MHO Home   Forum Home   Help   Register   Login
 
 
Welcome to MilitaryHistoryOnline.com.
You are not signed in.
The current time is: 12/13/2017 7:30:46 PM
 (1939-1945) WWII Battles    
AuthorMessage
anemone
DONCASTER S. YORKS, UK
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 6101
http:// 82.44.47.99
Turning the M4 Sherman Tank into a Killer
Posted on: 8/12/2017 6:31:32 AM
From the hedgerows of Normandy, France, to the hills of Italy and the plains of Netherlands, the Firefly was one of the few Allied tanks the Germans learned to fear…

Among the most potent Allied conversion of the war, and certainly one of the deadliest version of the Sherman, it was a clever -although risky and improvised- move to try to keep up with the latest German tank developments.


[Read More]


Regards

Jim
---------------
Pro Patria Saepe Pro Rege Semper

SJ
Belfast N Ireland, UK
top 10
E-9 Sergeant Major
Posts: 697

Re: Turning the M4 Sherman Tank into a Killer
Posted on: 8/12/2017 8:34:46 AM
Interesting how crews camouflaged the 17pdr barrel length so as to blend with "ordinary" Shermans.

Otherwise the hunter would become the haunted !

In Israel in the 1970s I was fascinating how the IDF had fitted even more powerful guns to the humble Sherman- right up to 105mm.

British tank upgrade was hampered by small turret ring design.

anemone
DONCASTER S. YORKS, UK
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 6101
http:// 82.44.47.99
Re: Turning the M4 Sherman Tank into a Killer
Posted on: 8/12/2017 9:10:09 AM
Thank you for your reply SJ-I thought it was a clever move for WW2-the 17pdr shell packed a fair punch fired out of a 76.2 mm barrel.


Regards


Jim
---------------
Pro Patria Saepe Pro Rege Semper

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5700

Re: Turning the M4 Sherman Tank into a Killer
Posted on: 8/12/2017 12:52:34 PM
I believe that the M4 Sherman modifications for the Firefly also included elimination of the bow MG in favour of some extra armour.

There were other modifications too. The Firefly tank could move while the gun was facing backwards. I don't know what feat of engineering made that possible.

The 17 pounder was also installed on some Canadian made Grizzly tanks which were a modified Sherman M41A. They were heavier with sloping armour and tracks that did not employ rubber. And I don't think any ever got into combat.

Once it became obvious that American industrial power could provide all of the Sherman tanks needed, there was no need to develop and manufacture a Canadian designed or modified version.


British Firefly



anemone
DONCASTER S. YORKS, UK
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 6101
http:// 82.44.47.99
Re: Turning the M4 Sherman Tank into a Killer
Posted on: 8/12/2017 1:09:33 PM
Great pics George


Quote:
The British Firefly looked the business-changes that
are common to the Firefly and British Shermans are :
-fittings for additional tracks, that can be placed
either on the front or sides of the hull
-fire extinguishers clamps, located at the back of
the hull, beside the engine deck plates
-an additional large box to the back of the hull
-smoke generators placed on the back engine doors
-mounts for a leaf spring that held the towing pintle
-additional towing lugs, fitted for lashing down to
landing craft when deep wading trunking is fitted
(as this item obscured the original towing eyes.
British Sherman Firefly

Regards

Jim
---------------
Pro Patria Saepe Pro Rege Semper

richto90
Bremerton, WA, USA
top 25
E-6 Staff Sergeant
Posts: 403

Re: Turning the M4 Sherman Tank into a Killer
Posted on: 8/12/2017 2:26:54 PM

Quote:
I believe that the M4 Sherman modifications for the Firefly also included elimination of the bow MG in favour of some extra armour.


The bow MG and gunner were removed to give sufficient ammunition stowage, not extra armor. There was no extra armor on the Sherman 17-pdr other than the standard "quick fix" kits produced by U.S. Army Ordnance for fitting to the various M4-series.


Quote:
There were other modifications too. The Firefly tank could move while the gun was facing backwards. I don't know what feat of engineering made that possible.


There were no modifications or particular feats of engineering required for that...all tanks can move while the gun is facing backwards; the driver is in the hull after all, facing forwards.


Quote:
The 17 pounder was also installed on some Canadian made Grizzly tanks which were a modified Sherman M41A. They were heavier with sloping armour and tracks that did not employ rubber. And I don't think any ever got into combat.


I am unaware of Grizzly tanks modified to Sherman 17-pdr standard, although it should have been possible. All British Sherman 17-pdr were either M4 (Sherman Ic) or M4A4 (Sherman Vc) conversions. The Grizzly was simply the Medium Tank M4A1 (Sherman II in British nomenclature) produced by the Montreal Locomotive Works of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Montreal Locomotive was a international subsidiary of American Locomotive Company (ALCO), which was a prime contractor (and first producer) of the Medium Tank M4A1. The M4A1 was not considered for conversion by the British because its cast steel hull form slightly reduced the usable area for main gun ammo stowage, which was already restricted due to the larger size rounds. Similar space restrictions due to the large dual clutches of the GM diesel in the Medium Tank M4A2 kept it from being used as a 17-pdr conversion as well.


Quote:
Once it became obvious that American industrial power could provide all of the Sherman tanks needed, there was no need to develop and manufacture a Canadian designed or modified version.


Not quite. A major factor was the time it took to get things under way.

BTW, the Sherman 17-pdr was never referred to as such in official documents. It was always Sherman Ic or Vc or most often just Sherman 17-pdr. "FIREFLY" was actually a codeword used to designate a series of design studies for alternates to the 17-pdr Cruiser Tank 'Challenger', which had turned out to be more than a bit of a dogs breakfast. FIREFLY projects included Comet, Avenger, Archer, and M10 17-pdr.

Meanwhile, the thrust of the title of the article is more than a bit silly, given that the basic Medium Tank M4 in all its iterations was a pretty decent "killer" as it was. Now, if the article was titled "Turning the M4 Sherman Tank into a Dedicated Tank Destroyer" it would be quite a bit more accurate, especially given that was the concept as the RAC deployed it.

richto90
Bremerton, WA, USA
top 25
E-6 Staff Sergeant
Posts: 403

Re: Turning the M4 Sherman Tank into a Killer
Posted on: 8/12/2017 2:35:54 PM
Also BTW, I'm not sure why the waffly "1900+ produced" statement was made. Mark Hayward nearly 20 years ago established the number of British conversions as 2,139. Another 200 conversions from ETOUSA stocks were begun in March 1945 for U.S. Army use, of which possibly no more than 160 were completed. All the sources for a "Grizzly 17-pdr" appear to be circular and stem from various tank wargaming sites, rather than any actual Canadian Army documentation. I would be very happy to see the last proven though.

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5700

Re: Turning the M4 Sherman Tank into a Killer
Posted on: 8/12/2017 5:45:01 PM
Montreal Automotive Works only made 188 Grizzly tanks before converting to Sexton manufacture.

Rich, I am trying to find my source.

The normal gun on the Grizzly was the 75mm or 76mm high velocity.

But I believe that a few were outfitted with the 17 pounder and used in training. The US was sent a couple of 17 pounders to fit on their Shermans as well.

There is one at CFB Borden in Ontario at the tank museum. It is described as a prototype.

You have to scroll well down to find it.

[Read More]



George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5700

Re: Turning the M4 Sherman Tank into a Killer
Posted on: 8/12/2017 6:22:49 PM
The Grizzly was indeed a Sherman but it did have thicker armour with a greater degree of slope on the front than the M4

The Canadian Dry Pin tracks were the most notable modification. Apparently, the system did not require rubber which was in short supply.

But this Sherman variant never saw action. It became a training tank.

George


richto90
Bremerton, WA, USA
top 25
E-6 Staff Sergeant
Posts: 403

Re: Turning the M4 Sherman Tank into a Killer
Posted on: 8/12/2017 11:41:48 PM

Quote:
Montreal Automotive Works only made 188 Grizzly tanks before converting to Sexton manufacture.


yep.


Quote:
Rich, I am trying to find my source.

The normal gun on the Grizzly was the 75mm or 76mm high velocity.


Nope. All Grizzly as completed were with the 75mm M3 Gun. Some were anecdotally later fitted with 17-pdr or 76mm.



Quote:
But I believe that a few were outfitted with the 17 pounder and used in training. The US was sent a couple of 17 pounders to fit on their Shermans as well.


Three (IIRC) Sherman Ic were sent to the US for evaluation in 1944. The response was lukewarm at best since it had all the faults assessed in the M4A1 (76mm) of 1942, but two years later.


Quote:
There is one at CFB Borden in Ontario at the tank museum. It is described as a prototype.


Thanks for the confirmation.

richto90
Bremerton, WA, USA
top 25
E-6 Staff Sergeant
Posts: 403

Re: Turning the M4 Sherman Tank into a Killer
Posted on: 8/12/2017 11:43:57 PM

Quote:
The Grizzly was indeed a Sherman but it did have thicker armour with a greater degree of slope on the front than the M4


Sorry, but no, it was exactly the same as the ALCP M4A1 of 1942, including the early three-piece transmission cover. Armor was exactly the same.


Quote:
The Canadian Dry Pin tracks were the most notable modification. Apparently, the system did not require rubber which was in short supply.


Yep.


Quote:
But this Sherman variant never saw action. It became a training tank.


Yep.

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5700

Re: Turning the M4 Sherman Tank into a Killer
Posted on: 8/13/2017 6:53:42 AM
Some literature suggests that the Grizzly was a derivative of the RAM which was not a very good tank. Was the RAM based on a Sherman chassis?

Cheers,

George

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5700

Re: Turning the M4 Sherman Tank into a Killer
Posted on: 8/13/2017 7:16:40 AM
This is an interesting site. Certainly it is detailed and discusses modifications made to the Sherman when the Grizzly was produced.

The author seems to have researched the US foundry source for some of the castings.

Most of the modifications are minor.

I did find one reference to extra armour appliqués that were attached to the Sherman's "cheeks" One iteration of the Grizzly did not include the external appliqués favouring an internal thickening of the cheeks which I presume were on the turret but I do not know.

Many interesting photos from all angles.

As I said, quite detailed. Accurate?? I don't know.


[Read More]

richto90
Bremerton, WA, USA
top 25
E-6 Staff Sergeant
Posts: 403

Re: Turning the M4 Sherman Tank into a Killer
Posted on: 8/14/2017 12:41:42 AM

Quote:
This is an interesting site. Certainly it is detailed and discusses modifications made to the Sherman when the Grizzly was produced.


Yes it is. I've contributed to it so it must be...


Quote:
The author seems to have researched the US foundry source for some of the castings.

Most of the modifications are minor.

I did find one reference to extra armour appliqués that were attached to the Sherman's "cheeks" One iteration of the Grizzly did not include the external appliqués favouring an internal thickening of the cheeks which I presume were on the turret but I do not know.


Yes, see http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/turret_types/75mm_turrets.html

The "cheek" applique was required in the early "low bustle" turret. It was necessary to machine out the interior front right surface of the turret in order to give room for the power traverse, which thinned the armor there. The applique "fixed" that until the later turret design corrected the problem.


Quote:
Many interesting photos from all angles
As I said, quite detailed. Accurate?? I don't know.


Yes, quite good. Note that the problems were similar to those encountered by Australia in producing the Sentinel. Much of the automotive sub-components required U.S. production initially. The RAM had high commonality with the Medium Tank M3, which derived from the Medium Tank M2A1, so were sourcing the same engine, transmission, and suspension components.

Jim Cameron
North Bellmore, NY, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant


Posts: 687

Re: Turning the M4 Sherman Tank into a Killer
Posted on: 8/14/2017 3:02:44 PM
My impression has always been that the lukewarm response of the U.S. to the 17pdr was a reflection of the difference in U.S. and British doctrine, which in the case of the U.S. held that fighting enemy tanks was a job for the Tank Destroyers. U.S. tanks could and did, of course, engage German tanks, but it wasn't considered their optimal employment.
Oddly enough, with increasing numbers of 76mm guns mounted on the M4, the distinction between tank and TD was already starting to blur. With the M36B1, with a 90mm gun on a M4A1 hull, any real difference would seem to have been rendered moot.
---------------
Jim Cameron

Every time I go to Gettysburg, I learn two things. Something new, and, how much I still don't know.

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5700

Re: Turning the M4 Sherman Tank into a Killer
Posted on: 8/14/2017 5:11:10 PM
Which US tanks were most effective in some of the Pacific islands battles?

Cheers,

George

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 553

Re: Turning the M4 Sherman Tank into a Killer
Posted on: 8/14/2017 6:01:10 PM
George,

Your basic Sherman outclassed any tank the Japanese had. I also believe that their standard AT guns were 37mm. Given that the majority of use was against bunkers, pillboxes and caves a combination of regular Sherman's with a flame throwing variety were the most effective. They really were used in more of a infantry support roll in the Pacific.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


Jim Cameron
North Bellmore, NY, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant


Posts: 687

Re: Turning the M4 Sherman Tank into a Killer
Posted on: 8/14/2017 7:11:40 PM
The Japanese also had a 47mm AT gun.
---------------
Jim Cameron

Every time I go to Gettysburg, I learn two things. Something new, and, how much I still don't know.

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5700

Re: Turning the M4 Sherman Tank into a Killer
Posted on: 8/14/2017 7:14:22 PM
Thanks John. That's what I was wondering about, the role that tanks played in some parts of the Pacific.

In all of those battles, how many of the islands could be called tank country. From pictures, it seems that the terrain was difficult for tanks.

Also, did the marines use light tanks rather than the Sherman?


Cheers,

George


richto90
Bremerton, WA, USA
top 25
E-6 Staff Sergeant
Posts: 403

Re: Turning the M4 Sherman Tank into a Killer
Posted on: 8/14/2017 9:23:44 PM

Quote:
My impression has always been that the lukewarm response of the U.S. to the 17pdr was a reflection of the difference in U.S. and British doctrine, which in the case of the U.S. held that fighting enemy tanks was a job for the Tank Destroyers. U.S. tanks could and did, of course, engage German tanks, but it wasn't considered their optimal employment.


Sorry, but no matter how many stakes you drive into the heart of this myth, it still keeps getting resurrected. There is no more anything stated in U.S. Armor doctrine that "tanks don't fight tanks" than there is anything in British or German doctrine that states that "tanks do fight tanks". In fact, U.S. Armor doctrine explicitly stated that tanks do fight tanks...they were considered a primary target for our tanks in the offense, because they were a danger to our tanks maneuver.

The problem with the 17-pdr as a tank gun was that it appeared too late, after Ordnance had already jumped through hoops in order to fit the 76mm into a tank turret and the 17-pdr was simply going to repeat the problem. U.S. Army Ordnance did test it in a tank and the results weren't positive.


Quote:
Oddly enough, with increasing numbers of 76mm guns mounted on the M4, the distinction between tank and TD was already starting to blur. With the M36B1, with a 90mm gun on a M4A1 hull, any real difference would seem to have been rendered moot.
--Jim Cameron


No, the difference was distinctive and always was. The tank destroyer was not a tank, whatever gun was fitted in it. Tank destroyers, despite the sound and fury drummed up about them, were defensive weapons. Tanks were offensive weapons.

Jim Cameron
North Bellmore, NY, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant


Posts: 687

Re: Turning the M4 Sherman Tank into a Killer
Posted on: 8/15/2017 11:24:13 AM
I think that you miss my points. Engaging enemy armor was indeed a defined mission. They had to engage enemy armor when and as encountered. Calling up the TDs whenever it happened certainly wasn't practical or possible. It simply wasn't considered their best employment, at least, not by the guys mulling over proper doctrine. The guys actually out in the field, probably not so much!

As for the 17pdr, I would imagine that it would have also raised multiplicity of types issues, what with U.S. medium tanks already mounting 75mm and 76mm guns. Also, wouldn't the large propellant charge have caused the same tube life concerns U.S. Ordnance was prone to?

As to tanks and TDs, of course there was a difference. My point was that once TD grade main guns began to be mounted in tanks, you now had them in a more capable, better protected vehicle. This would seem to diminish the rational for the TD.
---------------
Jim Cameron

Every time I go to Gettysburg, I learn two things. Something new, and, how much I still don't know.

BWilson

top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 3522

Re: Turning the M4 Sherman Tank into a Killer
Posted on: 8/15/2017 11:45:49 AM
This would seem to diminish the rational for the TD.

Jim,

 TD or TD's as a separate branch ?

 I ask because TD's still exist -- HMMWV with a TOW missile launcher, for example. They are no longer organized, AFAIK, in groups larger than platoons, but the basic vehicle idea is still there -- lightly armored, fast, and packing a significant antitank punch.

Cheers

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

Jim Cameron
North Bellmore, NY, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant


Posts: 687

Re: Turning the M4 Sherman Tank into a Killer
Posted on: 8/15/2017 12:41:45 PM
Well, Tank Destroyers as a separate branch was controversial enough even during the war, but my comment was more with regard to the vehicle. Once the main gun was the same, what could a TD do that a tank couldn't do better?
---------------
Jim Cameron

Every time I go to Gettysburg, I learn two things. Something new, and, how much I still don't know.

BWilson

top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 3522

Re: Turning the M4 Sherman Tank into a Killer
Posted on: 8/15/2017 12:47:21 PM
 I agree in terms of battalion-sized TD organizations. To your question, and of importance to the postwar army, it was a matter of cost. Being able to provide non-armor units with mobile tank killing capability was useful, and the "TD as lightly armored but heavily armed" vehicle cost significantly less than what ultimately became the modern MBT.

Cheers

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

richto90
Bremerton, WA, USA
top 25
E-6 Staff Sergeant
Posts: 403

Re: Turning the M4 Sherman Tank into a Killer
Posted on: 8/16/2017 12:52:17 PM

Quote:
I think that you miss my points. Engaging enemy armor was indeed a defined mission. They had to engage enemy armor when and as encountered. Calling up the TDs whenever it happened certainly wasn't practical or possible. It simply wasn't considered their best employment, at least, not by the guys mulling over proper doctrine. The guys actually out in the field, probably not so much!


Exactly. The doctrine as written evolved more slowly than the doctrine as practiced.


Quote:
As for the 17pdr, I would imagine that it would have also raised multiplicity of types issues, what with U.S. medium tanks already mounting 75mm and 76mm guns. Also, wouldn't the large propellant charge have caused the same tube life concerns U.S. Ordnance was prone to?


That as well.


Quote:
As to tanks and TDs, of course there was a difference. My point was that once TD grade main guns began to be mounted in tanks, you now had them in a more capable, better protected vehicle. This would seem to diminish the rational for the TD.
--Jim Cameron


Which is exactly what the General Board concluded.

richto90
Bremerton, WA, USA
top 25
E-6 Staff Sergeant
Posts: 403

Re: Turning the M4 Sherman Tank into a Killer
Posted on: 8/16/2017 1:00:02 PM

Quote:
Well, Tank Destroyers as a separate branch was controversial enough even during the war, but my comment was more with regard to the vehicle. Once the main gun was the same, what could a TD do that a tank couldn't do better?
--Jim Cameron


But Tank Destroyers never were a "separate branch". The authorized combat branches were the Infantry, Cavalry, and Field Artillery. Armor was created as a "Force" for "Purposes of Service Test" and did not become a combat branch until 1950. The Tank Destroyers were created as a "Command". Both were responsible for organizational, training, and doctrinal development under Army Ground Forces for their respective types in order to prepare them for operational deployment.

Meanwhile, yes, the finding of the General Board postwar was that there was no doctrinal requirement for the Tank Destroyers as they had developed during the war.

BWilson

top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 3522

Re: Turning the M4 Sherman Tank into a Killer
Posted on: 8/16/2017 1:37:14 PM
Rich,

 Thanks for the comments. I recall hearing the TD force was organized under the FA branch during the war. Is that accurate?

Cheers

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

richto90
Bremerton, WA, USA
top 25
E-6 Staff Sergeant
Posts: 403

Re: Turning the M4 Sherman Tank into a Killer
Posted on: 8/16/2017 1:59:27 PM

Quote:
Rich,

 Thanks for the comments. I recall hearing the TD force was organized under the FA branch during the war. Is that accurate?

Cheers

BW
--BWilson


No, the Tank Destroyer units derived from the provisional antitank battalions formed 1939-1941 from both the Infantry and Field Artillery. The TD Tactical and Training Center was established independently of existing Branches, just as the Armored Force was. Officers were from existing branches and were dominated by Field Artillery and the enlisted personnel were eventually all categorized as field artillery for administrative simplicity, but it was never "under" the FA Branch. Remember too, all the traditional combat branches lost most of their authority and became solely administrative organization with the War Department reorganization of March 1942. The old Chiefs of the Branches disappeared as did their offices and authority, which was subsumed by the AGF.

Jim Cameron
North Bellmore, NY, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant


Posts: 687

Re: Turning the M4 Sherman Tank into a Killer
Posted on: 8/16/2017 3:34:29 PM

Quote:


But Tank Destroyers never were a "separate branch". The authorized combat branches were the Infantry, Cavalry, and Field Artillery. Armor was created as a "Force" for "Purposes of Service Test" and did not become a combat branch until 1950. The Tank Destroyers were created as a "Command". Both were responsible for organizational, training, and doctrinal development under Army Ground Forces for their respective types in order to prepare them for operational deployment.

Meanwhile, yes, the finding of the General Board postwar was that there was no doctrinal requirement for the Tank Destroyers as they had developed during the war.

--richto90


Thanks. I was admittedly using the term somewhat broadly.
---------------
Jim Cameron

Every time I go to Gettysburg, I learn two things. Something new, and, how much I still don't know.

richto90
Bremerton, WA, USA
top 25
E-6 Staff Sergeant
Posts: 403

Re: Turning the M4 Sherman Tank into a Killer
Posted on: 8/16/2017 4:18:09 PM

Quote:
Thanks. I was admittedly using the term somewhat broadly.

--Jim Cameron


I figured as much and it is a common practice. However, "Branch" has a very specific organizational, traditional, and - most importantly - legal meaning in the U.S. Army. U.S. Statute regulates what constitutes a "Branch" into which an officer can receive a commission. In order of creation as of World War II they were:

Infantry Branch
Adjutant General's Department
Corps of Engineers
Finance Department
Quartermaster Department
Medical Department
Chaplains Department
Judge Advocate General's Department
Field Artillery Branch (Coast Artillery Corps subdivided in 1901)
Cavalry Branch
Ordnance Department
Signal Corps
Chemical Department
Army Air Corps

Branch immaterial and general officers were separate issues.

BWilson

top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 3522

Re: Turning the M4 Sherman Tank into a Killer
Posted on: 8/17/2017 3:32:59 AM
Rich,

 Thanks, that was a nice bit of insight about the branches and AGF.

Cheers

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

Jim Cameron
North Bellmore, NY, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant


Posts: 687

Re: Turning the M4 Sherman Tank into a Killer
Posted on: 8/17/2017 9:16:20 AM
I think what helps confuse matters is that both armor and TD (and some others), which weren't technically branches, had their own "branch insignia" for wear on the uniform. In their case, while the term was, and is, commonly used, it's something of a misnomer.
---------------
Jim Cameron

Every time I go to Gettysburg, I learn two things. Something new, and, how much I still don't know.

richto90
Bremerton, WA, USA
top 25
E-6 Staff Sergeant
Posts: 403

Re: Turning the M4 Sherman Tank into a Killer
Posted on: 8/17/2017 2:21:54 PM

Quote:
I think what helps confuse matters is that both armor and TD (and some others), which weren't technically branches, had their own "branch insignia" for wear on the uniform. In their case, while the term was, and is, commonly used, it's something of a misnomer.
--Jim Cameron


Technically speaking, they were authorized "distinctive insignia" and the various units were authorized "distinctive unit insignia". None of them were authorized "branch insignia" because they were not authorized "branches".

Jim Cameron
North Bellmore, NY, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant


Posts: 687

Re: Turning the M4 Sherman Tank into a Killer
Posted on: 8/17/2017 3:37:48 PM
Yeah, I figured there had to be some official term for them, probably more or less ignored in common usage.
---------------
Jim Cameron

Every time I go to Gettysburg, I learn two things. Something new, and, how much I still don't know.

richto90
Bremerton, WA, USA
top 25
E-6 Staff Sergeant
Posts: 403

Re: Turning the M4 Sherman Tank into a Killer
Posted on: 8/17/2017 4:55:46 PM

Quote:
Yeah, I figured there had to be some official term for them, probably more or less ignored in common usage.
--Jim Cameron


War Department Speak and Pentagon Speak are closely related...


 (1939-1945) WWII Battles    
 Forum Ads from Google