Talk:M4 Sherman variants

Seperate page

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)

Commented out Ram tank reference

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)

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)

Soviet Lend-Lease

0920 Hours 2 April 2006

This section contains several errors and some serious ommissions. For example, many gasoline engined Shermans were sent to the USSR under Lend-Lease.

Please see the U.S. Army's 1946 "Report on Lend Lease," for more complete and correct information on the subject.

Philippsbourg

Overview

0925 Hours 2 April 2006

The first sentence of this section is incomplete. The section contains several errors of fact.

Philippsbourg

Then do something about it. You have the power. -- Thatguy96 April 2 2006 16:18

The E9 Designation could be applied to any Sherman tank. It was the designation applied when the "Duckbill" track extensions were added to both sides of the track. The VVSS Bogies, Sprocket and Idler were moved away from the hull with spacers. Photographic Evidence of this exists with T54E1, T49 3-Bar Cleat Tracks and T48 Rubber Block Track. by Swathdiver

Images

IMHO the shift of images in the post war variants section to the right side makes the article look worse. There is now a very long column of images stretching far beyond the end of the "body" of the article, with most of the images far from relevant text. If the "original" position - just after the relevant text - was bad for some reason, then... perhaps a gallery ? Bukvoed 16:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Why were they moved in the first place? It looks ridiculous now, and if there's some sort of wikipedia convention that all pictures must run down the right side that just seems sort of stupid to put it bluntly. They looked fine under the text of the respective variants. -- Thatguy96 23:49, 24 May 2006

I dare say that there exists too many images on this article. Not that I wish to see any particulars removed, however these images are just too many and too big for the short little blurbs about some of them. I have just resized all the images on this article to 200 pixels in width. I think it appears somewhat better, however if someone wants to revert it back, I don't really mind. Whatever the majority favors is fine by me. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 06:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Although I favor the photos, I am relatively new and recent edits and discussion on the M4 Sherman page by more experienced users suggest that 7 photos would be the maximum for the current content to avoid a bad webpage look and that 15 photos should be deleted from this variants page.Wikist 17:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask what people really have against the pictures? If they were properly aligned it wouldn't look so cluttered, and is there something wrong with having a visual reference for this laundry list of models? They don't all deserve their own article and it helps with recognition in my opinion. I find pictures helpful in understanding the language sometimes as well. I'm just curious as to why people seem to be so against having these pictures. -- Thatguy96 14:05, 25 May 2006

I agree with you that articles of this type benefit from photos and even more photos (one per variant) would be OK. I was only mentioning that the parent page had about a dozen photos deleted to achieve an encyclopedia look and feel (is this photo limit a Wikipedia.org "house style"?).Wikist 18:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about any official or semi-official photos-per-page limit (which doesn't mean there is no such thing, of course). I'd say that sometimes I have a feeling that a certain article has too many photos. E.g. usually you don't need more than say 2-4 portraits of the same person. But as long as images contribute to the article and as long as they are positioned, sized and captioned well, IMO there is no reason to forbid having more than 7. I am not sure about the Sherman article (the T-34 and Pz IV photos were IMO of the non-contributing category), but here, in a "variants guide", something close to one per variant would be perfect. Bukvoed 20:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean we can put them back the way they were so people don't have to scroll way down after the article has ended to see them? -- Thatguy96 21:49, 25 May 2006

Actually - in this case, I think the excess images are fine (within reason). 1 per variant is fine - the declared purpose of this page is to document all the variants. Ideally there would be more descriptive text for each variant. On more general article pages, too many images is just confusing. Checkout WP:PERFECT Megapixie 21:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, I added the photos with captions to M4 Sherman precisely to comply with WP:PERFECT.Wikist 23:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean we can put them back the way they were so people don't have to scroll way down after the article has ended to see them? -- Thatguy96 21:49, 25 May 2006

I have no problem with putting them back the way they were before. However maybe we should consider if some of these variants deserve their own article. That way we could remove their image. Given not all variants are likely worthy of their own article, but perhaps more than one is. Then again, maybe not.... just a thought. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 03:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I rearranged the images here in a way they are arranged in the Postwar Sherman Tanks. Hope it's better now. Bukvoed 15:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Put Variants Back/Merge with Main Article?

