This. M6 was crap and undergunned (boasting firepower similar to that of IS-1), other ones were too late to the party (I don't consider M26 to be a true heavy tank).
WW2 was all about hitting with mass as opposed to modern machines which is all about force multiplying. With the weight of one heavy you could get more medium shermans that were good enough. Meet a Tiger? Spam five Shermans against it until it is swarmed.
Planes were actually remarkably ineffective against tanks, all data available suggests that about 1 in 10 reported tank kills by aircraft were accurate.
Battleships required very deep ports to dock. In the case of heavy tanks, they add extra parts to the mix in addition to taking up the tonnage of 2-3 other, smaller tanks.
floating it isn't the problem, loading it on and unloading it from the things that could fit a heavy tank would mean we'd be trading dozens of shermans for a handful of heavies, for every voyage.
To add to what other anons said, they weren't really needed at the time. it became more of a concern after Germany surrendered and they spent the summer wondering what was going to happen next with the Soviets and their IS-2's and upcoming IS-3's
Because they couldn't make good one while war was on. They made dozen T29, T30 and T34 prototypes in 1945 and 1946. Project was cancelled in October 1945, they completed few more prototypes after that for general testing of heavy tanks. Earlier M6 heavy tank was unreliable piece of shit, that had better armor than Sherman, but barely more fire power. Closest things to heavy tank Americans actually deployed to combat was T26E1-1, a Pershing with lot longer than usual 90mm main gun that used different two piece ammunition and had much higher muzzle velocity, they managed to deploy a single one of those to Europe before war ended.
It’s a combination of failing to produce a design and the requirements being much stricter than what Germany or USSR was producing. US had the luxury of not rushing unreliable vehicles into production so they’d rather sit on a design than commit something subpar to production.
Source: I watch Chieftan on yt making me the foremost expert on this topic
>This, US heavy tank development was godawful, and the designs missed actual combat requirements.
Well it was like dead last on priorities. Ships, aircraft, ammo and proven designed stuff churned out at max speed were all massively more important then experimental slow heavy weapons.
>more of a hassle to ship overseas compared to just more shermans >would require its own spare parts which would take away from just reliably overwhelming sherman spare parts needs >the role of heavy tank would have to be actively fit into existing US tank doctrine >only real purpose that it could do better than shermans would be to 1v1 german heavy tanks >at the cost of fewer shermans that were just as good or better in nearly every other scenario that did not involve fighting german heavies head on >allied air superiority meaning german heavies getting memed on by tank hunting planes every single day
Ultimately there just weren't enough advantages in shipping them to outweight the effort.
Burgers already had doctrine for heavies and it wasn't 1v1'ing german tonks, it was creating breakthroughs against strong enemy defensive lines, and as such their heavies were designed mainly to have strong frontal armor at the expense of sides and rear - something that other armies already found out in practice to be bad. Both Germans and Russians decided to up armor sides of their breakthrough tanks/heavies as they noted that during attacks on enemy fortified lines they actually do take a lot of hits to the sides, while during early years they believed it will be all down to the frontal armor.
So... even if burgers would mass produce and ship any of the T29/T30/T34, the field results would be poor.
Also, if you needed more dakka, there were a few cases of a 105 or even 155 SPG being brought forward under cover of darkness or smoke and using direct fire against obstacles. Meanwhile, as others have covered, there were 1) huge issues with the promised "wonder tanks" (especially with the electric-drive models, which were excellent... on paper), and 2) logistical issues (rail cars capable of hauling >40-ton loads, ship cranes capable of same, bridges in France capable of same, etc.).
Frankly, if you could go back and fix one thing about US armor, your best bet would be to just get rid of TDs and replace them with more Shermans, and then skip the 76mm gun and go straight to the 90mm (e.g., the Sherman tested with a Pershing turret). The only drawback would be the limited ammo supply, which would still have been ample for anything less than spending multiple days out of the range of resupply vehicles (which the US wanted to do, but never really managed).
exactly. There was only ever around 100 Tiger I and Tiger II on the western front (combined) and only ever around 450 panthers. Probably like 30,000 shermans were used in europe. absolutely no need for the Allies to use heavies since static fortifications were obsolete anyway and they had total air superiority.
>only real purpose that it could do better than shermans would be to 1v1 german heavy tanks
While they probably could, it would almost never even happen. No tanker or CO would send a lone tank in to tackle an armoured threat without supporting armour or infantry.
Sherman worked well enough that they couldn't be fricked to properly produce and ship heavy tanks. probably not helped by the fact that the jumbo existed
> Germans throw out Tiger IIs haphazardly into the enemy > Results are mixed, at best, and they further diversify their industry/supply system during a time where standardization would sure as shit be better > Where are all the super-heavy tanks dreamed up by the US, Soviets and Germans today?
M103 was an incredibly niche, specialized vehicle for acting as a mobile bunker
it was already seen as near-useless as its most likely fate was being abandoned when US forces were withdrawing to a further line of defense
it only stuck around due to sheer inertia
the soviets gave up on the IS series for much the same reasons
the existing T-62s could do the same job the IS tanks could for less weight
cold war opinions were pretty much re-learning the same lessons from WW2
heavy tanks were, at best, hyper-niche weapons for use in a very specific circumstance
but turned out to be way too much effort for even that use-case and were discarded in favor of MBTs
Not even "mobile bunker", the M103 was what they came up with to make a tank with a gun that can kill the IS-3. That gun turned out to weight over 5 tons so they needed to make a big tank to carry it. Doctrinal deployment would be 1 company/platoon of M103's one terrain feature behind 3 other units of M46/47/48 in hull-down position waiting to kill IS-3 if they showed themselves. It's a turreted Jagdtiger.
> A tank in a defensive position, which already gives you a 3-1 advantage > Doing this against Russian tactics of moronation > Believing any shit that came out of Germany's mouth and their Luftwaffe aces who shot down 80 gorillian allied planes
>tiger bns only saw service against lolrussia
so you are a moron, got it
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yea, 5-6 Tiger IIs were also facing west. How insecure do you have to be to be this tremendously moronic?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>so you are a moron, got it
americans only fought tigers 3 times in western europe, because the tiger I was already in the process of being phased out
first time, the shermans won, the second time they knocked out a single pershing, and the third time the tigers were loaded on a train
the british encounter with the tiger Is at normandy did not exactly corroborate 6:1 KD in favor of the germans
at the battle of villers-bocage, where they encountered one of the only german tiger units in the area, they lost maybe 20-30 tanks against roughly 10 german losses written off (british count any tank, even one with thats only lost turret traverse, a loss while germans only count totally destroyed ones a loss)
at most, assuming no vehicles other than tigers got kills, you would have maybe 3:1 at most
the US actually ended up fighting way more tiger IIs than tiger Is, as 150 of them were committed to the ardennes
and theres no indication they ever got 6:1 losses at the ardennes either
most engagements were between king tigers and infantry, who knocked them out with AT guns or bazookas, and when they did engage tanks they would usually score even (neither side lost tanks) or the allies would lose 1-3 tanks and the germans would lose 1
there are few recorded cases of king tigers getting close to 6 kills each in the western front
at most, you would be looking at maybe 1:2 or 1:3 in favor of the king tigers
just look at the ardennes, US lose 700 tanks to the germans 500, if each of the 150 king tigers present got 6 kills each, then the numerically overwhelming panthers and pzIVs would have basically scored zero kills in total
2 years ago
Anonymous
Villers-Bocage saw 15 allied vehicles destroyed by one tiger ace that literally drove into their convoy and then he bailed when he was disabled
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Villers-Bocage saw 15 allied vehicles destroyed by one tiger ace >one single tank accounts for half of all British losses
You seriously take that as plausible?
Were all other german forces in the area asleep?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Michael Wittmann had ordered his battalion to hold their position. As for the damage > Wittmann destroyed up to 14 tanks, 15 personnel carriers and two anti-tank guns within 15 minutes for the loss of his own tank
2 years ago
Anonymous
The veracity of whittmans account has been seen as exaggerated, especially as the germans have had a habit of applying his whole battalions kills to just him specifically for the purposes of propaganda
In any case, the final scoreboard at the end of the battle was 15 tanks knocked out by tigers and at least 6 tigers lost, a little over 2:1 and nowhere near the claimed 6:1
exactly. There was only ever around 100 Tiger I and Tiger II on the western front (combined) and only ever around 450 panthers. Probably like 30,000 shermans were used in europe. absolutely no need for the Allies to use heavies since static fortifications were obsolete anyway and they had total air superiority.
There were 36 tiger Is in normandy, and a small number of tiger IIs
150 tiger IIs were committed to the battle of the bulge alone
Most were defeated by AT guns who did not need special tactics to engage them, they simply ambushed them like they did any other tank
>what are Cold War heavy tank like M103, Conqueror and T-10
> Where are all the super-heavy tanks dreamed up by the US, Soviets and Germans today?
Maus was taken by the russians and shoved in a shed, E-100 used as a target, and most Tiger IIs fricking scrapped for the metal.
well T28 was literally left in a field and remained stealthed in a bush like it was WoT for decades. The people who wanted M103 had to fricking fight in order for it to be made, and it was made in small numbers in relation to M46 even. It wasmore made to be a tank with a big frick-off gun to counter the IS-3. Conqueror was essentially the same idea, down to having the same gun, and it was made in fewer numbers.
Early IS-3s were so poorly welded supposedly the front plates snapped apart on taking a non-penetrating impact, and the soviets eventually realized that they couldn't really make a good heavy tank that was also cheap and doubled down on Mediums.
Between M103, Conqueror and T-10, these tanks were all made literally for the purpose of being able to kill each other. When people realized that you could just put the big guns on a medium tank chassis and have a more versatile tank, they basically all gave up on the heavy tank concepts; M103 only stuck around as long as it did because Board of Ordinance was pissing around on whether to make a new 120, make a 120 gun-launcher, or just put the 105 into a tank. Eventually it did all three.
No one can prove you wrong because you’re correct. Any of the modern MBTs are heavily armored and massively armed but also are fairly fast and maneuverable. Case in point the M1A2 SEPv3 clocks in at 73.6 tons. The Tiger II at 76.9 tons. Yes they were both heavily armored and armed to the teeth but for obvious technological reasons the Abrams moves faster than traditional light tanks of the era.
>Why didn't the US use heavy tanks in WW2?
