Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I need the specifications for the T54 track link for the Sherman (VVSS).
Wieght of each link please.

That IS the most random thing I have seen on here for ages!

The T-54 is a Russian tank, not a Sherman

Do you know how to read?
I gues not.
T54 TRACK link for a M4A3 Sherman.

A Tank you say?

Deff Jaw wrote:Do you know how to read?
I gues not.
T54 TRACK link for a M4A3 Sherman.

Frack me! What a gakky attitude you have.

Well, if you're going to ask for the right friggin' thing it does help!

You're supposed to be asking for a T54E1 or T54E2 link.

http://web.inter.nl.net/users/spoelstra/g104/track_vvss.htm

I get a total of 48lbs each. Unless I made some terrible mistake.

George Spiggott wrote:http://web.inter.nl.net/users/spoelstra/g104/track_vvss.htm

I get a total of 48lbs each. Unless I made some terrible mistake.

The mistake was in answering the question.

Ahtman wrote:The mistake was in answering the question.

I was thinking that as I wrote my reply. Maybe Deff Jaw will apologise to Elmodiddly when he gets back.

Interesting thing about tank tracks.

The pins which hold the links together have to be retained or they work out and the track falls apart. This is usually done with a pin head at one and (looks like the head of a pin) and at the other end the pin has a retaining clip.

The Russians decided this was a waste of time and effort, so they made the tracks with a pin with no retaining clip. Instead they put a flange on the rear armour plate of the tank, and when the tracks pass by, it whacks the pin head and this keeps the pins firmly in place.

Interesting thing about russian tanks. Their suspensions were designed by an american. The Christie Suspension was developed by an american, but the american government favored the Sherman's chassis and suspension over the Christie suspension.

Christie got mad and sold the idea to the British and Russians who used the suspension in the T-34.

The advantage was that the treads could be replaced with road tires to make it move faster, however the russians had little rubber so that was almost never utilized.

Another interesting thing about the Sherman tank though, it was the first tank designed with an electric gyroscope for the barrel. What does this mean? Well it means that it was the first tank designed to move AND shoot at the same time, its barrel was also designed to fire more than one type of shell which was a unique idea for the time.

halonachos wrote:Interesting thing about russian tanks. Their suspensions were designed by an american. The Christie Suspension was developed by an american, but the american government favored the Sherman's chassis and suspension over the Christie suspension.

Christie got mad and sold the idea to the British and Russians who used the suspension in the T-34.

The advantage was that the treads could be replaced with road tires to make it move faster, however the russians had little rubber so that was almost never utilized.

Another interesting thing about the Sherman tank though, it was the first tank designed with an electric gyroscope for the barrel. What does this mean? Well it means that it was the first tank designed to move AND shoot at the same time, its barrel was also designed to fire more than one type of shell which was a unique idea for the time.

Good post, another interesting tid bit, the Russians had a horrible view-port for the T-34, so it wound up costing them much more ammunition than normal. It couldn't stay in sight and needed several test rounds to be sure of where the shell was landing.

Speaking of T-34's they were relatively cheap to manufacture and the reason why they were so prolific on the battlefield is due to the fact that Russia employed mobile factories.

They built a factory on a rail line and when the front moved up, so did the factory. This not only maintained a steady flow of tanks to the front, but increased the immediate range of the tank as well.

halonachos wrote:...its barrel was also designed to fire more than one type of shell which was a unique idea for the time.

Is the word 'designed' key? Because guns had been doing this for quite some time when the Sherman turned up.

George Spiggott wrote:

halonachos wrote:...its barrel was also designed to fire more than one type of shell which was a unique idea for the time.

Is the word 'designed' key? Because guns had been doing this for quite some time when the Sherman turned up.

Hmmm...not sure, trying to find the source but I was watching the military channel when it popped up. Apparantly the sherman had the ability to switch from HE to HEAT to HVAP to smoke, etc while other tanks typically carried one variant of shells. I remember the documentary saying that axis commanders wanted that capability as well.

