WI more Allied heavy tanks in World War II?

iddt3

Donor
The Sherman design could certainly be improved, not even requiring a ton of foresight. Lower the profile, improve the drivetrain and angle the armor a bit better, bump to a 76mm sooner and widen the tracks. The big improvement would probably be dumping the TDs entirely, and using the free'd up capacity to build a small number of up armored assault guns (maybe just taking a Lee, removing the top turret, and slotting in a 105mm gun and up-armoring), a good number of 105mm armed Shermans (because that's how the TDs actually got used), and the rest of the capacity for an American style Kangaroo. But when Gasoline is one of the major limiters to the speed of your advance, adding tanks that consume drastically more of it seems like a bad plan.
 

Carl Schwamberger

iddt3 said:
The Sherman design could certainly be improved, ... Lower the profile, improve the drivetrain and angle the armor a bit better, bump to a 76mm sooner and widen the tracks. ...
Click to expand...

You are describing a T20

T20E3data.jpg
T20image.jpg
T20photos.jpg


Specs were written in the late spring of 1942 & a mockup built May/June 1942. Then there was a relatively slow development of 12-14 months. Engineers & other resources were assigned to other projects. Pilot/test models were not ready until May-July 1943. Since the automotive components were the same as used or similar to those of the M4 series & other existing tanks little development was required for those. The main major component being the hull a complete new design, The turrets & guns were drawn from the ongoing development for the M4.
 
Last edited:

TonyA

Aber said:
Isn't that an M7 Priest?
Click to expand...

Depends on how you interpret "slotting in". Amusingly, that sort of approach was one of the earliest upgunning attempts, using the 3" gun (M-10 armament) on a Lee chassis for a TD. Dumped because the gun was too much for the suspension. A similar attempt to mate the Stuart chassis with an M-3 75, dumped for the same reason. Makes you wonder how the Germans seemed to able to create the crazy things they did, Belgian 120mm gun on a 3-wheeled bicycle, etc (just kidding), a seemingly unending line of Marders for the martyrs. Or maybe we just weren't trying...
 
marathag

marathag

Banned
TonyA said:
Makes you wonder how the Germans seemed to able to create the crazy things they did, Belgian 120mm gun on a 3-wheeled bicycle, etc (just kidding), a seemingly unending line of Marders for the martyrs. Or maybe we just weren't trying...
Click to expand...

Compare the RSO with PaK40 and a Stuart with the far less powerful M3 75mm

one with 85HP engine and 3T weight, and the other, the M8 15T and 220HP engines.

Then Postwar, the US did the M56 Scorpion
m56_scorpion_history_1.jpg

7T with 165HP with a 90mm, twice the recoil of the PaK40
 

173rd LRRP

The 173rd Airborne Brigade had a platoon of Scorpions when they shipped from Okinawa to Viet Nam in 1965. By the time I got there in 1966, these anti-tank guns had been abandoned along a road in brigade cantonment and the jungle was taking over. Not much demand for 90 mm anti-tank guns with zero protection for driver or gunnery crew
 

hx87

Carl Schwamberger said:
You are describing a T20
Specs were written in the late spring of 1942 & a mockup built May/June 1942. Then there was a relatively slow development of 12-14 months. Engineers & other resources were assigned to other projects. Pilot/test models were not ready until May-July 1943. Since the automotive components were the same as used or similar to those of the M4 series & other existing tanks little development was required for those. The main major component being the hull a complete new design, The turrets & guns were drawn from the ongoing development for the M4.
Click to expand...

The HP/ton was still rather low though, since the engine remained the old Ford 60 degree V8. Upgrading to the original V12 version of that engine for 750 horsepower shouldn't have cost that much in terms of hull length and might actually improve fuel economy.
 

Carl Schwamberger

The back story is a pair of US Army automotive/tank engineers were sent to Egypt in the winter of 1942 & inspected dozens (hundreds?) of destroyed tanks, and questioned Brit tankers closely. The specifications they helped write served as the basis for the entire T20, 22, 23, 25, 26 series. Re: Hunnicuts book on the M26
 

riggerrob

phx1138 said:
I'm wondering, given the new hull form, wouldn't it also be simpler (& so cheaper) to build? All straight lines?
Click to expand...

------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, a boxy hull would be cheaper to build, however it would also be more vulnerable to mines and anti-tank guns.

The M-48's boat hull looks like it could slough of mine blasts better than a boxy hull. Consider all the mine resistant armoured personnel carriers invented in Rhodesia, then used during the war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc. They have minimal structure near wheels and V-bellies to dissipate mine blasts.

Secondly anti-tank shells - striking between road wheels - are more likely to ricochet off a boat-shaped hull.
 
marathag

marathag

Banned
riggerrob said:
The M-48's boat hull looks like it could slough of mine blasts better than a boxy hull. Consider all the mine resistant armoured personnel carriers invented in Rhodesia, then used during the war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc. They have minimal structure near wheels and V-bellies to dissipate mine blasts.
Click to expand...

Proven in Vietnam, where huge IEDs would blow the roadwheels off the Hull, sheered off the torsion bars, while not killing the crew

f9073ceb7f0ed73fdd9196dc9710dffd.jpg
 
SealTheRealDeal

SealTheRealDeal

riggerrob said:
I proposed a Ram Mark 3 in a Canada-wank thread.
A Ram 3 would be the big-gun tank General Worthington requested from the start of Ram development. It definitely needed an American 76mm gun or British 17-pounder.
In this alternate universe, we will pretend that production American 76mm guns were a metre longer than OTL. We will also pretend that 17-pounders got decent HE ammo early in development ... definitely before 1944.
The definitive Ram Mark 3 is basically a Sherman hull with wide tracks (M4A2E8 suspension). The longer turret incorporates a bustle from the start ..... to balance the heavier gun barrel. It also has a wedge-shaped .... pyramidal ..... mantlet that resembles a Merkava. Ram 3 turrets resemble King Tiger, Walker Bulldog or M60A2 turrets.

In my Canada-wank thread, Montreal Locomotive Works are too busy to complete many Ram 3 tanks, but they cast a huge number of Ram 3 turrets that British depots install 17-pounders, etc. to make Fireflies.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't thank make it a Grizzly not a Ram?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top