American supertanks

[MacCaulay]

It was the T-28 Super Heavy Tank...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank

Impractical really, maybe in Japan as a part of an invasion to smash bunkers but a Pershing with a bit of spaced armor would save the same purpose with a 90mm gun and much better logistics fit. The T-28 would have taken up far too much lift capacity.

Well, the argument could be made you don't need a large gun to do it, either. Armoured infantry tactics for taking out bunkers along the Siegfried Line or hedgerows in Normandy developed a number of ways for busting fortifications that didn't involve large guns.

The most notorious, and some would say least humane, would be WP, Willy Pete, or White Phosphorus. It will burn through dirt, concrete, clothes, and skin. Oddly enough, it seems to me to be a peculiarly European front thing. I can't actually recall reading any books where the USMC used it on Japanese fortifications.

 

[Blair152]

It was COMPETITIVE against the Panzer IV, but if you are stuck in an American tank, won't you want something alot better? And sometimes you COULDN'T get away, and sometimes a P-47 WASN'T available. Sometimes you COULDN'T get around it to attack the side/rear. And sometimes running away meant leaving the infantry to their fate. And again, by blowing up all those Shermans (And now that you mention it, M-10s) you increase war orders for tank chassis, meaning even MORE $$$ for Detroit. Sorry, but sometimes even the commies are right.

The Panzer IV was a virtual tin can to a Pershing, the Panzer V had a better chance, but really not by a whole lot. The Tiger I had shock trap issues that meant head to head the Pershing STILL had the advantage. Though no Pershing ever MET any Tiger, I'm sure head to head the King Tiger II WOULD have the advantage, if only because of it's ridiculously overbuilt frontal armor (Along with the Maus and Elephant). But then, the frontal armor of a Tiger II would give problems for any American tank short of the M-1 Abrams.

Still, the doctrine issue you've raised was so etched in stone it took a seeming military defeat in the Bulge to get the desk soldiers moving. That and a direct order from President Roosevelt.

Why do you think the Shermans ganged up on the Tigers? Never bring a knife to a gunfight. It's just not fair. But when it comes to the Sherman and the Tiger, it's good to have the knife.

 

[usertron2020]

IIRC, Tiger v. Pershing firefights did happen a couple times at the end of the war, and the score from those was 2 Tigers destroyed for the loss of 1 Pershing, although that's not much of a sample for assessing relative capability.

Thanks for the info. Do you remember if they were Tiger I's or II's?

 

[usertron2020]

I don't want to talk about it

Why do you think the Shermans ganged up on the Tigers? Never bring a knife to a gunfight. It's just not fair. But when it comes to the Sherman and the Tiger, it's good to have the knife.

Of course, if you ARE the knife, and the gun shoots six knives before the gun gets stabbed? Not so good for the knives. I wonder how US WWII tankers would feel about this thread? Probably too painfull for them to respond.

 

[DaleCoz]

The US had several chances to make the Sherman more competitive. The most obvious was to increase the percentage with 76mm guns instead of 75mm guns. The 76 had a longer barrel and higher muzzle velocity than the 75. Give crews some of the better armor piercing rounds that historically went mostly to tank destroyer in the early going, and it would have done considerably better than it did historically. There were also projects to give the Sherman a US-designed longer-barreled 75mm gun comparable to the ones in the Sherman Firefly or a 90mm gun like the one in the Pershing.

One of the issues with the Sherman was that giving it a longer gun meant shipping fewer tanks in a given space because if the gun extended beyond the chassis that meant you couldn't pack them "bumper to bumper".

