Tank Chats #70 Sherman M4A4 | The Tank Museum

Tank Chats #70 Sherman M4A4 | The Tank Museum

now I know this is another Sherman and
we’ve done a lot of Sherman’s already but it is a very special tank not only
that it’s fairly new to the collection so it’s worth doing anyway
it’s an m4 a4 what in Britain was known as a Sherman five and although we’ve
already done it as the Sherman Firefly because that’s from the same hull this is
the actual original gun tank it was the type of American tank most widely used
by British soldiers towards the end of the war and that’s one of the main
reasons for doing it otherwise to look at it’s just another Sherman with the
welded hull the original vertical volute suspension and the same turret with a 75
millimeter gun but what really sets this tank apart is the engine it’s one of the
reasons why the tank is a good bit longer it’s actually 11 inches longer
than any other Sherman and therefore you’ve got more space in the suspension
it was done because the engine itself is a lot larger than the engines fitted to
the other Sherman’s the engine in this case is what’s known
as the Chrysler a 57 multi-bank and it actually consists if you look at it
closely of five six cylinder engines all clustered around a central crankcase so
in other words you’ve got thirty cylinders so there’s thirty plugs need
changing all clustered around this central crankcase when it was first
built it would develop about two or 450 horsepower actually which wasn’t bad
it wasn’t quite up to British Standards but it was quite enough for a tank of
this size otherwise it’s basically an ordinary Sherman but the engine is
something to notice something to to study later they were fitted with them
collective carburetors near the top so they’re easy the service and
collective water pumps but the one we’ve got in the museum which I’ll see in this
program has got the carburetors spread around with each block of each set of
six cylinders so you gonna really have to use your eyes to bring them all
together if you like but it’s quite an interesting tank all the same petrol of
course they didn’t have diesel in these things it was a petrol engine a few of
them we issued to the United States Army but only for training in American
service it was generally not terribly popular and they more or less decided
not to use it as a fighting tank so they did the very next best thing they gave
it to the Brits and in Britain it was adored once they sorted out the problem
with the engine trained the mechanics to service it they
found it was reliable powerful and apart from having to change to lift the engine
out every time you wanted to change a plug it was really quite reliable so
that’s really the secret of this tank it was only ever used by British forces or
later we supplied them to the Chinese who used them as well but they were used
for everybody except the Americans who were never anything to do with them and
you can understand why they had the Ford v8 which was a much better engine but
the tank has been built in this way and the only reason they did it was because
there was such a demand for the Continental radials as aircraft engines
at this time that they decided to get everybody to build an engine of their
own and this was done in the case of Chrysler originally with the m3 a4
version of the Li which was quite a rarity they’ve only built hundred 25
them but no sooner had they got production underway with delay than the
m4 Sherman came along so they decided to switch over and make a motive bank
version of that quite an effective later on but a lot of trouble to begin
with a lot of trouble training engineers and getting a reliable engine to work
quite effective otherwise that looked at normally it’s just another Sherman the
only thing I would point out to you these applique armor panels on the side
they have welded over the places inside the tank
where there are vulnerable things like ammunition storage so they weld it over
to make the MD sort of internal ammunition a bit less vulnerable and
you’ll find them here Iran tele on the turret in this case
normally you had two on the front of the turret on the cheek pieces they’re not
on which suggests that the turret from this tank probably came from somewhere
else but never mind that now then what matters is that they’re here on the side
of the house where you need them and the basic tank is still more or less like
any other Sherman but they did operate very reliably the other thing they had
was a new form of oil gear Traverse mechanism the original Westinghouse was
quite good but it wasn’t very accurate the old gear was tremendously accurate
it meant you could train the turret on any target quickly and easily and it
would stop we wanted it to so it made the Gunners job a lot easier and yet
they were another characteristic of the Sherman v which is this version it’s in
the markings of guards armored division which used them of course quite a lot in
fact they were used by other regiments as well in the British Army so they are
quite a popular tank or they were in their day and barring the fact you had
to lift out the engine as I say to do maintenance on it
the rest of it was fairly straightforward and that’s what made
this tank such an effective machine so this is it the m4a4 with the wider
suspension but it’s an ordinary gun tank not a Firefly which is what the longer
can anyway you’d tell it at once but that’s why they did it this one has the
full crew five three in the turret and two in the
how the how the sheen gun is missing from this vehicle but that isn’t the
difficult things slide one in place and that’s how the tank is put together okay
now if you enjoyed that the film regular bits of film we’ve made if you’d
subscribe to YouTube that helps us a great deal and more so if you’ll support
patreon because that’s something that we really can do thanks very much


  • Scioneer says:

    Chrysler must have figured the Sherman was too simple to work on when they brainfarted that engine into existence..

  • TheErikM says:

    is dave ok? he sounds out of breath.

  • Tom says:

    Another great video Mr Fletcher, you sound a tad under the weather so i hope you get well soon!

  • Allan Kleidon says:

    Non-Original Turret or not, It's still a rare example in Gorgeous Condition. Well done.

  • Andrew Phillips says:

    Another Sherman video? Yes please!   Who would want to see a video on a Sherman variant?

  • IBStevieB says:

    Same trousers in every video. Tank Museum buy that man a new pair of trousers!!

  • trr94001 says:

    The lengths engineers had to go to get decent power before high compression and dependable fuel-air mixture is remarkable.

  • Hiwatt 400 says:


  • Fuzzy Dunlop says:

    You should have Fletcher do a long-form podcast of some sort, if he's feeling up to it. I always see so many "I would happily listen to David Fletcher for hours" comments.

  • Ronin T says:

    Always a pleasure watching mr Fletcher , thx for the video .

  • Gullysquad says:

    Sending a salute to MR Fletcher from Australia. We salute you.

  • max Payne says:

    Great to see Mr Fletcher doing a new video I thought that he had retired

  • 0Zolrender0 says:

    5 x 6 cyl engines developing only 450 BHP??? These days you could get that out of one 6 cyl with the right work.

  • Stanisław Szczypuła says:

    I always wander about one thing considering M4 tanks during WWII: Russians decided 76 mm gun is not good enough and upgraded T-34 with new bigger turret and 85 mm gun. Did Americans even considered similar mid-life upgrade (new turret + bigger gun) for Sherman. Clearly Firefly was needed from firepower point of view but design in older turret was bad to say the least.

  • Panzerfaust says:

    6:42 I didn't know the bovington tank museum preserved the crew as well as the tank.


    What a monstrosity of an engine- all that for 400 hp. It boggles my mind of some of the stuff that made it into production during the war.

  • Roel Bakker says:

    After WW2 the British donated a decent amount of M4A4's to the Dutch Army and we also got Canadian Ram's and some Firefly's

  • Chris_Wooden_Eye says:

    Always room for more Sherman's

  • William fforbes-Rutt says:


  • Martijn Wissink says:

    There is one of these as a monument in my home town. Used by the Canadians that liberated us. So now I am wondering, as David doesn't mention them, when he says Americans, does he also mean Canadians, or could it be the monument in my home town is not a tank used by the Canadians, but they gave it the markings to make it a monument for them? See also link (sorry, it's in Dutch) : https://www.tracesofwar.nl/sights/418/M4A4-Sherman-Tank-Doetinchem.htm

  • alan bell says:

    10 dislikes ???????? Communists get everywhere dont they . ?

  • blogobre says:

    Feel free to have a 4 hour tank chat if you ever feel like it. David's chat's are sooo good I could watch it all day.

  • Loupis Canis says:

    Thank you , Mr Fletcher .

  • Jim McCormack says:

    Lol… "The Americans wouldn't have anything to do with them so they did the next best thing…they gave them to the British"! Priceless…

  • mayhem1988 says:

    Additional armour welded over vulnerable things like the ammo rack, doesn't that just make it more of a target? I know where I'd be aiming!

  • MeanMad Mike says:

    “So they did the next best thing: they gave it to the Brits”. David, you are an absolute treasure!

  • Wargargble says:

    lolita h3h3 😀

  • TrenchFighter8 says:

    you guys almsot have all the shermans now congrats on new piece. oh and i like the cute nickname of Lolita

  • TREY RIVER says:

    Even the early 87 engine is better than most of the British cruiser tank and the improved one was significantly better but I guess British standards are different if it's not a British engine .

  • nova6 killer306 says:

    Are you going to do the Sherman II

  • Falcon Heavy says:

    this guy still alive? I'm surprised! RIP in advance!

  • ecky1965 says:

    The master.

  • Electricfox says:

    4:43 Squaddies never change 😀

  • Crypto Tharg says:

    The Rooskies made a simple tank, with a decent gun, powered by a basic, diesel-fuelled engine, that, basically, any Siberian goat-herder could fix, with a wrench. Which is WHY Russia won!

  • yeoldebiggetee says:

    If it's acceptable to cover three different kinds of Sherman, why is it not acceptable to cover both the 2pdr and 6pdr versions of the Valentine? The museum has a very nice Mark IX and less than three minutes of chatting about the basic tank with no mention of its success in Russia and the Pacific isn't really adequate.

