±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: 803
Total: 803
Who Is Where:
 Visitors:
01: Community Forums
02: Downloads
03: Community Forums
04: Community Forums
05: Home
06: Members List
07: Community Forums
08: Photo Gallery
09: Community Forums
10: Community Forums
11: CPGlang
12: Photo Gallery
13: Community Forums
14: Home
15: Photo Gallery
16: Community Forums
17: Community Forums
18: Community Forums
19: Community Forums
20: Community Forums
21: Photo Gallery
22: Community Forums
23: Community Forums
24: Community Forums
25: Home
26: Photo Gallery
27: Community Forums
28: Your Account
29: Photo Gallery
30: Community Forums
31: Community Forums
32: Community Forums
33: Community Forums
34: Photo Gallery
35: Home
36: Community Forums
37: Community Forums
38: Downloads
39: Home
40: Community Forums
41: Community Forums
42: Community Forums
43: Community Forums
44: Community Forums
45: Community Forums
46: Community Forums
47: Community Forums
48: Photo Gallery
49: Community Forums
50: Community Forums
51: CPGlang
52: Community Forums
53: Photo Gallery
54: Home
55: Community Forums
56: Community Forums
57: Member Screenshots
58: Photo Gallery
59: Home
60: Community Forums
61: Community Forums
62: Community Forums
63: Community Forums
64: Home
65: Community Forums
66: Community Forums
67: Community Forums
68: Downloads
69: Community Forums
70: Statistics
71: Community Forums
72: Home
73: Home
74: Community Forums
75: Photo Gallery
76: News
77: Home
78: Member Screenshots
79: Photo Gallery
80: Community Forums
81: Home
82: Photo Gallery
83: Community Forums
84: News
85: Community Forums
86: Community Forums
87: Community Forums
88: Photo Gallery
89: Photo Gallery
90: Downloads
91: Community Forums
92: Photo Gallery
93: Community Forums
94: Community Forums
95: Home
96: Community Forums
97: Community Forums
98: Photo Gallery
99: Community Forums
100: Your Account
101: Photo Gallery
102: Community Forums
103: Community Forums
104: Home
105: CPGlang
106: Community Forums
107: Photo Gallery
108: Home
109: Community Forums
110: CPGlang
111: Community Forums
112: CPGlang
113: Member Screenshots
114: Photo Gallery
115: CPGlang
116: Community Forums
117: CPGlang
118: Community Forums
119: Your Account
120: Community Forums
121: Community Forums
122: Your Account
123: Home
124: Your Account
125: Community Forums
126: Community Forums
127: Photo Gallery
128: Community Forums
129: Community Forums
130: Community Forums
131: Community Forums
132: Community Forums
133: CPGlang
134: Your Account
135: CPGlang
136: Community Forums
137: Home
138: Home
139: Photo Gallery
140: Community Forums
141: Photo Gallery
142: Community Forums
143: Community Forums
144: CPGlang
145: Community Forums
146: Community Forums
147: Home
148: Photo Gallery
149: Photo Gallery
150: Statistics
151: News
152: Photo Gallery
153: Photo Gallery
154: Photo Gallery
155: Photo Gallery
156: Photo Gallery
157: CPGlang
158: Contact
159: Treasury
160: Home
161: Community Forums
162: Community Forums
163: Home
164: Community Forums
165: Photo Gallery
166: Photo Gallery
167: CPGlang
168: Photo Gallery
169: Your Account
170: Community Forums
171: Community Forums
172: News Archive
173: Community Forums
174: Home
175: Community Forums
176: Community Forums
177: Community Forums
178: Community Forums
179: CPGlang
180: Photo Gallery
181: Home
182: Community Forums
183: Community Forums
184: Community Forums
185: Community Forums
186: Community Forums
187: Community Forums
188: Photo Gallery
189: Community Forums
190: Community Forums
191: Community Forums
192: Community Forums
193: Community Forums
194: Community Forums
195: Community Forums
196: Community Forums
197: Community Forums
198: Your Account
199: Supporters
200: Your Account
201: Community Forums
202: Community Forums
203: Photo Gallery
204: Home
205: Community Forums
206: Community Forums
207: Community Forums
208: Downloads
209: Photo Gallery
210: Home
211: Photo Gallery
212: CPGlang
213: Community Forums
214: CPGlang
215: Community Forums
216: Your Account
217: Photo Gallery
218: Community Forums
219: Home
220: Community Forums
221: Community Forums
222: Community Forums
223: Community Forums
224: CPGlang
225: Community Forums
226: Community Forums
227: Community Forums
228: Your Account
229: Community Forums
230: Community Forums
231: Community Forums
232: Statistics
233: Community Forums
234: CPGlang
235: Your Account
236: CPGlang
237: Home
238: Photo Gallery
239: Photo Gallery
240: Community Forums
241: Community Forums
242: Downloads
243: Community Forums
244: News Archive
245: Photo Gallery
246: Community Forums
247: Community Forums
248: Home
249: Community Forums
250: Your Account
251: Photo Gallery
252: Community Forums
253: Community Forums
254: Community Forums
255: Home
256: Downloads
257: Community Forums
258: Community Forums
259: Community Forums
260: Community Forums
261: CPGlang
262: Photo Gallery
263: Community Forums
264: Photo Gallery
265: Community Forums
266: Community Forums
267: Community Forums
268: Photo Gallery
