Why didn't the US standardize the T23E3?

I was wondering what changes might have come about if the US Army had standardize the T23E3 as the M27 medium tank in July 1943? If this had been done, it most likely would have meant the M27 would have been the US main tank in use by the time of Normandy.

With its well sloped armor, 76mm gun, and almost unheard of speed of 35mph, I think it would have made a great deal of difference.

 

The reason that particular model was not advanced beyond the "prototype" stage was the electric drive. This would require training a new set of service techs, plus changing the supply line protocal of what was needed in the field to keep them working. They were problematic, the three speed automatic Torqmatic in the M26 was not without its own problems and it was a much more easily understood system than the electric generator, traction drive engines of the T23E3.

If I recall correctly they T23 also put down about two more pounds per square inch than the M4, not a good thing on sand or in crosscountry running. Those are a couple of reasons it wasn't "standardized" that I can think of, and one why it might not have made a difference at Normandy.

 

I have often wondered how much difference would have been made had the T23E3 been standardize in July 1943 as the M27 and replaced the M4 series. Had this took place, the US Army could have had this medium tank in production, and more than likely ready for Normandy.

I realize that part of the reason was the thinking that the T25 and T26 designs would have been superior to the T23. Yet, the T23 was an excellent design itself, with the 76mm gun, well sloped armor, and an almost unheard of speed of 35mph. My own opinion, is that as a medium tank, it would have fared well. Just wondering what anyone else thinks.

 

you have had at least one reply (from me) to this query. Why do you keep posting the same question?

See:

http://www.ww2f.com/wwii-today/39015-why-didnt-us-had-standardize-t23e3.html

 

Clint,
Didn't the T-23E3 overcome alot of the ground pressure issues of the basic T-23? The T-23E4 might have even been better but alas the T-23E3 wasn't complleted till August of 1944 too late for Normandy whilst the T-23E4 was cancelled altogether.

 

Sorry, that's my fault. I didn't think it posted the first time.

 

Not a problem, but do expand on the thread taking into account the less than reliable electric drive system as well as its slightly higher ground pressure per square inch.

 

Thanks for this thread. It got me checking out this site United States' T39, T30, T32, T34 Heavy Tanks - World War II Vehicles, Tanks, and Airplanes

What a beast the t-29 was and some good info on the t23 and e model
United States' T23 Medium Tank - World War II Vehicles, Tanks, and Airplanes

 

I wouldn't be surprised if that were true. I do know that when my Uncle in the 291st Combat Engineers saw the first M26 Pershings show up at Remagen he said he knew right then and there that the Nazis "goose was cooked". A tank like that was so superior to what America had fielded in the past he just knew in his heart of hearts that armored war was going to the Allied side as per size and quality. The British had come out with the Comet, and America was now fielding the Pershing.

 

I've merged these together for ease of reading them. Hope this is the correct action?

 

The T23 could not have been standardised in 1943.
Despite what Cooper and others may say about the failures of the selection boards in not choosing this beast it simply wasn't ready or appropriate as a choice.
If you look at the ultimate 'serving' outcome of the T23 programme, the Pershing (why settle for 76mm when a 90 came along eventually), only 10 prototypes were ready by June 1944. And they had yet to receive any sort of troop trial or complete testing. As it happened she went through approval very quickly, but you simply don't risk that kind of shift onto a new design with such a massive assault as Normandy being planned. If the Pershing had been found seriously wanting then the assault would quite possibly have failed on that one decision.

Aside from all that there's the question of logistical shifts associated with new designs. Not only in service equipment, troop training, and spares supply, but perhaps more significantly in June 1944, one of Landing craft.
The supply of craft was already problematic (to say the least), if you injected an entirely new and larger tank design into the mix then that problem would be exacerbated enormously.

~A

 

That was one of the problems that plagued Germany throughout the war was the rushing of equipment into service before it could be fully tested and logistically supported...Panther, Elefant, Gigante, etc. etc. etc.

The one thing that the Allied side did was find something that worked ; make a jillion of them, have parts to fix them when they broke and train the troops that use them.

 

Another thing is other then the Manhatten Project the Allies basically took 1930's type technology and pushed it to it's limits while Germany tried to develop 1950's type technology whilst in the middle of total war.

 

Another aim of the Army was to keep mechanical items intuitively simple. Most grease monkeys, among others, were fresh off the farm with just a farm tractor serving as their formal education.

The soldier in the field can provide better fixes than "the brains". The hedgerow cutter comes to mind...

 

Hitler had no other choice did he?

Could Germany have out produced the US, Russia, England plus another dozen countries with 30th technology? The only way out of this dilemma was wonder weapons or 50th technology - besides Hitler accepting unconditional surrender from 1943 onwards.

Besides, it helped to push allied developments

Regards
Kruska

 

I recall the problem is that anything substantially wider than a Sherman just wouldn't fit into existing LSTs (Landing Ship, Tank). There were also problems with the loading cranes that they have already made, which couldn't handle heavier tanks. The key to winning in Normandy was to get as much combat power ashore as possible so a tank with slightly increased performance was not worth the reduction of strategic mobility. This does beg the question: how was the Pershing tank transported to Europe? If not by LST, then what?

 

I seem to recall reading that the M26 Pershing was sent to Europe on standard cargo ships, and unloaded in captured ports. Remember it didn't get into the fight until we (America) were at Remagen.

 

How did it really push Allied developments during the war??? How many more 190's and 109's could Germany have produced versus all the resources used in development on say V-1's & V-2's?

 

Well look e.g. at the Tanks and a/c the US had in 1941 and those in 1945

I don't really understand were this

always comes from.

What significant recources besides money? Braun probably would not have been a good aircraft designer anyway.

Where is the difference of the Allies bombing Peenemuende or the Messerschmidt Factory in Regensburg? Well luckily? they spend bombing time on V Weapons so the Germans could produce -roll out - some more 109's to the Front.

Regards
Kruska