Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Turret question

Expand Messages
  • michaelclater@clearwater.edu
    I checked my pieces again -- I got the turret description wrong. The larger turret has the oval loader s hatch & the smaller one the bigger round loader s
    Message 1 of 17 , Sep 19, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      I checked my pieces again -- I got the turret description wrong. The
      larger turret has the oval loader's hatch & the smaller one the
      bigger round loader's hatch, which is the same size as or slightly
      larger than the commander's cupola.
      More or less I'm looking to see if the turrets have a difference in
      armor protection. The turrets have different-sized mantlets, the one
      on the smaller turret being thicker than the mantlet on the larger
      turret.

      >1) One source (I can't remember which) mentioned that the first 1500
      76mm turrets had the rotating, split-cover loader's hatch. That this
      >is the early turret is supported by similar turrets being present on
      >T-23-series prototypes.

      I've done some of the research on the "Jumbo" and found same figures
      as you, but the scale I'm dealing with doesn't show added armor plate
      very well (1:285). I know it's not a Lend-Lease M4A2 b/c it doesn't
      have a muzzle brake & I have compared it with pictures I have access
      to...

      Thanks Gary!
      Michael
    • AMPSOne@aol.com
      1) One source (I can t remember which) mentioned that the first 1500 76mm turrets had the rotating, split-cover loader s hatch. That this is the early turret
      Message 2 of 17 , Sep 19, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        1) One source (I can't remember which) mentioned that the first 1500
        76mm turrets had the rotating, split-cover loader's hatch. That this
        is the early turret is supported by similar turrets being present on
        T-23-series prototypes.


        It's in the Hunnicutt book among others. Only the early 76mm A1 models appear
        to have had this turret fitted, the remaining A1s and the rest (A2s and A3s)
        got the ones with oval loader's hatches.

        Cookie Sewell
        AMPS




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Kurt Laughlin
        The M4A3 (76) HVSS in Renovo PA has the split loader s hatch and it appears to have been built that way. KL ... appear ... A3s)
        Message 3 of 17 , Sep 19, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          The M4A3 (76) HVSS in Renovo PA has the split loader's hatch and it appears
          to have been built that way.

          KL

          > It's in the Hunnicutt book among others. Only the early 76mm A1 models
          appear
          > to have had this turret fitted, the remaining A1s and the rest (A2s and
          A3s)
          > got the ones with oval loader's hatches.
        • binder5295@aol.com
          Cookie, You commented that the early turrets appeared only on the M4A1, 76. Just for what it s worth; there s an M4A3,76,HVSS on display in Tecumseh, NE that
          Message 4 of 17 , Sep 19, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            Cookie,

            You commented that the early turrets appeared only on the M4A1, 76.
            Just for what it's worth; there's an M4A3,76,HVSS on display in
            Tecumseh, NE that has a split-cover, ring-type loader's hatch. Don't
            know if it represents a post war rebuild or an earlier tank with HVSS
            added. Many years ago I thought there was an M4A3 at Ft. Knox with
            the early turret. Not at the Patton Museum, but one of the tanks out
            on the post. This was 26 years ago, so I may remember incorrectly.

            Gary Binder
          • AMPSOne@aol.com
            Kinda figures there are no absolutes, which makes sense. Ergo weasel words like appears come in handy! The interesting thing is considering a handful of M4A1
            Message 5 of 17 , Sep 20, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              Kinda figures there are no absolutes, which makes sense. Ergo weasel words
              like "appears" come in handy!

              The interesting thing is considering a handful of M4A1 76mm tanks were
              converted to DD tanks, which necessitated a turret swap as the 76s would not
              fit inside the standard DD Mk. III shrouds, where did their turrets wind up?

              Cookie Sewell
              AMPS


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Kurt Laughlin
              ... not ... up? Cookie: Can you give me source for this? In other words, where is it recorded that they were converted to 75mm rather than being born 75mm?
              Message 6 of 17 , Sep 20, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                > The interesting thing is considering a handful of M4A1 76mm tanks were
                > converted to DD tanks, which necessitated a turret swap as the 76s would
                not
                > fit inside the standard DD Mk. III shrouds, where did their turrets wind
                up?

