Sherman 76 vs. Panther

[Sirocco]

The Germans often used their assets for unsuitable tasks because of a lack of appreciation of their strengths and weaknesses, and because of desperate circumstances. The same would probably have been the case with a US heavy TD.

[CombinedArms]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

The funny thing is that all the US would only have had to ship over the M36 turrets and they could have field modified Shermans to carry them.

This was, in fact, done as a factory-built model. Cf. the statement that: "The M36B1 was constructed by mating the 90mm M36 gun turret with the hull of the late-production M4A3 Sherman. Internal stowage was rearranged to accomodate the larger 90mm rounds." More info at this site.

I don't think it was ever tried as a field modification, but it's an interesting idea, and quite possibly a practical one. I think the problem was that the armor theorists back in the US didn't share the field combatants urgency to find a weapon that could deal with the German cats and heavy TDs.

Even so, a fairly high percentage (maybe 33%?) of independent TD battalions in the ETO were M36 equipped by late 1944.

Overall, the M36 seems to me a pretty good AFV. It's a bit short on protection, but its excellent gun's ability to kill the opposition serves as a form of protection in itself. The key to survival would be to have a lot of them firing together. A platoon of M36s hulldown on a ridgeline would be a pretty formidable ambush weapon. Too bad we can't play with them in CMAK.

[Wisbech_lad]

Any grogs know why the CW never used their excellent heavy AA (3.7" ISTR) as a stop gap AT gun - rather waiting for the 17pdr?

Doctrine? Better used elsewhere? (In the desert, could see an argument that the CW used their heavy AA better than Rommel and his 88's - i.e. defending the ports & logistics from air attack, rather than on the front line...)

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

The Germans often used their assets for unsuitable tasks because of a lack of appreciation of their strengths and weaknesses, and because of desperate circumstances. The same would probably have been the case with a US heavy TD.

Hardly plausible.

The Germans would certainly use asstes like Tigers/Nashorn against any doctrine just due to the fact that there was nothing else that could stop hordes of enemy AFV. They were spread too thin and the enemy too thick.

The Allied attack in Europe was dominated by superior firepower through air supremecy and artillery (ammo) overkill. The plentiful AFV and infantry had the Germans rocking on thier heels.

I see no reason to assume that the US would use any vehicle like the Germans did.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sirocco:

The Germans often used their assets for unsuitable tasks because of a lack of appreciation of their strengths and weaknesses, and because of desperate circumstances. The same would probably have been the case with a US heavy TD.

Hardly plausible.

The Germans would certainly use asstes like Tigers/Nashorn against any doctrine just due to the fact that there was nothing else that could stop hordes of enemy AFV. They were spread too thin and the enemy too thick.

The Allied attack in Europe was dominated by superior firepower through air supremecy and artillery (ammo) overkill. The plentiful AFV and infantry had the Germans rocking on thier heels.

I see no reason to assume that the US would use any vehicle like the Germans did. </font>

[Mr. Tittles]

The reality is that the M10 was hardly used as it was supposed to according to the US TD doctrine (SEEK, STRIKE, DESTROY or whatever the slogon was). TD battalions were often split up and companys/platoons doled out to support armored attacks/defend crossroads. TD battalion HQs were actually units without real purpose.

I can support this with data.

By the end of the war, the real TD quality was a gun that could hit hard. The 90mm was the preferred TD (especially the gasoline version with HP).

[ October 08, 2004, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[CombinedArms]

I recall back in CMBO days somebody posting interesting data on US TD battalions in the ETO that showed that they fired massively more HE than AP. This suggests that they were really used most of the time as tank substitutes to support infantry attacks and such. At the same time, I've seen individual TD battalion histories that show them killing vastly more AFVs than they lost and often claiming vast numbers of infantry captures as well. Some of these may be overclaims, but while the TD battalions and the vehicles themselves had to perform many tasks for which they weren't designed, they generally did a pretty good job.

But all of this points to the concept that eventually emerges: the main battle tank. The problem with having lots of different specialized tanks and TDs is that you can't count on having the right specialized AFV in the right place at the right time. So now the goal is to create tanks that can perform all o fa tank's potential major functions well.

Of course, this is easier to achieve when one has long development times. The rapid development of tanks in WWII led boths sides to engage in a lot of improvisation to have some kind of weapon to counter th enemy. And there were a lot of untested theories floating around that led to tank types that now seem problematic, even though they often worked reasonably well in the field, in part because the enemy's tanks also invovled improvisation and compromise.

[Mr. Tittles]

TDs were often used as artillery. So were 90mm AA guns and anything else that could shoot HE. The US had a shortage of 105mm ammo towards the end of the war and anything that could shoot HE was used to fill the gap (even captured German guns).

Tanks, even if not shooting indirect, will expend more HE typically than AP.

