Interesting Sherman facts/myths (WiP)

[H0ffmn]

Direct vision Sherman hulls had the driver and hull m.g. hatch periscopes, but not both a forward view periscope in front of the hatches and the hatch periscopes.

[Pinky]

I vaguely remembered there being what I had assumed to be a representation of the DV block on the front of the hood. All four of my completed ones have the plates glued in place so I cannot check.

No, there are no vision ports.

Here is the picture of the US Army tanks with the appliqué plate over the recognition star:

Having looked through my references, it's certainly true that these armour plates on the glacis seem to have been rare on British Shermans.  I could only find photos of a few that had them, and nearly all of them were Fireflies.  There are also quite a few British Shermans in Normandy with direct vision ports and appliqué armour on the sides but without the plates on the glacis.  Perhaps the British preferred not to fit them?

[ultravanillasmurf]

Perhaps the British preferred not to fit them?

Or they were busy welding them on the US tanks (and getting paid for it ^___^).

[ripley]

My bad , your right , direct vision and hatch periscope only . Never realized that before  I wonder what else I think I know , but don't    I blame it on old age

[Pinky]

That's why these discussions are useful.  There's always stuff we think we understand but don't.  It happens to the experts too.

[ultravanillasmurf]

Up until a year ago I did not realise that Shermans were so complicated. They just seem to get more complicated.

These discussions are very useful.

[Pinky]

Up until a year ago I did not realise that Shermans were so complicated. They just seem to get more complicated.

I hadn't realised that Shermans had so many modifications during production.  Things like the pistol port being eliminated then reinstated.  Nor (till I was directed to the Shadock site) did I know about features like the 'thin spot' on the turret - I'd previously thought the appliqué armour on the turret was to protect the most vulnerable part of the gun breech.  I think many sources give the impression that the Sherman was relatively primitive, with its railway carriage suspension, vertical armour and WW1-vintage gun.  But in many ways it was a more advanced (and better equipped) tank than its contemporaries. 

I'm still working on my 'interesting facts' post, although it's become rather bloated.  It's amazing how contradictory the literature can be.

[ultravanillasmurf]

Having bought the bumper bargain box of M4A4s at Warfare, I dug out some photographs from the IWM.

http://ultravanillasmurf.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/m4a4-sherman-v-imperial-war-museum.html

I might have some from the Tank Museum (normal museum item warnings apply).

Hood armour plates shown here:


A recent addition to my library is Sherman Tanks British Army and Royal Marines-Normandy Campaign 1944 by Dennis Oliver published by Pen and Sword 2016.

It includes a list of who had what  Shermans on strength for June 1944.

[Pinky]

Is the Dennis Oliver book good?  I've been waiting for it to be released.

[ultravanillasmurf]

I have never read any of Mr Oliver's previous work and unlike the Osprey books there is no mini-biography.

The book is 64 pages plus covers.

There are a number of photographs in the book that I do not have in other books (including a third photograph of Brigadier Harvey's tank, though not showing the Panzerschreck box on the right mudguard).

The colour section (12 pages) is informative and back references the photographs.

The model photograph pages (10) are less useful and the  supplier pages (10) (with the exception of Company B decals) do not cover 1/56 scale.

!Edit: I noticed the S and S Firefly conversion today, sorry!

The three page Normandy timeline feels a bit like padding, a simple map would have sufficed.

The text is informative, and the who had what table is the first I have seen.

From the book my Sherman I tanks were not part of second Armoured Battalion Coldstream Guards and even if they were, they would not have had squadron markings, using a continuous numbering scheme. The latter appears to contradict British Tanks in Normandy (or at least how I had read it).

Overall the book is good, but I would suggest you have a look first before you buy.

[Pinky]

I bought this book.  I think it's a bit underwhelming.  Not many new photos, and the text tends to rehearse British Tanks in Normandy - I wish he'd focused on the tanks themselves and not the units they were in.  But the artwork is useful and the modelling section has some lovely Sherman models.  There's also a good 'how to spot a Sherman' guide.