Jump to content

Sherman III


Jasper dog

Recommended Posts

Showing my ignorance but, how do I identify a direct vision from a non direct vision?

Sounds daft I know but I've dragons Sherman III, the Palestine / Syria one  (6313)and would like to do either a Normandy or Italian campaign one. The decals I've seen for the Sherman III, show profiles, front, side etc but they are to small for me to identify the differences and unfortunately they don't state which it is. Obvs the DV one have vision slots, but is the drivers hatch / cupola / bulge area for want of a better description different between the two?

Think what I'm trying to get at is, is there an identifying point or feature that I can use to identify one from the other. 

 

No rush just contemplating a future project, which I find is half the fun of this game.

 

Thanks

Darryl 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've spotted the key difference - the obvious vision slots in the front of the drivers' hoods.  As I'm sure you know, Sherman factory and production date variations are a real minefield.

 

Yes, the hood castings were different.  DV hoods are shorter as they do not have the periscope in front of the hatch, which was added when the slots were deleted.  DV hoods only have a periscope in the hatch itself.  So in side profile the later hoods will protrude about 9" further forward and if the periscope is up you will see it right towards the front of the hood.  If the hatch is open and the front edge is very close to the front of the hood then it's probably a DV.  If you can see 2 periscopes per hood then it's definitely non-DV.  Some tanks with applique plates in front of the drivers' hoods are DV - which must have made driving closed-down a real pain.

 

This is true for all M4 variants, not just the M4A2 / Sherman III.  However, there are 2 unique complications with the A2 not applicable to any other variant. 

 

1.  All ALCO-built A2s (only 150) were DV.  It is unclear if any of these came to the UK, but they would in any case have been rare among the 5,000 or so A2s supplied to the UK.

 

2.  The Fisher Grand Blanc Tank Arsenal was by far the greatest producer of A2s, making over 4,300 "small hatch" and about 3,300 "large hatch".  When they transitioned from DV they introduced a flat-plate square-edged welded driver's hood design not used by any other factory.  So if you see this it is definitely a non-DV A2.  Apart from a small number used by USMC, all A2s went for Lend-Lease to Russia and the UK.  USMC insisted on Fisher-built A2s.

 

The Dragon 6313 kit is non-DV and is representative of a Pullman Standard-built A2 but could be a Federal.

The Dragon 6231 "Sicily" kit is a Fisher-built non-DV A2 (although the Double-I tracks are suspect here)

The Dragon 6573 kit is their only DV A2 / III (also in a Cyber Hobby boxing)

The Dragon 6062 "Tarawa" kit is another Fisher-built A2 which can be used for a British vehicle, but the more recent 6231 "Sicily" kit has some beneficial corrections.

 

Asuka have both DV and non-DV A2 / III kits, but hard to work out if they're Federal or Pullman Standard.

 

I'm sure you know that the "large hatch" A2 (i.e. Academy) was not used by the UK.

 

As you've also discovered, not all artwork such as that in aftermarket decal sets is correct or conclusive.  Dragon's own marking scheme side views in their 6313 kit appear to show DV hoods which the kit doesn't have!

 

If you haven't already discovered the Sherman Minutia website, you need to have a look at this most excellent free resource here http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/  I can recomment the Son Of Sherman book, but it isn't cheap.

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks DA, that's given me something to go off!

 

Really appreciate you're time and sharing you're knowledge on the subject.

 

Might be an excuse to make a DV and non-DV version just to acquaint myself with the differences. :idea:

 

Thanks again

Darryl 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1/72, many of the UM M4 kits contain optional glacis sections with different hood types.  They do pretty much every conceivable type of M4.

 

I said above that M4 variations are a complete minefield.  Many of these will be imperceptible in 1/72 to all but the most dedicated afficionados with good eyesight.  But in 1/35 they will be noticeable and many debates have raged on this and other forums about the correct configuration of kits OOB and of completed models.  Cross-kitting can be an especial problem.

 

On the subject of the drivers' hatch area, there are 3 configuration groups across M4s.  Chronologically these are 1 - "Small Hatch, Small Hood" (i.e. DV);  2 - "Small Hatch, Large Hood"; 3 -"Large Hatch" (i.e. the later 47o flat glacis).

