Best tank engines of WWII

ThomasP said:

When I was a kid I built the Tamiya M4 and M10 kits - and I switched the M4 turret to the M10 hull. I did not know at the time that the armour on the M10 was significantly less than the M4, but even then the height difference made sense to me. However, would the turret basket in the M4 have cleared the drive shaft in the M10?

Click to expand...

Slightly different way of looking at it

M36B1

M4A3 hull with M36 90mm Turret, The M36B2 used the M10 Hull, that many don't realize were all GMC twin diesel powered.
Many of the actual M36 were converted from the Gasoline powered M10A1.

The M10A1 never left CONUS, used for training and then conversion to 90mm TDs and M35? Artillery Tractors.

The main difficulty of using an M4 75mm or T23 style 76mm turret, was that M10 hull had no provision for electric or hydraulic drive to rotate the turret.

SaparotRob said:

However, as someone on YouTube pointed out, the Sherman and its boxy shape, made stuffing them in ships easier.

Click to expand...

Compared to what? The elevated drive line wasted space. The Sherman was close dimensionally to the similar Crowell and PzKw IV except for being somewhat taller. The Sherman was only compact compared to heavier tanks which was the American justification for NOT providing heavy tanks to armies in the field.

Elvis said:

Anyone know what the idea was behind the sawtooth shape for the skirt over the bogies on the T-55?
Does it make it stealth or sumthin'?

View attachment 792354

Click to expand...

It's actually bogus. I drove this T-55 in the movie Courage under fire. The skirts were made of wood just for the movie.

Reluctant Poster said:

Compared to what? The elevated drive line wasted space. The Sherman was close dimensionally to the similar Crowell and PzKw IV except for being somewhat taller. The Sherman was only compact compared to heavier tanks which was the American justification for NOT providing heavy tanks to armies in the field.

Click to expand...

The U.S. was slow to change it's armored doctrine in the early years of the war, so it did not have a heavy Tank available until 1944 (M26).

The M4 (and it's variants) was a medium tank, but weighed more than it's contemporaries.

GrauGeist said:

The U.S. was slow to change it's armored doctrine in the early years of the war, so it did not have a heavy Tank available until 1944 (M26).

The M4 (and it's variants) was a medium tank, but weighed more than it's contemporaries.

Click to expand...

They did develop the M6 heavy tank, but decided not to produce it.

EwenS said:

They did develop the M6 heavy tank, but decided not to produce it.

M6 heavy tank - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Heavy Tank M6 - Tank Encyclopedia

The T1 and M6 were heavy tanks the developed by the USA starting in 1939, the first since building of the WW1 Mark VIII.

tanks-encyclopedia.com

Click to expand...

Was closer to be production ready than the German Tiger was, by several months.
US Decided that two 30 ton tanks was better than a single 60 ton.

Which is normally true, but are handy for the breakthru role, that was in Doctrine.
That's why the M3 Light and Medium, and the M6 were contemporary.

The Sherman Jumbos were found to be very desirable, even with only 254 produced. The US had such production facilities, that many producers of the early m3 and M4 didn't have production contracts renewed, as GM Chrysler and Ford increased their armor production.

Have Baldwin make 1500 M6 Heavies would not have hurt the US armor output from 1942-1944

Thread Tax: the M6 used a large radial, the Wright G-200, that powered a variety of transmissions

marathag said:

Have Baldwin make 1500 M6 Heavies would not have hurt the US armor output from 1942-1944

Click to expand...

Might have hurt locomotive production.
Over 2000 locomotives were sent to Russia alone (several makers) in WW II and the total was over 5,000 for US allies and US overseas forces.

You might be able to build tanks in a locomotive factory, you cannot build large locomotives in a tank factory.

Henschel managed to manufacture locomotives and AFVs.

And aircraft, too.

EwenS said:

They did develop the M6 heavy tank, but decided not to produce it.

M6 heavy tank - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Heavy Tank M6 - Tank Encyclopedia

The T1 and M6 were heavy tanks the developed by the USA starting in 1939, the first since building of the WW1 Mark VIII.

tanks-encyclopedia.com

Click to expand...

According to Wiki, 40 were produced, but none ever left the US.
All were eventually dismanteled, except one, which is on display the US Army Ordnance Museum at Aberdeen, Maryland.

GrauGeist said:

Henschel managed to manufacture locomotives and AFVs.

And aircraft, too.

Click to expand...

And the most famous aircraft they built was designed to destroy tanks. It takes a thief to catch a thief

Here is an excellent article on the T-34M.

Tiger production at Henschel had to be stopped or at least slowed whenever locomotives needed to be built
to replace losses. Full production of both at the same time wasn't possible.

The description of WWII Armoured Fighting Vehicles parallels that of bombers, what was light, medium and heavy in the 1930's was different to the definitions of the 1940's. The light M24 of 1944 would be a main battle tank in 1939.

The US tank program was way behind everyone else's time wise, it took delivery of its first M3 medium tanks in July 1941, production plans were influenced by the push to invade France in 1943 and provide at least training equipment for the planned large armoured force, but then the US took few tank casualties until Overlord actually happened which in turn meant the US had little experience to feedback into production and design decisions and left lots of early production M4 available. The War Production Board reports 3,735 Shermans were remanufactured/modernised August 1944 to May 1945.

While the Panther was not a total surprise to the allies in Normandy it came close, at the same time it was really designed for open country given the armour distribution and gun fitted. Early in the war the German doctrine was to try and avoid tank versus tank engagements, relying on anti tank guns instead. The US adopted the same ideas, tank destroyers as an improvement on towed anti tank guns. Despite all the tank duel stories the main role of tanks was as part of combined arms teams, infantry casualties were lower when tank support was available and allied tanks in the west did relatively little shooting at other tanks. Production of the 75mm gun Sherman ended in March 1945.

With the increase in tank size came the increase in anti tank gun size, to the point where being self propelled made more sense, and the non self propelled guns sort of shrank to bazooka size plus the lower powered 50-75mm guns that were easy to manhandle and hide. With the open spaces in the east German doctrine switched the tank to be an anti tank weapon carrying heavy armour, with the assault guns becoming infantry support, the US had the lightly built tank destroyer and the tank, with the US infantry support vehicles having turrets as an advantage. Having little armour meant the tank destroyer could mount heavier guns but still be mobile.

The US clearly felt there was a place for the light tank, producing 13,859 M3 March 1941 to September 1943 and 8,884 M5 April 1943 to June 1944. There were 10,947 light tanks built in 1942, 8,212 in 1943 and 4,043 in 1944.

US Heavy tanks, 40 M6 series December 1942 to February 1944. There were 10 M26 built February to May 1944, then production of the main model from November 1944, production in January 1945 essentially doubled production to date and the same again in February.

The War Production Board report has 33,671 M4 with 75mm guns, it excludes the 188 M4A1 Shermans made by Canadian Pacific Railroad in Canada, October to December 1943. The US hit 10 active M4 production lines in January 1943 (ALCO, Baldwin, Chrysler, Fisher, FMW, Ford, Lima, Pacific Car, Pressed Steel, Pullman) down to 7 in October 1943, to 4 in January 1944 and 3 in February, Fisher for 75mm, Chrysler, Fisher and Pressed Steel for 76mm and Chrysler for 105mm.

M4 Sherman production by year was 8,017 in 1942, 21,433+188 in 1943, 13,179 in 1944 and 6,793 January to July 1945, peak production of 2,401 in July 1943, down to 508 in February 1944, pushed back up to 1,000 - 1,500 a month for most of 1944. Production of the 76mm version began in January 1944 and the 105mm version in February. Fisher produced 254 M4A3E2 Jumbo May to July 1944, with 75mm guns, found to be useful as the first tank in a column. Just under 60% of total Sherman production was done by end 1943.

The engine situation meant M4 and M4A1 production February 1942 to July 1945, M4A2 April 1942 to May 1945, M4A3 June 1942 to June 1945 (with a gap October 1943 to January 1944), M4A4 July 1942 to September 1943, the 75 M4A6 October 1943 to February 1944.

Tank Destroyers, 6,706 M10 September 1942 to December 1943, 2,507 M18 July 1943 to October 1944, M36 April 1944 onwards with gaps in September 1944 and January to April 1945, with 2,283 built to end August 1945.

The hurry up and wait part of the US armoured vehicle program can be seen in the M7 105mm SP howitzer, production April 1942 to February 1943 of 2,346, another 468 April to August 1943 (all based on the M3 tank chassis), then production resuming in February 1944 based on the M4 chassis, total production 4,316

To 20 February 1945 the 12th Army Group reported the loss of 439 M10, 120 M18 and 72 M36, along with 1,069 light tanks and 124 105mm Sherman. To 20 January 1945, a month earlier, 2,845 75/76mm gun Shermans lost, with around another 774 lost by the end of the war, it took until end April 1945 before there were more 76mm versions than 75mm ones. Strangely enough 105 out of 182 M7 105mm SP vehicle losses to 20 February 1945 were in the 20 November to 20 December 1944 period.

First Army had operational M26 from the week beginning 13 February 1945, never more than 18 on strength, lost 1. Third Army had operational M26 from the week beginning 21 April 1945, with 43 on strength by the end of the month. Ninth Army had operational M26 from the week beginning 28 March 1945, with 36 on strength by end April.

ETO ideas on tanks.

A pre June 1944 attempt to raise the replacement rate for tanks was knocked back until evidence could be found to support the new rate. Told of the 105mm gun Sherman and the new 90mm gun Pershing the theatre requested 4 105mm to 1 90mm gun tanks.

On 20th July 1944 the first shipment of 76mm gun Shermans arrives in France, some 138 vehicles.

Week ending 19 August 1944, 3rd Army reports it first 76mm Shermans

On 11th October 1944 the theatre alters its request for 4 105mm Shermans for every 1 90mm Pershing to a 2 to 1 ratio in favour of the Sherman.

Week ending 20 October 1944, 9th Army reported its first 76mm Shermans, with 52 operational after 3 losses, First Army had 210 after 83 losses, week ending 21 October 3rd Army had 97 after 61 losses

December 1944, there were not enough 76mm Shermans to fulfill requests, so 75mm versions were shipped. Attempts to convert some to use the 17 pounder for US service had to be continually postponed because of the tank shortage. The 105mm gun Sherman was a useful addition but did not have powered turret traverse.

In early January 1945 the theatre alters its request for 2 105mm Shermans for every 1 90mm Pershing to a 4 to 1 ratio in favour of the Pershing. Eisenhower issues a plea to the ammunition industry over the critical needs of his armies.

During March 1945 the 12th Army Group Sherman situation is good enough to finally release 160 for conversion to 17 pounder guns, the first will be delivered in March but the program is cut to 80 vehicles in mid April, few will see any action

Shortround6 said:

Might have hurt locomotive production.
Over 2000 locomotives were sent to Russia alone (several makers) in WW II and the total was over 5,000 for US allies and US overseas forces.
View attachment 793457
You might be able to build tanks in a locomotive factory, you cannot build large locomotives in a tank factory.

Click to expand...

Baldwin's Eddistone Plant

and subsidiary the Whitcomb Locomotive Works

never reached a third of its production capacity during the War, as the War Production Board decided that the Majority of Locomotive Diesels to be made were to be Baldwin's competitors ALCO and GM's EMD.
Baldwin had production space for AFVs, with those contracts without affecting Steam locomotive Production, that had 30% of the market in 1940, over $230M in wartime contracts, vs 190M for AFVs, of which the M6 Program was 17M

marathag said:

missed opportunity, as radials can be designed to run in pancake or tilt mode,

to reduce the 'too tall' problem for a tank hull.
But the real US problem was not having a driveshaft running along the floor, like the Germans and later M18 Hellcat did.
That high driveshaft meant the turret had to be mounted high for clearance

Click to expand...

Not to skew the thread, but does this picture give anyone else flashbacks of watching the first Alien movie?

Elvis said:

Ford GAF. End of story. All it needed was an equally tough transmission behind it and the Pershing would've been unstoppable.

Click to expand...

That reminds of the issues that its offspring the M-46 had in actually stopping