WWII with Centurions & Pershings in comparable nos. to Shermans & Cromwells

Markus

Banned
A better use for the TD units would have been adding a platoon to each Sherman company. That way you keep the terrific infantry support capacity of the M-4 and have the 90mm guns available as well.

Actually the infantry support capacity of the M4 was somewhat limited by the tank´s gun. The US Army used M10 TD to support M4 because the 75mm guns of the M4 were found wanting in terms of range and accuracy. A more powerful HE-shell does you no good when you can´t (reliably) put it where the target is.

What do you think about less light M3/5? IIRC each independent tank battalion had three medium and one light company. Since their job was infantry support and not recon I wonder if they needed all the light tanks? Jumbos or M36 would make more sense, wouldn’t they?
 
My preferred solution was to equip about a quarter/third of each division as a heavy tank unit, similar to the way the Germans alocated their Tigers.
So you use Shermans (preferrably Fireflys) most of the time, then call up the heavy battallion when you need it.
 
Why not something like the Sherman Firefly in greater numbers? If the US could jump over their shadow and buy a British gun that is.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Actually the infantry support capacity of the M4 was somewhat limited by the tank´s gun. The US Army used M10 TD to support M4 because the 75mm guns of the M4 were found wanting in terms of range and accuracy. A more powerful HE-shell does you no good when you can´t (reliably) put it where the target is.

What do you think about less light M3/5? IIRC each independent tank battalion had three medium and one light company. Since their job was infantry support and not recon I wonder if they needed all the light tanks? Jumbos or M36 would make more sense, wouldn’t they?

Most anything would have made more sense than the light tanks.

The M3/5 was a remarkable waste of resources once the Sherman got well established. Outside of a small number for Marine units they had almost no combat value (for that matter the M-24 wasn't much of a value either). Both light tanks were virtually useless (although the M-24 had a 75mm gun, it was the same one used in the B-25 solid nose bomber and adapted for the tank) and the tasks that they could actually complete could have been handled by armored cars with 37mm guns (M-8).
 
Let me add another one:

3. Why do you do it? Shermans were perfectly able to defeat anything the Germans had in 1942 and allmost everything they had in 1943. Note that the Wehrmacht used Pz.III as late as Kursk and the Allies did not face Panthers before mid-44, just very few Tigers from early 43 onwards.

So upgunning Shermans would be realistic, maybe a small scale production of heavy tanks at the expense of light tanks, but building heavies on that scale is just not justifiable. With or without hindsight.


because when you look at how Germany went from Pz IIs, IIIs & few IVs to PzIV H/J it's safe to assume something even bigger will follow sooner or later and it makes sense to field something that will be able to counter it. Soviets and Brits figured it out, US not so much
 
wasn't Centurion able to survive direct 88 hit? at least in front.

Yes the frontal armour of a Centurion could take a hit from an 88 but the German anti-tank gunners were not stupid enough to take on tanks head on. Also many allied tank losses were from other weapons than the 88. I don't think even replacing every Sherman and Cromwell with Pershings and Centurions would have significantly reduced the amount of tanks lost to the German anti tank defenses. The allied tank tactics were just not good enough.
 
Why not something like the Sherman Firefly in greater numbers? If the US could jump over their shadow and buy a British gun that is.

Wasn't the mustang powered by a british made Rolse Royce Merlin engine? As far as I know only the sec-nav and General Patton were as virulently anti british as that.
 
Wasn't the mustang powered by a british made Rolse Royce Merlin engine? As far as I know only the sec-nav and General Patton were as virulently anti british as that.

The Merlins in the Mustangs were liocence built by Packard. IIRC the anti-british feelings where part of the reason why the Army never adopted the Firefly.
 

Markus

Banned
Why not something like the Sherman Firefly in greater numbers? If the US could jump over their shadow and buy a British gun that is.

The 17pdr/M4 combination is a bad choice, the Firefly had a low rate of fire and an even smaller HE-shell, the US 76mm gun -not to be confused with the 3inch gun- is fine as long as you can get enough APCR ammo.
 
