American 76MM tank cannon- Why?

[lcm1947]

Not a very good subject title but couldn't think of a better one - So-so what? Anyway, I never really thought about it until the post about Archers came up couple days ago but am interested in knowing if anybody can answer why the army would develope or use or want to do either of these things with the 76MM when they could have came up with a larger caliber like the German's had. I mean it wasn't that much better then the 75MM or sure doesn't seem like it to me in CM. You can destroy something at a little further range but basically you still want to get up close to take on the enemy armor. Why not copy the 88MM for example? Or was it really maybe a lot better in real life the what is modelled in the game? I would appreciate any info anybody has or knows. Oh yeah one last question. Where there really that many Sherman tanks that acutally had the 76MM ?

[GenSplatton]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I mean it wasn't that much better then the 75MM or sure doesn't seem like it to me in CM. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll leave the long answers to the grogs, but from what I heard, the 76mm had nearly double the muzzle velocity of the 75mm gun. Not an insignificant improvement by any means.

[Doug Beman]

Tank v Tank gives muzzle velocity of the early 75mm firing APC ammo as 701m/sec. The 76.2mm firing APCBC is rated at 884m/sec. Not a huge improvement, and not enough to make Shermans able to tackle Tigers or Panthers in head-on combat except at close range.

The main reason the US stuck with the smaller guns was turret size/weight. Limitations of production time, available space for shipping tanks overseas, etc dictated a turret on the Sherman that just couldn't handle the stresses of a gun that generated much higher recoil forces. Even the Firefly had trouble with the high-velocity British gun, which forced the fitting of a much more elaborate recoil compensation system, which then forced the turret to carry a counterweight at the rear, etc.

DjB

[Guest Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lcm1947:

Where there really that many Sherman tanks that acutally had the 76MM ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

10,913 of all types from the factory.

[Skipper]

Because 8.8cm was damn expensive to manufacture, and needed barrel replacement after ~100 shots. Which is ~2 ammo loads. Fine gun, otherwise. Cutting edge of 1930s technology.

I guess, Americans figured that they can't afford to mass produce something like that. When you are already at war, you need weapons here, now, and in wholesale quantities.

[Guest Babra]

Development work on a 76mm-armed Sherman was commenced on September 11, 1941 -- long before Tigers and Panthers had appeared.

[PJungnitsch]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The main reason the US stuck with the smaller guns was turret size/weight. Limitations of production time, available space for shipping tanks overseas, etc dictated a turret on the Sherman that just couldn't handle the stresses of a gun that generated much higher recoil forces.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The M36 turret with the 90mm gun will drop straight in to the Sherman chassis, and some M36's were in fact created this way.

Going to the 76mm instead of the 90mm was just one of those dumb decisions AFAIK. The 76mm was thought to be enough, and it simply wasn't up to it.

[dalem]

Babra pretty much has it pegged. The true 76mm tank gun designed in '41/'42 (not the bastardized AA gun used on the M10 and the M1 ATG), was ready for 'mass introduction', or whatever you call it (Golden Master? ) in late '43/early '44 but apparently concerns about interrupting production and retraining before Overlord stopped it.

When you're the Arsenal of Democracy you need to worry about standardization and efficiency, sometimes to the detriment of those at the sharp end of things.

And always in the background you have the stated U.S. Antitank Doctrine that held that enemy tanks should be dealt with only by friendly TDs, leaving friendly tanks free to perform the big breakthroughs everyone was so hot and bothered about.

So, a lot of different reasons.

-dale

[Triumvir]

As for upgunning problems, the IDF had a lot of fun with their M50 and M51s, expecially the M51s. Not only did it mount an extremely low recoil GIAT 105mm, they had to snip off about 10 calibres worth to reduce recoil.

Incidentally, the 76mm on the Walker Bulldog is, if I'm not mistaken, the same as that on the 76mm Shermans, and there's a sabot round for it that has 1433m/s muzzle velocity!

In any case, calibre isn't king; the classic example is the Russian 85mm, which underperformed the 75mm Panther -- or the 88 Flak 36, which also underperformed the 75L70.

(And on a side note, the same Panther 75L70 gun, mounted on AMX-13s, had a good day with T-54s in the Sinai.)

[lcm1947]

Thanks to all that helped on that. Well, I understand now but it sure would have been nice to have a big 88MM then so I could now have them in the game. Damn the bad luck.

[Guest Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Triumvir:

As for upgunning problems, the IDF had a lot of fun with their M50 and M51s, expecially the M51s. Not only did it mount an extremely low recoil GIAT 105mm, they had to snip off about 10 calibres worth to reduce recoil.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never saw one fire, but the barracks rumour was that they put the tank in neutral to help absorb the recoil. Definitely an overgunned tank, but it sure looked neat

[ 08-19-2001: Message edited by: Babra ]

[Triumvir]

Hell yeah, it looks neat. I've picked up scale modelling in the past couple of months, and one of the first things I did on getting the Sherman kit was slap the 115mm gun on the T-62 kit I've made up against the turret.

WAAAAAY too long for the turret.

Incidentally, it's surprising how big the Sherman is compared to the T-34.

[Username]

If the availabilty of HVAP was greater, the 76mm would have made some sense. But supposedly, the HVAP was given to TD units. This had two bad effects. Tankers in M4 76mm would feel the TDs should destroy tanks and TDs would be vulnerable to all the other battlefield elements.