Heavy tanks are a meme, the Sherman did 95% of a tank's job well enough and it could get plenty of assistance with the last 5% if it needed it.
whats the point? you can visibly see that no amount of armor is going to save you since the heavier you go the more people will pour into defeating the armor with high velocity shells
eventually you reach a critical mass that the tank is so huge that it's easily targetable by air and especially on the ground
The heavy tank as a concept was a pretty flawed concept from the start during WWII. Sure its nice to have really think armor and a big frick you cannon but the fact is that most of the time all of that was overkill and did nothing other than make the whole thing so damned heavy it couldnt cross bridges or would grind its drive train into dust after moving 100 miles. The practical uses of a heavy tank were always pretty slim and most of the time they couldnt make it to the front in large numbers to do a hell of a lot. But when they did they were scary as shit. Most people see the heavy tanks from the russians and germans with their impressive specs on paper and dont grasp that its just numbers on a page. It sure looks impressive but when you get down to how useful they actually were it would have been much more effective to slap out a bunch more Panzer 4 variants or design a more rational medium sized tank.
The simple fact is the heavy lifting as far as the fighting was all done by medium tanks for the most part.
Well, the long 88 is much bigger and stronger than their medium 75 and the armor on german tanks was generally thicker as well. Then you filter that through Hollywood who loves their underdog stories and every german general writing books saying that everything they did and everything they had was amazing and they TOTALLY would've won if not for ______. Some guy on youtube saying "well hold on, if we look at these maintenance reports and these operational readiness reports and these after-action reports then..." just isn't as attractive to the layman.
Fuddlore, particularly "Death Traps" which was authored by someone who's sole job was to recondition recovered Shermans. Because of this he only saw knocked out Shermans, and just assumed that the Sherman was bad.
Sherman was far from great design, it was adequate, but it had two things going for it. It was being built without supply problems. So materials used didn't have compromises war time shortages. It was also used mostly by Americans. If you wonder why that matters, mechanization of agriculture and cars becoming normal middle and working class thing happened in US 20's and 30's after WWI. In Europe due to costs of both WW's that didn't happen until 50's when post WWII austerity ended. Back then cars and tractors required lot more maintenance than now. Pretty much everyone dealing with them had to be semi competent mechanic just to keep it running. While kinda semi obsolete design of Sherman drive train that gave it high profile was issue, not to mention 6 gorillion different engines they used on 'em, it had remained same in basic design from terrible M2 medium tank and M3 Lee/Grant. Both crews and material quality improved reliability. Huge part of Pershings reputation for unreliability early on was the fact that it was introduced before supply chain knew for spare parts consumption and maintenance requirements for sure, in Korea the problem was different, Pershings in Japan had been left to rot on depots after WWII, tanks units doing anything outside of bases used only Chaffees as those didn't destroy roads and streets. For post WWII use, Sherman was still adequate. In Korean War everything that applied in WWII were still true and they could call up WWII vets from reserves, crews with plenty of experience. 76mm gun was still effective against everything commies threw at it. Available at scrap metal price for export and folks in countries like Israel were willing to upgrade it guns unthinkable during WWII after the war. Like French post war 105mm gun Israel used.
deliberately disingenuous
you dont serve until the 70s by merely being adequate
what does that make the panzer IV? terrible?
Fuddlore, particularly "Death Traps" which was authored by someone who's sole job was to recondition recovered Shermans. Because of this he only saw knocked out Shermans, and just assumed that the Sherman was bad.
>Because of this he only saw knocked out Shermans, and just assumed that the Sherman was bad.
if only it could be chalked up to that
to parahphrase the top comment on amazon: >frequently gets basic dates wrong >frequently gets armor measurements and model type on the sherman wrong, even though as logistics he should know the differences between sherman sub-types >interjects his own opinion as fact
How it is fricking disingenuous? Good crews more than compensate somewhat lacking equipment, especially on maintenance side. Not having to use substandard materials also improves reliability. Late production Pz IV literally had worse turret rotation due lack of ball bearings when compared to earlier models of same tank despite having better guns and improved armor.
Sherman was far from perfect tank. Good part of its reputation for being reliable are unrelated to its design. Reliability was by far its greatest feature. No, it didn't remain in service until 70's. It remained in service until 2018, that is when Paraguay removed their last Shermans for reserve equipment lists. That might have something to do with the fact that their tanks might have been around for intimidation of their own population. When it comes to US post WWII use, they simply abandoned most of tanks after war and only kept the M4A3E8 (76) HVSS after the war. Some of the SPGs based on Sherman chassis used older variations suspension, tracks and engines.
If we want to dig into Pershing. Bad reputation is why next variant of same tank was renamed to M46 Patton, death of most famous tank general was also a factor, but it is probably more about rotten reputation of the tank. Yes, it also had design issues like drive train developed for earlier lighter T20-series prototypes and way increased mass when they started to add more armor and bigger gun to the initial design. Tanks already near theater in Japan in Korean War were in state of neglect that troops putting those to depots didn't bother close hatches, some tanks had moss growing inside. One can only wonder what few years rain does to electric wiring. All of Patton tanks are just gradual evolution of Pershing. Last serial production Pattons rolled out in 1987. Last low rate production M88 recovery vehicles were ordered in 2017 and delivered in 2019. They might at some point order even more of those in future.
>How it is fricking disingenuous? >performed very well >served well past the point it was obsolete >"just adequate"
It literally served several times over what was expected of it
Adequate is the word used to describe vehicles that only barely met expectations, like the crusader tank which was only retained due to being slightly better than the cruiser tanks and was retired in only a year
What qualifies as a good tank then?
Few other tanks even come close to the M4s service life or service history >inb4 mentions the T-64 because of composite armor
>Sherman was far from great design, it was adequate
It was literally the single best tank of the war in terms of cost/benefit ratio
>good crew ergonomics >high crew survivability >good enough gun >good optics >can be manufactured on existing automobile production lines, thus allowing Detroit to make them by the tens of thousands >light enough to ship into theater easily >reliable enough to have high availability rates and relatively low logistical overhead >actually fielded with ARVs so you don't have to just leave them when they break down
>good crew ergonomics >high crew survivability >good enough gun >good optics >can be manufactured on existing automobile production lines, thus allowing Detroit to make them by the tens of thousands >light enough to ship into theater easily >reliable enough to have high availability rates and relatively low logistical overhead >actually fielded with ARVs so you don't have to just leave them when they break down
These are all things "in spite of" not "because" of the fundamental design of the Sherman. The fundamental issue is that the US army was badly underfunded during the interwar and could not keep up with technological advances that were already made on the civilian side. At the same time, the mobilization and demand for tanks was so great that the Army couldn't put the clean sheet it always wanted into action and went with incremental improvements on what they had. The Sherman's drive train is essentially the same as the M2 light tank of 1935 (rear mounted radial engine, front drive with volute spring suspension in bogies), which had evolved into the M2 medium, then M3 medium. This setup had known deficiencies by 1940 and the replacement system (rear mounted V engine, rear drive, torsion bar suspension, preferably with automatic transmission) was already planned, but R&D was pushed to low priority during the war in favor of "a tank now" and it was only with the M18 hellcat that the army's preferred drive train was fielded.
The Sherman is the best that you could make a tank based on interwar technology and theory, it had reached it's evolutionary end by 1945 and the successor tank M26 was a clean sheet that shared basically nothing with the Sherman. Whereas you can draw a clear line from T-34 to T-43 to T-44 to T-55 and so on.
>These are all things "in spite of" not "because" of the fundamental design of the Sherman
That sentence doesn't mean anything.
The form factor of the Sherman allowed a much larger crew compartment than a T-34, which is the basic reason why survivability and ergonomics were so good.
The relatively narrow base is and light weight is why it could be manufactured on automobile production plants, and why it could be shipped into theater so easily.
The high reliability was a function of the suspension, transmission, and engine all being well designed and well integrated into the system as a whole.
So if the crew layout, the form factor, and the subsystems like the suspension, transmission and engine were all good, what part of the "fundamental design" isn't good? The only valid criticism I can think of is that a torsion bar suspension would have been better, and the turret wasn't big enough for big post-war guns, but those are minor quality of life issues. If something is literally better than every other design fielded during the war, it isn't mediocre.
2 years ago
Anonymous
the form factor of the tank doesnt look anything like a modern tank while something like a panther does.
2 years ago
Anonymous
And? WW2 was a different conflict with different priorities. Ease of production and transport were more important when the conflict was consuming tens of thousands of vehicles a year. Armor and firepower were less important because guns and armor were both less developed.
2 years ago
Anonymous
what i mean is that the panther design is superior to the sherman yet the sherman was a million times more effective in the field. the m3 lee is a goofy shitbox that did fricking work when it first showed up.
war isnt just about specs.
2 years ago
Anonymous
To use an analogy, late vacuum tubes were more reliable than early transistors, a piece of electronic in the early 50's made from a vacuum tube will be able to handle more power and is cheaper than a transistor one.
Sherman is the best interwar tank ever built, the Americans themselves realized they had maxed out every piece of technology used on the Sherman and started from a clean sheet on their next tank, and Pershing would form the foundation of the next 4 tanks in American service (M46, M47, M103, M60) until the clean sheet Abrams replaced it. T-34 was the most "modern" widely produced design, there are pieces of T-34 that are still on the T-90, most notably the V-2 engine, which is on the T-90M as the V-92.
what i mean is that the panther design is superior to the sherman yet the sherman was a million times more effective in the field. the m3 lee is a goofy shitbox that did fricking work when it first showed up.
war isnt just about specs.
Panther is also an evolutionary dead end, it's still using inter/early war layout that post war tanks dropped. (front drive, small turret, main ammo stowage in the hull). Design wise it's no more modern than the Sherman besides torsion bars.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>The form factor of the Sherman allowed a much larger crew compartment than a T-34
Utter gibberish and a non-sequitur, There's nothing inherently roomy about the Sherman's design other than sheer dimensions, if they decided to design the T-34 a little bit taller and wider it would had been just as roomy.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>There's nothing inherently roomy about the Sherman's design other than sheer dimensions
>there's nothing inherently roomy about a Sherman other than it being taller, wider, and having a largest crew compartment
do you even listen to yourself?
2 years ago
Anonymous
You're talking about "form factor" like as if it's some kind of amazing technology or design technique when it's literally just deciding to add a few inches to a hull.
2 years ago
Anonymous
That's wrong though, the base 76mm gun T-34 has tons of design issues that all combine to make it horribly cramped and un-ergonomic >sloped hull sides >really narrow turret ring >no cupola >no turret basket >floor ammo bins >low capacity pan magazines for the MG
2 years ago
Anonymous
>if they decided to design the T-34 a little bit taller and wider it would had been just as roomy.
The T-34's problem is that the combination of sloped sides, narrow turret ring, and the springs of the Christie suspension being mounted inside the fricking thing robbed the crew of all the room inside the hull, The 34/85 upgrade only changed the turret to gave room for a dedicated gunner and give the loader room to huck 85mm shells into the breach, and even then it wasn't much.
It wasn't JUST that the Sherman was roomier because it was bigger (it had to be in order to make room for the prop shaft under the turret), but the Sherman's straight sides (where it could store ammo instead of being effectively dead space), wide turret ring, and externally-mounted bogie suspension meant that more room was available for the inside. Combined with a lot less shit had to be stored inside the tank along with all the dudes, and boom, more room.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Really should have pasted these two pics together, but you can see the design differences of the internal volumes of each tank.
>" and it was only with the M18 hellcat that the army's preferred drive train was fielded.
m18 was powered by a rear mounted radial engine and front transmission...
Don't forget the low-speed stabilizer too. Although a lot of tank crews weren't told exactly how it worked due to the secrecy behind it, I'm sure enough figured it out. The only real inadequacy of the Sherman was the 75mm gun once Tiger's & Panther's were introduced, though even those could be defeated with HE if you HAD to fight them. The 75mm was perfect at taking out Panzer III's and IV's and was even better at killing infantry than the 76mm ironically enough as the 75mm had more explosive filler than the 76mm. The Sherman just had by far the best specs you could get on a tank that had to be transported across the entire Atlantic ocean on transport ships that were torpedo'd a lot in the early part of the war.
Also, with all the people saying why didn't America use a heavy tank in WW2, are they forgetting the Easy 8, aka M4A3E8? Yeah I know, technically classified as an "Assault Tank", but a 76mm Sherman with massively increased armor that allowed it to stand toe to toe against Tiger 1's & Panther's.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>. Although a lot of tank crews weren't told exactly how it worked due to the secrecy behind it, I'm sure enough figured it out
it depended on the unit, some loved it some didnt even know it existed
3AD and 2AD saw more fighting than any other unit in europe, and they were trained since day 1 to use the stabilizer
but units in italy never trained with it outside of a single battalion
>Yeah I know, technically classified as an "Assault Tank"
the E8 was the experimental name for shermans equipped with HVSS, an upgrade to mobility not armor
E2 was the designation for shermans with an extra inch of armor on the front and sides
these were fearsome tanks, but only about 250 of them were made so they were fairly rare
a battalion only got a handful for pushing through dense enemy defenses
Logistics of Sherman were pretty huge mess due to massive number of different engine variants. Logistics worked mostly due crews themselves being able to do maintenance. Not due to training, but civilian experience. Basic drive train issues were pretty well known due earlier M2, totally moronic design for most parts, and M3. Inadequate substitute for Sherman, that was put into production because tanks at all were desperately needed and there was no serial production capacity for Sherman at that point. They couldn't make turrets that could house 75mm gun yet.
>How it is fricking disingenuous? >performed very well >served well past the point it was obsolete >"just adequate"
It literally served several times over what was expected of it
Adequate is the word used to describe vehicles that only barely met expectations, like the crusader tank which was only retained due to being slightly better than the cruiser tanks and was retired in only a year
What qualifies as a good tank then?
Few other tanks even come close to the M4s service life or service history >inb4 mentions the T-64 because of composite armor
Factors that gave it decent performance were something other than design itself. It didn't suffer from material shortages and simply had better crews to maintain it.
Proof that /k/ knows nothing about ww2, it's obvious you guys are full of shit jesus. You never heard of the Pershing? JUST WOW
LOL
EXPOSED!
Pershing was medium tank.
Oh, if we go into development of Pershing, it was delayed by same guy that delayed deployment of 76mm Shermans. Better weapons for troops on field complicated logistics too much. Lieutenant general Lesley McNair, posthumously full general. Dude never got field command in WWII, but he ran more than few higher command positions and he managed to get killed in possibly most fricked up friendly fire incident of US military history when he was inspecting troops in southern France. 100 US soldiers died with over 400 wounded, squadron of B-17's vs infantry battalion kind of thing. His only son died like week later in Pacific theater. On positive side he killed already very obsolete M6 heavy tank program. On negative side, he convinced that tank destroyer doctrine was completely adequate solution to enemy tanks, we can put those 76mm guns on less armored vehicles, but tanks don't have to deal with enemy tanks, ever. Other contemporary generals praised the guy in their autobiographies, historians tend to shit on him.
>Pershing was medium tank.
It was reclassified as a medium tank after the war. It was designed as a heavy tank.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>It was reclassified as a medium tank after the war. It was designed as a heavy tank.
It was designed as medium tank, it was reclassified as heavy tank briefly for propaganda reasons.
lmao at all the seething this post generated. The Sherman was indeed expedient design, just the fact that it used a fricking radial engine, of all things, should had clued everyone in to the fact that the priority was on getting a tank with whatever was at hand. Granted, it was the tank America needed, since a tank now is better than a tank later, but was it a great design? No fricking way. Had they been allowed by fate a few extra years to design a tank the Sherman would had never been the way it was.
>Granted, it was the tank America needed, since a tank now is better than a tank later, but was it a great design? No fricking way. Had they been allowed by fate a few extra years to design a tank the Lee would had never been the way it was.
Had they been allowed by fate a few extra years to design a tank the Lee would had never even existed.
FTFY
The M3 was a super rush job where they couldn't even afford a 75mm turret, while the Sherman was merely just a rush job. You really can't excuse the use of a radial engine, there's just no way anybody would deliberately choose to use one for a tank unless they had no other choice.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>there's just no way anybody would deliberately choose to use one for a tank unless they had no other choice.
The US was fielding M2s with radial engines, which bled into the M3 with radial engines, with then blended into the M4. It makes sense to lean into what you already know and works, and (aircraft) radial engines made sense for the US because they generated a lot of horsepower with manageable weight and the US was already building them. The M4 also had gasoline and diesel-engine variants, with the gas-powered V8 M4A3 being the US Army's "preferred" vehicle.
Also the M18 Hellcat used the same R-975 radial engine that the Sherman did. Seemed to do pretty well.
2 years ago
Anonymous
At least the Hellcat managed to use the incredibly arcane technology of using a transfer case to make sure the drive shaft didn't take up massive amounts of space. But the use of a radial can be explained by, again, using what's available and not what's actually good.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>At least the Hellcat managed to use the incredibly arcane technology of using a transfer case to make sure the drive shaft didn't take up massive amounts of space
The Hellcat was 8'5" with a smaller, open-topped turret, the M4A1 Sherman was 9'0" high with a bigger, wider, and enclosed turret. ~7" isn't insignificant, but it's not a massive gulf. I know that left vehicle is an M36, but it's more or less a Sherman hull.
>But the use of a radial can be explained by, again, using what's available and not what's actually good.
If you're that hung up on radials being terrible engines, the sherman had little to no trouble transitioning to what was "good." The A2 and A3 versions, again, swapped out the radial for a diesel and V8 gasoline, while the M4A4 had to be stretched in order to accommodate the Chrysler Multibank, and for the most part those were export only.
And before you say "it could be smaller if it didn't have a radial," the propshaft still needed space to run under the turret because the transmission was at the front.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>the propshaft still needed space to run under the turret because the transmission was at the front.
Should use up a lot less space, since inline engines have the crankshaft closer to the bottom.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Not that much, apparently. Also you'd have to convince the army to make another hull redesign and throw a wrench in their precious precious supply chain.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I'm not sure what your supposition is, I thought we were discussing what-ifs at the design stage. I mean, your entire post would be pointless otherwise if you're just discussing retrofitting into the Sherman.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I thought we were discussing what-ifs at the design stage
Ah, I was following the "radial engines are bad" thread. You could have just said "why didn't the US Army mass-produce the T20 series" instead.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Claiming radials are alright because nothing changes if you fit a smaller engine into a hull made for a bigger engine is a really dumb argument.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I was claiming that the radial provided the required horsepower to the tank and provided a decent power-to-weight ratio without causing lengthy production delays, reliability problems, ergonomic issues, or other design flaws other than the "slightly taller" height that just so happened to allow enough space for other and/or better engines to take its place with a minimal amount of hull retooling, redesign or production delays makes it alright.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>reliability problems
lmao, the radial engines were notorious for unreliability. Radials can't handle idling for long periods of time so the spark plugs would get fouled from oil collecting on the lower cylinders. Spark plugs were considered daily consumables. Imagine having to change spark plugs every fricking day!
There's your ergonomic issue and design flaw right there. Fact is, no one would had chosen a radial engine if it wasn't forced upon them by circumstances.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Fact is, no one would had chosen a radial engine if it wasn't forced upon them by circumstances.
And thats why they switched to other engines later on. Sherman haters always stick to arguments against the original model shermans but never seem to do the same when it comes to original model Pz IVs or T-34s.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Facts are facts. Every tank had it's problems. Pretending that the Sherman wasn't sub-optimal in some areas and the result of compromises unrelated to combat is just sticking your hand in the sand for no reason. It's an 80 year old tank! Why so attached to it?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Why so attached to it? >random people on the internet disparaging an effective combat system for absolutely no reason
dont pretend like it hasnt had a terrible reputation for decades due to "Death traps" and it is only recently that people have finally recognized that its actually very good
even the original M4A1 sherman has a great combat record
so yes, people seem very attached to it because it has had a needless beating for most of those 80 years
and bringing up that dead horse so soon after its finally had a reversal of repuation is dumb ass move
2 years ago
Anonymous
IT WAS NOT SUBOPTIMAL. The Sherman filled its role to near perfection. The 75mm Gun was great until heavier German tanks showed up, even then after the 76 was introduced, crews still stuck with the 75mm as it still filled its role well.
The fight over muh radials are shite and muh conventional engine is pointless. It got the job done and another engine was used later. They were both amazing power plants for a well made medium AFV. Combine that with ease of maintenance with the pull out transmission and easy to access engine bay, you could have it back up and running fast.
