Hey all, just a quick question ... does anyone know if Sherman Firefly 17 pounder turrets were ever mounted late "large hatch M4A1 hulls.
I'm doing some Sherman "kit bashes" and I have a Dragon Firefly turret and an Italeri hull looking for a project.
I know there is evidence of M4A3 Fireflys, although they were uncommon, and the Brits did field the 76mm M4A1, so I suppose anything is possible.
Any feedback appreciated.
Mick.
Hosted by Darren Baker
Sherman Firefly on M4A1 "large hatch" hull?
Heatseeker64
Joined: October 05, 2008
KitMaker: 307 posts
Armorama: 305 posts
Posted: Monday, January 10, 2011 - 06:45 PM UTC
ericadeane
Joined: October 28, 2002
KitMaker: 4,021 posts
Armorama: 3,947 posts
Posted: Monday, January 10, 2011 - 06:55 PM UTC
No evidence whatsoever of Firefly Sherman IIs. Why? Because by the time mass conversions were taking place in English workshops, the Sherman II and Sherman III were rare in the supply chain -- whereas Sherman V were common. Later Sherman Is were accepted.
barkingdigger
Associate Editor
#013
Joined: June 20, 2008
KitMaker: 3,981 posts
Armorama: 3,403 posts
Posted: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 - 05:54 AM UTC
Mick,
David Fletcher's Firefly book says there's a lack of info on M4A1-based Fireflies, and suggests they just didn't meet all the criteria for conversion. Among other things, accepted tanks had to have Oilgear traverse systems (there were two other types available in Shermans) and the wider M34A1 gun mantlet. My guess is the 75mm M4A1s might be too early for the later mantlet, and of course the 76mm ones had a completely different turret! Smooth production lines hate such variation in materials...
Tom
David Fletcher's Firefly book says there's a lack of info on M4A1-based Fireflies, and suggests they just didn't meet all the criteria for conversion. Among other things, accepted tanks had to have Oilgear traverse systems (there were two other types available in Shermans) and the wider M34A1 gun mantlet. My guess is the 75mm M4A1s might be too early for the later mantlet, and of course the 76mm ones had a completely different turret! Smooth production lines hate such variation in materials...
Tom
GeraldOwens
Joined: March 30, 2006
KitMaker: 3,736 posts
Armorama: 3,697 posts
Posted: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 - 12:24 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Hey all, just a quick question ... does anyone know if Sherman Firefly 17 pounder turrets were ever mounted late "large hatch M4A1 hulls.
I'm doing some Sherman "kit bashes" and I have a Dragon Firefly turret and an Italeri hull looking for a project.
I know there is evidence of M4A3 Fireflys, although they were uncommon, and the Brits did field the 76mm M4A1, so I suppose anything is possible.
Any feedback appreciated.
Mick.
Well, the donor hull was also supposed to provide the turret, and the large hatch M4A1 hull used the T23 turret (only a scant handful of late hulls with 75 mm turrets have turned up, and these seem to have been for US Army DD amphibious conversions). The British would have had to design an all new mount to mate the 17 pounder to the newer turret, and they declined to do so. Firefly conversions seem to have been limited to M4A4, M4 and M4 composite hull Shermans (and a handful of M4A3 tanks were included among the 84 Firefly conversions done for the US Army in 1945, but these appear never to have been issued).
Heatseeker64
Joined: October 05, 2008
KitMaker: 307 posts
Armorama: 305 posts
Posted: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 - 03:01 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Mick,
David Fletcher's Firefly book says there's a lack of info on M4A1-based Fireflies, and suggests they just didn't meet all the criteria for conversion. Among other things, accepted tanks had to have Oilgear traverse systems (there were two other types available in Shermans) and the wider M34A1 gun mantlet. My guess is the 75mm M4A1s might be too early for the later mantlet, and of course the 76mm ones had a completely different turret! Smooth production lines hate such variation in materials...
Tom
Yes, makes sense ... rebuilding used or damaged tanks would have been fruaght with its own dangers when it came to commonality of the platform and reliability of the end product.
Since they were converting new tanks, these would have come complete from the US with a turret, which was also to be converted.
If they converted an M41 large hatch, there would be a turret going begging that could only be fitted to another large hatch hull, and meanwhile a turret would have to be found for Firefly conversion.
Your info has helped me to answer my own question!
ericadeane
Joined: October 28, 2002
KitMaker: 4,021 posts
Armorama: 3,947 posts
Posted: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 - 03:25 PM UTC
Yes and no. British workshops modified 75mm gun turrets into 17pdr firefly turrets -- that's true.
But you are also missing the point that some large hatch M4A1s were also 75mm gun tanks -- albeit few. The turret ring diameter of these turrets was the same as the 76mm ones.
As another has said, the 76mm armed tanks had their ammo below the turret basket -- unlike the 75mm gun tanks.
But you are also missing the point that some large hatch M4A1s were also 75mm gun tanks -- albeit few. The turret ring diameter of these turrets was the same as the 76mm ones.
As another has said, the 76mm armed tanks had their ammo below the turret basket -- unlike the 75mm gun tanks.
barkingdigger
Associate Editor#013
Joined: June 20, 2008
KitMaker: 3,981 posts
Armorama: 3,403 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 - 02:00 AM UTC
Yes, sorry - I should have picked up on the "large hatch" point, since the 75mm M4A1s in British hands were the earlier "small hatch" variety! I think it's safe to say a Firefly based on the Italeri hull is only in the realms of a "what if?"...
The "large hatch" beasts the British got seem to have been almost exclusively the 76mm ones with the larger T23 turret from the Italeri kit. Sure, a 75mm turret could fit on these hulls as the turret race was the same, but lots of internals would have to be altered so I doubt it was ever considered practical even if spare tureets were available.
No doubt, with enough time and resources the roomier T23 turret would have been adaptable to the 17pdr, but it would have required lots of new engineering.
Tom
The "large hatch" beasts the British got seem to have been almost exclusively the 76mm ones with the larger T23 turret from the Italeri kit. Sure, a 75mm turret could fit on these hulls as the turret race was the same, but lots of internals would have to be altered so I doubt it was ever considered practical even if spare tureets were available.
No doubt, with enough time and resources the roomier T23 turret would have been adaptable to the 17pdr, but it would have required lots of new engineering.
Tom
bolweevil
Joined: February 19, 2012
KitMaker: 2 posts
Armorama: 1 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 19, 2012 - 07:51 AM UTC
hey: To mount the 17pdr in the 76mm turret would have required a new work-up and it was right when the factories were cranking out FF's for D-Day. They didn't want to interrupt production or deny recources from that programme. Considering the 76 mount was drivative of the 75 mount, there must have been something about the 17pdr fitting in the T23 turret that needed redesign. They didn't want the 76 anyway. They were
"forced" to take some number of them to make up for the losses after D-Day and equipped the Poles and French armored units with them and sent the rest to Italy.
"forced" to take some number of them to make up for the losses after D-Day and equipped the Poles and French armored units with them and sent the rest to Italy.
X82dABNINF
Joined: March 06, 2013
KitMaker: 6 posts
Armorama: 6 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 - 09:02 PM UTC
Yes, there are M4A1 based large hatch Sherman Firelys. The late large hatch fits all requirements set forth for conversion guidlines. The Canadians and British both built them in very limted numbers. I have photographic evidence as well. My grandfather was photographed in Nijmagen Holland around 17 Sept 44 standing next to one. I have actually given rights to the picture for an uncominng book on variants. However, I am currently in the middle of a 1/16 Radio Control build on two Brit RC tank forums. ( RCtankregiment and Rctankwarfare. The base kit of course being the Tamiya M4 105 Sherman. It's been a rather complex build being It was converted to VVSS from HVSS, a high bustle to low bustle turret and a cast resin hull M4A1 hull. The vast majority of this build was a scratch build.)
Most of you didn't take into account that the vast majority were built on the early low bustle Sherman turret; Hence the reason the Brits added the loader's hatch because of the lack there of on all early sherman variants.
The bad news is the serial number on the photographic war-time example and unit identifion is obscured in the photo. There had been an argument for years that the DD was never built using the M4A1 large hatch hull because there were no war time photographs.There are pictures of a rusted hulk that has now turned up in the UK, which absolutely proves they existed. Because the so-called experts make claims, doesn't mean there aren't many field expedient conversions or hybrids out there.
Most of you didn't take into account that the vast majority were built on the early low bustle Sherman turret; Hence the reason the Brits added the loader's hatch because of the lack there of on all early sherman variants.
The bad news is the serial number on the photographic war-time example and unit identifion is obscured in the photo. There had been an argument for years that the DD was never built using the M4A1 large hatch hull because there were no war time photographs.There are pictures of a rusted hulk that has now turned up in the UK, which absolutely proves they existed. Because the so-called experts make claims, doesn't mean there aren't many field expedient conversions or hybrids out there.
tankmodeler
#417
Joined: March 01, 2004
KitMaker: 3,123 posts
Armorama: 2,539 posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 - 12:38 AM UTC
Quoted Text
There are pictures of a rusted hulk that has now turned up in the UK, which absolutely proves they existed. Because the so-called experts make claims, doesn't mean there aren't many field expedient conversions or hybrids out there.
While I'm no expert, I'm afraid I'll have to withold my belief until the photo shows up. Many other photos purporting to be Sherman II Fireflies have been mooted over the years and all have turned out to be M4 Composites. Not one photo or shop note or vehicle return has ever mentioned Sherman II Fireflies.
The Firefly conversion was not something a field unit could perform easily and it would need the conversion parts from the factory to manage it. Dropping a Firefly turret onto a Sherman hull doesn't do the job either as there were significant mods inside the hull to stow the ammo and redistribute the normal stowage displaced by the huge ammo.
I would really, really love to see photos of an actual M4A1 Firefly on a Sherman II hull, be it small or large hatch, but until I do, colour me unconvinced.
Paul
ericadeane
Joined: October 28, 2002
KitMaker: 4,021 posts
Armorama: 3,947 posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 - 04:43 AM UTC
"There had been an argument for years that the DD was never built using the M4A1 large hatch hull because there were no war time photographs"
Really? This argument must have taken place before I got serious into Sherman modeling sometime about 2000. Conventional wisdom is that it's ABSOLUTELY clear that lg hatch M4A1 75mm gun tanks were used in the DD program -- that indeed, they were preferred over the small hatch ones due to the easier escape for a sinking tank.
Best of luck w/your photo. Your prime stumbling point will be to prove that your Sherman IIC is not an M4 Composite like Paul says. Look fwd to your book -- any new Firefly photos are welcome. Just don't make a book like Gavin Birch's book (Sherman Tank: Images of War) which was filled with mis-captions.
"Never say 'Never'" is a good adage when it comes to Sherman research.
Really? This argument must have taken place before I got serious into Sherman modeling sometime about 2000. Conventional wisdom is that it's ABSOLUTELY clear that lg hatch M4A1 75mm gun tanks were used in the DD program -- that indeed, they were preferred over the small hatch ones due to the easier escape for a sinking tank.
Best of luck w/your photo. Your prime stumbling point will be to prove that your Sherman IIC is not an M4 Composite like Paul says. Look fwd to your book -- any new Firefly photos are welcome. Just don't make a book like Gavin Birch's book (Sherman Tank: Images of War) which was filled with mis-captions.
"Never say 'Never'" is a good adage when it comes to Sherman research.
mmcalc
Joined: February 19, 2008
KitMaker: 55 posts
Armorama: 49 posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 - 09:12 AM UTC
Quoted Text
"Never say 'Never'" is a good adage when it comes to Sherman research.
I have to disagree with this. There are plenty of places to say never with Shermans; it's just that the places where you can't say never just show up in odd places.
Mike Canaday
ALBOWIE
Joined: February 28, 2006
KitMaker: 1,605 posts
Armorama: 1,565 posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 - 06:32 PM UTC
I will reserve judgement until I see the photo but the last time someone claimed this it turned out to be a 1C Hybrid and not a Mk II, they are very hard to tell apart frontally unless you really know what to look for (which is not always visible due to stowage. Do you know where we can find a copy of the UK "Find". If it was a range wreck/target then there is every chance it has been assembled from whatever was available on the range which is pretty common on military ranges.. There were photos of a Cent Turret on a Chieftan hull "found" on a British range about five years ago but it does not mean that they were manufactured. That one was put to gether as a hard target from surviving range pieces. I had great pleasure in putting a 66mm LAW into a Matilda Hull with a Staghound turret that range control had placed on it.
Mark Hayward (Probably "The" expert on the Firefly thoroughly researched it and found all the production records which did not list ANY Mk II conversions. As others have said it is not a simple field conversion and was done in a 4th Line Depot. The internal arrangements and taverse mechanism fitted to the M4A1 were the reasons given for it not being selected as a suitable conversion candidate.
I, like Roy have been seriously studying Shermans since 2000 and find you claim re DD Large hatches not being though to have been built bcause no photos were avaialble as strange as if you find reviews from the seventies when Esci first released their large hatch 75mm M4A1 kit you will see this was being discussed in the mainstream modelling media of the time. I can certainly remember this being discussed and accepted as general Sherman knowledge in the early 80's.
You may have this mixed up with the Large Hatch M32 of which pictures were only discovered a few years ago.
If your photo is of a firefly in Nigmegen on the date given than it is highly probable that it is a Guards Armoured one and they did have significant qty of Hybrids. They certainly do not list any MkII's (Firelies or otherwise) in any of their vehicle returns.
I look forward to seeing if you truly have found a truly rare or unknown Sherman variant
Regards
Al
Mark Hayward (Probably "The" expert on the Firefly thoroughly researched it and found all the production records which did not list ANY Mk II conversions. As others have said it is not a simple field conversion and was done in a 4th Line Depot. The internal arrangements and taverse mechanism fitted to the M4A1 were the reasons given for it not being selected as a suitable conversion candidate.
I, like Roy have been seriously studying Shermans since 2000 and find you claim re DD Large hatches not being though to have been built bcause no photos were avaialble as strange as if you find reviews from the seventies when Esci first released their large hatch 75mm M4A1 kit you will see this was being discussed in the mainstream modelling media of the time. I can certainly remember this being discussed and accepted as general Sherman knowledge in the early 80's.
You may have this mixed up with the Large Hatch M32 of which pictures were only discovered a few years ago.
If your photo is of a firefly in Nigmegen on the date given than it is highly probable that it is a Guards Armoured one and they did have significant qty of Hybrids. They certainly do not list any MkII's (Firelies or otherwise) in any of their vehicle returns.
I look forward to seeing if you truly have found a truly rare or unknown Sherman variant
Regards
Al
X82dABNINF
Joined: March 06, 2013
KitMaker: 6 posts
Armorama: 6 posts
Posted: Monday, May 27, 2013 - 07:41 AM UTC
I apologize for my late reply, however there is no question about what it is. It's a broadside with him standing about where the right hand applique armor would be. It will be in an upcoming publication and I agreed not to make it public until after the book is released. We also know without a shadow of a doubt that the Canadians converted M4A1's as well. The turret from any Sherman will interchange, even the T-23. The late large hatch hulls incorporate the hydraulic transverse. These were produced long after the cast small hatch. I will upload some build photos as soon as I have figured out how to upload here.
This is the link for the picture:
This is the link for the picture:
ALBOWIE
Joined: February 28, 2006
KitMaker: 1,605 posts
Armorama: 1,565 posts
Posted: Monday, May 27, 2013 - 10:04 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I apologize for my late reply, however there is no question about what it is. It's a broadside with him standing about where the right hand applique armor would be. It will be in an upcoming publication and I agreed not to make it public until after the book is released. We also know without a shadow of a doubt that the Canadians converted M4A1's as well. The turret from any Sherman will interchange, even the T-23. The late large hatch hulls incorporate the hydraulic transverse. These were produced long after the cast small hatch. I will upload some build photos as soon as I have figured out how to upload here.
This is the link for the picture:
I look forward to seeing pictures of the real thing and until then I will reserve my judgement. As for the claims the Canadians converted M4A1's then lets look at that which wa a pilot only. One vehicle was converted to see if could add another line of production as the US did not want to build them. The US converted an M4A2 DV to one for trials and no one is claiming they saw service.
Until your photo is published then I am afraid the evidence is strongly against it being a Sherman IIc
Regards
Al
Regards
tankmodeler
#417
Joined: March 01, 2004
KitMaker: 3,123 posts
Armorama: 2,539 posts
Posted: Monday, May 27, 2013 - 10:16 AM UTC
Quoted Text
It will be in an upcoming publication and I agreed not to make it public until after the book is released.
Well, as before, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but I won't believe it until I actually see the photo.
Quoted Text
We also know without a shadow of a doubt that the Canadians converted M4A1's as well.
Technically, it was a Grizzly, not an M4A1 and we converted exactly one. Which remained in Canada and exists today. But it was only the one and was done for experimental purposes.
Quoted Text
I will upload some build photos as soon as I have figured out how to upload here.
It's a lovely looking model, but I'll wait until I see the photo to change my opinion. Can you state approximately when this book might be published?
Paul
KurtLaughlin
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Monday, May 27, 2013 - 10:56 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Can you state approximately when this book might be published?
Right after the one showing the 8.8cm Jagdtiger recovered in Poland . . .
I can understand people who haven't done any original source research remaining unconvinced because there have been things here or there where the organization said "We are going to do X" and Y turns up. This case, however, is different because there is not just an absence of positive data but also the existence of direct negative evidence (e.g., production reports stating that there aren't going to be any M4A1 conversions and a technical report stating why an M4A1 is unsuitable for the conversion).
It's sort of like engineering where the unwillingness of any competent engineer to state definitively that X will *never* happen is taken as proof positive that it not only *can* happen, but that it probably *will* happen.
KL
X82dABNINF
Joined: March 06, 2013
KitMaker: 6 posts
Armorama: 6 posts
Posted: Monday, May 27, 2013 - 02:55 PM UTC
I got the same skepticism when I spoke to a Sherman "expert" who happens to be an author of two other Sherman books. I found the pictures sorting through family photos post my grandmother passing away. I was more interested in the photo because I served as an infantry officer with the same unit. I am also well versed in Shermans and noted the cast hull in the photo. It's clear, there is no question what it is because it's rounded off from the top to the sides. Welded plate armor is square edged. Had I not been able to see the AFV from a broad side, I would have assumed it to be a Hybrid as well. I had a very heated argument with an individual who is linked to Squadron. Once produced, the argument ended. I will let you know when I know the title and release date. I have been waiting over a year.
KurtLaughlin
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Monday, May 27, 2013 - 10:21 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I got the same skepticism when I spoke to a Sherman "expert" who happens to be an author of two other Sherman books.
You keep putting expert in quotes to imply so-called, but not really yet if this photo does show a unique, undocumented, and heretofore unknown vehicle, their skepticism would appear to be perfectly normal and warranted and hardly a reflection of error on their part.
I am in communication with four people who have written Sherman books. I will email them tonight to see what they recall.
Quoted Text
I had a very heated argument with an individual who is linked to Squadron. Once produced, the argument ended.
I will email Jim Mesko and David Doyle tonight as well.
Quoted Text
I will let you know when I know the title and release date. I have been waiting over a year.
As author, you determine the title of your book. Nevertheless, what is the subject? BTW, the author's name is?
KL
mmcalc
Joined: February 19, 2008
KitMaker: 55 posts
Armorama: 49 posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 - 12:17 AM UTC
Quoted Text
The turret from any Sherman will interchange, even the T-23.
I would disagree with this statement if by interchange you mean an ordnance unit attached to a fighting organization could take a 76mm turret and install it into a 75mm tank hull and get it to operate so that it could be taken into combat. All the turret interfaces except the main bearing were different. To name two big ones, the power slip ring was completely different, so that the turret would have been unpowered, and the turret basket was different, so the crew would have no where to stand if a 76mm turret were installed into a 75mm hull.
Only a depot level repair shop (i.e. a factory) could have converted a 75mm hull to accept a 76mm hull, not a forward based ordnance unit attached to a fighting organization.
The ordnance units attached to a fighting organizations did do some big conversions (up armoring, 75/76mm gun barrel swaps), but nothing on the scale of swapping 75mm turrets for 76mm turrets, not even on M4A3 75mm tanks, which were a lot closer to the 76mm hull configuration.
Mike Canaday
X82dABNINF
Joined: March 06, 2013
KitMaker: 6 posts
Armorama: 6 posts
Posted: Friday, May 31, 2013 - 05:05 PM UTC
I'm not sure where you pulled your information from, but you might want to look at the M4A4 Large hatch 76MM T23 turreted tanks. There are no differences with the exception of the very early Sherman M4 in the ring gear and transverse. This was common place to interchange turrets during overhauls.
ALBOWIE
Joined: February 28, 2006
KitMaker: 1,605 posts
Armorama: 1,565 posts
Posted: Friday, May 31, 2013 - 08:15 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I'm not sure where you pulled your information from, but you might want to look at the M4A4 Large hatch 76MM T23 turreted tanks. There are no differences with the exception of the very early Sherman M4 in the ring gear and transverse. This was common place to interchange turrets during overhauls.
Oh dear....
exer
Joined: November 27, 2004
KitMaker: 6,048 posts
Armorama: 4,619 posts
Posted: Saturday, June 01, 2013 - 12:03 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I'm not sure where you pulled your information from, but you might want to look at the M4A4 Large hatch 76MM T23 turreted tanks.
I'd love to have a look at one of them too but they don't exist
calvin_ng
Joined: June 23, 2008
KitMaker: 1,024 posts
Armorama: 753 posts
Posted: Saturday, June 01, 2013 - 12:39 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I'd love to have a look at one of them too but they don't exist
I think that's the first true statement he might have posted Pat. A quick look on google shows that the m4a4 with the t23 turret did in fact exist. Used by the Indian Army post WWII. It is indeed an odd one at that.
ericadeane
Joined: October 28, 2002
KitMaker: 4,021 posts
Armorama: 3,947 posts
Posted: Saturday, June 01, 2013 - 12:43 AM UTC
Mr Baker: You've teased us with the possibility of an M4A1 Firefly -- cool. I await the book and photo. I hope you sell a ton of 'em.
And I'm sure there can be somewhat of a bunker mentality vs. the "experts" -- I get that too. But frankly, when Mike Canaday says the internals of a T-23 turret mechanism vs. the 75mm gun turret are different, he's not speaking through his hat. You can look at the manuals and see for yourself the difficulty it would encompass for anything less than a factory level (just look at the parts list) to accomplish.
Surely when you wrote: "you might want to look at the M4A4 Large hatch 76MM T23 turreted tanks" you meant to say M4A1, right? There was no such thing as a lg hatch M4A4.
But your argument that local Ord units swapping out 75mm turrets with spare T-23 turrets is curious because the lg hatch M4A1s with T-23 turrets were delivered aplenty from the factory.
Can you cite or even show ANY wartime hull that was originally mated to a 75mm turret, that was upgraded to a T-23 turret? I can't prove a negative and in my amateur Sherman knowledge, I can't think of a single instance -- not a one.
I think some postwar MAP Shermans got this upgrade (I know there's an ex-MAP M4 (105) hull with a T-23 turret atop of it in an Italian display). Calvin's notation of an Indian M4A4 with T-23 sounds interesting. I'll have to take a look at that! Indian and Pakistani Shermans are interesting to me.
And I'm sure there can be somewhat of a bunker mentality vs. the "experts" -- I get that too. But frankly, when Mike Canaday says the internals of a T-23 turret mechanism vs. the 75mm gun turret are different, he's not speaking through his hat. You can look at the manuals and see for yourself the difficulty it would encompass for anything less than a factory level (just look at the parts list) to accomplish.
Surely when you wrote: "you might want to look at the M4A4 Large hatch 76MM T23 turreted tanks" you meant to say M4A1, right? There was no such thing as a lg hatch M4A4.
But your argument that local Ord units swapping out 75mm turrets with spare T-23 turrets is curious because the lg hatch M4A1s with T-23 turrets were delivered aplenty from the factory.
Can you cite or even show ANY wartime hull that was originally mated to a 75mm turret, that was upgraded to a T-23 turret? I can't prove a negative and in my amateur Sherman knowledge, I can't think of a single instance -- not a one.
I think some postwar MAP Shermans got this upgrade (I know there's an ex-MAP M4 (105) hull with a T-23 turret atop of it in an Italian display). Calvin's notation of an Indian M4A4 with T-23 sounds interesting. I'll have to take a look at that! Indian and Pakistani Shermans are interesting to me.
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.