beautiful, and may have been based on a post war restoration with the wrong sprockets. It has many very fine details and is toped with a very nicely modeled M2 .50 machine gun. I think this is the prettiest Sherman model in the game at this point.
It plays in game more like a TD than a Medium tank. It has a very nice gun that can pen just about anything you’re going to see, but it’s got a slow ROF. It’s slow for a Sherman, and is not good in a close in knife fight. I do not have a large number of games in this tank and am only average in it at this point. It’s play style is not really one I enjoy so I rarely play it.
M4A1 Revalorise: The Most Awesome Sherman of them All, T8 French, premium Medium
This is a T8 Sherman tank. That’s two tiers higher than any other, and in some ways it shows, the tank is slow, has no armor and really only has one thing going for it, a gun with nice pen. The model is a little odd. It’s an M4A1 76W VVSS hull, and it’s well modeled. This is the only M4A1 large hatch hulled tank in the game so the hull model was new, and they did a great job with that part. The turret looks a little fat, but it was modified, with new parts welded to the front and back, but the all-around vision cupola looks a little off. It is supposed to be a limited Premium, so it will only be sold on special event weekends and stuff, and it’s a fun tank. I have not played it much though, simply because I have so many T8 Premium tanks to choose from, I usually pic something I have a really good crew for.
The Tank plays like the classic glass canon. The gun is decently accurate and handles ok, but is really slow on the rate of fire. This is a sit back and snipe and anoy tank. It does make good money if you get some good damage in. I really bought it because it was a Sherman, and I must have all things Sherman.
I’ll add the Tanks based on the Sherman Chassis later.
. . .
World of Tanks has come a long way from its release, and unlike most games it’s really only gotten better. As a 15 on 15 tank based PVP Arcade game, there is really nothing that can touch it. I think what’s really kept me playing is the companies push to improve and add to the game, even years into its release. For example a new physics system and sound system are about to be implemented. The biggest advantage to the causal played, and as much as I play, I’m now just a casual, is a battle can take no more than 15 minutes, and most of the time it’s less than 10. If you want more action you can stack games, playing tank after tank, rack up the games, exp, and credits, but you don’t have to. As a casual with a huge tank base, I can play tanks I like, and burn a little real money on gold to keep premium and convert exp, and get any tank I want in a short time. I can jump on for three games after work, and even if everyone is a loss, still have a little fun. Many a night after a hard day at real world work, when I’m dead tired, dehydrated, and hungry, I’ll play a game or two before I go to bed, sometimes on weekends, I can crank the games out like the old days, or get on with a few pals, and platoon up and spread T1 Conan tank Terror through T5. For the type of gaming I do now, this is just about the best game I could ask for.
4.5 out of 5 stars
A variety of Heavy Tanks fighting it out on a ridge, in game shot, no interface.M4 Sherman in game shooting into a Valley, in game shot, interface off.Another shot of those heavies on the ridge
Combat Missions: The Originals, Beyond Overload, Barbarossa to Berlin, and Africa Corps, Oldies But Goodies
So these games are pretty old at this point and can be purchased from the Battlefront Website for fifteen bucks each. They will run on very low power computers so for the price, if you like turned based, tactical combat simulations based in WWII, but these games. The guys who make the games are a small team, and I’m sure can use any cash the old games generate, and they are well worth the price.
Combat Missions: Beyond Overlord was the first game in the series. Each one stands by itself, and incorporates improvements to the basic game engine. Africa Corps came last, and is the most polished of the three. The games work in a interesting way, not like RTS games, these games work in 1 minute of battle turns, were between each minute, you can give units orders. They focus on squad level, and individual vehicle level battles, but you can have some really huge battles with more than a battalion of troops on each side. The interface is a tad clunky but easy enough to learn and you can modify any of the scenarios and campaigns that come in the game. In these versions troops are available from the Germans, British, Americans and Russians, depending on the game version.
Game play is great, each game has a huge number of premade battles and campaigns to play, they can be modified, and many actual battles are in the game. The unit selection is very good.
The main difference between each version is the setting, Beyond Overlord covers from D-Day until the end of the war in north west Europe, Barbarossa to Berlin Covers the beginning to end on the eastern front, and Africa Corps covers North Africa and Italy. This may be the biggest flaw, as three standalone games, to get all the features of the interface, you have to buy the latest game, and they do not update the older ones. This is a limitation of how these games were designed, and is a fairly minor thing.
The game is fully 3d, and you can spin the map and zoom in and out to fixed points. For their day they were really great, and they are not so dated now that they are not fun. I find I play Beyond Overlord the most, simply because it has M26 Pershings in it, and I really like the tank. My second favorite is Africa Corps, because it’s fun to kick German but in the M3 Lee.
I’m going to give these games a collective 4 out of 5 stars, since I still play, and the only game that really pulled me away was World of Tanks.
Combat Missions: The Updated ‘Improved’ Version, Battle For Normandy
War Thunder: An ok Copy/Twist of WOT with an Air Element
Ok, I’m going to admit it, I had some bias going in, but the game was better than I thought. I’m still playing it, though really not enjoying it, much like I tried it when it was in early Beta and just had planes, but I will play it enough to give it a fair shake. Back when I tried it the first time the plane models were very nice, and still are, though many are inaccurate in big ways it was nice to see them go to the trouble to put cockpits in the game, it never struck me as all that much more realistic than WoWP, though it was clearly the superior product of the two. I have high standards as far as airplane games that want to be considered simulators, and WT really doesn’t cut it, simply put, their flight models in many cases just suck and don’t match history. I also know some people involved with the game modeling who said they strait up picked and chose their sources for model info based on how they wanted the game to work. When I want a online flightsim with realistic models, I’ll go back to the best, AcesHigh, by Hightech Creations. The game may be ugly, but the flight models are top notch, not some BS based on a bad Russian flight ‘sim’, or the whims of WT staff.
So then ground forces came out, and I heard so many unkind things about it, coupled with a very toxic forum experience, I never felt the need to try it. All the stories about how bad it was were enough for me. This became a slight problem when I couldn’t get one of my comrades to do the review for me. So, I decided to download it and have a look. The game is easy to jump into; the looks, interface, and controls are all pretty much the same as WOT. WT does have more game modes then WOT, and offers “realistic battles”, and “Tank Simulator battles”, but one thing I’m sure of so far, is none of it is as fun as WOT. The game has some nice features that WOT does not, in some cases, these features highlight the WT teams lack of attention to detail though.
The cool features that stand out are the ability to look at internal modules on the tanks in the ‘garage’, and being able to preview anything on the tech tree. Something WOT took years to do. The other is the window that pops up to show the damage done when round penetrated the tank, an interesting, if not a tad bit distracting. Some of the models are very pretty, and the game overall looks pretty good, though a lot like a few year old FPS game. Yes, this is with every option set to max. The game also looks a bit cartoony to as well. Popping off the co-ax and roof machine guns can be fun though. The multiple turret/gun support is nice. The customization options for your tank are pretty nice, and the WT system offers more variety and options to make your tank stand out. This is a good and bad thing; some tanks can get pretty garish.
The things I don’t like are glaring; the way the game plays is annoying. Driving the tanks around feels like work. It’s not a smooth fun thing to do in like in WOT. It’s a frustrating effort, often requiring more correction than is fun, and makes it hard to maintain any speed. The faster the tank is the worse it is. This was described as ‘cow on ice’ syndrome by more than one friend, and until you’ve played it, it’s hard to image just how bad the tanks in War Thunder drive. This was an instant turn off when your test driving a tank, and when in an actual game, and there is some lag, it is a game killing disaster. I want the tanks to be fun to drive, and since WOTs latest physics update, they made the tanks realistic enough to make driving just challenging enough, but kept the fun factor very high. The way the tanks in WOT drive feels right to me, granted I’ve never driven a tank, but I have spent a lot of time four wheeling jeeps, and the way WOT feels when one track has better traction feels right. I know someone who’s played WOT, WT and driven real tanks, and he came up with the ‘cow on ice’ term for WT and mainly plays the air portion of the game.
Another thing I don’t like is respawns, I like the short WOT battles. I like running a game, getting knocked out and then writing something, or fixing dinner, or watching TV with my wife, I don’t like to have to commit more time to the game. This was one of the things that really made me fall in love with WOT, 15 minutes at most, and my average is like 5 minutes, I’m aggressive.
So War thunder is doing better than I thought, and even though I don’t really enjoy it, I bought the Firefly bundle, so I’ll play it enough to get a really good feel for the game, but it’s not something I’ll jump into for a relaxing thing to do after work. I will continue to play it though, if for nothing else, to give it a fair review, but unlocking all the cool Shermans in the game is sounding somewhat fun.
Ok, so now onto the Sherman tanks and Vehicles based on the chassis, and like WOT, there are a lot of them, and a lot of model problems, just like WOT.
War Thunder Lee/Sherman Models.
Medium Tank M3 Lee:
This model is pretty good, nothing glaring stands out, the base model has the shorter M2 75mm gun with counter weight, so its modeled as if the stabilizer is there, and the counterweight is also on the 37mm gun mount indicating it had the stabilizer for that gun installed as well. I love how the site for the 75mm gun actually moves with the canon like it should; showing at least whoever modeled this tank understood how it worked. I love how you can use both guns and the 37mm turret is fully functional. It has both bow .30 calibers installed, indicating an early production Lee, and other than the suspension seeming to be a little squished down, the model looks great. The WOT Lee is an early HD model, and is not as good, but they are close. There are no real problems with the x-ray view with this model either. If I have a minor complaint, it’s the tracks not fitting the sprocket very well.
X-ray view of the M3 Lee showing internal modules and crew
Medium Tank M4A1 Sherman:
This model is not as good as the M3 Lee, the final and transmission housing looks off a little, and the welds on the lifting hooks on the front of the hull are overdone. Some of the tools don’t look right and the rear hull proportions seem off, but it’s not a bad model. It is much better than the WOT M4(M4A1), since theirs doesn’t even really make sense. They get away with that being an arcade game with all kinds of what if and inaccurate tanks, mostly German granted, but all nations have a few. The X-ray view has no glaring flaws as either, so this model is another win for WT.
