Well to be fair to him - being a childish twit has earned him a rather large fortune - and while he was very stupid in punching a colleague and the BBC was correct in firing him.....
Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.
- Thread starter allanpcameron
- Start date
What Clarkson excels at is sharing his enthusiasm, be it for someone he regards a hero, his fondness for cars or his new farm. The fact that the BBC botched their attempt at continuing Top Gear with a new crew does indicate that the executives knew next to nothing about the show, which might indicate that while a punch was a crass and incorrect response to whatever was said and done, it was not unprovoked.
No, sorry, the punch was utterly unprovoked and Clarkson has admitted that. He was drunk and punched a production assistant for the fact that the hotel had closed its restaurant. He was a boorish moron.
Hello,
Have the Allies forces started on modifications in the field for their tanks, depending on combat situations against the Japanese? Obviously flamethrowers are coming into use, but have anything else been successfully experimented? For example, using AA cannon or 2 or more linked heavy machine guns in place of the main armament in the turret or an open mount where the turret was located.
Have the Allies forces started on modifications in the field for their tanks, depending on combat situations against the Japanese? Obviously flamethrowers are coming into use, but have anything else been successfully experimented? For example, using AA cannon or 2 or more linked heavy machine guns in place of the main armament in the turret or an open mount where the turret was located.
I don't think so. They are putting a lot more CS tanks (the ones focussed on HE) into the field though.
The OTL British had, somewhere, relatively large numbers of 3.7 inch mountain howitzers, which were in production in England from 1915 to approximately 1925; in India from the 1920s or early 1930s to post-WWII, and in South Africa during WWII. These guns were introduced during OTL WWI, but didn't finally fully replace earlier guns in mountain and other specialized formations until the interwar years. The British Army in India used them extensively. The Australians also had a number of them. During OTL WWII, they were used in the Burma and Papua New Guinea campaigns, among others.
During the interwar years, any guns that had not already been converted, were equipped with pneumatic tires, permitting their towing by a UC, Jeep, or other light motorized vehicle, or by two horses, or over short distances on level ground, by a number of troops. They also could be rapidly broken down to eight mule loads, with a practiced crew being able to take the gun on reasonable terrain from mule loads to firing-ready in two minutes.
25 pounders of course are excellent guns for use by artillery units, with the range to interdict logistical and line-of-communication elements behind enemy lines. However, it would be hard to beat the 3.7 inch mountain gun as integral infantry-formation fire support. In addition to its obvious artillery use at high firing angles with HE shells, certainly that gun could be used to engage enemy strongpoints in direct fire. It also offered smoke shells. And, infantry formations holding a defensive line at night could keep their guns high-elevated and loaded with star shells, without any need to establish particular aim. An enemy attack during night hours could be responded to by lofting star shells to backlight enemy formations, to a greater or lesser extent depending on how open the terrain is. It's very advantageous for infantry defenders to have an approaching enemy backlit.
How many of those 3.7 inch mountain howitzers are present ITTL in Singapore and Malaya? Which units are equipped with them? What ammo is on hand?
During the interwar years, any guns that had not already been converted, were equipped with pneumatic tires, permitting their towing by a UC, Jeep, or other light motorized vehicle, or by two horses, or over short distances on level ground, by a number of troops. They also could be rapidly broken down to eight mule loads, with a practiced crew being able to take the gun on reasonable terrain from mule loads to firing-ready in two minutes.
25 pounders of course are excellent guns for use by artillery units, with the range to interdict logistical and line-of-communication elements behind enemy lines. However, it would be hard to beat the 3.7 inch mountain gun as integral infantry-formation fire support. In addition to its obvious artillery use at high firing angles with HE shells, certainly that gun could be used to engage enemy strongpoints in direct fire. It also offered smoke shells. And, infantry formations holding a defensive line at night could keep their guns high-elevated and loaded with star shells, without any need to establish particular aim. An enemy attack during night hours could be responded to by lofting star shells to backlight enemy formations, to a greater or lesser extent depending on how open the terrain is. It's very advantageous for infantry defenders to have an approaching enemy backlit.
Note that mounts existed in the late-1930s-early-1940s British supply chain to mount the 3.7 inch mountain howitzer (i.e. the "94mm gun") into an A9 or A10 tank turret, and gunsight reticles and ammunition racks also existed. If British or Australian armorers in theatre were attempting to convert existing gun-tanks to CS tanks, being able to use a gun already proven in that application, with an engineered and manufactured gun-mount obtainable through supply channels that you might have to adapt to a different tank but at least would not have to entirely fabricate, would be a significant advantage.
