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

RE: [G104] Return roller bracket designs

Expand Messages
  • Kurt Laughlin
    To be more specific, it not a function of the tank or bogie manufacturer but the foundry that cast the bracket. KL From: G104@yahoogroups.com
    Message 1 of 14 , Mar 5, 2012
    • 0 Attachment

      To be more specific, it not a function of the tank or bogie manufacturer but the foundry that cast the bracket.

      KL

       

      From: G104@yahoogroups.com [mailto:G104@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of TANKBARRELL@...

       

      Different manufacturers. I've seen a lot of detail variation in all parts depending on maker.

    • Joe DeMarco
      ... You are likely to find a hodgepodge of different parts on surviving Shermans. That was made possible by the Henry Ford concept of interchangeability.
      Message 2 of 14 , Mar 6, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        >Any known correlation between models and manufacturers ?

        You are likely to find a hodgepodge of different parts on surviving
        Shermans. That was made possible by the Henry Ford concept of
        "interchangeability." However, most of the builders procured their parts
        from specific suppliers, so, as built, the tanks had a fairly consistent
        appearance. For instance, Chrysler got its supply of turrets from
        Continental Steel & American Steel Foundries. If you see a turret cast by,
        say, Union Steel on a Chrysler built Sherman, it's not original. Almost
        every Chrysler Sherman with VVSS was built with the pressed spoke style
        wheels & idlers that they designed. Chrysler used a particular type of drive
        sprocket. The available evidence suggests that they did not supply those
        sprockets to anyone else, so they may be considered a minor recognition
        feature in period photos, but forget about it on surviving tanks.

        Can you tell us anything about the M32 you looked at?

        Regarding M4 S/N 1940...an original Baldwin dataplate is extremely rare to
        see. The tank appears to have been remanufactured, but where & when? There's
        another plate right next to the dataplate that is completely obscured by
        paint. It may be the remanufacturer's ID plate. There are a few questionable
        "aftermarket" items on that tank like the headlamps, the gun travel lock, &
        possibly even the front lifting rings - never saw that type before. Baldwin
        Shermans were made at the right time - 1943. Consequently, just about every
        one of them was sent overseas. We were wondering if that one might have had
        an interesting history...


        Joe



        --------------------------------------------------
        From: "adrianharris21" <adrianharris21@...>
        Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 4:51 PM
        To: <G104@yahoogroups.com>
        Subject: [G104] Re: Return roller bracket designs

        > Thanks.
        >
        > Any known correlation between models and manufacturers ?
        >
        > IE, would an M4A4 always have had one type, and never another ?
        >
        > Barring any field replacements of course.
        >
        > Adrian.
        >
        > --- In G104@yahoogroups.com, TANKBARRELL@... wrote:
        >>
        >> Different manufacturers. I've seen a lot of detail variation in all parts
        >> depending on maker.
      • adrianharris21
        Hi Joe. Probably best to stick with one type for each model then. The M32 was a gate guardian at the REME Museum in Berkshire, UK.
        Message 3 of 14 , Mar 6, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Joe.

          Probably best to stick with one type for each model then.

          The M32 was a gate guardian at the REME Museum in Berkshire, UK.

          http://www.rememuseum.org.uk/collections_view.aspx?id=231

          There's a good set of walkaround pictures here:

          http://www.militarymodelling.com/news/article.asp?a=9048

          It's been removed for what's hoped to be a full restoration.

          Adrian.

