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

Sherman Tulip

Expand Messages
  • Pete
    Hi Guys Can anyone tell me please which variants of the Sherman were used by the Coldstream Guards in WW2 to fit 60lb rockets to? TIA Pete
    Message 1 of 8 , Jul 2, 2004
      Hi Guys
      Can anyone tell me please which variants of the Sherman were
      used by the Coldstream Guards in WW2 to fit 60lb rockets to?
      TIA
      Pete
    • Alan Brown
      Sherman V & VC M4A4 s Alan Leicester Modellers UK ... From: Pete To: G104@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 8:00 PM Subject: [G104] Sherman Tulip Hi
      Message 2 of 8 , Jul 2, 2004
        Sherman V & VC M4A4's

        Alan
        Leicester Modellers UK
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Pete
        To: G104@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 8:00 PM
        Subject: [G104] Sherman Tulip


        Hi Guys
        Can anyone tell me please which variants of the Sherman were
        used by the Coldstream Guards in WW2 to fit 60lb rockets to?
        TIA
        Pete



        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        **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 - the Sherman Register mailing list
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/G104
        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        ADVERTISEMENT





        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Yahoo! Groups Links

        a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/G104/

        b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        G104-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • shawn ferguson
        And a few M4 composite hulled fireflies. - Shawn
        Message 3 of 8 , Jul 2, 2004
          And a few M4 composite hulled fireflies.
          - Shawn

          > From: Pete
          > To: G104@yahoogroups.com
          > Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 8:00 PM
          > Subject: [G104] Sherman Tulip
          >
          >
          > Hi Guys
          > Can anyone tell me please which variants of the Sherman were
          > used by the Coldstream Guards in WW2 to fit 60lb rockets to?
          > TIA
          > Pete
          >
          >
          >
          > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          > **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 - the Sherman Register mailing list
          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/G104
          > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          >
          >
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
          > ADVERTISEMENT
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/G104/
          >
          > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > G104-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
          >Service.
          >
          >
          >
          >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        • Pete
          Thanks for the replies guys,they are most helpful.Is it possible that firefly Vc s would have been used? Pete
          Message 4 of 8 , Jul 2, 2004
            Thanks for the replies guys,they are most helpful.Is it possible that
            firefly Vc's would have been used?
            Pete
          • peter BROWN
            The Guards Armoured Division s units used mostly Sherman V 75mm but by 1945 their Fireflies would have been a mix of Vc and Ic. Following account from Tank
            Message 5 of 8 , Jul 2, 2004
              The Guards Armoured Division's units used mostly Sherman V 75mm but by 1945
              their Fireflies would have been a mix of Vc and Ic.

              Following account from Tank Museum Library files might be interesting to
              G104 subscribers -

              APPENDIX "B" TO 21 ARMY GROUP AFV TECHNICAL REPORT NO 26

              REPORT BY 1 ARMOURED COLDSTREAM GUARDS OF RESULT IN ACTION OF TYPHOON
              ROCKETS FITTED TO SHERMAN TANKS

              The results achieved by these rockets when used in action were highly
              satisfactory, but before discussing these it is necessary to point out the
              limitations of their use caused by lack of time for experiment, etc.

              Less than 24 hours after the idea was conceived (shortly before the crossing
              of the RHINE), the first tank was already fitted up with a home-made
              bracket, rails and warhead.

              The only resources available for this purpose were Battalion fitters and
              Battalion LAD.

              The brackets were roughly sighted for line with the vane sight on top of the
              turret but all elevation had to be adjusted and set from outside the tank.

              The "shear" wire used to gain the impetus for launching the rocket was the
              same as that used in a Typhoon. The Typhoon is travelling at upwards of 400
              mph when the rocket leaves whereas the tank is stationary. Therefore the
              ''drop" due to lack of impetus in the first 10 yards flight of the rocket
              had to be overcome by a set adjustment in the bracket itself. This precluded
              all possibility of actually pointing the rocket at the target even for short
              range shooting.

              Owing to the above and other considerations it was decided to have one
              rocket set to hit anything that got in its way up to about 400 yards and the
              other one up to about 800 yards. (This required the setting of

              the brackets to be at 150mm and 160mm above the horizontal respectively).

              EFFECT ON ENEMY.

              1. Morale

              The morale effect - especially against ordinary troops - was tremendous. On
              occasion a strongly held bridge was captured when rocket firing tanks were
              used in support of our infantry. The first 88mm gun was knocked out by a
              rocket and the rest failed to fire. 12 PW came in deaf as a result. None of
              the other guns fired. The enemy suffered over 40 dead and we had next to no
              casualties.

              This of course was not caused entirely by the rockets, but they certainly
              had a lot to do with it.

              On a second occasion, our infantry were being troubled by enemy infantry in
              a wood. Two troops of tanks fired two rockets each from about 400 yards and
              the did not fire another shot, and 30-40 Infantry, including
              "Brandenburgers" came out of the wood afterwards and gave themselves up.
              They were extremely shaken. There were several other occasions of this
              nature.

              2. Killing Effect.

              In the type of fighting encountered after crossing. the RHINE, only two
              types of good targets were found for the limited use of rockets - woods and
              buildings.

              On one occasion after a Squadron had fired all its rockets and a number of
              other missiles at a barracks, it was found that there were about 40 dead in
              the buildings after the battle was over. The hitting power is like that of a
              shell. The explosion caused by the rocket is slightly greater than that than
              that of a medium shell.

              3. Other Uses.

              The rocket was found effective in removing road blocks when they were
              covered by fire and it had considerable effect when ordinary HE and AP did
              not.