How many of those 3.7 inch mountain howitzers are present ITTL in Singapore and Malaya? Which units are equipped with them? What ammo is on hand?
30 May 1942. Maryland, USA.
allanpcameron
Donor
30 May 1942. Maryland, USA.
Aberdeen Proving Ground, the Headquarters of the US Ordnance Department, was well used to visitors from Great Britain. Major-General Charles Wessen, Chief of Ordnance, had visited England the previous September and there was a reciprocal visit from a delegation led by Oliver Lucas, the Controller-General of Research and Development (CGRD) from the Ministry of Supply. Lucas’ opposite number in the supply of munitions from the Ministry of Supply, Sir Graham Cunningham, Controller-General of Munitions Production (CGMP) was part of the group. From Wessen’s perspective, having separate Research and Development and Supply controllers, both within the Ministry of Supply seemed problematic, especially when considering that one of the other members of the British delegation was Brigadier John Bond, Deputy Director of Armoured Fighting Vehicles (DDAFV) from the War Office. The British had one group who developed, another group then dealt with supply and then ‘users’, the Army seemed to have less input that would have been thought normal. The American system wasn’t entirely without its own problems, a few ideas for different types of tanks from the Ordnance Department by been rejected by the Army Ground Forces, the ‘users’ who liked the M3 and M4 Medium tanks, and were happy to concentrate on the M4.
The issue that both the British and Americans were dealing with was the follow on to the US M4 (which the British were calling Sherman), and the British Victor. The reality was that at some point in possibly 1943 or 1944 the combined allied forces would have to invade Europe and take on the Germans. The experience of the British and of the Soviets was that the Panzer III and IV were good, but did not outclass the Allied tanks in themselves. It was clear that the Panzer Divisions probably had better training and tactics, but putting an M4 up against the current Pz III would be pretty much a match, each having some things that were better or worse than the other.
The Soviets had lost huge numbers of tanks, but were confident that their T34 Medium and KV1 Heavy were generally a match for the panzers. There was no doubt that the Germans would be working on improvements to the current Panzer III and IVs, probably up-gunning and increasing armour, and would be developing along the same lines as everyone else. Some kind of new Medium Tank to replace the Panzer III and Heavy Tank to replace the Panzer IV. Speculation about what these would be like was much debated.
The British felt that their Victor, with the HV 75mm gun, would be a match for whatever replaced the Panzer III. They were less sure that the Sherman with the current 75mm would be able to deal with a tank with better protection than the current German tanks. They were therefore keen on the Americans building a Heavy Tank, preferably with a big enough gun to deal with the kind of armour the next generation of German panzers were likely to carry, about four inches, possibly even five inches on the heavy. Their own work on a successor to the Churchill Infantry Tank, and if possible, also the Victor, was likely to be about 50 tons, with a maximum of six inches of armour, carrying at least the 17-pdr, but more likely something based on the 3.7-inch (94mm) AA gun.
Wessen remained to be convinced that a Heavy Tank was the way forward. Part of the purpose of the British visit was to look at what the Americans were developing. Wessen was of the firm opinion that the British were trying to avoid using American tanks as much as possible. The Australians and Indians, facing the Japanese, would likely be the main users of American tanks, just as at the moment with the M3 Light and Medium tanks (Stuart and Grant to the British). The Canadian and Australian Cruiser, with the 25-pdr gun, would likely complement rather than replace the American tanks. From what Wessen had seen the previous summer, the move towards replacing all Valiant work with Victors, and the cancellation of the Crusader as a gun tank, made it look like the British were trying for a ‘universal tank’. One tank that could do what the Cruiser and Infantry Tanks had been doing.
Wessen was also aware that the British were hoping that the Americans would provide the bulk of Lend Lease tank deliveries to the Soviet Union. The Valiant tanks being built in Canada were all going to Murmansk, if the British wanted at least six armoured Divisions equipped with Victors to invade France, they couldn’t afford to be building anything other than Victors. Wessen wasn’t sure that the Soviets would be happy with Grants and Shermans, so far, all the feedback was that they were pretty unhappy with the Grant.
