US heavy tanks.

[Riain]

I've started playing World of Tanks and have been impressed by the research the makers have done into obscure armoured vehicles. In particular I've been interested in the US T1 and M6 heavy tanks, which are killing me at this point in the game. Only 40 of of the planned 230 of these T1/M6 heavy tanks were produced from December 1942 because they offered few major advantages over the Sherman to warrant their mass production.

But WI the US Army fell arse backwards into the right formula from the very start, and equipped the very first T1 with the then new 90mm M1 AA gun? When late 1942 rolled around would this very powerful gun, allied with very thick armour, be enough to have all 230 of these tanks built and see combat? What about follow-on orders and combat up until D-day?

[sharlin]

The M1/M6 were quite well armed but mechanically they were less reliable than an unreliable thing on an unreliable day and they were HUGE which would cut down on the numbers available to be shipped. When its a case of 4 heavy tanks or 6 mediums taking the mediums makes more sense.

[DD951]

There's also the issue that such a tank would be too heavy for the existing landing craft- the Sherman was about as big & as heavy as those could take, & as the USN discovered post-war, to make a landing craft that could carry a heavier tank, it'd be necessary to build one with skilled labor to naval design standards & using warship-grade material, which was in somewhat short supply, as opposed to the simple, mercantile standards & cheapest materials that would work by semi-skilled labor in the interests of mass-production using resources that weren't needed elsewhere during the war.

If those heavy tanks were deployed, they'd be stuck in shipment until a functional port was captured so they could be unloaded

[Gunnarnz]

Agreed; it doesn't usually pay to ignore the importance of having sufficient quantities of equipment. Also, as I understand it, America standardised fairly early in the war on the Sherman hull for most of it's tank-like objects. Whatever the merits or drawbacks of this design (and theres plenty of debate about both), the policy as a whole paid off because of the predictability it allowed. Landing craft could be designed with the dimensions of the AFVs they would have to carry known from the start, for example, and a common set of logistics and maintenance practices put in place. One of the great strengths the US forces had was the amount of effort and thought they put into such aspects, and in my opinion they were rewarded handsomely for doing so.

[Delta Force]

American medium tanks were intended to operate alongside the infantry and not to fight enemy tanks. The tank destroyers were intended to do the tank hunting. It would need a change in doctrine for heavy tanks to see widespread adoption for the US in World War II.

[MattII]

Originally Posted by DD951

If those heavy tanks were deployed, they'd be stuck in shipment until a functional port was captured so they could be unloaded

Except that they could be launched well by a LST, so that's not such a limitation. Of course they require their own unique chain of spare parts (nothing uses that hull), so there are still going to be logistical issues, which is probably going to see them held back until there's no actual need for them anymore.

[Riain]

In my mind US armoured development was based on a number of assumptions, many of which were not realised in combat. A line of heavy tanks available in 1943 could ameliorate some of these shortfalls, instead of stopgaps like the Firefly.

I find a lot of the problems bought up about these heavy tanks sounding like justification after the fact. Talk of tank destroyer doctrine and reliability ring pretty hollow to me when it took 6 Shermans to destroy a Panther or Tiger, 5 of which would be destroyed or badly damaged. As for production, the US built 43,000 tanks in 1943, you can't tell me building a couple of thousand M6s at the expsense of others would put much of a dent in that total.

Heavy Tanks don't have to be landed on D-day to be valuable. They can be bought into action a couple of days or even weeks later and still be involved in almost a year's fighting, not counting the Italian campaign and North Africa. I doubt the US logistic organisation would break down upon the adddition of some heavy tank regiments when it was supporting serveral large armies well enough.

[Flubber]

Originally Posted by Riain

I find a lot of the problems bought up about these heavy tanks sounding like justification after the fact. Talk of tank destroyer doctrine and reliability ring pretty hollow to me when it took 6 Shermans to destroy a Panther or Tiger, 5 of which would be destroyed or badly damaged.

Not this nonsense again...

Let me link you to this thread and especially the posts by Andras. Start at post #22 and #26.

You'd think as many times as tanks are discussed here some information would finally sink in with some people...

[MattII]

Also, the Sherman Firefly knocked spots off the Panthers (several crews aced against them, at least two gained all five kills in the same day), that 17 pdr was brilliant against tanks, although middling to crap against everything else.

[Riain]

Originally Posted by Flubber

Not this nonsense again...

Let me link you to this thread and especially the posts by Andras. Start at post #22 and #26.

You'd think as many times as tanks are discussed here some information would finally sink in with some people...

That's a good report, and I don't doubt it's validity, but in my experience those reports often raise more questions than they answer. For example why were US forces able to shoot first in the 4 most common Panther engagements? What about the engagements in June and July 1944, or December 1944 to April 1945? Or if US tanks were so effective why was the Firefly needed, or the immature T26 rushed to Europe during the early stages of the Ardennes offensive?

I'm reminded of the report (I can't remember the author) which Martin Van Creveld used as source material in his book "Fighting Power." The evidence is there in black and white, but it makes people go red with disbelief when they see the conclusions it draws.

But anyway, the original question was if the US put a 90mm gun on the original T1 back in the original concept would the 230 contracted T1/M6s get built and would there have been further contracts and combat use.

[Flubber]

Originally Posted by Riain

That's a good report, and I don't doubt it's validity...

Then why did you make the statements you did?

For example why were US forces able to shoot first in the 4 most common Panther engagements?

That's explained several times in the thread I linked you to. Among other things, the Sherman had a gyroscopic gun stabilizer, a faster power traverse, and a much better search periscope than it's opponents. That meant Sherman tanks more often could find their targets sooner, lay their gun on the target faster and while still moving, and then shoot first after stopping.

What about the engagements in June and July 1944, or December 1944 to April 1945? Or if US tanks were so effective why was the Firefly needed, or the immature T26 rushed to Europe during the early stages of the Ardennes offensive?

The thread quotes other reports covering other time periods and the thread answers your other questions too.

The Sherman wasn't perfect and other designs were needed for other roles, but the Sherman wasn't the piece of shit too many people want to believe it was.

I'm reminded of the report (I can't remember the author) which Martin Van Creveld used as source material in his book "Fighting Power." The evidence is there in black and white, but it makes people go red with disbelief when they see the conclusions it draws.

You can see that in the thread I linked too. The Tiger and Panther fanboys went absolutely apeshit when presented with the facts.

[Astrodragon]

Originally Posted by DD951

There's also the issue that such a tank would be too heavy for the existing landing craft- the Sherman was about as big & as heavy as those could take, & as the USN discovered post-war, to make a landing craft that could carry a heavier tank, it'd be necessary to build one with skilled labor to naval design standards & using warship-grade material, which was in somewhat short supply, as opposed to the simple, mercantile standards & cheapest materials that would work by semi-skilled labor in the interests of mass-production using resources that weren't needed elsewhere during the war.

If those heavy tanks were deployed, they'd be stuck in shipment until a functional port was captured so they could be unloaded

OK, and the British shipped the considerably heavier Churchill tank around how, exactly?

[Riain]

Originally Posted by Flubber

Then why did you make the statements you did?

Because in my experience reports like that raise more questions then they answer, like I said. In my experience Sherman fanboys are just as rabid and Panther fanboys, perhaps moreso because of the tide of belief that they struggle against. What's more Sherman fanboys don't tend to like the Easy 8, they like the older versions with the 75mm gun.

But this thread wasn't about Shermans, it was about T1/M6.

[Flubber]

Originally Posted by Riain

Because in my experience reports like that raise more questions then they answer, like I said.

Like I said, the questions you asked are answered in that thread. You just have to read it.

But this thread wasn't about Shermans, it was about T1/M6.

This thread is about why the US didn't make more T1/M6 tanks and fewer Shermans. That question is answered in the other thread too, if you bother to read it.

[Hyperbolus]

If the primary justification for deploying M6 tanks is fielding the 90mm gun, wouldn't something like the historical M36 'Jackson' tank destroyer make more sense?
Smaller, proven automotive components, etc., obviously short on armor protection, but perfection is a willow wisp and WWII was littered with agonizing decisions.

[DD951]

Originally Posted by Astrodragon

OK, and the British shipped the considerably heavier Churchill tank around how, exactly?

Well, I was referring to US LST-1 & LST-524 classes, which could carry tanks that weighed up to 32-33 tons in size on the tank deck (both designed around the Sherman & that being a limit of the materials & capabilities of the workers available for building landing craft (one of the major improvements with the post-war Terrebone Parish class LST was being built with enough strength & big enough tank deck doors to be able to land a Patton tank directly on the beach & I'm not exactly sure how relevant the limits of what the USN is building are, when the British have an assortment of different types of landing craft that they built & designed themselves

[AdA]

As soon as WW2 ended the US went for what would have been a WW2 heavy, the M47, as a standard tank. The Brits went for the Centurion, again something that would be regarded as a heavy tank in 1944. So the countries that operated Shermans in WW2 switched for heavier, harder hitting tanks whose spec page is very close to the Panther. That makes one wonder who was really writing those Sherman fan letters M4 fans keep coting...
Shermans were liked in Korea, but only after the Airforce an the M26s had taken out North Korean armour.
Normandy was probably the worst possible place in Europe to use Panthers. The much talked about 5 to 1 ratio was an estimate made by the British Armoured forces based on open ground combat scenarios. Kill ratios are a lot like Greek economy numbers. It's all about how you do the math.

[Snake Featherston]

The USA had to ship its tanks all the way around the world over multiple oceans, the USSR did not. This is one reason why the USA relied on Shermans and the Soviets on T-34s and Stalins. The Soviets had the relative luxury of both infinite logistics and a one-front war, the Allies in the West had nothing of the sort. There were reasons the two adopted such different policies (though the development of strategic air power was IMHO a curse in disguise for the West, and certainly fubared its military structure).

[ivanotter]

You may want to look here:
http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.p...ssing-us-tank/

That is a novel idea


Yours,

[AdA]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

The USA had to ship its tanks all the way around the world over multiple oceans, the USSR did not. This is one reason why the USA relied on Shermans and the Soviets on T-34s and Stalins. The Soviets had the relative luxury of both infinite logistics and a one-front war, the Allies in the West had nothing of the sort. There were reasons the two adopted such different policies (though the development of strategic air power was IMHO a curse in disguise for the West, and certainly fubared its military structure).

The T34 is as easy to deploy as the Sherman. The real debate is why the US failed to mass produce an upgraded Sherman with the 90mm, or just field the T25 as a M4 replacement. Starting with the large turret of the (76) versions, a 90mm Sherman should have been a no brainer.
A M4A3(90)(HVSS)(W) would have been the wining ticket for Europe in 1944, would not hamper production and would fit existing transport...