Following on from the questions raised by the Cool Studs Inc #4 thread, I had a look through Hunnicutt last night to look for more on the subject.
Aaannndddd...... can't see any photos of early/mid hulls with engine door supports at all. They don't have torsion bars either. The tanks are definitely M4A3s, either in overhead shots from the manual or with 'M4A3' helpfully painted on the side.
How lucky combat use of the early/mid A3 was limited.
Hosted by Darren Baker
M4A3 engine door supports
Drader
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 3,791 posts
Armorama: 2,798 posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 - 01:33 PM UTC
ericadeane
Joined: October 28, 2002
KitMaker: 4,021 posts
Armorama: 3,947 posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 - 07:29 PM UTC
Hi David:
I went thru my 47 degree hull M4a3 pics as well -- no evidence of the supports are visible either.
However, I'd contend with what you said about it being lucky that not more early/mid M4A3s were brought into action. I'd assert that the "lucky" event was that when inventories of Mediums were running low, the US was able to quickly scrounge up these vehicles and put them into service. I'm sure that the unit commanders weren't that upset over a 47 degree hull M4A3, new from stateside training rather than getting the newest M4A3 76W HVSS if it meant another functioning tank in the unit. Something is better than nothing, I would think.
I've never read or heard of any complaints along these lines -- think of the older veteran vehicles (M4, M4A1s) in late war photos. They weren't mothballed in lieu of the newer M4A3s. Maybe they weren't leading the columns any longer but every usable gun platform was welcome, I'd think.
My two cents. Take care, David
RC
I went thru my 47 degree hull M4a3 pics as well -- no evidence of the supports are visible either.
However, I'd contend with what you said about it being lucky that not more early/mid M4A3s were brought into action. I'd assert that the "lucky" event was that when inventories of Mediums were running low, the US was able to quickly scrounge up these vehicles and put them into service. I'm sure that the unit commanders weren't that upset over a 47 degree hull M4A3, new from stateside training rather than getting the newest M4A3 76W HVSS if it meant another functioning tank in the unit. Something is better than nothing, I would think.
I've never read or heard of any complaints along these lines -- think of the older veteran vehicles (M4, M4A1s) in late war photos. They weren't mothballed in lieu of the newer M4A3s. Maybe they weren't leading the columns any longer but every usable gun platform was welcome, I'd think.
My two cents. Take care, David
RC
Drader
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 3,791 posts
Armorama: 2,798 posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 - 07:43 PM UTC
Hi Roy
Sorry, my bad... What I meant to say was 'lucky for us today trying to identify Shermans in photographs that not many early/mid A3s made it into active service'. You are right about the position in 1944-5, just my laziness causing confusion.
IIRC the scrounging also included small numbers of A2s and (maybe) A4s from Lend-Lease stocks.
The British Army carried on with 75mm Shermans to the end of the war, though they probably wanted Comets - just like modellers today :-)
All the best
David
Sorry, my bad... What I meant to say was 'lucky for us today trying to identify Shermans in photographs that not many early/mid A3s made it into active service'. You are right about the position in 1944-5, just my laziness causing confusion.
IIRC the scrounging also included small numbers of A2s and (maybe) A4s from Lend-Lease stocks.
The British Army carried on with 75mm Shermans to the end of the war, though they probably wanted Comets - just like modellers today :-)
All the best
David
toadman1
Vendor
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 1,141 posts
Armorama: 950 posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 - 08:33 PM UTC
IIRC, the door supports were a wet stowage A3 thing only. The torsion bars appear to be a post-war rebuild item. The engine deck doors weigh a ton and can easily cause a person to throw out their back trying to open them(personal experience). The torsion bars make it much easier to open them with very little strain(more personal experience).
Chris "toadman" Hughes
Toadman's Tank Pictures
Chris "toadman" Hughes
Toadman's Tank Pictures
GunTruck
Joined: December 01, 2001
KitMaker: 5,885 posts
Armorama: 3,799 posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 - 09:56 PM UTC
Quoted Text
IIRC, the door supports were a wet stowage A3 thing only. The torsion bars appear to be a post-war rebuild item. The engine deck doors weigh a ton and can easily cause a person to throw out their back trying to open them(personal experience). The torsion bars make it much easier to open them with very little strain(more personal experience).
I hope you guys keep this thread going a bit longer...
When I began reading up on the unit, I initially thought they'd receive second-hand equipment because of the general feeling about the combat worthiness of the African-American soldier. This assumption seemed to be incorrect, as when they became part of General Patton's command - they got new(er) equipment.
I know they didn't take their stateside tanks with them when deployed. Reference cites they received M4A3E8's when they landed on Omaha Beach - but I think this an example of "Fog of War" as the photos show M4A3(76) with the split loader's hatch. The National Archives photo of Sgt. Harvey Woodard's tank on 11/5/44 (when the entire crew was killed in their first combat action) is a 3/4 right profile shot but I can't make out Engine Door Supports. Maybe this one could be an example of an early or mid 'A3?