What the British did want was to have a look at what was under development. The M3 Light (Stuart) was being upgraded to the M3A3 model, all welded with improved storage, and therefore range. Cadillac had built a successor to the M3, which was designated the M5, using Cadillac engines and transmission. Alongside this, the T7 program was looking at something in the 16 ton range, possibly using a 57mm gun, or even the same M3 75mm gun on the Grant and Sherman. Wessen thought it was heading into Medium Tank territory and would prefer to stick with the M4 Sherman, though that decision had yet been taken.
Another Light Tank under development by Marmon-Herrington was the T9E1 which was envisaged to be used by airborne forces. The British Tetrarch was being developed for the same role, and the British delegation expressed an interest in putting the two up against one another to test which was the better bet. Marmon-Herrington also had a four ton tank designated the T16 which they had designed for China and the Netherlands East Indies. Armed only with a .30 calibre machine gun, it didn’t hold any interest for either the American or British armies.
Regarding the M3 Medium tank, production was due to finish in December, with over 6000 expected to be built between August 1941 and December 1942, something that the British could only wonder at. 450 Grant tanks were on their way to Australia and India to equip the new Armoured Divisions, with a further 150 following by October, though the majority of these would be the standard American M3, called the Lee by the British.
Production of the M4 Medium tank, the Sherman to the British, was to built in eleven plants in America, with a brand new factory opened by Fisher in Grand Blanc, Michigan expected to be open in July. By fall (or Autumn as the British called it) those eleven plants would be in full production, with thousands to be available by the end of the year. There were four types, the M4 with the Continental R-975 engine; the M4A1 with a cast hull rather than welded like the M4. The M4A2 with twin General Motors 6-71 diesel engines and the M4A3 with the new Ford 500HP GAA V-8 gasoline engine. This latter version was earmarked for the American Army, the diesel M4A2 would be going to the US Marines, and probably Russia. The M4, despite being the first named, wouldn’t start production at Pressed Steel until July. Production of the M4A1 was underway at the Lima, Pressed Steel and Pacific Car & Foundry. The short M2 75mm was being used on these early production models, and still had the twin fixed machine guns in the hull. Fisher, had already begun producing the M4A2 in April, as had Pullman. Ford were expecting to begin production of M4A3 from June. Wessen had only a few days ago been given the go-ahead from Supply Services to begin working on designing and procuring a pilot model for an improved medium tank, provisionally designated M4X. Broadly it was to be about 32 tons, with an automatic 75mm gun, four inches of frontal armour and a top speed of 25mph. The Vickers Victor was basically the M4X, but with a much more powerful 75mm HV gun.
Knowing that the British were keen on a more powerful gun than the M2 and M3 75mm, work on a 76mm gun was being discussed, though it was understood that the current turret of the M4 would be too small. American doctrine was for tanks to do most jobs, but for tank destroyers to stalk enemy tanks. Therefore, the T35E1 (M10 GMC) was soon to be tested. Based on the M4A3 chassis and carrying the 3-inch M7 gun in an open turret, it was hoped that this would provide the Tank Destroyer Command a suitable replacement for the current half-track M3 (T12) and M3A1 armed with the M1897A 75mm gun. This approach was quite different from the British and, although they requested a few for trials, Wessen didn’t believe that they would show any more interest.
The fact that the British were talking about their next tank having something based on their 3.7-inch gun, got some of Wessen’s staff considering whether the 90mm American AA gun could be adapted to a tank. The use of the German 88mm AA gun in the anti-tank role in North Africa had been something of a wakeup call. If the Germans managed to build a tank around the 88mm gun, then three or four inches of frontal armour wasn’t going to do too well against it.
What Lucas and the British were keen to see was what had started off as the T1 Heavy Tank. This was to be 50 tons, about three inches of armour, a 75mm and a 37mm gun mounted coaxially, with four machine guns, a Wright 925HP engine, Hydra-matic transmission, and a top speed of 25mph. The T1E2 pilot was built by Baldwin, and after some modifications was standardised as the M6 Heavy Tank. The Armored Force were already talking about it being too heavy, undergunned, and needing too many improvements, and so would rather have more M4 Mediums that any M6 Heavy Tanks. The British delegation having had a chance to see the T1E2 pilot on trials, couldn’t help but think that it wasn’t really that much of an advance.
