Jump to content


A question about M4 Shermans


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

spenny506 #1 Posted Jan 31 2015 - 11:03

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 20174 battles
  • 91
  • [INDIG] INDIG
  • Member since:
    08-17-2013

Just finished the 2nd ID Museums tour and have a couple of quick questions about the M4 Sherman.

 

 

When was the last M4(variant) with 75mm used by the US Army?

Was the M4 75mm used in The Battle of Chipyong-ni?

If anybody has answers I'd appreciate it, documentation is appreciated.



BlackStealth08 #2 Posted Jan 31 2015 - 11:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 12424 battles
  • 3,348
  • Member since:
    03-14-2013
M4 was retired in 1955 in the United States. That's not to say non military based organizations stopped using it. A lot of post war equipment from WWII was used years after and some countries still use M4s today.

KaiserWilhelmShatner #3 Posted Jan 31 2015 - 11:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 17115 battles
  • 4,993
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012
The model Sherman that was chosen to remain in inventory was the M4A3E8 after the war.  So say '46-47 when the 75mm armed ones were discarded would be a good guess.  As for the 2nd question the first sentence answers that as well.

Legiondude #4 Posted Jan 31 2015 - 17:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 20522 battles
  • 23,191
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

There was at least 1 M4A3E8 equipped with a 75 that was part of the action in clearing Pilsen in 1945

 

But standardization to the 76 had been underway since the start of 1944, and the army named it's star as the M4A3(76) W HVSS. So by Korea it would be a given there would be no more 75's left



spenny506 #5 Posted Feb 01 2015 - 02:11

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 20174 battles
  • 91
  • [INDIG] INDIG
  • Member since:
    08-17-2013
Thanks for the answers, off to the 2ID museum I go!         

EmberTheDragoness #6 Posted Feb 04 2015 - 15:40

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 6617 battles
  • 589
  • Member since:
    09-11-2011
I do have a question, WHat was the difference between the 75 and 76? 1mm of diameter cant really have that much effect can it?

Sad_But_Drew #7 Posted Feb 04 2015 - 16:13

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 27130 battles
  • 433
  • Member since:
    06-10-2013
Not diameter, projectile velocity.  More propellent, +longer barrel equals better penetration ( and a flatter shell trajectory).  76mm was better than the old 75, which was better than the mark iv's first gun and was beaten by the panther gun (75) and the 17lb (76.2, three-inch).  Note that more velocity meant less explosive filling (the 17lb had a special HE shell of lower velocity).  There were trade offs.

blurr91 #8 Posted Feb 10 2015 - 03:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 14621 battles
  • 2,549
  • Member since:
    05-21-2011

View PostColeDragonKnight1, on Feb 04 2015 - 06:40, said:

I do have a question, WHat was the difference between the 75 and 76? 1mm of diameter cant really have that much effect can it?

 

The 75mm gun was a derivative of the famous French 75mm developed before WW1.  It was a fantastic field gun.  It had high rate of fire and a round that carried a lot of explosive filler.  But, it was a field gun, with relatively low velocity, useful against soft targets rather than hard targets like a tank.

 

M1A1 76mm gun used a different ammunition, one with much more propellant.  More propellant gives the round higher velocity, useful against armor.  However, that makes it a relatively poor field gun because a high velocity round needs thicker shell wall to withstand the high presser in the barrel.  Thicker shell wall reduces space for explosive filler.  So M1A1 76mm gun had relatively poor HE performance, not that useful for infantry support.  High velocity AP round with tiny amount of filler just doesn't do much against dispersed targets and earthen fortifications.



sPzAbt505 #9 Posted Jun 03 2015 - 19:31

    Captain

  • Players
  • 18709 battles
  • 1,645
  • [-TOG-] -TOG-
  • Member since:
    06-10-2011

View PostColeDragonKnight1, on Feb 04 2015 - 09:40, said:

I do have a question, WHat was the difference between the 75 and 76? 1mm of diameter cant really have that much effect can it?

 

Just because the other answers may not have been clear....

In terms of what a 75mm or 76mm projective can be made to do, there's little difference -- all things equal the 76mm will be a tiny bit heavier and so at the same velocity will have a tiny bit more energy but not so much more so to make the 76 an inherently better choice. 

 

In terms of US tank/TD guns, as noted, it has to do with the basic. dated design of the M2/M3 low-velocity 75mm gun and the newer 76mm guns designed for higher velocity.  There's no reason the US could not have designed a 75mm gun to do the same thing, they simply chose to go with the 76.

 

 

 

 



collimatrix #10 Posted Jun 03 2015 - 21:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 12102 battles
  • 2,792
  • Member since:
    02-01-2011

View PostColeDragonKnight1, on Feb 04 2015 - 15:40, said:

I do have a question, WHat was the difference between the 75 and 76? 1mm of diameter cant really have that much effect can it?

 

Courtesy of shapeshifter:

 

 

The projectile is (almost) the same diameter, but the propellant case has far more gunpowder in it.

 

This is a fairly rough estimation of gun performance; note that the 3" is noticeably bigger than the 76mm, but they have almost identical performance because the 76mm operates at higher pressures.



NoldatESG #11 Posted Jun 04 2015 - 01:41

    Major

  • Players
  • 24604 battles
  • 2,096
  • [ESG] ESG
  • Member since:
    05-28-2012
Don't know the specs, but Israel used Shermans into the 70s at least and were fitted with very long-barelled high-velocity guns.

Priory_of_Sion #12 Posted Jun 04 2015 - 01:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 14866 battles
  • 6,759
  • Member since:
    11-08-2011

View Post_Tex, on Jun 03 2015 - 19:41, said:

Don't know the specs, but Israel used Shermans into the 70s at least and were fitted with very long-barelled high-velocity guns.

Yeah, they used a french 75 mm gun from the AMX-13 and a 105 mm gun similar to the gun on the AMX-30. Israel then sold some of those "Super" Shermans to Chile who refitted them with 60 mm HV guns and used them into the early 2000s. Argentina recieved some British M4 "Fireflies" after WWII and also added a french 105 mm gun to it and was in service until about the same time as the Chilean M4s. 

 

Pakistan also mounted the 76 mm gun from the PT-76 onto some of their M4s.

 

Yugoslavia takes the cake by mounting a 122 mm Soviet A-19 cannon, which is the same cannon on the IS-2. 

 

So many Shermans. Fought on 6/7 continents. 


Edited by Priory_of_Sion, Jun 04 2015 - 01:57.


Zinegata #13 Posted Jun 04 2015 - 03:25

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9922 battles
  • 5,425
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

There was also one awful looking variant by the Egyptians which mated an AMX-13 turret with a Sherman.

 

It also pays to remember that not all Shermans actually made it to Europe in time for the war, which is why so many ended up as hand-me-downs to other militaries. Even the Soviets loved the things and gave them exclusively to Guard Tanks units (in part because they got so many of the 76mm variant)



Colddawg #14 Posted Jun 04 2015 - 13:40

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 45846 battles
  • 3,917
  • [ICON-] ICON-
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010
The 75 or 76 designation was for logistics purposes.  They're the same diameter.

Blackhorse_Six_ #15 Posted Jun 04 2015 - 16:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 53680 battles
  • 10,030
  • [HHT] HHT
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

Shermans were used extensively in Korea because they were lighter and more maneuverable than the heavier M26 / M46 tanks also deployed but generally redirected to terrain better suited to them.

 

M4s could use the narrow roads and cuts two-by-two in the mountainous terrain with less wear on the road grade and, being lighter, were less prone to getting mired in soft terrain once off the road grade.

 

Although there may have been some un-named cross-attachments to form Task Forces or to augment the 23rd RCT, there are no tanks / armor units listed in their initial Order of Battle for The Battle of Chipyong-ni.

 

Elements of Task Force Crombez (5th Cavalry), which reinforced the 23rd RCT on the 2nd day, may have been equipped with M4A3s

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chipyong-ni

 

https://en.wikipedia..._(United_States)

 

 



iraqiwildman #16 Posted Jun 04 2015 - 16:17

    Captain

  • Players
  • 36091 battles
  • 1,035
  • [MO-JO] MO-JO
  • Member since:
    04-18-2011

View PostBlackhorse_Six, on Jun 04 2015 - 09:08, said:

Shermans were used extensively in Korea because they were lighter and more maneuverable the the heavier M26 / M46 tanks also deployed but generally redirected to terrain better suited to them.

 

M4s could use the narrow roads and cuts two-by-two with less wear on the road grade and, being lighter, were less prone to getting mired in soft terrain once off the road grade.

 

Also the M26 Pershings were having engine/transmission problems. The Army went with the more reliable M4A3E8.

 

I am impressed with the accurate info in the post do far.

I think the last M4s that were still in service in the early 2000s was in Chile.



Priory_of_Sion #17 Posted Jun 04 2015 - 16:59

    Major

  • Players
  • 14866 battles
  • 6,759
  • Member since:
    11-08-2011

View Postiraqiwildman, on Jun 04 2015 - 10:17, said:

I think the last M4s that were still in service in the early 2000s was in Chile.

Paragauy may still use the M4 Firefly today. I've seen nothing on their retirement. 



Walter_Sobchak #18 Posted Jun 04 2015 - 21:27

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

Part of the Sherman's advantage over the later Patton tanks in the Korean terrain had to do with the transmission.  According to Korean war veteran Joseph Klekotta:

 

http://www.koreanwar-educator.org/memoirs/klekotta_joseph/index.htm#WorldWarIIM4Tanks

If the crews took good care of them, they were a lot better in Korea than M47 and M48s because they could travel in mountains better. The M4s had manual transmissions and five forward gears.  If the M4 was put in low gear, it could climb or go through just about anything.  The newer M47 and M48s had automatic transmissions and could not climb very well.  In fact, many times our M4s had to go out and pull them up over the mountain passes.

 

 



Meplat #19 Posted Jun 04 2015 - 23:20

    Major

  • Players
  • 6774 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View PostColddawg, on Jun 04 2015 - 05:40, said:

The 75 or 76 designation was for logistics purposes.  They're the same diameter.

 

Effectively, yes. The obturator rings are the major difference between 3" and 76mm, and 76mm and 75mm.

collimatrix #20 Posted Jun 05 2015 - 02:54

    Major

  • Players
  • 12102 battles
  • 2,792
  • Member since:
    02-01-2011

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Jun 04 2015 - 21:27, said:

Part of the Sherman's advantage over the later Patton tanks in the Korean terrain had to do with the transmission.  According to Korean war veteran Joseph Klekotta:

 

 

 

 

M47s and M48s in Korea?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users