 

On the subject of Sherman IIIs, Fisher-built M4A2s exhibited many other unique variations compared to other manufacturers in addition to the welded drivers' hoods. Most particularly the use of other fabricated welded parts where other manufacturers used cast parts.  So as a pretty unbreakable rule, the Dragon "Sicily" and "Tarawa" M4A2/Sherman III kits cannot be used to make anything other than a Fisher-built non-DV M4A2.  Likewise, no other M4A2 kit can be made to represent a Fisher-built tank.

 

For a DV A2 / III, use either the Asuka 35017 kit (which has the early M3 type bogies) or the Dragon 6573 (which has the M4 bogies).  This is the most restricted choice version for kits.

 

For a later non-DV A2 / III, the other Asuka and Dragon kits listed are all very usable - noting the Fisher uniquenesses.  I am not getting into a debate here about weld seams!!

 

Tamiya M4s are best avoided, other than their more recent M4A3E8 and M51.  They're all confused or wrong in some respect requiring surgery and after-market parts.  But they don't do an A2 anyway.  As mentioned before, the Academy M4A2 "USMC" is a configuration never used by the Commonwealth.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, AntPhillips said:

The Heller 1/72 sherman kit actually includes several variations of glacis plate that illustrate the differences very well, see the 2nd picture in the link below:

 

https://www.172shermans.com/kitreviews/Heller/SBrezinski_M4A2_prev.htm

 

Hope this helps.

 

Ant

 

 

Thanks Ant, gives a handy illustration of the major differences!

 

Cheers

Darryl 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/11/2019 at 14:27, Das Abteilung said:

In 1/72, many of the UM M4 kits contain optional glacis sections with different hood types.  They do pretty much every conceivable type of M4.

 

I said above that M4 variations are a complete minefield.  Many of these will be imperceptible in 1/72 to all but the most dedicated afficionados with good eyesight.  But in 1/35 they will be noticeable and many debates have raged on this and other forums about the correct configuration of kits OOB and of completed models.  Cross-kitting can be an especial problem.

 

On the subject of the drivers' hatch area, there are 3 configuration groups across M4s.  Chronologically these are 1 - "Small Hatch, Small Hood" (i.e. DV);  2 - "Small Hatch, Large Hood"; 3 -"Large Hatch" (i.e. the later 47o flat glacis).

 

On the subject of Sherman IIIs, Fisher-built M4A2s exhibited many other unique variations compared to other manufacturers in addition to the welded drivers' hoods. Most particularly the use of other fabricated welded parts where other manufacturers used cast parts.  So as a pretty unbreakable rule, the Dragon "Sicily" and "Tarawa" M4A2/Sherman III kits cannot be used to make anything other than a Fisher-built non-DV M4A2.  Likewise, no other M4A2 kit can be made to represent a Fisher-built tank.

 

For a DV A2 / III, use either the Asuka 35017 kit (which has the early M3 type bogies) or the Dragon 6573 (which has the M4 bogies).  This is the most restricted choice version for kits.

 

For a later non-DV A2 / III, the other Asuka and Dragon kits listed are all very usable - noting the Fisher uniquenesses.  I am not getting into a debate here about weld seams!!

 

Tamiya M4s are best avoided, other than their more recent M4A3E8 and M51.  They're all confused or wrong in some respect requiring surgery and after-market parts.  But they don't do an A2 anyway.  As mentioned before, the Academy M4A2 "USMC" is a configuration never used by the Commonwealth.

Great info of a minefield of a subject! Think if I can get Dragons 6231 and 6573 along with 6313 i should, i might, i could potential cover most bases......🤯

 

The 6313 is a small hatch large hood version, and could be found used in Normandy or Italy? (I realise this is a huge simplification but whilst wanting as correct as poss I'm not a rivet counter, heresy I know!)

 

Thanks again for all your time and sharing your knowledge on the subject. 

 

Darryl 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any of the "small hatch, large hood" A2s would certainly be suitable for NWE.  Surprisingly perhaps, even DV tanks were still to be found in service in NWE with UK, US and Free French forces.  Once the front applique was added the weakness of the DV slots was effectively eliminated, although as I noted above they must have been hard to drive closed-down and use the hull MG without the forward periscopes.  Even the Firefly VC in the Brussels museum is on a DV A4 hull.

 

M4A2 / Sherman III were fundamentally important to the UK armoured force from Alamein to Berlin and perhaps not given the credit they deserve.  They were the 2nd most numerous M4 type behind the A4 and ahead of the 2 radial-engined types combined.  To give that some context, these are the numbers supplied (according to Son Of Sherman):

A4 / V = 7,167

A2 / III = 5,061 (inc 20 76mm).  These certainly included Fisher, Federal and PSCC manufacture and possibly some ALCO. 

M4 / I  = 2,689 (inc some 105mm)

A1 / II  = 2,272 (over half being 76mm)

A3 / IV = 7

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right think I've a small hand hold on this, could be tenuous but....

spacer.png

 

Option A is a Mk III non DV, whilst option B is a Mk III DV, and the differences from Fisher or Pullman Standard being?

 

Slight aside, but the Sherman IIA is the early cast hull (A1) with a late turret and the US 76mm gun?

 

Hadn't even got to engines....

Recall reading in a bio of Sherman tank commander the diesel was the preferred engine? (don't want to open another issue but I've no idea which version had which power plant).

 

Thanks once more

Darryl 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To add to the above, I didn't explicitly mention Italy which Jasper D asked about.  Any of the 1/35 M4A2 75mm kits except the Asuka DV version and the Academy USMC version would work for Italy.  Even the Dragon DV is not beyond reasonable possibility, noting that a few were still in service further North in NWE post D-Day in late '44.  Serviceable M4s of all types were kept in service from Alamein through to Tunisia and then shipped over to Sicily and on to Italy. 

 

One advantage of M4s was the relative ease of keeping them working, including by scavenging interchangeable parts from damaged vehicles.  And the GM6046 twin diesel was one of the more reliable engines with an inherent single-engine limp-home mode.  So while DV vehicles had a known weakness the tank supply situation was not so luxurious that they could simply be put to one side on that basis.  As long as they were working they would have been kept on.  The weakness was largely irrelevant anyway as the M4 could unfortunately be penetrated through the glacis by any German AT or tank gun from the 5cm PaK or long-barrelled 5cm KwK upwards, although it did make them somewhat more vulnerable to lucky hits at longer ranges.

 

Of course many DVs would have been lost in N Africa and they were always going to be a diminishing population as the build standard changed relatively quickly.  The elimination of DV was mandated in Aug 42 (before the UK had even received any M4s) and everyone except ALCO had done so by Dec 42, with ALCO continuing until Apr 43 for some reason (but as noted previously they only built 150 A2s anyway, about 1.5% of the A2 total).  The dozen A2s built by Baldwin are not even worth mentioning!

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jasper dog said:

Option A is a Mk III non DV, whilst option B is a Mk III DV, and the differences from Fisher or Pullman Standard being?

 

Slight aside, but the Sherman IIA is the early cast hull (A1) with a late turret and the US 76mm gun?

 

Hadn't even got to engines....

Recall reading in a bio of Sherman tank commander the diesel was the preferred engine? (don't want to open another issue but I've no idea which version had which power plant).

M4A2 were GM twin 6cyl diesels.  M4 and M4A1 were Continental 9cyl radial petrol.  M4A3 were Ford V8 petrol.  M4A4 were Chryler A57 30cyl(!!) multibank petrol. 

 

Diesel was preferred because it caught fire much less readily than petrol.  Because British crews didn't know how to look after the radial petrol engines properly in the early days in the desert and burned many out the diesel gained a better reputation.  You needed to hand-crank the radial engine some turns before starting to distribute the lubricating oil, which settled in the lowest cylinder at rest, and prevent hydraulic lock.  There's a reason the radial types carried a large starting handle.............   Not exactly ideal when a flock of Panzer IVs appears on your left flank!!

 

Remember that I said not to trust the artwork in decal sets etc??  Read on...........

 

I've got that marking set too, toying with doing "Sheik".  In side view in that scale you can't tell Fisher welded hoods from PSCC or Federal cast ones as the side profile is only imperceptibly different.  I'm not helping here, am I?!  Noting that all of those welded hulls are drawn as DV and that Option B is drawn in side profile with no hoods at all! 

 

Johann is pretty good with his research but not beyond goofs.  Yes, he has indeed drawn Option E as a small hatch large hood hull with a T23 turret, a configuration that never existed.  All M4A1(76)s (i.e Sherman IIA) had the later large hatch cast hull and all were built by Pressed Steel Car.

 

No-one knows what configuration "Sheik" actually was.  It's only ever been pictured from the rear, from which aspect you can't tell.  And too far away to see any Fisher tell-tales.  A2s were issued to units regardless of manufacturer so you could probably find all 3 in the same Regiment over time: the UK only segregated M4s to Regiments by engine type to simplify support.  I've seen "Sheik" modelled as DV, welded hood and cast hood.

