Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armor Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: M 5 Sherman tank. What would you have done?
Herald1234    2/24/2007 3:24:09 AM
If you were receiving the first British battlefield reports about the performance of the M3 Lee/Grant, as the technical head of US tank production and you had the 1942 US automotive technology base, what would you have done with the Sherman design? Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19   NEXT
Jeff_F_F       2/26/2007 12:03:20 PM
With the bennefit of 20/20 hindsight, I'd have skipped the Sherman altogether, given the M-10 a covered turret and produced that as our primary battle tank.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    Sherman Semnovente    2/27/2007 2:08:24 AM

With the bennefit of 20/20 hindsight, I'd have skipped the Sherman altogether, given the M-10 a covered turret and produced that as our primary battle tank.

Given the industrial realities of the time, I'd have probably gone with a JagdSherman and just produced that as well as the standard Sherman. A 9.0 cm.L50  is better then the 7.6cm.L50 . You could have had that in time for Normandy for about the same trouble you had with the M-10.

Call it the Sherman Aardvark to go with the Sherman Firefly.

Herald.

 
Quote    Reply

Jeff_F_F       2/27/2007 3:35:46 AM
I certainly like the idea of the JagdSherman, and with a 90mm gun it would make an awesome assault gun too. While I'm dreaming, put a dozer blade on it so it can self entrench, and use it for assault support and for breaking up armored counter-attacks. Maybe put a notch in the top of the blade so that you can lift the blade up to cover the super-structure to provide extra armor protection and fire through it.
 
Quote    Reply

Scoobydo       3/11/2007 1:52:45 PM

"Was the flaw in the Sherman being so high due to the awkward transmission and drive shaft arrangement (clumsy American idea of running the driveshaft under the fighting compartment to reach the drive sprockets at the front), or was it because they originally used those large-diameter radial engines, and after switching to other engine layouts it was deemed cost-ineffective to redesign the hull lower, as that would've slowed production initially to accomodate the new design?"

 

According to one of the British battlefield documentaries, the problem was that the Americans had neglected the development of tank engines, pre war, and were forced to use a modified aircraft engine which gave the Sherman a higher silhouette.

 

The Sherman was a very good tank when it was first used in combat at the battle of El Alamein.  It also need to be relatively light to be transported from American factories to Europe. Once in Europe it had to be light enough to cross normal bridges when advancing. It was also enormously adaptable and reliable.

 

It did have a nasty habit of catching on fire. It was also, of course, too tall.

 

I did read somewhere that Patton blocked the early deployment of the M26, saying it was unnecessary. In his opinion tanks didn't fight tanks - tank destroyers did. Nice in theory...




 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       3/11/2007 3:20:07 PM
Actually, the M4 isn't that tall when compared to other tanks of its era. It just has an aspect ratio problem. It's definately shorter than the Panther, but because it is narrower it looks taller.

The British tanks also used modified aircraft engines (Rolls-Royce Meteor - derived from the Merlin) and were able to have a bit lower profile but, as noted, the Sherman wasn't really that tall.

Bursting into flames (and worse) was, AFAICT, a stowage issue.
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives    Ammunition fires are bad.   3/11/2007 3:26:41 PM
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    Haven't looked at this thread in a while,but........   3/11/2007 5:02:53 PM
I find this to be interesting.
 
 
The badly written PDF goes into some economic analysis of why the US continued to produce the M-4 when the M-26
was a better solution.
 
Some useful background on the M-26;
 
 
Opinion? A slow reliable tank with a heavy gun that could cross ground and not bog, which was a close match for a Tiger, was a better US tank than a fast tank with a poor gun and thin armor that was a guaranteed death trap
 
Thereis a bit of historical fiction that Patton opposed the M-26's introduction because he thought the M-4 was adequate for the war he fought. This is not proven. What is proven is that there was a tug of war between General Devers who argued for the Pershing urgently and that idiot General MCnair who claimed that the M-26 would not be ready in time to influence the outcome of military operations one way or the other to bother diverting industrial resources to the effort.
 
As it turned out, when the Detroit Arsenal began churning out Pershings, they made almost 2,000 of the monsters from November 1944 to October 1945..
 
One year earlier would have helped. 1000 Pershings in Normandy would have been better than nothing.
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       3/11/2007 8:04:49 PM
By the time of Normandy surely our main (and best) tank killers were CAS aircraft anyway.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    CAS and the tank.   3/11/2007 8:19:05 PM

By the time of Normandy surely our main (and best) tank killers were CAS aircraft anyway.

 



When you are on the radio, calling in CAS on that Siberian Tiger[Tiger II] into which you just bumped, which would you prefer to be in; while you wait for that tardy  Typhoon or that slow  Thunderbolt to line up for its rocket firing pass? Would you rather sit in a Sherman or a Cromwell? Perhaps, you would prefer a Comet or a Pershing instead-you know, in case the prop jockey misses?
Herald  
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       3/11/2007 9:56:01 PM
Wouldn't make a difference.
 
All four of those tanks have reverse gears.
 
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy