And You Thought An Abrams Was Cramped

This is an M4 Sherman tank. This workhorse helped us win World War II.

This is the basic load and BII for the M4.


18 Responses to “And You Thought An Abrams Was Cramped”

  1. David Hensley says:

    And, for those of you who want you own Sherman Tank, the “Buy it Now” price is $550,000. Maybe a SSD timeshare?

    • Dev says:

      Group buy!

      I’ll pitch in whatever cents I can scrounge up in the couch…

    • Stan says:

      I wonder what this vehicle’s story is. That model of Sherman should have a gasoline Ford V8 engine in it.

  2. Steve says:

    Also called the “Ronson” by the Brits (who had hundreds of Shermans in their divisions) due to it proclivity to light up like a torch when hit. Not the best tank to face Germany’s finest, but we sure had lot of them.

    • Steven S says:

      German Panzer IV tanks burned as much, and perhaps even more then the Sherman tank. Also, the introduction of wet storage in Sherman tanks later in the war dramatically reduced fires, because the munitions were the primary reason for the fires (not the gasoline engines).

  3. Terry B. says:

    Also 5 man crew instead of the 4 in an Abrams.

  4. Gerard says:

    The Sherman tanks went up in flames so often that the Germans called them ‘tommy cookers’

  5. majrod says:

    The Sherman’s flammability is due to generally better performing German guns than anything else. Millimeter vs. millimeter, German tank guns had better penetration. As has been said, when German armor was penetrated it was just as likely to flame up. Most German tanks were gasoline powered and stowing ammo away from the troop area was largely unknown. The Sherman (like the BMP1) stowed a lot of main gun ammo in a rack that pretty much encircled the lower portion of the turret basket with pretty predictable results.

    What’s really amazing is the Sherman was affordable, robust and developed in about two years. I don’t think we could do that today.

    • balais says:

      Its amazing where the sherman went too.

      Not only was it in service with the Brits (who preffered it to their own cromwell), and commonwealth forces, but also to the Soviet Union, who made extensive use of it, even in the Battle of Berlin. Israel also later fielded their own modified variants.

      It had all of the characteristics of an excellent medium: good mobility, excellent reliability, versatile gun, and reasonable protection for the time.

      Its shortcomings were mostly addressed with the easy eight variant, which made it even more deadly.

    • Bill in White Plains says:

      “and developed in about two years”. Says a lot about America during WWII. Heck, small arms acquisition programs MHS (hardly as complicated as a tank) take much longer and probably cost more than than the development cycle of the M4A3 Sherman did during the war. What does that say about us today? Also, does anyone else think it’s ironic that the Sherman burned like Gen. Sherman burned Atlanta?

    • Dev says:

      The M4 carbine of WW2.

    • Riceball says:

      That’s due to the fact that most Sherman’s were armed with a short barreled, low velocity 75mm cannon because it was designed as an infantry support vehicle and not tank killer, tank killing, by US armor doctrine at the time, was the job of tank hunters not tanks. It was also not until later in the war that the Germans upgunned their own tanks, the PzKpFw IV, which was the mainstay of the German armored forces, was originally only armed with a low velocity 75mm gun like the Sherman, but later variants eventually received a long barreled, high velocity 75mm gun that allowed it to outgun a Sherman even if its armor was no better than a Sherman’s.

      Not all Sherman’s were armed with the low velocity 75mm gun tough, the British fielded the famous Sherman Firely which used a high velocity 6 pounder (?) gun that allowed it take on other German tanks at range. The US also fielded a limited number of Shermans armed with a long barreled 76mm gun, that, like the Firely, allowed it to engage German tanks at greater ranges than before. These high velocity guns, when armed with appropriate AP type rounds, were also capable of killing German heavy tanks like the Tiger at short range from the sides and back, instead of point blank range from the rear only as they used to with the standard 75mm gun. But I don’t think either the British 6 pounder of the 76mm could penetrate a Tiger’s frontal armor at any range, give the crew a nasty headache maybe but not penetrate.

      • Terry B. says:

        Riceball, I think the gun on the British Sherman was a 17 pounder.


      • Steven S says:

        This myth that WW2 US armor doctrine stating that tanks were only supposed to do “exploitation and infantry support” is a complete farce. For some reason, this misconception continues to persist in the general public today.

        Btw, The 76mm gun could penetrate the frontal armor of the Tiger I tank. However, the effective range was somewhat short.

  6. R711 says:

    Have you ever been inside of a Challenger II, it makes the M1 feel like a motor home.

  7. Ab5olut3zero says:

    Last I heard, Sherman last saw action in the Chilean Army as recently as 2012. That’s a pretty damned impressive service record.

    Thanks for showin’ Tankers some love SSD.

  8. Riceball says:

    To be fair, not everything shown in the picture at the bottom would have actually gone inside the tank. The gear on the far left for instance, would have almost certainly all have been strapped the outside of tank along the hull and turret sides.