marathag
Banned
There was not a lot of rush, going from Spring 1942 to November 1943 to get those tracks going, using OTL priority.
It could have been faster.
A lot faster
M4A3E8
- Thread starter CA-2D
- Start date
It could have been faster.
A lot faster
McPherson
Banned
Missed the point. Bridges, cranes, ship's deck load ratings, tank transporters have loaded weight limits. Even ROADS have loaded weight limits, Tiger II had the same exact problem as the Sherman Jumbo. It could not get to the fight without a lot of effort and special scarce equipment.
As a matter of pedantry I am forced to point out that the important stat is the things that kill you, not the things you survive. If you fire 100 shots at a Panzer III and one shot at a Tiger, that doesn't mean the Panzer 3 is more dangerous than the Tiger, it means it's less. If you can spend all day shooting at a Panzer 3 without it killing you then it's not a problem. If you can only get one shot off at a Tiger before it kills you, it's a problem.
Except that the Tiger II could handle its own weight - the Jumbo was known for crushing its ball bearings and suspension, and took a hit to speed and mileage.
marathag
Banned
You have that turned around. More Tiger II were lost to breakdowns.
The Jumbo weight weight took the M4 phenomenal reliability to standard Allied
Panthers and Tigers are vastly overrated tanks for that reason. What good is a tank that doesn't show up because it broke down? None. If the Panther and Tiger had a truly massive advantage over the Sherman I could see using them even with the hit to reliability. If it showed up and killed 4 or 5 Shermans before it died it might be worth it even if half of them break down on the way, but they didn't. The one who got off the first shot usually won in the West.
McPherson
Banned
Over frozen ground. One exception (data outlier) does not negate the mean, when the outlier can be explained as the exception to the mean.They managed without that much effort.
Except a Panzer IV was fully capable of killing a Sherman, they killed far more Shermans than Tigers did . That was because they were cheaper and thus a hell of lot more of them. A German 88 mm AT could easily take them out and were encountered for more often than a Tiger. A 75mm tank gun took them out better than the 76mm. So you wind up losing a few less to TIgers but considerably more to 88s.
Just because redlining something doesn't lead to a breakdown this time doesn't mean it should be standard policy.
And again, it was slower and ran out of gas faster, two things you don't want in armoured warfare. The WAllies made the right call in limiting them to a few hundred.
marathag
Banned
Yet the Tiger II had problems. There's enough US unit histories out there, the biggest complaint was not the weight, but that it was armed with a 75mm, and there just were not enough of the Jumbos to go around
that's why Patton had 3rd Army AD have workshops manufacture ersatz Jumbos
EDIT Note other mods, coaxial .50, and extra .30 on Center image
Last edited:
marathag
Banned
Rather than two years from idea to battlefield, one year.
It's just tracks and suspension, going from the work of the already in limited production M6 Heavy, put on the M4
McPherson
Banned
1. It was an 88.
2. it bogged during Wacht am Rhein
3. Peiper could not get them to move on the roads or cross country and no bridging equipment he had could hold the weight when the Americans blew the far too few bridges that could hold the weight up in his face.
Just like magic, poof production capacity appears and logistics movement is accomplished via teleportation.
You could get a 90mm into a turret for the Sherman. the M36 used the same size turret ring (69") and when M36 hull production fell behind they used excess M4A3 hulls to make up the gap. Also they tested the M26 turret (also 69" turret ring) on a Sherman but felt it was too top heavy for the narrower hull. The test was done on a VVSS Sherman (narrow tracks) so the HVSS version may have been better. But the Pershing was in the pipeline so ...
The Pershing could use the bridges. There were modification kits made for the bailey bridges but they had not been supplied to every bridge kit in the vast stock of equipment that had been built up for the campaign. Without the mod kit there was a much higher likelyhood of causing damage to the bridge due to the tight clearances on the treadways. It was decided to hold off deploying the M26 until most of the rivers had been crossed and they were on the central German plain.
The M7 was supposed to be a light tank but grew until it was in the medium class and provided little (if any) improvement over the M4. So it was (mericully) put out of its misery. There is a website with total production numbers by model and factory on the web along with a whole lot more Sherman information. there are also some very good armor discussion sites where this kind of thing is 'discussed' with great passion. I could post some of the ones I feel are the better ones if allowed or by PM if anyone likes.
Actually the M36 was still considered an interim TD. The M18 was the one the Tank Destroyer Force wanted
Thanks to everyone for the input to my question.
Yes I understand US Army tactics were for using tanks to support infantry on the battlefield and exploit breakthroughs while tank destroyers were to handle enemy armor. That the 75mm gun was more suited for this. However there was a minority within the army’s ranks that disagreed with this even before D-Day. As we know the line between tanks and tank destroyers began to blur quickly as the allies advanced across France. The evidence of this is the continuation of enhancing the M10 and M36 with hull mounted machine guns for instance to try and turn them into a true tank, which they were never meant to be.
If I’m not mistaken, by the end of the war, all production of the Sherman 75 had ended in favor of 76’s. Even then only a small amount were Easy Eights. Hindsight is always 20-20, but from everything I’ve read M4 crews were clamoring for the 76’s by the end of the war.
Yes I understand US Army tactics were for using tanks to support infantry on the battlefield and exploit breakthroughs while tank destroyers were to handle enemy armor. That the 75mm gun was more suited for this. However there was a minority within the army’s ranks that disagreed with this even before D-Day. As we know the line between tanks and tank destroyers began to blur quickly as the allies advanced across France. The evidence of this is the continuation of enhancing the M10 and M36 with hull mounted machine guns for instance to try and turn them into a true tank, which they were never meant to be.
If I’m not mistaken, by the end of the war, all production of the Sherman 75 had ended in favor of 76’s. Even then only a small amount were Easy Eights. Hindsight is always 20-20, but from everything I’ve read M4 crews were clamoring for the 76’s by the end of the war.
Cobra King is now in the new Museum of the U.S. Army at Ft Belvoir. It was recovered from a parade ground in Germany and its provenance proved by some dedicated staff and Volunteers at the Patton Museum.They managed without that much effort.