Talk:M4 Sherman variants

message: Created as page apart from the main article to reduce the size of the main article. See M4 Sherman talk page. Megapixie 23:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Seperate page

message: M4A5 pointed to the Ram tank, which was M3-based, and entirely different. M4A5 was a placeholder title for planned Canadian-production Shermans in US service, aka Grizzlies, none of which were ever delivered. BruceR (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Chamberlain and Ellis identify it with Ram, so until  a better source turns up, we go with Verifiability over "truth". GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Commented out Ram tank reference

message: I recall that this configuration means that the bogies were spaced out to accomodate trackgrousers on the inside & outside -- 82.73.87.178 (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would appreciate any information on those configurations.  When I added them it was because that was the information readily available to me.  I have been told they are incorrect, but no one has been bold and changed them.  If you have a source that you can cite you should change it to properly reflect the correct information. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually have a question regarding this. The National WWII Museum in New Orleans, Louisiana purports to own and display an M4A3E9. What information I could obtain of it (Thanks to Tank Encyclopedia) states that only one is believed to have existed, so I believe the chances of it not being scrapped are way too low to mesh with common sense that a variant that was obsolete/overshadowed by a better design would be scrapped. EiZweiDrei (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: M4A1E9

message: Shouldn't the stuff on the lend lease variants be still in this article? It seems odd that this article has turned out to be about *US* variants of the Sherman, when articles like Sherman Firefly still refer to it, and the article title itself doesn't say it's US only. And stuff like the 'Funnies' and 'Firefly' are likely a big part of what people reading this article are interested in. (Especially given people might not know the british tanks were part of Lend-lease.) Even if the data is duplicated, it setill seems helpful at least to have a full list of sherman variants and nomenclature on one page, instead of forcing the reader to hunt around. I'll give it a while for someone to come up with a good reason, and then I'll do a partial revert of the Jan 08 version.--163.1.210.162 (talk) 12:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lend lease variants

message: I came across a wonderful publication from the Chrysler corporation this past week ("TANKS are Mighty Fine Things" Stout 1946) and was confused by two images I found inside. I believe the book to be in the public domain regarding copyright laws and the time of its publication, but regardless I must say that I am unsure as to its status.
http://imperialclub.com/Yr/1945/46Tanks/Page101.jpg
http://imperialclub.com/Yr/1945/46Tanks/Page078-079-tn.jpg
The first image has the shermans marked as "90mm and 105mm howitzer types." It is clear that the shorter barreled ones are 105 (or mislabeled 75), but the 90mm part is what intrigued me. This is a Chrysler-produced publication, the same corporation responsible for the abortive attempt at mating the T26 turret with the M4A3 hull. Is this a simple oversight and mislabeling, or is this more test models left unmentioned in recent publications? I would now direct you to the second image, which peaked my curiosity. The turret shown by most of the long-barreled tanks is clearly not elongated (i.e. such as the T26 turret http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T26_turret_on_M4_chassis.jpg ), thus conforming to the "x-ray" image shown. However it does conform to the standards of the 76mm gun, so best I can tell. Finally, though, in the background of the image (top right) there are several shermans which do appear to have elongated turrets, but I am unsure due to the low quality of the image. It also seems impossible to tell whether those are T26-style turrets or whether they are open tops (thus M36B1/M36B2 models).
Despite exhaustive attempts at research, I have found no models of sherman that would conform to the standards presented. It seems most likely that the image represents mislabeled 76mm shermans and the second image is simply internal concept art from Chrysler.
POST NOTE:
http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/126985-new-revised-us-tech-tree/page__st__60#entry1984962
Here, a similar posting uses the same website claiming:
"The Source of the image claims this project was called the M4 Sherman mod. 1946
It was armed with the m3 90mm gun and used the T23 turret on a modified Jumbo chassis.
The armor was to provide extra HEAT round protection"
However I cannot find this same information on the www.imperialclub.com website. I am unsure as to its authenticity.
Scout1Treia (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The vehicles at the mid-right of the first image appear to be 17-pdr armed, as the 17 pounder has distinctive barrel proportions and muzzle brake, although I can't be sure. The top picture may just be showing the few Fireflies that were produced in the US, although I note they all have HVSS. Unfortunately the muzzle brakes are canvas covered so it's difficult to tell, but the 90mm and 17-pdr have noticeably different muzzle brakes, and the guns don't quite look like the US 76mm so my guess would be that they are actually Fireflies, and the flaring of the barrel at the mantlet would tend to support this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 11:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  90mm variant? 

message: Right now there is foreign variants under "US Special Attachments", the firefly for example. It's misleading to have this under a header that says "US". Overall I think this article can use some general cleaning up, with consistent bullet points, and slight restructuring DynCoder (talk) 08:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move foreign variants to their own header 

message: The M4A3(76) HVSS is the same as the M4A3(76)W HVSS (M4A3E8). There is no Dry M4A3(76). All 76 Shermans had wet stowage. Chamberlain and Ellis specifically don't include the W in the name for this reason. I suspect someone read their book and added the M4A3(76) and M4A3(76) HVSS as written in the book, then someone else added the M4A3(76)W HVSS (M4A3E8) without realising it's already included as the M4A3(76) HVSS. The two entries should be merged. Page 119 specifically notes the "M4A3E8 was prototype for the M4A3(76mm) HVSS, production vehicles being identical to this prototype." MaxRavenclaw (talk) 07:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  M4A3(76) Dry