Sherman Turret in Berkshire woods

[Rick W]

Thanks for the info Jim, looks like youve done your research! How do you tell if its a Brit or US turret Adrian?

[Adrian Barrell]

Rick,

 

stowage. The British Army had different stowage requirements to the US and there are quite a few brackets and fittings spread throughout the turret peculiar to a British one.

 

There are also a few external additions too but I can see none of them in the pictures so would expect it to be US Army but a closer inspection would tell for sure.

[ILH]

Thanks everyone,

 

Steve,

please do get technical. I was going by an article in a miltary model magazine- not exactly a primary source- It said they were fitted if time was available just as the tanks rolled off the line, so many 'thin' ones never got the patch. Being an adition to the design (not a redundancy) made after the factories were built, there was no place for the job in the production line or the production timetable without slowing down. Was it not a stop gap measure between realizing the armour was too thin and the manufacture of the production line equipment for the new turrets?

Was the magazine barking up the right tree, or are 'thin' turrets without aplique, contemporary to the ones with it, a myth?

 

 

Eddy,

Thanks. I'm sure there is more, but not quite like this. The T30 armour was what got me into the military side of archaeology, and RAF Welford is still the only place I KNOW had a buried jeep- yanks had a fire in the woods, bulldozer hit a crate, dug it up, replaced all the rubber and drove it off (early 1960s)! Rumours abound.... and rebound!... how about 3 scrap flying forts, harleys, and a road built on spare steel coffins....no sign of them yet!?!

 

Adrian,

haven't seen it for a couple of years now, but it was painted white inside and had very few brackets at all. Seem to remember a boxlike metal holder on the inside left, around 5 or 6 inches square, protruding about 3 inches with the top half of the front face open. I'll try to have a look/ take pics, in the next week or so, my memory isn't bieng very helpfull.

 

Jim.

Edited January 4, 2010 by ILH

[mcspool]

As to the question of its use in WW2, Hanno what do you think happened to turrets from ARVs and Barvs and burnt out tanks, the best ones of course would be stored for a while but if for any reason the turret was faulty it would be used as a target.

Steve,

 

What do I think? I think they were quickly recycled into hard targets or scrap metal, no need to keep them after the tanks have been converted permanently.

Thats is, unless someone had thought of setting up a spare parts pool for an overhaul programme for battle damaged tanks.

 

Hanno

[mcspool]

I'm a local archaeologist, born and raised within site of the turret. Here is the Gen:

Jim,

 

Thanks for doing all this research on this turret and sharing it with us.

 

Hanno

[M5Clive]

Thanks everyone,

 

 

 

Eddy,

Thanks. I'm sure there is more, but not quite like this. The T30 armour was what got me into the military side of archaeology, and RAF Welford is still the only place I KNOW had a buried jeep- yanks had a fire in the woods, bulldozer hit a crate, dug it up, replaced all the rubber and drove it off (early 1960s)! Rumours abound.... and rebound!... how about 3 scrap flying forts, harleys, and a road built on spare steel coffins....no sign of them yet!?!

 

 

Jim.

 

Back in 1989, we did a Vehicle Display in Hungerford High Street with the GMC 352, Dodge WC-51 and a Willys MB for a local military modelling group who were putting on a display in the Town Hall.

 

Amongst the many modelers there was a chap who was a schoolboy during the Americans tenure in the Kennet Valley, who was also a military modeler himself. When he saw Colin Spencer's Willys MB he said "Blimey this takes me back" and he started to open up. The top and bottom of the story is that as a young boy, he saw a crated Jeep buried by the Americans (He thinks in the final days leading up to their departure shortly before D-Day) using a large US Military dozer.

 

The reason he knew it to be a Crated Jeep was because he had been on site in the camp previously when he had watched these vehicles be assembled from crated condidtion. The location of his recollection? - Sole Wood, in close proximity to the Sherman Turret pictured in Neil's initial photograph at the start of this thread. I did eagerly ask him to return to the location with me in order to pin-point the spot, but he declined, saying that he had only recently been walking through those very woods trying to trace where it would have been, but after 45 years and with so much dense woodland growth in the interim years, he found the whole camp entirely unrecognisable.