A second Heavy Tank had been discussed between the British and Americans previously, which had been designated T14 by the Americans. Partly this was a British gamble against the failure of the Churchill, with the hope the Americans might build an assault tank. Work so far on the T14 was minimal, and the British were now happy enough with the Churchill. The M6, from Wessen’s point of view, was adequate for the job of a heavy tank, and he didn’t have that many resources to throw into yet another tank. The British mentioned that Sir John Carden was working on a replacement for the Victor Cruiser Tank, which would also take over the role of the Churchill Infantry Tank. While the American tank designs didn’t seem to be as advanced, the delegation couldn’t help but gasp as the sheer scale of the American tank building factories. If the phrase, ‘quantity has a quality all of its own’ was ever coined, it could well have been in the minds of those gazing on the huge plants dedicated to the mass production of American tanks.
(The information for this update came primarily from 'British and American Tanks of World War Two' Peter Chamberlain & Chris Ellis, 2000 edition, Cassel & Co, London.)
Aberdeen Proving Ground, the Headquarters of the US Ordnance Department, was well used to visitors from Great Britain. Major-General Charles Wessen, Chief of Ordnance, had visited England the previous September and there was a reciprocal visit from a delegation led by Oliver Lucas, the Controller-General of Research and Development (CGRD) from the Ministry of Supply. Lucas’ opposite number in the supply of munitions from the Ministry of Supply, Sir Graham Cunningham, Controller-General of Munitions Production (CGMP) was part of the group. From Wessen’s perspective, having separate Research and Development and Supply controllers, both within the Ministry of Supply seemed problematic, especially when considering that one of the other members of the British delegation was Brigadier John Bond, Deputy Director of Armoured Fighting Vehicles (DDAFV) from the War Office. The British had one group who developed, another group then dealt with supply and then ‘users’, the Army seemed to have less input that would have been thought normal. The American system wasn’t entirely without its own problems, a few ideas for different types of tanks from the Ordnance Department by been rejected by the Army Ground Forces, the ‘users’ who liked the M3 and M4 Medium tanks, and were happy to concentrate on the M4.
The issue that both the British and Americans were dealing with was the follow on to the US M4 (which the British were calling Sherman), and the British Victor. The reality was that at some point in possibly 1943 or 1944 the combined allied forces would have to invade Europe and take on the Germans. The experience of the British and of the Soviets was that the Panzer III and IV were good, but did not outclass the Allied tanks in themselves. It was clear that the Panzer Divisions probably had better training and tactics, but putting an M4 up against the current Pz III would be pretty much a match, each having some things that were better or worse than the other.
The Soviets had lost huge numbers of tanks, but were confident that their T34 Medium and KV1 Heavy were generally a match for the panzers. There was no doubt that the Germans would be working on improvements to the current Panzer III and IVs, probably up-gunning and increasing armour, and would be developing along the same lines as everyone else. Some kind of new Medium Tank to replace the Panzer III and Heavy Tank to replace the Panzer IV. Speculation about what these would be like was much debated.
The British felt that their Victor, with the HV 75mm gun, would be a match for whatever replaced the Panzer III. They were less sure that the Sherman with the current 75mm would be able to deal with a tank with better protection than the current German tanks. They were therefore keen on the Americans building a Heavy Tank, preferably with a big enough gun to deal with the kind of armour the next generation of German panzers were likely to carry, about four inches, possibly even five inches on the heavy. Their own work on a successor to the Churchill Infantry Tank, and if possible, also the Victor, was likely to be about 50 tons, with a maximum of six inches of armour, carrying at least the 17-pdr, but more likely something based on the 3.7-inch (94mm) AA gun.
Wessen remained to be convinced that a Heavy Tank was the way forward. Part of the purpose of the British visit was to look at what the Americans were developing. Wessen was of the firm opinion that the British were trying to avoid using American tanks as much as possible. The Australians and Indians, facing the Japanese, would likely be the main users of American tanks, just as at the moment with the M3 Light and Medium tanks (Stuart and Grant to the British). The Canadian and Australian Cruiser, with the 25-pdr gun, would likely complement rather than replace the American tanks. From what Wessen had seen the previous summer, the move towards replacing all Valiant work with Victors, and the cancellation of the Crusader as a gun tank, made it look like the British were trying for a ‘universal tank’. One tank that could do what the Cruiser and Infantry Tanks had been doing.
