The M-4 on an avewrage was a 35 tonne tank.

 

The M-26 at the time was a 42 tonne tank.

 

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/9208/m2603drawing21wddv7.jpg" width=719 border=0>

 

 

The issue certaiinly wasn't either tank mass or volume since the US was routinely shipping SPGs that were heavier and larger than either tank, as well as palletized bulk ammunition also in greater mass and bulk lot per pallet.

 

The issue couldn't have been bridging since the Germans and the Russians both built their tanks to the current 47 tonne load carrying limit of most of Europe's bridges and roads. So what was it? Gasoline engines? The Pershing used a Ford gasoline enginme as its powerplant, so it could not have been fuel. What was it that made the US Army decide to forego the Pershing? Why did it shilly shally for over a year to produce 2000 Pershing units? The US proved it could produce that tank as well as the Sherman Jumbos, the M-18s, and the crisis produced M-36s as well as the Sherman 76Ws all during the fighting chaos for the battle of France, so what was the problem? Logistics you say? Obviously not. The US had the means to transport and use 250 units any time they wished as they demonstrated in January and February of 1945. So what was the problem? Despite the claims to the contrary to explain why the Pershing wasn't used the existing evidence shows that the problems cited were excuses. If the US couldn't logistically build it, ship it, and use it, then it wouldn't. BUT IT DID. It just didn't build it in time.

 

Herald       

 

 

I want an armoured vehicle with a powerful anti-tank gun. It needs a low silhouette, a decent turn of speed, good rate of fire and good situational awareness. It isn't going to engage infantry, any more than a towed anti-tank gun is.

So I can engage targets off to a flank, thereby being able to pop out of defilade and engage without having to turn around, a turret seems like a good idea, since I'll probably want to fire forwards as well. However, I want to use an existing chassis and drivetrain but with a bigger gun. In order to fit it in comfortably and maintain my rate of fire (more gun crew), I'll have it overhanging the turret ring. Since it's bigger and therefore heavier, I need to save weight. I want a decent amount of depression on the main gun, so I can use more hull-down positions, and having a roof weighs more and gets in the way of the breech. So we get rid of the roof. As a bonus, when not actually firing the gun, I can have more guys on lookout.

If I'm engaged by artillery, I can run away. Besides, according to doctrine, I'm waiting on the enemy counter-attack, where I can use my superior operational mobility (lighter = faster) to get into flanking positions along his line of advance. Artillery is not responsive or well supplied enough to put barrages down every where and I'll be gone before he gets it called in.

It isn't necessarily stupid, it's based on the flawed premise that armour is only present in an attacking force and attacking tanks will face dug-in infantry and anti-tank guns.

"If the US couldn't logistically build it, ship it, and use it, then it wouldn't. BUT IT DID. It just didn't build it in time."

 

The this is a false dichotomy.  It was not that NO M-26's could be manufactured, shipped and used, but rather that far FEWER of them as compared to Shermans could be manufactured, shipped and used.  Because of volume restrictions Liberty ships could carry only about HALF the number of M-26's as M-4's.  Unless one radically increased the number of ships, then the US Army would have had far fewer tanks using the M-26 than the M-4.

 

Also, if one examines ammunition usage, one finds that the use was about 4 HE rounds to 1 AP round...meaning that tanks in the US Army spent the bulk of their time supporting infantry, not fighting Panthers.

 

So again a TACTICAL focus on the M-4 v. the Panther or Tiger misses the larger picture.

 

Again the M-4 had some advantages that folks here don't seem to be cataloging and seem to focus on the frontal combat of the 75mm v. the Panther's armour and vice versa and the Second World War was a bit more than that, even in the ground combat mode.

 

Finally was the M-26 that much more proof to the 8.8 cm L/71 on the Jagdpanther and later PAK-43 or more proof against the panzerfaust?  If not, the use of the M-26 simply sharply reduces the number of tanks you field, without necessarily increasing the overall effectiveness of the force.

Darn it, Harold. I hate being wrong. I try not to let it happen much, but it just might have done so. I'm re-reading that article you posted earlier with a more open mind.

He says "Rapid development, production and deployment of both the Tiger and Pather tanks...." WTF???? The Tiger took at least 2.5 years to develop, and even then was fielded in basically a pototype form. The first battle it fought in late 1942, half of the Tigers involved never made it to the battle, instead breaking down between the assembly area and the battle. Note that the first Panzer VIs took part in the battle for *Norway*... and never made it back, breaking down or getting stuck there and being scuttled.

"The majority of losses of Shermans were not from battle with other tanks, but rather from mines, aircraft, infantry anti-tank weapons... "-Source Wikipedia (suspect if you care to be)

 

So a lot of the complaints against the Sherman are complaints that are outside the reality of combat for the Sherman.  The M-26 or the M-4 were equally vulnerable to mines and panzerfaust, so in that case the losses would have been much the same.  The difference being that in the case of the M-26 force, there would have been fewer tanks, overall in the ETO, due to logistical bottlenecks.

 

A practical, "what-if" answer would most likely be the much more massive and early production of the M-4a3e8 model, with HVSS and the 76mm weapon and wet ammunition stowage, accompanied by greater production of and wider distribution of 76 mm HVAP ammunition.  Finally it would have been useful to have produced more M-36 TD's with the  90mm gun.  It wold have given the US forces a much better medium tank and ammunition and supplemented that with a very lethal 90mm gun.

Yup, you're right the Army screwed up, they should have fielded the Pershing in October instead of delaying until February.

Personally they should have made the armor lighter though and called it a medium tank but with the bigger gun, instead of sacrificing mobility, or possibly issuing both versions.

It seems the commanders of US armed forces in ETO don't agree. They proposed immediate production of T20-T26 series tanks several times, but they put the number about 250. It means that they wanted 250 88-gun-proved heavy tanks for some reason. That's about 5 to 6 heavy tank battalions on the entire ETO. Gen. McNair may have his reason rejecting them, probably because all these models were not battle worthy, and the T26 design was not complete until early 1944. Germans suffered a lot by putting untested weapons into combat, and Russians actually led the world in tank design since 1930s. Test and modification of T26 was not ended until fall of 1944, and when the factories finally were able to churn them out in numbers, Germans were already defeated. Archives of US Army at the time actually reflected the urgency of tankers to get better tanks that can at least be equal to German heavy tanks since 1942. However, none of US heavy tanks were satisfactory until M26. M26 is actually not a real big issue for transportation. They are not heavier than the Sherman, though wider by 3 feet. Not all liberty ships were used exclusively as tank transports. They were also packed with other stuff, including wheat and meat to feed British, chocolade cakes and even Coca Cola. M6 Heavy Tank or T29 heavy tank are the problem for transportation.

Call them an Infantry and Cavalry version.