Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Myths Of American Armor With Nicholas Moran

Discussion in 'Armor and Armored Fighting Vehicles' started by Markus Becker, Jun 14, 2015.

  1. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,052
    Likes Received:
    768
    Nope, the original British conversion notes specifically exclude the T23 Turret as being unsuitable, The turret was large enough, but its layout didn't work, specifically the design of the gun mount, gun shield, and trunnions. The conversion specifically required "petrol-engined Sherman" with "M34A1 gun mount and Oilgear traverse".
     
    USS Washington likes this.
  2. Sheldrake

    Sheldrake Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,630
    Likes Received:
    452
    Location:
    London UK
    Mike,

    As far as I can find out the Tiger II were not deployed in Normandy but were converting to type. Tim Sauinders, an ex D&D has put forward the argument that the Pz Lehr did deploy a Tiger 1 on pt 103 around 9th June. SS Pz bn 502 deployed as a battalion at Hill 112 against the British attack there on 10 July. The serviceability of the Tiiger was very low. Technically the five tanks East of Villers Bocage was SS Pz Bn 501. The remainder were scattered over upper and Lower Nomandy after their six day road move.

    Are you asware of any engagements between US armour in Normandy? Did any Tiger tanks take part in the Mortain counter attack? Did any eggage US armour on the South side of the Falaise/Seine Pocket?
     
  3. von Poop

    von Poop Waspish WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Messages:
    6,187
    Likes Received:
    1,787
    Location:
    Perfidious Albion
    For free, same scan, directly from the US Army:
    http://cdm16635.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p16635coll14/id/56035
     
  4. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan
  5. USS Washington

    USS Washington Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2014
    Messages:
    576
    Likes Received:
    43
    Location:
    The Good old USofA
    Huh, so mounting the T-23 turret required a certain type of engine, gun mount, and traverse in order to be compatible, thank you for the info, Mr. Anderson.
     
  6. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,052
    Likes Received:
    768
    Sorry, I was unclear. The problems with the T23 turret was a separate issue - it wasn't a problem with it being compatible with anything other than the 17-pdr the design of the turret and gun were simply incompatible and not easily adaptable. The basic Sherman required was a different matter. The most suitable type was petrol-engined and had a turret with the M34A1 gun mount and Oilgear traverse. The M34A1 gun mount and Oilgear traverse were only found in the mid-production and late-production 75mm-armed Sherman turrets,
     
    USS Washington likes this.
  7. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,052
    Likes Received:
    768
    Sorry, a late entry into this debate, its interesting for me because I spent quite a bit of time digging into it in For Purpose of Service Test (my ongoing draft that is).
    Yes, U.S. Army Ordnance experimented with fitting a 75mm howitzer into the T5 - it was actually the Medium Tank T5E2. It was tested at Aberdeen between 20 April 1930 and 8 February 1940. However, the design remained fallow until 5 June 1940 (5 days before the conference which created the Armored Force) when the Chief of Infantry, General Lynch "forwarded a report to Ordnance on future tank requirements that was based upon initial reports received of tank fighting in the French Campaign. It noted that the Germans had made use of tanks with a turreted 75mm gun. General Lynch recommended a similar tank be developed for U.S. forces." The gun selected though wasn't the 75mm howitzer, it was a new piece developed from a failed 75mm antiaircraft design. So yes, the design began in June 1940 and its impetus was the French Campaign, but it was the German tanks it was designed to emulate, not the French. The reason the gun was initially mounted in the hull though was as was already noted - the U.S. did not have the capability of casting a turret of that size and complexity within the time required or of cutting the turret ring in the hull, so the fallback became the Medium Tank M3, but the tank Lynch had in mind was the Medium Tank M4. Further illustrating the paucity of capacity America had at the time, the design and working drawings for the M3 required all the trained Ordnance draftsmen, to such an extent that the design and working drawings for the M4 couldn't begin until those for the M3 were completed...there was literally nobody to do them.

    Cheers!
     
    Slipdigit, USS Washington and lwd like this.
  8. USS Washington

    USS Washington Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2014
    Messages:
    576
    Likes Received:
    43
    Location:
    The Good old USofA
    Alright, that helps explain why the British did not mount the larger T-23 on their Fireflys, thank you sir.
     
