https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...deadGers-1.jpg
Printable View
Is that a Panzershrek near the fence and possibly a container crate for the rounds!
stick grenade on that last body in the ditch
Looks like all the kit is still on them. It must be right after their demise...
No where to run & no where to hide
The blanket rolled out up hill there shows me they were set up there for a bit of time. That man was using it for a bit of a lie down before things turned worse. Looks like they were set upon quickly and almost without warning.
Maybe a Jabo got them BAR
Although difficult to tell from the angle the photograph is taken the Sherman looks as if it may be an example with an uprated main gun??? Did the American Army have a different choice of uprated gun than the British choice of upgrade; I seem to recall hearing somewhere that it was different?
The Quartermaster Corps was under the opinion that that large numbers of medium tanks could overtake the German heavy tanks. M6 armed with 90mm gun T7
Pic shows M-6 with 90mm sorry its bit small
Postscript Just an image I found with a Sherman with a 90mm on it without the telltale muzzle brake that the firefly had to try and answer #8's question on it, did the USA field an up gunned version to try and stop the appalling losses faced by the tankers when they were confronted by either the King Tiger, Tiger, Panther, Jagdtiger or em-placed flak 88's. Those poor SOB's in the short barreled 75's well it was damn criminal to send them against the top German armour. In fact the Tiger's kill ratio in Russia against the T-34' 75mm and even the T-34 85mm was sometimes in the 36 ~ T 34's to one Tiger The KV line was a match but it may as well have been a Lee Grant with such a high profile. Anyway hind sight is a grand thing but when I read my books on the Tigers I cringe at the battle reports against Allied armour.
In a T V interview Pat Dias a M4 Tank Commander tried to out rouse Wittmann in a village in his Sherman with the 75mm, backing into a building Pat hoped Wittmann had not seen him and waited for the Tiger to trundle past come out behind and shove a couple of rounds up the Tigers A*se end. Sadly in Pats words as he came out from the building to attack Wittmann when he turned to fire at the Tiger sadly his rouse has been spotted. Pat said we met head on at 100 yds which is not a good situation we fired twice and the shots just bounced off, he fired once and the shot did not bounce off it killed two of my crew and blew me out of the turret......
In another TV interview another M4 Tank commander said the Tiger was like a nightmare as you got closer you were saying is it a Tiger, it looks like a Tiger oh my God it is a Tiger, call up the Tiffies.......
And lastly it was a Firefly that got Wittman in an ambush stove piped him from the rear the force of the explosion blew the turret clean off Wittmanns tank with the desired result. sorry for rabbiting but I hold strong views on sending them in with a known loss rate of 90% send in 4 Shermans 3 will get potted but one will get the Tiger I really feel for those M4 crews under-gunned as they were in the beginning. RIP
Principle features of the tank - welded hull, turret, and main gun barrel: this is a M4A3 with 76mm gun, which was a standardized model and there is no indication it has been rebuilt or modified in any way.
Quartermaster Corps - how did they get into the tank business? The principle users of tanks, Army Ground Forces and the Ordnance Department were responsible for tank development and procurement of tanks, tank destroyers, armored cars and etc. AGF developed specifications for what was needed in the tactical environment based on what the AFV was expected to do. It was then the Ordnance Department's task to engineer the AFVs to meet the AGF's requirements.
It was AGF that turned down the M6 tank program, and resisted accepting the T26/M26 tank, that were developed as an answer to the German heavies with 88mm gun. The image of M6 in Post #9 doesn't begin to illustrate how large that tank was, it was about twice the size of the M4 series. Both M6 and M26 were considered "heavy" tanks at the time, but subsequently with the development of super heavy tanks like T28 and M103, the M26, M46, M47, M48, M60 and etc. were classified as medium tanks.
Both the U.S. and U.K. built M4s with extra armor, and in the case of the British replaced the main gun. These tanks were considered assault vehicles and not specifically intended to take on German armor. Despite the churning controversy of the deficiencies of M4, created by illustrated magazine writers to sell magazines, the M4 tank crews with standard equipped tanks, did pretty well against German armor.
The tank in the image subject of this thread appears to be a standard M4A3, although may have been subject to one or more of the many modifications and rebuild programs these vehicles went through.
It was just that the barrel looked slightly longer than the standard 76mm gun fitted to the Sherman although difficult to tell from the angle that this picture is taken which is why I thought it an up-gunned variant. I had the idea that the U.K. used the 17 pounder gun for their upgrade but the U.S. used something else?
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...d405ea79-1.jpg
Picture of an Easy 8 and I believe that the army used the 17 pound gun also
---------- Post added at 06:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:16 PM ----------
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...c7f846d5b2.jpg
Better pic of a M4a3 76w without the the muzzle device
And the 76 mm gun was American made according to various sources and also equipped the M10 gun motor carriage
Isn't the 17 pounder just a different name for the 76mm?
I know that the Sherman with fitted with a 17 pounder gun has a barrel visibly longer than the standard gun fitted to the Sherman.
According to what I read the American 76mm was different and that Britain had sent over 17 pdrs to be installed in the Sherman's built for them. It was approx 200 barrels. So I think that most of the fireflys used by Britain were converted upon arrival in EnglandQuote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
Also the the 17 pdrs is 76.2mm with a 55 caliber long shell. So slightly bigger and according to the sources harder hitting.
There was a slightly different to the norm preserved tank on the show circuit here in the U.K. years ago which had an open top turret and from memory I think it was a "special" Sherman??? I remember seeing it a few times in the late 1970s/1980s and always thought it looked a bit strange having no top to the turret. I think the reason had something to do with the size of the breach and there not really being enough room within a Sherman turret?
What you probably observed was a tank destroyer, all of which had open top turrets, and suspension and tracks in common with M4 tanks. There was also a TD M18 that was designed from the ground up and was an outstanding success. Many people not familiar with TDs misidentify them as tanks. The TDs were sort of the battle cruisers of AFVs, the intent being to mount a gun capable of destroying a tank on a hull lightly or minimally armored to improve speed and maneuverability.
Absolutely. Tanks had complete turrets. That would have been a TD for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by RT Ellis