The US was very close to having a APDS round for this gun but the war ended. Supposedly accurate also.

Lewis

[lcm1947]

Damn that is a cool looking tank! Now that's what we should have had all along. I get so tryed of getting the crap knocked or blown out of me when trying to destroy those German tanks. I can't imagine what the real tanks felt in WWII. All I can say is they had balls!

[Stalin's Organ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Triumvir:

(And on a side note, the same Panther 75L70 gun, mounted on AMX-13s, had a good day with T-54s in the Sinai.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep - and I think it was also fitted to teh "Super Shermans" - one of the earlier upgrades fielded by the Israelis!!

[Guest Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:

Yep - and I think it was also fitted to teh "Super Shermans" - one of the earlier upgrades fielded by the Israelis!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tzahal M50 with 75mm High Velocity gun. This was a French gun which was closely copied from the Panther gun, but it wasn't exactly the same.

http://idf-sp.tripod.com/sherman5.htm

[ 08-20-2001: Message edited by: Babra ]

[lcm1947]

Looks like you are trying to show us a couple of pictures but it's not working or at least for me? I would like to see them.

[Guest Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lcm1947:

Looks like you are trying to show us a couple of pictures but it's not working or at least for me? I would like to see them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stupid Tripod... Stand by.

[Triumvir]

Oh, _yeah_. Check out that firing range! I know how that guy on top felt when the round went off and every cell in his body felt like it moved one millimeter left at the same time...

The M50 had the same gun as the AMX-13; from what I remember, the AMX-13s that weren't sold to Singapore had their guns removed and fitted to the M50s, and then were remounted with Soltam 155s.

I've sat in those AMX-13s (but never when they were running) and it must have been hell for the Israelis. Not only do they not have fans, they're _really_ cramped.

Babra, were the M50s fitted with the same autoloader as the AMX-13? Imagine a Panther with that autoloader -- 24 rounds in one minute! (And another five minutes reloading, but who's counting, eh?)

[Grisha]

Whole thing sounds suspect to me. The Soviet Union was much more restricted in production capacity than the USA. Their entire MBT production was based on only two chassis, the T-34 and the KV/IS. Yet, in 1943 it was determined that the T-34 needed a bigger gun, and there was need of a replacement to the KV-1. By 1944, the Soviets designed, then began serial production of the T-34/85 and IS models.

Now, it's very hard to belief that a country with even more production potential, resources, and the gift of total isolation from the war couldn't have made a better medium tank by 1944. Either somebody was looking to make more money, or the US Army Command wasn't listening much to their soldiers' opinions.

[Guest Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Triumvir:

Babra, were the M50s fitted with the same autoloader as the AMX-13? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't really know. Don't think so, but I stand to be corrected there.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Grisha:

Either somebody was looking to make more money, or the US Army Command wasn't listening much to their soldiers' opinions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or the Soviets just built better tanks.

[lcm1947]

Got the pictures, thanks. Man that M51 is a mean looking dude! Yeah, I bet a lot of tankers in WWII would have loved to have had one of those suckers. So the M50 is still 75MM but a higher velocity shell I suppose. Interesting.

[dalem]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Grisha:

Now, it's very hard to belief that a country with even more production potential, resources, and the gift of total isolation from the war couldn't have made a better medium tank by 1944. Either somebody was looking to make more money, or the US Army Command wasn't listening much to their soldiers' opinions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Soviets just had a much better understanding of the MBT concept than the U.S. did. It wasn't a money issue. Think of the M4 Sherman as the best anti-infantry tank ever made - in that role it surpasses everything else. The U.S. did pretty darned good in upgrading and upgunning what they had in theater already (Easy Eight/Jumbo) and introducing new models (M24 Chaffee, M18, M36) considering everything had to go by ship. If they had listened to Christie in the 30s, or watched what the Sovs were doing design-wise.....

Imagine Detroit-built "M-34"s or something similar rolling onto Liberty Ships in 1942....

-dale

[PJungnitsch]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>the gift of total isolation from the war<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the key to the problem. The US adapted as quickly as anyone once they actually started heavy fighting. The Germans were also outgunned when they started the war, and the Soviets had thousands of light tanks that were chewed up when they started fighting.

No one seemed to learn until they got their nose bloody.

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lcm1947:

Not a very good subject title but couldn't think of a better one - So-so what? Anyway, I never really thought about it until the post about Archers came up couple days ago but am interested in knowing if anybody can answer why the army would develope or use or want to do either of these things with the 76MM when they could have came up with a larger caliber like the German's had. I mean it wasn't that much better then the 75MM or sure doesn't seem like it to me in CM. You can destroy something at a little further range but basically you still want to get up close to take on the enemy armor. Why not copy the 88MM for example? Or was it really maybe a lot better in real life the what is modelled in the game? I would appreciate any info anybody has or knows. Oh yeah one last question. Where there really that many Sherman tanks that acutally had the 76MM ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Err, you know that the Archer has a UK 17-pdr, and that that is different to the 76mm in the Sherman (except for the Firefly)? The 17-pdr was a fine gun, and from what I understand a lot better than the 76mm gun in the Sherman or M-10. It had a decent chance to penetrate German heavies at range. Apparently some guy called McNair turned it down for the US when it was offered by the British.