Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | Last revisionBoth sides next revision |
| articles:m4_sherman_tank_pistol_port [2020/07/10 08:57] – [The Lesson] rrandall | articles:m4_sherman_tank_pistol_port [2020/07/10 09:08] – [The "Pistol Port" that wasn't used as a "Pistol Port" on the M4 Sherman Tank] rrandall |
|---|
| The "pistol port" was deleted from the revised D50878 turret casting which began to enter the production pipeline around June 1943. | The "pistol port" was deleted from the revised D50878 turret casting which began to enter the production pipeline around June 1943. |
| |
| However, the government never actually asked the users what they wanted. In fact, most tank crews in the field liked having the "pistol port". They just wanted a more reliable locking mechanism. The crews didn't actually use the "pistol port" as a "firing port". Instead, they found it much more efficient to use the "pistol port" for loading ammunition into the tank. And, as the tank was usually in enemy territory, it was much more convenient and safer for the crew to expel spent casings through the "pistol port" rather than get out of the tank or otherwise expose themselves to enemy fire. After all, having spent casings rolling around and cluttering the small confines of the tank was more than a small inconvenience. | However, the government failed to understand that tank crews didn't actually use the "pistol port" as a "firing port". Instead, the crews primarily used the "pistol port" for loading ammunition into the tank. This was much quicker and more efficient than lowering the ammunition through the door (aka hatch) on the top of the turret (as the Engineers/Designers had intended). And, as the tank was usually in enemy territory, it was much more convenient and safer for the crew to expel spent casings through the "pistol port" rather than get out of the tank or otherwise expose themselves to enemy fire. After all, having spent casings rolling around and cluttering the small confines of the tank was more than a small inconvenience. Consequently, most tank crews in the field liked having the "pistol port". They just wanted a more reliable locking mechanism. |
| |
| The decision to eliminate the "pistol port" was universally unpopular. The complaints from tank crews in combat areas were quick and unkind. The "pistol port" was quickly added back into the final version of the D50878 turret casting. | The decision to eliminate the "pistol port" was universally unpopular. The complaints from tank crews in combat areas were quick and unkind. The "pistol port" was quickly added back into the final version of the D50878 turret casting. |