Yes the frontal armour of a Centurion could take a hit from an 88 but the German anti-tank gunners were not stupid enough to take on tanks head on. Also many allied tank losses were from other weapons than the 88. I don't think even replacing every Sherman and Cromwell with Pershings and Centurions would have significantly reduced the amount of tanks lost to the German anti tank defenses. The allied tank tactics were just not good enough.

One reason for the bad allied tactics was that the thanks and the crews were killed so quickly that they couldn't learn better tactics. Another reason was that the tank crews suffered from "Tiger fear", due to insufficent tanks.

If the US had a decent number of Pershings in Normandy both reasons could be solved. Most destroyed allied tanks IOTL was not destroyed by german tanks or 88s, but by infantery weapons and lighter AT guns - things the Pershing was better at surviving than the Sherman.

The Pershing was actually lighter than the Panther and about as wide, so bridges, tunnels etc. wouldn't be that big problem.
 
Most destroyed allied tanks IOTL was not destroyed by German tanks or 88s, but by infantry weapons and lighter AT guns - things the Pershing was better at surviving than the Sherman.

It's side and rear armour would have fared no better than that on the Sherman's at close range.

The Pershing was actually lighter than the Panther and about as wide, so bridges, tunnels etc. wouldn't be that big problem.

It was a big enough problem for the Wehrmacht so why wouldn't it be for the Allies.
 
I don't think even replacing every Sherman and Cromwell with Pershings and Centurions would have significantly reduced the amount of tanks lost to the German anti tank defenses. The allied tank tactics were just not good enough.

I agree with this. Most important IMHO Allied infantry-tank cooperation wasn't good enough, especially early on in Normandy.
Performance of Allied armour, especially British, was terrible in Normandy. Strangely enough even the experienced Desert Rats (7th AD) performed poorly.

It wasn't untill the British mismanagement of infantry manpower* meant the Brits couldn't use infantry attacks anymore that Montgomery started to consider (mostly) armoured attacks again.

*According to Carlo d'Este the British kept more then 100 000 infantry in the UK during Normandy while disbanding infantrydivisions to reinforce losses suffered.

Generally a single piece of equipment isn't that important. IMHO there would be equally small differences if for example every GI had a M-14 instead of a M-1/Springfield.
 
I agree with this. Most important IMHO Allied infantry-tank cooperation wasn't good enough, especially early on in Normandy.
Performance of Allied armour, especially British, was terrible in Normandy. Strangely enough even the experienced Desert Rats (7th AD) performed poorly.

It wasn't untill the British mismanagement of infantry manpower* meant the Brits couldn't use infantry attacks anymore that Montgomery started to consider (mostly) armoured attacks again.

*According to Carlo d'Este the British kept more then 100 000 infantry in the UK during Normandy while disbanding infantrydivisions to reinforce losses suffered.

Generally a single piece of equipment isn't that important. IMHO there would be equally small differences if for example every GI had a M-14 instead of a M-1/Springfield.

Of course the British used mainly infantry tacticsm they weren't entirely crazy...!

have you seen Normandy? tank country it isn't!!!
 

Markus

Banned
Of course the British used mainly infantry tacticsm they weren't entirely crazy...!

have you seen Normandy? tank country it isn't!!!

The US part of Normandy, the area the Brits operated in was bocage free and thus all the more infested with 88mm guns, tanks, assault guns, infantry and so on. The most and the best german troops fought Monty´s men, not just because the terrain required it but also because the river Seine allowed the Germans to supply the eastern Normandy better than the west.
 
The US part of Normandy, the area the Brits operated in was bocage free and thus all the more infested with 88mm guns, tanks, assault guns, infantry and so on. The most and the best german troops fought Monty´s men, not just because the terrain required it but also because the river Seine allowed the Germans to supply the eastern Normandy better than the west.

Interestingly, from Carlo D'Este's 'Decision in Normandy' - P87

'Sir Alan Brooke had been extremely pessimistic at all times about our prospect of fighting through the bocage country...'

This was apparently from an Eisenhower interview.
 
Top