This is for Carlos or anyone who might educate me on these name types of M4 Sherman Tanks. I’ve been seeing unique types of Sherman tanks in Scalemates website.
Tom, the Sherman family is a deep dive. Without even going into names, which is a subject all of its own, there are four basic automotive types, variants for hulls on each of those, and then variants on turrets/armaments on all of them.
Automotively:
M4 & M4A1- automotively identical with both types being powered by a gasoline radial engine
M4A2: powered by twin diesel engines- reserved primarily for Lean Lease users. Some used by USMC tank battalions
M4A3: powered by a Ford GAA V-8 gasoline engine
M4A4: powered by a multibank Chrysler gasoline engine. Essentially 5 inline cylinder banks around a common drive shaft. Also reserved primarily for Lend Lease users
Hulls:
early: 57* multi piece glacis with small hatches and “dry” ammo stowage. Earliest types had direct vision slots for driver and assistant driver. Later had direct vision slots replaced by periscopes in both positions. M4A1 upper hull was a solid one piece casting, while all other types had multiple welded pieces of rolled flat armor plates. M4A4 had an extended length hull due to larger engine. All had “dry” stowage of exposed ammo racks in the hull side sponsons. After initial battlefield reports, external armor plates were added over hull ammo racks
late: 47* single piece glacis with large hatches and “wet” ammo stowage (in most cases). Single piece glacis eliminate shot traps of the earlier glacis. Also had thicker plate. Late large hatch M4 75mm gun tanks had the cast forward portion of the M4A1 combined with the welded rear portion for the “hybrid/composite” hull, and still retained the “dry” stowage of hull sponson ammo racks. M4 Composite hull had external add on plates over ammo racks
M4 105mm had ammo stowage moved to “wet” bins in the hull floor.
M4A1 75mm had “dry” sponson ammo stowage, with thickened armor in the hull casting in ammo rack areas
M4A1 76mm had “wet” ammo bin hull floor stowage
M4A2 75mm had “dry” hull sponson ammo stowage. Had add on external armor plates over ammo racks
M4A2 76mm had “wet” hull floor ammo stowage
M4A3 75mm, 105mm, and 76mm had hull floor “wet” ammo bins
M4A4 was not produced in 47* large hatches version.
“Wet” ammo bins were armored ammunition racks jacketed with chambers filled with a water & glycol mix to reduce the chance of ammunition fires if penetrated by hot shrapnel or spalling
Turrets:
Low bustle 75mm gun. Initial production had single hatch for commander. Mantlets started with narrow M34 gun shield, later changed to the wide M34A1 mantlet. Intermediate M34 types had add on separate shield added to the co ax .30 cal. MG. Like the hull, after initial battlefield reports, external armor plating was added to the right side turret front to compensate for a thinner area in the armor.
High bustle 75mm & 105mm gun. Oval Hatch added for the loader, based upon battlefield feedback reports. Wide M34A1 mantlet on all types. On,y manufactured for large hatch hulls. M4 and M4A3 hulls were only types to have 105mm guns. M4 Composite, M4A1 (small number) M4A2, and M4A3 (largest number built) produced in 75mm gun type. Bustle raised to clear new larger hatches on 47* hull. Cast armor thickened on right front where external patch and previously been applied. Late high bustle turret had the same Commanders hatch as used on T23 turret.
T23 76mm turret
76mm gun armed turret developed for T23 tank, adopted to M4 tank. Early and late type had a new single piece commanders hatch with multiple vision ports for all around view, as well as a rotating periscope in the hatch. Early T23 turret had a two piece split loaders hatch identical to the commanders hatch of the original 75mm turret. Late T23 turret had the smaller oval shaped loaders hatch identical to the type on the high bustle 75mm/105mm turret.
Suspension:
Initial production M4, M4A1, and M4A2 shared the same Vertical Volute Spring Suspension (VVSS) as with the M3 Medium Lee/Grant tanks. Soon replaced by the trailing arm VVSS suspension, used on the majority of M4s of all types. In late 1944, the new Horizontal Volute Spring Suspension, (HVSS) aka “Easy 8”, was introduced with wider tracks to improve mobility. Used on large hatch 47* hulls or all types of 105mm and 76mm gun types.
"Surely I have made my meaning plain? I intend to avenge myself upon you, Admiral. I have deprived your ship of power, and when I swing 'round, I intend to deprive you of your life."
"Surely I have made my meaning plain? I intend to avenge myself upon you, Admiral. I have deprived your ship of power, and when I swing 'round, I intend to deprive you of your life."
I'd never heard about the multibank engine. 30 cylinders 1253CI engine Imagine the tune-up... points plugs and condensers on 5 6 cylinder engines. 1000 ft/lbs of torque! And the article I read said they were pretty reliable - go Mopar! How did these motors never make it into tractor pull rigs. Thanks for posting Stik - super interesting. You are a wealth of information!
Glad you guys like it. I just covered the factory production versions and not any field mods, depot rebuilds, foreign user changes, such as the Firefly, etc.
John, from what I’ve read about the Chrysler Multibank engine it was quite reliable, but a maintenance headache. That’s why is was reserved solely for Lend Lease users. Once the Army got the Ford GAA engine in the A3 version, they ran with it as the preferred version. But most lend lease users and the Marine Corps were content with the Diesel powered A2.
"Surely I have made my meaning plain? I intend to avenge myself upon you, Admiral. I have deprived your ship of power, and when I swing 'round, I intend to deprive you of your life."
I've only just started scratching the surface of Sherman types and even I can see it's a massive black hole to dive deep into... Actually an interesting subject if you get into it though. Thanks for the link Carlos.
Stuart Templeton 'I may not be good but I'm slow...'
Imagine the tune-up... points plugs and condensers on 5 6 cylinder engines. 1000 ft/lbs of torque! And the article I read said they were pretty reliable - go Mopar! How did these motors never make it into tractor pull rigs. Thanks for posting Stik - super interesting. You are a wealth of information!
Actually an interesting subject if you get into it though. Thanks for the link Carlos.