Tanks in Europe 1944/45

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Then back up your BS statement that the US didn't share technology with Britain when our Lend Lease gave them every goddamn leading edge technology from armaments, to bomber airplanes, to fighter airplanes, to tanks, to infrantry weapons, to infrantry comm equipment, to reconnaisance, to naval replenishment planning, to invasion tactics, to secure communications procedures, to strategic planning for multiple fronts...

I'm frankly sick and tired of revisionists historians telling me that my great country was somehow always gaming the system to screw our allies out of some advantage during our great struggle with evil. You may not like my blunt response to your one line statement that the US was "not reciprocating" in kind, but it is a BS statement.

So your namby pamby "have a nice day" comment is back at you.
 
Ok, I am not trying to re-write history and am not responsible for any other posts that have tried to do so.
I never said that America did not reciprocate, I said that "our Allied partners" - which as I was referencing the T34 and its sloping armour, was not directed at the USA.
I do think you have over reacted a bit. I agree that America did help out Britain when we were fighting our struggle against evil for two years before you joined the fight.
I understand that America was politically against getting involved directly in the war against Germany until Japan attacked you. We as a nation were and some of us still are thankful for your material support before you were dragged into the fray.
We could not have won the struggle without the aid of our colonies and the US.
The lend lease program gave us the use of your WW1 destroyers to escort the convoys of supplies and material that we needed to stay in the fight.
It was not however a one way street. Enough said.
 
If the Comet had been available earlier with sloped armour - would it have made a difference?
During the attempts to breakout from the D Day beach head, I dont think it would.
Most of the engagements were in favour of the defenders, the Boccage channeled tanks right into AT gun positions etc.
After the breakout I think it may have helped as it would have had a better survivability than other Allied tanks and had a decent gun to hit back with.
 
What is the slope angle on a Sherman's frontal armour?
I would have thought it should have helped deflect in coming rounds?
Or were the rounds just to fast?
 
iirc the early welded models had a 42 degree glacis plate and the later welded models a slightly steeper 47 degree plate. The way to tell the 2 types of glacis plate apart is the early version had the bulges for the driver and co-drivers hatches. This complicated construction so the later version is flatfaced with the hatches completely on the horizontal plating.

I dont think the cast models changed the angle but I am not an expert on the different versions.
 
vinnye said:
I believe the T34 had an angle of around 30 deg - so that may well be why the Shermans did not deflect rounds?
Click to expand...

The Sherman was plenty tough from the front its weakness was the side armour and original ammo storage. If you look at photos of Shermans with the Allied star in ring marking on the side thats where the ammo was stored. A lot of Shermans were lost because of hits in that area and later on extra armour was applied and the ammo storage was altered. This problem wasnt unique to the Sherman the Panther was notably vulnerable to side penetration for such a heavy vehicle.

Late models of Sherman were as tough as any equivalent tank and in fact the T34, PzIV and Panther tanks were just as prone to burning and a lot less reliable. The main assets of the Sherman were it was reliable, relatively easy to service, fast, capable of driving 100s of miles on its tracks but most of all it was easy to build and ship across the oceans.

I dont believe the T34 was any better than the Sherman they both had strengths and weaknesses but when they came up against each other post WWII the Sherman generally had the upper hand.
 
Whilst doing some research into Sherman development , I came across something in Wikipedia that struck me as being odd =
"Production of the Sherman was favored by the commander of the Armored Ground Forces, albeit controversially, over the heavier M26 Pershing,"
It made me think - would deployment of Pershings in large numbers in place of Shermans have changed the land war in the west much?
 
The M 26 would have been better for tank v tank operations but fighting tanks wasnt the main job of tanks in WWII Infantry support was the main job, some tank crews in NW Europe never saw an enemy tank. If you replace the M4 with the M26 you have fewer tanks probably a lot fewer plus the M 26 was less reliable and slower than the M4. This would have been very important during the breakout from Normandy. Ideally the M26 should have been in service earlier and in greater numbers but not as the complete replacement for the M4.
 
The M-26 used the same engine as the M4A3 so it is easy to see where the loss of speed and unreliability came from. Even with a much bigger push behind the M-26 it is hard to see more than a few hundred of them available by D-Day meaning the bulk of the tanks would still be M-4s. There were a number of factories building M-4s and some could not as easily be converted to M-26 production. Part of the variation in M-4 models was to suit the different factories production abilities. Welded rolled armor instead of cast hull parts.
 
Perhaps someone well versed in M4 design production might say a few worts whether the Sherman Jumbo ( M4A3E2 ) was ever considered with 76mm cannon as it's weapon? Or maybe with 17pdr, at least for British use?
 
The Jumbo was an assault tank for breaking fortified lines and positions. The 75mm had a better High Explosive shell than either of the 76.2mm guns which was more important for its assault job no point in knocking a 3 inch hole in the front and another 3 inch hole in the back wall of a concrete pillbox with an AP round . When you can knock a 75mm hole in the front and blow up the pillbox and everyone in it. I imagine the Jumbo would have been backstopped by SP guns to protect it from enemy tanks.

It was a good lash up assault tank though possibly not as good as the Churchill, I believe the extra armour strained the transmission and suspension. The problem for specialized assault tanks like the Jumbo, Churchill and KV 152 is when you have broken the line and the action becomes more fluid the assault tank is often left behind and can often get overtaken and flanked in a counterattack.

edit: The Jumbo would probably have been better with a 105mm howitzer and I am surprised it was never fitted, though I dont know if it was planned or even tested.
 
Last edited:
Fair points, and some nit picks:

The Jumbo was an assault tank for breaking fortified lines and positions.
Click to expand...

It was all of it until someone orders the modification of the Jumbo, that would include the 17. Then it becomes a fully fledged MBT, capable to take on German armor with even terms - unlike the Firefly, that was vulnerable to 7,5cm pak and further.

It was a good lash up assault tank though possibly not as good as the Churchill, I believe the extra armour strained the transmission and suspension.
Click to expand...

We could use some good info about that.
 
No doubt that a 1 v 1 engagement between the Panther and either the T-34 or Sherman would statistically go to the Panther most of the time. The reality is that the tank picking the time and place of the engagement had the best chance to win. Panthers used in offensive operations suffered high losses too. (Battle of Arracourt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

IIRC, Jumbo's were sometimes refitted with the 76mm gun. Their original purpose was to bust through the S.line, but they were usually used to head up a column as they could take a hit.

M-26's did have better mobility than did the Sherman. Jumbo's being heavier but with the rest still just like a regular Sherman, were worse off road.
 
Last edited:

Had a good look for the book where I read about the problems of the Jumbo but cant find it, it was a slim volume that listed all the various models and modifications. As far as I can remember the Jumbos had to be retrofitted with heavier Volute springs plus Belleville washers added to the bump stops. The gearbox had to be fitted with an oil cooler (or bigger oil cooler) because the lowered gear ratios and the fact that lower gears were used more often meant overheating. Service intervals were cut and a different grade of spark plug was fitted because the engine was working harder, also a different magneto was fitted though why this was done I dont know perhaps the different plugs needed a different timing. Track extensions had to be added to the tracks to improve float and these were very troublesome I have seen a photo of a Jumbo with quite a few of the extensions missing they got ripped off when turning hard on soft ground.

Will keep looking for the book but I have 2 boxes of junk in my sisters loft so might not get round to it for a while.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

German Luftwaffe Fighter Staff Conference 1944
Replies
8
Views
1K
Engineman
E
WWII remnants in Tunisia and Algeria
Replies
0
Views
562
Ghosts of War
O
British Balloon Bombs in the Balkans, Summer 1943?
Replies
4
Views
381
Old MacDonald
O
M
US AA defense in WWII ETO and pacific
Replies
4
Views
761
Frog
F
Strange Polish grave in England...
Replies
12
Views
1K
Alex Smart
A
Menu
Log in
Register