Discussion that the parent article cannot have a photo because the child article has a similar photo raises the question of why we still have a separate variant page. Wikipedia length guidelines state that a long article is 6-10,000 words (Origins of the Civil War is over 12,000 words and earned Featured Article status) but the Sherman article was only 5,000 words when it was cut in half. The variant page has not served its purpose of following the B-17 model: The B-17 variant page is an actual article with paragraphs on development and operational use of each variant. After half a year, the Sherman variant page is still a list. It's a good list and was a suitable appendix to the main article but it was removed and now there is a redundant long-term project on the main page to recreate the appendix that was removed. Consider returning the list to the main artcile as an appendix. M4 types and UK nomenclature can be converted completely to tables. Most other variant vehicles either already have their own page (M10, DD, Firefly, Funnies) or are already mentioned in the main article text (dozer etc.) and the Tulip should be added to the Armament section anyway--although personally I see no problem in also having a long list in the appendix in addition to a text mention of M32, etc. In the future, British Shermans or IDF Shermans might merit their own sub-article along the lines of the Cold War's subdivisions. Photos can be handled in a number of ways from a gallery to links to the Commons a la the current Calliope entry--after mentioning the 1 photo per variant it occurred to me that adding 100 photos to a list page essentially duplicates a properly captioned Commons gallery. Wikist 09:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Edited Wikist 19:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)EditedWikist 20:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Some of the subvariants could warrant their own subarticles. The whole point here is that at some point someone with a bit more knowledge should go and do a variants article on the lines of the B-17 variant history article. Just because it hasn't done because people have lives outside of wikipedia doesn't mean that this shouldn't be left as such until its done. I mean wikipedia is a constant work in progress, its never 100% accurate, and well, why should we blame a good structure because no one's had time to fill it in. Its not like the variants article is hiding from sight either. People can get to it quickly. I think one should worry more about what to do with the content of the variants page in the future than spending time discussing its worth. The variants listing and blurbs don't belong in the Sherman page in my mind, and I think people just need to work on detailing the history on the variants page. Its not going to happen over night, and like I said before, people have lives outside wikipedia, so if it takes 4 years it takes four years. Do you know how many stubs exist on wikipedia and have been that way for quite a while? It happens. -- Thatguy96 15:25, 26 May 2006

Except that recent talk was making this a photo gallery so you highlight my point that people with lives outside of Wikipedia can have the same result with less effort by organizing the Commons photo gallery instead or reinventing the wheel here. After looking at the B-17 variant page more closely, I'm not sure that it's a good structure; it looks like a confusing limbo for either stubs that should be in the main article or redundant summaries of variants that already have their own more-detailed pages that could be links on the main page.Wikist 20:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

In my mind the purpose of the structure was to put it in a clear format so that people could quickly glance over variants without having to read through the article. Variants might be mentioned in the main article, but not simply in that context. While I do agree that the variants page needs to be expanded, putting it back in with main article does just what you fear. -- Thatguy96 16:24, 26 May 2006

That describes an appendix ("In my mind the purpose of the structure was to put it in a clear format so that people could quickly glance over variants without having to read through the article"). Once you expand it to an article, you lose the "without having to read through the article" objective of the structure. Meanwhile, we have two appendices under construction, one here and one on the main page.Wikist 20:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the logic.

If we merge into the main article, then we have to trim a lot of the images (and probably the text as well) - since it makes the main article bigger than 64 k. If you actually read the civil war page - it was de-featured Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates/Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War because it was too long (among other reasons). So doing that will make it :

• Too long for it to be a FAC. Wikipedia:Article size
• Less compreshensive (since it's going to have to get trimmed sooner or later to make it a FAC). Which would then defeat Wikipedia:What is a featured article? 2b
• Worse for wikipedia as a result.

Megapixie 01:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

As best I can tell, Origins of the Civil War won FA at about 8,000 words and was not de-nominated until after it topped 13,000--and Military history of France won FA on 5/11/06 with over 9,000 words and 25 images (more than were on either M4 page).

I'm not sure if any of us are talented enough to ADD TOO MUCH length and simultaneously be LESS comprehensive, but it would be a neat trick.

However, it was only a suggestion. Thank you.Wikist 04:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

M4A1E9

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)

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)

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)

Lend lease variants

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)

90mm variant?

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)

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)

Move foreign variants to their own header

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)

M4A3(76) Dry

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)