Fred Cartwright | 10 Dec 2019 5:02 p.m. PST |
Guys I need some help identifying the Shermans in the picture. They are a couple of 8th Armoured Brigade Shermans during Operation Blackcock. They look like big hatch hulls and I thought with 75mm turrets, but I then wondered if the gun might not be 105mm. Did the British get any 105mm howitzer armed tanks? Thanks.
|
Patrick R | 10 Dec 2019 5:06 p.m. PST |
|
Col Durnford | 10 Dec 2019 6:05 p.m. PST |
It may be a super Sherman (also called a jumbo). An upped armored version of a normal Sherman. I'm not sure if the Brits had any. |
Onomarchos | 10 Dec 2019 6:27 p.m. PST |
It is not a 105mm Sherman. The gun mantlet is missing the lifting eyes that were used by the 105mm version. |
John Armatys | 10 Dec 2019 6:30 p.m. PST |
Yes – Sherman IB and Sherman IVB, the latter in small numbers and not used operationally – link According to Jean Bouchery's The British Soldier from D-Day to VE-DAY Vol. 2 (Histoire & Collections 1999) 593 Sherman IBs were delivered. |
Coalburner | 10 Dec 2019 7:01 p.m. PST |
Well it's definately not a 105mm Sherman. As Mark has pointed out the lifting eyes on the mantlet are missing. In addition, all 105mm Shermans were built on large hatch hulls (apart from the original proof of concept vehicles). Look at the driver's hatch – it's laying flat on the roof instead of up at an angle – so this is a small hatch hull. It has a 75mm gun. It has a one piece cast transmission cover, so not an M4A4 (all of which had the three piece cover). This leaves either M4/75 (Sherman I) or M4A2/75 (Sherman III). Can't tell which of those without seeing either the engine deck or hull rear. It may or may not have hull applique armor. The picture is not sharp enough to tell with that white wash finish applied to the vehicle, and fitting of the applique armor kits to UK/CW Shermans was not as universal as some might think, as least as far as the pics in books and online that I've seen. YMMV cheers |
Thresher01 | 10 Dec 2019 9:02 p.m. PST |
Yea, thought the mantlet looked a bit small for the 105mm gun. |
Old Glory | 10 Dec 2019 10:21 p.m. PST |
Brought to you by Detroit fine autos. |
LeonAdler | 10 Dec 2019 11:38 p.m. PST |
8th are listed as having IIIs in Normandy and the Brits tried to keep the diesels together in units so my guess would be III's and note the infantry appear to be wearing Windproofs. L |
laretenue | 11 Dec 2019 2:17 a.m. PST |
Definitely a 75mm, and the British and Canadians had no Jumbos in NWE. Not sure about the Poles, but this isn't them either, since we know this is 8th Armd Bde. Coalburner makes point about the applique; I think it's there on the first tank. The third one in the column seems to me to have the three-piece engine cover. |
Legion 4 | 11 Dec 2019 7:47 a.m. PST |
Yes, that is a 75. But from the angle and all the stowage/troops/clutter. I can see the how it could be a bit challenging to ID. GHQ has some nice pics of most of the Sherman types. I always go there for a quick ID … link |
shaun from s and s models | 11 Dec 2019 10:07 a.m. PST |
i reckon a mid production m4a2 |
Blutarski | 11 Dec 2019 10:33 a.m. PST |
I really hope those are water cans in that bow stowage rack. Just sayin' B |
Wolfhag | 11 Dec 2019 10:56 a.m. PST |
The picture is of the Infantrymen of the 1st Battalion, Glasgow Highlanders ride on white-washed Sherman tanks of the 8th Armoured Brigade in Hongen, 19–20 January 1945. That should make it a Sherman III with the twin engines which were Lend-Lease. I'd say a late M4A2 based on the mantlet, chevron treads and headlights. Wolfhag |
shaun from s and s models | 11 Dec 2019 11:54 a.m. PST |
blutarski if an m4a2 then it is diesel engined so not as flamable, takes a lot to ignite diesel fuel. |
Mark 1 | 11 Dec 2019 5:37 p.m. PST |
Per others' observations: Not a 105mm Sherman: Agree. No lifting eyes. Not a 105. So a 75mm Sherman: Agree. Clearly not a 76mm or 17pdr or 105mm. Small hatch: Agree. Drivers hatch not visibly at an angle. Not a large hatch. Applique Armor: I don't see it. If it was there, it would be located between the first and second bogey sets. The plate would have a horizontal edge lower than the top of the hull-side, which should be quite visible in winter weather conditions. I say it does not have applique. But not 100% sure. As to M4A2 (Sherman III) or M4 (I) or M4A4 (V): Harder to say. I vote for M4A2. Clearly a one-piece bow transmission cover on the first tank, probably on the second, and to my eye at least looks like the third. If it was only one, I would say that it is possible (however unlikely) that a bow cover was transplanted from another tank. But I can't see that happening with 3. So not a M4A4 (Sherman V). Still possibly a basic M4 (Sherman I). But unit ID by Wolfy makes that more likely than not a M4A2 (Sherman III). As to Jumbo (E2): Nope nope nope. Wrong mantlet and turret face. All factory-produced Jumbos used a turret derived from the T23 turret. It looked like the later 76mm Shermans -- the mantlet was a flat-faced rectangle with rounded corners, but in the case of the Jumbos with distinctive diagonal recesses on the outside lower corners, and frequently with a canvas rain sleeve. None of those attributes are in evidence in the pic. Some Jumbos were ad-hoc productions of depot work in-theater. Those were generally obvious from the crude cuts and welds on the front slope plate (frequently lifted from recovered Panther wrecks). Again, not in evidence here. And besides, as others have noted, the Jumbos were not exactly shared around in any quantities. -Mark (aka: Mk 1) |
Wolfhag | 11 Dec 2019 6:11 p.m. PST |
Upon further checking on Bradford's drawings, based on the front fender it appears to be a Sherman IV / M4A3. The Sherman III the front fender extends down further over the drive sprocket. Based on the transmission cover it has the Ford GAA engine. Wolfhag |
Starfury Rider | 11 Dec 2019 6:30 p.m. PST |
8th Armd Bde reported the following Shermans on hand during January 1945. 13th Jan 45 Sherman I – 5 Sherman III – 154 Sherman Ic – 70 Sherman Vc – 29 20th Jan 45 Sherman I – 5 Sherman III – 127 Sherman V – 15 Sherman Ic – 63 Sherman Vc – 25 27th Jan 45 Sherman I – 5 Sherman III – 128 Sherman V – 4 Sherman Ic – 55 Sherman Vc – 26 All the Shermans above (excepting the 'c' models) were 75-mm gun armed. No 105-mm armed Shermans in British usage, though there were with 5th Canadian Armd Div when they transferred over from Italy, then a few arriving in 4th Cdn Armd Div in the final weeks of the war. Figures from 21 Army Group AFV returns (various dates, incomplete in terms of weeks covered) for 1945. Gary |
Legion 4 | 12 Dec 2019 6:58 a.m. PST |
I always like equipment breakdowns like this. |
Lion in the Stars | 12 Dec 2019 4:07 p.m. PST |
Beats an 'equipment breakdown' that involves breaking track, L4? |
Marc33594 | 13 Dec 2019 5:34 a.m. PST |
Seriously doubt a Sherman IV/M4A3. The UK received a total of 7 M4A3 for evaluation purposes. None of the 7, that I am aware, were ever issued to an operational unit. The US decided to standardize on the M4A3 and didnt make it available for lend lease as they needed all they could produce. |
Legion 4 | 13 Dec 2019 7:58 a.m. PST |
Beats an 'equipment breakdown' that involves breaking track, L4? You got that right ! The daily standard of catering to the Iron Monsters ! |
Wolfhag | 13 Dec 2019 10:56 a.m. PST |
I'm not disputing what tanks the 8th had. I know Sherman variants cold be somewhat mixed. This is what I based it on:
The one in the picture does not have the bolted transmission covering. Wolfhag |
Fred Cartwright | 13 Dec 2019 3:51 p.m. PST |
The Sherman III the front fender extends down further over the drive sprocket. Based on the transmission cover it has the Ford GAA engine. Not every M4A2 had the full length fenders. See the first pic on this page. link Transmission cover could be either M4A2 or A3. |
Wolfhag | 14 Dec 2019 4:56 p.m. PST |
Well that settles it. Thanks. Wolfhag |