±Recent Visitors

Recent Visitors to Com-Central!

±User Info-big


Welcome Anonymous

Nickname
Password

Membership:
Latest: cgsimpson
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 0
Overall: 6645

People Online:
Members: 0
Visitors: 735
Total: 735
Who Is Where:
 Visitors:
01: Community Forums
02: Photo Gallery
03: Home
04: Home
05: News
06: Community Forums
07: News
08: Community Forums
09: Community Forums
10: Community Forums
11: Community Forums
12: Community Forums
13: Community Forums
14: Community Forums
15: Community Forums
16: Community Forums
17: Community Forums
18: Community Forums
19: Community Forums
20: Downloads
21: Community Forums
22: Community Forums
23: Community Forums
24: Community Forums
25: Community Forums
26: Community Forums
27: Community Forums
28: Community Forums
29: Community Forums
30: Photo Gallery
31: Search
32: Community Forums
33: Photo Gallery
34: Community Forums
35: Community Forums
36: Community Forums
37: Community Forums
38: Home
39: Community Forums
40: Community Forums
41: Home
42: Home
43: Community Forums
44: Community Forums
45: Community Forums
46: Downloads
47: Downloads
48: Home
49: Community Forums
50: Community Forums
51: Photo Gallery
52: Home
53: Photo Gallery
54: Photo Gallery
55: Community Forums
56: Community Forums
57: Community Forums
58: Community Forums
59: Home
60: Community Forums
61: Community Forums
62: Community Forums
63: Community Forums
64: Community Forums
65: Community Forums
66: Home
67: Community Forums
68: Community Forums
69: Community Forums
70: Community Forums
71: Home
72: Downloads
73: Photo Gallery
74: Community Forums
75: Community Forums
76: Community Forums
77: Your Account
78: Photo Gallery
79: Photo Gallery
80: CPGlang
81: Photo Gallery
82: CPGlang
83: Downloads
84: Downloads
85: Downloads
86: Community Forums
87: News
88: Community Forums
89: Community Forums
90: Community Forums
91: Community Forums
92: Photo Gallery
93: Home
94: Community Forums
95: Community Forums
96: Community Forums
97: Community Forums
98: Community Forums
99: Downloads
100: Community Forums
101: Community Forums
102: Your Account
103: Downloads
104: Community Forums
105: Home
106: Community Forums
107: Community Forums
108: Community Forums
109: Community Forums
110: Community Forums
111: Community Forums
112: Community Forums
113: Photo Gallery
114: Community Forums
115: Photo Gallery
116: Downloads
117: Community Forums
118: Home
119: CPGlang
120: CPGlang
121: Community Forums
122: Community Forums
123: Community Forums
124: Community Forums
125: Community Forums
126: Community Forums
127: Photo Gallery
128: Photo Gallery
129: Community Forums
130: Home
131: Photo Gallery
132: Photo Gallery
133: Community Forums
134: Community Forums
135: Community Forums
136: Community Forums
137: Your Account
138: Downloads
139: Community Forums
140: Community Forums
141: Photo Gallery
142: Photo Gallery
143: Photo Gallery
144: Community Forums
145: Community Forums
146: Community Forums
147: Home
148: Home
149: Photo Gallery
150: Community Forums
151: Member Screenshots
152: Home
153: Downloads
154: Community Forums
155: Community Forums
156: Community Forums
157: Photo Gallery
158: Community Forums
159: Community Forums
160: Member Screenshots
161: Community Forums
162: Community Forums
163: CPGlang
164: Home
165: Community Forums
166: Community Forums
167: Community Forums
168: Community Forums
169: Community Forums
170: Community Forums
171: Community Forums
172: CPGlang
173: Community Forums
174: Home
175: Statistics
176: Community Forums
177: Community Forums
178: Home
179: Community Forums
180: Community Forums
181: Home
182: Community Forums
183: Community Forums
184: Community Forums
185: Community Forums
186: Community Forums
187: Home
188: Home
189: Member Screenshots
190: Home
191: Photo Gallery
192: Home
193: Photo Gallery
194: Home
195: Home
196: Photo Gallery
197: Community Forums
198: Community Forums
199: Community Forums
200: Home
201: Home
202: Community Forums
203: News Archive
204: Community Forums
205: Community Forums
206: Community Forums
207: Community Forums
208: CPGlang
209: Downloads
210: Home
211: Community Forums
212: Home
213: Community Forums
214: Community Forums
215: Downloads
216: Community Forums
217: Home
218: Community Forums
219: Community Forums
220: Photo Gallery
221: Photo Gallery
222: Photo Gallery
223: Community Forums
224: Community Forums
225: Downloads
226: Community Forums
227: CPGlang
228: Home
229: Community Forums
230: Community Forums
231: Home
232: Community Forums
233: Community Forums
234: Community Forums
235: Community Forums
236: Community Forums
237: Community Forums
238: Community Forums
239: Community Forums
240: Member Screenshots
241: Statistics
242: Home
243: Downloads
244: Community Forums
245: Community Forums
246: Community Forums
247: Home
248: Community Forums
249: Photo Gallery
250: Photo Gallery
251: Photo Gallery
252: Community Forums
253: Community Forums
254: Community Forums
255: Community Forums
256: Community Forums
257: Community Forums
258: Community Forums
259: Member Screenshots
260: Community Forums
261: Photo Gallery
262: Community Forums
263: Downloads
264: Photo Gallery
265: Home
266: Home
267: Home
268: Community Forums
269: Member Screenshots
270: Your Account
271: Home
272: Home
273: Community Forums
274: CPGlang
275: Photo Gallery
276: Your Account
277: Community Forums
278: Community Forums
279: Supporters
280: Community Forums
281: Community Forums
282: Community Forums
283: Community Forums
284: Photo Gallery
285: Community Forums
286: CPGlang
287: Photo Gallery
288: Photo Gallery
289: Community Forums
290: Your Account
291: Community Forums
292: Community Forums
293: Community Forums
294: Community Forums
295: Photo Gallery
296: Community Forums
297: Your Account
298: Community Forums
299: Community Forums
300: Photo Gallery
301: Photo Gallery
302: Community Forums
303: Community Forums
304: Community Forums
305: Community Forums
306: Community Forums
307: Community Forums
308: Home
309: Community Forums
310: Community Forums
311: Photo Gallery
312: Community Forums
313: Photo Gallery
314: Photo Gallery
315: Photo Gallery
316: Community Forums
317: Photo Gallery
318: Community Forums
319: Home
320: Community Forums
321: Community Forums
322: Community Forums
323: Community Forums
324: Home
325: Community Forums
326: Community Forums
327: Home
328: Community Forums
329: Home
330: Community Forums
331: Community Forums
332: CPGlang
333: Photo Gallery
334: Community Forums
335: Community Forums
336: Downloads
337: Community Forums
338: Community Forums
339: Search
340: Community Forums
341: Community Forums
342: Photo Gallery
343: Community Forums
344: Community Forums
345: Community Forums
346: Community Forums
347: Community Forums
348: Community Forums
349: Community Forums
350: Member Screenshots
351: Community Forums
352: Community Forums
353: Community Forums
354: Your Account
355: Community Forums
356: Community Forums
357: Community Forums
358: Photo Gallery
359: Community Forums
360: Community Forums
361: Your Account
362: Community Forums
363: Community Forums
364: Photo Gallery
365: Photo Gallery
366: Photo Gallery
367: CPGlang
368: Community Forums
369: Community Forums
370: Community Forums
371: Community Forums
372: Community Forums
373: Community Forums
374: Community Forums
375: Home
376: Community Forums
377: Community Forums
378: Photo Gallery
379: Home
380: Community Forums
381: Photo Gallery
382: Community Forums
383: Community Forums
384: Community Forums
385: Community Forums
386: Community Forums
387: Community Forums
388: Community Forums
389: Home
390: Community Forums
391: Community Forums
392: Community Forums
393: Photo Gallery
394: Community Forums
395: Photo Gallery
396: News
397: Community Forums
398: Home
399: Community Forums
400: Community Forums
401: Home
402: Community Forums
403: Community Forums
404: Community Forums
405: Photo Gallery
406: Community Forums
407: Community Forums
408: Photo Gallery
409: Community Forums
410: Community Forums
411: Community Forums
412: Community Forums
413: Photo Gallery
414: Community Forums
415: Community Forums
416: Community Forums
417: Community Forums
418: Home
419: Community Forums
420: CPGlang
421: Home
422: Community Forums
423: Photo Gallery
424: Community Forums
425: Community Forums
426: Community Forums
427: Photo Gallery
428: Downloads
429: Photo Gallery
430: Photo Gallery
431: Community Forums
432: Community Forums
433: Home
434: Home
435: Photo Gallery
436: Community Forums
437: Home
438: Home
439: Community Forums
440: Community Forums
441: Downloads
442: Home
443: Community Forums
444: Search
445: Community Forums
446: Community Forums
447: Community Forums
448: Community Forums
449: CPGlang
450: Community Forums
451: Photo Gallery
452: Community Forums
453: Photo Gallery
454: Home
455: Community Forums
456: Community Forums
457: Photo Gallery
458: Community Forums
459: Statistics
460: Home
461: Community Forums
462: Community Forums
463: Community Forums
464: Photo Gallery
465: Home
466: Community Forums
467: Community Forums
468: Community Forums
469: Community Forums
470: CPGlang
471: Community Forums
472: Community Forums
473: Home
474: Community Forums
475: CPGlang
476: Home
477: Community Forums
478: Member Screenshots
479: Photo Gallery
480: Community Forums
481: Community Forums
482: Home
483: Home
484: Community Forums
485: Community Forums
486: Community Forums
487: Community Forums
488: Community Forums
489: Photo Gallery
490: Community Forums
491: Community Forums
