WI more Allied heavy tanks in World War II?

[FBKampfer]

The short answer is nothing. Italy still has those crappy mountain passes and valleys all pre-ranged with heavy artillery, mined, and covered by some damn good guns. Even an M1A2 Abrams wouldn't make it through one of those hellholes.

D-Day doesn't happen any earlier, and the 90% infantry force facing the Western Allies still fights like hell, still bleeds the Allies in Normandy, and Market Garden, and the Hürtgen, and at Aachen, and any other chance they get.

Hell, it's possible some Allied offensives actually do LESS well. Cobra in particular would be a lot easier for the Germans to counter with a third fewer Shermans.

Secondly, Wacht am Rhine might go better for the Germans. There would be fewer operationally mobile armored units to throw in their way.



Your heavy tanks do nothing in particular to affect the basically non-existent German tank forces on the Western Front. Fixed defensive positions are few and far between.

 

[thorr97]

Meh.

An emphasis on more heavy tanks at the expense of the medium tanks would've meant a lot more dead Allied troops.

The Sherman was good enough all throughout the war. It's being available in overwhelming numbers is what made up for it's being increasing outclassed by enemy tanks as the war progressed.

In this ATL you've created a situation with far fewer tanks overall. That makes for many more situations where Allied troops do not have any armor support to help them against German infantry positions. And that makes for more dead Allied troops.

This would not be a preferable outcome...

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

And help cause an increase in the number of Panthers and Tigers the Germans build, which in turn necessitates the building of heavier Allied armor.

Might be. It may make more sense to accelerate production of high powered AT guns & tank destroyers. But we know sense does not always apply.

Could also be the role of the Tiger tanks is actually understood in these battles, and the US Army takes appropriate action.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Frankly, I would expect the Germans to attempt to build more Panthers and Jagdpanthers, rush the Tiger II and Jagdtiger into production earlier, actually get the Maus into production, and actually phase out production of lighter AFVs (like the Panzer IV, Stug III, Panzer III, and the Marder series of Tank Destroyers) so as to build more Panthers and Tigers, all in reaction to the Allies building 76mm-armed Shermans and M26 Pershings.

Great!!! War's over much sooner if the Nazis waste all their effort on a smallish handful of heavy and super heavy tanks that couldn't move (hardly) and broke down regularly.
Meanwhile, even the Shermans in their multitude could take out those few heavies.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

...

Your heavy tanks do nothing in particular to affect the basically non-existent German tank forces on the Western Front. Fixed defensive positions are few and far between.

From 6th June through late July the US 1st Amy in Normandy was opposed by exactly one battalion of Panther tanks & possiblly four Tiger I tanks. The rest of the German armored force fighting the 1st Army for seven weeks were obsolete French tanks, run of the mill German mediums and light tanks, a variety of SP AT guns, tank destroyers, and assault guns. Nothing a heavy tank was seriously needed for. It was after the breakout, the Mortain battle, and the rearguard actions in August the US 1st & 3rd Armies started to see a few more Panther tanks, and a small number of Tiger I. At the Battle of Arracourt in September the inferior M4 Shermans defeated multiple brigades equipped with Panther tanks.

 

[FBKampfer]

From 6th June through late July the US 1st Amy in Normandy was opposed by exactly one battalion of Panther tanks & possiblly four Tiger I tanks. The rest of the German armored force fighting the 1st Army for seven weeks were obsolete French tanks, run of the mill German mediums and light tanks, a variety of SP AT guns, tank destroyers, and assault guns. Nothing a heavy tank was seriously needed for. It was after the breakout, the Mortain battle, and the rearguard actions in August the US 1st & 3rd Armies started to see a few more Panther tanks, and a small number of Tiger I. At the Battle of Arracourt in September the inferior M4 Shermans defeated multiple brigades equipped with Panther tanks.

Did.... Did you mean to quote me? I'm basically in agreement.

 

[marathag]

Technical. You can read about it here.

They didn't want a bodge like the Firefly, that also put an even larger cannon into that same small original 75mm turret.

The 76mm Tube and breech weight was 1141 pounds. 17pdr was 2032 pounds.

as was said:
There were other minor deficiencies noted in the report of April 1943, such as inadequate recoil mechanism (Fixed with stronger recoil piston rods) or an excessively weak elevation gear which made accurate laying impossible and precluded the completion of accuracy tests, or the travel lock blocking the driver’s vision. Small stuff.


It was doctrine, perfect being the enemy of 'good enough'

wasn't mentioned on the website that the existing 75mm M34 mount resulted in an unbalanced gun(see elevation comment) so the barrel lost around 15 inches, and corresponding velocity. Instead of relocating the trunnions and making a all new gun mount.

Note they did exactly that when the decision to use the larger T23 turret, and had the 76mm M1A1

But the M4E6 could have been made in number in time for Italy and D-Day, even if a bit of a kludge using the original 76mm T1
That was Doctrine, not Technical.

 

[Obergruppenführer Smith]

That was Doctrine, not Technical.

Technically they could not have shoved in the 76mm into tank without large degrading of capabilities, thus it is a technical issue, not a doctrine issue. A doctrine issue would be some thing like "we prefer a generalist gun rather than a more specifically anti-tank one."

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Did.... Did you mean to quote me? I'm basically in agreement.

Yes we are in agreement, just adding data to what you posted

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

WHAT!

