_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV: Allied - WWII
Armor and ground forces of the Allied forces during World War II.
Hosted by Darren Baker
Sherman trivia knowledge test
thebear
Visit this Community
Quebec, Canada
Joined: November 15, 2002
KitMaker: 3,960 posts
Armorama: 3,579 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 07:41 AM UTC
I Know! I Know !!! ooouuuhhhhh!! Okay I'll let the others answer this one ...

Rick
TankCarl
Visit this Community
Rhode Island, United States
Joined: May 10, 2002
KitMaker: 3,581 posts
Armorama: 2,782 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 07:56 AM UTC
What is: The low bustle would allow the "small hatch" drivers/co drivers hatches to open,but the newer 47degree glasis and larger hatches,would not be able to open if the turret was turned gun to 6 o'clock? (++) (++)
Kelley
Visit this Community
Georgia, United States
Joined: November 21, 2002
KitMaker: 1,966 posts
Armorama: 1,635 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 08:20 AM UTC
Correct you're up Carl.

Mike
TankCarl
Visit this Community
Rhode Island, United States
Joined: May 10, 2002
KitMaker: 3,581 posts
Armorama: 2,782 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 01:10 PM UTC
What was a name for the auxiliary engine? Hint think Depot & low weight.
KurtLaughlin
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 08, 2005 - 01:18 AM UTC

Quoted Text

What was a name for the auxiliary engine? Hint think Depot & low weight.


Well, it was manufactured by the Homelite Corporation of Port Chester NY, but it was often called the "Little Joe".

How about this: Why were the return rollers raised on M3 bogies?

KL
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 08, 2005 - 01:38 AM UTC
I believe it was because the volute spring size needed to be increased due to the heavier weight of the tank.
KurtLaughlin
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 08, 2005 - 04:26 AM UTC

Quoted Text

I believe it was because the volute spring size needed to be increased due to the heavier weight of the tank.


Ahh, that's why they moved the return roller from the top center to the bracket on the rear. What I'm talking about is putting a spacer (the mis-named "pillow block") under the return roller axle, in the same manner as was done on the heavy duty M4 bogies about two years later.

If you have Hunnicutt, see the picture at the top of pg 105.

KL
thebear
Visit this Community
Quebec, Canada
Joined: November 15, 2002
KitMaker: 3,960 posts
Armorama: 3,579 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 08, 2005 - 07:17 AM UTC
hi Kurt ...wasn't it raised to help stop the tanks from throwing their tracks.

Rick
KurtLaughlin
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 08, 2005 - 08:00 AM UTC

Quoted Text

wasn't it raised to help stop the tanks from throwing their tracks.

Rick


Well, not really, but I guess the unmodified tanks could have been more suceptible to shedding tracks.

Hint: They raised the M3 roller for a different reason than for raising the M4 roller. (And neither was done explicitly to prevent track shedding.)

KL
Drader
Visit this Community
Wales, United Kingdom
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 3,791 posts
Armorama: 2,798 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 08, 2005 - 08:24 PM UTC
The return roller on the heavy duty bogies was raised because of the thinner steel track blocks.

No idea why it was done on the M3

Hanging on for an answer here....
KurtLaughlin
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Monday, May 09, 2005 - 03:09 PM UTC

Quoted Text

The return roller on the heavy duty bogies was raised because of the thinner steel track blocks.

Hanging on for an answer here....


Actually no . . . The tracks were more or less the same thickness on the inside as far as I know.

Heck, nobody's gonna get this. . . They raised the rollers on M3s to increase the space between the roller and the bogie bracket. Rocks and junk would get jammed in there and lock up the roller. Although this wouldn't eliminate the problem it at least it would take bigger rocks to cause a problem. Even simple things can cause big problems. . .

So how about those spacers on the M4 suspension?

KL
Plasticat
Visit this Community
Idaho, United States
Joined: September 03, 2003
KitMaker: 448 posts
Armorama: 245 posts
Posted: Monday, May 09, 2005 - 03:53 PM UTC
While looking at the real deal up close, I figured it was to keep the track from actually dragging across the skid plate on top of the bogie assy. It seemed that there was about the same amount of clearance between the inside of the track and the skid as the spacer is thick. I'll be interested to hear what the real reason is.
ericadeane
Visit this Community
Michigan, United States
Joined: October 28, 2002
KitMaker: 4,021 posts
Armorama: 3,947 posts
Posted: Monday, May 09, 2005 - 03:58 PM UTC
Kurt:
Can you post another question for the site to ponder?

Thnx
Roy Chow
Moderator-Allied WW2 DG, Armorama.com
thebear
Visit this Community
Quebec, Canada
Joined: November 15, 2002
KitMaker: 3,960 posts
Armorama: 3,579 posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 06:32 AM UTC
Wasn't it to improve the spring stability...

Rick
KurtLaughlin
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 01:59 PM UTC

Quoted Text

While looking at the real deal up close, I figured it was to keep the track from actually dragging across the skid plate on top of the bogie assy. It seemed that there was about the same amount of clearance between the inside of the track and the skid as the spacer is thick. I'll be interested to hear what the real reason is.


You are correct sir! Now here's the rest of the story. . .

When the tracks were rubber lined, if the tracks ran across the skid it wasn't much of a problem. When all steel tracks came on the rubbing would often wear completely through the skid. Eventually the tracks would catch on a worn edge and rip the skid completely off.
KurtLaughlin
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 02:10 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Kurt:
Can you post another question for the site to ponder?

Thnx
Roy Chow
Moderator-Allied WW2 DG, Armorama.com


OK, why did they change from the spoked idler to the pressed disc type?

KL
Henk
Visit this Community
England - South West, United Kingdom
Joined: August 07, 2004
KitMaker: 6,391 posts
Armorama: 4,258 posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 02:15 PM UTC
To stop the wheel being jammed by Sticks, poles etc. I believe they also save weight.

Cheers
Henk
KurtLaughlin
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 04:16 PM UTC

Quoted Text

To stop the wheel being jammed by Sticks, poles etc. I believe they also save weight.


I don't know about the weight differences (the spoked type might actually be lighter) but the jamming problem was not rectified until later. The idler and bogie wheels were frequently of opposite construction which seems to ignore these risks. Anyways that's not it.

KL
18Bravo
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 20, 2005
KitMaker: 7,219 posts
Armorama: 6,097 posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 04:22 PM UTC
Pressed parts are easier to manufacture.
18Bravo
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 20, 2005
KitMaker: 7,219 posts
Armorama: 6,097 posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 04:23 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Pressed parts are easier to manufacture.

Oops... And hence cheaper as well.
tankmodeler
#417
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: March 01, 2004
KitMaker: 3,123 posts
Armorama: 2,539 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 04:09 AM UTC

Quoted Text

When all steel tracks came on the rubbing would often wear completely through the skid.


Which rather begs the question of why keep the skid feature at all?
KurtLaughlin
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 12:16 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Pressed parts are easier to manufacture.


Maybe, maybe not. Even the pressed disc types required a fair bit of welding. Anyways, that's not the _stated_ reason.

One more. . .

KL
KurtLaughlin
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 12:19 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

When all steel tracks came on the rubbing would often wear completely through the skid.


Which rather begs the question of why keep the skid feature at all?


A valid question indeed.

KL
Mike_Canaday
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Joined: August 15, 2004
KitMaker: 21 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 04:22 PM UTC
As a question.

Can you say fatigue failure?

Mike Canaday
KurtLaughlin
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Friday, May 13, 2005 - 09:22 AM UTC

Quoted Text

As a question.

Can you say fatigue failure?



I think fatigue failure was little more than a term in some metallurgy PhD's thesis back in '43 . . . The open spoke idlers were failing, but for more mundane reasons. It seems rocks would ride the tracks up to the idler and get wedged between the wheel and the tracks as if in a washing machine wringer - or steel rolling mill. Something had to give, and it was usually the rim of the idler. On some a whole segment between spokes would buckle leaving a flat or worse on the wheel. The disk idler wasn't the end of trouble though as the rim and flanges still wore out or caved in too readily. I think they ended up thickening the rim/flanges twice during production.

KL
 _GOTOTOP