Early Sherman cast hull - all in one casting?

[Richard Young]

The early shermans with cast hulls - was the hull one pour/casting, or was it various bits welded together? Was it made the same way as the Lee/Grants, or different?

Edited March 1, 2011 by Richard Young

[Jonathan Chin]

Seven separate pieces of cast steel plates for the glacis for the M4/M4A1. Reduced gradually in number over time.

[Coldsteel]

M4A1 construction is much the same as the M3A1, from the top of the tracks on upward is a single armour casting, the lower hull including the belly plate, lower hull sides, and underside of the sponsons were RHA plates welded together (I think some earlier ones may have been riveted).

 

The first US tank to have a full one piece cast hull was the M48 I believe.

[DKTanker]

The first US tank to have a full one piece cast hull was the M48 I believe.

Nope, the M48 and M60 was built from at least four pieces, maybe as many as six or seven. The two sides were seperated by at least one, maybe two or three belly plates and the hull front was a seperate casting.

 

If you look right below the tow pintle you can see one weld line and if you crawl under the tank to clean out the roadwheels you'll see that the belly is built from multiple plates and you'll be able to see the weld line that defines the hull front.

 

I couldn't find a clear picture of an M48, but here's the rear view of an M60A3 that clearly shows the weld line below the tow pintle.

 

[binder001]

According to the book "Tank Plant", a study of the Granite City, IL plant of General Steel Castings, the M4A1's upper hull was a one pour casting.

[Mk 1]

The early shermans with cast hulls ...

Might be worth clarifying the question a bit...

 

Are you asking about Shermans with cast hulls, or about early Shermans with cast hulls?

 

The M4A1 is the cast-hull sub-model of the Sherman. It is true that the first Shermans to see combat in large numbers were cast-hull M4A1s. The Sherman units of both the Brits at El Alamein, and the Americans in French North Africa (and later Sicily), were equipped with more M4A1s than any other varient. (I think this is the only version that Monty's 8th Army got in any numbers during the Western Desert campaign.) This occured even though the M4A1 was accepted for production after the base model M4 with a welded RHA hull. The M4A1 was easier to produce in the existing plants of the day, and so was proliferated to more sub-contractors and was quicker to run up the production ramp.

 

IIRC the M4A1 remained in production throughout the production life of the Sherman, outlasting the M4 and tracking the mid-life and late-war upgrades of the M4A3. The M4A1 76(w)HVSS (often called the M4A1E8), a cast-hull model with the new T23 turret, wet ammo storage, new suspension, and mono-slope glacis with larger driver / co-driver hatches, was still in production in 1945.

 

-Mark 1

[Coldsteel]

Nope, the M48 and M60 was built from at least four pieces, maybe as many as six or seven. The two sides were seperated by at least one, maybe two or three belly plates and the hull front was a seperate casting.

 

If you look right below the tow pintle you can see one weld line and if you crawl under the tank to clean out the roadwheels you'll see that the belly is built from multiple plates and you'll be able to see the weld line that defines the hull front.

 

I couldn't find a clear picture of an M48, but here's the rear view of an M60A3 that clearly shows the weld line below the tow pintle.

 

 

Fair enough, how about if I revise that to read: The first US tank to have a full one piece cast hull was the M48, although some M48 hulls were also assembled for multiple castings due to the limited number of facilities able to cast the entire hull as a single piece.

[irregularmedic]

Might be worth clarifying the question a bit...

 

Are you asking about Shermans with cast hulls, or about early Shermans with cast hulls?

 

The M4A1 is the cast-hull sub-model of the Sherman. It is true that the first Shermans to see combat in large numbers were cast-hull M4A1s. The Sherman units of both the Brits at El Alamein, and the Americans in French North Africa (and later Sicily), were equipped with more M4A1s than any other varient. (I think this is the only version that Monty's 8th Army got in any numbers during the Western Desert campaign.) This occured even though the M4A1 was accepted for production after the base model M4 with a welded RHA hull. The M4A1 was easier to produce in the existing plants of the day, and so was proliferated to more sub-contractors and was quicker to run up the production ramp.

 

IIRC the M4A1 remained in production throughout the production life of the Sherman, outlasting the M4 and tracking the mid-life and late-war upgrades of the M4A3. The M4A1 76(w)HVSS (often called the M4A1E8), a cast-hull model with the new T23 turret, wet ammo storage, new suspension, and mono-slope glacis with larger driver / co-driver hatches, was still in production in 1945.

 

-Mark 1

 

Ah! Tanks for that! Ken and Ray and Demosthenes and I were at Fort Lewis last Monday looking at the gate guard tanks we didn't get a chance to check out during the I&I and we were all scratching our heads about this one:

 

 

We were speculating about how an early M4 might end up with a T23 turret and figured it must be a ETO depot repair job, but in light of the above it makes sense now.

[DKTanker]

Fair enough, how about if I revise that to read: The first US tank to have a full one piece cast hull was the M48, although some M48 hulls were also assembled for multiple castings due to the limited number of facilities able to cast the entire hull as a single piece.

You can write anything you want though you might want to show citation for your claim.

[Coldsteel]

You can write anything you want though you might want to show citation for your claim.

R. P. Hunnicutt Patton: A History of the American Main Battle Tank Presidio Press; ISBN 0-89141-230-1 page 93

[DKTanker]

R. P. Hunnicutt Patton: A History of the American Main Battle Tank Presidio Press; ISBN 0-89141-230-1 page 93

If he says so, it must be true. Still, I'd be interested to see some actual examples. I've seen literally hundreds of M48s and M60s with assembled cast hulls, I don't recall seeing any that were cast entirely as one piece.

[binder001]

Ken and Ray and Demosthenes and I were at Fort Lewis last Monday looking at the gate guard tanks we didn't get a chance to check out during the I&I and we were all scratching our heads about this one: We were speculating about how an early M4 might end up with a T23 turret and figured it must be a ETO depot repair job, but in light of the above it makes sense now.

 

What you have in your photo appears to be a later production of Medium Tank, M4A1, 76mm, Wet Stowage. The easy way to identify the later M4A1s is not only the turret, but the shape and details of that cast upper hull. The casting had minor revisions during production, but the late hulls were a major revision. The Drivers hatches are larger and set at an angle, versus (same hatch cover as the late welded hulls), versus the earlier "small hatch" hulls, where the hatch covers open parallel to the long axis of the hull. The rear doesn't have the "cut out" area exposing the air cleaners, and the front angles are revised. These late hulls are almost exclusively seen with 76mm turrets. The few hundred M4A1s with the late upper hull castings and 75mm turrets all (or functionally all) went to conversion as US Duplex Drive tanks (along with some "small hatch" M4A1s).

 

The M4A1, 76mm, Wet Stowage was the first type of 76mm Sherman to see combat with the first batch going to the US 2nd and 3rd Armored Divisions in July, 1944. The later production batches had the later turret casting (one piece loader hatch) and many had muzzle brakes on the 76mm guns. The last batch came from the factory with the 76mm guns and HVSS featuring 23-inch tracks. These went to Europe but nobody has come up with a confirmed photo of the "M4A1E8" in combat in WW2. The M4A1E8s served in the French Army post WW2, then to Israel, as well as the Army National Guard and USAR.

[Coldsteel]

If he says so, it must be true. Still, I'd be interested to see some actual examples. I've seen literally hundreds of M48s and M60s with assembled cast hulls, I don't recall seeing any that were cast entirely as one piece.

