Earlier replacement M4 Sherman

Though as proved by the Israeli M50 Sherman, far larger cannon could be fitted.
Recoil energy wise, that 75mm had similar recoil energy as the US 90mm.
The CN 75-50 case was 75x597R , the US M3 90x600R

Yes it was fitted & tested by the US Army in 1943-44 as well, but rejected as a inferior solution. The Isralis went that route as they could not acquire all the larger chassis of reliable models they wanted. They used AMX-13 & salvaged Soviet T54 chassis as well, tho they considered them markedly inferior to the types they actually wanted.
 

Driftless

Donor
Why not just buy the Centurion, or would that be case of, if it isn't US it must be sh1t?

The US has/had as much Not-Invented-Here disease as any country; but hardly a monopoly. ;)

Conversely, the US did use a number of British made or licensed weapons during WW2: Ordnance QF 6lb AT/57mm gun(extensively), Mosquito, Spitfire, Beaufighter, etc.

In hindsight, the Centurion would have been a solid choice
 
The US has/had as much Not-Invented-Here disease as any country; but hardly a monopoly. ;)

Conversely, the US did use a number of British made or licensed weapons during WW2: Ordnance QF 6lb AT/57mm gun(extensively), Mosquito, Spitfire, Beaufighter, etc.

In hindsight, the Centurion would have been a solid choice

Except, it would not be an earlier solution - at least the Pershing saw service in '45, the Centurion did not.
 

Driftless

Donor
Except, it would not be an earlier solution - at least the Pershing saw service in '45, the Centurion did not.

No argument on the timeline: the Pershing was ready earlier. Still, as we've seen the Centurion design has had "legs". It was good early on and proved to be adaptable.
 
The T20/T23 with the Ford V8 and the 76mm going into mass production in late 43 with the intention to replace the M4 in US and British service in time for the Normandy landings would have been the obvious choice with the same sort of weight and size it would not impose Transport/logistical issues or be unable to cross the sort of Bridges the T26 had problem's with.

Despite the small scale production of this tank 250+ were still built in 1943

That being said still build the 'Heavy' T26 armed with it's 90mm and plan for it to be in mass production by late 44 - just not as the replacement for the M4.

That all being said I think simply making certain improvements earlier to the M4 would be less risky but certainly deliver dividends!
 
Did you get to Hunnicutts books?



All of twelve Tigers were in the battalion deployed to Tunisia. Only a few more were operational in Sicilly & Italy. A single battalion of Panthers was deployed to Italy in late 1943. For the most part US intelligence saw the new models of MkIV, or high powered AT guns as the primary threat at the end of 1943. The role the Tigers in Tunisia had in destroying LtCol Hightowers tank battalion was not understood until after the war.

In Normady excatly one Panther battalion fought against the US 1st Army from June 6th until the end of July. All the Tiger battalions were deployed vs the Brits. Tho one plt of 3-4 Tigers may have drifted into the far left flank of the US sector.

Through the remainder of 1944 15% or less of the tank vs tank encounters of the US Army were against Tiger or Panther tanks. The majority were vs the MkIV or non turreted AFV.

regarding Hunicutt, no. I knew those books existed but the wife gets grumpy when I spend that much on a book ($70 or more used) and there isn't a good library in my part of rural Missouri that has them

they look interesting though

the numbers of Tigers and Panthers are indeed a major factor. Even in OTL Normandy, the Germans only had a few Tigers and Panthers facing the American front, and the only really big battle was in the Ardennes where the American fought a large number of the big German tanks. A few engagements with the hurriedly put together German armored brigades in the Fall (and even those usually had only a battalion of Panthers, at most which means only 30-40 tanks actually running on any given day)
 
Last edited:
Not to derail the discussion but to perhaps add another perspective on "why" that might further the thinking, I offer that the notion is that the M4 was inferior to its opponents and the leadership failed in not putting something better on the battle field.

First, this notion begins as one focuses on tactical and operational use of the M4 and its battles with the better German armor (or potentially other tanks like the T-34 or KV). If one war games at the company or battalion level the M4 is not as much fun as say Panthers or Tigers, but move to the strategic level and those issues fade. I would love to command a fully fueled, fully armed and rested King Tiger unit versus anything on the field to see how it performs (same for Panthers or Tiger I's). Take away chronic fuel shortages, inexperienced crew with rushed training, not enough parts or tanks because air has destroyed them on the march and so on and we land back at how the war really happened with its lack of appeal to some thinkers. And obviously it would be a joy to battle Panzers in an M26 or Centurion unit.

Second, the value of an M4 is at the strategic level when the United States is building and deploying its armor half way around the world and then sustaining it in operations to last several years. That gets us into the relatively boring topics of industrial and transportation capacity, resource priorities, logistics and so on. Simply put the M4 (or something like it) is the better choice for winning the war rather than the battles.