Wessen was also aware that the British were hoping that the Americans would provide the bulk of Lend Lease tank deliveries to the Soviet Union. The Valiant tanks being built in Canada were all going to Murmansk, if the British wanted at least six armoured Divisions equipped with Victors to invade France, they couldn’t afford to be building anything other than Victors. Wessen wasn’t sure that the Soviets would be happy with Grants and Shermans, so far, all the feedback was that they were pretty unhappy with the Grant.
What the British did want was to have a look at what was under development. The M3 Light (Stuart) was being upgraded to the M3A3 model, all welded with improved storage, and therefore range. Cadillac had built a successor to the M3, which was designated the M5, using Cadillac engines and transmission. Alongside this, the T7 program was looking at something in the 16 ton range, possibly using a 57mm gun, or even the same M3 75mm gun on the Grant and Sherman. Wessen thought it was heading into Medium Tank territory and would prefer to stick with the M4 Sherman, though that decision had yet been taken.
Another Light Tank under development by Marmon-Herrington was the T9E1 which was envisaged to be used by airborne forces. The British Tetrarch was being developed for the same role, and the British delegation expressed an interest in putting the two up against one another to test which was the better bet. Marmon-Herrington also had a four ton tank designated the T16 which they had designed for China and the Netherlands East Indies. Armed only with a .30 calibre machine gun, it didn’t hold any interest for either the American or British armies.
Regarding the M3 Medium tank, production was due to finish in December, with over 6000 expected to be built between August 1941 and December 1942, something that the British could only wonder at. 450 Grant tanks were on their way to Australia and India to equip the new Armoured Divisions, with a further 150 following by October, though the majority of these would be the standard American M3, called the Lee by the British.
Production of the M4 Medium tank, the Sherman to the British, was to built in eleven plants in America, with a brand new factory opened by Fisher in Grand Blanc, Michigan expected to be open in July. By fall (or Autumn as the British called it) those eleven plants would be in full production, with thousands to be available by the end of the year. There were four types, the M4 with the Continental R-975 engine; the M4A1 with a cast hull rather than welded like the M4. The M4A2 with twin General Motors 6-71 diesel engines and the M4A3 with the new Ford 500HP GAA V-8 gasoline engine. This latter version was earmarked for the American Army, the diesel M4A2 would be going to the US Marines, and probably Russia. The M4, despite being the first named, wouldn’t start production at Pressed Steel until July. Production of the M4A1 was underway at the Lima, Pressed Steel and Pacific Car & Foundry. The short M2 75mm was being used on these early production models, and still had the twin fixed machine guns in the hull. Fisher, had already begun producing the M4A2 in April, as had Pullman. Ford were expecting to begin production of M4A3 from June. Wessen had only a few days ago been given the go-ahead from Supply Services to begin working on designing and procuring a pilot model for an improved medium tank, provisionally designated M4X. Broadly it was to be about 32 tons, with an automatic 75mm gun, four inches of frontal armour and a top speed of 25mph. The Vickers Victor was basically the M4X, but with a much more powerful 75mm HV gun.
Knowing that the British were keen on a more powerful gun than the M2 and M3 75mm, work on a 76mm gun was being discussed, though it was understood that the current turret of the M4 would be too small. American doctrine was for tanks to do most jobs, but for tank destroyers to stalk enemy tanks. Therefore, the T35E1 (M10 GMC) was soon to be tested. Based on the M4A3 chassis and carrying the 3-inch M7 gun in an open turret, it was hoped that this would provide the Tank Destroyer Command a suitable replacement for the current half-track M3 (T12) and M3A1 armed with the M1897A 75mm gun. This approach was quite different from the British and, although they requested a few for trials, Wessen didn’t believe that they would show any more interest.
The fact that the British were talking about their next tank having something based on their 3.7-inch gun, got some of Wessen’s staff considering whether the 90mm American AA gun could be adapted to a tank. The use of the German 88mm AA gun in the anti-tank role in North Africa had been something of a wakeup call. If the Germans managed to build a tank around the 88mm gun, then three or four inches of frontal armour wasn’t going to do too well against it.
