Jump to content


A question about M4 Shermans


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

Zinegata #21 Posted Jun 05 2015 - 02:58

    Major

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

View Postcollimatrix, on Jun 05 2015 - 09:54, said:

 

M47s and M48s in Korea?

 Wiki says they didn't see action in Korea, yes, the M47 still being in development. He may have meant the Pershing.



Blackhorse_Nine_ #22 Posted Jun 05 2015 - 03:19

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 7870 battles
  • 360
  • [HHT] HHT
  • Member since:
    08-06-2011

View PostZinegata, on Jun 04 2015 - 20:58, said:

 Wiki says they didn't see action in Korea, yes, the M47 still being in development. He may have meant the Pershing.

 

M46s were delivered to Korea ...

 

Mobile combat in Korea was pretty much past when M47s began their initial deployment in USAREUR in 1952.

 

I have never read a solid explaination of why M47s were not deployed to the Korean combat zone other than the implied priority on holding our side of the Iron Curtain in Europe.

 

Noting that North Korea did not possess a vehicle more advanced than the T-34/85 while the Soviets were deploying the T-55 may have been sufficient and obvious reason enough.



Walter_Sobchak #23 Posted Jun 05 2015 - 07:11

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010
I noticed that and figured it was the typical type of error you see in veteran testimony.  Perhaps he served a few years after the war when the M47/48 was in service and confused the designations with M26/46?  Still, it does not negate his observation about the Sherman transmission.

collimatrix #24 Posted Jun 05 2015 - 13:16

    Major

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

I'm not so sure.  I had seen similar comments about the sherman's superior handling on the awful roads in Korea attributed to different track design as well as higher power to weight ratio.

 

That, and I have a pretty reliable source showing that M26s had a manually selectable low range.



Walter_Sobchak #25 Posted Jun 05 2015 - 16:15

    Major

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

View Postcollimatrix, on Jun 05 2015 - 07:16, said:

I'm not so sure.  I had seen similar comments about the sherman's superior handling on the awful roads in Korea attributed to different track design as well as higher power to weight ratio.

 

That, and I have a pretty reliable source showing that M26s had a manually selectable low range.

 

Good point Collimatrix.  The veteran testimony I linked to served from January to August of 1953, the tail end of the war.  If we can believe wikipedia, most M26 tanks were removed from Korea by 1951 and replaced by the M46, so it's most likely that the veteran is comparing his Sherman with the M46 equipped with the CD-850 transmission, not the Pershing "Torqmatic" transmission.

 

 

Block Quote

The first school I attended, Track Vehicle Mechanics School, was at Ft. Knox, Kentucky, from April 1952 to July 1952.  We learned how to repair and maintain M4 tanks. We were taught by military instructors in the classroom, and hands-on we worked on M4 tanks. It was a very good school and I learned a lot.  The second school I attended was in the city of Ft. Wayne, Michigan.  Classes were held right in the factory where they built M47 and M48 tanks. The school was named, “The New Ordinance.”  I was there from October 1952 to December 1952.  Civilian instructors taught us all about the hydraulic and electrical systems of the M47 and M48 turrets, and how to find troubles and then how to fix them. This, too, was a very good school.  I enjoyed going to both schools. So I was in Camp Polk from January 1952 to December1952 except for the 7 months I was away at the 2 schools. After my training was completed at Camp Polk, I drove my car to Berea, Ohio in early December 1952.

 

 

Later on he notes:

Block Quote

 

The 245th was the only tank battalion in Korea with World II M4 tanks. 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.

It took five persons to operate a tank.  The driver was also in charge of some maintenance and inspections.  The assistant driver also was the .30 caliber machine gunner on the tank.  The loader supplied ammo to .30 and .50 caliber gunners and loaded the 76mm cannon.  The gunner sighted and fired the 76mm cannon.  The tank commander ran the whole show and fired the .50 caliber machine gun.  Many times we were not allowed to shoot the .76mm gun because we had overshot our quota the day before.  How can you win a war and be held to shooting six or seven shots a day??

The interior of a tank was clean and neat.  There were radios, an auxiliary generator, just enough tools to get by on minor repairs, four periscopes to see out when all closed up, a telescope and a vision cupola.  There was a place for everything and a storage space for all ammunition.  There were three escape hatches top side and one in the floor so one could get out under the tank. 

There were perks being inside a tank.  One was out of the weather, protected from shrapnel, and the crew did not have to live in foxholes!!  But being inside a tank was very close quarters so one had to get along with the rest of the crew.  Furthermore, it was hot as hell inside the tank in the summer and cold in the winter.  Well, actually the cold was not too bad in the winter because the engine and transmission kept the tank warm.

When on the MLR, tank personnel were on duty 24 hours.  Our tanks were used as artillery pieces and were dug in on the MLR giving cover the infantry.  (I think infantrymen were glad to see tanks in their area because we gave them a lot of cover.)  In Korea most of the fighting was done at night so crews could get out during the day for sleep and to clean the tank and themselves.

I never saw anything in Korea that I considered an atrocity--none whatsoever.  I think most stories were a bunch of [edited].  But tank crews sometimes had casualties.  They didn't happen while I was in Company B, but a replacement was lost on the second day he was on the MLR when he got hit by an incoming mortar shell.  Also, a tank crew lost five men when a breech block malfunctioned and blew up on a defective .76mm gun.  (A breech block is a movable piece of metal which closes the end of the barrel of the 76-mm cannon. It holds the shell until it is fired.) The tank caught on fire and the .76 ammo blew up in the fire.  The Company Commander cried when we lost that crew.  He burned both of his hands trying to get to the men in the tank.

 

Edit: I was just watching the Tankfest US armor myths video by the Chieftain, he says that the Marine corps kept the Pershing in service throughout the Korean war.  However, since this testimony came from an Army tanker, I don't think that affects what I posted up top.  


Edited by Walter_Sobchak, Jun 06 2015 - 14:15.


iraqiwildman #26 Posted Jun 08 2015 - 22:59

    Captain

  • Players
  • 36111 battles
  • 1,035
  • [MO-JO] MO-JO
  • Member since:
    04-18-2011

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Jun 05 2015 - 09:15, said:

 

Good point Collimatrix.  The veteran testimony I linked to served from January to August of 1953, the tail end of the war.  If we can believe wikipedia, most M26 tanks were removed from Korea by 1951 and replaced by the M46, so it's most likely that the veteran is comparing his Sherman with the M46 equipped with the CD-850 transmission, not the Pershing "Torqmatic" transmission.

 

 

 

 

Later on he notes:

 

Edit: I was just watching the Tankfest US armor myths video by the Chieftain, he says that the Marine corps kept the Pershing in service throughout the Korean war.  However, since this testimony came from an Army tanker, I don't think that affects what I posted up top.

 

That was a really good video from the Chieftain. Lots of info that he got from primary resources to debunk lots of myths.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY

 



The_Chieftain #27 Posted Jun 16 2015 - 02:21

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 14373 battles
  • 9,929
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Jun 05 2015 - 15:15, said:

Later on he notes:

 

Edit: I was just watching the Tankfest US armor myths video by the Chieftain, he says that the Marine corps kept the Pershing in service throughout the Korean war.  However, since this testimony came from an Army tanker, I don't think that affects what I posted up top.  

 

I have also been corrected by Estes. It looks like Marine M26s didn't last beyond 1951 either. I've annotated the video accordingly.



El_Monstro_De_Galleta #28 Posted Jun 16 2015 - 15:26

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 46507 battles
  • 203
  • [-S1K-] -S1K-
  • Member since:
    12-18-2011

View PostZinegata, on Jun 03 2015 - 21:25, said:

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)

 

I think we gave the Soviets around 7000 Shermans. Which variations I have no idea.  We gave them another 3000 tanks which I believe were M3 Lees, and M3 and M5 Stuarts.  From what I read they liked the Shermans alot, especially the reliability.

iraqiwildman #29 Posted Jun 16 2015 - 17:47

    Captain

  • Players
  • 36111 battles
  • 1,035
  • [MO-JO] MO-JO
  • Member since:
    04-18-2011

View PostEl_Monstro_De_Galleta, on Jun 16 2015 - 08:26, said:

 

I think we gave the Soviets around 7000 Shermans. Which variations I have no idea.  We gave them another 3000 tanks which I believe were M3 Lees, and M3 and M5 Stuarts.  From what I read they liked the Shermans alot, especially the reliability.

 

We exported the M4A4 to Russia. These had the Chrysler mutli-bank engine (five 6-cylinder engines arranged on a star pattern) in them and the hulls were about a foot longer.

I think they also got some M4A2, diesel powered tanks too.



GAJohnnie #30 Posted Jun 16 2015 - 18:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 10877 battles
  • 9,553
  • [WCTNT] WCTNT
  • Member since:
    12-22-2012

View PostZinegata, on Jun 03 2015 - 21:25, said:

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

 



iAmEbola #31 Posted Jun 16 2015 - 19:49

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 12477 battles
  • 7,314
  • Member since:
    02-06-2015
^^I actually like that.  That'd be cool to see in game.

Legiondude #32 Posted Jun 16 2015 - 19:57

    Major

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

View Postiraqiwildman, on Jun 16 2015 - 10:47, said:

 

We exported the M4A4 to Russia. These had the Chrysler mutli-bank engine (five 6-cylinder engines arranged on a star pattern) in them and the hulls were about a foot longer.

I think they also got some M4A2, diesel powered tanks too.

You're mixing up the Brits and the Russians

 

Russians got priority with the M4A2 after the Marines, the Brits were weaned off the M4A2 and onto the M4A4



Life_In_Black #33 Posted Jun 17 2015 - 01:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 26288 battles
  • 11,490
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011

View PostZinegata, on Jun 03 2015 - 22:25, said:

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)

 

It wasn't a native Egyptian conversion, although the vehicles were probably converted in Egypt. It was actually a French project for Egypt, back when France was selling to everyone:

 

There's more photos here on this page: http://www.chars-francais.net/2015/index.php/liste-chronologique/de-1945-a-1990?task=view&id=1576

 

View PostiAmEbola, on Jun 16 2015 - 14:49, said:

^^I actually like that.  That'd be cool to see in game.

 

Given it was a French project for Egypt, I'd expect it to appear as a French premium medium.

WileECoyote_PhD #34 Posted Jun 17 2015 - 02:04

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 28362 battles
  • 425
  • Member since:
    10-10-2014

View PostBlackhorse_Six, on Jun 04 2015 - 07:08, said:

...

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 relieved the 23rd RCT on the 2nd day, may have been equipped with M4A3s

 

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

 

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

 

 

The first of these wikipedia articles specifically mentions tanks being assigned to the Regiment, and the included US Army illustration shows a Sherman in action.



tiger61378 #35 Posted Jun 17 2015 - 20:28

    Captain

  • Players
  • 9388 battles
  • 1,464
  • [CAR] CAR
  • Member since:
    07-30-2013
That oddball AMX Sherman is actually probably going to be in game as a French premium...there's some leaked HD screenshots of it around (Check out Status Report, it popped up there).  Possibly part of the second "season" of individual missions.

Life_In_Black #36 Posted Jun 17 2015 - 20:59

    Major

  • Players
  • 26288 battles
  • 11,490
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011

View Posttiger61378, on Jun 17 2015 - 15:28, said:

That oddball AMX Sherman is actually probably going to be in game as a French premium...there's some leaked HD screenshots of it around (Check out Status Report, it popped up there).  Possibly part of the second "season" of individual missions.

 

The one on Status Report is the French M4A1 Revalorisé, which was the French prototype for the Israeli M-51. Nothing's been mentioned yet about the Sherman with the FL-10 turret, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it as a French premium at some point in the future.

Blackhorse_Six_ #37 Posted Jun 18 2015 - 17:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 53738 battles
  • 10,030
  • [HHT] HHT
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

View PostWileECoyote_PhD, on Jun 16 2015 - 20:04, said:

The first of these wikipedia articles specifically mentions tanks being assigned to the Regiment, and the included US Army illustration shows a Sherman in action.

 

There is no mention of any armor unit having been integral, or attatched, to the TO&E of the 23rd RCT in any part of that Wikipedia article.


I have not located any information which details the action of any armor unit attached or integral to the 23rd RCT at Chipyong-ni.

 

The Sherman depicted in the Heritage painting is probably from 5th Cavalry, an element of the 1st Cavalry Division, which arrived on the 2nd day of the battle as an element of TF Crombez. The action depicted in the Heritage painting may be that moment when TF Crombez broke the Chinese line at Chipyong-ni.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_Cavalry_Regiment#Korean_War

 

During the Chipyong-ni defense, 72nd AR was attached to 2nd ID, but I have yet to find a narrative of any part of the 72nd in action at Chipyong-ni. The entirety of the 72nd AR seems to have been tied-up in the fighting around Wonju in support of the 187th RCT and 38th Infantry Rgt. The companies of the battalion were farmed-out to the various regiments throughout the war (sometimes two or three times in a day without actually driving anywhere) - one of them was even sent to support the Marines.

 

During the northward pursuit of withdrawing Chinese forces following the battles at Chipyong-ni and Wonju, B/72 operated in support of 23rd RCT during Operation Killer, 20 FEB - 06 MAR, 1951. It's possible the scene depicted in the Heritage painting is actually about this operation and not the one described. Sometimes, even historians screw-up.

 

From December 1950 thru April 1951, the M26 Pershings on which the 72nd had deployed to Korea were slowly replaced in-theater by Easy Eight Shermans (M4A3E8).


http://cdm16635.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p16635coll14/id/55976



660driver #38 Posted Aug 28 2015 - 02:04

    Captain

  • Players
  • 10389 battles
  • 1,011
  • [POSHY] POSHY
  • Member since:
    11-28-2013

View PostLife_In_Black, on Jun 17 2015 - 01:10, said:

 

It wasn't a native Egyptian conversion, although the vehicles were probably converted in Egypt. It was actually a French project for Egypt, back when France was selling to everyone:

 

There's more photos here on this page: http://www.chars-francais.net/2015/index.php/liste-chronologique/de-1945-a-1990?task=view&id=1576

 

 

Given it was a French project for Egypt, I'd expect it to appear as a French premium medium.

 

 

So that bubble hatch on top must be there to make it easier for the commader to surrender? Sorry guys just had to! Anyway great info guys I never knew there was an autoloader version.



mongoosejake #39 Posted Aug 28 2015 - 02:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 37288 battles
  • 5,354
  • [S-F] S-F
  • Member since:
    11-02-2012

View PostGAJohnnie, on Jun 16 2015 - 12:07, said:

 

 

Love all three vehicles in the picture. The AMX Sherman, the black Pz IV, and the black Stug (looks to be a Stug).




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users