Sherman m4a3e2

[serge]

Hello

I would like to have please an answer at the following question : why there is no headlight at the front of the SHERMAN JUMBO (M4A3E2).

During WWII the classic SHERMAN were not strong enough to receive a shot from german armoured vehicle like TIGRE or PANTHER. At the end of the year 1943 a new kind of SHERMAN was build in factories with a new turret (more armoured) and a front of the tank protected by a very deep armour. These kind of tank were always at the head of colunns of other SHERMAN in the aim to protect them again the first round of german tanks.

On the pic of a restored JUMBO (in BRUSSEL TANK MUSEUM) and a pic shot during WWII in BASTOGNE we see such tank without any headlight despite the fact that they have rear lights

M4A3 were SHERMAN with the V8 GSAA engine with 500 HP

Thanks for any answer

[Michael R.]

Does the heavier (thickness) of the glacis plate prevent the former lighting arrangement from installation?
An image from an M4A2E8 front plate showing the lamp sockets with their chain secured plugs installed, the plug holder attached to the lamp frames.
The siren is temporarily removed.

[David Herbert]

The standard headlights plug into a socket in the hull which has the electrical contacts on the inside of the hull. The thickness if the glacis plate of a Jumbo is such that a standard headlight would not reach the inside of the hull so a different system would be needed. A fixed headlight from a truck could have been used but it was policy that headlights on armoured vehicles should be removeable and only fitted when needed as they are so easy to damage in action. Also they did not want to have any more holes or shot traps than they had to so the easiest thing was no lights or siren / horn.

David

[jdmcm]

Here is a picture of my M4A3E2 "Jumbo" you can get a good idea of the glacis thickness by looking at the keyhole cut for the bow gun, as well as how much thicker it is than a non-jumbo differential which is installed in this case so we could throw tracks on it and have it sit for static display until we get around to it's restoration...it is #73 of 254 built, one of only 6 or seven left in the world, and I am sure the only one in Canada.



Regarding headlights, the original glacis under the extra armor plate has no holes for headlights either, some Jumbo's do have the headlight holes under the armor plate...some don't...very odd

[David Herbert]

Don't forget that most Jumbos were not conversions of existing tanks but were built new as M4 A3 E2 standard. However, as far as possible existing designs of components were used so that design and tooling work were minimised. Where it was easy to not drill a hole or weld a piece on (like the provision for the headlight sockets) they took the opportunity but if they were short of a particular piece (the simplified glacis plate here) it might well have been easier to use a standard one to avoid waiting for a delivery. They might easily have had to take part built hull fabrications that were intended to be standard M4A3 off the main production line and finnish them as M4A3E2 hulls.

David

[jdmcm]

inside the hull is all the mounts for the exact same wiring harness as the standard M4A3 with headlights, just nowhere for the leads to go...I believe in Cobra King they found it had a standard M4A3 wiring harness with headlights but again, no holes for the lights...surprising they did not just fabricate a bracket off the fender or somewhere to mount the lights...moving at night in a convoy during the march to Bastogne must have been exciting with not even a convoy light...I guess you just follow the tail lights of the tank in front and let a tank with headlights take point

[Wayne Henderson]

In the first photo, Bastogne, they appear to be using a crew commander spotlight with no blackout cover, solves the no headlight problem.

[jdmcm]

Wouldn't think you could use that at night in convoy situation, probably cause more harm than good no?

[Wayne Henderson]

The picture of the Bastogne tank has the light fitted, not much use in daytime.
With the shroud fitted you can get very good results and if they are using the trigger grip mount even better.

Wayne.

[Lauren Child]

As I understand it, these were built as assault tanks for the specific purpose of supporting the Normandy invasion. The additional weight, wear and tear, meant they weren't expected to last.

Front mounted ancillaries probably wouldn't have lasted long in it's role in the push, and wouldn't have been replaced as the tank itself would have been expected to be replaced beyond the break-out.

I've no documentary evidence for that, but it seems to make sense to me that they'd not add them.

[jdmcm]

Also my understanding that they were used as "point" tanks as they could absorb more punishment than the standard M4 family, 208 of the 250 (4 were left stateside for testing) were shipped to the ETO by Sept. 8, 1944, they began arriving in the port of Cherbourg on Sept. 22, 1944. I have a glacis plate cut from another M4A3E2 assault tank, that we then removed the additional armor plate to use on the tank above when we get around to restoring it, I will take a few pictures of the original hull plate underneath, which is devoid of any attachment points or mounts, as well the Bow gun has a slightly different casting to allow the extra armor to sit flush against the glacis...not a view many have probably ever seen