 

Even though it was 21 years ago, I recall this man's name clearly and his soft spoken recollection of all those earlier was total fact. He wasn't out to impress, nor brag - in-fact it took much coaxing on my part to get as much out of him as I did. I've never forgotten his story though and on the rare occasion I have cause to pass-by the spot in question, i often wonder.

 

In answer to the speculation of rumours about 3 scrapped Flying Fortreses, well, i can indeed prove beyond any doubt that the Yanks did certainly intentionally bury aircraft parts by the gross load. The pictures taken below by myself were of a dig I participated on during October and much of the pieces recovered were B-17 components! This dig was organised by a well established aviation recovery group which has been going many years and I was very much on a big learning curve, but it was an incredible experience to witness!

 

 

 

These two pictures show a B-17 G engine nacel panel from an aircraft of the 490th BG from Eye Airfield, Suffolk, that had a taxing accident on 17th October 1944 and was salavaged. Good crew chief's put there individual aircraft serial numbers on many of the removable panels to speed up the refitting process - It also made it much easier for us 65 years later to identify where the parts had come from!

 

 

Lots of heavy metal comes out of the ground some from just 6 inches deep!

 

 

 

The large sections of aircraft manifolds unearthed!

 

 

 

After having a manifold section bead blasted by a local company, the manufacturers data plate reveals a wealth of information and the unit is in excellent condition, more than capable of being returned to flight on a vintage B-17!

 

 

Many of the parts recovered could be traced to individual aircraft. Of note a number of units from B-17's of the 95th, 96th, 490th and 401st Bomb Groups were discovered.

Edited January 4, 2010 by M5Clive

[steveo578]

mscpool

I think they were quickly recycled into hard targets or scrap metal, no need to keep them after the tanks have been converted permanently.

 

 

Possibly, the turret of a tank even in WW2 was probably 1/3 to 1/2 the value of the system, both the U.S. and the British indulged in a certain amount of rebuilding, the U.S. salvaged turrets from Shermans used in research programme and were recycled into both manufacture and rebuild programmes. The British carried out some remanufacture of Sherman tanks in the U.K., although during the European campaign there was no consistant salvage of Shermans

 

It is significant that there was no attempt to re-use 75mm guns removed from Shermans in the Firefly programme although Churchills in North Africa had been rebuilt with 75mm guns taken from wrecked Shermans, the inference is that the 75mm guns were retained against need for replacements.

 

The British are very similar to the Americans in their attitudes, two examples

 

1) When the POW flamethowers were developed for use on Okinawa and the Philipines a special order had to be sought to cut uncondemed 75mm gun barrels to manufacture this vital weapon.

 

2) In North Africa the British converted M3 Grants as Scorpions fitting a fixed welded box is place of the turret, only to find that the gun turret was necessary after all- so a phone call was made and the stored 37mm gun turrets were retrived from the depot and that was an obsolete type.

 

I would have thought turret targets would be ideal as tank hard targets but there is comparatively little evidence for it, there should have been loads put out on ridges to imitate hull down tanks, just think of the types, Churchill 2pdr, Rams both types, Sherman- there should have been in excess of a thousand available.

 

Steve

[Adrian Barrell]

Adrian,

haven't seen it for a couple of years now, but it was painted white inside and had very few brackets at all. Seem to remember a boxlike metal holder on the inside left, around 5 or 6 inches square, protruding about 3 inches with the top half of the front face open. I'll try to have a look/ take pics, in the next week or so, my memory isn't bieng very helpfull.

 

Jim.

 

Jim, thanks. I'll look forward to seeing some more pics.

[eddy8men]

fascinating stuff thanks clive.it just goes to show what's still out there for those that are prepared to go and find it.