What Lucas and the British were keen to see was what had started off as the T1 Heavy Tank. This was to be 50 tons, about three inches of armour, a 75mm and a 37mm gun mounted coaxially, with four machine guns, a Wright 925HP engine, Hydra-matic transmission, and a top speed of 25mph. The T1E2 pilot was built by Baldwin, and after some modifications was standardised as the M6 Heavy Tank. The Armored Force were already talking about it being too heavy, undergunned, and needing too many improvements, and so would rather have more M4 Mediums that any M6 Heavy Tanks. The British delegation having had a chance to see the T1E2 pilot on trials, couldn’t help but think that it wasn’t really that much of an advance.
A second Heavy Tank had been discussed between the British and Americans previously, which had been designated T14 by the Americans. Partly this was a British gamble against the failure of the Churchill, with the hope the Americans might build an assault tank. Work so far on the T14 was minimal, and the British were now happy enough with the Churchill. The M6, from Wessen’s point of view, was adequate for the job of a heavy tank, and he didn’t have that many resources to throw into yet another tank. The British mentioned that Sir John Carden was working on a replacement for the Victor Cruiser Tank, which would also take over the role of the Churchill Infantry Tank. While the American tank designs didn’t seem to be as advanced, the delegation couldn’t help but gasp as the sheer scale of the American tank building factories. If the phrase, ‘quantity has a quality all of its own’ was ever coined, it could well have been in the minds of those gazing on the huge plants dedicated to the mass production of American tanks.
(The information for this update came primarily from 'British and American Tanks of World War Two' Peter Chamberlain & Chris Ellis, 2000 edition, Cassel & Co, London.)
I feel very sorry for the Dutch and Chinese crews who have to ride in those Junkers.
Derek Pullem
Donor
Tough questions for the Russians.
Do you want a diesel Valiant 2-pdr (with Littlejohn?)
Or a diesel valiant with Russian 76mm turret
Or a Sherman
Not sure the answer is obvious to me
Yeah...I do wonder if they were aware of the Jumbucks, would there be an order for those from those countries instead...?
Then again I would not be surprised if those orders are rejected due to production constraints.....
At this rate with the Junkers seems to be extremely frowned upon even a slight of it being mentioned in this thread, I wonder if those soldiers would (eventually) be rather riding in Tatanagar APCs than in those Junk
Slightly off-topic though, (and sorry since this is basically the third time I kinda mentioned this)...but could the Indians, especially the Tatas, could seriously play a role to alleviate this concern by supplying with extra Tatanagars to complement the Junkers? Or would they just basically (for now at least this year) really just on the same track as OTL, with no effects (the update from around three years ago *yikes, it has been that long already* seems to suggest so) from the changes from the war front even later on (like the lack of Bengal famine etc...)...other than perhaps supplying some extremely durable jerry cans?
P/s:
Yeah...I think it is more likely for the British to order narrow-gauge steam locomotives for use in Malaya (IOTL, they did eventually order the surplus locomotives after the war and then resold) and perhaps even for uses in the Dutch East Indies...rather than ordering the American tanks in order to be used by the British units....
No canister by that name. They nominally did have "shrapnel" rounds, which operate differently. Canister is just a big shotgun shell, with a soft casing around the shot-balls. Shrapnel has a rigid but splittable case, a time fuze and a base bursting charge to blow the case open and throw the balls forward and out. Canister provides a shotgun effect at zero-to-close range. Shrapnel provides a shotgun effect at medium-to-long range. Shrapnel usually couldn't be used at short range because the time fuzes of the time were designed to not be settable for that short a range, because they weren't accurate enough and an early detonation might occur in the gun barrel, at least ruining the gun and possibly bursting it.
Shrapnel was popular during WWI, but went out of fashion as studies showed that it was quantitatively less efficient for medium-to-long-range fire than just firing HE, once the inefficiencies of the inconsistent time fuzes were taken into account in comparison to the much simpler and more consistent HE contact fuzes. I don't know what stocks of shrapnel shells might still have existed from decades-prior production, given that doctrinal shift. I'd guess that stocks of shrapnel shells might have been disposed.
Last edited:
The thing is, the British have an advantage with deploying Victors in Europe, namely, that they don't have to send the damn things across the Atlantic! Maybe the British could suggest to the Americans to try new turret designs to fit bigger guns in? I mean, heck, the Victor only has a 66" turret ring (3" smaller than the Sherman), and they managed to squeeze a 75mm HV gun into that, so it's obviously not beyond possibility.
Last edited:
Bigger guns would have been technically straightforward.
The US's T26 turret had been shown to fit the 90mm gun while on a Sherman hull by 1943, with no compromises to tank functionality other than a minor change to ammo storage quantity.
Many WWII closed-turret Shermans of course were built with 105mm howitzers as their guns. That combination was considered successful.
The Israelis before the 1967 war had fitted the high-velocity French CN 105 F1 105mm gun (similar to the British L7) into the standard Sherman turret, constraining the gun's recoil by means of a very aggressive muzzle brake, and accepting that the gun could not be elevated beyond the point where the recoiling breech would hit the hull. The Argentinians still later fitted a version of the F1 gun into their ex-Firefly Shermans, which had extended turret bustles, thereby allowing use of more moderate muzzle brakes but even further constraining elevation.
Shermans with 90mm guns could have been an easy change during WWII. Chrysler wanted to do it, because they saw their job as providing America with the best possible tanks and the change would go in that direction. It could have been implemented with almost no changeover time, because the new turret involved no new technology or subcontractors. Chrysler could have shipped large quantities of gun-equipped turrets to Europe for field depots to drop onto existing M4 hulls after changing the ammo racks, thereby getting large numbers of tanks into the field without even having to build and ship new hulls. Tank widths wouldn't have changed, and weight only moderately, so rail clearance and bridge capacity wouldn't have been barriers. But, the Army in its infinite wisdom determined that the existing Shermans were adequate, 90mm guns were too powerful for tanks and belonged only on tank destroyers, and a change of gun and therefore ammunition types would be too disruptive to logistics.
The US's T26 turret had been shown to fit the 90mm gun while on a Sherman hull by 1943, with no compromises to tank functionality other than a minor change to ammo storage quantity.
Many WWII closed-turret Shermans of course were built with 105mm howitzers as their guns. That combination was considered successful.
The Israelis before the 1967 war had fitted the high-velocity French CN 105 F1 105mm gun (similar to the British L7) into the standard Sherman turret, constraining the gun's recoil by means of a very aggressive muzzle brake, and accepting that the gun could not be elevated beyond the point where the recoiling breech would hit the hull. The Argentinians still later fitted a version of the F1 gun into their ex-Firefly Shermans, which had extended turret bustles, thereby allowing use of more moderate muzzle brakes but even further constraining elevation.
Shermans with 90mm guns could have been an easy change during WWII. Chrysler wanted to do it, because they saw their job as providing America with the best possible tanks and the change would go in that direction. It could have been implemented with almost no changeover time, because the new turret involved no new technology or subcontractors. Chrysler could have shipped large quantities of gun-equipped turrets to Europe for field depots to drop onto existing M4 hulls after changing the ammo racks, thereby getting large numbers of tanks into the field without even having to build and ship new hulls. Tank widths wouldn't have changed, and weight only moderately, so rail clearance and bridge capacity wouldn't have been barriers. But, the Army in its infinite wisdom determined that the existing Shermans were adequate, 90mm guns were too powerful for tanks and belonged only on tank destroyers, and a change of gun and therefore ammunition types would be too disruptive to logistics.
Last edited:
The local commanders weren't even interested in getting the 76mm Shermans, so most of the hundreds got left in depots in Britain.The US's T26 turret had been shown to fit the 90mm gun by early in 1943, with no compromises to functionality other than a minor change to ammo storage quantity. The Israelis before the 1967 war had fitted the high-velocity French CN 105 F1 105mm gun (similar to the British L7) into the standard Sherman turret, constraining its recoil by means of a very aggressive muzzle brake, and accepting that the gun could not be elevated beyond the point where the recoiling breech would hit the hull. The Argentinians still later fitted a version of the F1 gun into their ex-Firefly Shermans, which had extended turret bustles, thereby allowing use of more moderate muzzle brakes but even further constraining elevation.
Shermans with 90mm guns could have been an easy change during WWII. Chrysler wanted to make the change. It could have been implemented with almost no changeover time, because the new turret involved no new technology or subcontractors. Chrysler could have shipped large quantities of gun-equipped turrets to Europe for field depots to drop onto existing M4 hulls after changing the ammo racks and gun ranging optics, thereby getting large numbers of tanks into the field without even having to build and ship new hulls. But, the Army in its infinite wisdom determined that the existing Shermans were adequate, and a change of gun and therefore ammunition types would be too disruptive.