Notice the FIBUA? Notice the moral of this little video play?

 

Herald 

 

 

Doggone screwed up board software!

 

Herald

 

 

Herald the shipping limiter, as I understand it was not Volume, it was length and hatch size of Liberty ships.  M-4's fit in the holds better, the vessels having been designed around the size of the M-4...source Weapons of Destruction.

 

You still focus on the TACTICS of the M-26 v. the M-4 v. the Wehrmacht.  First, the US Army's tanks didn't engage German tanks, that much...the ratio was 4:1 HE:AP and some of the AP would have been used on concrete fortifications.  So, IF the shipping limiter was correct, you would not have had as many tanks in the ETO using M-26's as M-4's and that would have significantly affected operations overall.  US Armour engaged German Infantry more than German Panzers.

 

Finally, you focus on the battlefield,  again too much.  D-Day was the 6th month of 1944.  Assuming it took 6 months to produce, ship, and train the US Armour Force on the M-26, in England, the M-26 had to be ready for deployment NLT than December 1943.  I don't believe it was.  Ergo, this debate is academic.  If I'm right the M-26 had to coming off the production floor in industrial quantities by December 1943, to have had an impact in Overlord, the bocage, and the Breakout.  Again, I don't believe this to be true.  So, this debate becomes one akin to, "What if Elanor Roosevelt could fly"?  It's simply not possible.  Further, assuming a year to design, prototype production, the M-26 had to be entering last stage design and engineering NLT December 1942.  Again, I don't believe it was.

 

Bottom-line: the M-26 is a non-starter for the NW European Campaign.  Yes it could have been deployed in Oct. 1944 rather than February 1945, but it would not have been the prime tank, by numbers.  The way the M-26 is THE US Armour Force tank in NW Europe is if it's ready for final approval December 1942 OR the Invasion of Europe is post-poned until 1945. Sorry.

 

So again I simply say, that within the realm of Reasonable possibility, the choices were to speed up the production of the M-4a3e8, make more M-36's and increase the production and distribution of HVAP 76mm ammunition.  The tank that was going to crush the Wehrmacht was the M-4, so the goal must be to produce the best M-4.

 

And until, you can demonstrate that the M-26 COULD have, reasonably, been available in the numbers necessary to support D-Day and the subsequent campaign, championing the M-26 is nice, but it is also unrealistic.  I don't think it would have been ready for a campaign in 1944.  Lastly you mention a new engine for the M-26, Herald that was a problem for the Germans, British, AND the US.  Their tank engines designs did NOT keep pace with the weight of new tanks.  The M-26 had the engine it had, BECAUSE THAT WAS THE ENGINE AVAILABLE.  Again it's pointless to posit a different engine, might as well ask for Tank Thermal Sights or 3-Axis Stabilization.

A 4-1 ratio of HE vs AP ammo used doesn't tell us anything about how a tank was used. An infantry tank is going to be operating in direct support of infantry on the front lines of a battle, where the enemy's combat power, and their tanks are concentrated. A cavalry tank could conceivabley encounter *fewer* enemy tanks than an infantry tank, because it is often operating behind enemy lines shooting up enemy soft targets.

 

Note that according to the article posted 3/11/07 (www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3398)

 

"In August 1944, the Ordinane Department recommended that the T26E1 be standardized and placed into production. Opposition from the user arms was still strong, however, and Army Ground Forces disagreed and stated that the vehicle could not be standardized until the Armored Force Board had also tested and approved production modifications. Earlier, in July, Army Ground Forces had tried another delaying move...ignored by the Ordinance Department."

 

So accoridng to this, August is the earliest that it could have been ready to start full production. Which doesn't mean that they would have reached the troops in August, as we shall see. Again quoting from the source above:

 

"...caused the American General Staff to intervene in the T26 affair on December 22, and order immediate shipment of available T26E3s to Europe without further testing.

   The first 20 T26E3s were shipped to Europe in January 1945 and at the beginning of February these were issued for service to the 3rd and 9th Armored Divisions."

 

So even if they had been approved in August it would have been October at least before they got to the front. Not to say it wouldn't have helped, and it would certainly have been especially useful to have them in use during the Ardennes offensive.