One of Able Company's M4A3's is shown crossing a Bailey Bridge on 11/9/44 (Patton Museum Photo) does appear to have the Engine Door Support.
Throughout their combat history, photos shows the unit using all types of M4's, up to a photo with Moses Dade near an M4A3E8 later on in the war somewhere in Germany. All three companys took terrible beatings early in the deployment - with many of the tanks knocked out on several occassions. "Cool Studs" and "Taffy" (the Commander's Tank) led attack columns and were damaged quite often. Naturally, the tanker's recollections never seem to talk about what type of tank they were operating other than ammunition...
I love threads like these - the speculation and thoughts are really helpful to me...
Gunnie
toadman1
Vendor
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 1,141 posts
Armorama: 950 posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 - 10:04 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I know they didn't take their stateside tanks with them when deployed. Reference cites they received M4A3E8's when they landed on Omaha Beach - but I think this an example of "Fog of War" as the photos show M4A3(76) with the split loader's hatch. The National Archives photo of Sgt. Harvey Woodard's tank on 11/5/44 (when the entire crew was killed in their first combat action) is a 3/4 right profile shot but I can't make out Engine Door Supports. Maybe this one could be an example of an early or mid 'A3?
One of Able Company's M4A3's is shown crossing a Bailey Bridge on 11/9/44 (Patton Museum Photo) does appear to have the Engine Door Support.
Gunnie
Jim,
Do you have that pic of Sgt Woodard's tank? I'd like to see it. Based on other photos, the early/mid production M4A3's(dry stowage) didn't show up in the ETO until 1945.
Chris "toadman" Hughes
Toadman's Tank Pictues
GunTruck
Joined: December 01, 2001
KitMaker: 5,885 posts
Armorama: 3,799 posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 - 10:09 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Do you have that pic of Sgt Woodard's tank? I'd like to see it. Based on other photos, the early/mid production M4A3's(dry stowage) didn't show up in the ETO until 1945.
Yep! I've got them all sitting next to the Dragon M4A1(76)W kit - for viewing this afternoon...
Also - I still never figured out that odd fitting (that looks like a mount point for fenders) on the side of Sgt. Crecy's M4A1 with Applique Armor either...
Gunnie
Drader
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 3,791 posts
Armorama: 2,798 posts
Posted: Thursday, February 09, 2006 - 01:22 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Also - I still never figured out that odd fitting (that looks like a mount point for fenders) on the side of Sgt. Crecy's M4A1 with Applique Armor either...
Any chance we could see that?
GunTruck
Joined: December 01, 2001
KitMaker: 5,885 posts
Armorama: 3,799 posts
Posted: Friday, February 10, 2006 - 02:27 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextAlso - I still never figured out that odd fitting (that looks like a mount point for fenders) on the side of Sgt. Crecy's M4A1 with Applique Armor either...
Any chance we could see that?
Sure thing! The object in question is above Sgt. Crecy's arm - below the logo "Crecy"...
Gunnie
badger66
Joined: April 09, 2005
KitMaker: 251 posts
Armorama: 232 posts
Posted: Friday, February 10, 2006 - 02:34 AM UTC
Jim,
did you get my note on the 784th? And the Address
Don
did you get my note on the 784th? And the Address
Don
GunTruck
Joined: December 01, 2001
KitMaker: 5,885 posts
Armorama: 3,799 posts
Posted: Friday, February 10, 2006 - 03:20 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Jim,
did you get my note on the 784th? And the Address
Don
Yep - I just downloaded my e-mail!
Gunnie
HONEYCUT
Joined: May 07, 2003
KitMaker: 4,002 posts
Armorama: 2,947 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 12, 2006 - 03:54 PM UTC
Would that be too far around the front of the M4A1 to be the later horn/siren cable attachment point? Nah, on reflecion I think that comes out of the hull on the curve above the left trackguard- too far forward...nevermind...
toadman1
Vendor
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 1,141 posts
Armorama: 950 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 12, 2006 - 07:58 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextQuoted TextAlso - I still never figured out that odd fitting (that looks like a mount point for fenders) on the side of Sgt. Crecy's M4A1 with Applique Armor either...
Any chance we could see that?
Sure thing! The object in question is above Sgt. Crecy's arm - below the logo "Crecy"...
Gunnie
The more I look at the pic and compare it to this one: M4A1E9 the more I think that it belongs to the fender mounts. If you look at SGT Crecy's positioning and compare it with the E9 pic, he would be blocking two of the fittings.
Just my 2 cents.
Chris "toadman" Hughes
Toadman's Tank Pictures
GunTruck
Joined: December 01, 2001
KitMaker: 5,885 posts
Armorama: 3,799 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 12, 2006 - 09:24 PM UTC
M4A1E9 - getting excited here...
I'd love to model something like that...
Gunnie
I'd love to model something like that...
Gunnie
 |
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.