I can't help you there. I only have a poor quality photocopy of some of the more interesting pages. But if we just pick one of the welds that should be easily visible it is possible to show it is present on some but apparently not others. There is a vertical join near the final drive just forward of the start of the elliptical section*:

 

Easily seen here:

http://www.valka.cz/galerie5/data/844/IMG_95631.jpg

source: http://galerie.valka.cz/showphoto.php/photo/154283

 

But nothing similar here:

http://data3.primeportal.net/tanks/erik_torp/m48a5/images/m48a5_54_of_66.jpg

http://data3.primeportal.net/tanks/erik_torp/m48a5/images/m48a5_13_of_66.jpg

 

Not the best photo but I can still see the welding on the eye:

http://data3.primeportal.net/tanks/ulrich_wrede/m48/images/m48_09_of_30.jpg

source: http://www.primeportal.net/the_battlefield_armor.htm

 

Which is not to say that these hulls were not welded, only that if they were the welds are exceptionally neat, or that the hull parts breakdown was different such that there is no joint there. But given a reliable source that says the hull could be cast as a single part I'd be inclined to go with that.

 

*and also another vertical join forward of the 4th return roller but behind the 4th bump stop, but that doesn't seem to be there either. These joins are visible on a related vehicle (under left edge of the eye, right in line with the bump stop, so I would expect to be able to see them quite clearly if they are there.)

[Colin]

Here is a rear shot of the Littlefields M48

 

I don't recall seeing a weld line

[DKTanker]

Here is a rear shot of the Littlefields M48

 

I don't recall seeing a weld line

Not seen in any of the photos provided is a view from underneath where the belly pan is welded in place. Also, no expert I with the M48 gasser, it is quite possible the rear of the hull was one casting. It is also possible that some of the welds seen in the photos are of hulls that were rebuilt gassers for diesel engines with the rear of the hull being cut off and another rear end welded in place.

[irregularmedic]

What you have in your photo appears to be a later production of Medium Tank, M4A1, 76mm, Wet Stowage. The easy way to identify the later M4A1s is not only the turret, but the shape and details of that cast upper hull. The casting had minor revisions during production, but the late hulls were a major revision. The Drivers hatches are larger and set at an angle, versus (same hatch cover as the late welded hulls), versus the earlier "small hatch" hulls, where the hatch covers open parallel to the long axis of the hull. The rear doesn't have the "cut out" area exposing the air cleaners, and the front angles are revised. These late hulls are almost exclusively seen with 76mm turrets. The few hundred M4A1s with the late upper hull castings and 75mm turrets all (or functionally all) went to conversion as US Duplex Drive tanks (along with some "small hatch" M4A1s).

 

The M4A1, 76mm, Wet Stowage was the first type of 76mm Sherman to see combat with the first batch going to the US 2nd and 3rd Armored Divisions in July, 1944. The later production batches had the later turret casting (one piece loader hatch) and many had muzzle brakes on the 76mm guns. The last batch came from the factory with the 76mm guns and HVSS featuring 23-inch tracks. These went to Europe but nobody has come up with a confirmed photo of the "M4A1E8" in combat in WW2. The M4A1E8s served in the French Army post WW2, then to Israel, as well as the Army National Guard and USAR.

 

Tanks!

 

Ref the bolded bit, I imagine this explains the other Sherman* gate guard at Fort Lewis (or I suppose more properly these days "Joint Base Lewis-McChord"):

 

 

I hesitate to be more specific than "Sherman"!

[irregularmedic]

Regarding the debate about cast hulls, is it possible that one of the places that was welding them went to the trouble to grind their welds smooth making them difficult to discern? I know that there wouldn't be any realistic reason to do so, but someone might have taken pride in the appearance of their work or been anal.

[Colin]

As for the mix and match, theatre workshops might have been creative in getting vehicles cobbled together and out the door.

[Richard Young]

As for the mix and match, theatre workshops might have been creative in getting vehicles cobbled together and out the door.

 

 

Thanks everybody!

[ShotMagnet]

...is it possible that one of the places that was welding them went to the trouble to grind their welds smooth making them difficult to discern?

Possible?

Yes.

 

Likely?

No, for the following reasons.

 

First: production. Turning out tanks was the priority, makking them look nice was not (remembering that in the main Shermans were manufactured while there was a war on). Grinding down a weld would take an extra five minutes, on what logic can assume to be a tight schedule.

