Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:

Most of the upgrades that went into later model shermans were literally put forwards in 1942 and 1943, when the sherman was by all rights an excellent medium tank. If they implented better suspension and wet ammo storage, and better armour on the sides at this point it could have stayed a decent medium tank, if the US decided to go to 76mm on some of their fleet(or all later production vehicles) before Dday, it would again stayed as a decent medium tank till the end of the war. Any other nation would have swiftly implemented these upgrades to all following production vehicles, and started to upgrade their current fleets. I would, when comparing Britain's war time mentality with that of the US take it back to WW1, through doing stupid stuff the British(also Germans, and Commonwealth) were shocked to lose hundreds of thousands of soldiers, and decided to minimise losses where they could in the future. The Soviets learnt this at the outset of operation Barbarossa very proactively developed their armoured vehicles and implemented upgeades really quite swiftly look no further than the E and S model KV1(E had a heap of extra armour bolted on, S had armour stripped off to make it faster(or in other words to reinvent the T34, it was not very sucsessful but they were trying something based on information coming from the field), the Red army was in a pretty intense furnace of armour evolution, quite the opposite situation to the US army. The Americans, coming late to the party in WW1 and seemingly never were forced into this insight, what is more they really did not take well to other nations trying to impart such lessons upon them.
Even in WW2 being accused of being an anglophile in America was a big insult. And actually listening to the hard won advice of the British army from its campaign in NAfrica and implementing changes was seemingly seen as politcally dangerously Anglophilic(which makes a bit of sense, the British did invade them the previous century(the war of 1812 and DID favour the Confedercy in the civil war). So inferior models stayed in production and that cost lives.

Going to have to disagree with this.

Not seeing where the Americans kept "inferior" vehicles.
* They continuously experimented with other vehicles. Those other vehicles didn't work or didn't meet the needs of the US in WW2.
* Batch upgrades to the M4 were made throughout the war. In comparison the Soviets didn't do anything until they absolutely had to with the T34 and KV1, both of which were inferior designs in terms of crew visibility and laying a weapon on a target in real time. Plus they were utter crap that broke down immediately.
* They had 76mms far earlier than were pushed out in ETO. They were not desired as the 75 had higher explosive fill and the 75 was good against most vehicles it came across in real life. Like the Soviet choice of the 122 for the IS instead of a 100mm, their primary opponents needed a thorough application of HE, and the gun was good enough against anything else. Even before that they had M10s with 3in guns.
*What they didn't do was constantly push out new crap because no one controlled the engineers or arms companies. While cool, there's no use for a Jagd panther, Jagd tiger, Tiger II, Elefant etc. etc. Thats just juicy contracts for companies.

I'm going to have to agree to disagree

The fact that the Red Army literally fought 3/4 of the German army does not in my book make allied tanks better, it just meant they never had to be better. That of course goes for the British tanks that I love as well. Eastern front is a whole different ball game and both German and Soviet vehicles often could not count on support from elsewhere for their own reasons.

Everyone experimented with other vehicles, and plenty of them did not turn out to fit the needs of the military, some of them even yielded useful results(Like Australia's sentinel lending research that led to the firefly). But do you consider that many of the projects were ended becasue the current model, the Sherman, was seen as good enough for the job, and that this might have stymied the development process of things like the Perishing. US command was totally willing to take casualties.

As I said earlier, many of the upgrades such as wet ammo storage, better armour on the sides(which started as a breezy 50mm vertical plate) and more actually functional suspension(the horizontal spring as seen on the easy8) done throughout the war were first put forwards straight after their first deployments in North Africa. Batch upgrades might be all well and good, but if its not half the stuff you specifically asked for to begin with, its sorta missing the point. Many patterns were, with anything that undergoes such mass production, simplification of the manufacturing process or to suit different plants.

76 did not need to be a fleetwide upgrade. Also the British were keeping one eye ahead, unlike the Americans and actually developed and produced the firefly before DDay, becasue they expected to fight stronger enemy tanks, this is exactly what I am talking about in the American unwillingness to adapt to battlefield experience and wanting to minimalise casualties. Keep 2-3 tanks in a squadron with 75s obviously(Although given they gave the Jumbo, or was the easy 8 that was the assault tank? IDK a 76 and it was intended to engage fortification and AT positions I can't help but think the argument is disengenuious). The British even offered to let the Americans make the 17pounder under license in late 1942 when it first came out, like they did earlier with the 6pdr(which became the foremost medium AT gun in the US military during 1943). But aforementioned Anglophobia meant they decided their 76 was better, despite it really not being the case. British artillery expertise and US manufacturing capacity? Could you imagine, if prior to D-Day the allies had a few thousand fireflies and were manufacturing more?

The KV1 E(which was literally upgraded in 1941, when it very much maintained material surprise over the Germans) and a few months later KV1S which was rolled out in 1942 when the KV1 regular was still giving the Germans a heap of trouble, sure they might have been unreliable, but there is literally accounts of these tanks coming back to life(or more likely surviving crew coming back around) hours after being hit by 88mm flak cannons, things that were turning allied tanks into burning craters four years later. The IS heavy tanks are a direct descendant of the KV-1(KV-2 is a specialist variant, rather than a new model/replacement of the main line heavy tank). All of these upgrades were proactive, the Soviets always attempting to get the upper hand even when their tanks were 'decent enough.' The IS tanks were kitted with an 122mm gun for better HE performance, sure, but this went with a strategy of aggressive recon via T34s and T34 borne troops. If they encountered heavy fortifications IS tanks, which were part of Guards Breakthrough tank units were sent in, with their own brand of shock troops, to uh breakthrough. Huge gun is good against all targets, I agree, pity no-one told the Allies.
If they came up against enemy tanks, why'd you send in the breakthrough tanks, send more T34 85s or maybe some self propelled gun.
The soviets had a bit of a formula for it, they did a lot of the fighting.

The T34, it has a bad look for its losses, but honestly its hard to find a better medium tank during the war. Panther is where i'd start(which also gets an unfair rap these days as well). Why did so many of them get blown up? Because the Soviets were throwing them at 3/4 of the German Army, which itself was rapidly evolving to face the wall of soviet iron. And also because a chronic lack of communication equipment meant that crews and units were severely handicapped, such as the common means of the commander communicating with his vehicle's driver by kicking him/her in the shoulders or back. It also severely hampered their ability to commence combined arms warfare. So essentially where American and British troops could quickly and effectively call in artillery support and coordinate with their infantry, or call in tank destroyer units if they were nested with something they could not handle(in the case of the Americans and the British heavy tank units, or their squadron vehicles in fireflys or challengers in British tank units) Soviet tankers were effectively on their own. T34s were notoriously reliable, in the worst conditions in the war, with some of the least trained crews in the war, KVs were unreliable becasue they had the same engine and it was overburdened by the extra couple of tons of armour, but the T34 engine was phenomenally good, rough ready and reliable. It was the first powerful and reliable tank engine made during the war and it did not require really any development(asside from being made more simple for mass manufacture). So i'm not sure where you're pulling that from.

Well the elephant, everyone's favorite punching bag, 91 of them made, 90 of them deployed during the battle of the Kursk in 2 squadrons of 45, the largest tank battle of the entire war, is credited with destroying 320 enemy vehicles for the loss of just 13 of their own, (quoted as being an average 10:1 kill ratio, so I imagine some particular vehicles were getting a lot of kills becasue 320:1 translates to 1:24.66 kills each), most losses were due to enemy infantry action, as the elephants outstripped their own supporting infantry, as they advanced too quickly. I'd be signing that juicy contract for more of the things, maybe be put infantry telephones on them or some such. As shown in modern day Iraq(where they literally lost tanks to hand grenades being thrown into the hatches), Turkey or Yemen you can have a really good tank (Like an M1A2 Abrams or Leopard 2 A4) but if you have no infantry support you're a rolling pyre.

But this whole thing is completely off topic. Favorite is not necessarily great in the circumstances it was designed for, let alone found itself it.

