Pretty much as @marathag says, it is all to do with gun recoil. Generally speaking, a howitzer is employed for its high-angle, indirect fire capability which requires the gun tube to be at a high angle if incidence and, consequently, the guns recoil is significantly downwards. This is fine in something like the M109 SPG or an open topped configuration like the M7 or M8 where the gun is mounted relatively high in the chassis. On the other hand, most casemate StuG/assault guns were enclosed, low-profile affairs that offered only a very limited range of elevation for its weapon. That is not to say that StuG/assault guns did not utilise howitzers, they did, but they tended to be used because of their large HE content shells rather than an ability to use indirect fire. By definition, an assault gun is a close-range, direct fire weapon - when fired the gun tube is going to be more or less horizontal with the recoil going, more or less, directly backwards.
Alternative History Armoured Fighting Vehicles Part 3
- Thread starter Claymore
- Start date
- Status
Pretty much as @marathag says, it is all to do with gun recoil. Generally speaking, a howitzer is employed for its high-angle, indirect fire capability which requires the gun tube to be at a high angle if incidence and, consequently, the guns recoil is significantly downwards. This is fine in something like the M109 SPG or an open topped configuration like the M7 or M8 where the gun is mounted relatively high in the chassis. On the other hand, most casemate StuG/assault guns were enclosed, low-profile affairs that offered only a very limited range of elevation for its weapon. That is not to say that StuG/assault guns did not utilise howitzers, they did, but they tended to be used because of their large HE content shells rather than an ability to use indirect fire. By definition, an assault gun is a close-range, direct fire weapon - when fired the gun tube is going to be more or less horizontal with the recoil going, more or less, directly backwards.
Went with your idea but instead of drawing up a new turret, I took the turret from the Caro Armato M13/40 and gave it the 3.7 cm Kwk.36.
I did removed the rivets though.
Garrison
Donor
Here's a question I have been thinking about in the context of my TL, if the US Army were to get anxious about the potential combat performance of the M3 Lee/Grant were there any realistic options for an improved version? I've read there were issues at the time with casting a larger turret that could have accommodated the 75mm gun.
There's frankly not much you can do quickly enough to appear before the Sherman exists, if you start when the Lee started development. The only thing that I guess would work is leapfrogging straight to the 75mm M3 gun from the start instead of the shorter M2 version, since that would mean keeping the ballistics of the OG 1897 gun. Other than that, the US developped new components as quickly as it could for the Lee/Grant at least.
I'm not sure the British could actually export the plans of the 6 pounder quickly enough to have a 57mm-armed turret, considering how long it took for the Canadians to get their own 6pdr Ram.
You can remove the unnecessary machineguns, but that's not a huge improvement.
Last edited:
Off the top of my head, the only thing that comes to mind is coordinating with the Canadians to expedite development of the Ram. Not exactly sure of the timeline, but if the Wikipedia is correct, Sherman development started in April of 1941, and a prototype was ready in September of 1941. Same source states Ram development was started in late 1940, and prototype was ready in June 1941, and production began in November 1941. So, was a running Ram prototype before the blueprints were dry on the Sherman.
Considering most of the Ram components needed were coming in from US manufacturers early on, if someone had said "hey, look what the Canadians are doing" and opted to pitch in and not say "I can do that, but better" there could be a 75mm turreted tank in full production in Mid-1941, instead of 1942.
To be fair, if the Pz III had suspension issues then the more efficient answer is to adapt the Pz II suspension to the Pz III rather than extensively modifying the Pz II to fit the role.
marathag
Banned
D-B Ausf A hull with 3 man Krupp Turret
Krupp also made some two Man Turrets, but the three man deemed superior
With Rheinmetall Turret
More rounded, but still the the specified side doors, as well as dual 7.92mm MGs for co-ax, and the Spec called for Radio Operator/Bow gunner
ans some rivets even
Last edited:
marathag
Banned
Worth it for working suspension system, Longer and wider plates are the easy parts to change at MAN, than subcontracting the units from MAN and shipping to Berlin
Last edited:
You're right. The Ram was actually specced to use the 75mm M2, but they preferred the 6 pounder and the 2pdr was initially more available.
By all accounts the US should be able to actually build the turret ring and turret of the Ram without building brand new tooling like the Sherman, so they might indeed be able to make a Ram. The extra large turret ring and turret on the Sherman had more to do with making it more future-proof and satisfying ridiculous internal volume requirements than being necessary for the 75mm.
The"M3 Ram" is an interim though, so the first argument doesn't really matter and the second was never a serious argument for anyone other than the Americans.
@marathag The first T1E1 heavy was not delivered until December 1941, a couple months later than the first Sherman prototype, so it doesn't change the time when a 69" turret is actually possible.
Last edited:
marathag
Banned
T1E2 at Baldwin
in September 1941
Now at this time, the 3" was a dummy, waiting for delivery of a production M7 gun
I've just looked this up and found it on p37 of my Chamberlain and Doyle book.It sounds like what you're designing here is a partially-casemated and bigger version of this...
...which Wiki names as the Sturmpanzer II Bison (well, not really - the article is titled 15 cm sIG 33 auf Fahrgestell Panzerkampfwagen II (Sf), but that's a bit formal
In metric: the chassis was widened by 32cm, and lengthened by 60cm, with a sixth road wheel. Large rear deck hatches could be opened on the rear deck, to improve engine cooling. 30 rounds of ammunition were carried. Weight given as 11.2 tons.
"All twelve ...were shipped to North Africa early in 1942, with the 707 and 708 sIG KP (Sf)...They took part in the spring offensive at Gazala, and all further major offensives in North Africa with the DAK until the last of them was eliminated in the spring of 1943"
Well, I got to disagree a bit, the turret albeit not a masterpiece helped the tank crew a lot, with more space you can be a lot less fatigued and a lot more efficient than a cramped hard to maneuver one, I never been inside a tank so you may not take my word for it, but think a dude in NA or in some island in the pacific in an hot as F climate, fighting for hours, it must be a true hell and impact a lot in reload, precision, cohesion and so forth. As I said disagree a bit, a small early delivered turret and an M3 with only one turret and a lot more efficient would be a lot of an interim tank, the American and co would have a hell of an good medium for the time and a better medium in the M4. (As I said, I agree with you in parts, I came from a very toxic platform so people don't take arguments lightly, so sorry if I'm being obnoxious)
Dude, I'm a huge sucker for interwar tanks and Italian ones, this idea is amazing! Btw, when I start doing the prototype and what if equipment in my game, do you mind if I use/modify this idea? I'll give the credits of course (and right now I'll try do a low poly model to send here for you just to see it in 3d
). Btw, I think some top turret rivets still can be seen in the front view.
Last edited:
I'm not sure I quite understand the bolded part, sorry, I'm confused. Did you mean that a M3 with a 75mm turret that is smaller than a Sherman's would be a good interim tank?
In any case, I'm not saying the large turret ring and turret of the Sherman is bad per se, since it would have been quite necessary to carry a more potent weapon than the 75mm. What I'm saying is that it was not absolutely essential to fit a 75mm with enough volume to be considered acceptable, if not normal by other countries, especially as an interim. The Americans had volume requirements that far exceeded those of other nations. Moreover, more space doesn't necessarily translate to greater efficiency after a certain point. In the case of the Sherman, many people agree that it was more spacious than it really needed to be in its original configuration.
Regardless, in the long run, the larger turret ring and turret could have been easily integrated into production hulls, just like how the Australian Sentinel could evolve to a 64" and then 70" turret ring or how the Ram did increase the ring diameter over time.
In any case, I'm not saying the large turret ring and turret of the Sherman is bad per se, since it would have been quite necessary to carry a more potent weapon than the 75mm. What I'm saying is that it was not absolutely essential to fit a 75mm with enough volume to be considered acceptable, if not normal by other countries, especially as an interim. The Americans had volume requirements that far exceeded those of other nations. Moreover, more space doesn't necessarily translate to greater efficiency after a certain point. In the case of the Sherman, many people agree that it was more spacious than it really needed to be in its original configuration.
Regardless, in the long run, the larger turret ring and turret could have been easily integrated into production hulls, just like how the Australian Sentinel could evolve to a 64" and then 70" turret ring or how the Ram did increase the ring diameter over time.
If I recall accurately (no guarantees there) it was a British delegation to the US that brought up the issue of the M3 being woefully under-armoured. If not for that delegation, I can see the M3 reaching full production with its original armour scheme - I don't know the numbers off-hand but I think it was only proof against light guns/small arms, anything like the 2pdr would have punched clean through - only to have a later up-armoured version where they add plates across the hull front, perhaps even removal of the turret if they thought it was more target than useful gun mount.
Of course this runs into the issue of it being only a short time before the first M4s start showing up and the whole thing becomes academic. I would think this would mean the M3 wouldn't have nearly the production run it had OTL, although a few converted hulls would find use as SPGs and recovery vehicles.
[edit] Hell, if concerns of the M3 get high enough, the US might not deploy it at all, which means the force sent to North Africa is going to rely on the other M3, the Stuart, until the Sherman gets into service.
Last edited:
Got it, and you make a lot of sense btw. My argument was an small turret interim M3 like you said. About the sorry part is that I'm a Brazilian, people here are the run of the mill stereotype of Sherman's = useless piece of crap, Tiger goes brrr and other dumb shit. And to make maters worse I have a huge case of anxiety so sometimes I talk too much and be irritant or get ahead of myself, so it's a huge worry to me to keep things as normal as possible and to find people who talk and don't shout "the obviously not biased and truly correct point of view".
I did it, here's the 3d models.
Notes:
The cruiser is an MKIV and the M13/40 T2 (close as possible for the second production)
The engine room of the Pz2 M 3.7cm is bare because I hate doing engine room, so I had little incentive to do it without ref
The turret is almost an ctrl c and v of the M13
For some reason you have two antennas and one vacant antenna fit in the side of the hull (the thingy bellow the turret at 45°) so I did none of the 3 so far...
Great model btw, since I do 3d for TE as a freelance and for myself as game dev I don't mind do simple 3D modeling, for some reason it's funnier than to simply play on steam.
Attachments
- Status