Another option with some potential might have been to bring one of the early vehicles in the T20 series that eventually led to the Pershing into production. Unfortunately, designers spent a lot of time on the T23, which as I recall it had an electric transmission. Not a bad idea necessarily, but retraining the mechanics would have been a bear. If I recall correctly, the US actually built close to 250 T23s of various versions, though they never entered combat. The T23 had a 76mm gun. It led to the T25, which ditched the electric transmission and added a 90mm gun. The US produced either 10 or 40 T25s. I can't remember which. They split an order of 50 tanks 10/40 between T25s and T26s (Pershing prototypes), but I can't remember which got the 10 and which got the 40. In any case, the Pershing was essentially an up-armored T25. Standardizing the T25 might have made sense, or going with a version of the T23 sans electric transmission initially and then upgunning to 90 mm when necessary.

Late model Shermans got the turret from the T23, so it did make some contribution. I believe someone suggested sending the existing T23s to Europe when the 75mm Shermans proved inadequate, but the maintenance issues shot that down (plus, undoubtedly, the logistic issues of supporting another type of medium tank in the theater)

 

[aktarian]

The US had several chances to make the Sherman more competitive. The most obvious was to increase the percentage with 76mm guns instead of 75mm guns. The 76 had a longer barrel and higher muzzle velocity than the 75. Give crews some of the better armor piercing rounds that historically went mostly to tank destroyer in the early going, and it would have done considerably better than it did historically. There were also projects to give the Sherman a US-designed longer-barreled 75mm gun comparable to the ones in the Sherman Firefly or a 90mm gun like the one in the Pershing.

Pre-Normandy that was not seen as necessary as 76mm gave only slight HE advantage (which was seen as most important aspect of tank guns) but would require either massive upgrade effort if done on all tanks or two sets of ammo if done on part of tank fleet. Either way, too much effort for percieved too little gain.

 

[MacCaulay]

The US had several chances to make the Sherman more competitive. The most obvious was to increase the percentage with 76mm guns instead of 75mm guns. The 76 had a longer barrel and higher muzzle velocity than the 75. Give crews some of the better armor piercing rounds that historically went mostly to tank destroyer in the early going, and it would have done considerably better than it did historically. There were also projects to give the Sherman a US-designed longer-barreled 75mm gun comparable to the ones in the Sherman Firefly or a 90mm gun like the one in the Pershing.

One of the issues with the Sherman was that giving it a longer gun meant shipping fewer tanks in a given space because if the gun extended beyond the chassis that meant you couldn't pack them "bumper to bumper".

Also, according to M4 (76mm) Sherman Medium Tank by Steven Zaloga, there was also the pressing fact that had they even decided to upgrade 3/4 of the existing tanks to any of those standards, that would've meant doing it to the chassis' in theatre.

And pulling units out of the line in France to mess with their tanks wasn't a welcome thought. Heck, even when they introduced the 76mm gun it was given to company commanders first in some units because the regular tank crews didn't want to stray from a gun that (even though it was underpowered) they were familiar with.

 

[usertron2020]

OK, Captain, I guess we can try to figure this one out!

Also, according to M4 (76mm) Sherman Medium Tank by Steven Zaloga, there was also the pressing fact that had they even decided to upgrade 3/4 of the existing tanks to any of those standards, that would've meant doing it to the chassis' in theatre.

And pulling units out of the line in France to mess with their tanks wasn't a welcome thought. Heck, even when they introduced the 76mm gun it was given to company commanders first in some units because the regular tank crews didn't want to stray from a gun that (even though it was underpowered) they were familiar with.

I agree that changing to the 76mm wouldn't be seen by the crews as worth it since they were still fighting in the M4 Armored Crematorium, but I imagine they would have sung a whole different tune at the sight of an M26 Pershing.

 

[MacCaulay]

I agree that changing to the 76mm wouldn't be seen by the crews as worth it since they were still fighting in the M4 Armored Crematorium, but I imagine they would have sung a whole different tune at the sight of an M26 Pershing.

That's different. You're not talking about taking the tank out of the line there. You're talking about replacing it with a better one. Of course in that case the better option would be to just train units coming into the theatre on the new weapons system, and then have them replace the units operating the older weapons system on the line.

Then no one's switching horses and momentum isn't lost.

 

[Seraph]

Wikipedia says that other then Normandy(due to the lack of full port facilities), the benefits in shipping the M-4 over the M-26 was mariginal. Any truth to this?

There are many reasons the M-4 never got its armor or gun upgraded or ways it could of performed better.
To sum up the reasons.
Doctrine ~ As mentioned, tanks don't fight tanks. Some people may point out that only a very small number of Shermans will taken out by tanks. I would mentioned that the number disparity between US tanks and German tanks creates a bias.
Edit: We also had General Leslie McNair pushing his Tank Destroyer concept and blocking any attempts for major improvements to the Sherman or introducing the M-26.
Logistic ~ The shipping and bridges concerns have been mentioned as well training the crews on the new equipment. There is also the issue of ammo supply as the US Army wanted to avoid adding another tank ammo to its supply chain. I can think of 37mm, 75mm, 76mm, and 105mm of calibers that are all tank guns off the top of my head.
Edit: And then there is the 90mm of course on the M-26 and M-36. I believe adding the 90mm to the existing ones above to the supply chain was something the US Army didn't want to do, but was forced to.
Training ~ training for US tankers for the most part was very bad. As in, just somewhat better then the Soviets. Some of tanker crews would shoot the gun once in the field and that would be all the training they got(an effect of the Replacement System). The fact that commanders treated their tanks as rounds of ammo didn't help matters either. And ill trained crews thought every German tank was a Tiger.
The fact that crews would fill every nook and cranny with ammo is another issue as that made the tank burn so easily and countered the upgrades to prevent fires exploding the ammo bins.
Lack of foreseen Need / Intel failure ~ Overkill as idea hasn't been thought of yet it seems as US Army thought they be facing the same tanks in N. Africa with a small trickle of Panthers and Tigers. Intel didn't learn of the true numbers of Panthers(which showed it was a major production design, not a rare one) that Germany had until shortly before D-day. Until about Normandy, they didn't even tests their weapons against actual German tanks if I recall correctly.

 

[MacCaulay]

There is also the issue of ammo supply as the US Army wanted to avoid adding another tank ammo to its supply chain. I can think of 37mm, 75mm, 76mm, and 105mm of calibers that are all tank guns off the top of my head.

And that's just American stuff. Some guy awhile ago asked why the US Army just didn't use the Firefly, and that was why. Of all the large ammo types they were using, the last thing the Red Eye Express needed was to start lugging 20 pdr. ammo as well.

 

[Seraph]

And that's just American stuff. Some guy awhile ago asked why the US Army just didn't use the Firefly, and that was why. Of all the large ammo types they were using, the last thing the Red Eye Express needed was to start lugging 20 pdr. ammo as well.

I believe production was another issue. Britain was basically the only producer of the weapon and they already were struggling to equip all of their forces with the gun.

 

[MacCaulay]

I believe production was another issue. Britain was basically the only producer of the weapon and they already were struggling to equip all of their forces with the gun.

Well, you can tool for something else. It's not incredibly hard. I work in a machine shop and it's not insanely hard to switch from standard to metric. There's nothing hard about it, but who wants that? Of course, 20 pdr. isn't metric. Or standard. Christ, I don't know what that is.

 

[eltf177]

It was the T-28 Super Heavy Tank...

It really wasn't a tank, it was an assault gun designed to be used against fortifications (primarily the German Westwall as well as Japanese fortifications during Operation's Olympic and Coronet). This meant its slow speed wasn't much of a problem.

 

[Blair152]

Of course, if you ARE the knife, and the gun shoots six knives before the gun gets stabbed? Not so good for the knives. I wonder how US WWII tankers would feel about this thread? Probably too painfull for them to respond.

The Sherman was the knife. Of course, if the Sherman had had a 90mm gun, despite being made of cardboard, it could have been fairly competitive.

 

[G.Fieendish]

Did the JS III qualify?