 

all the best eddy

[steveo578]

Steve,

please do get technical. I was going by an article in a miltary model magazine- not exactly a primary source- It said they were fitted if time was available just as the tanks rolled off the line, so many 'thin' ones never got the patch. Being an adition to the design (not a redundancy) made after the factories were built, there was no place for the job in the production line or the production timetable without slowing down. Was it not a stop gap measure between realizing the armour was too thin and the manufacture of the production line equipment for the new turrets?

Was the magazine barking up the right tree, or are 'thin' turrets without aplique, contemporary to the ones with it, a myth?

 

Jim

 

OK this is my take on this and no doubt Adrian will be able jump in to correct any errors or none supported assumptions I make.

 

I haven’t seen this article, so it might be unfair criticise it too much, but from your precise there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding in the article. While the patch was an addition to the design, it was not fitted on the production line, turrets were brought into the assembly line with the patch already fitted by the component supplier, or in the case of rebuilds from the area where stripped down components were assessed and stored before being sent to re-assembly, there is photographic evidence of the strip down facility fitting any necessary appliqué to bring the turret or hull up to the current standard. Officially the M4 design was never closed and there were significant changes throughout the 2 years of M4 75 production on the existing lines, the U.S. production methods were flexible and advanced enough to absorb specified changes without disrupting production.

 

The Ordnance and manufacturers were aware of the problem as soon as they decided to modify the Sherman specification by allowing two alternative traverse motors in place of the preferred Oil Gear Corp. model that was causing a bottle neck in production at a time when Sherman production was expanding. Of the two alternative traverse units the electrical Westinghouse was less powerful, slower than the Oil Gear unit and required a higher current demand than that required for a hydraulic system- it was also quite expensive in material cost and like the Logansport required some relieving of the inner face of the turret to fit.

 

The Logansport was already in production -in use in M3 medium tanks and T17 and T17E1 armoured cars and slated for M18, it had problems, designed for a three ton turret the M4 turret was too heavy causing slow traverse and required a really good turret ring without tight spots. The fundamental problem was that in all other designs the Logansport fitted into a dedicated pocket designed into the turret wall casting from the outset. These are visible in all the M3, Stag-hound and Dear-hound armoured cars and the T70/M18 was designed with a bulge covered by a stowage box. To use the both types pockets had to be provided in the inner face of the M4s turret- therefore once these pockets were cut an appliqué patch was required, thus no Shermans with a wall thinned down to take this modification would have been sent overseas, however as some tanks were fitted with a patch over existing markings some tanks must have been retro-fitted in preparation for the substitute standard- limited standard traverse systems. This would be done as an after action possibly at a shipping depot (see photo 5)

 

Because of the various production lines for the various types of Shermans it is very difficult to pin down the exact dates when these changes took place. The first Sherman 2 and 3s sent to Egypt in late 1942 were probably all Oilgear equipped but some comparatively early M4A1s with three piece transmission but no direct vision slots had them so at a guess the patch was fitted from August/September 1942 and redesigned re-enforced turret castings appeared on tanks from February 1943.

 

As an aside the strain on demand for the Oil gear system was not helped by the late M3-M3A1 –A3 and M5 series light tanks which also used it –probably because the turret was too cramped for any other system.

 

So to sum up if it doesn’t have a patch or is not re-enforced by thickening of the casting, the turret is an early model which is fitted out for an Oil Gear traverse only, what-ever the armour in the front face area is the specified 3inches at 30degrees. So no tanks with weakened armour on the front line, however this did not stop some veterans considering only applique equiped Sherman as the real deal.

 

Steve

 

Photos 1. Interior of the T6 showing the ideal Oil gear unit.

pho1.jpg

Photo 2. The Oil gear unit in a re-enforced turret Sherman (M4A1 Grizzly)

pho2.jpg

Photo 3. Westinghouse unit note the pocket behind the unit and pocket on the right.

pho3.jpg

Photo 4. The Only photo I could find of a Logansport unfortunately does not show the pocket.

pho4.jpg

Photo 5 A retro-fit of a Sherman with a appliqué patch over the existing Star.

pho5.jpg

Edited January 5, 2010 by steveo578

[steveo578]

mscpool

Personally I think it is unlikely a Sherman (turret) was used for target practice during WW2.

