Tanks As Tractors

This message is a reply to an archived post by Dave in GA on January 28, 2012 at 17:34:13.
The original subject was "Tanks As Tractors".

I saw a Sherman tank, its gun tube removed, used for fieldwork in the late 1950's and early 1960's near Hornick, Iowa. In the 1970's, I was pheasant hunting in the area and found the tank abandoned in a slough. My dad knew the owners and told me the brothers had acquired 2 surplus Shermans after the war and tried to use them as tractors. Apparently the wet gumbo of spring made them ineffective.

Interesting concept but no way they were fuel efficient in the slightest! :shock:

Shame if they were just left there to rot; it's nice to see stuff like that fixed up and running even these days.

I heard tales of one used around the Funk Ohio bottoms. Said you could hear it roaring from miles away. Don't know what happened to it ? some thought it got scrapped.

I once saw one of the engine configurations used in tanks. It was five 6-cylinder Chrysler flat heads geared together, and impressive bit of engineering. It was in the car museum in Rogers MN.

Agreed.

The Sherman tracks were barely wide enough for running itself around on dry land let alone trying to pull with it on soft or wet soil. And then there is the fuel consumption.

I don't know anything about tanks but back in the 60s, while riding around the back roads of Connecticut, I came upon a WWII era looking tank with the gun barrel cut off being used to skid logs.
It was powered by two Cadillac flathead V-8s which probably would be a clue to what model it was.

How'bout the other way around? A tractor as a tank.

M88 VTR (vehicle tank recovery) would surely pull a tillage tool. V12 1791cid, 1,050hp, 2,500 ft/lbs gas converted to diesel in Viet Nam before deployment in country. Gas fuel economy, IIRC 4 gallons/mile, dropped considerably towing 2 52T M60 tanks. Most awesome vehicle I ever operated, but IIRC, required approx. 3 hours maintenance for each hour of operation. Updated and still in service, AFAIK not available as surplus yet.

I've heard a story about one local farmer who picked up a surplus tank after the war and tried to farm with it.

He put in 5 gallons of gas in the morning like he would on his tractor, hooked on something, and went to the field. Got about halfway across the field, and ran out of gas. I guess he was pretty steamed about the whole deal.

Stuart light tank had the 2 Cadillac engines in a couple runs- one was lend Lease to British and used North Africa. The 5 Dodge engines to one crank was also more Lend Lease than US Army use. Ford made Jeeps in later WW2 and a "Sea Jeep/amphibion" - hey were also mostly Lend Lease- the SeaJeep to Russia most of production. Bell P39 AirCobra another Lend Lease more than US Army -Russia a big user. Lend Lease rules were sometimes tricky- the priority for a engine or something to US meant alternatives got made available for lend lease- take it now or wait 6 months for availability of standard deal to purchasing commissions. For the British with the commercial parts and mechanics with special tools in country for Ford or Chrysler products meant that was sometimes a plus. Curtis Wright Cyclone engines widely distributed, newer 14 cylinder Pratt and Whitneys not as widely available early in war-- so British F4 Martlett/Wildcats got the Curtis Engines instead of the P&W for their navy convoy use and F4 was still made for the British after being replaced by F6, F8 in US Navy. Brewster Buffalos also continued to be purchased and used by British and free Dutch after being mostly phased out in US Navy, Marine use with Curtis 1000/1100 hp engines. Sherman Tanks were a "pattern" tank with hull mostly same- but contractors had varying drive tains and suspension, 2 GM Detroit 6-71s, Ford 1100 cubic inch V8 derived from a aircraft engine, Modified as a GPU 985/1300 inch Curtis radial 7 and 9 cylinder, 5 Dodge flat 6s around a common crank- crankcase special casting but cylinder blocks, pistons, rods, valves heads could be made with existing Plymouth/Dodge tooling. Stuart with the wide tracks derived from Holts/Best/Cats, moderate armor and auto industry engines was decent for the time scout tank and was used as a base for some utility, mobile gun carriage, engineering, tractor uses in Army and civilian use. Sherman with upgraded engine, tracks got a dozer blade, crane later after Patton became a standard- some surplus units got into demolition, construction and forestry use because they wee available cheap at the time. RN

One of the towers used on "Ax Men" is an old Sherman.

