Sherman Variants

[Blinx]

From some reading, it appears that there was an M4A3(76) variant.

Would it be appropriate to use the M4A3(75) hull (GHQ kit US74) with the 76mm turret from GHQ kit US23 ? I believe the turret type was called the "T23" turret, if I remember correctly.

Note that this is different that the M4A1(76) and from the M4A3E8 (Easy Eight) Shermans, both of which GHQ currently makes.

Thanks,
Rob

[Mickel]

Yes. Mr One (I believe) did a lengthy post on what Sherman mixes and matches work. I understand the turret pin size is different, but that's not the end of the world.

[Mk 1]

The first 76-armed Sherman to see service with US Army forces was the M4A1(w)76. This is modeled by GHQ. It combined a standard late-war M4A1 (cast hull with radial engine) Sherman with wet ammunition stowage (hence no hull-side applique armor) with the 76mm armed turret off of the aborted T23 tank. Some few hundreds were provided to existing 75mm-armed units during the Normandy campaign, and mixed in as the units saw fit among the M4s, M4A1s, or M4A3s that the units already had.

The second was the M4A3(w)76. This is not currently modelled by GHQ. It used the same turret from the T23 tank now mounted onto the standard M4A3 (welded hull with Ford GAA engine). Distribution to existing units began in the fall of 1944, and it was the most numerous 76mm-armed Sherman varient to see service in the US Army during the war. This was the preferred Sherman hull for US Army forces, with the M4 (welded hull with radial engine) and M4A1 (cast hull with radial engine) as second choices. By late in the ETO campaign the M4A3 was about 50-60% of all US Army Shermans in action.

This more common version of 76mm-armed Sherman can be easily modeled by mixing the hull of the GHQ M4A3(w)75 with the turret of the GHQ M4A1(w)76. As noted, though, you may have some work to do on the turret pegs.

The third 76-armed Sherman to see service with US Army Forces was the M4A3(w)76-HVSS. It combined with T-23 turret with a M4A3 hull using the new HVSS (horizontal volute spring suspension) suspension with wider tracks. This is considered the definitive model of the Sherman, and is often called the M4A3E8 or "easy-8", although that was not the official designation (E8 being the designation of the experimental model of the HVSS hull). This was the most numerous 76mm armed Sherman built, but not the most numerous in service in ETO due to its late arrival, starting only in about December of 1944 and only becoming at all common by about March of 1945. It was the preferred version for retention in US Army units post-war. Many (not all) had a muzzle break on the gun, a feature any of the 76mm armed Shermans could have carried but few did until 1945. (All 76mm M1A1 guns mounted in Sherman76s were threaded for the muzzle break, but most only carried a thread-protector muzzle cap in action.)

There was also an M4A1(w)76-HVSS Sherman, but these were not used by US Army in ETO. It seems some were used by US Army forces in MTO, while most were provided as aid to re-build post-war allies' tank forces.

There was an M4A2-76 in both (w) and non-(w) forms, most were provided to lend-lease allies, the Soviets getting the largest number.

All from memory. Hope I didn't make too many blunders.

[Blinx]

Mark,

Thanks, that was a very thorough explanation of it all and much appreciated by me !

Rob

[Grimbold]

M4A3 (w)76

M = the number of minutes it was designed to survive in battle
A = the number of minutes it actually survived in battle
W = the percentage chance it would go 'whoosh' and explode when hit by a German anti-tank round

[Luca]

I'm just using this tread so I don't have to open a new one.

I have a question about the M4-105mm tank as used in the GHQ rules.

The rules regards this vehicle as an artillery gun. But It makes me very little sense. I mean. The americans already had plenty of artillery assets, towed and SP. I think that this tank is much more usefull as a close support artillery piece, so for the purposes of game limiting its range to a more short one, maybe just 30 inches instead of 60.

I mean, also a PzIII N, if given proper coordinats, could deliver indirect fire.

Please tell me what do you think about it. Thank you. L.

[Mk 1]

I have a question about the M4-105mm tank as used in the GHQ rules.

The rules regards this vehicle as an artillery gun. But It makes me very little sense.

I can not speak for the GHQ rules, as I don't use them and have never read them.

But if they consider the M4 -105mm as an artillery piece that is indeed quite odd.

The M4 -105mm was an assault gun. That was the US Army designation. All tank, cavalry, and armored infantry units were supposed to have assault guns available to support them, normally a platoon (or battery) at battalion level. These were often parceled out to the companies as the local command saw fit.

When the US Army started off in French North Africa the common assualt gun was the T-30 half-track with 75mm howitzer. As this weapon offered no advantage in firepower over an M3 or M4 medium tank, tank units seldom actually took them into combat. But armored cav and armored infantry units in Tunisia certainly did.

Dissatisfaction with this vehicle lead to the adoption of the M8 assault gun (75mm howizter in open-topped turret on an M5 Stuart chassis) for the cav and armored infantry battalions, and even for the light tank battalions in tank units. But it was not until the 105mm-armed M4 began to appear that medium tank units actually got an assault guns that was useful to them. Though late in arriving it was very popular for its direct-fire HE capabilites, and was always in short-supply / high demand.

Any Sherman tank was equipped for indirect fire. But it was VERY rare for Shermans to be used in that role, whether they had 75mm or 105mm armament.

[Luca]

Thank You, this answer is good enought for me!

bye! L.

[Cav Dog]

To add to Mk1's comments, another common usage for the M4/105 was blinding enemy gunners when firing white phosphorous and or smoke rounds. I don't know if GHQ's rules include this capability. It was a fairly common practice.