Degem bet M-4, Israeli howitzer tank

Suggestions Ground
1
[Would you like to see this in-game?]
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters

fmIsdSf.jpg

I would like to suggest a decent tank for the Israeli ground forces, the M-4 Sherman

jm5ypaA.jpg

the M-4 Sherman was the Israeli designation given in the 50s for the M4 Sherman in services with the 105mm M4 gun. been in service since 1948 in the Israeli militia, Israel had managed to have 3 in working conditions before the end of the war of 1948, they took part in the battle of Negev and the Northern Sinai Peninsula. later more M4 (105) was put into services in IDF. A total of 30 of those tanks were reported to have seen services in Israel. in 1956, the Sherman fleet went into a deep modernization in Israel, and the M4 with the 105mm M4 gun was them designated M-4 to tell apart from the M-1, M-3, and M-50 Sherman.

Firepower

the M-4 got his name after his gun. carrying the 105mm M4 Howitzer gun , the M-4 was a fire-support tank that traded anti-tank capacity for more firepower. the gun still has great firepower against tanks with his HEAT M67 shot whose penetration reaches 130mm . the fire rate would suffer from his large caliber. reducing the fire rate from 12 to 6 rounds minutes . but the elevation was improved to allow a better indirect fire. with -10°/+35° you could do great indirect fire if you have skills.

the tank also have a 7.62mm M1919 as coaxial and another m1919 in the hull for close defence. but during the war of 1948 the Sherman wasn’t mounting the 12.7mm, those guns seemed to have been installed later during the 50s

Mobility

The mobility of the M-4 is not his best feature, but it’s not lacking either. powered by R-975 engine C-4 providing 460 hp , it remains in his best condition a decent engine. weighting 31,700 kg , the tank would be capable of reaching 38 km/h which is nothing bad. The power-weight ratio of 13.2 hp/ton , would allow the M-4 to move around decent and be where it belongs, in the frontline.

Protection

the Degem Bet has the main disadvantage of being a rather big target. but outside his size, the tank delivers good protection. with a hull featuring 51mm at the front with an important slope, 38mm at the side and rear , the Degem Bet would be hard to penetrate by a frontal hit. his side being more vulnerable still can offer good protection. but there is an important detail to note on the M-3 suggested here. even if the chassis is the M4 105 late, the turret has the M34 gun shield which was smaller, and most of the turret only gave 50mm of armor with a rather flat surface this made this particular Sherman closer to the US M4 than the M4 105 from any nation. The crew of 5 men would also allow the tank to take good damage before being destroyed. It wouldn’t be rare to survive and return fire even if you lost 1-2 crew members during a fight.

RxHaHld.jpg
Source

1 Like
2

These new suggestions on the Israeli Shermans that you’ve made seem to have been rushed, as they share copy pasted elements with each other that do not match up.

For example, this specific suggestion talks about the M-3 rather than the M-4 in the mobility section, stating it has the Continental R-975-C1 engine with 400 hp, and a weight of 30.3 metric tons, but the image right below says completely different stats.

Please do rework/edit these three suggestions to make them less confusing.

3

it’s true i sometime copy-paste part of the suggestion, expecially in the description when it share the specification of other vehicles that i already suggested. it save time. but that do not make it less accurate.

you was right about the mistake. i just didn’t realized it. i will be corrected shortly

4

There’s another issue with the protection. The suggestion states that the hull has 51 mm of armor at the front, but all the images show a late hull large hatch Sherman which would be 63.5 mm. Additionally, it states the hull is from an M4A4 and the turret is from an early Sherman, neither of which are correct.

There is nothing inherently wrong with copying information, but it is important to check that the information you’re copying is actually correct however.

I noticed similar errors in the M-1 and M-3 suggestions, for example, stating that the M-3 is an M4A4 hull, while the photos show non-M4A4 hulls, and the engine is stated to be the Ford GAA which is the M4A3 engine. The description of the armor is generally not correct in any of the suggestions though.

5

Which is ironically appropriate considering that this would be a literal copy+paste from the American tree with a desert skin.

6

and different skirt. and not 12.7mm roof HMG

still i will consider it as a copy-paste. amounst of the 11 Israeli sherman i would like to see added, i consider 3 of them as copy paste while the 8 other are different enough to feel unique

7

Are there any photos from the back during their service time? That could verify which engine they had.

8

that would be of no use.

the Israeli early Sherman was made of different parts put together and harvested in a scrapyard

they normally have this part

M4 late (105) turret refitted with M34 or M34A gun mount with 75mm
some were M4a4 chassis
some got the M4a2 engine

9

This is just more confusing then…

In the suggestions you’ve shown of the M-1, M-3 and M-4 tanks, none of the pictures show M4A4 chassis (this is easy to check, the M4A4 chassis had to be lengthened to fit the Chrystler A-57 multibank engine, so the space between suspension boggies is noticeably wider).

Schematic of M4A4 and M4A2

M4A4, with the early hull and early M34 mount.
image

M4A2, with late hull and M34A1 mount.
image

The difference in the space between suspension boggies is noticeable.

Additionally none of the descriptions mention the engine of the M4A2 (the GM 6046 twin diesel), except for the M10 SA50 suggestion.

It would be better to catalog the possible versions of the M-1, M-3 and M-4 that exist.

10

the M-1 is not considered as an early Israeli Sherman.

the M-3 and M-4 are the only ones that was rebuilt out of part form here and there