News on bbi Sherman?

macvsog · Post by **macvsog** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 3:42 pm

So, how often would you find a sherman without the .50 cal mouted on it? I see pictures of these tanks a lot in the states without them, but how about in action?

would guys ever take them off, or would they ever not recieve them?

i ask because when i do my custom of this piece, i know i'm going to want to take off the .50... it just looks weird to me (i know im fickle). But, i took the .30 off the jeep, and the .50 of the halftrack and I'm going to want to do it with the new sherman.

-mike-

Post by **aferguson** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 4:39 pm

how would the 105 armed shermans have been used in combat? Would they stay behind the lines shelling, like mobile artillery or would they have been used agianst enemy vehicles, troop emplacements, armour etc. at the front line?

What was their intended function?

shorty · Post by **shorty** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 5:05 pm

i'm not sure about in action but i think the 50 cal can be stored behind the turrent when not in use in real life.

removing all the glued components is a major hassle, they really glued it in and the wheels are screwed into place too

macvsog · Post by **macvsog** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 5:27 pm

aferg: I'm unsure as to your intended attitude.

I'm asking a serious question, below are photos for reference.

perhaps i did not explain correctly. I see pictures of shermans with and without .50's, both in and out of combat, i am wondering what the reasoning would be for a crew to remove the 50.

please see below links for photos showing what i mean:

http://www.usarmymodels.com/MODEL%20GAL ... anrear.jpg

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/Unit ... 4Jan45.jpg

http://airborn.webz.cz/img/m4_3.jpg

http://users.swing.be/tkimg3/char0/11771.jpg

http://ww2photo.mimerswell.com/tanks/us ... /03811.jpg

http://www.thortrains.net/armymen/0sherman4.jpg

http://a262144.times.lv/EnglishTanks/Pz8_2.gif

just a few

-mike-

Post by **aferguson** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 5:31 pm

Mike: huh?

my question had nothing to do with your question.....i was just curious as to how the 105 armed sherman was used tactically..

macvsog · Post by **macvsog** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 7:21 pm

oh funny, i thought you were indirectly answering my question.

funny

we had essentially very similar questions

i thought you were answering me with a question.. haha

sorry aferg

-mike-

Post by **aferguson** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 7:39 pm

Ha.....that's funny. I re-read my question and see how you could have inturpreted it as kind of a smart assed rhetorical response.

Funny.

grockwood · Post by **grockwood** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 9:22 pm

As i understand it, the 105 Sherman replaced the M8 Howitzer spg that was mounted on the M5 chassis. It was used to give Armoured infantry a mobile artillery support. Many stories I have read refered to them as assualt guns. They were front line tanks. They were sometimes used to lead tank columns because of their thicker gun manlet, a job later given to the Jumbo Shermans. The first tank to fight its way into Bastogne was supposed to have been a 105mm Sherman.

binder001 · Post by **binder001** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 8:11 am

The assault gun platoon was the tank battalion commanders' "personal artillery". Remember this is WW2 and we don't have the instant communications. The local commander needed fire support at hand to take on dug in AT positions, buildings, bunkers and to help the mortar platoon lay smokescreens. As stated before the 105mm Shermans replaced the earlier M8 in the assault gun mission. Don't confuse the Armerican use of "assault gun" with the German concept - different basic missions.

One limitation of the 105mm Sherman as an artillery weapon was the lack of a full fire control center to be able to direct the guns as true indirect fire artillery. Sometimes when the seperate tank battalions were broken up into an infantry division, each of the three infantry regiments would get a medium tank company and the assault guns might be attached to division artillery where they served as an extra six-gun battery of howitzers that were then tied into the divisional fire control net.

As far as leading columns - I think you're confusing these with the M4A3E2 "Jumbo" assault tank. The "Jumbo" had thicker hull armor, thicker transmission cover , turret and gun shield. THESE were used to lead columns. The assault gun had no thicker armor than any other late production M4/M4A3. BIG limitation of the 105 Shermans - NO POWER TRAVERSE in the turret in the original production batch. Power turret traverse was added later. You wouldn't want to be leading a column with a turret that is hand cranked! Too bad, because the 105mm HEAT round was one of the few weapons that could penetrate the front of a Panther tank at 500 yds.

In later years tank guns got bigger and communication with supporting artillery and air assets got much better so the assault gun idea was dropped.

Post by **aferguson** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 9:18 am

very good answer, thanks.

On the topic of tank turrets: I have read and often thought it would be much better to pivot the whole tank towards a target than to traverse the turret at it, for the simple reason it is faster.

It is much quicker to turn the vehicle then it is to traverse a turret, even one that is powered. In fact i know Whitmann often had his driver pivot the Tiger at the target rather than traverse the turret at it. He knew it was quicker from his assault gun days.

Any comments on this?

Website · Post by **Teamski** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 11:18 am

Don't forget it is ALWAYS essential to face the enemy with your thickest armor- on the front! The advantage of the turret was that you didn't have to break your hull-down position to engage the target. Assault guns were at a disadvantage due to the fact that if a target ran outside it's 11 degree arc, the whole tank had to move causing it's position to be exposed. Also remember that US tanks had stabilization which gave a gunner a good platform for the first accurate shot, of course on the run.......

-Ski

Post by **aferguson** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 11:51 am

hmm... well that's fine for hull down, which is principally defensive but what about on offense. Would it not make sense to pivot the whole tank and thereby keep your thickest armour pointed at your target, which usually is going to fire back?

German tanks had stabilization too but were ordered to always come to a full stop before firing to ensure maximum accuracy.

tmanthegreat · Post by **tmanthegreat** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:27 pm

Well, given what I've seen in the few times I've played a Battlefront series electronic war game (which for armor lovers, are really cool), facing your target would be the best option. I've lost many tanks in various scenarios because a tank wound up more or less perpenducilar to the enemy, which was able to penetrate the side armor. It happens the most to US tanks, which really do not stand a chance (especially in close quarters) in a contest with most German armor from the Panzer IV through the Tiger. Shells were best deflected on US tanks from the front armor plate at medium to long range, depending on the type of tank.

binder001 · Post by **binder001** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 1:44 pm

of course it makes sense to face an enemy with your strongest armor towards him. The turret traverse allows the commander/gunner team to see and start the engagement before the tank slews around. In certain terrain it may not be possible to turn the whole vehicle, or at least not fast enough. That's why turretless assault guns are not real popular anymore. Armored combat is like fighter planes, the first one to see the other guy and put shots on target usually goes home the winner. There was a story about a "friendly fire" incident when some British armored cars came from an unexpected direction in a town and ran into a group of Shermans. The British commander was amazed by the shooting, saying that four armored cars were knocked out before they even knew they were being fired on! I can't vouch for the story but it does give an idea that the American tankers could shoot fast when they had to!

The tactic of slewing the tank makes extreme sense for anyone, but especially for the Germans. A Sherman couldn't penetrate the frontal armor of Panthers or Tigers, but could often pierce them from the side.

Website · Post by **Teamski** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 8:55 am

Interesting. There wasn't stowage on all shermans though, right??

-Ski

macvsog · Post by **macvsog** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 10:22 am

okay, awesome, thank you very much...

that makes things simple

shorty · Post by **shorty** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 2:02 pm

centone wrote:I don't think so. I've only seen it on the M4A3 models. The BBI version is almost perfect if it just had a clasp to lock the gun down and they hadn't glued that backpack there it would be a smooth fit, it's still nice that they included the socket to put the yoke into. Anyone know where they would have stored the barrel since all the ones I've seen have it removed?

the barrel would have been in the real too, it would be on the rack closest to the turrent followed by the actual gun

binder001 · Post by **binder001** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 3:15 pm

yes the rear-of-turret stowage for the .50 cal. was a common feature of the later M4A3's. The brackets were added to all late production 75mm turrets, but by then the M4 75mm was almost done with production. All the 76mm turrets had the brackets and most (all?) of the 105mm turrets.

As stated above, the barrel was removed and placed across the two arms that jutted out from the back of the turret. There were spring steel clamps to hold the barrel in place, The gun mount post was placed into the bracket on the center rear of the turret. There was a clamp on one of the arms to grab onto the perforated cooling jacket of the gun. A nice, neat packaging ofthe gun. When stowed, the MG receiver often had its canvas cover over it.

By the way, earlier M4-series tanks with 75mm gun turrets had stowage brackets inside the turret for the gun. Combat experience showed that the space inside the turret was better used for stowing other things.

grockwood · Post by **grockwood** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:03 pm

Does anyone know if the BBI Sherman's are going to be sold at brick and morter stores like TRU or only online? I noticed local TRU has scaled back BBI's Elite forces shelf space to a couple of feet and expanded GI Joes's space.

mburduck · Post by **mburduck** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 10:15 am

Great info, guys!

Mike

mburduck · Post by **mburduck** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 2:29 pm

So, would the 105 with AP round make a good anti-tank weapon?

Mike

Threetoughtrucks · Post by **Threetoughtrucks** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 12:23 pm

The question of the .50 cals on the turret is basically, how was the .50 cal was used? It was an AA weapon. Exposing themselves to fire the .50 cal was hazardous to the health of the tankers in an urban fight or tank to tank fight. As the war progressed after D-Day the German planes became fewer and fewer. Tanks didn't worry about AA protection, so more and more removed the .50 cals and stored them. Remember tanks didn't fight by themselves, they fought alongside infantry, who provided protection to the tanks with AA guns, quad mg guns and such.

When needed the .50 cal could be set up on the turret. As much as I loved the .50 cal, I wouldn't be happy about standing in a tanks hatch or behind the turret with enemy fire coming at me and bouncing off the tank, all coming in my direction.

TTT

macvsog · Post by **macvsog** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 3:48 pm

great info TTT... that is a great thing to keep stored up in the old brain.

-mike-

Small Scale Military Headquarters

News on bbi Sherman?

assault gun mission (long)...

facing the enemy...

.50 cal stowage...

Where will Sherman be sold?