If rushed for production it would be in troop Hans in November. T26E3 rushed into production in troop hands December. When I read this it convinced me to post thread. OTL T26E3 in troop hands January.
US has better tank for the Battle of the Bulge.
- Thread starter Musketeer513
- Start date
marathag
Banned
The T25
Still had Electric Drive. A small run of 42 were produced, starting in January 1944, ending in May.
After 2 T25, 40 T25E1 with Torqmatic drive were built.
They could have kept making these turrets for M4s, starting in January while the issues with the Hull were sorted out
Still had Electric Drive. A small run of 42 were produced, starting in January 1944, ending in May.
After 2 T25, 40 T25E1 with Torqmatic drive were built.
They could have kept making these turrets for M4s, starting in January while the issues with the Hull were sorted out
Then what are you trading off for the better? Reliability? Ammunition for the artillery battalion due to lack of steel and shipping space? Air support as the better tank uses more gas that comes out of the same shipping space as TacAir's fuel supplies?
What is the trade off?
I'd like to point something else out: if the Sherman really was as inadequate against German armor as certain posters are saying, then I doubt the Soviets would love theirs enough to give them to elite Guards formations.
The problem with the Sherman was the poor performance of its gun in an anti-tank role. A large part of this was due to the policies of the US Army. The tank the Americans were using was basically the same tank from two years ago. Those fighting wanted a better anti-tank gun. So a Sherman with a Pershing turret would fit the build. The M4A3 (76) Sherman was quite capable against the Mark IV tank. It was the Panthers and Tigers it was found wanting. With a Sherman with a Pershing turret and a M18 with a M36 turret the US Army would have very capable vehicles.
If they hadn't cut 2' off the barrel of the 76mm to make it easier to transport.The American tanks would have had a much better anti-tank gun.
Last edited:
Correct me if im wrong but didn't a few M26 SuperPershings make their way to the front late 44 early 45?
marathag
Banned
Hunnicutt _Sherman_ pg 198-200. 15" removed
Here is the M4A1 with early turret and original longer T1 76mm gun
The reason for shortening the barrel was that gun could not be propely ballanced with such a long barrel.
FWIW, even with a longer barrel that cannon will not be as good as the 17pdr or the 7.5cm L70 - those two sported propellant charge of greater weight that the renown 8.8cm L56, while firing heavier shots that the US 3in.
marathag
Banned
Later on, with the larger T23 turret and the balance issue was fixed with M34A1 gun mount that moved the now shortened 76mm tube a few inches, and with the M1A1 gun, relocated the trunnions.
unlike the original that used the same M3 Breech Ring and the M34 Mount that was used on the M4. This was done to allow production going ASAP, but the mods were never used, the US was in no hurry to get the 76mm tanks in production in 1943
Moving the trunnions could have been done with the original barrel, but that would have had similar recoil length problems that the UK ran into with the 17pdr going into the original small M4 turret. The UK cut a hole in the back of the turret and added a rear bustle that acted as counterweight and to hold the relocated radio gear
The 17 pdr was real close in weight to the US 90mm, and the cartridges held almost the same amount of propellant. Big difference was just tube diameter
I really have to learn how to Photoshop. I would love to post a M36 with HVSS instead of VVSS.
The M-6 was also, unlike most U.S. designs that actually reached low scale production, an utter POS. 57 TONS to support a 76mm gun (oh, AND a 37mm in the same turret). Thank God they only built 40 production versions.
To the OP - A better tank? Well, the WAllies would probably relieve Bastogne by around Christmas Day, completely eliminate the Heer offensive by the last weekend of January 1945, and manage to meet the Red Army at the Elbe.
In short, no difference. The Bulge was the result of overconfidence by mot of the senior WAllied leadership and an, at the time, reasonable expectation that the Germans wouldn't risk their entire strategic reserve in an offensive in the West while the Red Army was rampaging across Poland and slapping around the Heer like a cat toy.
marathag
Banned
It was an American Tiger.
Unlike the Tiger, it was mostly reliable, but not as reliable as the M3 or M4. Few 50+ ton vehicles were. But it predated the Tiger, it was a contemporary of the M4 Medium
The T1E2 pilot build by Baldwin tank was running in September 1941, with testing in August, just over a year after the Heavy tank project was greenlit in October 1940
Now in 1940, the 90mm gun was not ready yet, so the Army used the most powerful gun they had, the 3" T9 AAA.
The end of May 1941, Adolf ordered Porsche and Henschel to have 45 ton Tigers prototypes running by his birthday in 1942, and so, two very unreliable prototypes were shown off to AH
Unlike the Tiger again, the US had not had the experience of bouncing 50mm rounds off of KV-1 tanks, so didn't see the need for heavy tanks like the Nazis did, and trials went slowly from low priority, with the Standardization only occurring in April 1942. Thousands of Orders slashed to 230, then again to 40. First Production M6 were done in December, 1942. Ordnance Department had been pushing to put the new T7 90mm gun into the M6, and fitted one to the T1E1 pilot, but the Heavy Tank program was heading for cancellation.
Normally, folks want to blame McNair for this, but this one was on Devers, CO of Armored Force.
The US should have had some Heavy tanks, and in combat in 1942, when improved versions could planned for. As it was, 90 and even HV 105 mm gut were fitted.
It was an outstanding idea for 1940.
Compare to the Churchill. Would rather be in a Churchill I or even III, when you could be in an M6 in 1942?
Admiral Beez
Banned
I wonder if that survival rate was due to the ability to quickly exit through the large hatches, especially once the loader's hatch was added.
Below is the 76mm armed variant with larger loader's hatch.
Compare the Sherman hatches to the Panther's, start at around 2:50 below:
Last edited:
It was a really bad idea. Probably the worst was having a 37mm as a coax to a 76mm. I could understand the set-up on the Lee, the U.S. didn't have a design that could handle a 75mm in a regular turret so a high velocity 37mm in a turret AND a low velocity 75 in a sponson was an expedient for need, a less than golden one, but it worked, and according the senior panzer commanders was superior to the contemporary Pz. IV (prior to the 7.7cm long barrel's introduction) and an overmatch for the Pz. III, but a high velocity 76mm AND 37mm in the same turret (the weapons had different ballistics)?
Honestly a 76mm M4 would be better than the M-6and would be more than adequate until a proper 90mm armed track could be fielded.
Respectfully disagree. Putting more of Eastern Germany in Western hands by advancing to a line matching the Elbe River before war's end leaves a lasting impression that will make Stalin more worried and perhaps some pressing to keep Czechloslovakia, or at least the western Czech part. Those would each have lasting consequences.
Last edited: