Pretty sure logistics have been mentioned. As to the other changes, there were field modifications for improving frontal armor and flotation. The former was merely welding on an additional plate to the front that IIRC some crews did on their own initiative, the other was an Army modification that involved putting "duck bill" connectors on the tracks that widened them. The 76mm I think was decided on because of logistics, that gun was already being used by tank destroyers like the M10. Not sure how well a 77mm would fit inside a Sherman turret. Granted, I'm pretty sure it was smaller (hence the reason for it existing) than the 17pdr which went into older Sherman turrets, but that was also an ergonomic nightmare and Americans have high standards for ergonomics.
WI more Allied heavy tanks in World War II?
- Thread starter Pennsylvania
- Start date
"Here Kitty,Kitty Poppa's got a big 105mm hyper shot for you.'The M6 was used as a test mule for later US heavy tanks
Here, the T5E1 105mm cannon,with 39 pound AT round at 3100fps
Nah KwK 43 = US 90mm / 17 pounder
The Pak 44 - well no real comparison but then Germany only built 40 odd - so it was not a question that needed to be answered
Pennsylvania
Banned
I thought the US 90mm was the answer to the KwK 36, and the 17 Pounder (and the US 76mm and soviet 85mm as well) was akin to the KwK 42.
Welding of additional plate and "duck bill" extensions were pretty much desperation moves...shouldn't be the tankers responsibility to give themselves the equipment they need. The 76mm was a new weapon, not the gun on the M-10. As for the 77mm fitting, if it fits in a Comet turret with an internal mantlet, I'm pretty confident it will fit in an Easy Eight. Logistics were mentioned but not as the actual reason that no Heavy tanks were even planned for, that shipping considerations in both theaters were paramount in selection of equipment and even paring of TO&E's for some formations. Someone else mentioned that fighting enemy tanks was the prime mission of US tanks, but evidently most of the movers and shakers didn't get the message, as such, HVAP ammo for the 75 mm gun was NOT manufactured, and most of the 76 mm/3" HVAP was diverted to the TD battalions. There were even dorks in ordnance that insisted on reducing the muzzle velocity of the 75 to increase barrel life to "artillery standards", ostensibly because they weren't going to be chasing the other guys armor in their Shermans...and before someone picks on my very first sentence, the "duck bills" were intended for use on the M4A3E2 (which somehow keeps getting referred to as the M4A3E4 for some unknown reason) Jumbo in lieu of HVSS, not for variants with HVSS already. Phew
SsgtC
Banned
Actually, this is exactly the reason that was given up thread as to why heavy tanks we're not sent to the ETO...
What I was getting at, Sarge, was that even had the M-6 been a decent heavy tank (it wasn't), it would still have been watching the gold at Fort K, not getting it's ass shot off by German armor and AT guns. The hand we were dealt was the Sherman, and it could have been a much better hand than it was, but it was still good enough, despite the people that authorized it, designed it, approved it, built it, and even some of those that used it.
FBKampfer
Banned
It was. None of the Allied nations had production weapons equivalent to the KwK 43 or the PaK 44.
The 90mm firing APCR could match the KwK 43 out to about 1800yds before the KwK stared to pull ahead.
And nothing was really comparable to the PaK 44. Not even the Soviet M1931/39. Though this was more due to the projectile itself. For some reason (I suspect metallurgy) Soviet cannon tended to need around 15% greater muzzle energy to match a cannon of western design.
The Germans could do with a 50mm what the Soviets did with a 76mm. Or a 75mm for an 85mm. Or an 88mm to a 100mm.
marathag
Banned
A handful of 90mm T15E1 got to the front lines in Germany in 1945 in the 'Super' Pershing, 221mm armor penetration at 1000 yards with HVAP
120mm AAA guns were around too, but no Axis tanks were withing a thousand miles of where those 'Triple Threat' guns were emplaced.
Last edited:
Obergruppenführer Smith
Banned
Only because the Soviets didn't bother, given how pathetic panzer development was. After all, why do you need any bigger gun in 1941 when the 57mm ZiS-4 L/73 outpenetrated anything in the German arsenal, including the later L/48 version of 7,5 cm KwK 40?
Last edited:
It's actually simple: logistics. Every heavy tank (& here I include even the likes of the Sherman Jumbo) means something else doesn't get shipped across the Atlantic; every pound, every ton, has to be accounted for in ship tonnage. So, too, the amount of fuel a heavier tank uses (even if it's not 4:1). The breakout & pursuit after Neptune wasn't stopped by the Germans, it was stopped for lack of fuel; more heavies means it's likely to have stopped even sooner.
Now, more heavies might (just) have persuaded the U.S. Army to stop shipping thousands of tons of cigarettes & candy bars & other crap that just stacked up on the beaches & displaced really useful stuff, like, I dunno, ammo...
If you have to deliver 5000 tanks that weigh half again as much as an M4, what else doesn't get shipped? Arty, ammo, HTs, boots? Something's got to give.
Last edited:
Pennsylvania
Banned
So the reason the Germans and Soviets had heavy tanks but the Western Allies didn't was because the Germans and the Soviets didn't have to ship their tanks across an ocean to get them to the front?
Remind me to bring this up on a Military History thread.
I want to apologize to the membership for being so damn shrill about this subject. I certainly can't imagine being such a vociferous fanboy of the Sherman tank...certainly not the person I was 60 years ago on the subject... The problem, or maybe the good thing, is the perfect hindsight that this sort of discussion allows. It's not hard to defend the Sherman, given it's loooong record of distinguished service after WW2, with tweaks. That amazing 69" turret ring diameter is one of the great military decisions of all time. But basically, we fought the war with a less than ideal vehicle because we chose to, because we were too damn stupid to listen to people that had a good idea. The people on this site aren't the first to make serious recommendations about fixing this thing and that thing...and be ignored! There's another thread about NACA P-38 improvement recommendations making the rounds, the torpedo issue is frigging legendary, and we might have used the HS-404 to advantage if we'd actually read the assembly instructions. People died, that probably didn't have to, matched perhaps by people that didn't die at the other end of the weapon system, perception matters...
Maybe Trump's recent has put me off my game, maybe it's the rain, anyway, sorry for being a giant prick!
Maybe Trump's recent has put me off my game, maybe it's the rain, anyway, sorry for being a giant prick!
The thing is far more infantry soldiers would have died, then tankers saved. HE shells were fired 3.5 times as often as AP shells, so one could make the assumption that for every tank engaged, roughly 3.5x as many enemy infantry engagements were made. Fewer tanks mean many more allied infantry casualties because they were unsupported.
In fact, tanker deaths were not very numerous. Of 500 knocked out 1st Army Shermans surveyed, 25% dd not have any crew casualties. Of the rest, there were less then 0.4 KIA and about 0.8 WIA per tank. 3rd Armored lost 632 Medium tanks in action. Of those losses, the historical average means less then 200 crew died in the tank (190). And that's 3rd Armored who took by far the most casualties of any US Armored in Europe. 4AD was in combat for 1 day less then 3AD, and had less then half the medium tank losses IIRC.
Here's an image of a Brit after action report details encounters with Tigers, Panthers and a PzIV in June 44. Multiple Tigers, PzIVs and a Panther were KO'd by the 75mm guns
Here's a German account of several King Tigers engaging a Company of US Shermans and getting crushed by weight of fire
From " Chronicle of the 7. panzer-Kompanie I.SS-Panzer Division Leibstandarte" by Ralf Tiemann
"A Number of Shermans approached on the road on the other side of a ravine. The American unit was recognized early enough and we let it approach to a favorable position. After the first miss of one of our Tigers, the Shermans unexpectedly formed a front and opened quick fire. This forced me to flee to the basement of the house where I had an observation post on the second floor. The rounds coming from our Tigers were noticeably different than the incoming. Every shot fired by an 8.8 cm was a hit in our thoughts. Suddenly the Tiger commander, Untersturmführer Hantusch, collapsed in the basement, both hands pressed to his head. His Tiger had received numerous hits which shook up its weapon system, and the electrical power was knocked out. After another round to the turret he was wounded on the head and had to abandon the smoking Panzer which could catch fire at any minute.
Minutes later the second Tiger Kommandant, Obersturmführer Dollinger, came back and was bleeding heavily from his head and was silent. After his wound had been dressed he reported that the smoke from the rounds made it impossible to see through the gun´s optics. It was impossible for him to see his targets. The thick response of enemy hits ruined the possibility of hitting another Sherman.
The numerical superiority of the approximately fifteen Shermans turned our superiority in weaponry into nothing. The Tiger of Obersturmführer Dollinger then received another hit which "amputated" the first third of its cannon. This caused us to realize that we had been literally crushed, which had never before been so obvious."
pg 122-123 of the book.
"A Number of Shermans approached on the road on the other side of a ravine. The American unit was recognized early enough and we let it approach to a favorable position. After the first miss of one of our Tigers, the Shermans unexpectedly formed a front and opened quick fire. This forced me to flee to the basement of the house where I had an observation post on the second floor. The rounds coming from our Tigers were noticeably different than the incoming. Every shot fired by an 8.8 cm was a hit in our thoughts. Suddenly the Tiger commander, Untersturmführer Hantusch, collapsed in the basement, both hands pressed to his head. His Tiger had received numerous hits which shook up its weapon system, and the electrical power was knocked out. After another round to the turret he was wounded on the head and had to abandon the smoking Panzer which could catch fire at any minute.
Minutes later the second Tiger Kommandant, Obersturmführer Dollinger, came back and was bleeding heavily from his head and was silent. After his wound had been dressed he reported that the smoke from the rounds made it impossible to see through the gun´s optics. It was impossible for him to see his targets. The thick response of enemy hits ruined the possibility of hitting another Sherman.
The numerical superiority of the approximately fifteen Shermans turned our superiority in weaponry into nothing. The Tiger of Obersturmführer Dollinger then received another hit which "amputated" the first third of its cannon. This caused us to realize that we had been literally crushed, which had never before been so obvious."
pg 122-123 of the book.
Last edited:
I won't say it's the only reason, but it's a big one. The Germans & Sovs could move their heavies from factory to front by rail; the U.S. (especially) had to ship them. When you have limited shipping space, every pound (& every cubic foot) counts.
Taking it from the other side would the Germans have been better off standardising on the Panzer IV with maybe an 88mm armed tank destroyer variant?
Pros:
Better reliability
Better mobility
Reduced fuel consumption
Greater numbers
More standardised logistics
Cons:
Lighter armour
Less AT capability
Of course looking at this list also seems to be the justification for the US standardisation on the Sherman rather than adding a heavy tank to the mix.
Pros:
Better reliability
Better mobility
Reduced fuel consumption
Greater numbers
More standardised logistics
Cons:
Lighter armour
Less AT capability
Of course looking at this list also seems to be the justification for the US standardisation on the Sherman rather than adding a heavy tank to the mix.
Of course they did bothered, they were of course not fools... You need a bigger gun than the Zis4, because it was expensive and only effective against other tanks - tanks need plenty of HE rounds to deal with soft targets, infantry positions, AT guns, etc even in 41, so F34 the way you go.
(Same is true for the 50mm german or the 6 pounder, both was phased out as soon as possible.)
First of all, logistics is not the sole reason for everything. Yes, its a factor, yes, an important one, but not the only one. Second: dont underestimate the value of cigarettes, candy bars and other crap: soldiers feel less miserable because of those and fight better - or at all.
Truth to be told, US heavy tanks at the time were either not ready for combat or simply not ready by that time, not to mention, they were not needed (or at least, seemed to be unnecessary after Italy and NA.)