Medium Tank M4 Sherman
This model is great on the outside, it shows an D-Day era M4, really the same tank as the M4A1, but with a welded upper hull instead of cast, with all the quick fix upgrades to help resolve some of the problems the tank had with ammo fires and known weak spots. It has the cheek armor on the turret, the armor added in front of the drivers hoods, and the armor over the sponson ammo racks. In real life these additions had some internal changes that went with them. The ready rounds around the base of the turret were removed, and are still present in the x-ray view. There should also be a small exhaust deflector mounted in the rear and the things just look a little off there. WOT has no corresponding Sherman really, so we can’t really compare, but this is a nice model for sure.
Medium Tank M4A2 Sherman
This model is pretty good but has more glaring problems as well. Fisher produced many small hatch M4A2 tanks that would look the M4 more than this later production M4A2. This model is of a late production M4A2 75 dry tank with a large hatch hull, but with the old improved dry ammo setup. The turret should also have at least the cheek armor cast in, and probably a high bustle, and the turret in the model doesn’t seem to have either. Then there is the X-Ray on this one, it shows the radiator in the completely wrong place, and still has the ready rounds around the base of the turret. In real life, most of these tanks went to the Soviet Union as lend lease.
You can see the misplaced radiator in this image.Another shot, showing the radiator in the wrong place. The radiator should be behind the motor.
Medium Tank M4A1 (76)W Sherman
This model is really well done, with just a few flaws. It should have rubber chevron tracks, and the fenders are wrong, like the wrong ones Dragon used on their M4A1 76W model. It also has a cover over the hull blower vent between the hatches, that shouldn’t be there. It also has all the steel bar stock welded to the mantlet for the canvas cover, which was not done until much later in the war. The .30 caliber co-ax machine gun is sticking to far out as well. Still, great model on the outside and no problems with the x-ray model either. In real life this tank saw widespread use starting with Operation Cobra.
No real major flaws, though the suspension seems to be compressed to much, or maybe scaled a little small, overall, this is a very pretty digital Sherman.
Medium Tank M4A2 (76) W Sherman
This model has some issues, first off the huge glaring ones, it’s a wet storage tank, all factory 76 tanks were, yet this model has the sponson ammo rack armor in place, when it was not installed on these tanks. It has the mantlet cover the M4A1 (76)w model has the mounting bars for, and some tanks sent to the Soviet Union apparently had them so this is a nice feature, though the color seems, off. They got the motor type right in the x-ray view, but the radiator location is hilariously wrong. Other than these glaring problems, it’s a nice looking tank.
This model has some glaring flaws. It is also a model that was not used by US forces pretty much at all. The flaws start with the welded on armor over the hull ammo racks, but since the tank is a wet tank, there were no racks in the hull sponsons anymore, so they stopped putting those plates on. That should have been an easy one to fix, since no T23 turreted tanks had these extra plates added.
Radiator placement is the other flaw on this one.
Medium Tank M4A3 76 W HVSS Sherman
This model is really nice on the outside, representing a great example of a Korean War era Easy 8. The model looks great except for the package shelf, it doesn’t look right. The real problem with this model is the engine compartment in X-ray view. They have the twin diesel 6046 in place, when it should be a Ford GAA V8. They did get the radiator in the right place, but it’s a tad small. This is a more accurate M4A2 (76)w then the modeled M4A2 (76)w. Since the WOT M4A3 (76)w HVSS tank has not gone HD, this one wins hands down. It even has the post war torsion bar assisted engine bay grill doors.
Such a pretty model, but they got the motor completely wrong!
No M4A3 ever came with the 6046 twin diesel as shown.
Medium Tank M4A3 (105)
This model is messed up pretty bad. The Hull is ok, but it has the post war engine deck hinges that should not be there. The place this model really goes wrong is the turret. They have a poorly modified low bustle turret, whoever modeled this didn’t know all M4/M4A3 105 tanks has special turrets with two ventilators, and they were all high bustle turrets final general 75mm turrets.
On the X-ray view they got the size and location of the 105 ammo storage all wrong, and the tank has an GM 6046 twin diesel instead of the proper Ford GAA, though, they did get the radiator in the right place for a change, though it’s still to small!
Better radiator placement, still the wrong motor though.
Take a close look at the back of the turret, it should be almost flat, since it should be a high bustle turret, but its not, they just added a second ventilator to the low bustle turret and slapped the 105 gun mount on it. Sloppy.
Assault Tank M4A3E2 Jumbo/M4A3E2 76
A decent model, though the suspension appears to be a little to compressed, it may just be me but all the Shermans WT seem to be a little compressed, maybe they don’t like the environment. The only glaring thing wrong with the model that stands out to me is the little machined spots in the gun mount on the turret are flared back, when they shouldn’t be, but this is minor. The only flaw is the tracks seem to be spaced to far out from the hull, almost like it has the E9 mod. It’s also missing the exhaust deflector, and the rear hull area is not a strong point on any of the Shermans in the game. X-ray view still has a GM 6046 in place of the correct GAA, and the radiator is the right size and in the right place! The 76 version is the same model with a different gun.
Other than the wrongly modeled machined holes in the turret, a pretty decent model.
Will the same wrong motor problem.Jumbo with M1A1 gun, same model same flaws, longer tube. Threaded barrel is also wrong, the guns used were all unthreaded.
3-inch Gun Motor Carriage M10
This model looks like a pretty decent model of a mid-production M10 TD. It has the proper 6046 exhaust at the rear hull. The X-ray model is where the issues show and this is an amusing problem, this model has the Ford GAA when it should have the 6046, and the radiators are to small.
A pretty nice M10 model, with an amusing flaw.
Look at that, a Ford GAA, so they have the right motor modeled, they just can’t get it into the right tanks!
90-mm Gun Motor Carriage M36
This model is not as good as the M10, the turret doesn’t look quite right. On X-ray this did finally get the right motor in, but the radiator is still to small.
Right motor, in the right tank, with the radiator in the right spot, but still to small.
17pdr M10 Achilles 65th Reg
This model looks pretty good, though I would have to really look over Achilles Photos to find any major flaws on the exterior. The X-ray model has one amusing flaw, it has the Ford GAA that should be in all the M4A3 tanks, and their GM6046 should be in this tank!
So this tank should have the GM6046, but has the GAA, is this stuff really that confusing?
Sherman IC Firefly (Premium)
There is nothing really wrong with this model, at least nothing major, the armored cover for the hull machine gun looks a little off, but not to bad. Everything else seems right at first glance, even the X-ray view everything is correct. This is a very nice looking IC Firefly, the rarest version of the C tanks. I liked it enough to buy it. It has the add on armor for the sponson ammo racks, the add-on on cheek armor, and all the extra boxes the British added to their Shermans, it is missing the extra hull mounted fire extinguishers.
A nice solid Ic Firefly, and everything’s in the right place, I liked this one enough to buy it.
Sherman VC Firefly
This model is a little off, they got the wheel spacing for the longer hull right, but it has a lot of crap on the hull I’ve never seen in pictures before. It does have the external fire extinguishers the Ic lacks. It also does not have the proper A57 Multibank motor, and the radiator is in the wrong spot, even though they put the bulge in the upper rear deck for it. Other than these flaws, the model is ok.
I really like the Sherman V/M4A4, so I was disappointed to see they didn’t bother to get the right motor in it. That and the weird things on this model are it’s only big flaws, well, plus it has the wrong sprockets.
. . .
I would say, after looking the models over, the modelers have never heard of the Sherman Minutia site. I would also say they don’t know the difference between the high bustle and low bustle 75mm turrets. They also don’t know the actual sizes of any of the components inside the tanks.
My overall take on War Thunder has changed a little, I still think they borrowed far more than most rabid fans will admit, from WOT. They game also has serious flaws if you like fun, but that’s just my initial impression, I’ll play several hundred games and see how I feel then.
Now considering some of the amusing comments I got from my glossary entry on Warthunder, keep in mind this is a game review, IE opinion based, so try and keep calm, the world isn’t ending because someone on the Internet thinks WT is subpar.
The Armored Divisions: The US Armored Divisions, What They Were and A Brief History Of Each One.
There were two types of US Armored Division during WWII. The Light type and the Heavy type, I will detail out the differences between the two below. Armored Divisions were not meant to be assault troops, that was left to the Regular Infantry Divisions, the Armored Divisions were meant to rush through an breakthrough and romp and stomp as far into the enemy’s guts as they could, hopefully taking key objectives and cutting off large amounts of enemy troops.
Alight US Armored Division was made up of three Tank Battalions, three Armored Infantry Battalions, and three Armored Field Artillery Battalions. These were broken up into three CombatCommands, A, B, and R. Each of these had a Tank Battalion, an Armored Infantry Battalion, and an Armored Field Artillery Battalion and each one was commanded by a Colonel. CommandsA and B were the primary combat force of the Division and R was the reserve. The Battalions could be swapped around between A, B, and R(sometimes called C) depending on strength and fatigue levels.
The Light Armored Division would also have a large number of service battalions and smaller units attached to make the Division as self-sustaining as possible:
One Armored Engineer Battalion
One Armored Medical Battalion
One Armored Reconnaissance Battalion
One Armored Ordnance battalion
One Armored Signal Company
A CIC Detachment
A Division Supply Train (made up of trucks)
A Division Artillery Battalion
A MP Platoon
A Tank Destroyer Battalion Could be assigned
An Armored AA Battalion Could be assigned
These units could be broken down into smaller, usually company sized sub units and assigned to the Combat Commands depending on the needs of the missions. The Armored Division was intended to be a self-contained unit with all the assets needed to support and move itself around a theater. A light Armored Division had an authorized strength of just about 11,000 men, the Heavy Division had 14,500.
The main difference with a Heavy Armored Division was they had eightMedium Tank Battalions, instead of just three. They also had more light tanks, with two full light tank battalions, instead of three companies. Only a two Armored Divisions retained the heavy designation and organization through the whole war, the 2nd and 3rd. I have not been able to find a TO&E for a Heavy Armored Division that included an Authorized strength, but it would have to be several thousand men more than a normal AD. I’m not 100% sure on this, but I’m pretty sure the Heavy Armored Division was done away with in a 1942 revision of what an Armored Division was, but a pair retained the Heavy TO&E for reasons I’m not sure of yet, but I will find out.
. . .
The Armored Divisions were meant to exploit a major breakthrough won by the regular Infantry Divisions. In many cases they were not used this way, and often got thrown into the lines as the enemy was faltering, using a single Combat Command to help secure the breakthrough while the rest of the Division rushed through the breach. No Armored Divisions saw use in the Pacific, but the Sherman sure did. The Sherman was really the heart of the US Armored Division, and its mobility and reliability really served it well there, it allowed US Armored Divisions to make very long runs once broken through, and it would limits on fuel supplies, not the tanks mechanical reliability that slowed it down.
1st Armored Division:Old Ironsides
Active 1940-1946, Reactivated 1951-Present
The oldest US Armor Division. It saw a lot of action in WWII, born on July 15 1940 at Fort Knox.
The 1st AD spent its early years figuring out what an Armored Division was going to be, and when they figured that out, they trained in the US until mid-summer of 1942 before shipped off to Northern Ireland, after a short stay they were off to England. They were not there long, before they were shipped off to northern Africa for participation in Operation Torch. The 1st AD would be the first US Armored Division to see combat.
They would participate in the capture or Oran, and the infamous Kassirine Pass, and then would fight to the end of the war in Italy. The primary tank early on would have been the M3 Lee and M3 light. By the Italian campaign it was the M4 and M4A1, small hatch 75 tanks, with M5 lights. Late in the Italian campaign they would have gotten second gen 76mm Shermans.
1st AD Subunits: 1st Tank Battalion, 4th Tank Battalion, 13th Tank Battalion, 6th Armored Infantry Battalion, 11th Armored Infantry Battalion, 14th Armored Infantry Battalion, 27th Armored Field Artillery Battalion, 68th Armored Field Artillery Battalion, 91st Armored Field Artillery Battalion, 81st Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron, 16th Armored Engineer Battalion, 47th Armored Medical Battalion, 141st Armored Signal Company, 501st CIC Detachment.
Campaigns: Tunisia, Naples-Foggia, Rome-Arno, North Apennines, Po Valley.
The 1st AD had 1194 men KIA, 5168 WIA, and 234 DOW. They captured 41 villages or urban centers. 108,740 Germans gave up to the 1st AD. The 1st AD earned 1 Distinguished Service Cross, 1 Distinguished Service Medal, 794 Silver Stars, 2 Legion of Merit, 35 Soldiers Medals, 1602 Bronze Stars, and 3 Air Medals. They were moved to Germany Shortly after the war to serve as part of the occupation forces and were disbanded in 1946. They were reactivated in 1951 and are still an active duty division to this day.
2nd Armored Division:Hell on Wheels
Active 1940-1995
The second US Armored Division put together and it saw just about as much as the first. This was one of only two Heavy Armored Divisions; all others were converted to the later ‘light’ TO&E. Formed at Fort Benning on 15 July 1940, on the same day as the 1st.
They shipped out for use in Torch, but were kept in reserve until the invasion of Sicily. They saw a fair amount of action on Sicily, and after were shipped back to England to be used in the Normandy landings. The 2nd AD was landed on Omaha Beach on June 9th and fought in northern Germany until the end of the war, including the Rhineland, Ardennes and Central European Campaigns.
2nd AD Subunits: 41st Armored Infantry Regiment, 66th Armored Regiment, 67th Armored Regiment, 17th Armored Engineer Battalion, 82nd Armored Recon Battalion, and the 142cnd Signal Company.
There was also the 14th Armored Field Artillery Battalion, 78th Armored Field Artillery Battalion, 92nd Armored Field Artillery Battalion, 2nd Ordnance Maintenance Battalion, and the 48th Armored Medical Battalion.
Campaigns: Sicily,Normandy, Northern France, Ardennes, Rhineland, and Central Europe.
The 2nd AD Combat statistics: had 1102 KIA, 5331 WIA, 253 captured, 7116 non battle casualties, for a total of 13,867 casualties. They were in combat for a total of 223 days and earned 21 DCS, 13 Legions of Merit, 1954 Silver Stars, 131 Soldiers Medals, 5331 Bronze stars and 342 Air Medals. They took a grand total of 76,963 POWs.
3rd Armored Division: Spearhead
Active 1941-1945, reactivated 1947-92
Also maybe known as the Third Herd, but may be post WWII. The 3rd saw combat from Normandy to the end of the war in Europe. They were formed on 15 April 1941 at Camp Beauregard in Louisiana. They trained in California at Camp Young, until January of 1943, when they moved to Indiantown Gap Military Reservation in Pennsylvania. They would train on there while waiting to deploy overseas.
The 3rd AD arrived in Europe on September 15th 1943, they debarked in the Liverpool an Bristol area and trained there and on the Salisbury Plain preparing for the invasion.
They would first see combat almost a month after the June 6th landings in Normandy. They would fight in the hedgerows, including at Saint Lô. Later in the same campaign they would help close the Falaise Gap. They participated in both the Battle for the Hurtgen Forrest and the Battle of the Bulge. They would continue to fight into Germany, helping with the taking of Cologne, and Paderborn, and with reducing the Ruhr Pocket. They liberated the Nazi Death Camp at Dara-Mittelbau, and finished with the battle of Dessau. They went into reserve to the end of the war. It did a short stint as an occupation force before being deactivated in November of 1945. It was later reactivated in 1947.
3rd AD Subunits:36th Armored Infantry Regiment, 32nd Armored Regiment, 33rd Armored Regiment, 23rd Armored Engineer Battalion, 83rd Armored Recon Battalion, 143rd Armored Signal Company, 391st Armored Field Artillery Battalion, 67th Armored Field Artillery Battalion, 54th Armored Field Artillery Battalion, 3rd Ordnance Maintenance Battalion, and the 45th Armored Medical Battalion.
WWII Campaigns: Normandy, Northern France, Ardennes, Rhineland, and Central Europe.
The 3rd AD WWII Combat Data: spent a total of 231 days in combat, with 2540 KIA, 7331 WIA, 95 MIA, and 139 captured. They had a total number of Battle Casualties of 10,105, Non-Combat Casualties 6017, and a combined total of 16,122. They took 76,720 POWs. They earned 17 Distinguished Service Cross, 23 Legion of Merit, 885 Silver Stars, 32 Soldiers Medals, 3884 Bronze Star, 138 Air Medals, and 3 Distinguished Flying Cross.
One of the few Armored Division that never adopted a name, it also developed a reputation. The 4th was often used as the spearhead for Paton’s Third Army and it was a tough outfit. Their motto was ‘They Shall Be Known By Their Deeds Alone’. Activated on April 15th 1941 at Camp Pine (Later named Fort Drum), New York. It would train at Camp Forrest in Tennessee, and then was shipped to California for further training at the Desert Training Center. They would be housed at Camp Ibis, near Needles California during this period. By June of 1943 they would be at Camp Bowie, Texas, for more training in the Piute Valley. They were then off to Camp Myles Standish in Massachusetts for winter training. Finally, in December of 1943, they were on their way to Europe, England specifically to prepare for the June of 44 invasion of Normandy.
The 4th AD debarked in Normandy on July 11th 1944, at Utah beach and was in combat by the 17th. They saw action in Operation Cobra, and rampaging across France, they would see action in the Battle of the Bulge, spearheading Patton’s 3rd Army’s attack north to hit the Germans attacking Bastogne. They would see action in all the major fights in the ETO to the end of the war. They did a tour as occupation forces before being shipped back to the ZI to be deactivated.
The 4th AD spent 230 days in combat and lost 1238 KIA, 4246 WIA, 503 MIA, and 1 man captured. This totaled out to 5988 Battle Casualties, they also had 4508 Non Battle Casualties, and total of 10496. The 4th took 90,364 POWs.
5th Armored Division:Victory
Active 1941-1945, reactivated 1950-1956
Another Divisions that saw combat from Normandy to the end of the war in Europe. The 5th AD was activated at Fort Knox, in Kentucky. Like many units after forming and some initial training, the shipped out for Camp Cooke California. They spent a lot of time on Alert for Japanese attacks in their early training there. Next up was training in California’s Mojave desert. They were on their way to Tennessee by March 24th for more maneuvers. They would be there until July, and then they moved to Pine Camp N.Y. for some winter training. The 5th last stop before deploying to England was Indiantown Gap, PA, where they left their vehicles and were trucked to Camp Kilmer NJ, to wait for their ship.
The 5th were in England by February 24, 1944, and they were stay there until they deployed to Normandy on July 26. They were assigned to Patton’s Third Army, as “General Patton’s Ghost Troops”, and would fight in Normandy, Northern France, Ardennes, Rhineland and Central Europe Campaigns.
The 5th AD was in combat 161 days, and had 547 KIA, 2768 WIA, 177 MIA, and 62 captured for a total of 3554 battle related casualties. The 5th also had 3592 non-battle casualties, for a total of 7146.
The 6thwas activated at Fort Knox on February 15th 1942. The 6th spent time at Camp Chaffee, Arkansas training then went on Maneuvers in Louisiana and then they were off to sunny California for training at the Desert Training Center in Mohave CA, and then off to Camp Cooke also in Ca. They were shipped by train to the east coast and loaded onto ships for transport to England, arriving in February of 44.
The 6th was landed on Utah beach on July 18th as part of Paton’s 3rd Army. They participated in the Normandy, Northern France, Ardennes-Alsace, Rhineland and Central Europe Campaigns.
The 6th spent a total of 226 days in combat. They had 1169 KIA, 4198 WIA, 152 MIA, and 7 captured for a total of 5526 battle casualties, they also had 7290 non battle casualties.
Jungle Tanking: The Sherman Did Just Fine As A Jungle Killing Machine
Army M4A1 tanks with the 603rd Tank Battalion, Biak Island, in the Pacific, (thanks to Russ Amott for the info on the photo!)
Conventional wisdom often states, Jungles are no place for tanks, but that wisdom is wrong. It is very difficult to operate a tank in the jungle, that is true, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done. In many cases it requires the close work of heavy engineers and their bulldozers. In at least one case engineers had to put in a corduroy log road to get the tanks up to the fight when the Marines used them on Cape Gloucester. When a tank can be brought up though, when used correctly, it was a very useful tool in destroying enemy bunkers and strong points that could not be flanked.
Another Marine M4A1 on Cape Gloucester, this one made by (Pacific Car & Foundry) West Coast Best Coast Baby!
Tanks have to be used in a different way than they would in just about any other terrain when fighting in the jungle, and more so than any other terrain, are dependent on their infantry support to protect them and be their eyes. They also cannot be employed in large numbers, fighting in the jungle is a very up close and personal affair, and from two to six tanks are all that are needed or can really be employed. In most cases it will only be two or three, because most jungle fighting is limited to certain paths due to terrain restrictions. If the area was wide enough, a tank was only behind a bulldozer in off road ability, but large trees and rocks will stop any tank.
An LST delivering a Marine M4A1 Sherman to Cape Gloucester
The Tank could be useful for clearing some of the jungle terrain, through the use of its machine guns, cannon with canister rounds or HE, and even its tracks. It would take a fairly large tree to stop a tank, the bigger the tank, the larger the tree would have to be, and the tracks are very good at tearing up underbrush. In some cases tanks were used to pull loaded trucks up roads normally impassible due to mud. They could be used to haul in supplies to troops and in some special cases used to retrieve wounded troops pinned down by enemy fire, by driving over them and pulling the wounding in through the bottom escape hatch.
Were calling this M4 Composite Hull on Okinawa, named “Aida” with the 763rd TB (thanks to Russ Amott for the info on this photo)
To successfully employ tanks a thorough recon of the area the tanks are going to operate in was needed. A specific set of objectives, preferably, ones that could be seen from the jumping off point were needed to effectively use tanks, or they just got in the way. With established objectives, specific infantry squads would be assigned to work directly with individual tank, to baby sit it and keep enemy infantry away. The platoon leader would be encouraged to either ride on the tank his men were protecting, or stay very close to it so he could talk to the tank commander. The tanks would hold back with their protecting infantry, until the leading grunts made contact, then as needed they would move slowly forward and engage targets pointed out by the grunts. Moving slow and staying with the men protecting the tank was very important, if they fell behind or got run off by flanking fire, the tank became very vulnerable to close infantry attack. This is why the platoon leader staying close to the tank was important, so it could be told to start backing up the fire was too heavy. If an attack failed, the tanks were advised to never attack over the same path, especially if the Japanese had time to bring up AT guns or mines.
Marines supporting an M4A2, in almost jungle, or jungle after lots of shore bombardment.
The pace of these attacks was purposely slow, they needed to make sure they were not bypassing an AT gun or tank killer team hiding in the brush. Various methods were used, from hand signals to tracers and smoke to designate targets to the tank. Smoke worked ok, but someone on the phone on the back of the tank telling the TC exactly where to look worked the best. Once the bullets were flying the tank crews buttoned up and would not open up until asked by the supporting Doughs, or the intense part of the fighting was over. Sometimes the tanks would need to be given a break in very hot weather, operating at low speed could cause overheating and vapor lock, and was hell on the crews too. In the tropical heat, the interior of an M4 was not a pleasant place to be.
A pair of M4’s being supported by infantry, on Guam
Once the objectives were achieved for the day or the attacks were stopped, the tanks pulled back far enough behind the lines to refuel, repair and, rearm the tanks. They would also take out as many wounded men as they could carry on their way to the rear. In the morning they may haul extra ammo and other supplies forward to the units who held the line. Tanks, unless under the most dire circumstances were not used in the line at night, or used in night attacks. Tanks, blind enough during the day, are so blind at night they are a threat to everyone around them, friend or enemy in the jungle.
These M4 Composite Hulls were lost on Guam, near Yigo, after they got to far ahead of the Infantry. (Another photo caption save by Russ Amott!)
The Army and Marine learned a lot of lessons about employing tanks in Jungle terrain, they recorded and disseminated these lessons in the very interesting: Combat Lessons, The Rank And File, What They Are Doing and How They Are Doing it. This was a series of nine, 50 to 90 page pamphlets, put out by the DOD and sent out to all the troops I have 8 of the 9 hosted in the downloads section, and they are all interesting reads, they do not cover Armor exclusively, or even in every issue, but they are still a very interesting look at how the US Army and Marines worked during WWII. When the Sherman was employed using the lesson the Army and Marines learned on the job, they proved to be a crushing and very hard to deal with part of the Allied Arsenal in use against them. The Japanese really had few options in dealing with a Sherman once it was in the fight, the rare 47mm AT gun, hard to employ in heavy jungle, magnetic mines and suicide squads, and the occasional oddball tank trap were the only tools in their arsenal that could deal with the Sherman and none of these was as good as the basic Panzerfaust or German Pak 40 75mm AT gun. The Japanese tanks were so bad they are not worth mentioning in this section.
M4 Shermans in the jungle or swamp, I’m going to guess Bougainville HAH! I got this location right! Thanks to Russ Amott, we also know that this tank is with the 754th TB.
An M4A1 76w from the 2nd Armored Divisions, 66th Battalion, tank D13, transporting doughs. M4 small hatch 75 Sherman with the 3rd AD In Mons France, this tank was made by American Locomotive Company. Image courtesy of The Sherman Minutia site. 3rd Platoon, Company A, 812th Tank Battalion Easy 8 tanks, 1945. This was most likely taken post war on occupation duty. The tanks are so clean and in very good shape. 3rd AD M4A1 76w tanks crossing a pontoon bridge. Note the number of missing end connectors. This is a fairly late production M4A1 it has a muzzle brake. M3 Lee crew with some 75mm Ammo, note this M3 has an M2 gun. M32 Armored Recovery Vehicle on display somewhere. This is a late production M4A2 75 tank with large hatches but still with the dry ammo storage. American soldiers of Patton’s Third Army standing in front of their M36 TD while rolling up a Nazi flag they have taken as a trophy after the capture of Bitberg.This tank is an M4A2 with a Firefly turret installed for testing by the US Army. The tank survives to this day as part of the US Army’s collection. M4A3 76w HVSS Sherman that was on display at Fort Knox. It is now in storage on Fort Bragg. M10 3 inch GMC moving down an alley. M4 Sherman with extra wide grousers fitted.M4A1 76w named Gila Monster. This was the type of Sherman introduced for Operation CobraAnother Shot of Gila Monster, now it has fenders and an M1A1 gun with muzzle brake. Late production M4A1 76w.An M4A1 75 tank being unloaded from a train. Image courtesy of the Sherman Minutia site.Early M4 tanks on the production line.M4A1 76w HVSS tank, these tanks just missed the war in Europe. M4A3 105 probably a post war publicly shot. Note the dough on the infantry phone, and the muzzle cover on the 105. M10 TD in actionA captured M4 Sherman in Nazi servitude during the battle of the bulge.M4A3 75w captured by the Nazis. Another Captured Sherman, this one an M4A2. A knocked out 1st AD M4A3E2 Jumbo, February 1945.Nazi prisoners being watched by Sherman crews during the Bulge.The fascist crew of a M4A2 Sherman captured on the eastern front. This was a large hatch dry storage tank.
Gallery V, More Sherman Photos, more Comments, Maybe Fewer Resolutions.
US Army M4 crew, probably somewhere in the ETO or MTO. The crew are wearing a HBT coverall that was not all that popular. Later they would would wear the same things the infantry did. Being color you can see the black on OD green camo used, and a red air ID panel on the back of the tank. The top hat was not standard issue. M4 Crab, with the 739th TB.British Sherman V based Crab, 1944.M4 Crab Breinig 1944. A Sherman IC Firefly probably with the British 11th Armored Division, in the town of Putanges, 20 August 1944.A captured M4A1 75 tank, an early DV model, being tested by the Nazis. This tank was probably captured in North Africa.An M4A4 based Crab up survives to this day in Canada.An M4A2 75 large hatch tank, this is one of the rare dry ammo rack large hatch tanks. It must have been going pretty fast when it hit that mud, note the tanker bar on the left about to fall off.An M4A3 76w HVSS tank is climbing up a muddy road in this HUGE image. Note the commander has a 1919 mounted in front of him. The caption says 11th US Armored Division Einheiten Der Germany 1945. You can see a Jumbo and another A3 76 tank , this one VVSS in the background.M4 Sherman with a M1 Dozer blade drivers through a whole in the Siegfried lines Tank Trap belt. The tank is a M4 75. Close up of the T34 Calliope, being loaded by the crew, it shows lots of detail of the T34 installation. This is an M4 Sherman in Italy that hit a large Anti tank mine, or maybe a pair of them in the same hole. The tank is a DV tank, with an M34 gun mount. This picture was taken during the staging in the UK just before 6 June 1944. Note the left-hand tank has the characteristic arm for mounting a dozer blade (barely visible running along the suspension); the hydraulic jack and blade are missing. 741st Tank Battalion after action reports indicate that among the eight dozer tanks they had scheduled to land in Wave 2, one of them, commanded by LT Kotz, did not have a blade attached. The 741st’s tanks on Omaha Beach came in three flavors. B and C companies had DD tanks. Co. A had M4A1 tanks and the tank dozers (six of their own and two from the 610 Engineer Company) were M4A3s, if I am not mistaken. If these are 741st tanks, then the photo was taken at the Portland ‘hards’ in the UK, where they out-loaded. Also note the M8 armored ammunition trailer. Each of the eight LCTs carrying Co. A embarked two standard tanks and a dozer tank. They also carried an engineer gap assault team and towed an LCM behind. Off the Normandy coast, the engineers boarded their LCM and followed the LCT ashore, where the dozer tank was supposed to support and work under the direction of the gap assault team leader. Also, on the way in, the two standard tanks were to fire over the LCT’s bow ramp, providing suppressive fire as they neared the beach. The ammo trailers were there to ensure they had plenty to shoot. One pair of Co. A’s tanks reported firing 450 rounds of 75mm on D-Day. Love your site. Caption Info, thanks to Chuck Herrick.M4A3 or A2 76w Sherman somewhere in Europe 1945, that almost looks like Soviet numbering on the side of the turret. A pair of M4 small hatch 75mm tanks coming off an LST-77 at Anzio, Italy, May 1944; note the small barge capsized in the background.A line of French Sherman tanks in Paris after the city was liberated by French forces. The tanks are a mix of small and large hatch Shermans, one is a M4 or M4A3 105 and there is a 76 gun sticking out down the row. Vive La France!An UK M4 and an M4A1 pass through a fence in an urban area. It could be an M4A4 in front I suppose. M4A4 Crab. Another Sherman Crab. M4A3 based flamethrower tank, probably with the Marines on Iwo Jima. These tanks used a Navy Mark 1 Flame-Thrower. M4A1 76w with extra plate armor added to the front hull, it’s from the 3rd Armored Division on the outskirts of Korbach 30 March 1945, also note the Commanders and loaders hatches have been swapped. There is also a pair of boxing gloves hanging on the front armor! An M4A1 76w and an M4A3E2 Jumbo of the 3rd Armored Division, probably during the Battle of Hürtgen Forest. 14th Armored Division M4A1 76W with sandbags, the tank has a threaded and capped M1A1 gun and the split loaders hatch. M4A1 North Africa, 1943, the tank appears to be rather dirty. M4 based Scorpion mine clearing tank.M4 Sherman coming out of a gully, this is a command tank, note the extra antenna on the front right of the hull. Soviet M4A2 75’s crew play an accordion and pal around. This tank is another rare large hatch hull with dry ammo racks, you can make out the armor over the ammo racks on t he side of the hull. Most, it not all of these tanks went to Russia. Also note the drivers side head light and guard are nearly ripped off. A pair of M4A2 76w Shermans serving with the Soviets, these tanks are just like the one above. Crewmen of a M4A3 76w Sherman loads ammo into the floor ammo racks. The manual says the rounds should be stored nose up.
Gallery IV: More photos, high resolution, with comments
More images, with captions, most high res, some sherman chassis based things as well.
Avery early M4A1 Sherman, note the pair of M1919s mounted in the middle front of the hull, these were removed fairly quickly from production tanks. It seems to be hanging off a rather high drop off, and this gives us a great view of its belly. ABritish M4A4 in Athens, during the Battle of Athens, in December of 1944, the tank is supporting the Scottish Parachute Battalion. It’s a later production tank with an M34A1 gun mount. M4A3 76w Sherman with the 12th AD, in Husseren France. The tank is heavily loaded, and even the M2 is stored and covered. With all the mud around, you would think extended end connectors would be installed. An M10 TD somewhere at the beginning of Operation Cobra, the TD is somewhere in Normandy. Note the branches for camo. Look at the communication wire running across the street. French 2nd Armored Division M10 near Halloville France November 13th 1944. This looks like a mid production M10. That is some thick mud!M4A3 75w named Classy Peg passing a destroyed Japanese tank in Luzon, Philippines, January 17 1945. These tanks were a terrible threat to the Japanese. Clod hopper, an M4A3 or M4A2, on Iwo jima with the Marines, it was from C Company, 4th Marine Tank Battalion, and was taken out by a Japanese 47mm gun. I wonder if the road wheels ended up on another tank. A pair of composite hull M4 composite hulls burning. These tanks are US Army Shermans, and they are in the Guam, and I think they were taken out by a 47mm AT gun. The gun was probably behind were the picture was taken from. (Thanks to Russ Amott for help with the caption)An M4A1 76w passes through some kind of wall made of tree trunks. This tank has a split loaders hatch. Note the tree branch camo and how the gun is in the travel lock. A Sherman V of the Canadian 29th Reconnaissance regiment(The South Alberta Regiment). The Tank was commanded by Major David Currie(VC), and the tank was named ‘Clanky’. This photo was taken in Normandy around Arromanches in July of 1944. A big Thank you to R.Wagner for the caption info.M4 105 serving with the French, tank names La Moskowa, the crew is hamming it up with a girl! Riflemen of the 29th Marine Regiment ride a M4A3 Sherman 105mm of Company A, 6th Tank Battalion during the 6th Marine Division’s drive on Chuda along the west coast of Okinawa. It looks like the west coast of California!An M4A3 76w being given a ride across the Rhine River in a LCM, this seems like a precarious way to get a tank across, but maybe it wasn’t all the way loaded. This one is a Marine M4A2 on Betio, Tarawa Atoll, and was named “Commando”(thanks to Russ Amott for the information on the photo caption) , for more information on this battle, see the new book Tanks in Hell by Gilbert and Cansiere.USMC PVC N.E. Carling in front of an M4A2 tank named Killer. It has a Type 94 TE KE tank on its back deck. Photo taken Kwajalein, Marshall Islands, 2 Feb 1944. Killer seems to have wooden planks added to the sides. Later production small hatch M4 Sherman, probably somewhere in the MTO or ETO. This one seems to be captured and in use by the Nazis. This is an M4A3 76w tank, with the 784th Tank Battalion (colored) near the Rhine in early 45. M4A3 76w Shermans from the 771st Tank Battalion supporting the 17th Airborne Division. These tanks are sandbagged up, but not as extensively as some other units would go. An M4A3 76w from an unknown unit passes by the corpses of Nazi troops. You can soo a wooden AT stick box and one of the deceased Germans seems to by laying on one. AM4 being recovered by a pair of M31 Armored Recovery Vehicles near Saint Fromond France 1944. They are dragging it, since it looks like it has a lot of suspension damage. An M4A3 76w HVSS from the 749th Tank battalion has collapsed a wooden Bridge, in Glossbliederstroff on the Saar, Germany
Gallery III: Even More Random High Resolution Sherman and Lee Photos with Comments.
British or French M4A2 tanks in the desert. Probably training in North Africa. Convoy of tanks, trucks and jeeps from the100th ID, and 781st TB, the photo isn’t detailed enough to get a specific make on the Shermans. This M4A1 76w is from A Company, 20th Tank Battalion , 20 Armored Division. They are on the outskirts of Cailly, France on February 24th, they had arrived in country a few days before and had not seen combat yet. The crew is unpacking and taking inventory of all the gear issued with the tank, they probably received the tank with the back deck covered in the boxes. Agroup of Doughs gathered around the rear of an M4A3 76w, probably somewhere in Germany in 1945. Note how much stuff they have strapped to the back deck. 1st Marine Tank Battalion, Okinawa 1945. notice all the extra stuff on the tank. The Marston matting on the hatch is to keep the Japanese infantry from putting a satchel charge or worse right on top of the periscope, a fairly weak spot. They also had magnetic mines they could put on the side of the tank on I bet the matting on the side helped prevent that. Wood and concrete was also used. It must be the angle, but the pistol port almost looks like it’s missing. An M10 serving in the 2nd French Armored Division Hallville France November of 1944.AFrench M4A3 76w or M4A2 76w of second company of the 501st Tank Regiment. The French used almost all versions of the Sherman, so without seeing the engine deck, I can’t tell for sure what model it is. M4 Sherman tank named Bell of Little rock, and a Lt R Hoffman looking it over, January of 1944, oddly I can’t find out what unit this tank was with. This seems to be concrete going over sandbags. The tank is either an M4A1 76w or an M4A3 76W. If you have any other info on this image let me know.M4A4s on the Burma road. How cool is it to see M4A4 tanks on the Burma road? These M4A4s were probably fairly late production A4s, that had been used in the US for training then overhauled and shipped to the UK. Some M4A4 tanks ended up back in US hands in the CBI when a composite US/Chinese tank unit needed some mediums. Not the lead tank has some kind of windscreen up for the driver and how heavily loaded the tanks are. Behind a destroyed British Sherman M4 near Caen in Normandy, a fascist soldier, of the criminal, Waffen SS watches the enemy line. Date: 1944 The Tank if either an Ic or Vc Firefly, probably the latter since it was the most common Firefly type.Our Soviet allies(at the time) using a Lend Lease M4A2 76w. I have no idea what unit these Russian Soldiers are from, but if someone does, let me know. I bet they killed a lot of Nazis to get to there, there being somewhere in Germany 1945Soviet Lend Lease M3 Lee knocked out. The Germans on it seem to be using it like a jungle gym, though something less wholesome could be going on since some of the fascist, criminal, invaders are in various states of dress.During a pre war training exercise this M3 Lee collapsed this bridge. The crew is helping the local kids get across so they can get to school. I love this image!This British M3 Grant Crew is setting up to spend the night in the desert, in egypt, in 1942. I do not understand why two of them are naked. Note the .30 1919 on the roof, and the canvas mantlet cover on the 75mm. This is the Production pilot of the M3 Lee, photo may have been taken during the demonstration for the factory workers, where the Lee took out an empty Guard shack by accident, by running it over. Clearly tanks and bridges are not fond of each other. This M4A3 76w HVSS tank seems to have been a tad much for this one. It was also a German bridge, so it was probably complicated, just adequate for the Job, and prone to failure. =DAnother shot of the prototype Lee at Aberdeen Proving ground.Another Lend Lease M4A2 76w being used by the Soviets. These tanks were well liked by the Russian crews, they felt they were very lavishly equipped. They were not fond of the .45 ACP round or the submachine guns that used them, and that these tanks came with. Even more Russian M4A2 76w tanks, the Russian crews called them ‘Emchas’ and they were unhappy to have to give them up when the war ended. In some case they didn’t, and converted them to tractors. Even more even more Russian M4A2 76w tanks, of the various engine types the Sherman could come with, the only ones the Russian would accept were the diesel based M4A2 tanks. French M4A2 coming off an LST, this one is with the 12e RCC, 2e Division Blindee. This was a very famous French Armored Division commanded by the General Philippe LeClerc. This photo was taken on 2 August 1944, on Utah beach. Vive la France!Fascist troops using a knocked out M4 as a resting spot. These may have been taken in Italy. This huge image is of Sherman M4A2 tanks with the French 12e Regiment De Chasseurs D’Afrique, part of the 2e Division Blindee, commanded by General Philippe LeClerc, taken August of 44 in Normandy. Vive la France!
Gallery II: More Random High Resolution Photos Of The Sherman With Comments. I Plan On Going Through Books To Confirm The Captions On Some Of These. I Know I’ve Seen Most Of Them In Zaloga’s Armored Attack Books.
In this very nice Signal Corps photo an M4A3 75w, late 44 early 45 somewhere in Europe. This tank also has the M1 dozer blade kit installed. The Sherman, burned out in the background, is also an M4A3 75w. There is an M32 in the background and several Half tracks. The tank appears to be from the 8th Armored Division, 36th Tank Battalion, and it’s tank C17, probably one of the HQ platoon tanks. This is based off the markings on the gun mantlet. Note all the junk on the front of the tank, a como wire reel, a oil lantern, and some other things I can’t make out. M4A3 75w, burned out late war Europe, the tank looks like it was loaded up, note the large metal basket on the rear of the tank. The basket looks like it was filled with some ration boxes, and a jerry can. M4A3 76w Sherman with a threaded and capped M1A1 gun, and split loaders hatch. Oddly this tank has T51 tracks, when the T48 rubber chevron track would be more common or The T54E1 steel chevron track. This Sherman also has concrete armored added to the front hull. Looks to be from the 2nd Armored Division 1945.This one is another M4A3 75w, the caption says hurtgen 1944, but is wrong. The tank is with the 746th Tank battalion, they are attaching ‘corduroy logs’ logs wired together, to the front of the tank. This was on the Roer front, December of 44. it was very muddy. The infantry in the picture are from the 39th infantry, 9th Division. The 746th would be supporting them on offensive operations, this was the first day. Oddly, this tank lacks duck bill end connectors, and they would help with the mud. The logs on the front hull would be used to get the tank unstuck from the mud. This huge image of a M4 and M10, photo caption says Aachen 1944. The M4 is with the 745th Tank Battalion. This photo was taken on October 20th. The Germans surrendered the next day when an M12 155mm Gun Motor Carriage was brought in to shell the Germans command bunker at point blank range. The M12 used the M4 chassis. The tracks on the M4 look almost worn out, and everything on the back is wrapped in tarps, other than the ration boxes. The tank is also wet from recent rain. Yanks and Limeys in one place!! M4A3 75w, and some kind of Churchill. This was a rare occurrence, the two nations working so close. This was units of the US 9th Army and British 21st Army Group, in January of 45, near Brachelan. note the use of white tarps as snow camouflage. This huge image is of a small hatch M4 75, with a lot of infantry around it. On closer inspection, the tank is an for sure an M4, and it’s named Jinx, and the troops on the ground around the tank and are colored. The tank is also carrying spare ammo and some of the Doughs gear. With the help of Russ Amott, we now know this tank is with the 754th Tank Battalion and troops are with the 24th Infantry, and the location is Bougainville Island, one of the northern most islands in the Solomon Islands, in the Pacific, so my MTO guess was way off! Thanks again Russ for the photo caption help!The crew of this 14th Armored Division M4A3 76w, with a M1A1 that is threaded and capped. The tank has sandbag armor. I think this was a big thing in the 14th. Do these guys look bored or what? All the daily chores the tank required must be done already.M4A3 76w with a split loaders hatch and a M1A1 with threaded and guarded tube. Caption says Rittershoffen, but you never know, also could it be a 14AD tank? Look at all the communication wire they are holding up for the tank to drive under. Look at all of it coming out of the house and running across the front of it. So I found this photo in Armored Attack 45, and it was a 14AD tank, but in Niederbetsdorf. Note the sandbags are larger, and sloppier than the previous or following tanks. A very nice photo of a M4A3 76w with HVSS, or Easy 8 Sherman, with the 14AD, if had to guess, the 25th battalion, B Company, the Company commander’s tank B17, and the crew is messing around with a BC-603 Radio Receiver 14 March of 45, the tank is sandbagged and camoed, the typical black and olive drab, and note the M1 Carbine leaning on the turret. This tank would have 5 M3A1 submachine guns normally. Aknocked out and burned M4A3 76w from the 48th Tank Battalion, 14th Armored Division. This picture is a little disturbing, and I toyed with not putting it in, but in the end, it stays, because war is ugly, and the Sherman was a machine of war.SNIPER!!!! Does anyone see the sniper!! At least that what it looks like to me. I bet the gunner or commander is in the gunners seat looking at all the windows in that house with an HE round ready to go. Most if not all the men outside the tank are the tanks crews. The Sherman on the left is an M4A3 76w HVSS tank. These tanks belong to the 745th Tank Battalion, they were supporting the 1st Infantry Divisions assault on St Andreasberg on 14 April 1945. Note the M4A3 76w VVSS tank has one mismatched road wheel. The extended end connectors on this tank are also in bad shape.M4A1 75 with add on steel armor passing a knocked out PIV. The M4A1 is a late production small hatch tank. This Sherman is an M4A1 made by Pressed Steel Car, the tank was named ‘Honky Tonk’ and was with 3rd battalion, 1st armored regiment, 1st Armored Division, this tank was lost in the infamous Kasserine Pass battle. Thanks for the info on the photo Russ Amott. For a few more shots, and more info on this tank, see the wonderful Sherman Minutia site.M4A3 75w, with a T-34 Calliope actually firing. That’s not all that’s interesting though. This tank has two spare old style road wheels on the front hull, plus the track linking tools, and some large boxes. It also has a full set of duckbill end connectors. The whole Calliope Launcher could be jettisoned in a few minutes. This M4A3 76w tank is supporting infantry from the 75th Infantry Division, so it would be whatever independent tank battalion supporting them. The tank is a fairly early production M4A3 76w, since it has the split loaders hatch and the threaded and thread guarded M1A1 gun. Photo caption says Riedwihr 1945, the tank is from the 709th Tank Battalion. Note the lack of duckbill end connectors on the Sherman, and the tarp covered M2 .50 on the rear of the turret. This massive photo is an M4A1 75 small hatch tank with an M1 dozer kit. It’s being used to clean up debris in Lonlay-L’abbaye on August 15th during the chase of the German Army towards Paris. The M4 and M4A1 were the least desirable tanks to have the dozer blade installed on. Jungle tanking! This PSCC M4 Sherman is a fairly late production M4. This photo was taken on Bougainville 1944, and this would be the last of the major Solomon Islands taken. The tank was serving with the 754th Tank Battalion. These guys were true jungle tankers, and the environment in the Solomons was harsh and nearly as big an enemy as the Japanese. They would go to great lengths to get Shermans to Japanese strong points, because the firepower the Sherman offered was very hard for the Japanese to counter. A US ‘Dough’ checking out a firefly Ic , probably lost during Market Garden, it was indeed supporting US paratroops, near Eerde, near Veghel, in the 101st AB AOO. (thanks to Crash_over-ride and ww2Colorizations over on reddit for the correction).M4A3 76w with a split loaders hatch and a thread a thread guarded M1A1 gun driving through a bunch of wrecked Nazi equipment. Notice how the gunner, and loader are both standing in the loaders hatch. Note the modification to the commanders vane sight. This looks like a 14th AD sandbag job. M4A1 75 small hatch tank. with the 753rd Tank Battalion. Knocked out near Crane France, after seeing action in the MTO. This was a pretty early tank judging from the M34 gun mount. Note the .30 1919 on the commanders hatch. A pair of knocked out M4 tanks from the 756 Tank Battalion, probably knocked out in a combo Mine field/AT gun trap, lost in the fighting on 12 september near Vesovi. B17 may have been the CO of B company’s tank. Small hatch M4 75 tank passing through a town in Europe somewhere. You can make out XX-735-c-11 on the drivers armor, maybe indicating C company 735 Tank Battalion. Note all the extended end connectors piled on the front hull. This huge photo shows an large hatch M4A3 75w this photo was taken on Okinawa. The crew seems to be hamming it up for the photographer, so not in combat. This tank has two large plates welded onto the front plate, these are probably for the T6 Floatation Device, also known as the M19, basically large solid, semi modular floats attached by cable to the front and rear of the Sherman, with side sections to give it so rigidity. The whole thing dropped off when the cables holding it place were cut. I could only find one image of it. A big thank you to Michel E for the info for this photo.M4 with T6 Flotation DeviceAn M4A3 76w from the 778th Tank Battalion caption Lampaden 1945. The has an M1A1 gun with a threaded and protected barrel. With all the hatches open, it looks like most of the crew may have made it out.M4 small hatch 75mm Sherman with the 6th Armored Division. The photo is captioned Belgium 1945, and it was right, Margaret, Belgium, January 1945. This tank was knocked out with a panzerfaust.Asmall hatch M4 and an M4A1 both 75mm tanks. Image had no caption, looks like somewhere in the ETO. These are British tanks. This is a M4 composite hull or M4A1 75W only 100 were produced before they were replaced with the M4A1 76w on the production line. It has a “Richardson Device” hedgerow cutter, and is passing a knocked out, most over rated weapon of the war, the 88mm Flak 36. The tank is with the 3rd Armored Division and the photo was taken in August of 44 during Cobra.Inflatable Sherman, still more reliable than the non inflatable Panther. They were meant to be detailed enough to fool recon airplanes. M4 75, in Italy, 1944. Tank is with the 755th Tank Battalion, and it looks like it’s being used as Artillery. The tank is an early production M4, not the gun mantlet. It also looks very muddy there, and explain the tanks use as artillery. This is something some tank Battalions became very adept at.Huge image, not sure the make of Sherman, not sure why one of the crew is out with his pistol. Looks like American kit on the crewman. The tank was named Hun Chaser, that sounds British. Update, commenter John Berwick pointed the odd armor near the fuel caps indicates this is an M4A4, and also mentioned the wheel spacing, and it does look like an A4, so good catch John! British Shermans in the desert. This is a Sherman I with the 3rd CLY, at the end of the north African Campaign. These tanks have a standard camouflage scheme in use by June of 43, of Blue-Black over Light mud.Another huge image, no caption, but Im pretty sure this one is in the PTO, maybe the Philippines. The Sherman looks like an M4 Composite hull. This huge photo is an action shot, note explosion. This appears to be a mix British M4A2 an M10 and M4A1s or Sherman IIIs, IIs and IIa. The caption only said 5th army.Concrete armor being installed on an M4 105 tank.Nazis surrendering and running to the rear. Tank is an M4A4 so it must be a Brit Sherman.14th Armored Division M4A3 with a T34 Calliope installed. This also has the 14th typical sandbag armor, it also appears to a girl painted on the turret. The name looks like ‘Annabelle’ under it.750th Tank Battalion M4A3` 105 near Manhay, some battalions pooled all the 105 tanks into a battery, since there are three in the field, that may be whats going on here. An M4 with Brigadier Tom Rutherford 1st Armoured Brigade standing in front of it.Anice color shot of an M4A4 with some hay on it.The same hay covered M4A4 now moving around.The same hay covered M4A4 now moving around again. (i43)The same hay covered M4A4 now more hamming for the photographer.The same hay covered M4A4 on the move again.