Grab your torches and pitchforks!

Actually I'd like to have seen where the T1/M6 heavy tank could have gone, particularly if the US-A had fluked a good spec at the very start with a big main gun without the co-ax 37mm.

Still gonzo on the idea of a battalion or two of these beasts at Kerns Cross road, Sadaguia, or Sidi bou Zid 15-15 may. Or, at Sbetla 16-17 May.

 

[Riain]

Me too, they don't replace the sherm, only supplement them for the tough jobs.

 

[Alamo]

What, no love for the Anglo-American T14?

 

[marathag]

Technically they could not have shoved in the 76mm into tank without large degrading of capabilities, thus it is a technical issue, not a doctrine issue. A doctrine issue would be some thing like "we prefer a generalist gun rather than a more specifically anti-tank one."

The M4E6 proved it could have been done, and with slight development, as listed in the WOT page, was done.
Doctrine was that they felt the 75mm was just fine for the time being. so did slow adoption with redoing to the T23 turret.

The British fitted the 17 pdr to that same small 75 turret, as did the Israeli with their French cannon of the KwK 42 class 75mm in the M50

 

[yulzari]

It is always worth remembering that the purpose of a tank is to support infantry with HE and machine gun fire. This the OTL T34, Sherman and Cromwell did perfectly well and in numbers that put them all across the battlefield and at a weight and speed that let them roam at will (enemy permitting).

 

[Obergruppenführer Smith]

The M4E6 proved it could have been done, and with slight development, as listed in the WOT page, was done.
Doctrine was that they felt the 75mm was just fine for the time being. so did slow adoption with redoing to the T23 turret.

The British fitted the 17 pdr to that same small 75 turret, as did the Israeli with their French cannon of the KwK 42 class 75mm in the M50

But by early 1943? That's the technical part.

 

[Riain]

It is always worth remembering that the purpose of a tank is to support infantry with HE and machine gun fire. This the OTL T34, Sherman and Cromwell did perfectly well and in numbers that put them all across the battlefield and at a weight and speed that let them roam at will (enemy permitting).

Is it? That's one definition of the tank's role, for sure, but not the only definition.

If instead the role of the tank is mobile close- combat with the enemy then the tank should be able to survive and engage the entire gamut (within reason) of threats found on the battlefield, not just the ones you'd like to meet. This might well include enemy armour including tanks.

As for numbers, they become less important when the exchange rate against the tough opponents is equal rather than lopsided in the enemy's favour.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Not the perfect solution, but the anti armor capability of the 105mm ammunition was not shabby. M4 equipped as support vehicles with the 105mm caliber cannon could have been in production earlier. A improved AP round for that would dodge around all the problems of the family of AT guns having reduced support or soft target capability.

I would note some M4 crews found the smoke or white Phosphorus round effective in dealing with Tiger tanks. The burning residue created a toxic smoke and a reasonable fear among the crews the tank was on fire. A couple of HE or AP hits on a Tiger and a cloud of WP smoke, or burning WP stuck on the side usually caused the Tiger crew to retreat or abandon the tank.

 

[riggerrob]

Great drawings Marathag!

Could use a later turret bustle to balance the larger gun. Hang a few chains if you worry about Panzerfaust (ala. Merkava).

A wedge-shaped mantlet (ala. Merkava) would also help.

 

[thorr97]

Again, this ATL is attempting to improve something which really didn't need improving and attempting to do so in ways that would actually have made things worse.

There was no way to achieve a "one for one" replacement Shermans with the heavies described here. What won the battles was an overwhelming number of tanks being always on hand - not for the singular uber-duber super heavy doing it all on its own. For the WAllies, it was exceedingly rare to engage any of the German heavy cats. And when they did those singular uber-duber German heavies were swarmed to death by the multitudes of Shermans - and airpower and artillery.

Those rare engagements completed, the Shermans were quickly back to supporting the rest of the infantry by blasting through the German infantry all up and down the Allied lines.

A decrease in the number of Shermans available and you've greatly decreased that armor support of the Allied infantry. And there simply wouldn't be enough of those heavies to make up for the difference. They would be too few in number and too slow compared to the Shermans to achieve the same results.

Thus fielding those heavies would result in more dead Allied troops.

 

[SsgtC]

Again, this ATL is attempting to improve something which really didn't need improving and attempting to do so in ways that would actually have made things worse.

There was no way to achieve a "one for one" replacement Shermans with the heavies described here. What won the battles was an overwhelming number of tanks being always on hand - not for the singular uber-duber super heavy doing it all on its own. For the WAllies, it was exceedingly rare to engage any of the German heavy cats. And when they did those singular uber-duber German heavies were swarmed to death by the multitudes of Shermans - and airpower and artillery.

Those rare engagements completed, the Shermans were quickly back to supporting the rest of the infantry by blasting through the German infantry all up and down the Allied lines.

A decrease in the number of Shermans available and you've greatly decreased that armor support of the Allied infantry. And there simply wouldn't be enough of those heavies to make up for the difference. They would be too few in number and too slow compared to the Shermans to achieve the same results.

Thus fielding those heavies would result in more dead Allied troops.

Agree with all of this. Though the one exception may be the M26 Pershing. Heavy enough that it could go toe-to-toe with the Panther, but mobile enough that it could keep up with the Infantry. And a total overmatch for the Panzer III, IV and StuG III and IV.