- #M4 SHERMAN COMMANDER COPOULA DRIVER#
- #M4 SHERMAN COMMANDER COPOULA PLUS#
- #M4 SHERMAN COMMANDER COPOULA SERIES#
It was also a very reliable chassis that could be upgraded enormously, and that continued all the way up into the 1970s with Israeli Super Sherman's.I actually can't think of a tank that has as many variants as the M4. A Sherman could get places few other tanks could. British tanks were faster, on paper, but generally couldn't handle the same sort of terrain. It had excellent mobility that enabled the sort of rapid advance necessary for mobile armored warfare. The M4 was an extremely efficient battlefield platform that was easy to produce, resupply, and maintain enmasse. It was also a very reliable chassis that could be upgraded enormously, and that continued all the way up into the 1970s with Israeli Super Sherman's.
It was almost certainly the second most powerful tank in the 30-40 ton weight class (After the T34-85), although people seem to love comparing it to 50-70 ton German tanks, where it obviously has less firepower and armor. I think this is mostly the fault of the history channel, which seems to be the basis for most peoples understanding of it, and the history channel seems to have a raging hate boner for all US WWII equipment. Still, on-topic I think the M4 Sherman is one of the most under-rated tanks ever built. A "What do you think of random thing" thread is a bit lame.
Users: USA, Britain, Canada, Australia, South Africa, France, Russia, China (for all series).If you are going to post this, you could have actually had an opening argument.
#M4 SHERMAN COMMANDER COPOULA DRIVER#
Miscellaneous: Other improvements included better electrical wiring, and other internal detail changes, a new 47° hull front to simplify production (it also improved frontal protection), larger access hatches for driver and co-driver, a loader’s hatch, and the provision of a vision cupola for the commander replacing the rotating hatch ring originally fitted. Howitzer-armed vehicles had internal armor plates on ammunition racks. Major design change to overcome the problem was the introduction of ‘wet stowage’ (glycerine-protected) ammunition racks in 76 mm-armed and late 75 mm-armed vehicles. In some instances large armor shields or concrete were added to hull fronts. Field modifications by crews included the use of sandbags on hull front and the welding of spare track shoes in vulnerable spots.
#M4 SHERMAN COMMANDER COPOULA PLUS#
Expedient measures to combat this were the addition of appliqué armor plates on hull sides adjacent to ammunition bins and fuel tanks, plus further appliqué armor welded on hull, and sometimes turret, front.
#M4 SHERMAN COMMANDER COPOULA SERIES#
Standard M4A2(76 mm) Sherman with M1A1 gun and new 47° hull front.įire hazard from hits in the engine, ammunition bins, and fuel tanks was the major shortcoming in the M4 series due to the relatively thin armor. A modified 76 mm gun M1A1C or M1A2 with muzzle-brake was later introduced. Suffix ‘(76 mm)’ indicated vehicles with this gun. The 76 mm gun installation was standardized and introduced in production lines from February 1944 and vehicles so fitted were available in time for the Normandy landings and subsequent combat in NW Europe. Tests showed that the existing M4 series turret was too small to accommodate the extra length of this weapon and the turret of the T20/T23 medium tank was adopted and suitably modified. To increase firepower the Ordnance Department developed the 76 mm gun M1 and M1A1, starting in July 1942.
0 kommentar(er)