[Mr. Tittles]

The US should have made mini-hellcats on the M5 chassis. This would be a 57mm ATG mounted in an open turret on the light tank chassis. If a good HVAP or accurate APDS was made also, this light weapon would give some teeth to this obsolete light tank.

They should have also made M4 shermans with 105mm that had power traverse. The powerful HEAT round for this weapon could destroy a panther head on.

Another weapon could be the M8 armored car with a 81mm mortar in a rotating turret. This would give the TD units better smoke (WP) throwing capability and also the cav units an indirect fire weapon.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

The US should have made mini-hellcats on the M5 chassis. This would be a 57mm ATG mounted in an open turret on the light tank chassis. If a good HVAP or accurate APDS was made also, this light weapon would give some teeth to this obsolete light tank.

Probably not worth the effort though. Why build a 57mm lightly armored TD when you can have a 76mm moderately armored TD? Who would you have given such a vehicle to?

By this stage of the war, the M5 was a reconnaisance tank. It wasn't meant to get into heavy shoot-outs.

They should have also made M4 shermans with 105mm that had power traverse. The powerful HEAT round for this weapon could destroy a panther head on.

Agreed about the usefulness of a power traverse. But tank hunting was not this vehicle's primary job, nor would it have been.

Another weapon could be the M8 armored car with a 81mm mortar in a rotating turret. This would give the TD units better smoke (WP) throwing capability and also the cav units an indirect fire weapon.

Perhaps. But why not just add a couple of mortar-armed halftracks? These were already in the arsenal.

The problem with all your ideas is that they would require an interruption of production to add new models. This is something the Army was loathe to do, especially if the potential gains were small. The Germans went to the opposite extreme, constantly interrupting production to add modifications, and it contributed to their losing the war.

Michael

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

The problem [...] is that [your ideas] would require an interruption of production to add new models. This is something the Army was loathe to do, especially if the potential gains were small. The Germans went to the opposite extreme, constantly interrupting production to add modifications, and it contributed to their losing the war.

Agree. Isn't the Pershing an example of this? It is also interesting to note that the next generation of German AFVs (E-25, E-50, E-75...) were supposed to be a step toward standardization, yet within a vast variety of role as far as doctrine goes. It shows well how industrial capabilities, economical planning and what actually happens (or appears) on the battlefield tighly combine.

[Mr. Tittles]

The US armored cav units in WWII had to use armored cars, halftracks, jeeps and light tanks. The US TD units also used armored cars. I would envision the mini-hellcat being used by both. Both units needed fast units. The M5 chassis was quite fast. The M5 would have been much better than the armored cars (which had miserable turning ability when ambushed) for TD units (and adding a real TD punch) and cav units.

The M18 was the ideal TD if the US was going to use its TD policy (which was naive at best). The M18 was too long in development and the M10 was the real TD to be used (after some initial battles using the halftrack/75mm). The M10 was really just an open top tank of sorts. Gen Bruce did not like it and would have preferred the M18. The mini-hellcat would have given the M10 units some real speed to augment the M10s.

The bottom line is that all US units seemed to get into shootouts. They would run into armor sooner or later.

The M4 105mm HEAT round had the penetration and accuracy that would have made this a multithreat tank. Mission oriented thinking or not, this weapon could have been a Panther deterent.

The US mortar halftracks fired through the rear (mostly). Having a turreted mortar is much preferable. It would have been a field modification, not a production redesign. The US had field mods for this vehicle such as belly armor kits, etc.

[Mr. Tittles]

I think my main thoughts are what could the US have done to make the summer of 1944 battles in ETO less hampered by superior German tanks. Aside from rearming with foriegn weapons or complete new tank designs, the US should have showed more ingenuity towards field modding equipment.

In Seek, Strike and Destroy, its clear that the inbred US TD policy was naive of the German combined arms approach to warfare. Its actually fascinating that the US was not schooled by the Brits about what the Hienies were going to do to them. The Germans would attack slowly and deliberately in the desert and do so under cover of superior AT fire (88mm towed weapons). They would coordinate arty and other assets to determine the best way to suppress the enemy and attack the objective. The US use of lightly armored halftracks and even 37mm mounted on the back of tracks was suicide against such an attacker.

Other naive aspects of the US TD policy was that crews of KOd TD vehicles were to continue the fight with small arms/grenades/etc and get to the enemys supplies! Kind of sad really.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

The US mortar halftracks fired through the rear (mostly). Having a turreted mortar is much preferable. [...]

The problem, AFAIK, is that mortars are mouth-fed weapons and need huge elevation clearance. This isn't practical for turret mount. Also, having them mounted on HT allow them to be fairly easily dismounted, where turret mounted ones would be longer to remove, if at all possible.

Turret mounted mortar where designed and built though during the cold war (was it Brandt in Belgium ? I don't remember.) but I don't know what was said about their usefulness.

[Mr. Tittles]

The US did have the M8 SPG (the 75mm howitzer mounted in a Stuart type chassis. This was an open topped vehicle itself. How much modification to get a 57mm ATG in there?

How much moddding to get a M4 105mm sherman to have power traverse?

Same for putting a mortar in a M8 armored car or a 90mm AA gun in a priest?

A friend of mines father was in a US cav unit in WWII. He said the loot was primo but the ambushes were hell. Since they had first crack at looting towns, they had a morale incentive. They would drive around half hanging out of thier vehciles so as to be able to abandon them immediately.

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by Tarkus:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

The US mortar halftracks fired through the rear (mostly). Having a turreted mortar is much preferable. [...]

The problem, AFAIK, is that mortars are mouth-fed weapons and need huge elevation clearance. This isn't practical for turret mount. Also, having them mounted on HT allow them to be fairly easily dismounted, where turret mounted ones would be longer to remove, if at all possible.

Turret mounted mortar where designed and built though during the cold war (was it Brandt in Belgium ? I don't remember.) but I don't know what was said about their usefulness. </font>

[Sirocco]

No smoke round for the 37mm in the M8?

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

[...] The M8 armored car was an open top vehicle. Just remove the 37mm weapon and mount the mortar to the floor of the turret. [...]

I have no basis upon which to say this would have been faisible or not. I've seen a M8 in Saumur (or was it in Vimy House ?) and I would tend to believe it's turret is too small, at least for practical azimut aiming. I don't know how many men it takes to effectively operate a 81mm mortar. (CM teams get what, 6 ?) not mentionning ammo dotation. On the other hand, I suppose the M20 could have taken it. Do you know if it was ever tried ?

All in all, I still think HT are ok for the job, with vastly superior ammo load, better off-road mobility (not sure about this one though) and reasonable road speed.

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

No smoke round for the 37mm in the M8?

Yeah right. The US 37mm was pretty much useless in 44-45. The AP was weak, the HE was a contact detonating small round that failed on soft ground and the cannister was short ranged (probably the best round of all actually). The M8 greyhound would have been better off with some auto cannon. The M5 tank was hopelessy outclassed in 44-45.

[ October 10, 2004, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[Mr. Tittles]

I worked with a guy who was a warrant officer in WWII. He claimed that M12s were used against immobile Panzers at great range.

This was one of the earliest SP weapons of WWII. It mounted a 155mm gun on the M3 Tank chassis. The engine was moved forward to provide a working space at the rear of the hull. In this space, the WWI Model M1917 or M1918 155mm gun was mounted. The rear of the hull carried a heavy spade which was lowered to the ground before firing to absorb recoil. About 100 M12s were built and put into storage. In 1943, with the invasion of Europe being planned, 74 were refurbished and put into service. It proved to be a powerful

and effective weapon providing support to fast moving armored columns. It could demolish German tanks and was greatly feared by the enemy. It could be used in a direct fire support role. When the 155mm rounds were fitted with concrete piercing fuses, they could penetrate up to 6 feet of concrete before exploding. The Artillery Board asked for more but this was not possible since the supply of WWI 155mm guns was exhausted.

http://www.battletanks.com/m12_gun_motor_carriage.htm

http://www.battletanks.com/images/M12-4.jpg

[Mr. Tittles]

http://www.battletanks.com/images/M8_SP_Howitzer-1.jpg

Heres the M8 GMC. Notice the open top TD style turret. A 57mm would make this a neat little TD for flanking enemy tanks/SP.

The later versions had twin V8s and trannys. I wonder if it could turn in place then?

I know of no other mortar SP besides the halftrack 81mm versions used by US and German armies. Certainly no one had a 120mm or 4.2 in mortar carrier. having a fast moving vehcile that could quickly point a mortar in any direction is very desirable.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sirocco:

No smoke round for the 37mm in the M8?

Yeah right. The US 37mm was pretty much useless in 44-45. The AP was weak, the HE was a contact detonating small round that failed on soft ground and the cannister was short ranged (probably the best round of all actually). The M8 greyhound would have been better off with some auto cannon. The M5 tank was hopelessy outclassed in 44-45. </font>

[junk2drive]

By Korea, the idea apparently was accepted by the US.

TF Dog, 3rd Infantry Div., Chinhung-ni, 12/50

92d Field Artillery Battalion M-41 155 Self Propelled howitzers units provide powerful Artillery Support For Marines

[Mr. Tittles]

The M8 Armored car was actually supposed to be a light TD. It ended up being used in recon roles because there was nothing better for it to do. It was not a good vehicle to drive into an ambush because it had crappy off road capabilty and was difficult to turn around.

[poppy]

How well did the Panther and the Tiger fare on the attack rather than on the defense against the Sherman. Ive searched for info on this question and havent had much success. However Ive read several write ups,cant remember which ones, which claimed that direct fire from US anti tank guns and Shermans killed many Panthers and Tigers in defensive operations that were incorrectly credited to fighter bombers.