492: Community Forums
493: Community Forums
494: Community Forums
495: Community Forums
496: Community Forums
497: Downloads
498: Photo Gallery
499: Community Forums
500: Home
501: Community Forums
502: Downloads
503: Treasury
504: Home
505: Member Screenshots
506: Community Forums
507: Community Forums
508: Community Forums
509: Photo Gallery
510: Home
511: Community Forums
512: Home
513: Community Forums
514: Photo Gallery
515: Photo Gallery
516: Downloads
517: Community Forums
518: Photo Gallery
519: Home
520: Community Forums
521: Home
522: Community Forums
523: Your Account
524: Community Forums
525: Community Forums
526: Community Forums
527: Home
528: Community Forums
529: Home
530: Community Forums
531: Downloads
532: Community Forums
533: Community Forums
534: Statistics
535: Community Forums
536: Statistics
537: Member Screenshots
538: Photo Gallery
539: Photo Gallery
540: Community Forums
541: Statistics
542: Community Forums
543: Community Forums
544: Photo Gallery
545: Community Forums
546: Community Forums
547: Community Forums
548: Home
549: Downloads
550: Community Forums
551: Community Forums
552: Community Forums
553: Community Forums
554: Downloads
555: Community Forums
556: Photo Gallery
557: Downloads
558: Member Screenshots
559: Community Forums
560: Photo Gallery
561: Community Forums
562: Community Forums
563: Community Forums
564: Home
565: Community Forums
566: Home
567: Community Forums
568: Community Forums
569: Community Forums
570: Community Forums
571: Community Forums
572: LinkToUs
573: Photo Gallery
574: Community Forums
575: Your Account
576: Community Forums
577: Community Forums
578: Photo Gallery
579: Community Forums
580: Community Forums
581: Community Forums
582: Community Forums
583: Home
584: Your Account
585: Community Forums
586: Photo Gallery
587: Community Forums
588: Community Forums
589: Community Forums
590: Community Forums
591: Your Account
592: Community Forums
593: Community Forums
594: Community Forums
595: Photo Gallery
596: Community Forums
597: Community Forums
598: Community Forums
599: Community Forums
600: Community Forums
601: Home
602: Community Forums
603: Community Forums
604: Community Forums
605: Community Forums
606: Community Forums
607: Community Forums
608: Photo Gallery
609: Photo Gallery
610: Community Forums
611: Your Account
612: Home
613: Community Forums
614: Community Forums
615: Home
616: Home
617: Community Forums
618: Community Forums
619: Community Forums
620: Community Forums
621: Community Forums
622: Community Forums
623: Community Forums
624: Photo Gallery
625: Statistics
626: Community Forums
627: Community Forums
628: Community Forums
629: Community Forums
630: Community Forums
631: Community Forums
632: Community Forums
633: Community Forums
634: Photo Gallery
635: Community Forums
636: Community Forums
637: Community Forums
638: Community Forums
639: Photo Gallery
640: Community Forums
641: Community Forums
642: Community Forums
643: Photo Gallery
644: Photo Gallery
645: Home
646: Community Forums
647: Home
648: Downloads
649: Community Forums
650: Community Forums
651: Community Forums
652: Community Forums
653: Community Forums
654: Downloads
655: Community Forums
656: Treasury
657: Community Forums
658: Community Forums
659: Community Forums
660: Photo Gallery
661: Community Forums
662: Community Forums
663: Photo Gallery
664: Community Forums
665: Community Forums
666: Member Screenshots
667: Community Forums
668: Photo Gallery
669: Community Forums
670: Community Forums
671: Community Forums
672: CPGlang
673: Member Screenshots
674: Community Forums
675: Photo Gallery
676: Community Forums
677: Community Forums
678: Downloads
679: Community Forums
680: Community Forums
681: Community Forums
682: Community Forums
683: Community Forums
684: Community Forums
685: Community Forums
686: Community Forums
687: Community Forums
688: Home
689: Home
690: Community Forums
691: Photo Gallery
692: Community Forums
693: CPGlang
694: Your Account
695: Community Forums
696: Photo Gallery
697: Photo Gallery
698: Community Forums
699: Photo Gallery
700: Community Forums
701: Home
702: Community Forums
703: Community Forums
704: Community Forums
705: Community Forums
706: CPGlang
707: Community Forums
708: Photo Gallery
709: Community Forums
710: News Archive
711: Community Forums
712: Downloads
713: Photo Gallery
714: Community Forums
715: Community Forums
716: Community Forums
717: Community Forums
718: Community Forums
719: Community Forums
720: Community Forums
721: Community Forums
722: Your Account
723: Search
724: Photo Gallery
725: Community Forums
726: Community Forums
727: Community Forums
728: Home
729: Community Forums
730: Downloads
731: Home
732: Photo Gallery
733: Community Forums
734: Photo Gallery
735: Home