  9. USS Washington

    USS Washington Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2014
    Messages:
    576
    Likes Received:
    43
    Location:
    The Good old USofA
    Certainly new information for most people, though.
     
  10. ickysdad

    ickysdad Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Messages:
    552
    Likes Received:
    31
    Has anybody read Steven Zaloga's "Panther versus Sherman Battle of Bulge 1944" ?
     
  11. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,052
    Likes Received:
    768
    Why?
     
  12. ickysdad

    ickysdad Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Messages:
    552
    Likes Received:
    31
    I was thinking he mentioned something about an investigation into the Sherman versus Panther combat effectiveness but can't find my copy...
     
  13. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,052
    Likes Received:
    768
    Sorry, some clarity please icky. Who is "he"? Steve Zaloga? Did Zaloga do the "investigation" or did someone else?
     
  14. ickysdad

    ickysdad Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Messages:
    552
    Likes Received:
    31
    The US Army's Ballistics Lab, They used data gathered from the 3rd & 4th armored divisions. I'll try and find the book it evidently has been misplaced.
     
  15. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,052
    Likes Received:
    768
    Okay, the Ballistics Research Lab at Aberdeen Proving Grounds. The data were used in Survey of Allied Tank Casualties In World War II (ORO Report T-117). A large part of its sample was derived from the 4th and 6th AD, not the 3d and 4th. Nor did it differentiate casualties by enemy tank type, it was by enemy round type. So 75mm was attributed as roughly 40% in NWE and 88mm roughly 48%. There was no substantive information on what kind of vehicles or carriages those guns were mounted on and no information on what German vehilces were knocked out in turn (except for the war as a whole) so no basis for a comparison.

    Cheers!

    Rich Anderson
     
  16. ickysdad

    ickysdad Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Messages:
    552
    Likes Received:
    31
    Damn I always thought Zaloga was pretty reliable !!!! He states in this book ( I finally found it) the stats in his book it was based on 98 engagements from August,1944 to end of December,1944 ,including 33 in the Ardennes battle. He states the average range at which US tanks inflicted kills was 893 yards while Germans kills were from 946 yards. The most important aspect of performance is who sighted who first along with who hit first. When defenders fired first ,the attackers suffered 4.3 times more casualties and generally defenders fired first 84% of the time. When attackers fired first ,the defenders suffered 3.6 times more casualties. Zaloga states that the evidence was not adequate to assess wether the technical differences of specific types had any effect in the outcome of the tank engagements ,largely as a result of small sample size and inadequate data base. During 29 engagements between the Sherman & Panther the Sherman usually managed around a 1.2 to 1 numerical advantage. The data suggested a Panther was 1.1 -1 times more effective when on the defensive while the Sherman had a 8.4 advantage against the Panther on defense. The overall record shows a Sherman being 3.6 times more effective though he points out these results were probably not typical. He seems to be saying with that all of this that the old it took 5 Shermans to kill a Panther" meme was just a myth and tactical situations took precedence over technical ones. The crew training tended to be paramount but in the end a mediocre crew in a mediocre tank in an ambush position had an advantage over an excellent crew in an excellent tank.

    He follows up with data from the Korean War ,in that data he states that see first/hit first still applied and increased effectiveness 6 times and that US tanks on the defense were 3 times as effective against enemy tanks as when on defense. It was determined that the M-26(essentially similar to Panther in armor & firepower) was 3.5 times more effective then the M4A3E8. Following up he comments a direct comparison between the Panther & Sherman was hard in WW2 because of differences in crew quality but in Korea one can assume equal crew quality.


    By the way don't you also post over on tank-net?
     
  17. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,052
    Likes Received:
    768
    Sorry, but I didn't say a thing about Steve's reliability; he is extremely reliable on sources. I said I was only aware of the divisional data in ORO-T-117 for the 4th and 6th AD. I do not know what his data source for those 88 engagements are. I'll ask him.

    Yes, I do post at TankNet.

    Cheers!
     
  18. ickysdad

    ickysdad Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Messages:
    552
    Likes Received:
    31
    Oh you didn't comment on his reliability...Sorry bout that mis-understood your post...Great to have you over here Rich..
     
  19. ickysdad

    ickysdad Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Messages:
    552
    Likes Received:
    31

Share This Page