I looked through the Hunnicutt bible and found a small section on Flame Shermans. Seems to me that there is very little to denote a flamethrower from a regular Sherman. Eliminating the crocodiles because crews hated carrying flame fuel externally, that really only leave the hull MG, periscope, 75mm coax and inside the 75mm barrel. Except for the 75mm coax the projectors are very small and almost indistinguishable. Any additional info would be helpful.

Alan
I looked in my book on Tank Battles of the Pacific by Concord Books (oop) Not a whole lot of info but some The POW-CWS-H1 flamethrowers were mounted inside the main gun tube There is a side view of that type in action and it shows the flame coming out of the main gun area
Steven Zaloga (the author) also mentions the Marines had 9 flame tanks on the M4A2 for the Iwo Jima campaign They had the E4-5 flamers But he doesn't say were they were mounted

The pic I talked about was of the M4 composite hull that was used by the Army Hope what little info I gave is of help

Alan- will have a look tonite. Think I have a book with photos of 2 M4 FTs together, not sure what the photo can reveal for you. Let you know tmrw...

I have done some additional research and it would seem the crewed prefered the FT inside an old 75mm barrel because they had the best range and control plus survivability with the fuel safely stored inside. They also hated having it inside the 75mm barrel because then they had no heavy armament for protection. So it would seem that there is really very little externally to distinguish a FT Sherman from a regular Sherman.

Steve Zaloga modelled a WW2 Sherman Crocodile back in Milmod. Photos can be found here:
http://www.missing-lynx.com/gallery/usa/szcroc.htm

If you get a hold of the issue (which escapes me right now), Steve included some research about the adaption to the standard M4 75mm gun tank.