Apair of knocked out British M4A2 tanks.M4A1 76w with bow mounted flamethrower in use. Note the interesting writing in chalk on the side of the tank. The Flamethrower was an E4-5 and the tank is from the 70th Tank Battalion, testing it out. With a limited range of 25 yards and a low fuel load, it was deemed not worth the effortM4A1 with a bow mounted flame thrower, huge image. Massive image of a British M4A4 and troops. A British M4A2 Sherman coming out of an LST on the dock they can make. There is water under the Sherman. That causeway could be several hundred yards long.736th Tank Battalion M4 105 loading up on ammo in Neuss 1945, these are the HQ 105 tanks loading up to support the 83rd Division on March 3th.A snow and ice covered Sherman. It appears to be an M4A3 75w. The crew is hooking a tow cable up, so the tank was probably disabled and abandoned by the crew. An M4A1 entering Fort Santiago in Manila, during the campaign to retake the Philippines from the Japanese. Thanks to Michel E for the info on this image!These look like M4A1s maybe the ones the Marines used on Cape Gloucester.Canadian Major General Bertram Meryl (bert) Hoffmeister in front of his M4A4 command tank “Vancouver” (Thanks R.Wagner!).84th Infantry Division in Geilenkirchen 1944, being supported by an British M4A4, the town was on the border between the US an British areas.M4 Shermans fighting on Guam 44.A Soviet M4A2 76w in Europe.An M4A1 and an Inflatable Sherman at Anzio in 1944.
M4A3 75w tanks of the 9th Armored Division, Westhausen, Germany, 10 April 1945M4 composite hull flame thrower. Somewhere in the PTO. Russ Amott was nice enough to point out these tanks were with the 763rd TB and the location was Okinawa, so I was at least right on the location this time!Another composite hull flame thrower with the 763rd Tank Battalion, on Okinawa. Thanks again Russ.
Marine supporting an M4A2 maybe on Saipan
An M4 Sherman with wading kit.Marine M4A3 flamethrower tank, Iwo Jima Ron H a commenter posted this info “The pic was taken on Iwo Jima. It appears in Bill D. Ross’ book “Iwo Jima” (ISBN 0-394-74288-5) with the caption, “Flame-thrower Sherman tank burns pillbox near base of Suribachi as infantry waits to attack.” The photo is credited to Mark Kaufman. Ross, the book’s author, was a Marine combat photographer on Iwo. The infantry in question were the 28th Marine Regiment, 5th Marine Division. The 28th Marines’ 2nd Battalion (2/28) was assigned to take Suribachi itself, while the regiment’s other two battalions (1/28 and 3/28) fought northward toward Airfield No. 1. It’s not clear from the photo which battalion the tank is supporting.”
Thanks again Ron!
M4A1 75 passing knocked out or broken down, or just abandoned, or out of gas PIVs. This tank is with an unknown unit supporting the 30th ID outside of St. Lo ion July of 44Massive photo of a road, that has an M4A1 76w on it.This Sherman in a Marine, M4A2, part of the tank company attacked to the 4th Marines, 1st provisional Marine Brigade on Guam. You can just make out the Rhino painted on the side of the tank. (Caption info from Russ Amott, Thanks again Russ!)The Sherman is a large hatch 75mm Sherman, it could be an M4A2 or A3, and I’m betting it’s the PTO and the Philippines
Color shot from waralbum.ru Probably an M4.French Sherman M4 105, with crew posing for Camera.A French M4 crew hamming it up for the Camera.
So I made a few things on CafePress, and decided if my and I were willing to wear them, other may want to as well, so here they are. I do not make any money on these, I just made them up for personal use, and decided to post them here, just in case.
Gallery I, Mixed High Res Sherman Photos: With comments!
A nice color photo of an M4 stuck in Italy. It’s hard to tell if it is knocked out or just stuck, for the purposes of the fight it was in there is no difference though. The tank still has the M34 gun mount, but is a non-DV hull and has the cast differential cover.A burned out M4A3 76w in Neumarkt, Germany April of 1945. This photo is a testament as to why Armor needs a heavy infantry presence in urban warfare. A knocked out M4A3 75W with concrete armor, in front of an M4A3 76w with similar armor, in the back also knocked out. This is Arnoldsweiler Germany, tank unit unknown, the Doughs(wartime slang for Infantry) are from the 415th regiment of 104 Infantry Division.M4A3 75 from the 761st Tank Battalion supporting the 103rd ID near Nieffer France, this could be a small hatch M4A3 from the first batch Ford made, but its hard to tell from this angle. It looks like the tank has all the qucik fix upgrades. A pair of up-armored, with layers of steel track and sandbags, M4A3 76w Shermans, with the 747th Tank Battalion, Schleiden, 1945. All the added stuff would be removed just about as soon as the war ended.14th AD M4A3 76w column Hochfeld France 45A huge pile of rocks, with an M4A3 76W HVSS tank with add-on Armor, parked off to the side. The Easy 8 looks like it’s from the 4th AD, 37th Battalion. it looks like the rocks may be from fortifications German troops made. If you look close, this tank has the up armored front armor and it looks like it has the cheek armor added to the turret as well. M4A3 with the 12th AD in Schneeberg Germany 1945, this tank has a threaded and capped M1A1C and a split loaders hatch.M4A3 75w Shermans with the 9th Armored Division, Westhousen, Germany, 10 April 1945, this picture is interesting, there’s a lot of garbage around the tanks, I wonder how many days they were there? This image shows what was almost the ultimate 75mm Sherman, it has the improved large hatch hull, with Ford GAA motor and wet ammo storage, improved stabilizer, improved periscope sight, all around vision cupola, and oval loaders hatch. All it needs is HVSS suspension, and a large number got that too, though most of the 75mm HVSS tanks had 76mm turrets swapped onto them post-war by the US Army. A pair of 3rd AD M4A1 76w tanks in Schevenhutte 1944, parked in front of St Josef church on September 22, 1944, the wires hanging down are probably communication wires. The tracks on the M4A1 to the right look almost worn out, and it has an unthreaded M1A1 gun. This is very much like the ones issued for Cobra. M4 tank 3rd Armored Division, Stolberg, 14 October 1944. The men on the tank are from the 36th infantry. This is when sandbagging started, as more and more encounters with German infantry with panzerfausts and panzerschreck began happening. Note the interesting beams welded to the differential cover, probably from some form of hedge cutting device. A pair of burnt out Canadian M4A2 Shermans of the 10th Armored Regiment (The Fort Garry Horse) at the foot of the church at Rots – June 1944 (Huge Image)3rd AD M4 in Stolberg 1945, if you look close there is an M3 Lee based M31 in the background.A nice photo of an Easy 8s, or M4A3 76w HVSS tank, and what looks like an M4A1 76w in the background. The M4A1 had the split loaders hatch, with the hatch doors that only opened to 90 degrees.A nice photo of a 2nd Armored Division M4 coming off an LST on Utah Beach Normandy June 8th. I love this photo, and always, wonder if the Sailor sitting up above the tank to the right, has an official job, or if he was just enjoying the show. The LST was a really amazing ship for the time, a technological wonder, that does not get much credit for being one. A Badly damaged M4A3 76w tank that looks like it had a dozer blade. It’s from the 1st Armored Division in Italy 1944. You can tell it’s a 1st AD tank because of the two bands on the barrel near the gun mantlet. An M4A1 in Italy on the Gothic line, town of Ponsacco, 1944, I wonder what this street looks like today. Note, this tank is an early M4A1, still in use in 1944 and it has none of the quick fix updates and still has the M34 gun mount. An M4 in Milan Italy in front of the Piazza Del Duomo. There seems to be a gas gun, cut in half, handing from the rear hull overhang. Maybe they used it as a funnel?An M4 showing its off-road prowess.An M4 doing M4 things, in some ruined town in Europe. I think the tank is with B Company 37th Tank Battalion, 4th AD.A well camouflaged M4 is the subject of this beautiful high res photo.A nice high res photo of an M4 Composite driving down a street in Avranches, on August 4th, 1944, during Operation Cobra. The town is in ruins and was important because it was the gateway into Brittany from Normandy, this tank is most likely with the 6th AD, (thanks to Russ Amott for more info on the photo)A small hatch M4 somewhere in Europe. A nice high res photo of an M4A4 probably about to be shipped to England, or just arrived there. Notice the ‘Comb’ device on the front differential cover, it has a wire going from it to through the bow gun mount to the tanks brake levers, so the brakes could be released without opening the extensive weatherproof packing they have done. Look at all that duct tape!!A nice high res photo of an M4A1 with a strange rocket launcher setup. Could these be aircraft rocket tubes adapted for ground use?A nice color shot of an M4A1, note the M34 gun mount. A nice high res photo of an M4A2 76 wet, a pretty late production one, much like the one fished out of the ocean in the sunken Shermans post. Most of these tanks went to the Soviet Union. Ihigh res pic of what looks like a couple of platoons of small hatch M4 and M4A1s parked on a street somewhere in Europe.A very nice high res pic of an M4 being used as an artillery piece, near Vicht Germany 17 November 1944. Unit unknown. The M4 was named ‘Ink spot’. All M4 Sherman tanks had the equipment to fire their main gun as an indirect fire weapon, and it was not uncommon to have a unit at rest tied into the artillery radio net answering calls for fire. Marine M4A2 on Peleliu, I think.Shermans at rest in a pretty flower field in Italy.