 

Remember also that I said Shermans were a minefield ..................!

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/21/2019 at 9:08 PM, Das Abteilung said:

Surprisingly perhaps, even DV tanks were still to be found in service in NWE with UK, US and Free French forces. 

 

The reason for that is straightforward. Large quantities of Shermans had been stockpiled in the UK over a two-year period and not issued. When British units assigned Sherman IIIs were issued with their vehicles they received 'new' tanks from those stockpiles. In reality, that meant they received a mix of production batches from really early (DV, narrow mantlet, M3-style bogies) to really late variants, all mixed together in the same battalions. The critical factor was the mechanical/fuel compatibility within each battalion. They were 'new' only in as much as they were 'delivery mileage only' vehicles.

 

Of the (just under) 20 tanks issued to C Sqn of 13/18 Hussars prior to D-Day for example, virtually every Sherman III production variant supplied to Britain is represented.

The same sort of variation will probably be true of battalions equipped with other Sherman types.

Thus, almost any Sherman III (75mm) sub-variant is possible in NW Europe - all you need is to find a photograph of that particular sub-variant.

 

Regards,

John

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Chrysler multi-bank engine was in reality a series of five car engines grouped around a single drive shaft. The greater size of that powerplant was the reason that the M4A4 (Sherman V) hull was longer and has the distinctive gaps between the bogies that other Sherman variants don't have.

 

Unlike many tanks, the Sherman A1, A2 and A3 etc suffixes do not represent a chronological pattern of development. They largely denote different production types that were manufactured concurrently by different factories. If I recall correctly, the A2 Shermans started coming off production lines before the M4 and M4A1 (not by much). 

Whilst it may be true that the British struggled with radial engines initially, by the time the radial-engined Shermans arrived, they had ample experience of radials through their wide use of M3 Stuarts and M3 Lees and Grants in North Africa.

 

Regards,

John

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

200-odd remanufactured M4A2 of various types were shipped to the UK as late as August '44, including some DVs - but with the hood applique patches fitted.  I believe that Saumur still have a traceable semi-wreck of one of these in their boneyard.  Also the last of the 1,600-odd remanufactured M4A4 from the Desert Training Center came over at about the same time, some of which were probably also DV.

 

Production-wise, the A1 came first - from Lima Locomotive in Feb 42.  M4 production began in March 42 at Pressed Steel.  A2 production began in Apr 42 at Fisher.  A3 production began at Ford in June 42.  The A4 came on stream at Chrysler in July 42.  So it's only the M4 that's out of chronological sequence.  Lima got the jump on everyone else largely because they bypassed the M3 as tooling was taking too long and they decided to go straight to the M4A1, based off the original T6 cast upper hull design.  So their British Purchasing Commission order for 400/500 (sources vary) Grants became M4A1s, although from the 29th vehicle the order was subsumed into Lend-Lease.

 

The US Army Ordnance Tank Depots who received tanks from the factories and prepared them for distribution and shipping, including adding essential modifications not fitted in production and putting together the On Vehicle Equipment (Complete Equipment Schedule in British parlance) also did not discriminate between the factories. An A2 was an A2 was an A2, all supposedly built to the same specification.  So a mixed-manufacture bag was sent, received and issued accordingly as John says.  All the British were interested in was mechanical compatibility within a Regiment.  Hence why there were radial, diesel and multibank engined ARV versions.  But strangely there were no Sherman IIIC Fireflies, for reasons I don't think I've ever seen explained.  I'm wondering if the A2's lower firewall intrusion into the fighting compartment made them incompatible.

 

But as far as subjects A - D on the Star decal set goes, unless you can find photo evidence to the contrary - and most of the Star subjects can be found in photos somewhere - then any of the non-DV A2 kits are certainly fair game.  Using a DV kit is potentially likely to be criticised no matter how theoretically feasible.

Edited by Das Abteilung
addition
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gosh that appears pretty comprehensive. :idea:

 

Huge thanks to DA and to John for your help and input, believe all issues have been covered and ready to press ahead, once bench clear of existing projects at least.

 

Sure more questions will crop up once progress has been made but I'm happy to press ahead at least. 

 

Whilst the engine question wasn't necessarily relevant to the kits it's good to know, answering a number of long standing queries too, which in it's own way is part of the pleasure of this hobby.

