Folks
Where does the US97 M4A1 75mm Sherman fit into the scheme of things? I'm assuming post D-Day and into early '45. So if one wanted to do Cobra into the Ardennes campaign there would be mostly these and a few M4A3s for a bit later, yes?
Cheers
Mike
US97 75mm Sherman
Moderators: dnichols, GHQ, Mk 1
-
Mickel
- E5
- Posts: 326
- Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 2:00 pm
- Location: Adelaide, Australia
-
piersyf
- E5
- Posts: 625
- Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 1:59 pm
- Location: Melbourne Australia
Modernised M4A1 with applique armour was an upgrade done in the US and UK for tanks going to Europe and as far as I can tell were available for D Day. They served through to the end of the war. Some made it to the Pacific so I assume some may have gone to Italy.
The same additions were made to standard M4's, M4A3's and composite hull Shermans. Applique was dropped when wet stowage was introduced for later M4A3's and the M4A3 76mm. I haven't seen any reference to an M4A1 76mm with applique, but given ordinance's tasks I can see the possibility of a 76mm turret being put on a different hull.
The same additions were made to standard M4's, M4A3's and composite hull Shermans. Applique was dropped when wet stowage was introduced for later M4A3's and the M4A3 76mm. I haven't seen any reference to an M4A1 76mm with applique, but given ordinance's tasks I can see the possibility of a 76mm turret being put on a different hull.
-
Mk 1
- E5
- Posts: 2383
- Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2004 3:21 am
- Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Pretty much "yes".
The M4A1 75mm with applique armor was the most common Sherman in US forces that participated in the D-Day landings and post- D-Day Normandie campaign.
The second most common would have been the M4 (no suffix) with applique armor.
These tanks were available in such numbers that they would have remained as prominent factors in many US tank units in the ETO up to the end of the war. Particularly those that fought from the Normandie campaign onwards. Some units which only entered combat in the autumn of 1944 or winter of 44/45 might have been equipped wholly with M4A3s, but those that came ashore in the summer of 1944 would have had M4s and M4A1s, would have only started receiving M4A3s as replacements in the fall.
Typically the Shermans with applique armor did not have the new model turret (with commander's cupola) as GHQ has modelled. Rather, they had the older turret with a flat two-piece commander's hatch, although with applique armor on the right turret "cheek" as GHQ has modelled.
The hull-side applique armor was provided just to put some added protection over the ammo racks in the hull sponsons. Ammunition fires was shown to be a major cause of Sherman 'brew-ups" (rather than the gasoline engine, which is so often mentioned). Experience in Tunisia had shown that even shots which did not penetrate sometimes caused ammo fires by spalling into the racks. So the hull-side appliques were added in an attempt to address this.
The turret applique was added to cover a weak spot where the armor had been thinned to make room for the turret traverse engine near the gunner's seat. Later production turrets (such as those with the cupola) typically had a new turret casting which incorporated a slight bulge on the turret cheek to provide a uniform level of protection across the frontal arc. But I suppose there could have been some with the cupola that still had the applique as well. Whether there were any with the cupola at the time of D-Day I can not say.
The M4A1 75mm with applique armor was the most common Sherman in US forces that participated in the D-Day landings and post- D-Day Normandie campaign.
The second most common would have been the M4 (no suffix) with applique armor.
These tanks were available in such numbers that they would have remained as prominent factors in many US tank units in the ETO up to the end of the war. Particularly those that fought from the Normandie campaign onwards. Some units which only entered combat in the autumn of 1944 or winter of 44/45 might have been equipped wholly with M4A3s, but those that came ashore in the summer of 1944 would have had M4s and M4A1s, would have only started receiving M4A3s as replacements in the fall.
Typically the Shermans with applique armor did not have the new model turret (with commander's cupola) as GHQ has modelled. Rather, they had the older turret with a flat two-piece commander's hatch, although with applique armor on the right turret "cheek" as GHQ has modelled.
The hull-side applique armor was provided just to put some added protection over the ammo racks in the hull sponsons. Ammunition fires was shown to be a major cause of Sherman 'brew-ups" (rather than the gasoline engine, which is so often mentioned). Experience in Tunisia had shown that even shots which did not penetrate sometimes caused ammo fires by spalling into the racks. So the hull-side appliques were added in an attempt to address this.
The turret applique was added to cover a weak spot where the armor had been thinned to make room for the turret traverse engine near the gunner's seat. Later production turrets (such as those with the cupola) typically had a new turret casting which incorporated a slight bulge on the turret cheek to provide a uniform level of protection across the frontal arc. But I suppose there could have been some with the cupola that still had the applique as well. Whether there were any with the cupola at the time of D-Day I can not say.
-Mark 1
Difficile est, saturam non scribere.
"It is hard NOT to write satire." - Decimus Iunius Juvenalis, 1st Century AD
Difficile est, saturam non scribere.
"It is hard NOT to write satire." - Decimus Iunius Juvenalis, 1st Century AD
-
Mk 1
- E5
- Posts: 2383
- Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2004 3:21 am
- Location: Silicon Valley, CA
A bit more on the topic, based on some very recent (this week) personal research...