The Small Arms Of The US Army Tanker: Tankers Were Issued Gear, But Once In The Field, They May Have Used Other Than Issued Small Arms.
The US Army issued early Sherman tanks with a single Thompson M1928A1 .45 caliber submachine gun. The tank also had two boxes to hold a total to twelve hand grenades of various types. Two smoke and two thermite grenades were kept in a box on the left side turret wall, and there was another box under the gunner seat that held 2 smokes grenades, 4 M2 fragmentation grenades, and 2 M3 offensive grenades. The tank also had a pair of M1919A4 machine guns and the M2 HB that could be mounted on the pair of tripods issued with the tank. They had 600 rounds of .45 ACP and 4750 rounds of .30 caliber, and 300 rounds for the M2 HB. This was what the tank could officially carry, but crews often carried more .30 caliber rounds, and even main gun ammo on the floor of the tank, and they would also store small arms ammo on the outside of the tank
An M1919A4 on a Tripod, the M4 Sherman tanks had between 2 and 3 of this machine gun, but only one tripod for it.An M2 HB on a tripod, these machine guns were mounted on the turret of all American Shermans. The tripod was stored on the tank when the gun was mounted on the turret roof. There was also a mount for it on the back of the turret for when it was not in use, and the barrel was removed.An M3, note the charging lever, just behind the magazine, a problematic feature eliminated in the M3A1.
Later versions of the Sherman were issued with a slightly different setup. The single M1928A1 Thompson was replaced with 5, M3 submachine guns. The other major change was, all the machine guns were provided with more ammo, 600 .50, 6250 .30, and the same 600 rounds of .45 for the new SMGs. The tank was also issued with a small number of spare parts that commonly broke on all the weapons and specialized tools to service the tanks weapons.
In all cases, each member of the Sherman crew would have been issued a M1911A1 pistol as a side arm, but that was their personal weapon, and not part of the tanks gear.
Let’s talk about these weapons a little, first the Machineguns.
Jenilee Harrison charging he M2 HB on the top of the small hatch M4A3 used in the movie TankM2HB Machine gun on Sherman in use
M2 HB .50 caliber machine gun: Who doesn’t know about this machine gun, developed before WWII, it was a legend by the end of the war and is still being used. It saw use everywhere the US Military fought. If it could mount a heavy Machine gun or guns, the Americans put one of these on it. The Sherman had one, The M16 halftrack had four, the P-47 Thunderbolt had eight! They used them on ships, jeeps, aircraft, with the infantry, and as AA guns. There is a reason this machine gun, designed by maybe the greatest firearms inventor of all time, John Browning, is still in use, its a great gun, firing a pretty good round. It’s so well liked, slightly improved version still serve with the US Military and to many other Nations around the world to list here.
The versions issued on the Sherman had a 450 to 550 RPM, and a quick change barrel that still required it to have its headspace adjusted, so not all that quick. Someone who knew what they were doing could keep the barrel from overheating by firing in short controlled bursts though, and on the Sherman, since the ammo supply was fairly small, you had to use it sparingly anyway. The machine gun would rarely leave the tank, were the lighter M1919s might be pulled and mounted on a tripod for some reason, if the crew had to fight on foot, or to setup around a perimeter at night maybe. In the Pacific, they would build a bunker under the tank and have a sandbagged enclosure at the front they could crawl into with the .30 mounted on a tripod.
An M1919A4 in the bow mount of an M4 Sherman
M1919A4 .30 caliber machine gun: The Sherman crew was provided with two, sometimes three of these guns. They like their bigger, little brother, the M2, were designed by John Browning. For The US Military in WWII and Korea, .30 caliber meant the 30-06 cartridge. This was a pretty decent round as .30 caliber rounds go, and would serve as the Army rifle and light/medium machine gun chambering until the adoption of the 7.62 NATO round. This gun spat rounds at between 450 and 550 round per minute and it was a reliable and well liked gun. If it had a flaw, it was it was not easy to swap barrels on, for the same reasons as the M2, and it was a tad heavy for a light/medium machine gun, these are minor flaws for a vehicle mounted MG, though, in longer fights, the co-ax M1919 would burn out their barrels before the fighting was over.
The M1919 served with the US Army, and Marine Corps well into the 50s, they were eventually replaced by the M60 machine gun. These machine guns have a long and well recorded history, and my goal here is to talk about them without causing any new myths or bad information.
Now let’s talk about the Submachine guns.
A Thompson in a Violin case. Was this a factory option?
M1928A1, .45 ACP submachine gun: This SMG is another American Classic, and it was a classic by WWII all on its own. Originally developed for use in WWI, it missed the war, and any Military contracts, but the gun was sold on the civilian market. Enough sales trickled in from a few small government and police agencies, along with foreign sales to keep Auto-Ordnance alive between wars. The weapon was sensationalized by the media after it was used by prohibition era gangsters and a few notable regular criminals, and this inspired some of the nation’s first federal gun control laws. In 1934 the National Firearms Act went into effect after being passed by Congress. It limited the sale of Machine guns to civilians and made the ones already in Civilian hands have to be licensed.
There was already one huge limiting factor on Thompson sales, if you were not a government agency; you had to be pretty rich to buy one. Sure, a few criminals were, but what normal Joe of the 1920s could spend $200 bucks on a machine gun when a new car cost around $400? That 200 bucks was for the basic 1921 m model with 1 magazine. When you started adding things like the wood front pistol grip, deluxe wood furniture and drum magazines and fancy cases, the price could run into luxury car range.
The M1928A1 was not all the different from the M1921, and still used the odd Blish lock and could still take the drum magazines but had dispensed with the front pistol grip. If it had a drawback it was that it was large and heavy for a SMG, but you would think this would help control it.
The Army would go on to have even simpler version of this SMG produced, but as far as I know only the M1928A1 was issued with early to mid production Sherman tanks.
M3A1, not the bigger dust cover, and thumb hole in the bolt.
M3 and M3A1 .45 ACP submachine gun: This SMG was designed to be the easiest to manufacture and cheapest SMG that could still perform as well as the M1928A1 and the M3 was born. After some use, the M3A1 came about to solve all the problems with the basic M3. The M3 looks a little like a grease gun, so that name stuck, and the weapon would go on to serve into the 1990s as tank crewmen’s weapon.
The M3A1 was a simple no nonsense weapon that filled the tank crewmen dismounted weapon role fairly well, and that’s why it no one bothered to replace the thing. It was replaced with the MP5.
From the Sherman crewman perspective, I bet they’d say, five M3A1s is better than one M1928A1.
Next up, let’s talk about the pistol.
WWII M1911A1
So much has been said about the 1911, I’m not going to say much, but I’ll note for those who don’t know, John Browning designed it too. I will say this, it is not the finest handgun ever produced, nor is it even close to the worst. It is probably the most popular handgun in America, and I own two. What it was, was a reliable, tested, accurate enough handgun for soldiers, pilots, officers or anyone else who needed one. Like all handguns, it should be viewed as a last resort, and the M3A1 or M1928A1 would be more useful in all but the most close of encounters for a tank crewman.
It also may be the most written about firearm ever as well, since every issue of Guns&Ammo, Guns, Shooting, etc. had at least two stories about some variant of the gun. I would be surprised if it isn’t the most popular handgun type in the United States. The only guns that seem to rival it are made by Glock.
. . .
Modern shortened Springfield Armory M1911 copy.
. . .
Now so far, we’ve only been talking about the weaponry issued with the tank or to the crew. Soldiers and marines being soldiers and marines means as soon as they were out of an environment where the tank the tank was being inspected on a regular basis they would have started acquiring extra things for the tank. Crews of early Shermans probably worked pretty hard to get more Thompson SMGs, or used captured German or ones; the MP-40 with its folding stock was nice for tank use. I’m sure they stuffed extra grenades all over the tank along with extra .30 cal and .50 cal ammo. Depending on unit discipline and how aware they were of the risk, some crews might have carried extra main gun ammunition as well, but unprotected main gun rounds were very dangerous to the crew. It wouldn’t be impossible for something like an M1 Garand or M1 Carbine to make an appearance as well. Mounting extra machine guns on the turret for the loader was a fairly popular modification as well.
Notice the M1 Carbine leaning on the turret next to the gun mantlet on the M4A3E8 with the 14th AD
