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

PZ4+Panther turret=victory tank

Discussion in 'Armor and Armored Fighting Vehicles' started by moutan1, Jul 28, 2009.

  1. Jadgermeister

    Jadgermeister Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    94
    Likes Received:
    3
    My god this guy is stubborn.

    I did not confuse the VK20.02 (d) with anything, it was the earliest model, it had highly sloped armor as you can see, and so is shows the Germans did not take the sloping armor idea from the T-34. You say they "finished" sloping the armor in november 1941, which indicates you admit they already had sloped armor in the previous models. The Daimler model had armor which was actually sloped more on the main glacis, with a 30 degree plate above it. The other models had at the minimum a 22 degree reverse slope downwards just as the supposedly flat Tiger had. Both the Tiger, and all models of the Panther prototype had sloped armor, it doesnt take 60 degrees to make it sloped.
    You can see that the Daimler model, the first model of any kind, had highly sloped armor on two thirds of its glacis, with medium slope on the remainder. They absolutely were planning to slope the armor from the start, they used at least medium sloping in all models.

    How does two changes to and existing model make the T-34 "create" the Panther? It would have otherwise looked like a Tiger, which itself has medium sloped armor, and it would have had armor which proved itself more than capable of stopping the 76mm gun of the T-34. It still would have been superior in any form.
     
  2. Jadgermeister

    Jadgermeister Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    94
    Likes Received:
    3
    Thats called an opinion. Also, how does field troops pressing for a copy manage to translate into creating the Panther? It was already in the works when they demanded that, and it doesnt say the engineers demanded it.
    Also, I take this book even less seriously after reading his opinion of the resistance of the T-34, because all accounts I can find show that the 50mm had very little issue killing the T-34 frontally. In fact, it can kill the T-34 at 5-600m with standard ammo, and even kill a KV-1 at 400m with APCR. The short 75mm could kill it at any angle, as long as it could hit it. Thats because it used HEAT.
    Otto Carius, George Grossjohan, Michael Whittman, and Rommel all state that the T-34 could be killed from any angle, by nearly all weapons, including the 50mm. In fact, Michael Whitman got a great deal of his kills in a short barrel stug. He was actually forced to operate his Tiger battalion Panzer III before he was given his own Tiger, and he had no problem killing T-34 with it.
    Almost all units which complained about the T-34 were those who had 37mm weapons or smaller, and Im fairly certain the standard weapon was the 37mm at the time we are talking about.
    The 50mm did serve until 1943 until the Sherman came along, and a great deal of them survived to be turned into N models, while many were kept as the command vehicle for tank battalions. In fact, they were "welcomed" by tank units.
    Oh, and they had quite a positive kill ratio against the T-34. The T-34 must have been real tough to have a negative kill ratio against 50mm and short 75.
     
  3. m kenny

    m kenny Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,645
    Likes Received:
    225
    No.
    You appear to have faulty sources.
    Have you seen the design tree?


    [​IMG]

    From Jentz, Quest For Combat Supremacy page 8.


    Delusion.


    More delusion

    Quite frankly you are a joke.
     
  4. m kenny

    m kenny Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,645
    Likes Received:
    225
    The opinion of Walter Spielberger no less.
    Spielberger that well know Communist stooge who tries to belittle the Panther and inflate the myth of the T-34!

    I know that an opinion by Spielberger

    Amazon.com: Walter J. Spielberger: Books, Biography, Blog, Audiobooks, Kindle



    has far more weight than your ramblings.
    However Speilberger was not content just giving his opinion and in his book went to great lengths to give the reasons for his opinions
     
  5. m kenny

    m kenny Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,645
    Likes Received:
    225
  6. m kenny

    m kenny Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,645
    Likes Received:
    225

    If you are talking about Michael Wittmann (rather than Michael Whitman) then again you are wrong.
    Not one single Stug kill is included in Wittmann's (not Whitman) 130+ kill list.

    Let me repeat that in case you missed it.
    Not one single Stug/PzIII kill is included in Wittmann's (not Whitman) kill total
     
  7. m kenny

    m kenny Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,645
    Likes Received:
    225

    Let us see what the men on the ground said.
    Jentz, Panzertruppen 1


    Page 205
    Freiher von Langermann, Commander 4th Panzer Divison 22 October 1941.

    In its battles, the 4.Panzer-Division frequently encoun-
    ters heavy Russian tanks. At first only a few appeared and
    could be driven off by concentrated artillery fire or bypassed.
    In a few especially favorable cases single heavy tanks were
    destroyed by direct hits from artillery.
    After taking Orel, the Russians employed their heavy
    tanks en masse for the first time. In several engagements it
    came to very hard tank battles, because the Russian tanks
    no longer let themselves to driven off by artillery fire.
    For the first time during the campaign in the East, in these
    battles the absolute superiority of the Russian 26 ton and 52
    ton tanks over our Pz.Kpfw.ll I and IV was felt.
    The Russian tanks usually formed in a half circle, open
    fire with their 7.62 cm guns on our Panzers already at a range
    of 1000 meters and deliver enormous penetration energy with
    high accuracy.
    Our 5 cm Kw.K. tank guns can achieve penetrations only
    on vulnerable locations under very special favorable condi-
    tions at very close ranges under 50 meters. Our Panzers are
    already knocked out at a range of several hundred meters.
    Many times our Panzers were split open or the complete
    commander's cupola of the Pz.Kpfw.lll and IV flew off from
    one frontal hit. This is proof that the armor is insufficient, the
    mounting for the commander's cupola on our Panzers is de-
    ficient, and the accuracy and penetration ability of the Rus-
    sian 7.62 cm tank guns are high.
    In addition to the superior weapons effectiveness and
    stronger armor, the 26 ton Christie tank (T34) is faster, more
    maneuverable, and the turret traverse mechanism clearly
    superior. His wide tracks allow wading of fords that can't be
    crossed by our Panzers. The ground pressure is somewhat
    better than ours, so that in spite of the larger weight of the
    Russian tank the same bridges can be crossed as by our
    Panzers.
    Also the exceptional diesel motor of the Russians has
    earned attention. During the advance from GInebow to Minsk,
    there weren't any Russian tanks that had broken down due
    to mechanical deficiencies. In comparison, about 20 Panzers
    In its battles, the 4.Panzer-Division frequently encoun-
    ters heavy Russian tanks. At first only a few appeared and
    could be driven off by concentrated artillery fire or bypassed.
    In a few especially favorable cases single heavy tanks were
    destroyed by direct hits from artillery.
    After taking Orel, the Russians employed their heavy
    tanks en masse for the first time. In several engagements it
    came to very hard tank battles, because the Russian tanks
    no longer let themselves to driven off by artillery fire.
    For the first time during the campaign in the East, in these
    battles the absolute superiority of the Russian 26 ton and 52
    ton tanks over our Pz.Kpfw.ll I and IV was felt.
    The Russian tanks usually formed in a half circle, open
    fire with their 7.62 cm guns on our Panzers already at a range
    of 1000 meters and deliver enormous penetration energy with
    high accuracy.
    Our 5 cm Kw.K. tank guns can achieve penetrations only
    on vulnerable locations under very special favorable condi-
    tions at very close ranges under 50 meters. Our Panzers are
    already knocked out at a range of several hundred meters.
    Many times our Panzers were split open or the complete
    commander's cupola of the Pz.Kpfw.lll and IV flew off from
    one frontal hit. This is proof that the armor is insufficient, the
    mounting for the commander's cupola on our Panzers is de-
    ficient, and the accuracy and penetration ability of the Rus-
    sian 7.62 cm tank guns are high.
    In addition to the superior weapons effectiveness and
    stronger armor, the 26 ton Christie tank (T34) is faster, more
    maneuverable, and the turret traverse mechanism clearly
    superior. His wide tracks allow wading of fords that can't be
    crossed by our Panzers. The ground pressure is somewhat
    better than ours, so that in spite of the larger weight of the
    Russian tank the same bridges can be crossed as by our
    Panzers.
    Also the exceptional diesel motor of the Russians has
    earned attention. During the advance from GInebow to Minsk,
    there weren't any Russian tanks that had broken down due
    to mechanical deficiencies. In comparison, about 20 Panzers
    alone from Panzer-Regiment 35 were left lying on the same
    stretch because of mechanical problems. However, it should
    be recognized that the Russian tanks were brand new.
    A specific advantage of our Panzers lies in the better
    vision capability associated with the commander's cupola.
    The available facts and, above all, the impression that
    the Russians are aware of the technical superiority of their
    tank force must work out in time to be detrimental to our
    Panzertruppen. The previous attack energy and spirit will
    be weakened and lost due to a feeling of inferiority. The Panzer
    crews know that they can already be knocked out at long
    range by enemy tanks and that they can achieve only a very
    minimal effect on enemy tanks in spite of the availability of
    special ammunition fired at close range.
    Combating the Russian tanks with the 8.8 cm Flak or the
    10cm guns can never by themselves be sufficient. Both guns
    are ponderous in comparison to the fast tanks and in most
    cases are already spotted, taken under fire and destroyed as
    they try to get into firing position. Alone in the one tank en-
    gagement between Orel and Mzensk, two 8.8 cm Flak guns
    and a 10 cm gun (all of the heavy defensive weapons that
    were employed) were shot up and overrun. In addition these
    big as barn door, unarmored guns present much too large
    and easily acquired targets.
    From these experiences, our Panzer forces must again
    be perfected in the shortest time so that the German soldier
    of today doesn't face the heavy tanks with the same primitive
    methods as in 1917 and 1918.
    Based on the fact that the destroyed Christie tanks were
    all new production, it follows that the Russians, knowing their
    superiority, have begun the mass production of these heavy
    tanks and by the Spring of 1942 can be expected to have a
    large number available for employment.
    To combat these heavy Russian tanks, the following de-
    tailed proposals are submitted:
    1.) Acquire offensive weapons for use against heavy
    tanks:
    a. Foregoing modifications, for the pur-
    pose of accelerating improvement, immedi-
    ately produce copies of the Russian 26 ton
    tank and employ intact captured 26 ton and
    52 ton tanks. A company is needed for each
    Panzer-Regiment.
    b. Install the Russian 7.62 cm tank gun
    in the Pz.Kpfw.lV, even if it is necessary to
    give up the commander, strengthened armor,
    and the hull machine gun mount.
    c. Bring out a 10 cm self-propelled anti-
    tank gun. At least six are needed for each
    Panzer-Regiment.
    d. Acquire a new type of ammunition with
    many times the penetration ability as before.
    e. As an immediate emergency measure,
    until the other measures can be accom-
    plished, install the 5 cm anti-tank gun in the
    Pz.Kpfw.lll, even if this increases the weight
    load at its front.
    2.) Acquire defensive weapons for use against heavy
    tanks:
    a. 10cm anti-tank guns either towed or
    self-propelled. Quickly getting into action in
    the field is very important, with the lowest
    possible firing height. At least two per anti-
    tank company are necessary.
    b. Acquire a new type of improved am-
    munition.
    c. Get rid of the 3.7cm Pak by increas-
    ing the number of 5 cm Pak or employing
    the Russian 7.62 cm anti-tank gun. (The 3.7
    cm Pak has proven itself useful as a small
    infantry gun.)
    d. Acquire a stronger mine that will knock
    out the 52 ton tank. For example, four Ger-
    man mines were not sufficient to knock out a
    52 ton tank.
    The troops know that these proposals can't be accom-
    plished immediately, especially the acquisition of a new type
    of Panzer. But they are convinced that as a result of their
    experience and proposals, suitable weapons must be acquired
    within a short time to achieve technical superiority for de-
    stroying heavy enemy tanks.-