In considering this issue, I went back through a stack of my photos and came upon this one:
The picture, taken several years ago, shows some clown (
) happily TCing what appears to be an M4A1 with a commander's cupola.
And it appears there is applique armor in view, at least on the left side hull sponson.
Hmmmm. Needs more research, no?
OK, so here is some more detail, based on a visit earlier this week to the MVTF (Military Vehicle Technology Foundation).
Here is the vehicle in question:
It clearly has factory-installed applique armor on the left hull sponson.
It also has factory-installed applique armor on the right hull sponson. And also clearly does NOT have applique armor on the right turret face.
And yes, it has a cupola. But interesting to note, it does NOT have a loader's hatch.
For a point of comparison, here is the catalog pick of GHQ's M4A1 75mm "Modernized" (1943/44 upgrade) Sherman:
The lack of a loader's hatch on the Sherman I was investigating marks it as an older series turret than the turret on the GHQ model. Yet the applique on the right turret face should be more common in older turrets (before the new castings took care of the thinner armor).
Still, not every tank received every applique. But the appliques on the tank I investigated were clearly factory-installed, rather than field retro-fits. (Note how the side hull plates were cut to conform to the curved hull shape -- a characteristic of factory installation vs. field retro-fitting). Yet the turret applique was more common factory-installed, rather than field retro-fitted.
Now for further complications to the back-story. The M4A1 in my pictures above is NOT an M4A1. Rather, it is a Grizzly 1. The Grizzly was a Canadian-produced Sherman (built after they gave up on the indigenous Ram tank). The differences are minor, mostly in the interior fittings. One observable difference is that Grizzlies received the interior-turret-mounted 2-inch smoke mortar before US Shermans did (look for the small hole in the turret roof at the loader's position, above the "Black Magic" name). Seeing that mortar on an earlier model production turret (no loader's hatch) is a visual tell-tale of a Grizzly 1.
Since there is not reason to presume that Canadian production was synchronized with every upgrade in US production, the presence of the cupola, the lack of the loader's hatch, and no turret applique, really gives me nothing conclusive.
So .. after all that mumble-foo, I can only say with certainty that applique and cupola may go together, at least enough so that I would not object to this model Sherman featuring prominently in my US Army in ETO, 1944/45.
(Oh, and I can also say that I like playing with tanks. Small scale, or large.
)
In considering this issue, I went back through a stack of my photos and came upon this one:
The picture, taken several years ago, shows some clown (
) happily TCing what appears to be an M4A1 with a commander's cupola.And it appears there is applique armor in view, at least on the left side hull sponson.
Hmmmm. Needs more research, no?
OK, so here is some more detail, based on a visit earlier this week to the MVTF (Military Vehicle Technology Foundation).
Here is the vehicle in question:
It clearly has factory-installed applique armor on the left hull sponson.
It also has factory-installed applique armor on the right hull sponson. And also clearly does NOT have applique armor on the right turret face.
And yes, it has a cupola. But interesting to note, it does NOT have a loader's hatch.
For a point of comparison, here is the catalog pick of GHQ's M4A1 75mm "Modernized" (1943/44 upgrade) Sherman:
The lack of a loader's hatch on the Sherman I was investigating marks it as an older series turret than the turret on the GHQ model. Yet the applique on the right turret face should be more common in older turrets (before the new castings took care of the thinner armor).
Still, not every tank received every applique. But the appliques on the tank I investigated were clearly factory-installed, rather than field retro-fits. (Note how the side hull plates were cut to conform to the curved hull shape -- a characteristic of factory installation vs. field retro-fitting). Yet the turret applique was more common factory-installed, rather than field retro-fitted.
Now for further complications to the back-story. The M4A1 in my pictures above is NOT an M4A1. Rather, it is a Grizzly 1. The Grizzly was a Canadian-produced Sherman (built after they gave up on the indigenous Ram tank). The differences are minor, mostly in the interior fittings. One observable difference is that Grizzlies received the interior-turret-mounted 2-inch smoke mortar before US Shermans did (look for the small hole in the turret roof at the loader's position, above the "Black Magic" name). Seeing that mortar on an earlier model production turret (no loader's hatch) is a visual tell-tale of a Grizzly 1.
Since there is not reason to presume that Canadian production was synchronized with every upgrade in US production, the presence of the cupola, the lack of the loader's hatch, and no turret applique, really gives me nothing conclusive.
So .. after all that mumble-foo, I can only say with certainty that applique and cupola may go together, at least enough so that I would not object to this model Sherman featuring prominently in my US Army in ETO, 1944/45.
(Oh, and I can also say that I like playing with tanks. Small scale, or large.
)-Mark 1
Difficile est, saturam non scribere.
"It is hard NOT to write satire." - Decimus Iunius Juvenalis, 1st Century AD
Difficile est, saturam non scribere.
"It is hard NOT to write satire." - Decimus Iunius Juvenalis, 1st Century AD
-
kampfgruppe
- E5
- Posts: 126
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 2:55 am
- Location: France
-
hauptgrate
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 2:39 am