I have actually seen this thing working ( Well, sort of! )

Ford started making Jeeps in 1941. I restored a 'script' Jeep meaning Ford was stamped in the tailgate, from the frame up. Henry was plenty irritated that the Jeep contract was given to Willys but he did get to make a few Jeeps when Willys couldn't keep up. Willys was the MB and Ford was the GPW.

I had a neighbor who bought a WW2 troop carrier and used it for a tractor but it didn't work out. The engine couldn't take the constant load but the worst part was the steering. Most of those WW2 tracked vehicles steered with brakes only, not clutches and brakes. On a sidehill or in any pull that tended to make it veer off, one brake has to be dragged to keep it straight. The M4 18 ton High Speed Tractor I restored had the same tracks as a Sherman only a little shorter. The claimed max drawbar pull was 37,000 pounds at converter stall in low gear. Engine was a 817 CU. Waukesha inline six gas with two big one barrel downdraft carbs. I forget the exact capacity of the gas tank but it was around 100 gallons with a range of 80 miles, probably without a load. The steering brakes are wet brakes and when I turned with it I'd have to pull the brake lever with both hands until the oil burned off the brake, then it swung around RIGHT NOW! It was rough, rattled like nothing I've ever heard, and hot. None of these figures makes it very practical as a farm tractor. It will be at the Albert City Threshing show in August if you want to see it run.

On a side note, from what I've read the tank with the five flatheads was noted as being the most dependable tank because if it lost an engine there were four more to keep it going. There used to be one that ran up in Minnesota but the owner passed away and I think the tank might have been shipped to Europe. Might be wrong on that. I talked to a WW2 vet who ran a tank with two engines, maybe the caddies? He said it was tough to synchronize the engines. I think each engine ran it's own individual track so I can see where it'd be an interesting drive. Jim

The Germans used to call Sherman tanks "Tommy cookers" because the armour on them was so thin compared to the German tiger tanks that one well aimed shell from a tiger could destroy a Sherman and 'cook' the poor guys inside it....and then the Germans encountered the mighty Russian T34 tanks and the rest,as they say, is history

(quoted from post at 01:45:38 07/18/13) This message is a reply to an archived post by Dave in GA on January 28, 2012 at 17:34:13.
The original subject was "Tanks As Tractors".

I saw a Sherman tank, its gun tube removed, used for fieldwork in the late 1950's and early 1960's near Hornick, Iowa. In the 1970's, I was pheasant hunting in the area and found the tank abandoned in a slough. My dad knew the owners and told me the brothers had acquired 2 surplus Shermans after the war and tried to use them as tractors. Apparently the wet gumbo of spring made them ineffective.

Click to expand...

Yeh - I had an uncle that got ahold of a half-track in the 1950's and plowed & what-not under contract with it - was around Galesburg, Ill.

(quoted from post at 07:10:11 07/19/13) The Germans used to call Sherman tanks "Tommy cookers" because the armour on them was so thin compared to the German tiger tanks that one well aimed shell from a tiger could destroy a Sherman and 'cook' the poor guys inside it....and then the Germans encountered the mighty Russian T34 tanks and the rest,as they say, is history

Click to expand...

Actually the Sherman was successful against the German tanks....at 3 to one. Basically the Shermans main faults were too lite of both the gun and armor. But they were much faster and more maneuverable. So they had to have 2 Shermans distract a German tank while the 3rd snuck in behind it to kill it. We were putting out the "heavy Sherman" by the end of the war with a 90MM gun that could take out a Tiger. The US also was fielding the new tank to replace the Sherman, the M26. Only a couple of battalions actually saw combat. Just too late in the war. It too had the 90MM gun. The M26 did prove effective in the Korean war although the Army didn't have very many at the beginning. After VJ day the cuts started and the Army still had the Sherman in some units. Some national Guard units still had the Shermans in the early 60's. Yea the government selling striped down tanks for farming wasn't a great idea. But for other jobs they were OK.

I live near Hornick,IA. I would do some research for you if you would like. I was looking for information on a Allis Chalmers dealer in Hornick, IA (Duncan Implement) when I came across this thread.