US heavy tanks.

[Matt Wiser]

Precisely. I'd trade having 75 rounds of 75-mm for 40-50 rounds of 90-mm and get some real tank-killing power. And so what if you have to use two or three HE rounds if that's what's needed? Ammunition is cheap. Lives of tankers are not. There's plenty of instances where 75-mm Shermans ran into Panthers and Tigers and tried killing them from the front; the shells just bounced off, and the Sherman ate a high-velocity 75 or an 88 and was turned into blazing junk. When the warfighters are hollering for better guns and better armor protection, and AGF is ignoring their complaints, something's very wrong. It took Ike complaining to Marshall to get things done, which should've been done in 1943 (post Sicily), so that a high-velocity tank-killing gun is in service by the time Normandy comes. The M-26 is what tankers wanted-in 1943.

[RamscoopRaider]

I think you are using a flawed analysis method

There were 6,000 Panther Tanks and 1347 Tiger I and 497 Tiger II built

There were 23,500 Pak 40, 21,310 Flak 18/36/37/41 and 2,098 Pak 43 produced, plus 51 Pak 44, 150 Pak 41 and 3712 Pak 97/38

Statistically you are about 6 times more likely to encounter an AT gun that can 1 hit KO you than a Tank than can do the same

Therefore it makes more sense to optimize your engagement to fight the AT guns, a 50% increase in effectiveness against tanks is outweighed by a 10% decrease in effectiveness against AT guns, not counting a reduced effectiveness against AT weapon armed infantry or against MG nests and such that are attacking infantry, resulting in more infantry casualties

Essentially you are using the same logic that caused many front-line medics to call for the abandonment of helmets in WWI as their introduction caused more head injuries, the people at the front are not the ones doing statistical analysis, they are looking at their personal experience and tend to emphasize the negatives and overlook the positives

Edit: Now this equation did change after WWII as AT and Heavy AA guns that could be used in the AT role got much rarer relative to tanks, which explains the shift to a heavier tank ala the M-26/46/47/48 series

[BigWillyG]

Originally Posted by AdA

A 40t+ tank that moves like a medium and is armoured like a heavy. Maybe with a high velocity gun optimised for long range tank killing. Let's give it a big 700HP engine.
Is that a centurion MKI or a Panther?
Don't you get it that the M48 is just a M26 done right, wich easy exactly what the non Sherman Fans (hopless optimistic as they are) are asking for?
Given the massive ressources in the US, given that in 43 they had more tanks than they needed, given how well they went from the Lee to the Sherman, what's so hard about a better Serman in 43.
The 90mm is better than the 76mm for tank killing and better than the 75 for fire support. Fitting it in a Sherman chassis is as easy as a M36. Just change the turret design and replace all Sherman production with a 90mm version during 1943.
If the Sherman was so good, why can't people see that a 90mm one would be even better.

On the protection side it seems like it would be simple enough to redesign the Sherman with some sloped armor after some experience with the T-34 and Panther. I don't think it require much more of a redesign than going from the Lee/Grant to the Sherman required.

[Seraph]

Originally Posted by BigWillyG

On the protection side it seems like it would be simple enough to redesign the Sherman with some sloped armor after some experience with the T-34 and Panther. I don't think it require much more of a redesign than going from the Lee/Grant to the Sherman required.

It shouldn't be too hard. Sherman already has 47 degrees of slope. Pershing has the same though the M47 would have 60 degree which is where sloping providing a significant gains. Late war M4 Sherman would have 126mm of armor(LOS) compared to the 92mm(LOS) of OTL.
Not enough to resist the 75mm KwK 42, but is enough that it would allow the Sherman to close the gaps more easily. It may be just barely able to resist the 88 KwK guns(of the Tiger 1 and Flak gun fame, not the longer 88mm Kwk 42).

[MattII]

Originally Posted by AdA

That's the point, almost nothing. Not much more weight than the 76mm, you loose some ammo capacity because you're using bigger rounds.

