• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

All about Tonks! Errr...Tanks!

Well, that's what I meant. The army chose to not ship any of them to the troops, even at a time when the Brits were in DIRE need of tanks. So essentially the army decided that a Covenanter is literally worse than nothing.

Just to make it clear, when I talk about the British army I talk about it all, including the generals at HQ taking these kinds of decisions. I don't mean the guys on the front line at Mersa Brega made that call.

That said, I will agree that the Covenanter had the potential to be actually a great tank. That very sloped glacis could have made it very combat worthy, for example.

I guess it's what makes it all the more frustrating, really. Put the cooling in the back, go welded, put the weight savings into giving it a 6 pounder instead, and you could have the best tank of the time. Or close enough. Instead it was an epic fail.
 
That's not strictly true. Alongside the Covenanter there was the Valentine in production and very shortly after the Crusader. Matilda II was also in production.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
That's not strictly true. Alongside the Covenanter there was the Valentine in production and very shortly after the Crusader. Matilda II was also in production.
Click to expand...

Well, obviously. But when you still have a need for more tanks, and you have over 1000 Covenanters that you'd rather not ship, that's got to say that the Covenanter was worth less than nothing.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Given that the T-34 was an almost exact contemporary, I think that's a bit of an overstatement.

Dave
Click to expand...

Well, ok, I was thinking British tank, but it's my fault for not making it clearer. I'll gladly grant that the T-34 was several notches better.
 
HansMustermann said:
Well, obviously. But when you still have a need for more tanks, and you have over 1000 Covenanters that you'd rather not ship, that's got to say that the Covenanter was worth less than nothing.
Click to expand...

Why? It was OK for use in Northern Europe where the fighting was expected to be when it was first laid down.
Most of the overheating problems were overcome but by then it was obsolete anyway and bigger, better gunned replacements were on hand.
I do agree that the contracts should have been ended early when better designs came along.
The Covenanter wasn't unique in that respect though, all kinds of stuff was kept in production early in the war for similar contractual reasons.
 
It can be argued that the Sherman was a British tank.
It was originally put in to development to meet a British specification and contract request, as were the P-51 Mustang, Evarts Class Destroyer Escorts and the Escort Carriers.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Why?
Click to expand...

Because when a bunch of generals look at the choice of either

A) not have nearly as many tanks as they wished in Africa, or
B) ship the Covenanters they had anyway,
and everyone thinks A is the better idea, I'd say it's quite obvious that "no tank" is better than "Covenanter".

Captain_Swoop said:
It was OK for use in Northern Europe where the fighting was expected to be when it was first laid down.
Most of the overheating problems were overcome but by then it was obsolete anyway and bigger, better gunned replacements were on hand.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, after the problems had been fixed, among other things by putting two radiators in the BACK for cooling.

The first version produced, let's just say, the coolant boiled over in England, which isn't exactly known for having a hot climate. In fact, there are plenty of places in Germany, and for that matter in France before getting to Germany, where it's hotter in summer. Not all of Germany is north sea coast. Plus, there's Italy to deal with. If that design didn't have a cooling that worked in England, then no, it wasn't fit for use in Europe either.

Sure, it would get some working cooling later, when they put it in the back where it belonged, but that's just illustrating the problem with the original design.



I do agree that the contracts should have been ended early when better designs came along.
The Covenanter wasn't unique in that respect though, all kinds of stuff was kept in production early in the war for similar contractual reasons.[/QUOTE]
 
Captain_Swoop said:
It can be argued that the Sherman was a British tank.
It was originally put in to development to meet a British specification and contract request, as were the P-51 Mustang, Evarts Class Destroyer Escorts and the Escort Carriers.
Click to expand...
AFAIK both M3 (Grant) and M4 (Sherman) were specified and designed by the US army. The British army did however order their own version of the M3, with better armor, turret mounted radio and without machine gun cupola.
 
Didactylos said:
AFAIK both M3 (Grant) and M4 (Sherman) were specified and designed by the US army. The British army did however order their own version of the M3, with better armor, turret mounted radio and without machine gun cupola.
Click to expand...

There was a large amount of input from the British in the design of both the M3 and M4, after all they were the one exchanging potshots with the Germans at the time. But I doubt any factory in Britain could build a Sherman given its reliability and tolerances.
 
kookbreaker said:
There was a large amount of input from the British in the design of both the M3 and M4, after all they were the one exchanging potshots with the Germans at the time. But I doubt any factory in Britain could build a Sherman given its reliability and tolerances.
Click to expand...

Yes they could.
It wasn't the way British tanks were built that was the problem it was the design process and production decisions.

LMS workshops were capable ofvery fine precision work, look at their locomotives.

Shermans were designed to be built by companies with no experience of building tanks.
There were also several hull, engine, turret and suspension designs to allow companies with different capabilities to be involved.
For example, an all welded hull, an all cast hull and a 'hybrid' part cast and part welded hull.
Also engines, an air cooled radial, a V8 petrol, pair of diesels or five packard 4 cylinder truck engines.

If anything the British should have joined in and produced Shermans.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Yes they could.
It wasn't the way British tanks were built that was the problem it was the design process and production decisions.

LMS workshops were capable ofvery fine precision work, look at their locomotives.

Shermans were designed to be built by companies with no experience of building tanks.
There were also several hull, engine, turret and suspension designs to allow companies with different capabilities to be involved.
For example, an all welded hull, an all cast hull and a 'hybrid' part cast and part welded hull.
Also engines, an air cooled radial, a V8 petrol, pair of diesels or five packard 4 cylinder truck engines.

If anything the British should have joined in and produced Shermans.
Click to expand...

Not Packard. The Chrysler A57 Multibank engine was based on clustering 5 6-cylinder 251 C.I. engines to drive a common output shaft. They powered the M4A4 version. The hull was about a foot longer to accommodate the new power plant.
 

Attachments

  • untitled.jpg
    untitled.jpg
    46.8 KB · Views: 6
Last edited:
Pope130 said:
Not Packard. The Chrysler A57 Multibank engine was based on clustering 5 6-cylinder 251 C.I. engines to drive a common output shaft. They powered the M4A4 version. The hull was about a foot longer to accommodate the new power plant.
Click to expand...

Yes, chrysler, I don't know why I typed packard!

The US didn't use the M4A4, they were all shipped to allies, mainly the British.
They were pigs to do a routine service on but were surprisingly reliable in service. An engine could stop but the whole plant would keep running. Service crews found it was quicker to replace the whole pack rather than try a main service with the thing in situ and they got very speedy at engine swapping.

Main identifying feature for the M4A4 is the top of the radiator with it's filler cap protruding above the deck plate just behind the turret. The increased length is hard to spot if there isn't a 'normal' tank alongside as it is just a slightly wider spacing of the suspension units.

http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/sherman_types/m4a4/m4a4.html
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
Yes, chrysler, I don't know why I typed packard!

The US didn't use the M4A4, they were all shipped to allies, mainly the British.
They were pigs to do a routine service on but were surprisingly reliable in service. An engine could stop but the whole plant would keep running. Service crews found it was quicker to replace the whole pack rather than try a main service with the thing in situ and they got very speedy at engine swapping.

Main identifying feature for the M4A4 is the top of the radiator with it's filler cap protruding above the deck plate just behind the turret. The increased length is hard to spot if there isn't a 'normal' tank alongside as it is just a slightly wider spacing of the suspension units.

http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/sherman_types/m4a4/m4a4.html
Click to expand...
It was a remarkable production expedient. With over forty-nine thousand Shermans built over four years, single sourcing the power plant would not have worked. I'm impressed by how well it worked. 30 cylinders, only 6 of which were operating in the "as designed" orientation.
The greater length of the M4A4 hull later proved an advantage. With a longer engine bay it was the easiest to convert to a modern diesel engine, and provided more room in the self propelled gun conversions. This is the L-33 155mm SPG, converted from an M4A4 hull. You can easily see the wider spacing of the suspension units.
 

Attachments

  • 800px-L-33-Roem-beyt-hatotchan-3.jpg
    800px-L-33-Roem-beyt-hatotchan-3.jpg
    80.7 KB · Views: 3
Captain_Swoop said:
Nope, even they are standard equipment for the HVSS Sherman as the new suspension and track was wider than the hull.
Click to expand...

Yes, I see. You're right. I found this on reddit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/6k5zka/tanks_of_combat_command_a_11th_armored_division/

It finally has the proper bad-ass stance and a big gun with a muzzle brake. What turret is that? It's got the look.

And speaking of Mis-representations here's a Sherman standing in for German Tank

It's a made for TV seventies film featuring a Sherman in lots of sand. Pretty good for its time and has that cuckoo-crazy esoteric Seventies ending (and Troy McClure!!). Lot's of lens flare and That final crane shot.



Anyway Goto 16:28 for Golden Hour quasi-Dutch Angles of the Sherman.


Whoops. Wrong thread. Oh well ....
 
Last edited:
I would say it is an M4A3E8.

That is a 'big hatch' M4 welded hull with the Ford GAA V8 engine, 76mm gun turret and the HVSS suspension. Post D-Day. This variant was only manufactured by Chrysler who produced 2617 units.

Post war other variants were re-engineered with the HVSS suspension.

Scroll down this page, example towards the bottom

http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/sherman_types/m4a3/m4a3.html

Lots of links to specific details from the index page to help with ID
http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/index.html
 
Elagabalus said:
Yes, I see. You're right. I found this on reddit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/6k5zka/tanks_of_combat_command_a_11th_armored_division/

It finally has the proper bad-ass stance and a big gun with a muzzle brake. What turret is that? It's got the look.

....
Click to expand...

That's the T-23 pattern turret used on the later Shermans. The T-23 was an experimental MBT, that eventually led to the Pershing. When it was decided to upgun the Sherman the larger T-23 turret was adopted. The gun is the 76.2mm M1A1 gun. It replaced the earlier Sherman's 75mm gun. The 76.2 was a much more effective anti-tank gun than the 75mm. The 75mm gunned tanks were kept in service as they had a better HE round, more effective against infantry, bunkers and conventional anti-tank guns.
 
The 76 was a bit of a disappointment, this was recognised pretty quickly and a design for an American 'Firefly' with a 17pdr was drawn up and they were ordered in early 1945, but with the end of the war in Europe imminent the order was cancelled beforethe order was completed. They were based on M4 composites, M4A3s as well as M4A3E8s. The completed units were transferred to the British apart from 80 who's fate remains uncertain to this day. There is only one known photo which shows a number of M4 composite Fireflies with 17 pdrs in a storage area.
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
The 76 was a bit of a disappointment. , they should have gone with the 17pdr as was contemplated for a while.
Click to expand...

That would have been a better choice at the time, but it had more to do with the ammunition than the gun. All other things being equal, the British AP projectiles outperformed everything else on the market. I recall reading the US Army test report, comparing US, British and German rounds. They got to fooling around, and found the best performance was with the 17pdr projo, loaded over German powder, in the US 76.2 shell case.

Post-war ammo through the same gun proved effective against T-34s in Korea and in the '56 War.
 
M4A3E8 Tasca kit built 'out of the box' with no additions or mods.



I love Shermans, I have as many Shermans built as as everything else in my collection combined although I don't have many actual US versions. Most of mine are Commonwealth.
 
The final Sherman . Israeli M51, French 75mm gun derived from the German Panther, a huge steel counterweight welded to the turret rear and a diesel engine package.
Because of the rlimited recoil space available in the turret they were only fired with the gun pointing forwards and the transmission in neutral to allow the whole tank to move to absorb the shock.
Israel sold them to Lebanon and Chile where they served up in to the late 80s.
They were based on the cast M4a1 hull with the HVSS suspension.
There is a good preserved example at the Eden Camp museum in North Yorkshire near where I live.

 
Last edited:
M-50 used the French 75, derived from the Panther gun. The M-51 used a 105mm low pressure gun. It was a shortened version of the gun used in the AMX-30.

This is the earlier M-50, on a late production hull.
 

Attachments

  • 800px-M50-Supersherman-latrun-1.jpg
    800px-M50-Supersherman-latrun-1.jpg
    133.3 KB · Views: 1
Last edited:
Pope130 said:
That would have been a better choice at the time, but it had more to do with the ammunition than the gun. All other things being equal, the British AP projectiles outperformed everything else on the market. I recall reading the US Army test report, comparing US, British and German rounds. They got to fooling around, and found the best performance was with the 17pdr projo, loaded over German powder, in the US 76.2 shell case.

Post-war ammo through the same gun proved effective against T-34s in Korea and in the '56 War.
Click to expand...

The 76mm turret with the 17pdr would have been awesome.
There was probably enough room in there for the 20pdr as well but by the time that was developed the Centurion was in service.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
I would say it is an M4A3E8.

That is a 'big hatch' M4 welded hull with the Ford GAA V8 engine, 76mm gun turret and the HVSS suspension. Post D-Day. This variant was only manufactured by Chrysler who produced 2617 units.

Post war other variants were re-engineered with the HVSS suspension.

Scroll down this page, example towards the bottom

http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/sherman_types/m4a3/m4a3.html

Lots of links to specific details from the index page to help with ID
http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/index.html
Click to expand...

Apparently, according to the comments, the Sherman behind the truck coming down into the river is a "Jumbo".
 
Trebuchet said:
Possibly stupid question: what was the actual caliber of the US 75 and 76mm guns? My guess is both were actually 3.0 inches, just needed to be differentiated?
Click to expand...

No they were different; the 75mm was a descendant of the French 75mm, and the 76mm a new 3in gun.

Of course the British had a 77mm gun (actually 3in) which was a same calibre variant of the 17pdr...
 
Trebuchet said:
You're obviously just having us on, Captain, those are clearly real tanks!

Wasn't there a modeling thread on our other forum? You should go post those there!
Click to expand...

There's a modelling thread on this forum as well.
I have posted the Firefly on it
 
Trebuchet said:
Possibly stupid question: what was the actual caliber of the US 75 and 76mm guns? My guess is both were actually 3.0 inches, just needed to be differentiated?
Click to expand...

That's more or less it, the 17pdr was 76.2 mm as well.
 
Elagabalus said:
Apparently, according to the comments, the Sherman behind the truck coming down into the river is a "Jumbo".
Click to expand...


M4A3E2 Assault Tank "Jumbo"
This was only manufactured by Fisher Body, 254 units produced.
It was a 'big hatch' version with the 76mm turret but had 75mm gun.
They had extra armour added to the hull and a thicker gun mantlet, a thicker differential cove..
 
I read that the British didn't completely switch over to the firefly because the HE was better for the standard 75mm gun. Was the US 76mm better for HE too?
 
No, the 76 wasn't good for HE, the 75 was better.

British deployment of Firefly at D-Day was 1 in 4. As more became available this increased but was never more than 50% as the 75 was too useful.
Most targets were softskins, earthworks, building etc. Even against armour the 75 could take on most of the stuff it came up against.
You only really needed a Firefly against a Panther or Tiger.

A Firefly would be singled out by german AT gunners if they saw it so they tended to advance behind the 75s and attempts were made to camouflage the length of the gun by painting part of it white and fitting fake muzzle brakes half way along the barrel.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom