_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV: Allied - WWII
Armor and ground forces of the Allied forces during World War II.
Hosted by Darren Baker
Marine M4A3
tanknick22
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: February 19, 2009
KitMaker: 1,139 posts
Armorama: 1,100 posts
Posted: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 - 07:37 AM UTC
At what point did the Marines trade in thier M4A2 Shermans for the M4A3 and what was the reason for it?
ALBOWIE
Visit this Community
New South Wales, Australia
Joined: February 28, 2006
KitMaker: 1,605 posts
Armorama: 1,565 posts
Posted: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 - 09:54 AM UTC

Quoted Text

At what point did the Marines trade in thier M4A2 Shermans for the M4A3 and what was the reason for it?


They started in late 44 early 45 as production of the M4A2 was terminated and only the M4A3 and M4 were still available as the US sought to wind back its output believing they had more than enough materiel to see the war out. The USMC still had at least one Bn equipped with the M4A2 into 1946 on occupation duties in China and the only known surviving complete M4A2 (Late) 75 which is now in a Beijing Museum is believed to be from this source. Shortly after the US Occupation forces left due to the Chinese Civil war the Marines standardised on the M4A3
Al
Tank1812
Visit this Community
North Carolina, United States
Joined: April 29, 2014
KitMaker: 1,112 posts
Armorama: 886 posts
Posted: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 - 04:44 PM UTC
They switched cause the US Army switched the production lines, they had no choice.

Ed Gilbert's book cover all this and a lot more.
link

The first battle the Marines used the M4A3 was Iwo Jima with 4th and 5th Tank Batt, 3rd Tank Batt still used the M4A2.

1st Tank Batt used the M4A2 at Oki and in post war China.
M4A1Sherman
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Joined: May 02, 2013
KitMaker: 4,403 posts
Armorama: 4,078 posts
Posted: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 - 06:41 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

At what point did the Marines trade in thier M4A2 Shermans for the M4A3 and what was the reason for it?


They started in late 44 early 45 as production of the M4A2 was terminated and only the M4A3 and M4 were still available as the US sought to wind back its output believing they had more than enough materiel to see the war out. The USMC still had at least one Bn equipped with the M4A2 into 1946 on occupation duties in China and the only known surviving complete M4A2 (Late) 75 which is now in a Beijing Museum is believed to be from this source. Shortly after the US Occupation forces left due to the Chinese Civil war the Marines standardised on the M4A3
Al


Just to clarify a little bit-

By late 1944-early 1945, M4A1s were also made available, (mainly to the Army, albeit with the 47-degree ("Big Hatch"), late CAST Hull, and the T23 turret, mounting the 76mm main Gun. With the introduction of the HVSS Suspension, M4A1s were re-designated as "M4A1E8s", and the M4A3s were re-designated as "M4A3E8s".

It should be noted that M4A2s were initially manufactured with the small "Direct Vision" welded 56-degree ("Small Hatch") Hull. The "Direct Vision" slots were soon eliminated in ALL Shermans as "shot-traps". Later, M4A2s received the welded 47-degree ("Big Hatch") Hull, as did the M4A3. ALL 47-degree Hulls now included "Wet" Ammo-stowage, which stored the Ammo in bins that were surrounded with purpose-built "shells", containing an "anti-freeze/water" solution, to help with the suppression of fires, in case of anti-tank round penetration.

Initially, M4A3s were manufactured with the earlier welded 56-degree Hull, as were M4s. These were gradually replaced by the 47-degree Hull; the Ford GAA Liquid-cooled V-8 Engines, which replaced the Air-cooled Wright R-975 Engines, were also included with the the new 47-degree Hulls... To differentiate between the various models of US Shermans, various designators were also instituted, for example:

M4A3 VVSS 76mm (Wet) vs M4A3E8 HVSS 76mm (Wet), M4 VVSS 75mm (Dry), and so on...
GeraldOwens
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: March 30, 2006
KitMaker: 3,736 posts
Armorama: 3,697 posts
Posted: Thursday, June 30, 2016 - 02:15 AM UTC

Quoted Text

At what point did the Marines trade in thier M4A2 Shermans for the M4A3 and what was the reason for it?

Production of the M4A2 had been switched to the 76 mm gun in mid 1944, primarily for the Soviets, who had to fight German armor. The USMC didn't need or want the 76. Its high explosive shell was less powerful than the 75 mm, and the 75 was more than adequate against Japan's flimsy tanks. The only tank still in production with the 75 mm gun was the M4A3 (which was produced with 75 mm, 76 mm, and 105 mm armament). As mentioned, several units used the new tank on Iwo Jima and Okinawa, but a couple of battalions held onto their diesel M4A2's, for their better fuel economy and lower risk of fire when hit.
Rubicon
Visit this Community
California, United States
Joined: February 18, 2009
KitMaker: 125 posts
Armorama: 111 posts
Posted: Thursday, June 30, 2016 - 08:08 AM UTC

Quoted Text


ALL 47-degree Hulls now included "Wet" Ammo-stowage, which stored the Ammo in bins that were surrounded with purpose-built "shells", containing an "anti-freeze/water" solution, to help with the suppression of fires, in case of anti-tank round penetration.


This part is not exactly correct. Not all 47 degree large hatch hulls got wet ammo storage. All the large hatch M4A2s produced and sent to Russia still had dry storage. I think the whole M4 large hatch composite hull tanks also retained the wet racks, but I'm not 100% sure. Also, the M4 105, and M4A3 105 tanks did not have wet ammo storage.

I think the Sherman Minutia will confirm this.

http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/index.html
M4A1Sherman
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Joined: May 02, 2013
KitMaker: 4,403 posts
Armorama: 4,078 posts
Posted: Thursday, June 30, 2016 - 02:25 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text


ALL 47-degree Hulls now included "Wet" Ammo-stowage, which stored the Ammo in bins that were surrounded with purpose-built "shells", containing an "anti-freeze/water" solution, to help with the suppression of fires, in case of anti-tank round penetration.


This part is not exactly correct. Not all 47 degree large hatch hulls got wet ammo storage. All the large hatch M4A2s produced and sent to Russia still had dry storage. I think the whole M4 large hatch composite hull tanks also retained the wet racks, but I'm not 100% sure. Also, the M4 105, and M4A3 105 tanks did not have wet ammo storage.

I think the Sherman Minutia will confirm this.

http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/index.html


Nice counterpoint!

I deliberately left out the 105mm Howitzer Shermans and also the "JUMBOS", to avoid clouding an already complicated discussion the regarding the different variants of this vehicle. I was only trying to show the "major" differences between the various Sherman Hulls without going into "minutiae". Maybe I should have done so "bolt by bolt".
Tank1812
Visit this Community
North Carolina, United States
Joined: April 29, 2014
KitMaker: 1,112 posts
Armorama: 886 posts
Posted: Thursday, June 30, 2016 - 04:52 PM UTC
All interesting points but not all pertaining to Marine Shermans.

The 105mm and HVSS tanks weren't used by the Marines til after WW2.
M4A1Sherman
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Joined: May 02, 2013
KitMaker: 4,403 posts
Armorama: 4,078 posts
Posted: Friday, July 01, 2016 - 06:36 PM UTC

Quoted Text

All interesting points but not all pertaining to Marine Shermans.

The 105mm and HVSS tanks weren't used by the Marines til after WW2.


Another reason why I left them out of my original post, along with the "Jumbos"...

I should also have mentioned the "composite" Shermans...
M4A1Sherman
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Joined: May 02, 2013
KitMaker: 4,403 posts
Armorama: 4,078 posts
Posted: Friday, July 01, 2016 - 06:42 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text


ALL 47-degree Hulls now included "Wet" Ammo-stowage, which stored the Ammo in bins that were surrounded with purpose-built "shells", containing an "anti-freeze/water" solution, to help with the suppression of fires, in case of anti-tank round penetration.


This part is not exactly correct. Not all 47 degree large hatch hulls got wet ammo storage. All the large hatch M4A2s produced and sent to Russia still had dry storage. I think the whole M4 large hatch composite hull tanks also retained the wet racks, but I'm not 100% sure. Also, the M4 105, and M4A3 105 tanks did not have wet ammo storage.

I think the Sherman Minutia will confirm this.

http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/index.html


Just as another "aside", the 105mm M4 and M4A3 were purpose-built as Artillery Support Vehicles, and not really meant to accompany 75 and 76mm Shermans in Assault or Infantry Support roles. Not saying that it wasn't ever done, mind you...
 _GOTOTOP