 

:thanks:

 

Thanks again 

Darryl 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of engines, the Sherman family illustrates a very real situation with tank powerplants for much of WWII. Neither the British nor the Americans had spent much time developing dedicated tank engines prior to WWII. They generally used powerful engines re-purposed from other industries. The Liberty engine for example was fundamentally a WWI era American aero engine, the Rolls Royce Meteor was a re-purposed Merlin and the radial engines used in many US light and medium tanks all had aviation origins.

 

The hull height of the M2/M3/M4 medium tanks was predicated on the need to install the radial engines and of course the driveshaft of such engines comes out of the middle of the engine, so that meant the transmission shaft was higher up in the hull than more traditional land-based pawerplants.


The other common route was to link a pair of bus or truck engines together to provide the necessary motive power (Matilda and Sherman III for example).

 

The only Sherman variant to be powered by a purpose-built tank engine was the A3 (a Ford gasoline engine).

 

John

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want a run-down on the small-hatch driver's hood types and configurations, look at this page on the Sherman Minutia site: http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/hoods_hatches/hoods_hatches.html

 

This is turning into a wider discussion about M4's, for which I am probably mostly to blame.  Apologies.

1 hour ago, John Tapsell said:

The only Sherman variant to be powered by a purpose-built tank engine was the A3 (a Ford gasoline engine).

That's not entirely true.  While it is true that the Ford GAA was used for no other purpose than powering tanks, M4A3s and later M26s in GAF form, it began life as a V12 aero engine design that was not adopted. IIRC an Allison engine was chosen.  So Ford were left with this engine, which they realised could be cut down to a V8 with other mods as a tank engine to fit into an M4 engine bay.  They proposed this engine for their M4 version, which became the M4A3.  It was the most powerful M4 engine and the one the US Army preferred: all but a handful of A3s were reserved for US forces.  It also found its way into variants of the M4-based M10 and M36 GMCs.  The US preference for the A3 was also in part because Henry Ford would only allow his plants to produce war materiel for US defence.  He turned down the opportunity to build the Merlin jointly for US and UK with Packard getting the deal instead.  Ironically Ford UK built about 36,000 Merlins at Trafford Park.  And Ford Germany carried on producing trucks for the Wehrmacht........

 

The only non-aviation-origin engine used in M4s was the GM 6046 twin diesel in the M4A2 this thread was orginally about.  As Jonn notes, these were truck and bus engines.  A single engine of the same GM 6-71 type powered some versions of the Valentine, which is possibly one reason why Royal Artillery Tank Destroyer batteries equipped with M10s were given Valentine XIs as OP tanks: same engine.  One particular advantage of the 6-71 was that it could be configured for either right or left hand engine installation, a further aid to supportability.

 

It is possible that Roy Rowbotham at Rolls Royce was influenced by Ford's idea in his later development of the Merlin into the Meteor, which was done with company money and not against an official requirement.  But he was able to retain the V12 layout for about 20% more power (initially) than the GAA.  Post-war a V8 version of the Meteor was built as the Meteorite, but it was not widely used.

 

But we haven't covered the other 2 engines for the M4 series, although one was never fitted.  The M4/M4A1 radial engine compartment was designed to accept the Continental or Wright-built 9cyl petrol engines or the Guiberson T1020 9cyl single-row radial diesel.  The latter was fitted in 28 M3A1 cast-hull Lees, where it proved unreliable and the idea was shelved.  No M4s were fitted with it.  However, the M4A6 - of which only 75 were built and none survive - was powered by a monster 14-cylinder double-row radial diesel.  This was a version of the Wright Cyclone G200 aero engine adapted by Caterpillar into a diesel as the D200A, known for some reason as the RD1820 to US Ordnance.  Tests showed it to be the best all-round M4 engine but the US and British armies jointly decided against further diesel tanks in Jan '44 and the M4A6 was cancelled in Feb '44.  That engine was so big that it needed the lengthened M4A4 lower hull and the upper hull was unique in having the cast Composite/Hybrid front on that long hull.

