T-34

German pride was the reason why they wouldn't do a straight copy of the T34 and came up with the Panther instead. I've heard that pride was also a reason why the U.S didn't copy the British and do Fireflys. I don't know how true that is. It probably isn't. No doubt our resident Sherman expert will tell us the truth.

 

I believe in his previous postings, Phelps have mentioned several reasons why they didn't adopt the 17-pounders. One of the reason is that it lack an effective HE round, which means that it probably will not be useful against enemy infantries and other defensive positions, when HE rounds will be more appropriate. I am sure American pride also has something to do with it. Still, they could have installed the 17-pounder in their tank destroyers.

 

I have mixed feelings about the 17-pounder cannon. America certainly had valid reasons for not adopting it, but I do think that it would have been a better idea to just have produced the already combat proven 17-pounder for use with the new 76mm Shermans than the 76mm M1A1 Cannon. The extra 21 or so millimeters of penetration the 17-pounder gun provides would have quite possibly changed a few opinions of the Sherman. I know for sure I wouldn't be the only Sherman fan around if it had been done this way.

 

post subject.

American pride may have come into the equation but they were not too proud to accept 300 Fireflys from the British in late 1944.

 

Sloped armour gives another problem, though, in that either the size (and thus weight) must be increased, or ergonomics will decrease.

Christian

 

I knew my question would be answered. Thanks fellas

With regards to the effectiveness of the Firefly's HE round, this was a similar case with the Panther which many people overlook. That's why the Tiger I's 88 L/56 was all round better in my view. It's HE was far superior and the armour penetrating ability was more than enough to dispatch enemy tanks at very long ranges and in actual fact the Tiger I's gun caught up with the Panther at just over the 2,000 metre mark. At 3,000 metres and ranges greater the Tiger I's gun was superior I believe. Armour engagements at 3,000 metres or so happened often on the eastern front and engagements at 2,000 metres were the norm in many many places. The Panther didn't have a 'noticable' advantage over the Tiger I in armour penetration as both tank guns were superior to most every enemy gun in 1943 and most of 1944. Nobody cared that the Panther's gun could penetrate more millimetres at closer range when BOTH were capable of knocking out enemy armour at vast distances.

 

The average range for engagements on the western front was 700 meters, according to a British investagation.

 

Re: post subject.

The only info I have ever seen on the U.S adopting the 17pdr was as conversions of exisitng tanks, and that in 1945. 100 Shermans (of 160 planned) were converted by the end of the war. 20 were supplied to the British and 40 apiece to U.S 1st and 9th Armies. None saw combat.

 

I think it was plain outright pig-headed stubbornness, same as the reason for the delay of the Pershing. And this was done at levels above Patton's reach too. It was a continuation of the outdated prewar notion that tanks were not supposed to fight tanks, this was for the tank destroyers. Why not put it on the tank destroyers? National pride, and a desire to streamline the production process is my guess.

 

Removed by Moderator

 

Hey all...

Um, Danyel, what were America's reasons for not adopting the 17pdr?
You have apparently told us before, but I can't find them...
Was it simply the lack of decent HE?

Was there any lack of willingness by the British to share their design?

 

It lacked a High Explosive round, the sheer length of the barrel and the mass of the ammunition, the fact that we made plans for and already started training crews with the use of the 76mm M1A1, and the list goes on and on. Do not forget that America was charged with supplying almost everyone with weapons and equipment. If we were to halt the production of arms and amour whenever someone came out with something that was slightly better, the Western Allies probably would not have had enough tanks to push through Europe and no break through out of the Bocage area would have been possible.

 

Ok, ta!

 

This is the one example of fights on the Western front where the Allied superiority in armour played a very small role because of the nature of the terrain. Pity that you should pick this specific campaign as your example. The Bocage was broken out of by infantry and sheer superiority in firepower and air support, not by the tanks who fell prey to well-concealed AT guns by the hundreds, literally. Of course it mattered that the tanks were prsent, but the Bocage just wasn't their griund; they came into play when the Bocage was breached, andthe results are awesome indeed.

 

But remember, Roel, that it was with the introduction of the so-called "Rhino" version of the Sherman that the tide started turning in favor of the Americans in the bocage.

 

Yes, but don't confuse just any event with the cause of what followed. As far as I have heard the Culin Prongs and similar devices didn't give the tank crews of the Bocage what they needed; only bulldozer tanks could provide that, and there were too few of them available.

Could you provide us with the date at which these Rhino Shermans arrived? Just to put things in perspective.

 

German design .

 

actualy the soviets made a prototype tank called the t-32 i seen a very fuzzy picture in my book and it looked almost idetical to the t-34 but it was a very fuzzy picture :kill:

 

Ok, Roel. So I guess the Allies could have won the war with no tanks, right? It would have been perfectly alright if the guy supplieing everyone with Weapons/Armour/Food had to hault construction while they fitted facteries with new equipment?

 

Read my post again, Danyel. I explained that "of course it mattered that the tanks were present". Furthermore, I admired the way tanks exploited the gap that was made in the German lines by operation Cobra; a role in which they were not just needed, but perfectly cut out to perform. Without them, proper exploitation is hardly possible, one of the reasons for the trench warfare of WW1.