The Russians never actually used it that much, as it's engine was prone to chronic overheating, even in arctic conditions, so much so, they had to redesign the engine deck 3 times, eventually using the T-54's engine...
Most JSIII's went straight to storage depots, & the only army that used the JSIII to any extent was Egypt in the 1960's, where Isreali Centurions & Super Shermans effectively massacred them during the 6 Day War, though this was mainly due to the poor training given to Egyptian tank crews at the time...
The JSIII's that were captured were briefly used by the Israeli Defence forces, before being scrapped due to the engine overheating, despite Israeli attempts to remedy this, by altering the engine deck to match the T-55, & using the improved T-55 engine...

 

[Dan Reilly The Great]

I always wondered, being that having better tanks means that you won't need quite so many, wouldn't it mean that your logistics problems are less severe if you don't need quite so many in the war? For example if the low survivability of the sherman nessitated that you actually needed 10,000 in the ETO, but you could do just as good a job with only 5,000 pershings, wouldn't that require less fuel and ammo, and far less replacement personnell and thus be far less of a logistical strain?


As far as the OP, I tend to think that if there was a nation in WWII that had the ability to successfully field a super heavy tank it was the US. They had all the proper requirements to do so, including the industrial capacity, fuel supplies, logistics, and air superiority. Even if it didn't make any sense to do so, if the armchair generals at the war dept got to thinking that they needed to use super heavy tanks I could see the US army just building roads ahead of their armies just so they could use the damn things.

 

[usertron2020]

I always wondered, being that having better tanks means that you won't need quite so many, wouldn't it mean that your logistics problems are less severe if you don't need quite so many in the war? For example if the low survivability of the sherman nessitated that you actually needed 10,000 in the ETO, but you could do just as good a job with only 5,000 pershings, wouldn't that require less fuel and ammo, and far less replacement personnell and thus be far less of a logistical strain?


As far as the OP, I tend to think that if there was a nation in WWII that had the ability to successfully field a super heavy tank it was the US. They had all the proper requirements to do so, including the industrial capacity, fuel supplies, logistics, and air superiority. Even if it didn't make any sense to do so, if the armchair generals at the war dept got to thinking that they needed to use super heavy tanks I could see the US army just building roads ahead of their armies just so they could use the damn things.

Except when you have the head of the US Army Armor Replacement Command staking his reputation on the idea that the war would be won or losteek:?) with the M4? It takes FDR and the Ardennes Offensive to break the logjam! But I guess the most important thing was that Detroit made a fortune$$$. No wonder the Soviets found a picture of Henry Ford on the wall of an office in Hitler's Bunker.

 

[Blair152]

Except when you have the head of the US Army Armor Replacement Command staking his reputation on the idea that the war would be won or losteek:?) with the M4? It takes FDR and the Ardennes Offensive to break the logjam! But I guess the most important thing was that Detroit made a fortune$$$. No wonder the Soviets found a picture of Henry Ford on the wall of an office in Hitler's Bunker.

The first versions of the Sherman had diesel engines. Much safer than the
gasoline engines that the Americans ultimately put in them. Diesel engines
are safer than gasoline engines in that they have a higher rate of combustion, and diesel fuel, unlike gasoline, doesn't ignite as fast. Diesel
powered Shermans were either sent to Britain as Lend-Lease tanks, or kept here, for training purposes. The 75mm gun of the Sherman was weak. The
76mm gun probably would have been only slighter better. The Israelis put a 90mm gun on the surplus Shermans we'd sent them in the late 1940s.

 

[Bookeater]

I've often wondered why US armoured command would have tolerated a tank that could light up so quick. It'd reduced a crews chances of survival and that would ultimately mean less veteran crews in regiments.An exprienced tank crew is kinda handy to have around,ie teach new crews how to get killed and how survive tough situations. US commanders couldn't have had the Russian attitude,ie 'we have reserves', could they?