 

Lowering the M4 hull was actively considered, along with several alternative suspension concepts, but the effect on the huge production supply chain and production output was considered too great.  Lowering the hull would also have reduced ammunition stowage and the driver and hull gunner positions would have been very cramped.  Interestingly, the Israelis did produce a cut-down hull Cummins-engined M4A4-based M50 as a single prototype (below) but decided not to take it forward.  Their engine change from the radial petrol to the Cummins diesel for the M50 and M51 Degem Bet gave that opportunity but they clearly didn't consider it worthwhile enough to implement.  And before anyone picks up the inconsistency between M4A4 and radial engine, Israel's M4A4s were mostly ex-French M4A4T refitted by France with the radial engine in place of the Chrysler A57.  Other A4s they acquired were similarly converted in Israel or held pending the Cummins conversion.

MnjvRdj.jpg

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fine by me, I'm happy to be along for the ride.

 

All of interest, my only real connection being my Grandfather was transferred from the RAF (engine fitter), to Bovington, can't remember the year off hand but would assume 44-ish.

 

Could be one of the reasons I've always enjoyed visiting the tank museum, as if I need an excuse.....

 

Thanks again for all your input.

 

Darryl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Jasper dog said:

Could be one of the reasons I've always enjoyed visiting the tank museum, as if I need an excuse.....

I'm lucky enough now to live just about 20 mins away from Bovington, so my excuses to go are flimsy in the extreme.  In fact I'm there most weeks.

 

The first half of a completely revised WW2 Hall will be opening in time for Easter, if you're thinking of going again.  Layout graphics look really good: vast improvement.

 

On the Sherman front they've just got another one from Tidworth or Bulford, but it's just a vanilla A4 not in especially good condition.  But it does have almost new T49 3-bar tracks: first I've seen "in the flesh". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest my wife is probably happier we live about 6hrs away, otherwise I'd be there way to often. As it is I try to get down at least once a year and I'll take dad with me. Had hoped to have visited this autumn but the Mrs has been unwell so therefore I guess next spring will be a post Easter trip, thanks for the pointer.

 

It is tremendous part of the country though, so much to see and do from Neolithic to Wartime and most things inbetween.

 

Noticed a new (to me least) museum on Portland, haven't visited yet, with an M4 outside, is it worth a visit?

spacer.png

I assume this is a DV with armour plate over the vision slots?

 

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a small hatch large hood tank, not DV.  You would be able to see the DV covers behind the applique.  It is in fact a Frankentank, as are many preserved tanks, put together from an M4A4T hull and an M4 or M4A3 105mm turret.  The Final Drive Assembly is also non-original as all M4A4 were built with the 3-piece bolted type.  The M34 gun mount is a reproduction, as is the gun.  Interesting to see T41/51 rubber block track on one side and T74 steel chevron on the other.  Unlikely in service because of differential grip.  Just like having different tyre patterns on opposite sides of your car.

 

All M4A4 were bult by Chrysler and this one dates from Feb 43.  The T after M4A4 indicates it is a French Transforme tank re-fitted post-war with the Continental radial engine.  Most surviving Shermans, and other species of survivor tanks, are listed here: http://the.shadock.free.fr/Surviving_Panzers.html

 

It lives at the Castletown D Day Centre in Portland, part of the old naval base.  http://www.castletownddaycentre.com/  Despite having lived here for 8 months I haven't been there yet.  Nor to the Nothe Fort in Weymouth.  My bad ........  I'm told it's well worth a look. 

 

The main D Day Museum is on the seafront at Southsea, Portsmouth.  Recently fully refurbished.  In fact there's a lot of good stuff in and around Portsmouth if you're thinking of a seaside holiday.  D Day Museum, RN/RM Museum, HMS Victory, HMS Warrior, Mary Rose, RN Armament Musem, Fort Nelson fort and artillery museum, Southwick House (Eisenhower's HQ).  Then 2 hrs along the M27 to Weymouth/Bovington for holiday Phase 2.  Optional holiday Phase 3 is an hour inland for the Fleet Air Arm Museum and Haynes Motor Museum.....

 

Apparently there will at long last be a new Royal Artillery Museum established at West Lavington on the edge of Salisbury Plain, the Woolwich site having closed a few years ago.  No idea on timescale.

 

Edited by Das Abteilung
Correction
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should have known that!

Saw the applique and didn't see past, what a fool..:doh:

 

Back to the Important issue. I can recommend Nothe Fort, first went back in the late 80s and most recently last year, particularly if you like Napoleonic coastal forts (Good cafe too).

They've opened the underground civil admin centre in the basement now too. 

 

Visited Royal Signals museum at Blandford earlier this year, worth a visit, probably won't need to hurry back though.

 

Fleet air arm is always worth a trip as you say.

 

Darryl

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...