US has better tank for the Battle of the Bulge.
- Thread starter Musketeer513
- Start date
marathag
Banned
One of T22E2 series used a rear drive Cletrac unit, but with the single prototype having issues, I believe Armor Board said 'Nope!' and went with the GM Torqmatic for what would become the T25
Now the T23E3
came close, but it's electric Drive wasn't wanted.
Given its thin armour and limited main gun stabilization, the Leo had better score first hits. A Matilda's 2pdr could likely penetrate a Leo anywhere outside the turret mantlet or hull front.
Totally off-topic, but... looking at that cutaway, what are all those metal bars in the bottom of the hull? I'm assuming they're ballast, to keep the tank from blowing over on a windy day, right?
I'll rise and take the bait? Those are the torsion bars of the suspension system.
Caught me on that, but note the lack of vegetation. Might not be flat but was empty. A tank on a hill can see and hit anything...
The shermans armor is pretty good 50mm of steel on a 56 deg angle gives it 80 to 90mm of protection forward(slightly better than the panzer 4), Its side armor is 38mm and slab sided so not good.(still better than a p4 but the germans usually augmented the side armor with 5mm spaced armor skirts.)
To stop a panzer 4's gun at 2km its side armor would need to be 86mm thick.(cant slope it unless they redesign the tank so it needs to be the full thickness)
At 1.5km the front armor needs to be 97mm equivalent this could have been doable.At 1km it needs to be 109mm equivalent , at 500m 123mm.
So giving the tank a better gun would be better as it would reduce the need for massive armour upgrades for the front armor by letting them engage at the same ranges the germans could letting smaller armour upgrades boost survivability .
That last; A 90 HE round can be more destructive than a 75mm HE, so a advantage vs the 75% of the targets the US tanks did attack.
Indeed. The only major component on that, not used on the M4 is the hull. Actually commonality of parts for the entire T20, T22, T23, T25 series with the M4 was fairly good. The designers aimed for that. That primary difference was the rationalized hull. Secondary were some of the turret designs that were not used on the M4. Suspension, drivetrain, electrical, ect... were usually derived from existing production. Note that the M4 had over 30,000 documented changes in its production life. If industry could deal with all that in four years then converting a portion of production to a new hull is not a show stopper.
And it has a nice sun-roof.
Why did the M4 Sherman have to be front wheel driven? Some tanks had rear drive. Why not the M4?
That went back to the 1920s & included the M2 design. If you look closely the M3 & M4 hulls & drive train were closely modeled on the M2. The reason was the urgency of the moment. In 1941 the US badly needed to start production of a good tank. Waiting for a perfect tank was not a option, so reworking the M2 medium into the M4 was the fastest option. It was not until 1943 a better tank design emerged in the US, and that was certainly not perfect either.
Here is a side by side comparison of the M4/M26. Note how low the hull is compared to the M4, or most of the tanks of the era. This feature was the result of US Army engineers studying the destroyed tanks in Africa in 1942. They concluded the lower the hull the more survivable the tank was.
Last edited:
marathag
Banned
The very first thought for improving the M4 was with the M4X, modifying the Hull in May 1942. This was not done, going for the lower T20/22/23/25/26 series.
Note wider tracks, that's from the M6, an early form of the HVSS that by the end of the war was fielded as the E8
But yeah, that's the Sherman of 1943 that never happened
The very first thought for improving the M4 was with the M4X, modifying the Hull in May 1942. This was not done, going for the lower T20/22/23/25/26 series.
Note wider tracks, that's from the M6, an early form of the HVSS that by the end of the war was fielded as the E8
But yeah, that's the Sherman of 1943 that never happened
How much production would be lost retooling to build this version? the hull isnt to bad production wise and it looks like some interior space is gained making it slightly wider before angling the sides but the turret looks like its all rolled armour instead of cast so that will add more production time. A cast turret is a turret that 90% of the work is done by pouring steel into moulds with some finishing work later.
Not a lot. The M4 hull was modified hundreds of times. Note the differences between the cast upper hulls and the welded plate upper hulls.
i noticed that but the turret looks like its all welded steel that will add more production time per unit. It does make it easier to upgrade the turret later if needed though.
One problem for the 90mm gun was the slow development, & relatively low priority for production. The TD Corps were looking at a 90mm back in 1941 & identified that as their goal in 1942. The 3" gun of the M10 was suposed to be a interm measure. However, other cannons had priority & the 90mm gun only entered limited production in early 1944. Had priority for the 90mm gun development been set in early 1942 the M36 might have appeared in 1943 & replaced the M10 then.
Of course the M6 has hardly been mentioned. How about that with a 90mm gun
marathag
Banned
I think upthread I listed all the companies making tanks and TDs during the war. Choose a smaller plant to make that variant, especially the ones that lacked casting capacity and were upgraded for that: keep them welding.
Not much time for welding turrets, that's what was done for the M10, after all as well as some Stuarts
I first started this post after reading that a Sherman with the T26 turret could have reach our forces 2 months before production T26E3,s reached our troops in the Zebra mission. I knew from years past that by June 1945 there were trials of the M18 Hellcat with the turret of the M36 Jackson. So in this timeline as the Allies reach the Rhine in January 1945. US forces could be equipped with 4 90mm vehicles; the M26 Pershing heavy tank, the M4A3 (90mm) Sherman medium tank, the M36 Jackson tank destroyer and the M18A1 Hellcat tank destroyer. The M36, M26 and M4 all use the same Ford engine. So logistics would be simplied somewhat with all using the same gun and only 2 turret types. 3 of them use the same engine. BTW the Sherman chassis was so high because the transmission was in the from but the engine in the rear so the drive train ran through the vehicle raising it's height. I think another butterfly from this would be how the Yalta conference would result. The western Allies would have been across the Rhine and much further east. If the Allies won the Battle of the Bulge faster pleas to Stalin to launch his winter offense earlier would not happen so Soviet forces also would have been further to the east.
marathag
Banned
Didn't have to be, the M18 had the same radial as the earlier Sherman. It just used an intermediate gearbox to lower the driveshaft.
Same could have, and should have been done for the Sherman, with only the M4 and M4A1 using the OTL setup, everything following using a lowered driveshaft
See difference between an M10 and M18
Last edited:
The idea of mass-produced tanks with interchangeable parts comes to bear here. As one veteran I interviewed noted, think of each nations tanks from then as like their auto industries. American tanks, like Fords, were there in numbers and easy to maintain or modify even if not the sleekest things out there. Italian tanks were either crap or fairly decent (one model from 43 or just before, heavier in very limited numbers) but lacked quantity and were simply too light and too late. Think of a bad Fiat. British tanks were so diverse that it caused headaches for suppliers but steady and strong if you could find parts and logistics when you needed them. German tanks were like Mercedes in that they did the job beautifully but lacked numbers and needed special mechanics when things went south. As for the Russians he noted it was a surprise they had as many as good as fast as they did and was just glad he was not on the Eastern Front!
Last edited:
Given the Churchill-Stalin understanding in 1941 what sorts of changes at Yalta might happen? Hungary or Czechloslovakia in the West? Korea stays whole?