                Cookie:

                Can you give me source for this? In other words, where is it recorded that
                they were converted to 75mm rather than being "born" 75mm? That would be
                interesting to track down.

                KL
              • AMPSOne@aol.com
                Kurt, This was part of a firefight in JoMO several years ago when Frank Desisto and Phil Dyer got into it over some M4A1 late model hulls sporting DD equipment
                Message 7 of 17 , Sep 20, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  Kurt,

                  This was part of a firefight in JoMO several years ago when Frank Desisto and
                  Phil Dyer got into it over some M4A1 late model hulls sporting DD equipment
                  and 75mm turrets which popped up during the invasion of southern France. No
                  records were found, and no tanks with these turrets were noted being shipped
                  to England.

                  The only thing which made sense would be to swap the 76 turrets for 75
                  turrets (which fit inside the DD screens) in order to have the tanks ready
                  for the invasion. Nobody appears to have any records on this, other than the
                  UK provided the DD sets to the US for the invasion task force.

                  If you can find out anything, you beat the rest of us (less Dyer, who went on
                  a screed saying it was not possible even in the face of photographic evidence
                  to the contrary that the tanks existed).

                  Cookie Sewell
                  AMPS
                • robinson family
                  Hello Gentlemen (and special regards to Cookie) Where do the British M4A1 (wide hull hatch model) fit into the equation: were these ex 76mm or late M4A1 75mm?
                  Message 8 of 17 , Sep 20, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hello Gentlemen (and special regards to Cookie)
                    Where do the British M4A1 (wide hull hatch model) fit into the equation: were
                    these ex 76mm or late M4A1 75mm? Seems the 4/7th RDG used them in Normandy at
                    any rate! I am especially interested as I intend to model one such vehicle
                    shortly.
                    Thanks
                    Merlin

                    Kurt Laughlin wrote:

                    > > The interesting thing is considering a handful of M4A1 76mm tanks were
                    > > converted to DD tanks, which necessitated a turret swap as the 76s would
                    > not
                    > > fit inside the standard DD Mk. III shrouds, where did their turrets wind
                    > up?
                    >
                    > Cookie:
                    >
                    > Can you give me source for this? In other words, where is it recorded that
                    > they were converted to 75mm rather than being "born" 75mm? That would be
                    > interesting to track down.
                    >
                    > KL
                    >
                    >
                    > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                    > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    > G104-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                    > **Please trim your replies**
                    > **Do not post in HTML or "Rich Text" mode**
                    > **Plain ASCII Text only please**
                    > **Attachments will be stripped**
                    > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                    > Sherman Register
                    > http://www.inter.nl.net/users/spoelstra/g104
                    > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                    > G104 mailing list
                    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/G104
                    > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  • Mike Canaday
                    It sure would be interesting to see the documentation that the large hatch DD s were 76mm tanks with turrets swapped. If this were the case then the first
                    Message 9 of 17 , Sep 20, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      It sure would be interesting to see the documentation that the large hatch DD's were 76mm tanks with turrets swapped. If this were the case then the first batch of 76mm tanks had to have been made with dry stowage, or at least with hulls originally cast for dry stowage tanks, since the two recovered (Slapton and Normandy) large hatch DD's have cast in armor reinforcements on them. I suppose it's a possibility that hull castings could have been made for dry stowage tanks, which were never built as such, but later converted into 76mm on the production line.

                      As for converting a 76mm tank to a 75mm tank, I would think the difficulty in fitting a dry stowage turret into a wet stowage hull would have made it easier to pull a 75mm M4A1 or M4 out of storage and use it rather than use up a 76mm tank. The turret rings are the same size, true, but nearly every bit of stowage inside the hull is different and the turret basket floor height was different too, which required a different collector ring mount. I was amazed to see how much was difference there was between a wet stowage and dry stowage tank when I perused through the M4A3 manual. A conversion like that would have required pulling the guts out of another dry stowage tank and putting it into the wet stowage hull, bringing up the question, why not use the original dry stowage tank?. Also if it were as simple to convert a 76mm to a 75mm it should have been just as easy to make a 75mm a 76mm, which would have caused odd things like early dry stowage hull M4's with T23 76mm turrets off of KO'd 76mm M4A1s to be showing up in August 1944 pictures.

