Howdy fellas,

During my recent research into all things 'Sherman' , I recently came across an interesting reference to an A3 variant designated the "E9".
Apparently what make's this version of the venerable Sherman different from the rest is; In an attempt to address the Sherman's 'ground pressure' problems, the addition of extended end connectors, or 'duckbills' on the outside of the tracks seemed to help the situation. The 'E9' version took this one step further by adding 'duckbills' on the inside edge of the track as well!
The way they did this was to 'space-out' the bogey trucks approx. 4.5 inches from the lower hull. The idea worked extremely well, but by that time the wider WVSS track system had become available and essentially overshadowed the variant.
I have been trying to scout for photos of this variant on the web, with NO luck. I don't suppose any of you with the Hunnicutt 'Bible' could see if it's pictured there?

Because, just FYI (are you listening ShermiesRule? ), I'm seriously thinking of building one of these rare birds....
TIA.

Tread.

Oy ... now Gordon wants to build an E9 suspension. Prepare to spend some bucks to get all those EECs for both sides of the track!

Also, don't forget that not only were the bogies moved out, but the idlers and drive sprockets as well.

Here is a recent thread on Missing Links that includes some pics of the real-deal:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=47208&messageid=1093415388

One problem with your idea -- they only put this suspension on the M4 and M4A. Interestingly, it looks like they did this with early, small hatched M4 hulls. The drawing in Hunnicutt (page 296) shows a small hatch M4 with late sharp-nose cast final drive housing, and a late high-bustle turret with loader's hatch and welded cheek armor.. The gun is still the 75mm, but the mantlet is the early small mantlet with a "wing" of armor wleded on the gunner's side. It would make a groovy model.

According to Hunnicutt, about 1,000 M4s and M4A1s were rebuilt with the spaced-out suspension. The remanufacuting program ran from about August 1944 to sometime in 1945.

EDIT: Page 245 of Hunnicutt has photos of a test M4E9 and one pic of a test M4A3E9 -- it is a very early M4A3 with small hatches and 3-piece final drive.

While not exactly a Sherman, M36 Tank Destroyers also received E9 suspension post WW II.

I recently completed an M4A1E9 - 76 in service with the Indian Army cicra 1965. I found that many post war Shermans were converted to the E9 suspention as part of a remanufacturing plan for foriegn military sales (FMS). Interstingly, many of these remanufactured Shermans also had the 76 mm gun installed in the original 75 mm turret. This retrofit was originally developed by engineers in Patton's 3rd Army but was never used due to shipments of M4A1(76) and M4A3(76). The 76 mm guns that Patton's engineers had procured to use for the conversion were eventually used to refit the M4A3E2 Jumbos.

Anyway, after the war, cost for remanufacturing Shermans for FMS was a big issue so using the E9 suspension and not replacing the whole suspension with the HVSS (like the Israelis did) was considered the best option. Note that the Shermans with the E9 suspension did have the extended fenders like HVSS Shermans but the supports were rods, not the 'C' channels used on the HVSS Shermans. The Squadron book "M4 Sherman Walk Around' shows this nicely. Similarily, the incorporation of the 76 mm gun into the original turret was done to save cost. Much of the remanufacturing was done in Japan (along with some in the US) so there are subtle differences based on where the remanufacturing was completed.

A great many of these types of Shermans were sold to Pakistan and India (something like 200 each) and they were used in their wars until about 1965. Interestingly, both countries captured Shermans from each and put them back into service so which country had which type of Sherman gets mixed up with each war they fought. Also, Chile appears to have received some E9 Shermans but without the 76 mm gun.

I found that doing a Google search on Indian Shermans, Pakistan Shermans or wording like that produced a number of very useful photos.

Hope this helps.

Wexman.

How did you mark your Indian E9? I'm currently working on an Indian M4A3E4 for the '65 War and built a Pakistani M4A1E4 about 8 years ago.

I didn't use any markings. I couldn't find a single photo that showed anything on the tanks. I'm sure they were there but none of the shots showed them. I finished the model in a dark OD green, about the same color as a Firefly or an M-60 in the 1960's.

Wexman

"....Oy ... now Gordon wants to build an E9 suspension. Prepare to spend some bucks to get all those EECs for both sides of the track!...."

Oy?......geeez, mashugana! Can't tell you how much I like getting a 'rise' out of you Bob.......

Thx fellas for all the input. It's not that I'm being difficult, I'm just trying to investigate the more 'rare' Sherman variant's and build them. And of course at the same time see if I can get ShermiesRule to build them first...
Actually, truth be told, I'm also wanting to build the Sherman (don't know the designator) with the extra wide duckbills mounted to the tracks......you know, the one's that made the standard tracks approx. 23.5 inches all by themselves. (if I had a scanner hooked up, I'd post a pic...)

Also, thx very much for your intel Wexman...your input was extremely helpful! I'll have to try a search with those parameters so I can come up with some photos.
I'm also going to have to check out your 'Photos' section.

Thx again fellas.

Tread.

What?......you asleep Alan?........ :-)

EDIT: hmmmmm, no pics Wexman?

Hi guys:

Bob: Recheck your copy of H.: The E9 kit was applicable to M4, M4A1, M4A2, and M4A3, but not M4A4s (it wouldn't work). I have seen 1 M4E9, a couple of M4A1E9s, and about a half-dozen M4A3E9s, all small hatch. I may be biased in my sample because the M4A3 was type most likely to stay stateside and survive the war.

Gordon: I doubt there were any M4A3E9 (105)s. The conversion required 240 man-hours per tank, so it was wisely held as a depot level modification. The M4A3 (105) fell out of favor rather quickly post-war and those remaining VVSS tanks were selected for conversion to 76mm tanks and HVSS or outright scrapping. It seems the E9 conversion was passed over altogether.

Also, I wanted to take a photo today of the backside of a sandshield mounting strip for you, but got caught up in something else and left without the shot. . .

Wexman: I would not go so far as to say that the turnbuckle (rod) fender braces are indicative of an E9 tank. In fact, I have seen that style almost exclusively on M4A1(76) HVSS while the E9s have only had flat rectangular bar braces (that is what came in the kits.) The only exceptions are the pictures in Hunnicutt. Also, the HVSS and E9 fenders were not the same width or design. The E9 fenders did not have holes on the outside edge for mounting sandshields but the HVSS fenders did. There are some problems with the captions in the two walk-around books, especially the TD book. If you can post the pages you mentioned, I can give corrections.

HTH,
KL

If you do an advanced search on google using the keyword M42b1(flamethrower on a M4A1), you'll have luck finding E9 suspension stuff. Here's a couple of pics I took at Ft. McClellan back in '91.

Thanks. Kurt. It was a quick scan to get him some info -- guess I missed some of the info. Here's my question: Were any of these tanks used operationally my the U.S. in WWII or Korea?

"H" does include some nice line drawings of a remanufactured M4 with an E9 suspension -- if I ever do this conversion, this is probably the one I will do.

A friend of mine did a nice Pakistani tank with the E9 suspension and a 76mm gun in the round 75mm turret -- it's kind of reminiscient of the tanks in the movie "Kelly's Heroes" (but those Yugo tanks did not have a spaced-out suspension).

Bob:

I don't think any E9 were ever used in combat by the US, although I vaguely remember something that prevents me from saying I've never seen a photo. I forget whether M36s were used by us in Korea, if so, that would be the most likely.

It seems the E9 conversion was just too much work when HVSS tanks were coming off the line. There have been a number of late war photos showing small hatch M4A3s lately, maybe it'll appear on one of those. Note that the cover of the M4 Walkaround shows a E9 (without inside connectors) at D-Day - wrong. (You can tell E9s from photos by looking at the differential cover/sprocket. On regular tanks you can't see the bolts on the sides. On E9s you can can see them clearly. )

Speaking photos, if anybody has any M42B1 or M42B3 photos of these tanks in service with the CWS, (as opposed to at APG or in museums, but I'd like to see those as well!) let me know - Please!

KL