Your Favorite Sherman...

For me it's not so simple but I'll try.
Give me the Sherman M4A4-- in the Vc Firefly configuration. I think it's even more imposing than the M4A3E8 "Easy Eight" series.
I like the extended hull of the Firefly... and that long-barreled 17 pounder looks ominous in the same way as the panther's 75mm. The armored radio-compartment and bustle also give it a very distinctive profile.
(I don't like the fact that it was gas-powered--the M4A4 was never adopted by US forces--and I'm not certain if it's ammo-storage was "wet" as was the case in the M4A3E8.)
Another favorite was the A4M3E2 or Jumbo Sherman that was up-armored to the tune of 40 tons.
I also can't overlook the M4A2's used by the U.S. Marines when they landed on Tarawa. I just can't decide to finish my model of the subject as "Colorado" or China Gal."
Anyone else out there have a favorite Sherman?

Tim

 

Definitely the M4A3E8 or "Easy Eight". Admittedly the Jumbo Sherman had thicker armour, but you just can't say no to that new suspension system and the wider tracks that came with it. Wet storage is a very definite edge over the Firefly, as is the fifth crew member.

However the scariest Sherman ever should probably be the field-converted M4A3E2 with 76mm. Patton's 3rd Army made this tank by sticking the 76mm gun in its Jumbo Shermans.

 

The VC Firefly is my personal favorite, for entirely subjective reasons.

 

I've gone ballistic on American 1/72 scale armor lately.I'm currently doing an M4A1 76mm.I like the classic Sherman look with the longer barrel.BTW,the color scheme I'm doing is olive drab with reddish brown overspray.The reference photo said it was a typical American camo job.
What I want to know is the theater?Can anyone give me a suggestion as to where this vehicle might have operated?

Thanks

ST

 

Not a Sherman per se...

Not a Sherman, but a Sherman derivative, the M36. That thing looks like pure business, as in Bring on the Panthers...

 

Im a big Firefly fan, the 17pdr looks good on it and does a damned good job.

I also love the M51 Super Sherman, the Israelis made it look so ready for business and made it a handy tank even today.

 

SturmTiger:
Could this possibly be a Pacific-theatre Sherman? I've seen photos that lead me to believe the 2-color camo was more popular there than the European theatres.

Tim

 

According to Stephen Zaloga's "The Sherman at War" this particular scheme was suggested by an official document referred to as FM-5-20B (I don't know what this means) which was issued somewhere in early 1944. It consisted of earth brown over olive drab, with white counter-shading under the barrel. The book shows an M4A1 (75) with this pattern on the Anzio beachhead in March 1944.

 

Thanks,this is the kind of info I was looking for.

 

It seems the most extensive camo patterns used by the US were in Italy.I don't know much about the PTO in general,but you could have something here.

 

Too bad they didn't have "super shermans" in NW europe.Easy eight would be my Fav that and the M36 with the 90mm gun

 

M-50
It's 75mm gun is a french derrivative of the Panther...ironic isn't it!

 

M4a2 in Russian service. It had 2x150hp. marine diesel engines which didn't catch fire as easy as gas engines. When running on just one engine the M4a2 was as quiet as a jeep. Around half of the 4,000+ Shermans shipped to the southern Russian front through Persia were equiped with the 76mm.

 

Just for the record. Gas engines were not as "combustible" as alleged by WW2 tankers, it was the ammo that set the tank on fire. And once that stuff caught fire, it did not matter if the engine was running on gas or diesel.

To answer Hoosier´s question: Give me any M4 with wet storage and a 76mm gun or I volunteer for the Tank Destroyer Corps.

 

Really, a lot of the books I've read blame gas fuel system layout on the Sherman as the cause of ease of fire starting.

 

az abuv

Of course it was the petrol that was the main cause of fire in 'Ronsons',
ammo never caught fire very easily.

 

i'm not sure about wether the gas or the ammo caused the vulnerability on the Sherman. What i do know is that the ammoracks along the sides were prone to catch fire even from a minor penetration or spall. Thats why:
a. extra armour was fitted over the ammos storage places
b. Wet storage was introduced. (this consisted of a water filled jacket around the ammo storage racks including sliding doors filled with water)

this seem to indicate that the ammo was at least one of the issues.
I wonder why the Sherman was extra vulnerable tough since eg the tiger stored its ammo in exactly the same spot: in the bulges of the hull over the tracks.
Anyhow, the wet ammo storage was a succes and tanker seem to have been fond of it afaik (nut i'm not a specialist on this).

i would also presume that the engine compartment was seperated by a bulkhead from the fighting compartment and that in case of an engine fire the crew would have time to bail out. I guess wet ammo storage did the sme thing: giving the crew time to bail before the conflagration got at em.

Aglooka

 

Correct me if I am wrong (rather large chance of that :lol: ) but could it have something to do with the nature of the chemicals used in the different rounds?

A round designed for a short an early Sherman (short 75 mm) differs from the Tiger (long 88 mm)... I should think. This is speculation.

The 88 mm round would need explosives that required more pressure to detonate so as not to detonate too early, perhaps?

Again, this is speculation from a not yet fully educated 17 year old... am I on to something, or way in the fields?

 

could be, one would indeed expect the charge for a longer gun to be of a somewhat slower burning variety. I don't think it would make much difference in sensitivty to ignition tough; Maybe one of the experts could enlighten us (Tony Williams ? )

Aglooka

 

I don't have enough technical knowledge to know one way or the other, I just know most of the accounts I've read and a few heard first hand is the Shermans(earlier models) almost always "brewed up" after one hit from large calibre rounds. I don't imagine the ammo would be responsible in every case, so there were probably other factors present that made the Sherman prone to fire. Panthers on the other hand took multiple hits from allied guns(which usually didn't penetrate) but kept operating.

Was the fuel system changed on the "Easy 8" to make it less vulnerable, along with wet storage for ammo?