M51 super sherman, prolly one of the more sucessful storys of how to retrofit a completely inferior and outdated tank into a (at the times) modern fighting machine.

T-34 engine wasn't good until mid 1942 it was very terrible, one-time use

 OldMate wrote:
<snipped for length

I would strongly disagree with several of your points.

But do you consider that many of the projects were ended becasue the current model, the Sherman, was seen as good enough for the job, and that this might have stymied the development process of things like the Perishing. US command was totally willing to take casualties.

short answer, no. many projects were shelved because they offered either no or at best marginal improvments over the sherman, and the costs of implementation outweighed those benefits, considering the need to built, ship and support these new designs. the Perishing wasnt particularly "held back" by a US military that was stuck in the mud and preffered the existing shermans. The perishing was held back by its own flaws and the development timelines to remedy those flaws, and realistically couldnt have got into service much sooner than it did historically (at least not without having the reliability issues the early panthers had at Krusk). the US was indeed willing to take casualties, but it still wanted the best weapons it could.

76 did not need to be a fleetwide upgrade. Also the British were keeping one eye ahead, unlike the Americans and actually developed and produced the firefly before DDay, becasue they expected to fight stronger enemy tanks, this is exactly what I am talking about in the American unwillingness to adapt to battlefield experience and wanting to minimalise casualties

the 76mm was actually available and in Britain in time for D-day, but commanders, on the basis of their existing experience with german armour in north africa (where tigers were stopped by 75mm gun shermans) decided they wanted to keep the 75mm that was better against the soft targets that they spent 90% of the time fighting, as well as simplify logistics (always a critically important factor in american thinking).

he British even offered to let the Americans make the 17pounder under license in late 1942 when it first came out, like they did earlier with the 6pdr(which became the foremost medium AT gun in the US military during 1943). But aforementioned Anglophobia meant they decided their 76 was better, despite it really not being the case

not anglophobia, since as you mentioned they quite happily took the 6pdr as the 57mm (they looked at the 57mm as a tank gun, but felt it lost too much power over distance due to the lighter shell), as well as the merlin engines for the P-51. They tested the 17 pdr extensively (they tested a lot of foreign made equipment, adopted what they liked, stole good ideas if they saw them, etc), and decided against it. This was more a recognition that A) the 17pdr had its own problems, namely accuracy at range due to issues with the sabot rounds, and B) the americans had not one, but two new AT gun projects that were better suited for thier purposes, the 76mm that could be retro-fitted to existing tanks easily, and the 90mm which gave better performance than the 17pdr.

the americans put a great deal more emphasis on ergonomics than everyone else did, and basically felt the 17pndr stuffed into a sherman was too cramped. the gunner was forced to fight at a really awkward postion due to the location of the controls, the loader had very little room to move the large shells in, etc, etc. the brits were willing to accept these limits, and since they actaully put the firefly into the feild (unlike the 76mm shermans), the firefly got a reputation as a tank killer.

The T34, it has a bad look for its losses, but honestly its hard to find a better medium tank during the war. Panther is where i'd start(which also gets an unfair rap these days as well).

Id argue that the t-34, panther and the sherman all have "bad raps" form differently slanted fanbois, but they were likely the best tank for the country producing them, though the soviets did think quite highly of the shermans they got though lend lease, issuing them to the Guards units.


panther had a lot of problems relating to it being rushed into service, most of which were ironed out in due coruse, and a few that were endemic and stem form the fundamental design choices of the design (for example, the difficulty in changing transmissions). once they were sorted they had a solid tank that did well enough.

T-34 was always a "good enough, in large quantity" tank, and the early model t34-76s in particular had significant problems (2 man turrets, lack of radios, etc). the russains were forced by the dire straights of 1941-42 to emphaise production almost to the exclusion of all else, which delayed the introduction of improvements to the design.

the shermans great strengths were reliability and easy maintenance, which led to high serviceability rates, and that it was available in great quanties as well.


if you've not already seen his work, may i recommend watching the chieftains videos on the matters, namely the myths of american armour talk and why the sherman was what it was videos. i think you'd like them.



>

A short backtrack regarding why I like the last two tanks: I like the VT-1 for it's simple crazyness and how uncommon the setup was. Shows that the responsible engineers where not afraid to think outside the box.

Regarding the Begleitpanzer 57 I just think a fast firing 57mm could really be an asset, especially when it likely would be able to also do some light to medium anti air fire. Apart from that I also just really like light tanks and think even today they could have a role in assisting "real" MBTs. Especially when they can be produced much cheaper. You could most likely get the 57 turret out of the drawer, make it remote controlled, slap it on a GTK Boxer and immediatly have something useful.

It's also worth pointing that tank affecinados tend to think purely in World of Tanks terms (tank vs tank).

By 1944 the Western allies weren't fighting that many German tanks and the Japanese and Italians had few if any armored vehicles. Most of the time tanks would be spending their time supporting the infantry and fighting through dense terrain.

The 17pdr was a good gun but really only clearly better than the 75 and 76mm against heavy tanks, which were a small fraction of what allied tanks were doing. Most of the time they were shooting softer targets. The Sherman Firefly, while loved by tank nuts for having such a big gun, was a vehicle of middling performance in practice. I'm not sure we can credit the British that much for the idea of taking a British gun and slapping it on an American tank, a stop-gap measure they only needed because their own tank program was so very slow to produce results. And it's worth noting they didn't fit the 17 pdr in their eventual final product, the Cromwell. The Cromwell also got a 75mm gun because the British came to much the same conclusions as their American counterparts about what they needed in practice and what was easiest to spam hundreds of rounds down range.

It is worth pointing out that American ballistic tests were actually terribly flawed in methodology. They overestimated the viability of the 76mm while underestimating the use of the 17pdr, but I'd say the actual outcome of combat rendered this error inconsequential in real terms. People then and today tend to overestimate the performance and availability of German tanks. Famed Tiger Ace Michael Wittman was killed when a Sherman 75mm punctured his Tiger's armor. When you actually have 5 Shermans to shoot with, you really only need 1 to actually get through and that's only when those Shermans happen upon a German tank. Toward the end of the war American forces were firing HE rounds in the thousands monthly while going through only a fraction as much AP ammo.

The Sherman and the T34 are favorites for good reason. They were easily the two best tanks of the war in real terms and a lot more comparable in performance than most people realize.

Famed Tiger Ace Michael Wittman was killed when a Sherman 75mm punctured his Tiger's armor.

Yeah, but let's be honest about that one. it wasn't a head on fight. 3 different sections ambushed his unit from concealed positions as it crossed an open field. the kill shot came from behind and left.

Consider what happened to the 2/502nd heavy panzer battalion ace (an Italian) Alfredo Carpaneto who rose to fame facing off 13 T-343/85 with his single tiger killing 4 and forcing the rest to retreat then in a later action took out 8 of 13 T-24/85 in a head on fight (2 while immobilized stuck in a pond).





Also consider, tiger 231 during the battle of Kursk




I am not saying it was the best tank, it was overly expensive to build considering the wartime resource demands even though it outclassed most of its early contemporaries.


Tank battles were very situational especially in WWII.

Just to clarify some points
By 76 I mean the US 76 not the 17pdr(which I will only adress as such). The British did adopt the 17pdr as organic anti tank power within tank squadrons(running fireflys with cromwells or regular shermans) prior to Dday, and heavy tank units were basically partnered with mobile AT units(that good old Churchill Archillies synergy), the Americans would adopt the 76 in the Jumbo Sherman(and the easy 8, but more in a heavy assault role, but still armed with a 76, for some reason)) after the lessons learnt during the war in Normandy.

Anglophobia(or fear of being accused an Anglophile on the other hand) was a real political element in America during the war and it coloured many decisions. It was a weird atmosphere that decisions were made in, looking back it seems ridiculous but it seemed to be present.

The Americans adopted the 57 because their 37s were totally inadequate when they entered the war and it was a quick and convenient fix to the light AT problem(it was the same reason the British adopted the US 75mm too, their shells were essentially the same size, so the Americans could use the same equipment to make barrels and the British literally just had to re-bore 6pdr barrels up to 75mm). It was a no brainer, not really comparable to the bigger AT problem.

The 76 was in development and the Americans were loathe to drop it as it was essentially very different to the 17pdr. The 90(modeled off an obselete AA gun) was in the works later and for a very long time, and only became available in limited numbers by late 44, likewise with the perishing's development.

I do not have a problem with the sherman, its just that it could have been better. At the end of the day its the apes in the tank and not the steel shell that makes all the difference. A Canadian guy knocked out 6 panthers in a row with a regular 75 armed sherman. Tigers had a fearsome reputation, but as they were heavy tanks they were often given to the best crews, so its sort of intuative that they got that reputation. Saying that if you park one in plain sight of the enemy(as in an account from Tunisia, it was in a hull down position(firing position), but not turret down(ie completely obscured, as it should have been, as it was not firing or seemingly aware of a troop of churchills bumbling around in front of it)) the enemy will bring something up to destroy it(17pdr in that case).

I'd suggest for some light reading
'The Business of Tanks' By G. Macleod Ross-- In collaboration with Major General Sir Cambell Clark
If you can get your hands on it, I think my copy was published in 1976,

Also this handy document: Could not find an online access but it is a completely free download. Its the overview of a massive study on Allied tank losses during ww2 and was completed in the 50s, breaks everything down quite well.
https://payhip.com/b/DO4I


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
A short backtrack regarding why I like the last two tanks: I like the VT-1 for it's simple crazyness and how uncommon the setup was. Shows that the responsible engineers where not afraid to think outside the box.

Regarding the Begleitpanzer 57 I just think a fast firing 57mm could really be an asset, especially when it likely would be able to also do some light to medium anti air fire. Apart from that I also just really like light tanks and think even today they could have a role in assisting "real" MBTs. Especially when they can be produced much cheaper. You could most likely get the 57 turret out of the drawer, make it remote controlled, slap it on a GTK Boxer and immediatly have something useful.

Very much outside the box! I love the idea of it screaming around firing, and engaging multiple targets, a wild wild machine.

Begleitpanzer 57, I agree, a 57mm cannon is going to cause hell to any unit that is not an MBT, and it might work to relieve the pressure from other components of the battlegroup. It might also unburdeon MBTs from having to provide fire support to infantry when engaging hardened positions etc. Considering the BMP 3 has a 100m cannon and 30mm cannon, I really think someting like a 57mm automatic cannon really treads the happy medium.

On a 57mm modern system; with the advent of modern active kill systems(chiefly the Iserali 'iron fist') being capable of intercepting APFDS projectiles I think something like a 57mm auto cannon should be able to quickly overwhelm and blow a system like this off an MBT, along with any additional armour modules. Leaving it open for an ATGM. So the TOW is a nice touch, and should counter any laser dazzlers etc.

 aphyon wrote:
Yeah, but let's be honest about that one. it wasn't a head on fight. 3 different sections ambushed his unit from concealed positions as it crossed an open field. the kill shot came from behind and left.

Only a moron looks for a fair fight in war

That it's not fair isn't really the point. If anything, it not being fair is the point. People in tank discussions tend to think like it's a video game and the biggest bullet does the most damage. Generally true but often far less significant than people think it is. When you outnumber your enemy, it doesn't matter that you need to fire more shells to achieve a knockout. You have the extra guns to shoot and in WWII one penetration was usually more than enough to set a tank on fire or set off its own ammo supply.

Anglophobia(or fear of being accused an Anglophile on the other hand) was a real political element in America during the war and it coloured many decisions.

It did, but I'm pretty well read on the ordinance department's procedures on tank procurement and I've never seen any sign that anglophobia played a role in the rejection of the 17pdr. The US rejected the weapon after tests showed it was insufficiently better than the 76mm. These tests were horribly flawed, something the ordinance department would try to cover up after the war, but its decisions were based on a completely different set of biases than anglophobia. I think you're giving this way more credit in this regard than it warrants. Mostly the OD was biased toward the 76mm because they had a lot of them and it was fairly easy and simple to make more. If anything they worried that adopting the 17pdr would make the higher-ups question their desire to build more 76mm vehicles and OD was already in an uphill battle trying to make the 76mm the standard.