                      Well, it's an interesting set of question to ponder.

                      Mike Canaday


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • michaelclater@clearwater.edu
                      I definitely know my examples aren t M4A1 s. I compared the smaller turret to that on my M4A1 (76) & it looks identical (under 2 or 3 layers of paint, that
                      Message 10 of 17 , Sep 20, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I definitely know my examples aren't M4A1's. I compared the smaller
                        turret to that on my M4A1 (76) & it looks identical (under 2 or 3
                        layers of paint, that is). The larger turret does not have quite as
                        thick of a mantlet, but could that partially be due to a thicker
                        overall turret casting?
                        I would also agree that having wet stowage would create necessity of
                        a bigger turret... still haven't figured out why the glacis plate
                        slope is different than the average Sherman, tho.

                        --- In G104@y..., "Mike Canaday" <mmcalc@c...> wrote:
                        > It sure would be interesting to see the documentation that the
                        large hatch DD's were 76mm tanks with turrets swapped. If this were
                        the case then the first batch of 76mm tanks had to have been made
                        with dry stowage, or at least with hulls originally cast for dry
                        stowage tanks, since the two recovered (Slapton and Normandy) large
                        hatch DD's have cast in armor reinforcements on them. I suppose it's
                        a possibility that hull castings could have been made for dry stowage
                        tanks, which were never built as such, but later converted into 76mm
                        on the production line.
                      • binder5295@aol.com
                        - ... than the ... Cookie, I was researching US DD s back in the late 70 s. Following a lead I corresponded with Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. They stated
                        Message 11 of 17 , Sep 21, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          -
                          >
                          > for the invasion. Nobody appears to have any records on this, other
                          than the
                          > UK provided the DD sets to the US for the invasion task force.

                          Cookie,
                          I was researching US DD's back in the late 70's. Following a lead I
                          corresponded with Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. They stated that
                          Firestone constructed 350 sets of DD screens to British plans. They
                          were fitted to tanks at the Lima Tank Depot. Given this to be
                          correct, then we did send M4A1,75mm DD's overseas with large hatches.

                          Regarding no record of M4A1's with that hatch being sent overseas,
                          would these have been classed as "medium tank, M4A1" or would they
                          have been shipped under a euphemism such as "medium tank, special"
                          such as was used for the CDL vehicles. At the time the DD was
                          regarded as a "secret weapon" and probably had some cover designation
                          for shipping and reference.

                          Given also that Firestone made 350 kits, that would explain why the US
                          had extra DD's and that M4A1 DD's show up in British units in some
                          photos.

                          Hope this helps.
                          Gary Binder
                        • AMPSOne@aol.com
                          Gary, That sounds reasonable. Like Carroll said, Curiouser and Curiouser... Cookie Sewell AMPS [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          Message 12 of 17 , Sep 21, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Gary,

                            That sounds reasonable. Like Carroll said, "Curiouser and Curiouser..."

                            Cookie Sewell
                            AMPS


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • panser@panser.dk
                            ... appears ... The M4A3 (76) VVSS at Clerveaux in Luxemburg also has the round split loaders hatch. The same goes for the M4A3 (76) VVSS in Beffe, Belgium.
                            Message 13 of 17 , Sep 23, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In G104@y..., "Kurt Laughlin" <fleeta@s...> wrote:
                              > The M4A3 (76) HVSS in Renovo PA has the split loader's hatch and it
                              appears
                              > to have been built that way.
                              >
                              > KL

                              The M4A3 (76) VVSS at Clerveaux in Luxemburg also has the round split
                              loaders hatch. The same goes for the M4A3 (76) VVSS in Beffe,
                              Belgium. The latter is certianly a wartime wreck. All four 76mm
                              Sherman turrets around Bastogne have the round, split hatch as well,
                              but there is of course no way of knowing which type of Sherman they
                              came off.

                              Claus B
                            • FLENER AndrĂ©
                              Re: The M4A3 (76) VVSS at Clerveaux in Luxemburg [BTW, the right spelling is Clervaux ! I know it, cos I m from Luxembourg...] also has the round split
                              Message 14 of 17 , Sep 23, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Re: The M4A3 (76) VVSS at Clerveaux in Luxemburg [BTW, the
                                right spelling is "Clervaux"! I know it, 'cos I'm from Luxembourg...]
                                also has the round split loaders hatch. The same goes for the
                                M4A3 (76) VVSS in Beffe, Belgium. The latter is certianly a
                                wartime wreck.

                                Here are close-ups of the Beffe one's loaders hatch:
                                http://bulge.free.fr/Beffe34.jpg
                                http://bulge.free.fr/Beffe19.jpg
                                Source of these and other pix:
                                http://bulge.free.fr/page15.html

                                (My colleague Jean-Michel unfortunately took no photos of the Clervaux one's
                                turret.)

                                Re: All four 76mm Sherman turrets around Bastogne have the
                                round, split hatch as well, but there is of course no way of knowing
                                which type of Sherman they came off.

                                Here are some close-ups of these four T23 turrets:
                                - Turret #1:
                                http://bulge.free.fr/Tour1Sherm09.jpg
                                http://bulge.free.fr/Tour1Sherm26.jpg
                                View from inside:
                                http://bulge.free.fr/Tour1Sherm18.jpg
                                Source:
                                http://bulge.free.fr/page21.html

                                - Turret #2:
                                http://bulge.free.fr/Tour2Sherm06.jpg
                                http://bulge.free.fr/Tour2Sherm05.jpg
                                http://bulge.free.fr/Tour2Sherm12.jpg
                                View from inside:
                                http://bulge.free.fr/Tour2Sherm09.jpg
                                Source:
                                http://bulge.free.fr/page22.html

                                Turret #3:
                                http://bulge.free.fr/STour5-03.jpg
                                http://bulge.free.fr/STour5-10.jpg
                                Source:
                                http://bulge.free.fr/page25.html

                                Turret #4:
                                http://bulge.free.fr/S-Tour6-13.jpg
                                http://bulge.free.fr/S-Tour6-11.jpg
                                View from inside:
                                http://bulge.free.fr/S-Tour6-10.jpg
                                Source:
                                http://bulge.free.fr/page26.html

                                Hope this helps!

                                Regards,
                                André
                              • Joseph DeMarco
                                Hi Andre That is really a nice website! http://ardencim.free.fr/page56.html Great reference shots. Many thanks to you & Jean-Michel & his digital camera. The
                                Message 15 of 17 , Sep 26, 2001
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Hi Andre

                                  That is really a nice website!

                                  http://ardencim.free.fr/page56.html

                                  Great reference shots.
                                  Many thanks to you & Jean-Michel & his digital camera.

                                  The extra lifting ring in front of the circular loader's hatch,
                                  on some of the Bastogne turrets, is interesting.
                                  Looks like they came from more than one foundry.

                                  There is an M4A3(76)HVSS with split loader's hatch at
                                  Fort Knox. It has that extra lifting ring.
                                  (I think it's the one Gary Binder was referring to earlier -
                                  on the parade ground off of Old Ironsides Ave?)
                                  It appears to have had an HVSS retrofit.
                                  The turret markings are similar to one (or 2) of the
                                  Bastogne turrets:

                                  D82081 "H in a C"
                                  LO-351 S159

                                  Unfortunately, no tank serial number could be found.

                                  "Extra ring" split loader's hatch turrets appear in a several wartime
                                  Signal Corps pix of M4A3(76)VVSS Shermans.

                                  "Champagne" at Ville-sur-illon Vosges appears to be an "as built."

                                  http://www.multimania.com/manuel57/damas.html

                                  Anyone close enough to check the tow lugs for a serial number?

                                  Joe
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.