Staff Online:

No staff members are online!
Sherman Firefly
The AFV ASSOCIATION was formed in 1964 to support the thoughts and research of all those interested in Armored Fighting Vehicles and related topics, such as AFV drawings. The emphasis has always been on sharing information and communicating with other members of similar interests; e.g. German armor, Japanese AFVs, or whatever.
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page     Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board

View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
bsmart
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 2523
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 2:44 am
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

2) "They could ship locomotives why not heavier tanks

Planning for the entry into Europe began in 1942. At that time Shipping was a very critical issue. The 'Battle of the Atlantic' was still in the Desperate phase (remember the first shipment of Shermans that were sunk on their way to 8th Army in July of '42) Up until mid 43 it was a close call as to whether shipping was being lost faster than it could be replaced. That meant shipping space (and tonnage) would be critical. So both the 'Cube' (volume) and Weight had to be prioritized and balanced. It was decided in the various priority commities that Several 30 ton tanks were better than one or two 50 ton tanks. This was done early in the planning process. So priorities for the heavy tank (The M6) was reduced in priority since it was not expected to have shipping space, or a user driven demand. The pdesign plans for the Heavy tank were finalized in October 1940. I don't think the Tiger was even concieved at that time. At this time it was armed with a 3" gun and a coaxial 37mm. Later a turret with a 105mm gun (Not a howitzer a 50 caliber or so gun Shocked ) The other problem that came up with the heavy tank was reliability. The U.S. had some of the strictest reliability requirements of any country. This was at least partially derived from teh known need to support armies half way around the world. While German tanks fought within 1000 miles of the factory in almost any theater they were were deployed to American tanks had to move 1000 miles to get to their port of embarcation just to be laoded on a ship to begin their journey. I remember picking up somewhere that the M6 Heavy tank was able to run 1500 miles without maintenance but was still not considered reliable enough to be deployed. I don't think German heavy tanks ever reached that level of reliability. Because the priority of the heavy tank program had been reduced it was decided not to continue working to meet the reliability requirements. Initial production had been planned at 100 vehicles a month. There were 1354 Tiger I s built in about two years of production (Nov 42 Nov 44) so the U.S> was planning on building an equivilent number in one year.

As far as the fact they could ship locomotives. Locomotives were not being shipped in the volume that tanks were. Also some of the rail equipment was shipped in specialized vessels (Like the Seatrain Texas) that were equiped for it (70 ton cranes, tracks built in the decks, etc) and again locomotives were special priorities because they greatly reduced the number of trucks needed to run the logistics system.

I've also read that M26s could have been deployed a little earlier than they were. They were held up because the Bailey Bridges that had been stocked up fro the campaign would have needed modification kits to easily allow the wider Pershings to use them without a high probability of damage. The Pershings were withheld until most of the rivers had been crossed and the open terrain of Germany was in front of them

_________________
Bob Smart (bsmart@xecu.net)
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
bsmart
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 2523
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 2:50 am
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

- Dontos
I usually don't get into these type discussions since my Sherman knowledge is lacking.

However, I do think that there is one 'exception'. Case in point is the M4A3E2. The earliest 'mention' to the idea is Feb 44, limited production in May/June/July 44, Shipment beginning in Sept 44, and in the hands of the Troops beginning in Sept 44. Now thats fast, even by todays standards......

BUT doesn't really prove anything except there is always one exception to any case......


It exactly proves that when there was a priority need that was recognized the system could respond


I'll shut up & try to learn somemore from this kniowledgable panel. A very deep discussion that is an excellent read.

Thanks
Don


Nah, join right in. I'm no 'expert' I just have tryed to read multiple sources, remember things and try to fairly evaluate them. (The I dig my heels in and fight like hell Wink )

The more the merrier

_________________
Bob Smart (bsmart@xecu.net)
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
bsmart
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 2523
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 3:21 am
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

3) In the meantime:
- The German army switched from the 75mm on the Pz IV to the even more deadly 75mm on the Pz 5
- The Russian army had changed from the T34/76 to the T34/85
- The British army had changed from Crusaders to Churchill. I know they classified their tanks different, however they tried to do something

Well The Pz V first appeared in mid 43 but the Pz IV remained the base vehicle in production for what another year?

The Soviets upgraded from the T34/76 to T34/85 - Similar to the change from teh 75mm Sherman to the. 76mm Sherman. Anyone who has taken one of tours at Aberdeen knows my feeling on the T34 and the Sherman. I fell they were the two best tanks of WWII. Each had it's advantages and disadvantages and both traded some 'superier' features for production feasability. Reading Loza's book (Commanding The Red Army's Shermans) was interesting he felt the Sherman was as good as the T34. It's qualities were different from the T34 but that did not negate the fact that he felt it was an effective weapon.

British Tanks - Well the Chucrchill did not replace the Crusader. The Crusader was a 'cruiser' tank and was replaced in production by Centaurs and Cromwells which were armed with 6 pdr and later 75mm guns. The Churchill was an Infantry tank and fell in the series of the Matilda II, and Valentine. The Valentine started life with a 2 pdr and the last ones had been upgraded to a 75mm. The Churchill started with a hull mounted 3" Howitzer and a turret mounted 2 pdr. That was repalced with a 6 pdr and later a 75 mm (The same as the Sherman) None of these tanks carried a better gun than the Sherman. In fact one problem with teh British tanks is they were all designed with smaller turret rings that could not be upgraded to large guns like the 17pdr. In that way the Sherman was actually better since it had been designed with a larger (69") turret ring that was capable of handling larger guns like 76mm, 17pdr, and even 90mm.

By the end of the war the British were starting to build tanks with 17pdr (The Black Prince based on a widened Churchill) 77mm (The Comet cruiser tank) or the first of the next generation (and one of the truely great tanks of all time) The Centurion.

Of course there were also the less than successful Covenanter and Cavalier. And again The Sherman picked up a lot of the slack.

And don't get me wrong I really like the Churchill. It had a great reputation for survivability, could climb hills better than most other tanks and was large enough that it was a great basis for specialist vehicles. But it was sllooww.

_________________
Bob Smart (bsmart@xecu.net)
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Michel_Krauss
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Oct 30, 2009
Posts: 953
Location: Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands
PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 6:11 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

- Doug_Kibbey
1. Development is not production, it takes quite a while to convert prototype models and adapt existing lines to mass production....and assumes the product is even ready


True, however when there is no development - there will be nothing there for production
If development is dropped to an minimum it will delay and everything that will follow after, will also delay


- bsmart
I think the Tiger didn't debut until Mid 43 (about the same time as the Panther) So until they came out in Mid 43 (not 42) There was no direct proof that the Sherman was outclassed.. Yes it could be expected and work was being done on larger tanks but there was no direct evidence


Small correction on this part
The first Tiger tank debut was mid 1942 with the s-Pz Abt 502 in Russian
In Africa the first Tigers appeared with the s-Pz Abt 501 in Tunisia in november 1942
So the Sherman was outclassed in 1942

Michel

_________________
I'm Not Crazy, I'm Just Not You
Back to top
View user's profile
Michel_Krauss
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Oct 30, 2009
Posts: 953
Location: Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands
PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 6:38 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

2) "They could ship locomotives why not heavier tanks

- bsmart
The pdesign plans for the Heavy tank were finalized in October 1940. I don't think the Tiger was even concieved at that time


Well first development for an AFV, which later turned into the Tiger, started as early as 1938
Back then it was still an 30 ton AFV, at the end of 1941 this became an 36ton AFV
The final developmentof the Tiger started in May 1942

Concerning the shipping distance, the points you mention are all true, only you are forgetting 1 thing
In Germany an big part of the 1000 miles back to the factory where bombed or the factory it self was bombed
That was an problem the US army did not have

So the shipping lanes may have been longer, they where also safer

- bsmart
I've also read that M26s could have been deployed a little earlier than they were. They were held up because the Bailey Bridges that had been stocked up fro the campaign would have needed modification kits to easily allow the wider Pershings to use them without a high probability of damage. The Pershings were withheld until most of the rivers had been crossed and the open terrain of Germany was in front of them


This wonders me that there had to be special modification to the bridge bacause of the M26

The British Churchill weight was only 1 ton less then the M26
Never heard of it that the British could not send the Churchill across an Bailey bridge, because it was to heavy

The British army had to travel to German across Belgium and The Netherlands
And if there is one location in Western Europe with an lot of rivers to cross, then it's Belgium and The Netherlands

Michel

_________________
I'm Not Crazy, I'm Just Not You
Back to top
View user's profile
Doug_Kibbey
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 4678
Location: The Great Satan
PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 10:38 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

- Michel_Krauss
2)
This wonders me that there had to be special modification to the bridge bacause of the M26

The British Churchill weight was only 1 ton less then the M26
Never heard of it that the British could not send the Churchill across an Bailey bridge, because it was to heavy
Michel


The Bailey Bridge was by no means the only bridging equipment used in the ETO (and they were not so readily available as "Kelly's Hero" might lead one to believe. At least as important were the pontoon and treadway bridges (built in varying degrees of complexity and capacity, depending on the conditions). Erecting any bridging under fire is never simple (though it certainly has been done).

Two sources to which you might want to refer to some of the difficulties are the chapter "Hell and High Water" in Michael Doubler's "Closing with the enemy" and the link below on the Rhine crossings.

140.194.76.129/publica.../c-7-5.pdf

There are many other sources on bridging information in WWII, if someone else cares to list them. I'm on the way out the door.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
Michel_Krauss
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Oct 30, 2009
Posts: 953
Location: Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands
PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 10:49 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

Hi Doug,

thanks for the file, will read it

However the point of modifications still remains
The problems with bridging are not an problem for only the US army
All the Allies faced the same problem, because most of them used the same equipment

Strange thing by the way
If there is one piece of equipment connected to the US army it's the Bailey Bridge
However the construction of the bridge was developed in the UK

Michel

_________________
I'm Not Crazy, I'm Just Not You
Back to top
View user's profile
Doug_Kibbey
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 4678
Location: The Great Satan
PostPosted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:51 am
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

- Michel_Krauss
Hi Doug,


However the point of modifications still remains
The problems with bridging are not an problem for only the US army
All the Allies faced the same problem, because most of them used the same equipment
Michel


Only the U.S. Army had to contend with transporting and supporting it's bridging equipment (as well as it's tanks) across the Atlantic Ocean. No other Allied or Axis power had to consider that, as has been already pointed out.

I'm having some difficulty following the point of your thesis, other than it seems a blanket condemnation of the U.S. for not producing what amounts to a Tiger equivalent in what you regard as a timely manner. Is that what you are trying to say, or is there something more that is not so readily apparent?

Anti-Tiger (all ~1,500 of them) roles seemed to have been adequately fulfilled by Allied artillery and CAS.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
bsmart
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 2523
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 1:20 am
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

Let me try this again (The computer ate my first attempt Sad )

I got sloppy when I specified Bailey Bridges. The U.S> and British had established 'loading gauges' for their family of bridging equipment. This established a range of vehicle widths (including wheel or track withs) that could safely and effecively use the bridges. When the M26 came along it was wider than the existing gauge. Although it could use some of the bridging equipment the chance of damaging the bridge or the tank was increased. There were modification kits being produced that modified the bridges to handle wider vehicles. These kits were not available in enough volume or throughout the commands in time to be available for the campaign through France and Belguim. SO it was decided not to push up the employment of the M26 until most of the rivers had been crossed.

The Churchill while as heavy as the M26 was narrower (This was the reason it couldn't me modified with the 17pdr) so fit within the standard loading gauge.

As far as the dates for the Tiiger I don't see the Nov 42 date when they were sent to Tunisia as the important date. I think the date when it was first encountered by the western allies would be a better date to use. I think that was spring of 43. Also with teh development dates. I saw the dates for the 30-35 ton tank when i went back to check something else for this discussion. But I think a 30-35 ton tank doesn't fit the role of a heavy tank. The M3 Lee and the M4 Sherman were in that class. So I think when the requirement was changed to something in the 45 ton class would be more appropriate. But I will concede that both armies saw the need for a heavy tank and started development.

About the distancesI'm not sure the sea lanes across the Atlantic were any less attacked than the rail lines out of Germany in the 41-43 era when the plans were being developed. I think the distances involved put the American army in a different mindset than the Germans. When German tanks need major maintenance or overhaul they were returned to well established and equiped depots and factories in the German industrial base. The Americans planning for a widely deployed army figured that once teh tanks were shipped overseas they were not coming back home until the war was over (if at all) Soany maintenance, upgrading or repair would be done by field depots without the advantages of large heavy industrial faclities. This caused them to be more demanding in reliability and maintenance requirements. This meant that tanks were not 'standardised' (Made available for general issue) until they meat high reliability standards, had extensive spares kits developed and mobile repair shops capable of supporting them were ready for deployment. So the teething problems that Tigers and Panthers had early in their careers would not have been accepted in the U.S. Army. Tanks in the 45 tone and heavier categories were pushing the capabilities of engines and transmissions. That was he primary issue that held up the American Heavy tank program. German heavy tanks continued to have mantenance issues throughout their lives. This was accepted by the german army. The U.S. army was not willing to do that.