              It was never possible to use them against an enemy AFV chiefly because very
              few AFVs were encountered at close range and also at present they lack the
              accuracy in aim. If, however, the latter defect is overcome they would
              undoubtedly remove the turret from any enemy AFV with a direct hit.

              APPRECIATION OF PRESENT AND FUTURE POSSIBILITIES.

              On the whole the equipment proved most satisfactory, but the results were
              limited by the points already mentioned and also by the fact that a number
              of tanks fitted with rockets were lost through enemy action and

              through normal break-downs, etc. Thus, although we started with a whole
              Squadron, we ended up with comparatively few. The weapon was obviously most
              useful from a morale point of view and this was lessened when the number of
              rocket firing tanks dwindled.

              As far as a "non-expert" can tall, the possibilities of this type of rocket
              fitted by experts to a tank either as a main armament or a subsidiary one,
              are almost unlimited.

              The decree of accuracy could be largely increased by use of a stronger
              "shear" wire, a proper sighting arrangement, a telescope and a range table.

              If used as a main armament it should be possible to carry as many rockets as
              shells with added simplicity that it would be unnecessary to carry both AP
              and HE. It should be stated in this connection that no "accidents" were
              caused by the rockets - one went off when the wire was severed by an air
              burst which must have generated the required electrical current. Two tanks
              that were gutted by fire still had the rockets undischarged at the end.
              Another direct hit on a war-head merely shattered it.

              Should this type of rocket replace the gun it would enormously simplify the
              design of a tank owing to there being no recoil, breech block, etc.

              There should be no difficulty in fitting four or eight to a tank which could
              all fire at the same time causing a tremendous fire power and this should
              make up for any slight deterioration in accuracy.

              RAC Branch, Second Army, have made the following comments on the above
              report:-

              1. It is emphasised that the excellent results obtained were from very rough
              and ready appliances made with no technical assistance from outside.

              2. It is felt that the results of the experiment may be of interest to those
              concerned with the future armament of AFVs.

              ---

              Comments by DG of A, Ministry of Supply on the expected accuracy of rockets
              as tank armament.

              (257/Tanks/1367/E44 dated 9 August 1945 enclosed in RAC3(b)/BM/1748).


              I see little prospect of obtaining the necessary precision required from
              tank armament by means of rocket projectiles. Neglecting the difficulties of
              serving projectors mounted on the outside of protected vehicles and dealing
              entirely with the accuracy aspect the situation seems to be as follows:-

              Present accuracy of normal HV gun is of the order of 1.2 mins with its most
              accurate service shot. This is not considered by the WO as surf recently
              accurate. They demand a m.d. of 0.5 mins.

              Rocket accuracies are still being quoted in degrees rather than minutes and
              vary, according to the method of launching, from the unrotated fin
              stabilised rocket at 1.2 degrees (i.e. 62 mins) to the spin stabilised
              rocket fired from a machined liner with a closed breech at 0.2 degrees i.e.
              12 mins.

              The most favourable prediction which the CPD has recently made is that as a
              ten year probable development rockets might be obtained with accuracy
              comparable to present guns, which is at the present time considered by the
              GS as not sufficiently accurate.

              I cannot see the rocket replacing the gun as a precision weapon unless some
              unforeseen development of it occurs and can only visualise its use as a
              secondary armament of one shot weapons for short ratio fire against fairly
              massive targets.



              --
              Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
              Checked by AVG Anti-Virus (http://www.grisoft.com).
              Version: 7.0.253 / Virus Database: 263.3.9 - Release Date: 02/07/2004
            • marc33594
              Would you mind if I cross posted this to our Sherman modeling group here on Yahoo? Marc ... but by 1945 ... interesting to
              Message 6 of 8 , Jul 3, 2004
                Would you mind if I cross posted this to our Sherman modeling group
                here on Yahoo?

                Marc


                --- In G104@yahoogroups.com, "peter BROWN" <pwbrown@t...> wrote:
                > The Guards Armoured Division's units used mostly Sherman V 75mm
                but by 1945
                > their Fireflies would have been a mix of Vc and Ic.
                >
                > Following account from Tank Museum Library files might be
                interesting to
                > G104 subscribers -
              • Pete
                Not at all Marc,you carry on. Pete
                Message 7 of 8 , Jul 3, 2004
                  Not at all Marc,you carry on.
                  Pete
                  --- In G104@yahoogroups.com, "marc33594" <marc33594@y...> wrote:
                  > Would you mind if I cross posted this to our Sherman modeling group
                  > here on Yahoo?
                  >
                  > Marc
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In G104@yahoogroups.com, "peter BROWN" <pwbrown@t...> wrote:
                  > > The Guards Armoured Division's units used mostly Sherman V 75mm
                  > but by 1945
                  > > their Fireflies would have been a mix of Vc and Ic.
                  > >
                  > > Following account from Tank Museum Library files might be
                  > interesting to
                  > > G104 subscribers -
                • Paul Roberts
                  ... Given those two reports it is interesting to see how some of the issues compare with the service history of the M50 Ontos. Being armed with essentially a
                  Message 8 of 8 , Jul 3, 2004
                    peter BROWN wrote:

                    >Following account from Tank Museum Library files might be interesting to
                    >G104 subscribers - <SNIP>
                    >

                    Given those two reports it is interesting to see how some of the issues
                    compare with the service history of the M50 Ontos. Being armed with
                    essentially a more accurate projectile weapon that doesn't generate
                    recoil and that is served from outside the vehicle in a group of 6 tubes
                    per vehicle. It seems to have provided both the positives and the
                    negatives delineated by the two reports.

                    Paul Roberts
                    Interim Vice President
                    AMPS
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.