Jack Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 To stop an arguent here at Beckett Towers - were some WW2 Shermans up gunned to 105mm??? Cheers, Jack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Farrant Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 M4A3 I believe, Jack. Is Mrs. Beckett having meaningful discussions on MV's again? :-D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian2b Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Hope this helps http://www.tamiya.com/english/products/56014sherman/sherman_expl.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maurice Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Hi , No they were not upgunned , they were specially made , Turret is different then the 75mm version. They were made by Chrysler as M4 , and by Ford as M4A3 .These tanks were not for Tank to tank combat , but as front line artillery assistence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Barrell Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 What Maurice said. Althought the turret is different to a 75mm, it is the same casting with an added ventilator on the roof. The 105 has no power traverse and of couurse all the stowage, particularly ammo, is different. Whist not a conversion at the time, the Wheatcroft collection have an M4 composite that has been fitted with a 105 gun and turret and a dozer blade by the Israeli army as an engineers tank and this has power traverse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maurice Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Yes , extra Ventilator , and added loaders hatch , but that appeared as wel on the last 75mm turrets .Maybe because of the 105 . First 105`s had no power traverse , but late versions got them again , because of complaints from the battle field . All HVSS 105`s i have sean have power traverse , can`t see in Parts list when they started. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcspool Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 (edited) Jack, futher to Adrian and Maurice´s anorak discussions ( :-) ), here´s what they looked like: source: http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/pics/m4sherman.html - Hanno Edited January 21, 2009 by mcspool Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Posted January 21, 2009 Author Share Posted January 21, 2009 M4A3 I believe, Jack. Is Mrs. Beckett having meaningful discussions on MV's again? :-D Too funny Richard :sweat:Mrs Beckett tends to just stare at me. No it was Jack Jnr who I was near to having a punch up with - he said there was I said don't be so stupid and get to bed. ...I will write a full apology and give it to him in the morning.:blush::readpaper: Thanks for the picture Hanno and further to the conversion what a hell of a lot of machinery for a field artillery piece:confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enigma Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Thanks for the picture Hanno and further to the conversion what a hell of a lot of machinery for a field artillery piece:confused: Not at all Jack. It gives mobility AND protection like a tank. A drawn arty gun is slow to get ready and tracked arty (like a Priest) has limited protection. So this is the best package. Well J. getting corrected twice in a few days...:nono: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony B Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Not at all Jack.It gives mobility AND protection like a tank. A drawn arty gun is slow to get ready and tracked arty (like a Priest) has limited protection. So this is the best package. Well J. getting corrected twice in a few days...:nono: As for towed artillery being slow to come into action. Rubbish!! A good team can get a gun of around 105mm into action in less than a minute. Spike Milligan has some intresting observations on 'Crash Actions' in his books The difrence of course being a tracked artillery is 'supposed' to be able to get places towed can't. Though isome of the vetrans have told me that with the winch on a Quad they could get places the enemy never expected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlienFTM Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 Of course the Israelis acquired Shermans and pushed the design as far as they could, creating Ishermans and Super-Shermans and I suspect one or both of these used a 105mm tank gun - probably the same as fitted to their Cents. I am sure someone will go away and come back with answers - saves me putting in any effort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Barrell Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 The M51 used a 105 tank gun but it was a French weapon and not the L7 as fitted to Centurion. The earlier M50 used a French 75mm closely based on the Panther gun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schliesser92 Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Yes, the Israeli Shermans were fitted with 105mm. They actually produced some very good modifications (including an ambulance) on the Sherman hull. Thereafter, they did similar things to their Centurions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcspool Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Thereafter, they did similar things to their Centurions. Indeed, although the diesel engine upgrade was copied from the Dutch Army conversion. Hanno Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveo578 Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 MCSPOOL ndeed, although the diesel engine upgrade was copied from the Dutch Army conversion. Hanno Hi Hanno, Are you sure? I was under the impression that the 1969 RNLA conversion was an adaptation of an M60 power plant but because the drives were the wrong ratio too much power was transferred to the suspension. The project was abandoned after 6 months mainly due to a unit cost which was 3/4 quarters that of a new Leopard 1. About 1982 pending the arrival of the Leopard 2, a plan was put forward to upgrade the RNLA remaining Centurions with a Teledyne AVDS 1790 2 motor and Allison CD850 6A automatic transmission the same system as had been developed in Israel (with Teledyne assistance) from 1967 and had been taken into service as the SH'OT in May 1970. The decision to develop the Teledyne power train for the Centurion was taken in 1967 mainly for commonality as it was comparitively easy to fit to ex Bundeswehr M48A2G being the same power train as the M8A3 & M60. For the most part both systems were almost exactly the same because most components were the same more a case of convergent design with a large dose of supplier (Teledyne) know how than anything else. regards Steve:) . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.