_________________
Bob Smart (bsmart@xecu.net)
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
C_Sherman
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 590

PostPosted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:36 am
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

Gee, invoke the ghost of the old board and look what happens!

Seems like I'm not the only one who remembers the discussions, too. (And we even got someone to mention 'shatter gap'...just like old times.)

There were two other delaying factors that may have been mentioned glancingly but not explored further: Organizational and industrial inertia.

By organizational inertia I mean that there was a good deal of resistance, within the US Army in the US, to changing the doctrine that led to the M4 Sherman's development. That was the "infantry support" doctrine that emphasized the HE capabilities of the tank, instead of the AT capabilities. There was a strong cadre in the War Department that believed in the doctrine, and took considerable convincing to change their minds. The introduction of the M10 TDs was to some extent an effort to augment the AT force without compromising the basic "infantry support" doctrine. In the end, enough evidence was presented that North Africa, then Italy, then the ETO were not exceptions to the doctrine, but rather showed an need for new doctrine. But this did not happen until it had influenced arms production schedules until around 1943.

Industrial inertia is simply the inherent resistance that any industry has to changes in production methods, materials and processes. In the instance of heavy manufacturing industries this inertia is considerable, and moreso when it is imperative not to interrupt production before or after a change. Changing a heavy manufacturing operation is more than just re-arranging the machinery and changing the drawings. Every single part must be changed simultaneously, and each part has a trail that leads through engineering, production, and logistics back to the shovel digging the iron ore out of the mine it is found in. Machine operators may need to be re-trained to use new production techniques, or just to understand the drawings and assembly sequences. And all of these need to come together within a day or two of the previous production line being stopped (at least under wartime production). It's a huge undertaking that happened simultaneously with the urgently needed production already underway, and planned to the smallest detail. It's not hard to imagine why there was a good deal of caution about making major changes to any tank production without some very convincing reasons!

So, my additional $0.02. Probably worth more if it was Canadian, but it's all I have in my pocket at the moment.

Chuck

_________________
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it
will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
-Herm Albright

Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc!
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
Michel_Krauss
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Oct 30, 2009
Posts: 953
Location: Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands
PostPosted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 11:47 am
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

Hi folks,

I would like to make an general request first: would you all be so nice to
1) drop the abbreviations or;
2) at least to explane it once what it means, when planning to use it more often?

My native language in not English and I have to search them all
The ETO was easy to find, only 36 abbreviations options
ETO European Theater Of Operations

However for CAS I have found about 200 abbreviations options
CAS Close Air support

Thanks,

Michel

_________________
I'm Not Crazy, I'm Just Not You
Back to top
View user's profile
Michel_Krauss
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Oct 30, 2009
Posts: 953
Location: Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands
PostPosted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 2:11 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

Let's continue with the discusion

Well the point is correct that all nations kept on developing new weapons, except for the US army

- The Germans developed new tanks, the known Pz III and IV (short barreled) where followed by the Pz IV (long barreled) and the Pz V

- The Russians developed the 76mm T34 into the 85mm T34 and all the other stuff they kept developing (ISU-152 / IS-2 / KW-85 / ISU-122 / etc)

- The British changed to an different classification for their main tank and also changed its weapons

The US army main tanks changed from 75mm to 76mm and it was not even an approvement

Concerning the artillery and the CAS
The artillery only has an change to knock-out an tank with an allmost direct hit
And because we are dicussing army doctrine at the moment, using artillery against tanks was also agianst army doctrine
The main job of the artillery was fire support, not shooting tanks
Shooting tanks was the job of the AT-folks, either towed or self propelled, who most of the time where not there when needed
In an matter of fact, the only ones who used artillery directly against tanks on an large scale where the Germans and the Russians

The CAS only had an change of knocking out tanks when it was fine weather
For example, the first day's of the Battle of the Bulge the CAS could not fly because of the bad weather
And if there was 1 moment in WW2 for the CAS, it was then

Concerning the Tiger tank, the first encounters where in Africa late 1942 and not mid 1943
The Britsh army started an crash production programm for the 17pdr AT in 1942 to have them send to Africa to stop the Tiger tanks there

Finally the Bailey bridge
The M26 was 3.5m width, the Bailey bridge road section width was 3.7m
What modifications where needed for the M26?
Also from what I understand about the gauges, it was more like "we have an piece of paper that say's it is not possible, so we cann't do it"

Michel

_________________
I'm Not Crazy, I'm Just Not You
Back to top
View user's profile
Kurt_Laughlin
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 577

PostPosted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 4:20 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

Regarding bridging and so forth, it was a real concern in the US Army.