You're upping the cross-section of the projectile by almost 50%, the length by probably not less than 20%, and probably also the muzzle velocity. Add that up and there's surely got to be a load more recoil to deal with.

Originally Posted by RamscoopRaider

Statistically you are about 6 times more likely to encounter an AT gun that can 1 hit KO you than a Tank than can do the same

Yes, but OTOH, a tank is mobile and has a turret, a gun is immobile and has a fixed line-of-fire, so in any situation other than street-fighting the ratio is going to be much less than 6:1.

[AdA]

Originally Posted by RamscoopRaider

I think you are using a flawed analysis method

There were 6,000 Panther Tanks and 1347 Tiger I and 497 Tiger II built

There were 23,500 Pak 40, 21,310 Flak 18/36/37/41 and 2,098 Pak 43 produced, plus 51 Pak 44, 150 Pak 41 and 3712 Pak 97/38

Statistically you are about 6 times more likely to encounter an AT gun that can 1 hit KO you than a Tank than can do the same

Therefore it makes more sense to optimize your engagement to fight the AT guns, a 50% increase in effectiveness against tanks is outweighed by a 10% decrease in effectiveness against AT guns, not counting a reduced effectiveness against AT weapon armed infantry or against MG nests and such that are attacking infantry, resulting in more infantry casualties

Essentially you are using the same logic that caused many front-line medics to call for the abandonment of helmets in WWI as their introduction caused more head injuries, the people at the front are not the ones doing statistical analysis, they are looking at their personal experience and tend to emphasize the negatives and overlook the positives

Edit: Now this equation did change after WWII as AT and Heavy AA guns that could be used in the AT role got much rarer relative to tanks, which explains the shift to a heavier tank ala the M-26/46/47/48 series

All around capability is why the 90mm would be better for the Sherman than the 17pdrs. The M36 packed 47 rounds of 90mm. The T25 48. Let's say a modified 90mm Sherman packs 45. You can have 15 AP and 30 HE, or 20/25. The 76 vs 75 arguments forget that the real option was the 90mm.
Interestingly, in late 44 a mix of 75% 90mm and 25% 105mm was being recommended. After the war they went for 90mm (with the T54 higher velocity gun) all around.

[Riain]

Originally Posted by RamscoopRaider

I think you are using a flawed analysis method

There were 6,000 Panther Tanks and 1347 Tiger I and 497 Tiger II built

There were 23,500 Pak 40, 21,310 Flak 18/36/37/41 and 2,098 Pak 43 produced, plus 51 Pak 44, 150 Pak 41 and 3712 Pak 97/38

Statistically you are about 6 times more likely to encounter an AT gun that can 1 hit KO you than a Tank than can do the same

Therefore it makes more sense to optimize your engagement to fight the AT guns, a 50% increase in effectiveness against tanks is outweighed by a 10% decrease in effectiveness against AT guns, not counting a reduced effectiveness against AT weapon armed infantry or against MG nests and such that are attacking infantry, resulting in more infantry casualties

Essentially you are using the same logic that caused many front-line medics to call for the abandonment of helmets in WWI as their introduction caused more head injuries, the people at the front are not the ones doing statistical analysis, they are looking at their personal experience and tend to emphasize the negatives and overlook the positives

Edit: Now this equation did change after WWII as AT and Heavy AA guns that could be used in the AT role got much rarer relative to tanks, which explains the shift to a heavier tank ala the M-26/46/47/48 series

The majority of such towed AT guns would not be bought into action because of the lack of mobility, and thus sit out many contacts that a SP ATG would/could be involved in due to their mobility. Towed ATG are also far more vulnerable to all sorts of enemy action, such as artillery, air strikes and even infantry attack, which are exactly the sort of thing SP ATG shrug off.

Personally I dislike the specialisation of SP TAG and Medium tanks with mediocre AT capability, especially when you can design a vehicle that does the lot.

[superkuf]

Originally Posted by RamscoopRaider

I think you are using a flawed analysis method

There were 6,000 Panther Tanks and 1347 Tiger I and 497 Tiger II built

There were 23,500 Pak 40, 21,310 Flak 18/36/37/41 and 2,098 Pak 43 produced, plus 51 Pak 44, 150 Pak 41 and 3712 Pak 97/38

Wasn't the biggest killer of WAllied tanks 1944-45 Panzerfausts and Panzerschrecks?

Also, AT guns were designed to be easy to camouflage (AA guns in AT use was a different story). The tank wouldn't get the first shot, so the quality of armement was fairly uninteresting.

The relevant question was the armour of M4 v M26/other heavy tanks. How was that?

[MattII]

A reasonably even layout I'm given to understand (compared to the Panther which had a ton on the front and not enough anywhere else), but with the height and weight a bit light overall.

[RamscoopRaider]

Originally Posted by Riain

The majority of such towed AT guns would not be bought into action because of the lack of mobility, and thus sit out many contacts that a SP ATG would/could be involved in due to their mobility. Towed ATG are also far more vulnerable to all sorts of enemy action, such as artillery, air strikes and even infantry attack, which are exactly the sort of thing SP ATG shrug off.

Personally I dislike the specialisation of SP TAG and Medium tanks with mediocre AT capability, especially when you can design a vehicle that does the lot.

And Towed AT guns do not spend half their time sitting in the shop getting their engines and transmissions repaired, and in any case I was just using that as an example

Considering most German tanks were killed by aircraft shrugging off air attacks is not the right word

You can design a vehicle that does a lot, true

But statistically that is not a good idea, you prepare for what you are most likely to encounter, that is infantry and AT guns (and those, along with mines killed the most Shermans historically not tanks), and then only after ensuring enough success against those do you prepare for dealing with the much rarer tank

If you optimize your Sherman to deal with tanks, then you will start having people cry for a better HE shell as losses due to infantry and AT guns climb

Edit: You could design a vehicle that can do both, but that vehicle would be much more expensive and in a World War numbers are at a premium, or you could design two one that does each which complicates your logistics more

[AdA]

The T25E1 weighted 77500lb.
A M4A3 weighted 68500lb
For those extra 9000lb you get:
Extra armour,
A much more powerful gun with both better AT and HE rounds
A better designed turret.

Now some people might say they want a tank that's optimised for infantry support ( and call it AT gun suppression)
Even knowing that standard practice to supress German AT guns was to call in artillery fire ( AT guns lack protection and once spotted, make ideal artillery targets, since it's hard to move them out discreetly) they have a right to like their tanks that way. But in that case why not argue for more Churchills, or better still, B1bis?
If you're not going to fight tanks with tanks, a mix of Chuchills for infantry support and Achilles for Panzer killing would be the way to go.
If you want to let your tanks fight Panzers, give them a decent gun!
And remember that those Panzers usually showed up were they weren't expected...

[merlin]

So the challenge is up for someone to do a TL whereby the US has a reducing number of 75 mm armed Shermans, whilst has an increasing number of M20 derived tanks, assisted by, perhaps, a sprinkling of 'heavy tanks'.
Target date - no earlier than May '44 and no later than the Battle of the Bulge.

Any takers!??

[AdA]

Originally Posted by merlin

So the challenge is up for someone to do a TL whereby the US has a reducing number of 75 mm armed Shermans, whilst has an increasing number of M20 derived tanks, assisted by, perhaps, a sprinkling of 'heavy tanks'.
Target date - no earlier than May '44 and no later than the Battle of the Bulge.

Any takers!??

Grand Blanc Arsenal built 40 T25E1 btw Jan and May 1944. Around that time they stoped building the M4A2 and built 3071 M4A3 until March 45. Since they were switching from one model to another, it would be easy to redirect them to build the T25E1 (renamed M25), wich gives enough time to have them in units for trainning before D Day and to have US armoured forces in Europe reequip with the M25 in time for it to be standard at Bulge.
Once the tanks are in Europe, and favourable reports come in, other factories can swich progressively, allowing the Brits to get some M25 too...
In July 44 a M6 was rearmed with a long 105mm in a new turret, responding to an urgent ETO requirement. It was planned to convert 15 M6 into this new M6A2E1 variant. The idea was droped and only two were converted and used for tests. All that's required I'd to actually implement the original plan, and to ship 15 to form an independent heavy tank battalion assigned to an armoured division. It can be done in time for Bulge, were the big gun ( later used in the T29) would have been wonderful for long range anti Tiger work...

[Herzen's love-child]

Originally Posted by RamscoopRaider

Considering most German tanks were killed by aircraft shrugging off air attacks is not the right word

RR, do you have a good source for this claim? I was under the impression that tank kill claims from the air was wildly exaggerated during WW2.

[RamscoopRaider]

Originally Posted by Herzen's love-child

RR, do you have a good source for this claim? I was under the impression that tank kill claims from the air was wildly exaggerated during WW2.

No, I have a half dozen mediocre sources that say the same thing and some conjectural evidence but no really good sources

[Herzen's love-child]

I wonder, if one accepts that most German tank kills of both Western Allied & Soviet tanks were either by AT cannon or by Panzerfaust/Panzershreck weapons (late in the War, particularly)as opposed to by Tank/specialty Tank-killer variants ---Does it really matter if an up-gunned Sherman or a Heavy Tank was available in numbers?

Or is this a false premise? I don't have an immediate source handy to support this, operating from a smart phone at the moment.

[Riain]

I wonder how a thread about heavy tanks, the T1/M6 in particular, has managed to talk about nothing other than Shermans. I also wonder how, when all other powers managed to sucessfully field heavy tanks, people can argue until they're blue in the face that the heavy tank is shit and the Sherman is awesome.

[Jello_Biafra]

Originally Posted by Riain

I wonder how a thread about heavy tanks, the T1/M6 in particular, has managed to talk about nothing other than Shermans. I also wonder how, when all other powers managed to sucessfully field heavy tanks, people can argue until they're blue in the face that the heavy tank is shit and the Sherman is awesome.

Other powers didn't need to cram their tanks into ships and send them 3,000+ miles, and then disembark them in specialized landing ships to get them to the front. The logistical difficulties the US faced are greater than the other belligerents in WW2.

Larger, heavier tanks place an undue strain on the logistics. The capacity just didn't exist for most of the war to actually get them into the ETO in any numbers. Getting a few hundred heavy tanks would mean thousands fewer Shermans, trucks, artillery pieces, etc. Honestly, it wasn't worth the trade off.

Had we had stable port facilities disembark at, and could get tanks to the front by rail, then the calculus would've changed. But that wasn't in the cards.

[MattII]

Originally Posted by Riain

I also wonder how, when all other powers managed to sucessfully field heavy tanks, people can argue until they're blue in the face that the heavy tank is shit and the Sherman is awesome.

Well the Churchill was never able to mount larger than a 6-pounder, the Panther and the Tigers were both overly complicated and unreliable (and in addition the Panther's armour layout was quite poor if it was forced into anything but a street-fight), and the KV series, while effective at first suffered later as a result of armour-only upgrades. The IS-2 might have been good, but for the A-19 which seriously hampered its ability to hurt Panthers (in comparison to the alternative, the BS-3, which had trouble with anything that wasn't well armoured), and the IS-3 had its own problems like a cramped turret, and a limited gun-depression angle.

Compared to that the M26 was probably comparable, but that would be about it. All in all, heavy tanks were, while a good idea, generally not as good as they could have been.

[Riain]

Britain did, for years it's main front was in North Africa and the Med was blockaded. I think the sea argument is overblown, the Allies could have found or built ships to carry heavy tanks. Besides, prewar tank design was limited by railway loading gauge yet that limitation was overcome when war began.