          --- In G104@yahoogroups.com, "Joe DeMarco" <snick13@...> wrote:
          >
          > >Any known correlation between models and manufacturers ?
          >
          > You are likely to find a hodgepodge of different parts on surviving
          > Shermans. That was made possible by the Henry Ford concept of
          > "interchangeability." However, most of the builders procured their parts
          > from specific suppliers, so, as built, the tanks had a fairly consistent
          > appearance. For instance, Chrysler got its supply of turrets from
          > Continental Steel & American Steel Foundries. If you see a turret cast by,
          > say, Union Steel on a Chrysler built Sherman, it's not original. Almost
          > every Chrysler Sherman with VVSS was built with the pressed spoke style
          > wheels & idlers that they designed. Chrysler used a particular type of drive
          > sprocket. The available evidence suggests that they did not supply those
          > sprockets to anyone else, so they may be considered a minor recognition
          > feature in period photos, but forget about it on surviving tanks.
          >
          > Can you tell us anything about the M32 you looked at?
          >
          > Regarding M4 S/N 1940...an original Baldwin dataplate is extremely rare to
          > see. The tank appears to have been remanufactured, but where & when? There's
          > another plate right next to the dataplate that is completely obscured by
          > paint. It may be the remanufacturer's ID plate. There are a few questionable
          > "aftermarket" items on that tank like the headlamps, the gun travel lock, &
          > possibly even the front lifting rings - never saw that type before. Baldwin
          > Shermans were made at the right time - 1943. Consequently, just about every
          > one of them was sent overseas. We were wondering if that one might have had
          > an interesting history...
          >
          >
          > Joe
          >
          >
          >
          > --------------------------------------------------
          > From: "adrianharris21" <adrianharris21@...>
          > Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 4:51 PM
          > To: <G104@yahoogroups.com>
          > Subject: [G104] Re: Return roller bracket designs
          >
          > > Thanks.
          > >
          > > Any known correlation between models and manufacturers ?
          > >
          > > IE, would an M4A4 always have had one type, and never another ?
          > >
          > > Barring any field replacements of course.
          > >
          > > Adrian.
          > >
          > > --- In G104@yahoogroups.com, TANKBARRELL@ wrote:
          > >>
          > >> Different manufacturers. I've seen a lot of detail variation in all parts
          > >> depending on maker.
          >
        • Joe DeMarco
          ... There are a few period pix, but I wouldn t recommend too much mix & match on a Sherman model. With a surviving tank, the guys have to get what they can
          Message 4 of 14 , Mar 7, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            >Probably best to stick with one type for each model then.

            There are a few period pix, but I wouldn't recommend too much "mix & match"
            on a Sherman model. With a surviving tank, the guys have to get what they
            can get. It's encouraging that a few restorers are interested in trying to
            backdate to certain time periods. The commander's split hatch seems to be in
            short supply, since a lot of surviving Shermans were retrofitted with the
            all round vision cupola, such as can be seen on the M4 at
            Chalons-en-Champagne.

            >The M32 was a gate guardian at the REME Museum in Berkshire, UK.

            OK. I remember corresponding with a REME guy in Kosovo way back when. They
            were talking about bringing that home & restoring to runner. From the pix,
            it was originally a Pressed Steel Car M4A1. It doesn't have a riveted lower
            hull, so figure Spring 1943 production or a little later. It has the "wide
            door" in the "turret" which would indicate a late 1944 or early 1945 M32B1
            conversion.

            MDAP docs state the Yugos got 23 M32 series.

            >It's been removed for what's hoped to be a full restoration.

            I'd be curious to know if the REME people find a readable dataplate in
            there.

            I've attached a photo of an M32 seen crossing the Moselle River, 9/13/44.
            Taking into account average shipping times of 3 to 4 months, this unit could
            only have been converted by Pressed Steel Car in March or April 1944. You
            can see the retriever has a riveted lower hull & the early type of hull
            lifting ring. I suspect this was originally a very early PSC M4 with direct
            vision & M3 bogies. The reason I think that is because if it had been made
            with M4 bogies, they wouldn't have had to replace them. You can see it has a
            mix & match of bogie units with a couple of the "upturned" return roller
            arms. I would think the supply of "straight" arms would have been nearly
            exhausted at the time this conversion was done. The spare drive sprockets
            are also mix & match. The front one with the dimples was exclusive to Ford
            built M4A3s, & the rear one is what I call the M3 Lee type. If necessary,
            of course, these could have ended up on any Sherman.

            Joe



            --------------------------------------------------
            From: "adrianharris21" <adrianharris21@...>
            Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 6:31 PM
            To: <G104@yahoogroups.com>
            Subject: [G104] Re: Return roller bracket designs

            > Hi Joe.
            >
            > Probably best to stick with one type for each model then.
            >
            > The M32 was a gate guardian at the REME Museum in Berkshire, UK.
            >
            > http://www.rememuseum.org.uk/collections_view.aspx?id=231
            >
            > There's a good set of walkaround pictures here:
            >
            > http://www.militarymodelling.com/news/article.asp?a=9048
            >
            > It's been removed for what's hoped to be a full restoration.
            >
            > Adrian.
            >
            > --- In G104@yahoogroups.com, "Joe DeMarco" <snick13@...> wrote:
            >>
            >> >Any known correlation between models and manufacturers ?
            >>
            >> You are likely to find a hodgepodge of different parts on surviving
            >> Shermans. That was made possible by the Henry Ford concept of
            >> "interchangeability." However, most of the builders procured their parts
            >> from specific suppliers, so, as built, the tanks had a fairly consistent
            >> appearance. For instance, Chrysler got its supply of turrets from
            >> Continental Steel & American Steel Foundries. If you see a turret cast
            >> by,
            >> say, Union Steel on a Chrysler built Sherman, it's not original. Almost
            >> every Chrysler Sherman with VVSS was built with the pressed spoke style
            >> wheels & idlers that they designed. Chrysler used a particular type of
            >> drive
            >> sprocket. The available evidence suggests that they did not supply those
            >> sprockets to anyone else, so they may be considered a minor recognition
            >> feature in period photos, but forget about it on surviving tanks.
            >>
            >> Can you tell us anything about the M32 you looked at?
            >>
            >> Regarding M4 S/N 1940...an original Baldwin dataplate is extremely rare
            >> to
            >> see. The tank appears to have been remanufactured, but where & when?
            >> There's
            >> another plate right next to the dataplate that is completely obscured by
            >> paint. It may be the remanufacturer's ID plate. There are a few
            >> questionable
            >> "aftermarket" items on that tank like the headlamps, the gun travel lock,
            >> &
            >> possibly even the front lifting rings - never saw that type before.
            >> Baldwin
            >> Shermans were made at the right time - 1943. Consequently, just about
            >> every
            >> one of them was sent overseas. We were wondering if that one might have
            >> had
            >> an interesting history...
            >>
            >>
            >> Joe
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >> --------------------------------------------------
            >> From: "adrianharris21" <adrianharris21@...>
            >> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 4:51 PM
            >> To: <G104@yahoogroups.com>
            >> Subject: [G104] Re: Return roller bracket designs
            >>
            >> > Thanks.
            >> >
            >> > Any known correlation between models and manufacturers ?
            >> >
            >> > IE, would an M4A4 always have had one type, and never another ?
            >> >
            >> > Barring any field replacements of course.
            >> >
            >> > Adrian.
            >> >
            >> > --- In G104@yahoogroups.com, TANKBARRELL@ wrote:
            >> >>
            >> >> Different manufacturers. I've seen a lot of detail variation in all
            >> >> parts
            >> >> depending on maker.
          • TANKBARRELL@aol.com
            When I restored my Sherman, I went to some trouble to have matching parts. I found NOS Chrysler sprockets and spent a lot of time getting a set of matching
            Message 5 of 14 , Mar 7, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              When I restored my Sherman, I went to some trouble to have matching parts. I found NOS Chrysler sprockets and spent a lot of time getting a set of matching suspension arms and roller brackets together, all of the correct pattern for my tank.
               
              Not something they would have had time for in the field though!
            • Joe DeMarco
              Have you gents seen this? Empire Heritage Convoy HFX 305 (out of Halifax?) Sunk North Atlantic, Sept 8, 1944 Looks like there are a few 105 Shermans in the
              Message 6 of 14 , Mar 11, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Have you gents seen this?

                Empire Heritage
                Convoy HFX 305 (out of Halifax?)
                Sunk North Atlantic, Sept 8, 1944

                Looks like there are a few 105 Shermans in the mix.

                http://www.deepimage.co.uk/wrecks/empire_heritage/empire-pages/empire-mainpage.htm#

                Joe
              • Al Bowie
                Thanks Joe, very interesting images and I wonder why so many hatches are open on the tanks? I would assume these were dogged and sealed for shipping. The other
                Message 7 of 14 , Mar 11, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  Thanks Joe, very interesting images and I wonder why so many hatches are open on the tanks? I would assume these were dogged and sealed for shipping. The other intriguing image is the M4 105 with no drive sprockets which appears to have been on a low loader or Recovery trailer. Quite a number of Bogies and tracks are missing from a few of the vehicles and I can only assume these were from the initial explosion from the torpedo or a secondary explosion?
                   
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 5:48 AM
                  Subject: [G104] Empire Heritage

                   

                  Have you gents seen this?

                  Empire Heritage
                  Convoy HFX 305 (out of Halifax?)
                  Sunk North Atlantic, Sept 8, 1944

                  Looks like there are a few 105 Shermans in the mix.

                  http://www.deepimage.co.uk/wrecks/empire_heritage/empire-pages/empire-mainpage.htm#

                  Joe

                • Adrian Harris
                  Great info Joe I think this M32 was a PSC model - it had the flat plate transition from the hull floor to the rear plate, rather than the rounded transition.
                  Message 8 of 14 , Mar 12, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Great info Joe :) happy

                    I think this M32 was a PSC model - it had the flat plate transition from the hull floor to the rear plate, rather than the rounded transition.

                    The wheels were certainly an odd mixture but given its travels I'm not surprised.

                    I'll keep an eye out and see if they return it to the museum.

                    Adrian.


                    From: Joe DeMarco <snick13@...>
                    To: G104@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Thursday, 8 March 2012, 4:08
                    Subject: Re: [G104] Re: Return roller bracket designs

                     
                    >Probably best to stick with one type for each model then.

                    There are a few period pix, but I wouldn't recommend too much "mix & match"
                    on a Sherman model. With a surviving tank, the guys have to get what they
                    can get. It's encouraging that a few restorers are interested in trying to
                    backdate to certain time periods. The commander's split hatch seems to be in
                    short supply, since a lot of surviving Shermans were retrofitted with the
                    all round vision cupola, such as can be seen on the M4 at
                    Chalons-en-Champagne.

                    >The M32 was a gate guardian at the REME Museum in Berkshire, UK.

                    OK. I remember corresponding with a REME guy in Kosovo way back when. They
                    were talking about bringing that home & restoring to runner. From the pix,
                    it was originally a Pressed Steel Car M4A1. It doesn't have a riveted lower
                    hull, so figure Spring 1943 production or a little later. It has the "wide
                    door" in the "turret" which would indicate a late 1944 or early 1945 M32B1
                    conversion.

                    MDAP docs state the Yugos got 23 M32 series.

                    >It's been removed for what's hoped to be a full restoration.

                    I'd be curious to know if the REME people find a readable dataplate in
                    there.

                    I've attached a photo of an M32 seen crossing the Moselle River, 9/13/44.
                    Taking into account average shipping times of 3 to 4 months, this unit could
                    only have been converted by Pressed Steel Car in March or April 1944. You
                    can see the retriever has a riveted lower hull & the early type of hull
                    lifting ring. I suspect this was originally a very early PSC M4 with direct
                    vision & M3 bogies. The reason I think that is because if it had been made
                    with M4 bogies, they wouldn't have had to replace them. You can see it has a
                    mix & match of bogie units with a couple of the "upturned" return roller
                    arms. I would think the supply of "straight" arms would have been nearly
                    exhausted at the time this conversion was done. The spare drive sprockets
                    are also mix & match. The front one with the dimples was exclusive to Ford
                    built M4A3s, & the rear one is what I call the M3 Lee type. If necessary,
                    of course, these could have ended up on any Sherman.

                    Joe

                    --------------------------------------------------
                    From: "adrianharris21" <adrianharris21@...>
                    Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 6:31 PM
                    To: <G104@yahoogroups.com>
                    Subject: [G104] Re: Return roller bracket designs

                    > Hi Joe.
                    >
                    > Probably best to stick with one type for each model then.
                    >
                    > The M32 was a gate guardian at the REME Museum in Berkshire, UK.
                    >
                    > http://www.rememuseum.org.uk/collections_view.aspx?id=231
                    >
                    > There's a good set of walkaround pictures here:
                    >
                    > http://www.militarymodelling.com/news/article.asp?a=9048
                    >
                    > It's been removed for what's hoped to be a full restoration.
                    >
                    > Adrian.
                    >
                    > --- In G104@yahoogroups.com, "Joe DeMarco" <snick13@...> wrote:
                    >>
                    >> >Any known correlation between models and manufacturers ?
                    >>
                    >> You are likely to find a hodgepodge of different parts on surviving
                    >> Shermans. That was made possible by the Henry Ford concept of
                    >> "interchangeability." However, most of the builders procured their parts
                    >> from specific suppliers, so, as built, the tanks had a fairly consistent
                    >> appearance. For instance, Chrysler got its supply of turrets from
                    >> Continental Steel & American Steel Foundries. If you see a turret cast
                    >> by,
                    >> say, Union Steel on a Chrysler built Sherman, it's not original. Almost
                    >> every Chrysler Sherman with VVSS was built with the pressed spoke style
                    >> wheels & idlers that they designed. Chrysler used a particular type of
                    >> drive
                    >> sprocket. The available evidence suggests that they did not supply those
                    >> sprockets to anyone else, so they may be considered a minor recognition
                    >> feature in period photos, but forget about it on surviving tanks.
                    >>
                    >> Can you tell us anything about the M32 you looked at?
                    >>
                    >> Regarding M4 S/N 1940...an original Baldwin dataplate is extremely rare
                    >> to
                    >> see. The tank appears to have been remanufactured, but where & when?
                    >> There's
                    >> another plate right next to the dataplate that is completely obscured by
                    >> paint. It may be the remanufacturer's ID plate. There are a few
                    >> questionable
                    >> "aftermarket" items on that tank like the headlamps, the gun travel lock,
                    >> &
                    >> possibly even the front lifting rings - never saw that type before.
                    >> Baldwin
                    >> Shermans were made at the right time - 1943. Consequently, just about
                    >> every
                    >> one of them was sent overseas. We were wondering if that one might have
                    >> had
                    >> an interesting history...
                    >>
                    >>
                    >> Joe
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >> --------------------------------------------------
                    >> From: "adrianharris21" <adrianharris21@...>
                    >> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 4:51 PM
                    >> To: <G104@yahoogroups.com>
                    >> Subject: [G104] Re: Return roller bracket designs
                    >>
                    >> > Thanks.
                    >> >
                    >> > Any known correlation between models and manufacturers ?
                    >> >
                    >> > IE, would an M4A4 always have had one type, and never another ?
                    >> >
                    >> > Barring any field replacements of course.
                    >> >
                    >> > Adrian.
                    >> >
                    >> > --- In G104@yahoogroups.com, TANKBARRELL@ wrote:
                    >> >>
                    >> >> Different manufacturers. I've seen a lot of detail variation in all
                    >> >> parts
                    >> >> depending on maker.



                  • Robert Buettner
                    If they can restore tanks that have been stuck in bogs for 70 years, restoring one that has been on the bottom of the ocean shouldn t be too bad, right?
                    Message 9 of 14 , Mar 20, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      If they can restore tanks that have been stuck in bogs for 70 years, restoring one that has been on the bottom of the ocean shouldn't be too bad, right?

                      ~Robert

                      Sent from my iPhone

                      On Mar 11, 2012, at 1:48 PM, "Joe DeMarco" <snick13@...> wrote:

                       

                      Have you gents seen this?

                      Empire Heritage
                      Convoy HFX 305 (out of Halifax?)
                      Sunk North Atlantic, Sept 8, 1944

                      Looks like there are a few 105 Shermans in the mix.

                      http://www.deepimage.co.uk/wrecks/empire_heritage/empire-pages/empire-mainpage.htm#

                      Joe

                      =
                    • Chad Lares
                      Nope, restoring a tank stuck in bog for 70 years is a lot easier. The bog is both fresh water and most of the oxygen is gone, reducing corrosion. Salt water
                      Message 10 of 14 , Mar 20, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Nope, restoring a tank stuck in bog for 70 years is a lot easier. The bog is both fresh water and most of the oxygen is gone, reducing corrosion. Salt water will destroy every internal component. The only thing that will stand is the armor and even that will be severely pitted. Now, if the Sherman was sitting next to the Titanic or Bismark, you might be better off ( the deeper the better ).

                        Chad

                        On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Robert Buettner <ww2reenactor@...> wrote:
                         

                        If they can restore tanks that have been stuck in bogs for 70 years, restoring one that has been on the bottom of the ocean shouldn't be too bad, right?

                        ~Robert

                        Sent from my iPhone

                        On Mar 11, 2012, at 1:48 PM, "Joe DeMarco" <snick13@...> wrote:

                         

                        Have you gents seen this?

                        Empire Heritage
                        Convoy HFX 305 (out of Halifax?)
                        Sunk North Atlantic, Sept 8, 1944

                        Looks like there are a few 105 Shermans in the mix.

                        http://www.deepimage.co.uk/wrecks/empire_heritage/empire-pages/empire-mainpage.htm#

                        Joe

                        =


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