The 76mm wasn't 'in development.' The 76mm was just a reproduction of the 3 Inch coastal gun which the US had gak tons of before the war started and had already repurposed into anti-tank weapons for guns and tank destroyers. We had hordes of ammo so it was a no brainer to just make a new version of an old gun that wasn't really any different than the old one. These weapons were extremely successful in North Africa and Italy and many failures were rightfully placed on doctrine and deployment problems. Rather than start making new vehicles and 17pdrs, the OD was obsessed with trying to get American heavy tanks off the ground and into production and these vehicles were slated to use the 76mm from the start and then upped to the 90m later and the 90mm had better performance against a range of targets than the 17pdr. Angophobia wasn't part of this equation so much as a more general self-interest and dispassion for a gun no one in the OD thought they needed.

If you can get your hands on it, I think my copy was published in 1976,

50 years is a long time to be behind on scholarship, especially tank scholarship which is a pretty active and enthusiastic field. Charles Baily's Faint Praise was published in 1983 and changed a lot about Ordnance Department history.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
M51 super sherman, prolly one of the more sucessful storys of how to retrofit a completely inferior and outdated tank into a (at the times) modern fighting machine.

A fixer upper if ever there was one! They performed well, fought pretty much unmodified Syrian Panzer MkIVs and T34s.

The Argentinians did the same, but with former fireflys(they got a lot of British hardware in the 50s) rather than Jumbos, must have been pretty cozy in the turret, with a 105 breech to squeeze in with.


On the subject of WW2 tank retrofits, here's a pint sized one from Brazil.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

If you can get your hands on it, I think my copy was published in 1976,

50 years is a long time to be behind on scholarship, especially tank scholarship which is a pretty active and enthusiastic field. Charles Baily's Faint Praise was published in 1983 and changed a lot about Ordnance Department history.

Well General MacLeod Ross, was essentially the British liaison within America and handled the British interests in the development of tanks in America. Also had a hand in designing the Mk2 Matilda. So as books on the matter go it is old, but its as close to a primary source, I mean it was literally written by the guys who were involved with armour and gun development at the time(and includes many private memorandums etc from the time) So yeah, its a oldin but a goodin. Would not have suggested it elsewise.

And the Ordnance Department wrote three histories on its wartime role and actions. All three of which are more notable for their deflections of blame than anything.

Just because a source is primary or was written by someone who was there doesn’t mean it should be taken at its word especially in light of contrary evidence. I think I remember Ross vaguely and I’m sure he encountered quite a bit of hostility, especially from old blood southerners. I’m also saying I think that hostility had less to do with the rejection of the 17pdr than the OD’s own internal policy goals for the 76mm and heavy tank production.

And I’m not saying its a bad book. Old doesn’t mean bad but it does mean it by defnition is not up-to-date and history has no gospels. I’ve read a lot of newer books on US tank development and while there’s lots of mention of anglophobia in them its not in the parts about the 17pdr (t-23 development on the other hand).

Yeah, take the Bureau of Ordinance's contemporary writings with a grain of salt. These are the same chuckleheads who made the Mk14 Torpedo.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, take the Bureau of Ordinance's contemporary writings with a grain of salt. These are the same chuckleheads who made the Mk14 Torpedo.

the US Navy's "Bureau of Ordinance" and the US Army's "Ordinance Department" are two seperate organisations that furfill the same roles for thier respective branches. so its hardly fair to tar one for the failings of the other.

And, in defence of the indefensible pile of failure that was the Mk14, its worth pointing out the British and Germans also had significant issues with torpedoes in the early war, so its not just the Americans. the only reason the Japanese didnt have issues was they coughed up the money for the extensive testing needed to find and avoid those issues.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
M51 super sherman, prolly one of the more sucessful storys of how to retrofit a completely inferior and outdated tank into a (at the times) modern fighting machine.

Plus it looks awesome.