The formal discussion and approval of Ordnance matters is documented in Ordnance Committee Meeting minutes (OCM). Many regarding tanks from 1944 on contain a non-concurrence from the Chief of the Corps of Engineers because of the effect that higher weights would have on the abilty of the Engineers to get the vehicles across streams with the equipment existing or in production.

For example, when the 76mm M4 was approved, the Engineers noted that previous agreements specified a 35 ton upper limit on tank weight. This was used to design the M2 treadway bridge: "The Chief of Engineers cannot design, test, and procure bridges to take care of these upward revisions in weight and get them immediately into the field for use. Though the steel treadway bridge M2 has just been standardized it is expected that they will not be available until the middle of this year." (10 Feb 44)

In the OCM regarding the M4A3E2 (2 Mar 44): "Inasmuch as the gross weight of the subject tank is 84,000 lbs., thus exceeding the maximum allowable weight of 35 tons by 14,000 lbs., the Chief of Engineers does not concur in the recommended action. " The same action also reiterated their concern with the recent authorization of 250 T26 tanks that weighed nearly the same as the M4A3E2 because "there is no f;oating bridge equipment available in the theaters to carry loads in excess of 35 tons . . . Furthermore, the new M2 steel treadway bridge when available, will have acapacity of only 40 tons in a 7 foot per second current."

As to having a "piece of paper" setting down limits; without any contrary evidence, that what you have to use to design things. You have to assume that everyone is working toward the same goals and that the requirements that are interchanged are real limits. You certainly don't want to be the guy who made something outside those paper limits when it is found that the limits are in fact correct when encountered in steel, stone, and brick!

It is not a simple matter to just bump weights up as needed. Everything that has been designed to or used with the previous limit has to be examined to find the weak link. If the design cannot handle it, it becomes an issue of determining what can be done to correct it. All designs have margins or safety factors built in, but they are there for a reason. The designer must account for things he suspects can happen doesn't know will happen. There may be limits (especially pre-computers) on what can be analyzed. There are inherent variabilities in construction and materials that must be considered. A very difficult and time consuming process.

Michel, have you read Armored Thunderbolt by Steve Zaloga? It has the most succint discussion of this whole issue.

KL
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
Michel_Krauss
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Oct 30, 2009
Posts: 953
Location: Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands
PostPosted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 7:15 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

- Kurt_Laughlin
Michel, have you read Armored Thunderbolt by Steve Zaloga


to be honest I did Mr. Green

And I'm an mechanical engineer for profession, so I know about the safety factor's Wink

The load bearing factor of the bridge is not the problem and has never been
The standard safety factor for steel construction is 1.5, however when used for the transport of or the protection of people it can be as high as 10

However discussion once in a while is also nice Twisted Evil Twisted Evil

Michel

_________________
I'm Not Crazy, I'm Just Not You
Back to top
View user's profile
bsmart
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 2523
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:40 am
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

"The Germans developed new tanks, the known Pz III and IV (short barreled) where followed by the Pz IV (long barreled) and the Pz V"

I don't see much difference in the upgrading of the guns in the Pz III and Pz IV and the upgrading of the Sherman from the 75mm to the 76mm

"The Russians developed the 76mm T34 into the 85mm T34 and all the other stuff they kept developing (ISU-152 / IS-2 / KW-85 / ISU-122 / etc)"

And the difference with the M3-M4 Lee-Sherman which was used as the basis for the M7 (Priest), M10 GMC (Gun Motor Carriage), M12 GMC, M36 GMC, M40 GMC, M31, M32 and M74 Recovery Vehicles. And just for clarity the ISU-152, KV-85, IS-2, etc were out growths of the KV1 heavy tank developmant line not the T-34. But everyone used their basic vehicles as the basis for support vehicles

" The British changed to an different classification for their main tank and also changed its weapons"

This I don't understand. Towards the end of the war they did merge the Infantry and Cruiser tanks into a common 'Universal tank' But I don't see how this is seen as a complaint against the U.S. Army. The U.S. had standardised on on 'universal family of tanks much earlier. in The U.S. the M3/M5 light tank and the M4 medium tank was used both by Armored Divison units (where the British would have used cruiser tanks) and Independent tank battalions which were used to support Infantry units (Where the British would have used infantry tanks)

"The US army main tanks changed from 75mm to 76mm and it was not even an approvement"

I'll flat out disagree with this. As I mentioned above with the Pz III and Pz IV comparison. The upgrade from the 75mm to the 76mm was just as big of an improvement as the German upgrades or Soviet 76mm to 85mm upgrade. The Americans also upgraded the suspension. The U.S. had a very active development program. BUT they understood the need to maintain production while developing improved weapons. They also had to deal with competing priorities of several services and several theaters.

_________________
Bob Smart (bsmart@xecu.net)
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page    Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board
Page 3 of 5
All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next



Jump to:  


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum