Jump to content

Talk:M4 Sherman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Andering J. REDDSON (talk | contribs) at 00:49, 6 March 2012 (→‎¿Why Isn’t The Rhino Tank Listed?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

M4 medium tank

Shouldn't this article be known as M4 medium tank? M4 medium tank is the formal name for the vehicle. Wasn't it the British who gave the m4 the name sherman? just curious...

Tank, Medium, M-4

"Tank, Medium, M-4" is the official Army lingo and please note the dash! Leaving it out is modern and confusing usage. Most of all, it is historically incorrect.

Indeed, the Brits named it the 'Sherman,' the name under which it got famous. They did not use the 'M-4xxx' system of designation, but named the types Sherman I through V (roman numerals) with a letter for sub-types, e.g. "Sherman VC Firefly" — the extra name denoting a very important type that isn't even mentioned here.

The article is altogether too much slanted towards the U.S.A. and does not consider the widespread use of this vehicle, including its later derivatives like the IDF's M-50 and M-51.

Much can be improved.

VNCCC (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Under the infobox on the right hand side is a navigation box Template:M4_Sherman_navigation which links to several subarticles (such as post WWII use and development). There are also links to these sub articles in the article eg Lend-Lease_Sherman_tanks under "Service history" and M4 Sherman variants under US variants. You will find the British Shermans covered there including a link to the Sherman Firefly article (actually Firefly is mentioned in the third paragraph of the lead, under "Gun development" and the "See also" sections). GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

¿Why Isn’t The Rhino Tank Listed?

From Rhino Tank: The Rhino tank (or "Rhinoceros") was the American nickname for Allied tanks fitted with hedgerow-breaching "tusks" during the Second World War Battle of Normandy, which took place during the Liberation of France in the summer of 1944. The British nicknamed the devices prongs.
So, ¿why isn’t it listed here? (Maybe it is and I just missed it, but I also used my page search function, so I doubt it.)Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rhino tank refers to any tank fitted with the Cullin prong device, whether Sherman, M3 Stuart or Cromwell. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okaaaay… At very least, a mention of the variant and link to the effective article should be included.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's already linked from a photo in the Armor section, and described in some detail (though not linked) under Miscellaneous. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So it is… But it’s SO brief that if you didn’t know it was there, you’d miss it. There’s got to be a way to give it more attention; ¿A subsection perhaps? (To give you a perspective, even knowing it was here, I had to use the page search function on my computer.)Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a reasonable amount of content to me, a full paragraph covers its tactical use. It was only needed for that area of France and not in the rest of the north western Europe campaign, nor for the North Africa, Italy, Burma or Pacific campaigns. To put more emphasis on the subject in this article would be WP:UNDUE.GraemeLeggett (talk) 02:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little experiment; I tried finding it NOW purely by scanning (no use of a search function). I didn’t find it, and to be honest, I can’t be sure it’s here now (I assume it is, but without using the search function it’s not going to happen). Try the experiment for yourself using someone NOT familiar with the page (or its contents). Then tell me it’s “a reasonable amount of content.” EDIT: This time I did use the Search Function; “Rhino” came up “No Matches” and under “Hedge” (as in the mis-named “hedgerows”) there was a blurb, but hardly a proper commentary; Additionally, the section was more interested in the use of three tanks in shotgun manner (if I even read that right, it was rather cumbersome) than the Cullins Hedgerow Cutters. The only link was a caption under a photograph in which the Cutters weren’t even noticeable, unless you happen to be looking for that. This was listed under Armor. Really. A. J. REDDSON

"Ronson"

A note that might be useful: as I recall from a mis-spent model-building childhood Sherman tanks in the African campaign (at least) got nicknamed 'Ronsons' by the British because they were prone to burn furiously when hit. This suggests but need not automatically imply a weakness that doesn't seem to have been mentioned here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.198.114 (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They had the same chance of burning as most German tanks, in fact iirc Tiger tanks had a greater chance of catching fire once hit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.192.142 (talk) 08:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Ronson nickname, the reason for fires, and the use of wet racks is already included in the article at the bottom of the Armor section. (Hohum @) 13:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sherman?

Gentlemen, in a german WIKI-article I found a picture of an armored vehicle. Any idea what type it is? Thanks, Hans Maag, Switzerland

Amerikanische Panzer rollen durch Avranches

--hmaag (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ones in the distance are. The one in the foreground looks like an M3 Stuart, due to the flat looking front among other reasons so not the latter M5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.192.142 (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the one in the foreground seems to have an open gun in place of the turret, a T18 75mm Howitzer Motor Carrier? --hmaag (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since the one in foreground doesn't appear to have the 75, I'd guess the further one doesn't, either. In context, it seems more likely they're the same outfit. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno about the tanks, but units would have more than one type. The tank battalion would, iirc, have support tanks, command tanks, and a light tank recon unit. So there could be a mixture in the photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.0.3 (talk) 10:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A hi-rez version of the photo is available here: link. One notes that the website labels the lot as Stuarts.
I don’t know if it is just the angle the tanks in the middle and background of the photo are moving at, but their turrets look huge compared to what I believe an M3/M5 should look like. I have tracked down two photos, one of the M3 and one of the M5: link and link. I would inclined to say they are Shermans, unless some M3/M5s had larger turrets I am unaware of?
The one in the foreground is deffo a stuart due to the wheel layout. On the hi rez version it looks like the chap has a turret hatch behind him so not a SP gun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.0.3 (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote to Post–World War II

A hatnote to Post–World War II Sherman tanks should be added to the Post–World War II section of this article. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

there's a link under "Foreign use" further down the article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:M4_Sherman&oldid=480418257"