    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Report by Panzer Regiment 203, 17 May 1942.

    page 230, Panzertruppen 1




    The superiority of the Russian tanks is a result of the
    more effective weapon (7.62 cm tank gun), better armor pro-
    tection, and vastly better cross-country mobility due to their
    wider tracks, stronger engine, and higher ground clearance.
    However, the Russian tanks are inferior due to the limita-
    ions on vision and in general the lower skill in which they are
    employed. Sometimes the training of the Russian crews was
    adequate. This was noticeable in the way they drove in com-
    bat and in their rate of fire.
    The above facts form the basis for the following method
    3r fighting these enemy tanks:
    • Engaging enemy tanks that have been dug in as an
    anti-tank gun should be mainly viewed as hopeless. It is
    only possible to engage them with infantry with strong
    artillery support.
    • When the enemy tank is moving, everything is based
    on gaining the flank (T34) or rear (KW). Better vision from
    the German Panzers is advantageous in accomplishing
    this. By opening the hatch, the commander can in many
    cases hear the noise made by the enemy tanks and learn
    the direction in which they are moving. From this he can
    adjust his own course or take up a flanking position along
    the expected enemy tanks route. It is necessary to turn
    off the Panzer's engine from time to time. If this can't be
    managed because of the terrain or the direction of at-
    tack, then by firing at the opponent he can frequently be
    compelled to turn resulting in the desired chance of work-
    ing against the flanks or rear.
    If it is expected that encounters with medium and
    heavy enemy tanks will occur during the action, it is nec-
    essary (usually against the demands of the infantry) to
    employ our own Panzer forces in closed battle groups of
    at least eight Panzers, because when they are surpris-
    ingly hit by fire, even when the weapons effect is mini-
    mal, the Russians will be induced to turn and then can be
    attacked from the flank or rear. The enemy can also be
    turned by using smoke.
    • Digging-in German Panzers instead of anti-tank guns
    generally results in their loss if the T34 or KW approach
    frontally. Therefore in general digging-in Panzers should
    be avoided.
    Characteristics of the T34 - The T34 is faster, more
    maneuverable, has better cross-country mobility than our
    Pz.Kpfw.lll and IV. Its armor is stronger. The penetrating
    ability of its 7.62 cm cannon is superior to our 5 cm Kw.K.
    and the 7,5 cm Kw.K.40. The favorable form of sloping all of
    the armor plates aids in causing the shells to skid off.
    Combating the T34 with the 5 cm Kw.K. tank gun is pos-
    sible only at short ranges from the flank or rear, where it is
    important to achieve a hit as perpendicular to the surface as
    possible. Hits on the turret ring, even with high-explosive shells
    or machine gun bullets, usually result in jamming the turret.
    In addition, armor-piercing shells fired at close range that hit
    the gun mantle result in penetrations and breaking open the
    weld seams. The T34 can be penetrated at ranges up to 1000
    meters with the 7.5 cm Kw.K.40 as well as the 7.5 cm
    Hohlgranate (shaped charge shells)
    Russian Tank Tactics - In defense and covering a re-
    treat, the T34 with the turret at six o'clock is often dug in on a
    commanding height along a road or on the edge of woods or
    villages. Then after surprisingly opening fire from ambush,
    the T34 can be driven out of the concealed position still un-
    der cover.
    In correctly recognizing his technical superiority in weap-
    ons, the T34 already opens fire on German Panzers at ranges
    from 1200 to 1800 meters. Because the T34 is faster than
    the German Panzers, he can choose the range for a firefight.
    Our Panzer Tactics - Because the 5 cm Kw.K. can only
    be expected to penetrate the flanks of the T34 at short range,
    the following tactics have proven been to be correct in com-
    bating them:
    a. Attract and tie down the opponent frontally by
    having a Pz.Kpfw.lll take up the firefight. Choose a
    hull down position or drive in a zig-zag course to make
    it difficult for the opponent to hit the target.
    b. At the same time, utilizing all available cover,
    two other Pz.Kpfw.llls attempt to circumvent the T34
    to the right or left in order to gain a position in the
    flank or in the rear and knock him out at short range
    with Pzgr.40 fired at the hull or rear.
    c. If a Pz.Kpfw.lV is available among our own
    Panzers, it is to be employed in front of the oppo-
    nent. The use of Nebelgranaten (smoke shells) can
    blind the T34 or aid the other Panzers in closing in. It
    is also possible that the opponent will think that the
    smoke is poison gas and break off the action.
    When encountering numerically superior enemy tanks
    (T34 and KW), success has always resulted when our Panzer
    unit builds a fire front and overwhelms the enemy with fire.
    Even when no penetrations can be achieved, the enemy,
    impressed by the accuracy and rate of fire of the German
    Panzers, almost always breaks off the action

     
  8. Jadgermeister

    Jadgermeister Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    94
    Likes Received:
    3
    This is almost a joke.

    "it suffered severe mechanical problems. For example, engines would grind to a halt from dust and sand ingestion (the original Pomon filter was almost totally ineffective), and transmission/clutch assemblies were prone to serious mechanical problems. At least half the first summer's total tank losses were due to mechanical failure rather than German fire, though this figure includes older tanks in disrepair"
    -Zaloga & Grandsen 1984:127

    "it was not uncommon for early T-34s to enter combat carrying a spare transmission on the engine deck. "

    -Zaloga & Sarson 1994, p. 24

    According to "Zaloga and Ness: Red Army Handbook 1939-1945" 61.8% of tank casualties were caused by 50mm cannon, while 13.4% were from 88mm guns and larger, or unknown causes. These numbers are from the Russians themselves. Sounds like the 50mm really cant harm the T-34, right?
    Even in Stalingrad, over 50% of casualties were from the 50mm, while at Orel they were over 30%.

    "The German infantry, at that time armed mostly with PaK 36 37 mm (1.46 in) antitank gun, had no effective means of stopping T-34s. Even during the Battle of France the Pak 36 had earned the nickname "Door Knocker" among French and British tank crews, due to its inability to penetrate anything but the lightest tank armour, though it worked very well at announcing the presence of the gun crew. Crews of these weapons fighting on the Eastern front found it even more badly outmatched by the armour of Soviet tanks, often having to rely on heavier towed firepower, such as the relatively rare but EFFECTIVE Pak 38"
    -Zaloga 1984:225

    According to "Tigers Combat" I and II, and "The Red Army Handbook", there were 20,500 soviet tank losses in 1941, to only 2,758 German tank losses. That makes a 7.43:1 kill ratio. Sounds like the Germans were really having a handful with all those T-34!

    Like I said, you are posting opinions. The hard numbers show the 50mm actually killed more T-34 than all other causes, and there are plenty of pictures of T-34 with the transmission on the rear deck, it was not so reliable, especially by American standards.
     
  9. m kenny

    m kenny Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,645
    Likes Received:
    225
    Yes you are right.
    Your whole argument is a joke.
    The fact that the T-34 influenced the design of the Panther is obvious, plain for all to see and admited by the designers.
    Unable to refute this or even to face the fact you are dragging inall sorts of specious arguments to muddy the waters.

    The rubbish you introduced is a perfect example of your muddled midset, it even contradicts itself!


    claim 1
    At least half the first summer's total tank losses were due to mechanical failure rather than German fire, though this figure includes older tanks in disrepair"

    Cliam 2
    there were 20,500 soviet tank losses in 1941, to only 2,758 German tank losses. That makes a 7.43:1 kill ratio

    You then resort to lying:

    I wonder why TIC I & II mention Soviet losses in 1941 when the first Tigers did not see action until September 1942?
    You are making things up again.

    The 20,500 is the total given in Krivosheev and obviously you know this because you have the book (muffled laughter!)


    Sadly not all of us can aspire to the dizzy heights of a 1984 book on Soviet tanks. We have to make do with research that is less 27 years old.
    I suggest you peruse the VK-20 series section on pages 2-5 of Panzertracts 20-1 'Paper Panzers' by Jentz and Doyle.
    Once you absorb the information within you will realise the paucity of your sources, the shallowness of your research, the absurdity of you argument and the enormity of your error.



    What was it you were saying about Wittmann (Whitman to you) and his Stug kills again.....................
     
  10. Jadgermeister

    Jadgermeister Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    94
    Likes Received:
    3
    So your answer to my numbers is.... to say "nuhhh uhhh! You lie!" and not actually disprove any of it?

    BTW, your beloved Jentz published that the 50mm L/60 could penetrate over 45mm of armor sloped at 60 degrees at 1000m, while the L/42 could do that at 500+. If you didnt notice, the T-34/76 had 45mm at 60.

    When it comes to a book on Tigers talking about soviet losses, why would they not compare losses before the Tiger was introduced? In order to see the magnitude of the effectiveness you have to compare it to a control, that control would be 1941.

    And you are ripping on a book written in 1984? The book you took your pictures from was first published in 1971. Not only that, but the same author then goes onto write books that openly admit that the T-34 was not invulnerable to the 50mm, and that the T-34 was quite vulnerable.

    And since you love quotes so much, here is what real Russians who operated the T-34 believed:

    "From the point of view of operating them, the German armoured machines were more perfect, they broke down less often. For the Germans, covering 200 km was nothing, but with T-34s something would have been lost, something would have broken down. The technological equipment of their machines was better, the combat gear was worse"

    -A.V. Bodnar

    "The caterpillars used to break apart even without bullet or shell hits. When earth got stuck between the road wheels, the caterpillar, especially during a turn – strained to such an extent that the pins and tracks themselves couldn't hold out"

    -A.V. Maryevski

    When it comes to the kill ratio, I misspoke, I should have said loss ratio. The thing is, German tanks break down as well. But then again, why are you even bringing up all this talk about half of tanks being broken down when you are also trying to say the T-34 is so reliable?

    When it comes to the Panther, I have already admitted the T-34 inspired 25% thicker armor, but the panther sure as hell would have been superior either way. No other major features were redesigned, and almost every other detail about the tank has nothing to do with the T-34. All designs used at least medium sloped armor, one had armor which was sloped at more than 65 degrees at some places (just as the supposedly flat stug obviously has more than half its frontal armor at more than 55 degrees)
    The first VK20 had 60mm of frontal armor, which is 30% more than the T-34. T-34 lovers make it out to be paper when the T-34 is even thinner than any Panther prototype. 60mm is obviously superior to 45mm, and even the later T-34/85 just matched that.
    This arguement is a lot like saying the Stug was created because of the T-34 because it had a 30mm plate bolted on and a bigger gun installed. Truth is, the F-34 and 75mm American gun could barely penetrate the stug frontal armor at point blank, its earlier 50mm glacis was only vulnerable out to 500m. The 60mm glacis of the VK.20 would have absolutely been a match for the 76.

    Then there is the issue of the guns themselves. Even Jentz lists the F-34 gun performance as 60mm penetration of flat armor at 1000m with both APCR and APC. The F-34 is the best of the 76mm T-34 guns, so it only goes down from there.
    Jentz doesnt even list penetration of the 50mm on a flat plate, but at 60 degrees the gun meets the F-34 with 59mm penetration, while with APCR he lists 72mm of 60 degree armor at 1000m.
    Even the short 50mm could penetrate 47mm of 60 degree armor at 500m with APC, while it could do 55mm with APCR.
     
  11. m kenny

    m kenny Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,645
    Likes Received:
    225

    I also asked for the page number, you must have forget to include it.
    What page number please?

    .
     
  12. m kenny

    m kenny Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,645
    Likes Received:
    225
    That is your problem.
    Your automatic fanbois inclinations blind you as to the point in question.
    Simple really, was the Panther influenced by the T-34.
    Answer: Yes it was

    Because your whole argument about 1938 German TII designs with sloping armour has been exposed as fiction you try and introduce other points to cover your error.
    Start a new thread if you want and leave this one whilst you still have some credibility.

    By the way I recognised your style a while back. New name same game.



    The evidence speaks for itself.

    Before the T-34

    [​IMG]


    Afer the T-34

    [​IMG]

    It is as simple as that
     
  13. m kenny

    m kenny Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,645
    Likes Received:
    225
    I brought it up because you claimed the high 1941 Soviet losses were due to German gunfire. I pointed out your own source told you that a lot of the losses were mechanical failure.
    Not content with this calumy you now compound your error by the failure to understand a T-34 in 1941 was a rare creature.
    Very few T-34 were built in 1941 and thus very few were lost.
     
  14. m kenny

    m kenny Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,645
    Likes Received:
    225


    [​IMG]
     
  15. Madcap7

    Madcap7 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was trawling the web and found this topic, after reading it through I thought that I had to tell you immediately... you're a complete and utter moron
     
  16. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Good Ol' Boy Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    17,654
    Likes Received:
    2,202
    Location:
    Alabama
    And you are in the cooler.
     
  17. Walter_Sobchak

    Walter_Sobchak Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2011
    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    11
    This is incorrect. The turret of the 76mm shermans was not the same as the M26 turret. The 76mm gun turret came from the T23 and was subsequently converted for use on the M4. The 90mm gun turret came from the T25 and T26, which would become the M26 Pershing. According to the wikipedia entry on the Pershing: "The T25 and T26 lines of tanks came into being in the midst of a heated internal debate within the U.S. Army in the mid-1943 to early 1944 over the need for tanks with greater firepower and armor. A 90-mm gun mounted in a massive new turret was installed in both series." Therefore, mounting the 90mm gun in a 76mm M4 Sherman was not a simple case of "bolting it on."

    That said, the 90mm gun turret of the Pershing did have the same size turret ring as the standard Sherman. In "Armored Thunderbolt", Stephen Zaloga notes that " Fort Knox proposed mounting the T26 turret on the Sherman hull as a fast way to get 90mm guns to the tankers in Europe. A single pilot was assembled by Chrysler in the summer of 1944, but this approach was rejected when it was realized that such tanks would arrive in Europe no sooner than the T26E3 heavy tanks."

    It is also worth noting that in a way, a 90mm gun Sherman did exist in the form of the M4 hull being mated with the M36 Tank Destroyer turret. Zaloga points this out in "Armored Thunderbolt" noting that this was done due to shortages of tank destroyer hulls and was designated as M36B1. This vehicle was only used by tank destroyer battalions, so it is probably better to consider it a tank destroyer with a Sherman hull rather than a 90mm gun Sherman tank.
     

Share This Page