 

 

There is mention in an RAF range history at Leysdown Isle of Sheppy of first a Churchill 1 or 2 in mid 1943 and later a Sherman being set up as target for Hurricanes 2C using both 40mm S cannon and rockets, the earlier targets of trucks were being destroyed too quickly. Of course a Sherman is generic for some range personel and could mean a M3 or a Ram or even for the ignorant a tank.

 

Earlier the Findon Churchill had been used as a training target when it was written off by a Canadian unit in a training accident- the tank had burnt out.

[Adrian Barrell]

Much of that is correct Steve, however....

 

My Sherman is a typical early M4A4 and has the Westinghouse traverse and no applique patch over the thinned section. This was normal in M4A4, the electric traverse being the standard in this model.

 

So, non applique, thin turret electric traverse were common enough in action.

 

There are two stages in terms of applique. The original, field fitted kit which mine has. This is simply three, 1" thick plate over the ammo racks and none on the turret or in front of the drivers hatches. There may have been a later field kit that included the front plates as well.

 

The welds on these plates are multirun with none on the lower edge and have all been done with the vehicle in the normal position.

 

The later, factory fitted plates were thicker, 1 1/2" and were fully welded with the hulls on their sides. These vehicles also had plates in front of the drivers hatches and would have had the turret patch if not the later, thicker turret.

 

Many early M4A4s were retained for training in the US before being rebuilt with full applique and being sent to the British Army.

[Jack]

That is some stunning information gents.

[steveo578]

Busted again thanks Adrian. So does your tank have the thinned area that is not used by the westinghouse or did they just thin as necessary,

 

Do you know if any Logansport were fitted to Sherman Vs I read that Mcleod Ross did not want it fitted to Sherman Vs and was the Westinghouse fitted in preference as the British tend to favour electric drive traverse in home built stuff and was the Westinghouse standard in Firefly Vc.

 

Thanks again for the correction

 

Steve

[Adrian Barrell]

No worries Steve, we all learn something from each other here!

 

My turret has both thin areas as your posted picture of the Westinghouse. The 'thinning' is in the casting, not machined in any way.

 

I don't think any Logansport systems were intended for M4A4, there is no mention of them in either manual or parts list. The manual only shows the Westinghouse and the parts list has that and the Oilgear with the latter appearing as an afterthought! I have never seen a Logansport installed in a Sherman.

 

Most British tanks were hydraulic traverse, it was only Valentine, Churchill and Comet that were electric, showing at least a move towards electric traverse. The Oilgear system was a close copy of the British hydraulic design.

Oilgear traverse was one of the specified requirements for Firefly.

[Spood]

What an excellent thread, I think most will agree. Some very interesting stuff, thanks all. :thumbsup:

[Welbourn]

I visited that turret in 1963 and when I lifted it up, underneath it I found the remains of a Royal Tank Regiment beret and a copy of Yank magazine. Proof positive if ever there was, that it was off of a British Sherman that had been borrowed by the Americans.

 

Also if you lived within sight of the turret Jim, you must have lived in tree, as when I went there it wasn't in sight of anything, being in a natural hollow in the middle of a wood?

[Adrian Barrell]

I visited that turret in 1963 and when I lifted it up, underneath it I found the remains of a Royal Tank Regiment beret and a copy of Yank magazine. Proof positive if ever there was, that it was off of a British Sherman that had been borrowed by the Americans.

 

Also if you lived within sight of the turret Jim, you must have lived in tree, as when I went there it wasn't in sight of anything, being in a natural hollow in the middle of a wood?

 

I think you'll find that was a dream......

[Willyslancs]

I think you'll find that was a dream......

 

Or your medicine not working........:shake: