SenorBeef Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 This isn't so much a CM question as a general one. If the doctrinal purpose of the sherman was to be an infantry support tank, than why was the short 75 barrel the most common variant, rather than the 105? Is there any advantage the 75 offers over the 105 in the infantry support role? ROF is the only factor I can think of, but I think it would offset by the larger firepower. Was there a hollow charge round for the 105? Even if not, I'd imagine one could be made. And as far as doctrine goes, you'd only really need those HE shells. I suppose the 75 can be superior in engaging multiple light vehicles. As a whole, though, you'd expect, if the cost was roughly equal, the 105 to be much more prevalent than it was historically. At least, from what I've read... its usage was a relatively rare specialty, rather than being in significant numbers like the 76. This has just been a curiosity of mine. Thanks for any help in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hussar Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 I think the 105 had far too slow a muzzle velocity to be used in the anti-armour role. I understand that the US was offered the British 17 pdr well before D-Day for manufacture for the US Sherman. Given that the Firefly was the only Allied tank to stand a chance against German MK V's etc whoever knocked back that offer (on "logistic" grounds, I understand) has a lot to answer for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SenorBeef: ... why was the short 75 barrel the most common variant, rather than the 105?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good question. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Is there any advantage the 75 offers over the 105 in the infantry support role?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> More ammo and cheaper. A shorter gun barrel is advantageous in tight terrain. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Was there a hollow charge round for the 105?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hussar: I think the 105 had far too slow a muzzle velocity to be used in the anti-armour role.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> With the hollow charge muzzle velocity was no problem. The same howitzer is mounted in the Priests, and I've had good use of those as tank destroyers. (See various Priest threads) The trick is to hit with the first round, since ROF is so low. Cheers Olle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hussar: I think the 105 had far too slow a muzzle velocity to be used in the anti-armour role. I understand that the US was offered the British 17 pdr well before D-Day for manufacture for the US Sherman. Given that the Firefly was the only Allied tank to stand a chance against German MK V's etc whoever knocked back that offer (on "logistic" grounds, I understand) has a lot to answer for. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This has been brought up before and it was shown that the British were at capacity building the 17pdr and COULD NOT provide them to the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Eyes Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 Does anyone know why the 17pdr was not manufactured in the US, too? ------------------ It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wwb_99 Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 One other good reason not to produce Sherman 105s: they used the same ammo as the 105mm field artillery. Every infantry division had a battalion of 105s and shells were already in short enough supply. WWB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schugger Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 Weren't the 75mm sherman variants not designed as Main Battle tanks? IIRC the M4 variants entered production when germany's MBT was the Pz III. Perhaps it was just bad luck that they entered the ETO and faced an opponent which had already learned his lessons in tank warfare in Russia. However, I find the 75mm Sherman one of the best "allrounders" in the game: They excel in support roles, can destroy most of the german tanks frontally and with their fast turrets and high speed they can catch the heavies off guard. ------------------ Ich liebe Dein! Ich kann ohne Dir nicht bin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Schugger: Weren't the 75mm sherman variants not designed as Main Battle tanks? IIRC the M4 variants entered production when germany's MBT was the Pz III. Perhaps it was just bad luck that they entered the ETO and faced an opponent which had already learned his lessons in tank warfare in Russia. However, I find the 75mm Sherman one of the best "allrounders" in the game: They excel in support roles, can destroy most of the german tanks frontally and with their fast turrets and high speed they can catch the heavies off guard. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> US doctrine was the Sherman would be the "breakthrough" vehicle. They would run amoke in the rear ares. The US wanted TD to be the main anti-armor force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Deych Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 Speaking of 17lb armed Shermans, were those M4A4s by any chance? I read in "Hitler's Nemesis" that about a little less then half of Shermans supplied to Soviet Union were armed with a British 17lb gun, and I'd like to fact-check that statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schugger Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 Thanks for the clarification, CavScout Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gregory Deych: Speaking of 17lb armed Shermans, were those M4A4s by any chance? I read in "Hitler's Nemesis" that about a little less then half of Shermans supplied to Soviet Union were armed with a British 17lb gun, and I'd like to fact-check that statement.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Greg, while looking through the Lend Lease deliveries I find the following. The US supplied: - 2,095 M4A2 76mm Sherman - 2,007 M4A2 75mm Sherman - 1,676 M3A1 Stuart - 1,386 Grant - 1 M26 Pershing - 2 M24 Chaffee The UK supplied: - 3,782 Valentine - 1,084 Matilda II - 301 Churchill - 25 Valentine Bridgelayer - 20 Tetrarch - 6 Cromwell Regards, John Waters ------------------ "We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field". Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945. [This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-16-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hussar Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 Hi CavScout, I didnt say the Brits would supply the 17 pdrs. I understand it was offered to the US for them to manufacture it, but they knocked it back. Bit of the usual "not designed here" b******t got in the way I suspect... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andrew Hedges Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 The Sherman 105s were supposed to provide artillery support to tank battalions; people felt that the Priest was too lightly armored for this role (and of course it was open-topped). The rejection of the 17-pounder was caused by a more serious problem than the it-wasn't-built-here syndrome; upgunning the Sherman was felt to be inconsistent with the tank destroyer idea. AGF (Army Ground Forces) rejected -- in 1943 -- the idea of building an upgunned tank (specifically, the T-26, which later became the M-26 Pershing) with a 90mm gun because it believed that the Sherman with the 75 was perfectly fine...and if there were tanks to fight, just call on the tank destroyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hussar Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 Andrew I take your point but it did not work very well in Normandy and elsewhere did it ?. The only tanks that stood a chance were the Fireflies and there were not enough of them. I think National pride had a lot to do with it, and it cost how many lives ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest machineman Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 Just read an interesting story on the 17 pounder adaptation. It was thought it couldnt be done, and it certainly wouldn't fit, so they did it by taking off the recoil mechanism, mounting the gun solidly in the turret, and testfiring it remotely with a long rope! After they found out the gun wouldn't come flying out of the back of the turret they got on to designing a proper recoil mechanism that would fit and away they went. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts