The Jumbo Sherman- Why weren't all US tanks outfitted like this?

The "Sherman with a M26 turret" was a M4 105mm mated to a T26E1 turret at DTA for a single day when BG Holly visited in mid-July 1944. The problems with putting T26E1 turrets on M4 tanks were the same as producing "M26 tanks". The Medium Tank M26 was the T26E3, which design was not complete until testing in May-June 1944 demonstrated changes that were needed and the first T26E3 and its turret were not completed until October 1944. Until then, there were just ten pilot tanks in the series - and their turrets - completed.

 

Thanks Rich.

 

For a single day? Why would they take the trouble to put the turret on for a single day? Any idea?

 

Proof of concept test. The tank was completed as a standard M4 105mm. A couple of things to keep in mind. The ammunition stowage in the hull were for the standard 105mm rounds. They did no design work or tests on whether or not stowage for 90mm rounds was practical. On top of that, the main reason the T26E1 was redesigned as the T26E3 was ammunition stowage. The Armor Command wanted at least 71 rounds, but the E1 could only carry 42. At that, it was just six more than the M36. Nor was the "solution" the M36B1 - the M4A3 with the M36 turret, because...well, ammo stowage and because the Armor Command did not want open-topped tanks and the M36 turret could not be fixed by slapping a roof on it, there was almost no room for the loader to maneuver rounds in the close confines of that turret - the open top was critical to crew functioning (notice that postwar M36 roof "solutions" all also raise the height of the turret by around six inches, which was necessary for the crew to function.

 

The M4 Easy 8 had success in Korea against the T34.

 

Great stuff Rich I didn't know any of that stuff. Did I see somewhere that you have a book and where can I buy it?

 

Thanks. I have a couple of books, Artillery Hell, Hitler's Last Gamble, and Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall. I have been working on For Purpose of Service Test for some seven years now. It was originally a graduate thesis for a World War II history class that kind of grew. At this point it is a 600-plus page manuscript with over 200 photos and illustrations, 44 tables, and seven appendices. I might finish it in the next year or so and then its a matter of publishing it. Meanwhile I shamelessly raid it for material for my posts.

 

Yep. Sole survivor, that's me, at least in terms of the authors.

 

Can I buy those on Amazon? Never mind now I see someone has posted the link downloading.......

 

Sure, looks like a penny a pop for HLG now. Artillery Hell is pricier, especially if you want hardcover.

https://www.amazon.com/Artillery-Hell-Employment-Williams-Ford-University/dp/0890966230

And Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall is only hardcover (since I don't consider a Kindle a book).

https://www.amazon.com/Cracking-Hitlers-Atlantic-Wall-Engineers/dp/0811705897

 

Can't fight progress Rich.I'm ankle deep in HLG now it's good.

 

The American army should have given the British a battalion of Jumbo's, they could have re-armed them with 17 pounders and come up with a tank that was almost up to German standards.

 

Ten or twelve years ago when I began really studying the war and the tools of the war, I had the typical prejudice against the standard Sherman.

When I delved deeper I began to see things that are not obvious on the surface, and have come around to a very different conclusion. The Sherman may have been the best tank of the war, in the ETO. The reason is in both the reliability and the dimensions. People say the Sherman was too tall, which is not true. It's the same height (within a half foot or so) of all the standard German tanks. It has the same armor thickness (roughly) as the MK IV. Until mid 1943(ish), it had the same gun capability as the MK IV.
So, why was it better? The reliability is obvious (a tank that doesn't get to the battle, doesn't count), but it had one other overlooked advantage in that it was a foot narrower than the MK IV, and over two feet narrower than the Panther. The Sherman was only 8'7" (2.62 m) wide. When you look at all those narrow lanes, village streets and bridges in rural western Europe, you begin to appreciate that the Sherman could traverse country that would force German armor to detour, and in a war where the allies controlled the sky, that often meant exposing themselves to air attack. Of course, it also meant that allied forces could often move quicker, and by more direct routes than German forces.

You merely have to read accounts by German panzer forces to find again and again, how their 'rollbahn' is thwarted by a single bridge or narrow roads in some village, forcing long detours often into the routes assigned other German units to create chaos. Allied armor usually arrived on time with the infantry. Attacks were better coordinated, and German reserves were often late, too late to intervene in the sector under attack.

I find that width issue interesting and widely overlooked. We WWII nerds obsess over the 76 and Firefly (the delays in getting enough of those up-gunned tanks into the field), the armor thickness, the tread width etc, etc, but when you get right down to it the allied armored divisions were mobile in the narrow terrain of western Europe, while the Germans were much less so.

It's impossible to objectively gauge how much difference that made, but I think it was significant.

 

Also didn't the Sherman have a gyroscopic stabilized gun and sight?

Firing on the move would be a real help if a Pak 40 is zeroing on you.

 

It was stabilized on only one axis I believe. Vertical from what I recall. It took some practice to learn how to use it many units didn't bother from what I've read but Abrams was a big advocate of it if I recall past discussions correctly.

 

I am not sure what you mean by "German standards." The single most numerous German tank was the PzKw IV, and the Firefly was at least as good as the Panzer IV if not indeed somewhat better. The 17 Pdr gun had its problems--flash, accuracy was not super duper--but it could knock out a Panther and even a Tiger. If you load that Firefly with extra armor you ad extra weight to a chassis which is already carrying a pretty heavy gun and ammo for same. That will detract from mobility and reliability. Is that an entirely fair trade? Also, the Jumbo did not appear until relatively late in the NWE campaign and by the turn of 44-45 the British had several other options available for heavy gun tanks. The Comet was coming off the production lines, and while it wasn't as well armored as the Jumbo it had a pretty good 77mm gun. The British shoved the 17 Pdr into a modified Churchill, and called it the Black Prince; this design combined the 17 Pdr with as good armor as the Jumbo had, though with even less mobility (just 10.5 mph top speed) and it could have been put into production. Finally there was the Centurion, which was just about ready and had a near-ideal balance of firepower, protection, and mobility. It might have been helpful if the British had gotten some Jumbos for the Siegfried Line battles, but they had other choices.

 

Yeah I could have worded it better, but what I was trying to say was that it would be as close as the allies come to matching the Tiger I, but as you said the Black Prince would have suited this title better.

 

I completely agree Kodiak. In addition to your point the Sherman was very upgradable, relatively easy to produce, and could engage targets at stupifying speeds. One story that comes to mind was from a British unit that set up a road block. An American tank unit, unaware that British forces controlled the area, rounded the bend and neutralized the road block in seconds.
The Sherman had a primitive hunter killer fire control system. The commander had horizontal turret controls. He would slew the turret toward the target, the gunner would engage the target which he could easily locate with his panoramic sight while the commander searched for new targets. It was the best tank in the world at engaging multiple targets quickly.