Another thing about american tanks is that they were and still are modular. This is different from being mass-produced in the fact that mass-produced tanks can be taken out and unsalvageable. If two Shermans were damaged in the field then they could easily be combined to make one whole tank, this couldn't be done with Tigers or Russian tanks or even some british tanks at the time. Then again, the british and canadians also used Shermans.

halonachos wrote:Hmmm...not sure, trying to find the source but I was watching the military channel when it popped up. Apparantly the sherman had the ability to switch from HE to HEAT to HVAP to smoke, etc while other tanks typically carried one variant of shells. I remember the documentary saying that axis commanders wanted that capability as well.

HVAP is unique to US tanks (at least in name) and German tanks tended not to carry smoke so there's some truth there. I should add that the gyroscoped gun on the Sherman was considered mostly worthless, in no way comparable to modern devices and inferior to the device that early British cruiser tanks employed (human knees).

halonachos wrote:Another thing about american tanks is that they were and still are modular. This is different from being mass-produced in the fact that mass-produced tanks can be taken out and unsalvageable. If two Shermans were damaged in the field then they could easily be combined to make one whole tank, this couldn't be done with Tigers or Russian tanks or even some british tanks at the time. Then again, the british and canadians also used Shermans.

If you mean combining the two in the field than this would be correct (obviously assuming that both vehicles had been damaged in different parts of the tank).

Hit the nail on the head spiggot, that's exaclty what I meant by combining the two. Although current knocked out Abrams are brought out of the field to a factory where they get put together in some Frankenstein fashion.

The Sherman itself was a mostly worthless tank; thin armor, low muzzle velocity, and let's just say that the germans called them "tommycookers" for a reason. What was really cool about it was that it was like a barbie and you could add all sorts of accessories like a dozer blade or anti-mine thingy or a better barrel, etc.

Shermans were great for throwing at things en masse, where the weight of numbers in support of aircraft would do the trick. They didn't really start to bite back until the general who forbade the upgunning of them died in a plane crash. If all else fails, call for Firefly!

Speaking of Christie, he was a bit of a jerk and was really obsessed with making tanks that could work without tracks, right up to the point where it got really annoying.

halonachos wrote:The Sherman itself was a mostly worthless tank; thin armor, low muzzle velocity, and let's just say that the germans called them "tommycookers" for a reason. What was really cool about it was that it was like a barbie and you could add all sorts of accessories like a dozer blade or anti-mine thingy or a better barrel, etc.

It was ok for its era, they had good mobility, like most tanks they were helpless against the big stuff like the Tiger until the Firefly came along which could knock them out. The Israelis were using Sherman variants until the 80s, during the Yom Kippur War in 1973 they performed well against modern Russian tanks. That's the sort of thing that made the Centurion great.

Our guys didn't call Sherman's "Spitwads" for nothing either. The weak 75mm Smoothbore cannon as a joke against most of the German's Medium tanks, unless they got a shot to the side or rear. At least when they finally got the 76mm it has some armor killing range.

The Sherman was designed with Axis armour of 1939-1940 in mind.

BrookM wrote:The Sherman was designed with Axis armour of 1939-1940 in mind.

That was the allies problem too, they were always behind the 8-ball when it came to tanks, granted the German tanks suffered from chronic reliability issues, but they still were superior.

And the Germans were behind the Soviets for quite some time.

The Sherman was comparable or better to everything it encountered until it got to Italy.

The Sherman was designed to support infantry, not go toe to toe with other tanks. As infantry support it did the job excellently. It would've stood a chance against Axis armour, had it not evolved from the 1939-1940 designs that the Sherman was based on countering.

I don't think that the US' poor anti tank strategy is really a design plus. There were Tigers in 42 and Panthers in 43. Tigers are an annoyance, a design dead end. Panthers were a game changer that nobody saw coming. There was plenty of time for a fix to the Sherman.

Aye, but a stubborn general disapproved of all such things, until he died in a convenient airplane crash.

This is why Gen. Patton was incredibly instrumental in bringing Allied tank warfare up to a level to even compete (and eventually beat) the Germans.

halonachos wrote:Another interesting thing about the Sherman tank though, it was the first tank designed with an electric gyroscope for the barrel. What does this mean? Well it means that it was the first tank designed to move AND shoot at the same time, its barrel was also designed to fire more than one type of shell which was a unique idea for the time.

While an impressive technological achievement, the gyroscopes were typically turned off by the tank crews. A lot of people has assumed this was because they didn't work that well, but they were well made, the problem was that tank, particularly at that time, was a cramped affair with plenty of place for a crewman to crash into as the tank moves about. That's only made worse when the tank is moving about, changing position, but the gun carriage remains still in the middle of the tank. It took a while longer to build a gyroscope into a tank with the ergonomics to make it safe for the crew.

There's likely some element of truth to your second claim, but it certainly isn't true that the tanks of other nations weren't able to fire multiple rounds. There were certainly some guns which lacked certain rounds, for instance there was no decent HE round for the German 88, and the 120mm gun in the JSII only had a HE round (on the assumption that that'd be enough to smash through anything).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:Hit the nail on the head spiggot, that's exaclty what I meant by combining the two. Although current knocked out Abrams are brought out of the field to a factory where they get put together in some Frankenstein fashion.

The Sherman itself was a mostly worthless tank; thin armor, low muzzle velocity, and let's just say that the germans called them "tommycookers" for a reason. What was really cool about it was that it was like a barbie and you could add all sorts of accessories like a dozer blade or anti-mine thingy or a better barrel, etc.

The Sherman was fine. It was certainly lacking against the heaviest German tanks, but directly engaging enemy tanks was only ever a small part of the role of a tank, and it wasn't a role that every tank needed to fill. A tank doesn't have to be all conquering, it just has to perform its role.

There were plenty of other tools in the shed for taking out the biggest German tanks, and the US had excellent tank destroyers and aircraft for that role. As a simple design able to be produced in mass numbers, the Sherman was fine.

Sounds like a reference to the German desire for smoke shells or the British doctrine of AT guns only having AT ammunition [or a poor HE round like the 6pdr]. Even the 25pdr artillery piece had HE and AT rounds.

As far as I know [not much I grant you] the only guns that would be specifically limited to single ammunition types would be squeeze bore guns like the 2pdr with a little john adapter.

Where Germany's tanks evolved (and grew even more complicated), the Allies tried tweeking Shermans but kept the basic chassis the same, and made 8 bazillion of them.
They definitely should have upgunned it though more quickly to a 76mm or 90mm version. Its criminal that it wasn't.

Wiki says they ran into a company of Tigers in Tunisia in 1942. I wonder if the Russians were feeding them reports on Tigers/panthers from the Eastern front and if so, was that being discounted. I'd think if you started get reports of bigger tanks, you'd start accounting for that.

Plus as noted, absent bad weather days the allies absolutely controlled the air and could sick fighter bombers all over nay German tank concentrations. Again, you can have super duper tank but its irrelevant if a thunderbolt just dropped some 500 lb bombs on it.

The Allies thought that the Panther was an evolution of the Tiger Heavy tank and were therefore expecting them in the same manner as North Africa.

The Panther being classed as a medium tank came as a suprise as did their numbers. The lack of either the 76mm armed Shermans and/or the turned down Firefly's hamstrung the US initially in France.

I just read a book called 'The Black Bull' [Patrick Delaforce] about British 11th Division and by all accounts even after the difficulties of Bocage and the yomp through France the Hussars for example were still not keen on losing their Shermans [fearing getting Cromwells?], a point of veiw recinded after training in Comets which looked similar to the cromwell.