Fri Jun 22, 2007 11:27 pm
Oh goodness, now I feel old Mr.?
LOL Just call me Paul...or I will have to call you "kid" like my dad does! LOL
MY oldest son is 15 and I try to get him involved, he is more a bookworm then anything. Great to see someone that has that much dedication like I had when I was your age with WWII and just preserving history.
Even thought my site is mostly aircraft, if you could send me a photo with you in the tank, I would gladly put it on my site!
Thanks again!
LOL Just call me Paul...or I will have to call you "kid" like my dad does! LOL
MY oldest son is 15 and I try to get him involved, he is more a bookworm then anything. Great to see someone that has that much dedication like I had when I was your age with WWII and just preserving history.
Even thought my site is mostly aircraft, if you could send me a photo with you in the tank, I would gladly put it on my site!
Thanks again!
Fri Jun 22, 2007 11:28 pm
I want to add that none of this would have been possible had it not been for Mr. Cavanaugh's desire to preserve this history for future generations to experience. Also, Mr. Doug Jeanes played an integral role in making this acquisition work. Without them I was just a boy with big ideas drooling over a huge chunk of steel!
Sat Jun 23, 2007 2:31 am
Nice job Taylor and good for you but cream of the crop? 
Don't tell the Germans that
Phil
Don't tell the Germans that
Phil
Sat Jun 23, 2007 9:01 am
Taylor
Great Job!!!
Ok, Lets see what's next a German Tiger tank?
Steve
Great Job!!!
Ok, Lets see what's next a German Tiger tank?
Steve
Sat Jun 23, 2007 9:14 am
Awsome job man. Thank you for saving an important piece of history. I love the Sherman. You do seem at home with the camera. Great job, and awsome museum.
Sat Jun 23, 2007 11:19 am
When I said "Creme of the Crop" in my mind I was referring to devellopment in 41. One-on-One with a panzer, panther, tiger, or should I even say it...Tiger II the sherman would be toast. Our industrial might allowed use to built about 10 for every german tank. Quantity definately beat quality in that sense. 
Sat Jun 23, 2007 1:04 pm
CAPFlyer wrote:...BTW, wasn't that tank also featured on "Tank Overhaul" on the Military Channel?
I think they did have some cut scenes of this tank driving around. I only noticed because the turret looked a little off from the usual M4A3E8 which it resembles. The tank they were restoring was an M4A1, which has the one-piece cast upper hull as opposed to the welded hull on this particular tank. Tank overhaul is a great show...it was funny to hear the guys complain about the British comet they restored which has lots of custom fitted parts as opposed to the Sherman which was designed for interchangeability. Good to see its still running. Does it still have the Chrysler Mulitbank or has it been re-engined?
Sat Jun 23, 2007 3:24 pm
I know its been talked about before but its to bad a show like "Tank Overhaul" which was a good show couldn't have been done about Gary and Ol' 927. This being one show and not a series.
Phil
Phil
Sat Jun 23, 2007 3:48 pm
Great job Taylor.............................Loved the quote about being behind the armor plate..............I got a laugh and thought.............."not if there is a Tiger behind the hedgerows"
Sat Jun 23, 2007 3:55 pm
congobob wrote:CAPFlyer wrote:...BTW, wasn't that tank also featured on "Tank Overhaul" on the Military Channel?
I think they did have some cut scenes of this tank driving around. I only noticed because the turret looked a little off from the usual M4A3E8 which it resembles. The tank they were restoring was an M4A1, which has the one-piece cast upper hull as opposed to the welded hull on this particular tank. Tank overhaul is a great show...it was funny to hear the guys complain about the British comet they restored which has lots of custom fitted parts as opposed to the Sherman which was designed for interchangeability. Good to see its still running. Does it still have the Chrysler Mulitbank or has it been re-engined?
Multibanks were shortlived. If it was isreal, then it was converted to diesel fuel.
I think there are about 2 shermans that still have the multibank that run, one being in england (video on youtube) and another just in the last few yrs here in the states.
Most are Ford GAA or israli converted. Though a few early ones have the R975.
Sat Jun 23, 2007 4:02 pm
me109me109 wrote:When I said "Creme of the Crop" in my mind I was referring to devellopment in 41. One-on-One with a panzer, panther, tiger, or should I even say it...Tiger II the sherman would be toast. Our industrial might allowed use to built about 10 for every german tank. Quantity definately beat quality in that sense.
Quantity over quality. Personally as a mech standpoint, the sherman had the quality too over the germans. We were just lacking the gun.
When the germans did mannage to keep them running, the gun is what finnished the job.
Sat Jun 23, 2007 4:59 pm
German and Allied armor were such a mishmash.
Half of German armor was actually not tanks but tank destroyers, which weren't nearly as good as a conventional tank with turret, but which had the advantage of being quick to build and easier to repair. More than half of remaining German armor was the Mark IV, which was always sort of a stopgap measure until the Panthers came on line. It could barely manage the T34 and was about even with our Shermans, except the gun was better and maintenance was worse. Tigers were slow, broke down far too much, and had the serious liability of short numbers and supply.
The Sherman was a hunk of dookey except when it wasn't. It was faster, had better tracks (albeit not wide enough) and was far easier to repair. It had tissue paper for armor, a bb gun and ate crews at a far too rapid rate. But it also was a snap to repair, could be fielded in huge numbers, and was, as has been mentioned, standardized. Once we had actually learned how to use it, we squeezed it for every bit of its value and then some. It's certainly earned its accolades.
why am I preaching to the choir here?
*shuts up*
Half of German armor was actually not tanks but tank destroyers, which weren't nearly as good as a conventional tank with turret, but which had the advantage of being quick to build and easier to repair. More than half of remaining German armor was the Mark IV, which was always sort of a stopgap measure until the Panthers came on line. It could barely manage the T34 and was about even with our Shermans, except the gun was better and maintenance was worse. Tigers were slow, broke down far too much, and had the serious liability of short numbers and supply.
The Sherman was a hunk of dookey except when it wasn't. It was faster, had better tracks (albeit not wide enough) and was far easier to repair. It had tissue paper for armor, a bb gun and ate crews at a far too rapid rate. But it also was a snap to repair, could be fielded in huge numbers, and was, as has been mentioned, standardized. Once we had actually learned how to use it, we squeezed it for every bit of its value and then some. It's certainly earned its accolades.
why am I preaching to the choir here?
*shuts up*
Sat Jun 23, 2007 8:10 pm
N3Njeff wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXLL5hxkl58
fav youtube video!
Was that the Harley version?