  • Steve Zissou says:

    No human could dislike these tank chats so I must assume Youtube has been infested by North Korean bots.

  • MaritimeViper says:

    Did that crew actually name it Lolita?

  • Matakshaman says:

    It's the M4 Lolita, the underage Sherman

  • Dave says:

    Ok the hair and mustache just look ridiculous

  • Jesse Harris says:


  • obsidian arrow 10 says:

    Hi there, anything new on the crusader? She hasn't been round the ring in a good few years now, is the old liberty playing up or something?

  • Colonel Ed says:

    I hope David's ok. He must be getting on abit now. He was writing books way back in the 70s.

  • ultrablue2 says:

    It’s too bad there aren’t more WWII Shermans around with the original side skirting.

  • drkjk says:

    The reason for no applique armor on this turret is because this was a newer generation turret that had a thicker casting on the right front. And yes, M4A4s got the revised turret too. You can see the bulge line of the thicker armor just below "Lolita." Shame on David Fletcher for not knowing this and the reason for the applique armor in the first place. Hint, it has to do with traversing the turret.

  • The Kalergi Plan Is Real says:

    Sounds like a maintenance nightmare.

  • KrypTanko says:

    im dreading the day of David Fletcher’s passing, but on that day they need to do a 21 gun salute with tank cannons.

  • Phantom453 says:

    What a complicated engine!

  • Alexandros Naoum says:

    3:03. Sherman participate in the first Cold War proxy front. The Greek Civil war (December 1944)

  • The Arisen says:

    Just to re-iterate for the Sherman haters, Fletcher said it was "very effective" more than once. We all know he's not shy of being critical when it's due.

  • Lobo fräggt says:

    Also known as the Frankensteinengine lol

  • Matt Eagle says:

    I can't imagine what subject you could collaborate on, but if you get David Fletcher and Irving Finkel in the same video, I'll have a small aneurysm (happily)

  • russ Bramley says:

    I love how this guy in every thumbnail looks perpetually concerned and shocked

  • pweter351 says:

    It's simply an M4A4 the Sherman is the British version.

  • Crash103179 says:

    As an aside– I hear comments about Sherman's disadvantage in its high profile. I never hear anyone comment on the advantage of its relative narrowness (2.62m) compared to the Panzer IV (2.88m) and Panzer V (3.27m). Surely, this must have benefited the M4 in Europe's tight cities and on narrow country roads.

  • Dwayne Morton says:

    Ah the day when the American military turned to ordinary car companies for their hardware. Quick and cheap. Nice video sir!

  • Briarus HECATONCHEIRES says:

    "make an engine that fits in a sherman" makes one 11 inches too big

  • John says:

    Just another Sherman

  • DitzyDoo says:

    Yes David, you've more or less answered your own question. With the increased demand for aircraft radial engines the U.S. found they needed to switch the Sherman to an automotive platform, thus making them easier to build and service. The Americans standardized their Tank forces with the Ford V8 petrol for the Army and the General Motors diesel for the Marine Corp. It was felt that since the British had a wealth of experience with in line 6-cyclinders they would get the Chrysler multi-bank which were so reliable that they seldom ever broke down. This decision was not made because the U.S. didn't like the multi-bank, it was a logistics issue.

  • rgd963 says:

    with the multibank engine if blow one or more engines you can still limp back back to your lines for repair

  • FolgoreCZ says:

    4:58 Put additional armor over the ammunition storage and then paint a nice big target over it. The British way. 🙂

  • Randy Magnum says:

    The Americans simply wanted to standardize as much as the could…..that's why only the marines got d etroit diesels, the best of them all. Also why Soviets got us6 Studebakers, the best trucks.

  • CrniWuk says:

    Fletcher is a national treasure. Hope you Brits guard him well!

  • Tank Destroyer57 says:

    Hey us Canadains uesd them too

  • James T Griffith says:

    Any Canadians here? My g/father was Chief Fitter (M.Q.M.S.) for the 11th Canadian Armoured Reg't (Ontario Tanks) for the Italian & North-West Europe Campaigns. My profi pic is "Bart" one of the operational M4s belonging to the Regimental Museum in Oshawa, Ontario.

  • Dencil Dean says:

    It goes like this a tiger tank fires at a sherman tank the shell just Pass by the sherman about one inch woop the sherman brew up and its crew gets. Roasted

  • B A says:

    They gave "Lolita" an extra 11 inches. 😏☺😱

  • Rufus Chucklebutty says:

    Looks like a big old target to me, with vertical hull sides just begging to be penetrated ?

  • Kevin Varney says:

    Must be a bugger to tune.

  • Harry Kiralfy Broe says:

    The Sherman's were criminally under armored. The result was waaaaay too many fatalities.

  • Lemark101 says:

    14 wehraboos cant handle how good the sherman was

  • John Burns says:

    So the Americans loaded a tank they did not want onto the Brits. They did that also with the Corsair plane. In both cases the British worked with the makers to get things right.

  • John Burns says:

    The multibank engine was a cluster of domestic cars engines, in an attempt top get a powerful engine to fit in a tank. A kludge really.

  • Trev S says:

    This man is a legend

  • Nikolaj Winther says:

    "Pat-reon". I love that guy 🙂

  • PsychoLucario says:

    only in britain are chrystler's considered reliable

  • xdas11 says:

    What a cute loli XD

  • James the Other One says:

    The Brits liked the Chrysler because it was still more reliable than British tank engines, at least until the Meteor.

  • Red Neckoleptic says:

    Did someone wake Mr. Fletcher up to do this again^__~I think we have the same barber?Love the work! Thank You, Thank You!

  • Frederic Duriau says:

    Not the best tank of this period.

  • PolesAreEverywhere says:

    Isn't it simply an aircraft type radial engine?

  • OCofthe3 says:

    450hp doesn’t sound like a lot by today’s standards even for a car! But what was the torque rating?

  • Gus Goose says:

    Sir… I could listen to you read the phone book.
    Absolutely Brilliant.

  • Cloudwolf40 says:

    His voice is like someone trying to speak with a mouth full of water

  • oh no says:

    I must be the only person plays some soulja slim songs and then plays some tank chats right after…

  • Biel Llaverola Vila says:

    You explain very well

  • Troy Ortega says:

    Always good to see Mr. Fletcher. "So they did the next best thing, and gave it to the Brits". How true that has sometimes been. As good allies should do. You put the M3 Grant to good use as well. Our people were never that fond of it. So bully for you. Well done. That is a nice exampke of the Sherman, in very good condition. I hope to see you fine museum in the relatively near future. Hopefully i will see Mr. Fletcher there. By chance, do you have each Tank Chat playing on a monitor next to its respective vehicle? Even just some of them would be great. We certainly understand if you can't afford the equipment to do that for all of them. Just an idea. Many thanks for the series.

  • Davis Tuck says:

    God damn american industry. You just couldnt beat it

  • Russ Woodward says:

    Wow what a restoration on this one. Thank you Mr. Fletcher.

  • Tom Greaves says:

    My goodness, if you have to pop out the engine every time it needs maintenance, just pop in a new engine and take the old one back to the shop…might be why photos seem to show a spare engine sitting on the ground while the old one was hoisted out.

  • Charles Inglin says:

    A real Rube Goldberg design for an engine, but they made it work. It's a tribute to Chrsyler's engineers. There's a number of websites that explain it quite well. Search on "Chrysler A57" or "Sherman multibank engine."

  • IDont LikeTraps says:

    British soldier: she needs some petrol
    American soldier: what the hell is petrol?

  • Nodak81 says:

    As always, Ford > Chrysler.

  • Feiora says:

    At the beginning of the video when the tank is shown I looked at that was like, "Wait, ain't that kinda too big to be a Sherman?" Btw, those WW2 american infantrymen are too far back of the sherman there, especially if they are the supporting infantry of the tank, they'd have been getting a lift from the tank! ^.^

  • MrKeys57 says:

    I think of all the men (and women) that bravely was fighting in ww2, my father was one of them, he often told me about disabling tanks by throwing Molotovs under the tracks, a scary job, they had to crawl pretty near to get a good hit, Levi from Finland

  • ThatSlowTypingGuy says:

    "about 450 horsepower which wasnt bad, it wasnt quite up to british standards."
    British standards of having way too little horsepower?

  • Jason Striation says:

    This has to be the worst tank of the War. Under Zero pressure from Axis powers and was the best they could come up with? A super high silhouette, shitty gun, stupid driveshaft running through the middle, transmission up front one shot disabled then your toast. Dont even compare this thing to the T-34, it's not even close🎯

  • Marten Trudeau says:

    The M4A4 multi-bank engine looks crazy, who would have thought that engine would have worked?
    It's a funny story that the Americans sold the M4A4 to the Brits, and they made them work and loved them. Hopefully the Brits bought them for a reduced price, that would funny too.

  • mozzy5150 says:

    LOL I like the way he says Carburators

  • Bastiaan Wiltjer says:

    "They did the next best thing, they gave it to the British"

  • Charles van Dijk says:

    "They did the next best thing, they passed it on the British." (Who later on passed it over to the Chinese).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *