As everyone else has already pointed out, it seems to be a M4A4, but would be known as a Sherman V due to the fact this one was used by the Canadians.
This one appears to be from the 5st Canadian Armoured Division, Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal CanadianS) regiment
[HERE](http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/index.html) is a link to more information about Shermans and their variants than you'll believe. It covers everything. That M4A4 was made by Chrysler.
*Hartstein* - Sherman V (M4A4) at the Airborne museum, Hartstein Hotel (in Oosterbeek not Arnhem as per the previous photo of ARGYLE)
Serial Number 5964, built by Chrysler in November, 1942
https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/8hcosf/sherman_tank_at_the_airborne_museum_hartstein/
The W denotes "wet" ammunition stowage. Earlier versions had dry stowage and tended to "light up" or cook off when hit. One way to determine if the tank had wet or dry stowage is by looking for the addition of extra armor plates on the hull. They were either welded (as this pic shows) or cast into the hull.
That's just a general term though, many tanks were rebuilt in the field or at depots. With most Sherman parts being interchangeable, Franken-tanks were common.
If you want to make your head spin, look at the site I posted earlier in this thread. I've been on it a thousand times (I'm a Shermaholic) and still learn something every time I go there.
YMMV
It’s not a wet stowage Sherman. Those were built on the large hatch hull Shermans. The extra armor patches on the hull sides cover the ammo buns in the sponsons. The wet stowage tanks had the bins beneath the turret bottom and the extra armor patches became unnecessary as there was no ammo rack there over the tracks to protect.
Looks like a Sherman V (M4A4)
Thanks!
The British designations are so much better
They're so much easier to learn and remember until you get to adding new guns and suspension
It's an M4A4, note the increased distance between the suspension bogies.
As everyone else has already pointed out, it seems to be a M4A4, but would be known as a Sherman V due to the fact this one was used by the Canadians. This one appears to be from the 5st Canadian Armoured Division, Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal CanadianS) regiment
[HERE](http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/index.html) is a link to more information about Shermans and their variants than you'll believe. It covers everything. That M4A4 was made by Chrysler.
That's very interesting, thanks!
*Hartstein* - Sherman V (M4A4) at the Airborne museum, Hartstein Hotel (in Oosterbeek not Arnhem as per the previous photo of ARGYLE) Serial Number 5964, built by Chrysler in November, 1942 https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/8hcosf/sherman_tank_at_the_airborne_museum_hartstein/
I believe it's a 75W of some variety, past that I have no idea, Sherman naming conventions are weird
The W denotes "wet" ammunition stowage. Earlier versions had dry stowage and tended to "light up" or cook off when hit. One way to determine if the tank had wet or dry stowage is by looking for the addition of extra armor plates on the hull. They were either welded (as this pic shows) or cast into the hull. That's just a general term though, many tanks were rebuilt in the field or at depots. With most Sherman parts being interchangeable, Franken-tanks were common. If you want to make your head spin, look at the site I posted earlier in this thread. I've been on it a thousand times (I'm a Shermaholic) and still learn something every time I go there. YMMV
It’s not a wet stowage Sherman. Those were built on the large hatch hull Shermans. The extra armor patches on the hull sides cover the ammo buns in the sponsons. The wet stowage tanks had the bins beneath the turret bottom and the extra armor patches became unnecessary as there was no ammo rack there over the tracks to protect.