The balancing between protection, firepower and mobility casts its shadow over the entire Army, most obviously upon a tank. To date you get two out of three at best, hence the Tank Destroyer doctrine where you desire firepower and mobility you give away protection or the heavy tank where you want protection and firepower and you pay with mobility. So all that serves to reiterate what others have said so well, in light of the nature of alternatives, one must alter the war itself to alter why we built thousands of M4s and won the war despite all its flaws and vulnerability versus certain of its opponents.

Put the United States in a more serious ground war versus the Wehrmacht, say in North Africa where Germany is still neutral with the USSR who supplies oil (and Germany gets supplies of Tungsten for better anti-tank ammunition) and watch the Army shift what it builds and deploys. Or chase other rabbits like the US and USSR having Tank-vs-Tank battles in China or East Europe. Any way I hope that adds grist to the thought mills.
 
Given this history, what would be required for an earlier replacement of the M4 Sherman as the allied standard tank. Would it be as easy as abolishing the existing tank destroyer doctrine?

It would take the US investing in tank production and design a few year's earlier. Then using those tanks in combat to receive real data. Just like the Germans, British, and Russians.
 
It would take the US investing in tank production and design a few year's earlier. Then using those tanks in combat to receive real data. Just like the Germans, British, and Russians.

The M4X improvement program started in May, 1942

First M4A1 built were in February, 1942

First combat was with Lend Leased M4A1 in October, 1942

Early design was this, from ASF, Army Service Forces

BpLLG2s.jpg


Note M6 Tank suspension components
Before things shifted to the T20 series

Now All ASF requests had to go thru AGF, Army Ground Forces, headed by McNair.

Ordnance wanted the T20 series.
McNair didn't want either.

He wanted three things
TDs
Towed AT Guns.
As many M4s as could be built

General Barnes, the leading supporter of the T20 series, wanted all new medium tanks to have the 90mm in March, 1943.
He was overruled by McNair. Do note that Barnes meant 90mm what would be the T25 and T26, not to upgrade existing M4s or for the T23.
He was very against that, thinking it would be 'unbalanced'.

McNair really didn't want the 90mm even in what would be the M36, but wanting it towed, instead.

Now how fast could a new design be done?

The M18 Hellcat, went from paper to production, and had little parts commonality in any other AFV, in just over a year.

That project, however, had McNair's blessing, that brought with it AA1 production priority.
The T20 was much lower priority
 
Last edited:
It would take the US investing in tank production and design a few year's earlier. Then using those tanks in combat to receive real data. Just like the Germans, British, and Russians.

The T20-T26 series & about everything else in US tank design from latter 1942 was the result of a team or ordnance & automotive engineering officers picking apart the battlefield in the western desert in the winter & early spring of 1942. They studied every wreck they could could reach, noting what hit it, where, the resulting damage ect... They consulted extensively with the Brits present and brought back documents from British studies. the results went into the specs for the T20 & derived models, and into some of the 30,000+ modifications that went into the M4 series.

Hunnicutt remarks on this in his opening chapter.
 
Last edited:
Comparative illustrations o the M4 & contemporary tanks were posted earlier in the thread. Attached is a side by side of a M26 & a later model M4. The M26 differed from the original T20 prototypes in detail, but the basic hull was very close in exterior dimensions, I took the specific photos to show how the 'heavier' M26 had a significantly lower silhouette than the M4. While the tracks are slightly higher than the M4 the hull height was a 'must' in the conclusions from the battlefield study. the team noted hits in the track area resulted in far more salvagable tanks, while hull areas above the tracks were prime penetration areas. Mass reduction from a lower hull meant more weight could be committed to armor thickness.

It was also found that over emphasis on frontal armor was wrong. The sides needed to be fairly thick as well, and sloped wherever possible. Hits on the sides were much higher proportion than had been assumed.

M4 Reduced.jpg
 
Last edited:
This is the T20 version with the torsion bar suspension. The original specs called for the same volute spring system used on the US M2, M3, & M4, but those were modified & the prototypes with torsion bar suspension were built in parallel.

T20image.jpg
 
Last edited:
This chart shows when the assorted prototypes & test models were built. Most of the different models, T20, T22, T25 were constructed during the same months, but note the earlier emphasis on the electric drive T23. Of all the models this had been ready for production earliest. I cant recall exactly why this one had priority. My local tank guru suggests there were problems with adapting the hydramatic transmission for the T20 & the old school gear box (same as in the M4) to the T22.

The T20, T22, T23 used nearly identical hulls. the differences were in transmissions, turrets, guns, & other bits. The T25 had thicker armor on the same hull shape, the T26 was thicker yet but with identical shape to the others. All used a improved version of the same motor used in the M4, excepting one vehicle fitted with a diesel engine.

Since the T26 used the transmissions, suspension, & many other components already tested in the T20-T25 the actual prototype testing went fairly quickly.

T20production chart.jpg
 
Top