Deathtrap morons don't understand nuance. Compare how a sheman crew escapes a burning tank to a russian T-34 crew. Sherman crews could bail out very quickly and with relative safety. And stfu about 3 Shermans to a cat. You're a moron and need to read manuals, doctrine, combat reports and other actually relevant historical texts. So for once in your life, stop being contrarian for the sake of it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
speaking of manuals, how long did the "pull out" transmission require to replace, and how does that compare to contemporary machines?
2 years ago
Anonymous
You wouldn't need to replace it rather than repair it, provided it wasn't shot to shit. Roughly no more than a couple of hours iirc. >how does that compare to contemporary machines?
Only transmission that was close to the same level of ease of repair would be the T-34. If it was a German AFV? don't bother. doesn't even come close.
2 years ago
Anonymous
i meant replace as in remove and replace. the using arms were not authorized to replace a powertrain with another without authorization from ordnance. and the sherman TMs caution that "Removal of the power train assembly from the tank is a major operation that will require several hours. Because of its size and weight (8,800 lb) a fixture (41-F-2997-220) and wrecker are necessary to remove the assembly."
so we have the TMs saying the sherman transmission requires several hours to remove. again, i ask: quantitatively, how long did other machines take for transmission removal/installation?
2 years ago
Anonymous
According to TB ORD 275, you can replace the final drive assembly in the field. You could get the transmission out on the tray and replaced in the field. Note that the removal of the powertrain involves the whole powertrain rather than just the transmission. Regardless, a field maintenance company could get the job done, and even as you stated in several hours. Compare that to the enemy at the time (German Panzer divisions) had to wait for supply and even heavier lift equipment to remove the transmission.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>how long did the "pull out" transmission require to replace, and how does that compare to contemporary machines?
>comparing the sherman's transmission housing that could be worked on by three dudes to something like the PzIV which required you to lift the whole thing out with a goddamn crane for anything more than maintenance
2 years ago
Anonymous
i meant replace as in remove and replace. the using arms were not authorized to replace a powertrain with another without authorization from ordnance. and the sherman TMs caution that "Removal of the power train assembly from the tank is a major operation that will require several hours. Because of its size and weight (8,800 lb) a fixture (41-F-2997-220) and wrecker are necessary to remove the assembly."
so we have the TMs saying the sherman transmission requires several hours to remove. again, i ask: quantitatively, how long did other machines take for transmission removal/installation?
>get faceraped >try to ask pedantic questions about topics you don't understand so you can go WELL ACKTUALLY
If you actually looked up the answers yourself and posted some evidence that the Sherman had poor O&M characteristics compared to other AFVs, I might be responding to you seriously instead of calling you a homosexual.
2 years ago
Anonymous
kek ok. the only one here with actual tms posts a quote from them showing how power train replacement on a sherman was much more involved than a couple of hours. keep on watching youtube, friend
2 years ago
Anonymous
>claim that Sherman is a sub-par design >other anons point out that Sherman had much, much better O&M characteristics than other vehicles of the same role and era >try to start an argument about a small technical detail that nobody other than yourself cares about, don't even try to contest the larger point because you know you're wrong >HA BTFO
You sure showed me lol.
2 years ago
Anonymous
i never claimed that the sherman was a subpar design. someone claimed the sherman's transmission was much faster to replace than contemporary machines:
IT WAS NOT SUBOPTIMAL. The Sherman filled its role to near perfection. The 75mm Gun was great until heavier German tanks showed up, even then after the 76 was introduced, crews still stuck with the 75mm as it still filled its role well.
The fight over muh radials are shite and muh conventional engine is pointless. It got the job done and another engine was used later. They were both amazing power plants for a well made medium AFV. Combine that with ease of maintenance with the pull out transmission and easy to access engine bay, you could have it back up and running fast.
Deathtrap morons don't understand nuance. Compare how a sheman crew escapes a burning tank to a russian T-34 crew. Sherman crews could bail out very quickly and with relative safety. And stfu about 3 Shermans to a cat. You're a moron and need to read manuals, doctrine, combat reports and other actually relevant historical texts. So for once in your life, stop being contrarian for the sake of it.
>Combine that with ease of maintenance with the pull out transmission and easy to access engine bay, you could have it back up and running fast.
i asked for a comparison between the sherman and contemporary machines
speaking of manuals, how long did the "pull out" transmission require to replace, and how does that compare to contemporary machines?
anon responded with a wild underestimation of the sherman and no data for contemporaries
You wouldn't need to replace it rather than repair it, provided it wasn't shot to shit. Roughly no more than a couple of hours iirc. >how does that compare to contemporary machines?
Only transmission that was close to the same level of ease of repair would be the T-34. If it was a German AFV? don't bother. doesn't even come close.
i provided an official source for the sherman showing it took multiples times longer than anon thought and asked again for the data upon which anon was making his comparison
i meant replace as in remove and replace. the using arms were not authorized to replace a powertrain with another without authorization from ordnance. and the sherman TMs caution that "Removal of the power train assembly from the tank is a major operation that will require several hours. Because of its size and weight (8,800 lb) a fixture (41-F-2997-220) and wrecker are necessary to remove the assembly."
so we have the TMs saying the sherman transmission requires several hours to remove. again, i ask: quantitatively, how long did other machines take for transmission removal/installation?
anon then started namecalling and still provided no data
[...] >get faceraped >try to ask pedantic questions about topics you don't understand so you can go WELL ACKTUALLY
If you actually looked up the answers yourself and posted some evidence that the Sherman had poor O&M characteristics compared to other AFVs, I might be responding to you seriously instead of calling you a homosexual.
never change, PrepHole
2 years ago
Anonymous
doubt it
2 years ago
Anonymous
>get BTFO >assert that you're right, wave off criticism with vague generalities
many such cases
2 years ago
Anonymous
>the original model shermans
guess which engine the last sherman produced had in it
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Imagine having to change spark plugs every fricking day!
beats having to change the engine every day
2 years ago
Anonymous
when comparing like for like (i.e., vehicles using the same gun), the m18 was 101" tall if you count the AAMG. The M4A3(76)W was 117" tall over the turret cupola. that's a shitload of difference
>And before you say "it could be smaller if it didn't have a radial," the propshaft still needed space to run under the turret because the transmission was at the front.
you mean like the panzer iv?
A radial engine was selected because until Ford came out with the GAA (a V-8 based on a V-12 airplane engine), a radial engine had the highest power for weight and volume of any engine available to the US Army. It wasn't desperation, it was literally state-of-the-art at the time.
because from cadillac to cummins a lot of companies had put a lot of money into the development of the sherman mid 30s. they wanted to have the investment to pay itself off before putting more money into developing a new tank. but the war came and the sherman was soon outdated or didnt fit into all roles needed. but bribing made sure certain gernerals didnt want a new tank hard enough.
>tank crews for company money
Except the Sherman has the best crew survival rate of any tank in the war, and served effectively in its role throughout the conflict, in virtually all theaters, and into the next wars as well. Hell, minimally-modified Shermans were raping ragheads in decades newer Soviet tanks.
kek what? no auto or engine companies were spending money on developing the sherman in the mid-30s... where the hell did you read about companies bribing generals to keep the sherman in the field?
>tank crews for company money
Except the Sherman has the best crew survival rate of any tank in the war, and served effectively in its role throughout the conflict, in virtually all theaters, and into the next wars as well. Hell, minimally-modified Shermans were raping ragheads in decades newer Soviet tanks.
>Except the Sherman has the best crew survival rate of any tank in the war,
jesus this unprovable bullshit again
Because for all the effort to shart out a few dozen Tiger II tier tanks they could make like 3000 more shermans, the choice there is obvious. Plus the US (erroneously) thought the 75mm sherman would be fine for Normandy because they vastly underestimated how many Panthers there were, and the 75mm sherman was still more than adequate versus Panzer IVs and StuGs.
To put it simply, it wouldn't fit the logistics of the US. Here's an example that I think was used for the Pershing(?) it applies pretty good anyhow.. >make heavy tank >slowly and hardly be able to transport it all the way to the UK/France >it finally reaches the battlefield, of course after the crews are trained on it >it has to be left behind in the hq because suprisingly a heavy tank can't cross the bridge in the french countryside and towns
I've seen some replies saying how the US had basically no fricking idea what they were doing, which is plain ignorance, others point out things like prototypes etc, but it all comes down to this, of course there was use for the Pershing, which was the ultimate heavy-tank they went with, but it did not see much action, and honestly the US had a pretty good arsenal at that point.
Because heavy tanks are stupid for a country with plenty of materials and people. Just send in 5 shermans and the problem is solved...oh they blew up? Send in 5 more shermans and maybe some troops with bazookas, no biggie.
>building a heavy tank (that required entirely new manufacturing lines, parts, tooling, ammo, spares, and manuals) >railroading it to a harbor (with insufficient rail cars that could hold such weight, unless you wanted to ship it in pieces) >lifting it onto a cargo ship (with insufficient cranes that could hold such a weight, unless, again, you wanted to ship it in pieces) >transporting it all the way across the Atlantic >unloading it (again, with cranes that need to lift the damn thing out unless you managed to convince the army to use an LST for convoy duties) >spending additional time on training the new crews and repair staff on the new tank >supplying the new tank with spare parts and ammo on an entirely new logistics branch that could take away resources on just cranking out new shermans >operating the heavy tank while making sure that the tank can travel on the same roads, bridges crossings, and terrain that the M4 can, didn't break down too frequently an ocean away from its spare parts supplier, ensuring the M4-derived ARVs can recover the tank, and guaranteeing that the tank did the M4's job so much better that it was worth sending one heavy tank instead of two or three Shermans
was a good idea when the US could just shit out more Shermans and Sherman-derived vehicles.
The most immediate reason is they couldn't easily transport them across the Atlantic or the Pacific in any reasonable numbers.
Another factor is adding another vehicle and it's various components to the logistical system, which while possible, is a headache.
Though the big one is likely where it would actually fit within US armoured doctrine.
Developing the technology and system is one thing, but finding a practical use for it, when other already available options have proven effective just make it an exercise in spinning wheels.
The M4 and various Tank Destroyers were completely adequate to deal with German Armor and providing support to infantry. If there was a strong point, you could hammer the shit out of it with artillery or use the overwhelming air superiority the Allies had to deal with it.
The US heavy tank programs at the time were making a tool for a job you already had tools for, and those tools could also fulfill other purposes easier and cheaper.
The main thing it did provide was developmental experience towards the Patton series and other armored platforms, which was important in the long run.
The war ended faster than they could produce and get them to the frontlines
/thread
Shortly thereafter they realized heavy tanks sucked.
No, the M6 was ready, it was simply impractical to ship compared to the modest benefit it gave over the Sherman.
I think he was talking about the T29.
This. M6 was crap and undergunned (boasting firepower similar to that of IS-1), other ones were too late to the party (I don't consider M26 to be a true heavy tank).
They were too heavy and couldn't be transported overseas.
This. If a thing is heavy enough there's just no way to make it float.
WW2 was all about hitting with mass as opposed to modern machines which is all about force multiplying. With the weight of one heavy you could get more medium shermans that were good enough. Meet a Tiger? Spam five Shermans against it until it is swarmed.
More like
>Meet a Tiger?
>blast it with HVARs delivered from a Hawker Tempest
More like
>see Tiger or Panther
>instead of going toe to toe wait for it to get stuck or break down
>machine gun the crew as they bail
More like
>meet a Tiger?
>call down artillery on it.
Planes were actually remarkably ineffective against tanks, all data available suggests that about 1 in 10 reported tank kills by aircraft were accurate.
Planes weren't very effective against tanks until the development of the Rockeye and Maverick.
Battleships required very deep ports to dock. In the case of heavy tanks, they add extra parts to the mix in addition to taking up the tonnage of 2-3 other, smaller tanks.
God damn do I wish battleships were still viable.
Wait for a bunch of martians with mechs armed only with lazerzz and they'll be useful Anon, don't worry.
Probably wish you had brains too eh?
Given the pace of missile defense, I'd say it's quite likely we'll see a return of the big gun dreadnoughts.
floating it isn't the problem, loading it on and unloading it from the things that could fit a heavy tank would mean we'd be trading dozens of shermans for a handful of heavies, for every voyage.
this there wasn't a crane strong enough to load them
Couldn't finish them in time.
To add to what other anons said, they weren't really needed at the time. it became more of a concern after Germany surrendered and they spent the summer wondering what was going to happen next with the Soviets and their IS-2's and upcoming IS-3's
Developing them to such a point as they could be brought anywhere and operated by a pack of morons took too long.
butthole.
Because they couldn't make good one while war was on. They made dozen T29, T30 and T34 prototypes in 1945 and 1946. Project was cancelled in October 1945, they completed few more prototypes after that for general testing of heavy tanks. Earlier M6 heavy tank was unreliable piece of shit, that had better armor than Sherman, but barely more fire power. Closest things to heavy tank Americans actually deployed to combat was T26E1-1, a Pershing with lot longer than usual 90mm main gun that used different two piece ammunition and had much higher muzzle velocity, they managed to deploy a single one of those to Europe before war ended.
This, US heavy tank development was godawful, and the designs missed actual combat requirements.
It’s a combination of failing to produce a design and the requirements being much stricter than what Germany or USSR was producing. US had the luxury of not rushing unreliable vehicles into production so they’d rather sit on a design than commit something subpar to production.
Source: I watch Chieftan on yt making me the foremost expert on this topic
>This, US heavy tank development was godawful, and the designs missed actual combat requirements.
Well it was like dead last on priorities. Ships, aircraft, ammo and proven designed stuff churned out at max speed were all massively more important then experimental slow heavy weapons.
M26 seemed pretty good, when they replaced the engine and other upgrades in the M46
>more of a hassle to ship overseas compared to just more shermans
>would require its own spare parts which would take away from just reliably overwhelming sherman spare parts needs
>the role of heavy tank would have to be actively fit into existing US tank doctrine
>only real purpose that it could do better than shermans would be to 1v1 german heavy tanks
>at the cost of fewer shermans that were just as good or better in nearly every other scenario that did not involve fighting german heavies head on
>allied air superiority meaning german heavies getting memed on by tank hunting planes every single day
Ultimately there just weren't enough advantages in shipping them to outweight the effort.
Burgers already had doctrine for heavies and it wasn't 1v1'ing german tonks, it was creating breakthroughs against strong enemy defensive lines, and as such their heavies were designed mainly to have strong frontal armor at the expense of sides and rear - something that other armies already found out in practice to be bad. Both Germans and Russians decided to up armor sides of their breakthrough tanks/heavies as they noted that during attacks on enemy fortified lines they actually do take a lot of hits to the sides, while during early years they believed it will be all down to the frontal armor.
So... even if burgers would mass produce and ship any of the T29/T30/T34, the field results would be poor.
Also, if you needed more dakka, there were a few cases of a 105 or even 155 SPG being brought forward under cover of darkness or smoke and using direct fire against obstacles. Meanwhile, as others have covered, there were 1) huge issues with the promised "wonder tanks" (especially with the electric-drive models, which were excellent... on paper), and 2) logistical issues (rail cars capable of hauling >40-ton loads, ship cranes capable of same, bridges in France capable of same, etc.).
Frankly, if you could go back and fix one thing about US armor, your best bet would be to just get rid of TDs and replace them with more Shermans, and then skip the 76mm gun and go straight to the 90mm (e.g., the Sherman tested with a Pershing turret). The only drawback would be the limited ammo supply, which would still have been ample for anything less than spending multiple days out of the range of resupply vehicles (which the US wanted to do, but never really managed).
exactly. There was only ever around 100 Tiger I and Tiger II on the western front (combined) and only ever around 450 panthers. Probably like 30,000 shermans were used in europe. absolutely no need for the Allies to use heavies since static fortifications were obsolete anyway and they had total air superiority.
>only real purpose that it could do better than shermans would be to 1v1 german heavy tanks
While they probably could, it would almost never even happen. No tanker or CO would send a lone tank in to tackle an armoured threat without supporting armour or infantry.
imagine the logistics
Sherman worked well enough that they couldn't be fricked to properly produce and ship heavy tanks. probably not helped by the fact that the jumbo existed
Too busy winning with Lights and Mediums
Shipping issues made them give up
Added logistical complexity for no real gain over Shermam variants
The need for them was not initially appreciated and Nazi Germany imploded before newly developed ones could be sent
that thing's fricking gay, the T28 is the heavy assault gun we deserved.
The T29 has bigger number and turret.
Too busy using viable strategy to bother throwing money into wonder-waffles like Germany.
>heavy tanks are wonder weapons
> Germans throw out Tiger IIs haphazardly into the enemy
> Results are mixed, at best, and they further diversify their industry/supply system during a time where standardization would sure as shit be better
> Where are all the super-heavy tanks dreamed up by the US, Soviets and Germans today?
>what are Cold War heavy tank like M103, Conqueror and T-10
failures?
>failures
M103 was an incredibly niche, specialized vehicle for acting as a mobile bunker
it was already seen as near-useless as its most likely fate was being abandoned when US forces were withdrawing to a further line of defense
it only stuck around due to sheer inertia
the soviets gave up on the IS series for much the same reasons
the existing T-62s could do the same job the IS tanks could for less weight
cold war opinions were pretty much re-learning the same lessons from WW2
heavy tanks were, at best, hyper-niche weapons for use in a very specific circumstance
but turned out to be way too much effort for even that use-case and were discarded in favor of MBTs
Not even "mobile bunker", the M103 was what they came up with to make a tank with a gun that can kill the IS-3. That gun turned out to weight over 5 tons so they needed to make a big tank to carry it. Doctrinal deployment would be 1 company/platoon of M103's one terrain feature behind 3 other units of M46/47/48 in hull-down position waiting to kill IS-3 if they showed themselves. It's a turreted Jagdtiger.
>heavy tank like M103
But that's not a heavy tank, that's a gun tank.
>M103
WOW 300 M103s built, truly a massive size in relation to the US military
>tiger battalions are haphazard units
>6 to 1 kill ratio is mixed results, at best
> A tank in a defensive position, which already gives you a 3-1 advantage
> Doing this against Russian tactics of moronation
> Believing any shit that came out of Germany's mouth and their Luftwaffe aces who shot down 80 gorillian allied planes
try harder homosexual
>tiger bns only saw service against lolrussia
so you are a moron, got it
Yea, 5-6 Tiger IIs were also facing west. How insecure do you have to be to be this tremendously moronic?
>so you are a moron, got it
americans only fought tigers 3 times in western europe, because the tiger I was already in the process of being phased out
first time, the shermans won, the second time they knocked out a single pershing, and the third time the tigers were loaded on a train
the british encounter with the tiger Is at normandy did not exactly corroborate 6:1 KD in favor of the germans
at the battle of villers-bocage, where they encountered one of the only german tiger units in the area, they lost maybe 20-30 tanks against roughly 10 german losses written off (british count any tank, even one with thats only lost turret traverse, a loss while germans only count totally destroyed ones a loss)
at most, assuming no vehicles other than tigers got kills, you would have maybe 3:1 at most
the US actually ended up fighting way more tiger IIs than tiger Is, as 150 of them were committed to the ardennes
and theres no indication they ever got 6:1 losses at the ardennes either
most engagements were between king tigers and infantry, who knocked them out with AT guns or bazookas, and when they did engage tanks they would usually score even (neither side lost tanks) or the allies would lose 1-3 tanks and the germans would lose 1
there are few recorded cases of king tigers getting close to 6 kills each in the western front
at most, you would be looking at maybe 1:2 or 1:3 in favor of the king tigers
just look at the ardennes, US lose 700 tanks to the germans 500, if each of the 150 king tigers present got 6 kills each, then the numerically overwhelming panthers and pzIVs would have basically scored zero kills in total
Villers-Bocage saw 15 allied vehicles destroyed by one tiger ace that literally drove into their convoy and then he bailed when he was disabled
>Villers-Bocage saw 15 allied vehicles destroyed by one tiger ace
>one single tank accounts for half of all British losses
You seriously take that as plausible?
Were all other german forces in the area asleep?
Michael Wittmann had ordered his battalion to hold their position. As for the damage
> Wittmann destroyed up to 14 tanks, 15 personnel carriers and two anti-tank guns within 15 minutes for the loss of his own tank
The veracity of whittmans account has been seen as exaggerated, especially as the germans have had a habit of applying his whole battalions kills to just him specifically for the purposes of propaganda
In any case, the final scoreboard at the end of the battle was 15 tanks knocked out by tigers and at least 6 tigers lost, a little over 2:1 and nowhere near the claimed 6:1
There were 36 tiger Is in normandy, and a small number of tiger IIs
150 tiger IIs were committed to the battle of the bulge alone
Most were defeated by AT guns who did not need special tactics to engage them, they simply ambushed them like they did any other tank
> Where are all the super-heavy tanks dreamed up by the US, Soviets and Germans today?
Maus was taken by the russians and shoved in a shed, E-100 used as a target, and most Tiger IIs fricking scrapped for the metal.
well T28 was literally left in a field and remained stealthed in a bush like it was WoT for decades. The people who wanted M103 had to fricking fight in order for it to be made, and it was made in small numbers in relation to M46 even. It wasmore made to be a tank with a big frick-off gun to counter the IS-3. Conqueror was essentially the same idea, down to having the same gun, and it was made in fewer numbers.
Early IS-3s were so poorly welded supposedly the front plates snapped apart on taking a non-penetrating impact, and the soviets eventually realized that they couldn't really make a good heavy tank that was also cheap and doubled down on Mediums.
Between M103, Conqueror and T-10, these tanks were all made literally for the purpose of being able to kill each other. When people realized that you could just put the big guns on a medium tank chassis and have a more versatile tank, they basically all gave up on the heavy tank concepts; M103 only stuck around as long as it did because Board of Ordinance was pissing around on whether to make a new 120, make a 120 gun-launcher, or just put the 105 into a tank. Eventually it did all three.
>Maus was taken by the russians and shoved in a shed, E-100 used as a target
*sad noises*
logistical optimization.
>155mm main gun
>wet fart of an AP shell due to moronic shell size
Now what?
considering a 75mm HE round can crack open a Tiger 2 turret like a wallnut, I like the chances of the 155mm HE.
>considering a 75mm HE round can crack open a Tiger 2 turret
In what fricking schizo dream universe?
The force of an impact is just as reliant on the mass of the shell as it is on the velocity.
Heavy tanks are moronic.
They used jumbo shermans a bit at the end, are those not heavy enough for you?
You're a big tank
MBTs are heavy tank with good mobility, prove me wrong.
Pro tip, you can't.
No one can prove you wrong because you’re correct. Any of the modern MBTs are heavily armored and massively armed but also are fairly fast and maneuverable. Case in point the M1A2 SEPv3 clocks in at 73.6 tons. The Tiger II at 76.9 tons. Yes they were both heavily armored and armed to the teeth but for obvious technological reasons the Abrams moves faster than traditional light tanks of the era.
/rummages
God damn it. Hang on a sec.
This is all from the Marshall Victory Report btw.
We don't post firsthand sources and documents here. Only speculation based on war thunder and the memes we like the best. Sorry.
>Why didn't the US use heavy tanks in WW2?
Heavy tanks are a meme, the Sherman did 95% of a tank's job well enough and it could get plenty of assistance with the last 5% if it needed it.
whats the point? you can visibly see that no amount of armor is going to save you since the heavier you go the more people will pour into defeating the armor with high velocity shells
eventually you reach a critical mass that the tank is so huge that it's easily targetable by air and especially on the ground
The heavy tank as a concept was a pretty flawed concept from the start during WWII. Sure its nice to have really think armor and a big frick you cannon but the fact is that most of the time all of that was overkill and did nothing other than make the whole thing so damned heavy it couldnt cross bridges or would grind its drive train into dust after moving 100 miles. The practical uses of a heavy tank were always pretty slim and most of the time they couldnt make it to the front in large numbers to do a hell of a lot. But when they did they were scary as shit. Most people see the heavy tanks from the russians and germans with their impressive specs on paper and dont grasp that its just numbers on a page. It sure looks impressive but when you get down to how useful they actually were it would have been much more effective to slap out a bunch more Panzer 4 variants or design a more rational medium sized tank.
The simple fact is the heavy lifting as far as the fighting was all done by medium tanks for the most part.
Tank Destroyers were more useful. Fast+Big Gun Beats Armor+Big Gun since Big Gun nullifies armor. Also Air Dominance helps a lot
they did use heavy tanks but it was a pain to transport and upgraded shermans were plenty powerful.
shermans being bad is just a meme
>shermans = bad
How the frick did this even start
Well, the long 88 is much bigger and stronger than their medium 75 and the armor on german tanks was generally thicker as well. Then you filter that through Hollywood who loves their underdog stories and every german general writing books saying that everything they did and everything they had was amazing and they TOTALLY would've won if not for ______. Some guy on youtube saying "well hold on, if we look at these maintenance reports and these operational readiness reports and these after-action reports then..." just isn't as attractive to the layman.
Fuddlore, particularly "Death Traps" which was authored by someone who's sole job was to recondition recovered Shermans. Because of this he only saw knocked out Shermans, and just assumed that the Sherman was bad.
Sherman was far from great design, it was adequate, but it had two things going for it. It was being built without supply problems. So materials used didn't have compromises war time shortages. It was also used mostly by Americans. If you wonder why that matters, mechanization of agriculture and cars becoming normal middle and working class thing happened in US 20's and 30's after WWI. In Europe due to costs of both WW's that didn't happen until 50's when post WWII austerity ended. Back then cars and tractors required lot more maintenance than now. Pretty much everyone dealing with them had to be semi competent mechanic just to keep it running. While kinda semi obsolete design of Sherman drive train that gave it high profile was issue, not to mention 6 gorillion different engines they used on 'em, it had remained same in basic design from terrible M2 medium tank and M3 Lee/Grant. Both crews and material quality improved reliability. Huge part of Pershings reputation for unreliability early on was the fact that it was introduced before supply chain knew for spare parts consumption and maintenance requirements for sure, in Korea the problem was different, Pershings in Japan had been left to rot on depots after WWII, tanks units doing anything outside of bases used only Chaffees as those didn't destroy roads and streets. For post WWII use, Sherman was still adequate. In Korean War everything that applied in WWII were still true and they could call up WWII vets from reserves, crews with plenty of experience. 76mm gun was still effective against everything commies threw at it. Available at scrap metal price for export and folks in countries like Israel were willing to upgrade it guns unthinkable during WWII after the war. Like French post war 105mm gun Israel used.
deliberately disingenuous
you dont serve until the 70s by merely being adequate
what does that make the panzer IV? terrible?
>Because of this he only saw knocked out Shermans, and just assumed that the Sherman was bad.
if only it could be chalked up to that
to parahphrase the top comment on amazon:
>frequently gets basic dates wrong
>frequently gets armor measurements and model type on the sherman wrong, even though as logistics he should know the differences between sherman sub-types
>interjects his own opinion as fact
How it is fricking disingenuous? Good crews more than compensate somewhat lacking equipment, especially on maintenance side. Not having to use substandard materials also improves reliability. Late production Pz IV literally had worse turret rotation due lack of ball bearings when compared to earlier models of same tank despite having better guns and improved armor.
Sherman was far from perfect tank. Good part of its reputation for being reliable are unrelated to its design. Reliability was by far its greatest feature. No, it didn't remain in service until 70's. It remained in service until 2018, that is when Paraguay removed their last Shermans for reserve equipment lists. That might have something to do with the fact that their tanks might have been around for intimidation of their own population. When it comes to US post WWII use, they simply abandoned most of tanks after war and only kept the M4A3E8 (76) HVSS after the war. Some of the SPGs based on Sherman chassis used older variations suspension, tracks and engines.
If we want to dig into Pershing. Bad reputation is why next variant of same tank was renamed to M46 Patton, death of most famous tank general was also a factor, but it is probably more about rotten reputation of the tank. Yes, it also had design issues like drive train developed for earlier lighter T20-series prototypes and way increased mass when they started to add more armor and bigger gun to the initial design. Tanks already near theater in Japan in Korean War were in state of neglect that troops putting those to depots didn't bother close hatches, some tanks had moss growing inside. One can only wonder what few years rain does to electric wiring. All of Patton tanks are just gradual evolution of Pershing. Last serial production Pattons rolled out in 1987. Last low rate production M88 recovery vehicles were ordered in 2017 and delivered in 2019. They might at some point order even more of those in future.
>How it is fricking disingenuous?
>performed very well
>served well past the point it was obsolete
>"just adequate"
It literally served several times over what was expected of it
Adequate is the word used to describe vehicles that only barely met expectations, like the crusader tank which was only retained due to being slightly better than the cruiser tanks and was retired in only a year
What qualifies as a good tank then?
Few other tanks even come close to the M4s service life or service history
>inb4 mentions the T-64 because of composite armor
>Sherman was far from great design, it was adequate
It was literally the single best tank of the war in terms of cost/benefit ratio
>good crew ergonomics
>high crew survivability
>good enough gun
>good optics
>can be manufactured on existing automobile production lines, thus allowing Detroit to make them by the tens of thousands
>light enough to ship into theater easily
>reliable enough to have high availability rates and relatively low logistical overhead
>actually fielded with ARVs so you don't have to just leave them when they break down
>good crew ergonomics
>high crew survivability
>good enough gun
>good optics
>can be manufactured on existing automobile production lines, thus allowing Detroit to make them by the tens of thousands
>light enough to ship into theater easily
>reliable enough to have high availability rates and relatively low logistical overhead
>actually fielded with ARVs so you don't have to just leave them when they break down
These are all things "in spite of" not "because" of the fundamental design of the Sherman. The fundamental issue is that the US army was badly underfunded during the interwar and could not keep up with technological advances that were already made on the civilian side. At the same time, the mobilization and demand for tanks was so great that the Army couldn't put the clean sheet it always wanted into action and went with incremental improvements on what they had. The Sherman's drive train is essentially the same as the M2 light tank of 1935 (rear mounted radial engine, front drive with volute spring suspension in bogies), which had evolved into the M2 medium, then M3 medium. This setup had known deficiencies by 1940 and the replacement system (rear mounted V engine, rear drive, torsion bar suspension, preferably with automatic transmission) was already planned, but R&D was pushed to low priority during the war in favor of "a tank now" and it was only with the M18 hellcat that the army's preferred drive train was fielded.
The Sherman is the best that you could make a tank based on interwar technology and theory, it had reached it's evolutionary end by 1945 and the successor tank M26 was a clean sheet that shared basically nothing with the Sherman. Whereas you can draw a clear line from T-34 to T-43 to T-44 to T-55 and so on.
>These are all things "in spite of" not "because" of the fundamental design of the Sherman
That sentence doesn't mean anything.
The form factor of the Sherman allowed a much larger crew compartment than a T-34, which is the basic reason why survivability and ergonomics were so good.
The relatively narrow base is and light weight is why it could be manufactured on automobile production plants, and why it could be shipped into theater so easily.
The high reliability was a function of the suspension, transmission, and engine all being well designed and well integrated into the system as a whole.
So if the crew layout, the form factor, and the subsystems like the suspension, transmission and engine were all good, what part of the "fundamental design" isn't good? The only valid criticism I can think of is that a torsion bar suspension would have been better, and the turret wasn't big enough for big post-war guns, but those are minor quality of life issues. If something is literally better than every other design fielded during the war, it isn't mediocre.
the form factor of the tank doesnt look anything like a modern tank while something like a panther does.
And? WW2 was a different conflict with different priorities. Ease of production and transport were more important when the conflict was consuming tens of thousands of vehicles a year. Armor and firepower were less important because guns and armor were both less developed.
what i mean is that the panther design is superior to the sherman yet the sherman was a million times more effective in the field. the m3 lee is a goofy shitbox that did fricking work when it first showed up.
war isnt just about specs.
To use an analogy, late vacuum tubes were more reliable than early transistors, a piece of electronic in the early 50's made from a vacuum tube will be able to handle more power and is cheaper than a transistor one.
Sherman is the best interwar tank ever built, the Americans themselves realized they had maxed out every piece of technology used on the Sherman and started from a clean sheet on their next tank, and Pershing would form the foundation of the next 4 tanks in American service (M46, M47, M103, M60) until the clean sheet Abrams replaced it. T-34 was the most "modern" widely produced design, there are pieces of T-34 that are still on the T-90, most notably the V-2 engine, which is on the T-90M as the V-92.
Panther is also an evolutionary dead end, it's still using inter/early war layout that post war tanks dropped. (front drive, small turret, main ammo stowage in the hull). Design wise it's no more modern than the Sherman besides torsion bars.
>The form factor of the Sherman allowed a much larger crew compartment than a T-34
Utter gibberish and a non-sequitur, There's nothing inherently roomy about the Sherman's design other than sheer dimensions, if they decided to design the T-34 a little bit taller and wider it would had been just as roomy.
>There's nothing inherently roomy about the Sherman's design other than sheer dimensions
>there's nothing inherently roomy about a Sherman other than it being taller, wider, and having a largest crew compartment
do you even listen to yourself?
You're talking about "form factor" like as if it's some kind of amazing technology or design technique when it's literally just deciding to add a few inches to a hull.
That's wrong though, the base 76mm gun T-34 has tons of design issues that all combine to make it horribly cramped and un-ergonomic
>sloped hull sides
>really narrow turret ring
>no cupola
>no turret basket
>floor ammo bins
>low capacity pan magazines for the MG
>if they decided to design the T-34 a little bit taller and wider it would had been just as roomy.
The T-34's problem is that the combination of sloped sides, narrow turret ring, and the springs of the Christie suspension being mounted inside the fricking thing robbed the crew of all the room inside the hull, The 34/85 upgrade only changed the turret to gave room for a dedicated gunner and give the loader room to huck 85mm shells into the breach, and even then it wasn't much.
It wasn't JUST that the Sherman was roomier because it was bigger (it had to be in order to make room for the prop shaft under the turret), but the Sherman's straight sides (where it could store ammo instead of being effectively dead space), wide turret ring, and externally-mounted bogie suspension meant that more room was available for the inside. Combined with a lot less shit had to be stored inside the tank along with all the dudes, and boom, more room.
Really should have pasted these two pics together, but you can see the design differences of the internal volumes of each tank.
>" and it was only with the M18 hellcat that the army's preferred drive train was fielded.
m18 was powered by a rear mounted radial engine and front transmission...
Don't forget the low-speed stabilizer too. Although a lot of tank crews weren't told exactly how it worked due to the secrecy behind it, I'm sure enough figured it out. The only real inadequacy of the Sherman was the 75mm gun once Tiger's & Panther's were introduced, though even those could be defeated with HE if you HAD to fight them. The 75mm was perfect at taking out Panzer III's and IV's and was even better at killing infantry than the 76mm ironically enough as the 75mm had more explosive filler than the 76mm. The Sherman just had by far the best specs you could get on a tank that had to be transported across the entire Atlantic ocean on transport ships that were torpedo'd a lot in the early part of the war.
Also, with all the people saying why didn't America use a heavy tank in WW2, are they forgetting the Easy 8, aka M4A3E8? Yeah I know, technically classified as an "Assault Tank", but a 76mm Sherman with massively increased armor that allowed it to stand toe to toe against Tiger 1's & Panther's.
>. Although a lot of tank crews weren't told exactly how it worked due to the secrecy behind it, I'm sure enough figured it out
it depended on the unit, some loved it some didnt even know it existed
3AD and 2AD saw more fighting than any other unit in europe, and they were trained since day 1 to use the stabilizer
but units in italy never trained with it outside of a single battalion
>Yeah I know, technically classified as an "Assault Tank"
the E8 was the experimental name for shermans equipped with HVSS, an upgrade to mobility not armor
E2 was the designation for shermans with an extra inch of armor on the front and sides
these were fearsome tanks, but only about 250 of them were made so they were fairly rare
a battalion only got a handful for pushing through dense enemy defenses
Logistics of Sherman were pretty huge mess due to massive number of different engine variants. Logistics worked mostly due crews themselves being able to do maintenance. Not due to training, but civilian experience. Basic drive train issues were pretty well known due earlier M2, totally moronic design for most parts, and M3. Inadequate substitute for Sherman, that was put into production because tanks at all were desperately needed and there was no serial production capacity for Sherman at that point. They couldn't make turrets that could house 75mm gun yet.
Factors that gave it decent performance were something other than design itself. It didn't suffer from material shortages and simply had better crews to maintain it.
Pershing was medium tank.
Oh, if we go into development of Pershing, it was delayed by same guy that delayed deployment of 76mm Shermans. Better weapons for troops on field complicated logistics too much. Lieutenant general Lesley McNair, posthumously full general. Dude never got field command in WWII, but he ran more than few higher command positions and he managed to get killed in possibly most fricked up friendly fire incident of US military history when he was inspecting troops in southern France. 100 US soldiers died with over 400 wounded, squadron of B-17's vs infantry battalion kind of thing. His only son died like week later in Pacific theater. On positive side he killed already very obsolete M6 heavy tank program. On negative side, he convinced that tank destroyer doctrine was completely adequate solution to enemy tanks, we can put those 76mm guns on less armored vehicles, but tanks don't have to deal with enemy tanks, ever. Other contemporary generals praised the guy in their autobiographies, historians tend to shit on him.
>Pershing was medium tank.
It was reclassified as a medium tank after the war. It was designed as a heavy tank.
>It was reclassified as a medium tank after the war. It was designed as a heavy tank.
It was designed as medium tank, it was reclassified as heavy tank briefly for propaganda reasons.
>100 US soldiers died with over 400 wounded, squadron of B-17's vs infantry battalion kind of thing.
what the frick
lmao at all the seething this post generated. The Sherman was indeed expedient design, just the fact that it used a fricking radial engine, of all things, should had clued everyone in to the fact that the priority was on getting a tank with whatever was at hand. Granted, it was the tank America needed, since a tank now is better than a tank later, but was it a great design? No fricking way. Had they been allowed by fate a few extra years to design a tank the Sherman would had never been the way it was.
>Granted, it was the tank America needed, since a tank now is better than a tank later, but was it a great design? No fricking way. Had they been allowed by fate a few extra years to design a tank the Lee would had never been the way it was.
Had they been allowed by fate a few extra years to design a tank the Lee would had never even existed.
FTFY
The M3 was a super rush job where they couldn't even afford a 75mm turret, while the Sherman was merely just a rush job. You really can't excuse the use of a radial engine, there's just no way anybody would deliberately choose to use one for a tank unless they had no other choice.
>there's just no way anybody would deliberately choose to use one for a tank unless they had no other choice.
The US was fielding M2s with radial engines, which bled into the M3 with radial engines, with then blended into the M4. It makes sense to lean into what you already know and works, and (aircraft) radial engines made sense for the US because they generated a lot of horsepower with manageable weight and the US was already building them. The M4 also had gasoline and diesel-engine variants, with the gas-powered V8 M4A3 being the US Army's "preferred" vehicle.
Also the M18 Hellcat used the same R-975 radial engine that the Sherman did. Seemed to do pretty well.
At least the Hellcat managed to use the incredibly arcane technology of using a transfer case to make sure the drive shaft didn't take up massive amounts of space. But the use of a radial can be explained by, again, using what's available and not what's actually good.
>At least the Hellcat managed to use the incredibly arcane technology of using a transfer case to make sure the drive shaft didn't take up massive amounts of space
The Hellcat was 8'5" with a smaller, open-topped turret, the M4A1 Sherman was 9'0" high with a bigger, wider, and enclosed turret. ~7" isn't insignificant, but it's not a massive gulf. I know that left vehicle is an M36, but it's more or less a Sherman hull.
>But the use of a radial can be explained by, again, using what's available and not what's actually good.
If you're that hung up on radials being terrible engines, the sherman had little to no trouble transitioning to what was "good." The A2 and A3 versions, again, swapped out the radial for a diesel and V8 gasoline, while the M4A4 had to be stretched in order to accommodate the Chrysler Multibank, and for the most part those were export only.
And before you say "it could be smaller if it didn't have a radial," the propshaft still needed space to run under the turret because the transmission was at the front.
>the propshaft still needed space to run under the turret because the transmission was at the front.
Should use up a lot less space, since inline engines have the crankshaft closer to the bottom.
Not that much, apparently. Also you'd have to convince the army to make another hull redesign and throw a wrench in their precious precious supply chain.
I'm not sure what your supposition is, I thought we were discussing what-ifs at the design stage. I mean, your entire post would be pointless otherwise if you're just discussing retrofitting into the Sherman.
>I thought we were discussing what-ifs at the design stage
Ah, I was following the "radial engines are bad" thread. You could have just said "why didn't the US Army mass-produce the T20 series" instead.
Claiming radials are alright because nothing changes if you fit a smaller engine into a hull made for a bigger engine is a really dumb argument.
I was claiming that the radial provided the required horsepower to the tank and provided a decent power-to-weight ratio without causing lengthy production delays, reliability problems, ergonomic issues, or other design flaws other than the "slightly taller" height that just so happened to allow enough space for other and/or better engines to take its place with a minimal amount of hull retooling, redesign or production delays makes it alright.
>reliability problems
lmao, the radial engines were notorious for unreliability. Radials can't handle idling for long periods of time so the spark plugs would get fouled from oil collecting on the lower cylinders. Spark plugs were considered daily consumables. Imagine having to change spark plugs every fricking day!
There's your ergonomic issue and design flaw right there. Fact is, no one would had chosen a radial engine if it wasn't forced upon them by circumstances.
>Fact is, no one would had chosen a radial engine if it wasn't forced upon them by circumstances.
And thats why they switched to other engines later on. Sherman haters always stick to arguments against the original model shermans but never seem to do the same when it comes to original model Pz IVs or T-34s.
Facts are facts. Every tank had it's problems. Pretending that the Sherman wasn't sub-optimal in some areas and the result of compromises unrelated to combat is just sticking your hand in the sand for no reason. It's an 80 year old tank! Why so attached to it?
>Why so attached to it?
>random people on the internet disparaging an effective combat system for absolutely no reason
dont pretend like it hasnt had a terrible reputation for decades due to "Death traps" and it is only recently that people have finally recognized that its actually very good
even the original M4A1 sherman has a great combat record
so yes, people seem very attached to it because it has had a needless beating for most of those 80 years
and bringing up that dead horse so soon after its finally had a reversal of repuation is dumb ass move
IT WAS NOT SUBOPTIMAL. The Sherman filled its role to near perfection. The 75mm Gun was great until heavier German tanks showed up, even then after the 76 was introduced, crews still stuck with the 75mm as it still filled its role well.
The fight over muh radials are shite and muh conventional engine is pointless. It got the job done and another engine was used later. They were both amazing power plants for a well made medium AFV. Combine that with ease of maintenance with the pull out transmission and easy to access engine bay, you could have it back up and running fast.
Deathtrap morons don't understand nuance. Compare how a sheman crew escapes a burning tank to a russian T-34 crew. Sherman crews could bail out very quickly and with relative safety. And stfu about 3 Shermans to a cat. You're a moron and need to read manuals, doctrine, combat reports and other actually relevant historical texts. So for once in your life, stop being contrarian for the sake of it.
speaking of manuals, how long did the "pull out" transmission require to replace, and how does that compare to contemporary machines?
You wouldn't need to replace it rather than repair it, provided it wasn't shot to shit. Roughly no more than a couple of hours iirc.
>how does that compare to contemporary machines?
Only transmission that was close to the same level of ease of repair would be the T-34. If it was a German AFV? don't bother. doesn't even come close.
i meant replace as in remove and replace. the using arms were not authorized to replace a powertrain with another without authorization from ordnance. and the sherman TMs caution that "Removal of the power train assembly from the tank is a major operation that will require several hours. Because of its size and weight (8,800 lb) a fixture (41-F-2997-220) and wrecker are necessary to remove the assembly."
so we have the TMs saying the sherman transmission requires several hours to remove. again, i ask: quantitatively, how long did other machines take for transmission removal/installation?
According to TB ORD 275, you can replace the final drive assembly in the field. You could get the transmission out on the tray and replaced in the field. Note that the removal of the powertrain involves the whole powertrain rather than just the transmission. Regardless, a field maintenance company could get the job done, and even as you stated in several hours. Compare that to the enemy at the time (German Panzer divisions) had to wait for supply and even heavier lift equipment to remove the transmission.
>how long did the "pull out" transmission require to replace, and how does that compare to contemporary machines?
>comparing the sherman's transmission housing that could be worked on by three dudes to something like the PzIV which required you to lift the whole thing out with a goddamn crane for anything more than maintenance
>get faceraped
>try to ask pedantic questions about topics you don't understand so you can go WELL ACKTUALLY
If you actually looked up the answers yourself and posted some evidence that the Sherman had poor O&M characteristics compared to other AFVs, I might be responding to you seriously instead of calling you a homosexual.
kek ok. the only one here with actual tms posts a quote from them showing how power train replacement on a sherman was much more involved than a couple of hours. keep on watching youtube, friend
>claim that Sherman is a sub-par design
>other anons point out that Sherman had much, much better O&M characteristics than other vehicles of the same role and era
>try to start an argument about a small technical detail that nobody other than yourself cares about, don't even try to contest the larger point because you know you're wrong
>HA BTFO
You sure showed me lol.
i never claimed that the sherman was a subpar design. someone claimed the sherman's transmission was much faster to replace than contemporary machines:
>Combine that with ease of maintenance with the pull out transmission and easy to access engine bay, you could have it back up and running fast.
i asked for a comparison between the sherman and contemporary machines
anon responded with a wild underestimation of the sherman and no data for contemporaries
i provided an official source for the sherman showing it took multiples times longer than anon thought and asked again for the data upon which anon was making his comparison
anon then started namecalling and still provided no data
never change, PrepHole
doubt it
>get BTFO
>assert that you're right, wave off criticism with vague generalities
many such cases
>the original model shermans
guess which engine the last sherman produced had in it
>Imagine having to change spark plugs every fricking day!
beats having to change the engine every day
when comparing like for like (i.e., vehicles using the same gun), the m18 was 101" tall if you count the AAMG. The M4A3(76)W was 117" tall over the turret cupola. that's a shitload of difference
>And before you say "it could be smaller if it didn't have a radial," the propshaft still needed space to run under the turret because the transmission was at the front.
you mean like the panzer iv?
A radial engine was selected because until Ford came out with the GAA (a V-8 based on a V-12 airplane engine), a radial engine had the highest power for weight and volume of any engine available to the US Army. It wasn't desperation, it was literally state-of-the-art at the time.
Roll on roll off cargo ships weren't a thing so you could only ship a tank to Europe if the cranes on ships or docksides could lift them.
Harder to transport
>Why no heavy tanks
Because US tank doctrine you fricking illiterate shitbrain.
Proof that /k/ knows nothing about ww2, it's obvious you guys are full of shit jesus. You never heard of the Pershing? JUST WOW
LOL
EXPOSED!
By ww2 standards modern MBTs would be heavy tanks. Even the Japanese one.
>By ww2 standards modern MBTs would be heavy tanks. Even the Japanese one.
The type 10 weighs 40 tonnes. The sherman weighs 38 tonnes.
because from cadillac to cummins a lot of companies had put a lot of money into the development of the sherman mid 30s. they wanted to have the investment to pay itself off before putting more money into developing a new tank. but the war came and the sherman was soon outdated or didnt fit into all roles needed. but bribing made sure certain gernerals didnt want a new tank hard enough.
so it goes. tank crews for company money.
>tank crews for company money
Except the Sherman has the best crew survival rate of any tank in the war, and served effectively in its role throughout the conflict, in virtually all theaters, and into the next wars as well. Hell, minimally-modified Shermans were raping ragheads in decades newer Soviet tanks.
kek what? no auto or engine companies were spending money on developing the sherman in the mid-30s... where the hell did you read about companies bribing generals to keep the sherman in the field?
>Except the Sherman has the best crew survival rate of any tank in the war,
jesus this unprovable bullshit again
Because for all the effort to shart out a few dozen Tiger II tier tanks they could make like 3000 more shermans, the choice there is obvious. Plus the US (erroneously) thought the 75mm sherman would be fine for Normandy because they vastly underestimated how many Panthers there were, and the 75mm sherman was still more than adequate versus Panzer IVs and StuGs.
To put it simply, it wouldn't fit the logistics of the US. Here's an example that I think was used for the Pershing(?) it applies pretty good anyhow..
>make heavy tank
>slowly and hardly be able to transport it all the way to the UK/France
>it finally reaches the battlefield, of course after the crews are trained on it
>it has to be left behind in the hq because suprisingly a heavy tank can't cross the bridge in the french countryside and towns
I've seen some replies saying how the US had basically no fricking idea what they were doing, which is plain ignorance, others point out things like prototypes etc, but it all comes down to this, of course there was use for the Pershing, which was the ultimate heavy-tank they went with, but it did not see much action, and honestly the US had a pretty good arsenal at that point.
>of course there was use for the Pershing
and largely that use was filled by m4a3e2s
wish these things were viable
Because heavy tanks are stupid for a country with plenty of materials and people. Just send in 5 shermans and the problem is solved...oh they blew up? Send in 5 more shermans and maybe some troops with bazookas, no biggie.
Because nobody could convince the US logies that
>building a heavy tank (that required entirely new manufacturing lines, parts, tooling, ammo, spares, and manuals)
>railroading it to a harbor (with insufficient rail cars that could hold such weight, unless you wanted to ship it in pieces)
>lifting it onto a cargo ship (with insufficient cranes that could hold such a weight, unless, again, you wanted to ship it in pieces)
>transporting it all the way across the Atlantic
>unloading it (again, with cranes that need to lift the damn thing out unless you managed to convince the army to use an LST for convoy duties)
>spending additional time on training the new crews and repair staff on the new tank
>supplying the new tank with spare parts and ammo on an entirely new logistics branch that could take away resources on just cranking out new shermans
>operating the heavy tank while making sure that the tank can travel on the same roads, bridges crossings, and terrain that the M4 can, didn't break down too frequently an ocean away from its spare parts supplier, ensuring the M4-derived ARVs can recover the tank, and guaranteeing that the tank did the M4's job so much better that it was worth sending one heavy tank instead of two or three Shermans
was a good idea when the US could just shit out more Shermans and Sherman-derived vehicles.
The 50,000 Shermans we had worked well enough.
This is my gf. She's autistic.
Say something nice about her.
>TFW you will never command a T29 on the assault on the Siegfried line
They went with heavy planes instead
The most immediate reason is they couldn't easily transport them across the Atlantic or the Pacific in any reasonable numbers.
Another factor is adding another vehicle and it's various components to the logistical system, which while possible, is a headache.
Though the big one is likely where it would actually fit within US armoured doctrine.
Developing the technology and system is one thing, but finding a practical use for it, when other already available options have proven effective just make it an exercise in spinning wheels.
The M4 and various Tank Destroyers were completely adequate to deal with German Armor and providing support to infantry. If there was a strong point, you could hammer the shit out of it with artillery or use the overwhelming air superiority the Allies had to deal with it.
The US heavy tank programs at the time were making a tool for a job you already had tools for, and those tools could also fulfill other purposes easier and cheaper.
The main thing it did provide was developmental experience towards the Patton series and other armored platforms, which was important in the long run.