 

Second: vulnerability. To my admittedly-incomplete knowledge of welding and weld; knowing that the weld is automatically suspect as the fail-point, welds are often stronger (often much stronger) than the item they join would be if it were one piece. Hiding a weld because you're worried that someone might target that area makes an incorrect assumption regarding the strength of the weld.

 

Third: targetability. As in, how are you going to target reliably the join between to pieces, in combat? Can you even see the weld? If a typical tank-tank engagement range of the era was 500 meters, how large is the target going to appear in the gunner's sight? Large enough to spot and target the weld?

Remember also that typically either the target is moving or the attacking vehicle is moving. There's a lot of jostling around, and even with a stabilized gun you're lucky to get a hit. Attempting to place one straight down the 'thermal exhaust port' as it were, is asking too much. Worrying about someone tagging a spot that isn't necessarily a weak spot is worrying about the wrong thing.

 

 

Shot

[rmgill]

The castings are clearly castings. Welds where two castings meet are very obvious due to the pattern of the metal's surface.

 

The sand leaves a different pattern than grinding would. It'll be flat, but not the same sort of flat.

[Marek Tucan]

 

 

 

I hesitate to be more specific than "Sherman"!

 

M4A1E8

[irregularmedic]

Possible?

Yes.

 

Likely?

No, for the following reasons.

 

First: production. Turning out tanks was the priority, makking them look nice was not (remembering that in the main Shermans were manufactured while there was a war on). Grinding down a weld would take an extra five minutes, on what logic can assume to be a tight schedule.

 

Second: vulnerability. To my admittedly-incomplete knowledge of welding and weld; knowing that the weld is automatically suspect as the fail-point, welds are often stronger (often much stronger) than the item they join would be if it were one piece. Hiding a weld because you're worried that someone might target that area makes an incorrect assumption regarding the strength of the weld.

 

Third: targetability. As in, how are you going to target reliably the join between to pieces, in combat? Can you even see the weld? If a typical tank-tank engagement range of the era was 500 meters, how large is the target going to appear in the gunner's sight? Large enough to spot and target the weld?

Remember also that typically either the target is moving or the attacking vehicle is moving. There's a lot of jostling around, and even with a stabilized gun you're lucky to get a hit. Attempting to place one straight down the 'thermal exhaust port' as it were, is asking too much. Worrying about someone tagging a spot that isn't necessarily a weak spot is worrying about the wrong thing.

 

 

Shot

 

Oh I wasn't suggesting that it was done as camouflage, I just meant "discern" in the sense as in distinguish via the naked eye by the likes of us trying to determine whether it was cast as one piece or two. Which was answered in the following post:

 

The castings are clearly castings. Welds where two castings meet are very obvious due to the pattern of the metal's surface.

 

The sand leaves a different pattern than grinding would. It'll be flat, but not the same sort of flat.

 

 

Thanks. That was the obvious thing I was overlooking, of course you'd have a ground pretty smooth surface where the bead was and the casting would have a different texture. My limited welding experience doesn't include casting, what that surface looks like wasn't at the forefront of my mind when considering it.

 

Tanks again!

[demosthenes]

This thread left me scurrying to find an obscure Sherman website I was at some time ago, and I finally found it:

 

http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/

[Doug Kibbey]

This thread left me scurrying to find an obscure Sherman website I was at some time ago, and I finally found it:

 

http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/

 

 

Pierre-Olivier's sites are hardly obscure, he's been instrumental in compiling some of the most comprehensive registers of AFV's on display, in museums, in private collections and as "stored" in those countries or for those vehicles which hold the greatest interest for him. The "surviving panzers" websites have been a massive undertaking with contributions from many. We have a small group of individuals who are engaged in the same undertaking for the U.S., UK, Canada, France, Benelux, Germany, Poland and elsewhere. Sites and registers are dynamic and may be downloaded or accessed via the AFV News DG "stickied" at the top. SN Guides, some registries and other helpful spotter's details are to be found in the downloads section.