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

Re: [G104] Re: Return roller bracket designs

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.