269: Photo Gallery
270: Community Forums
271: Community Forums
272: Community Forums
273: Community Forums
274: Community Forums
275: Community Forums
276: News
277: Home
278: News
279: Photo Gallery
280: Community Forums
281: CPGlang
282: Your Account
283: Home
284: Home
285: Community Forums
286: Community Forums
287: Home
288: News
289: Community Forums
290: Community Forums
291: Community Forums
292: Community Forums
293: Member Screenshots
294: Home
295: Home
296: Community Forums
297: Home
298: Member Screenshots
299: Community Forums
300: Downloads
301: Photo Gallery
302: Community Forums
303: Downloads
304: Home
305: Community Forums
306: News
307: Downloads
308: Home
309: Community Forums
310: Community Forums
311: Community Forums
312: Community Forums
313: Community Forums
314: Photo Gallery
315: Home
316: Community Forums
317: Community Forums
318: Community Forums
319: Community Forums
320: Downloads
321: Home
322: Community Forums
323: Downloads
324: Community Forums
325: Community Forums
326: Home
327: Community Forums
328: CPGlang
329: Community Forums
330: CPGlang
331: Downloads
332: Photo Gallery
333: Photo Gallery
334: Home
335: Community Forums
336: Community Forums
337: Photo Gallery
338: Community Forums
339: Photo Gallery
340: Community Forums
341: Community Forums
342: Community Forums
343: Community Forums
344: Downloads
345: Photo Gallery
346: Downloads
347: Community Forums
348: Community Forums
349: Community Forums
350: Community Forums
351: Home
352: Community Forums
353: CPGlang
354: Photo Gallery
355: CPGlang
356: Community Forums
357: Community Forums
358: Downloads
359: Community Forums
360: Photo Gallery
361: Community Forums
362: Community Forums
363: Photo Gallery
364: Downloads
365: Community Forums
366: Community Forums
367: Community Forums
368: Community Forums
369: Community Forums
370: Home
371: Photo Gallery
372: Community Forums
373: Community Forums
374: Photo Gallery
375: Community Forums
376: Home
377: Home
378: Community Forums
379: Community Forums
380: Community Forums
381: Community Forums
382: Community Forums
383: Home
384: Community Forums
385: Community Forums
386: Community Forums
387: Community Forums
388: Downloads
389: CPGlang
390: Statistics
391: Community Forums
392: Community Forums
393: Community Forums
394: Your Account
395: Community Forums
396: Home
397: Home
398: Community Forums
399: Community Forums
400: CPGlang
401: Community Forums
402: CPGlang
403: Community Forums
404: Community Forums
405: Community Forums
406: Your Account
407: Your Account
408: Downloads
409: Downloads
410: CPGlang
411: Downloads
412: Community Forums
413: Downloads
414: Community Forums
415: Community Forums
416: Community Forums
417: Community Forums
418: Community Forums
419: Community Forums
420: Community Forums
421: Photo Gallery
422: CPGlang
423: Search
424: Community Forums
425: CPGlang
426: Community Forums
427: Photo Gallery
428: Home
429: Downloads
430: Community Forums
431: Photo Gallery
432: Community Forums
433: Photo Gallery
434: Statistics
435: Community Forums
436: Community Forums
437: Community Forums
438: Community Forums
439: Community Forums
440: Community Forums
441: Photo Gallery
442: Community Forums
443: Photo Gallery
444: Member Screenshots
445: Community Forums
446: Photo Gallery
447: Community Forums
448: Statistics
449: Community Forums
450: Community Forums
451: CPGlang
452: Member Screenshots
453: Community Forums
454: Community Forums
455: Photo Gallery
456: Community Forums
457: Community Forums
458: Community Forums
459: Community Forums
460: Photo Gallery
461: Community Forums
462: News Archive
463: Community Forums
464: Home
465: Community Forums
466: Photo Gallery
467: Community Forums
468: Community Forums
469: Home
470: Community Forums
471: Home
472: Community Forums
473: Home
474: Community Forums
475: Community Forums
476: Community Forums
477: Community Forums
478: Your Account
479: Community Forums
480: Home
481: Community Forums
482: Community Forums
483: Community Forums
484: Community Forums
485: Community Forums
486: Community Forums
487: News
488: Community Forums
489: CPGlang
490: Community Forums
491: Community Forums
492: CPGlang
493: Community Forums
494: CPGlang
495: Photo Gallery
496: Community Forums
497: Photo Gallery
498: Community Forums
499: Community Forums
500: Community Forums
501: Community Forums
502: Photo Gallery
503: Community Forums
504: Community Forums
505: Community Forums
506: CPGlang
507: Community Forums
508: Community Forums
509: Home
510: Home
511: Photo Gallery
512: Community Forums
513: Home
514: Photo Gallery
515: Photo Gallery
516: Community Forums
517: Community Forums
518: Community Forums
519: Community Forums
520: Community Forums
521: Home
522: Photo Gallery
523: Community Forums
524: Community Forums
525: Home
526: Photo Gallery
527: CPGlang
528: Community Forums
529: Home
530: Downloads
531: Community Forums
532: Photo Gallery
533: Community Forums
534: Community Forums
535: CPGlang
536: Community Forums
537: Community Forums
538: Community Forums
539: Tell a Friend
540: Home
541: Community Forums
542: News Archive
543: Community Forums
544: Home
545: Community Forums
546: Home
547: Home
548: Photo Gallery
549: Community Forums
550: Community Forums
551: Home
552: Photo Gallery
553: Community Forums
554: Community Forums
555: Community Forums
556: Community Forums
557: Community Forums
558: Home
559: Photo Gallery
560: Photo Gallery
561: Community Forums
562: Community Forums
563: Photo Gallery
564: Community Forums
565: Community Forums
566: Community Forums
567: Community Forums
568: Your Account
569: Community Forums
570: Photo Gallery
571: Community Forums
572: Community Forums
573: Community Forums
574: CPGlang
575: Home
576: Member Screenshots
577: Community Forums
578: Home
579: News
580: Community Forums
581: Photo Gallery
582: Community Forums
583: Home
584: Community Forums
585: Home
586: Community Forums
587: Home
588: CPGlang
589: Community Forums
590: Community Forums
591: Home
592: Community Forums
593: Community Forums
594: Community Forums
595: Community Forums
596: Community Forums
597: Community Forums
598: Community Forums
599: Community Forums
600: Community Forums
601: Photo Gallery
602: Your Account
603: Community Forums
604: Community Forums
605: Photo Gallery
606: Community Forums
607: Community Forums
608: Community Forums
609: Photo Gallery
610: Community Forums
611: Downloads
612: Community Forums
613: Community Forums
614: Community Forums
615: Home
616: CPGlang
617: Photo Gallery
618: Community Forums
619: Community Forums
620: Member Screenshots
621: Community Forums
622: News
623: Community Forums
624: Community Forums
625: Community Forums
626: Home
627: Community Forums
628: Community Forums
629: Community Forums
630: Photo Gallery
631: Community Forums
632: Photo Gallery
633: Photo Gallery
634: Community Forums
635: Community Forums
636: Community Forums
637: Member Screenshots
638: Community Forums
639: Community Forums
640: Photo Gallery
641: Community Forums
642: Community Forums
643: Photo Gallery
644: Community Forums
645: Community Forums
646: Community Forums
647: Community Forums
648: Photo Gallery
649: Community Forums
650: Home
651: Your Account
652: Community Forums
653: Community Forums
654: Photo Gallery
655: Community Forums
656: Community Forums
657: Community Forums
658: Community Forums
659: Home
660: Community Forums
661: Community Forums
662: CPGlang
663: Community Forums
664: Community Forums
665: CPGlang
666: Home
667: Community Forums
668: Home
669: Community Forums
670: Community Forums
671: Community Forums
672: Community Forums
673: Community Forums
674: Community Forums
675: Community Forums
676: Community Forums
677: Community Forums
678: Community Forums
679: Community Forums
680: Home
681: Photo Gallery
682: Community Forums
683: Community Forums
684: Home
685: Community Forums
686: Photo Gallery
687: Home
688: Photo Gallery
689: Community Forums
690: Community Forums
691: Community Forums
692: Community Forums
693: Community Forums
694: Community Forums
695: Photo Gallery
696: Photo Gallery
697: Community Forums
698: CPGlang
699: Downloads
700: Community Forums
701: Photo Gallery
702: Photo Gallery
703: Community Forums
704: Downloads
705: Downloads
706: Community Forums
707: Community Forums
708: Community Forums
709: Community Forums
710: CPGlang
711: CPGlang
712: Community Forums
713: Community Forums
714: Community Forums
715: Member Screenshots
716: Member Screenshots
717: Home
718: Home
719: Community Forums
720: Home
721: CPGlang
722: Community Forums
723: CPGlang
724: Photo Gallery
725: News
726: Home
727: Community Forums
728: Community Forums
729: Community Forums
730: Home
731: Community Forums
732: Community Forums
733: Community Forums
734: Home
735: Photo Gallery
736: Community Forums
737: Photo Gallery
738: Community Forums
739: Community Forums
740: Home
741: Community Forums
742: Community Forums
743: Community Forums
744: Community Forums
745: Community Forums
746: Photo Gallery
747: Community Forums
748: Photo Gallery
749: Community Forums
750: Community Forums
751: Home
752: Community Forums
753: Downloads
754: Home
755: Community Forums
756: Community Forums
757: Community Forums
758: Statistics
759: Home
760: Home
761: Community Forums
762: Community Forums
763: Community Forums
764: Community Forums
765: CPGlang
766: Home
767: Members List
768: Your Account
769: Home
770: LinkToUs
771: CPGlang
772: Home
773: CPGlang
774: News
775: Community Forums
776: CPGlang
777: Community Forums
778: Downloads
779: Community Forums
780: Community Forums
781: Photo Gallery
782: Community Forums
783: Community Forums
784: Home
785: Community Forums
786: Community Forums
787: Community Forums
788: Photo Gallery
789: Community Forums
790: Photo Gallery
791: Community Forums
792: Community Forums
793: Community Forums
794: Community Forums
795: Community Forums
796: Home
797: Community Forums
798: Community Forums
799: Home
800: Community Forums
801: Home
802: Community Forums
803: Community Forums

Staff Online:

No staff members are online!
The Sherman Tank, The Good, The Bad, and The Distorted Facts
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  Next
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page     Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board

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

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 1997
Location: El Paso & Ft Bliss, Texas
PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:15 pm
Post subject: Re: The Sherman Tank, The Good, The Bad, and The Distorted F

Hi Neil! Hi Folks!

- Neil_Baumgardner

- Roy_A_Lingle

When the developers started drawing up the Sherman tank, they were limited in how much it could weight. That limit came for the Combat Bridging Engineers M2 Treadway Pontoon bridge system.

<snip>That bridge could not have support the M-6 or T-23 heavy tanks. Notice the clearance between the treadway edges and the VVSS track block. Just a few inchs to spare on both sides. No room for a wider tank. No room for M4 with HVSS!


I'm sorry, but this sounds to me like putting the cart before the horse, or in this case the bridge before the tank... The bridge is designed to support the tank, the tank is designed to destroy infantry, fight tanks, etc, not to support the bridge. I understand this argument a little better when you're talking shipping, airlift or even rail-transport - for the first two at least you may have pretty big design constraints.

Designing the tank to fit the bridge seems a little backwards to me. Seems like if you decide you're going to have heavier tanks, you design bridges to handle said tanks - not decide you cant have heavier tanks because your current bridges cant handle them... Afterall, I would think its easier to design & build new heavier bridges than a heavier tank...


Sounds like putting the cart before the horse?
Designing the tank to fit the bridge seems a little backwards?

Yes!
If one JUMPS to the CONCLUSION that both were developed at the same time. There in lays the Catch-22. The M2 treadway bridge was developed and fielded years before anyone starting thinking about building something like the M3 Lees, little lone the Sherman. Don't forget, we where looking at the M3 Stuart with it's 37mm cannon as a main battle tank long before anyone started working on the M3 Lees. The original pontoon bridge system was more than enough for the M1,M2, and M3 family of light tanks.

The larger pontoons and sadles for the M2 treadways were designed about the same time as the Sherman because it exceed the safe rated level for that system. The larger elements were delayed do to the need for steel and rubber during the early start up period when everyone needed everything for their systems. That is why the weight had to fit the bridge system that was in service at that time. Fielding of HVSS vehicles and heavier Shermans was only possible because larger pontoon equipment was also in the works. At that point both systems were in sync.

More, I am sure later
Sgt, Scouts Out! Smile

_________________
"You can never have too much reconnaissance."
General G.S. Patton Jr.
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Roy_A_Lingle
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 1997
Location: El Paso & Ft Bliss, Texas
PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:48 pm
Post subject: Re: The Sherman Tank, The Good, The Bad, and The Distorted F

Hi Neil! Hi Folks!

- Neil_Baumgardner

- Roy_A_Lingle

I seam to remember of picture of T-23 crossing a Bailey Bridge. As so as I can find it, I will add it to this post.


That would be interesting...
Neil


Here you go Neil! Thanks again to Mr. Hunnicutt's Pershing book, page109.


The Bailey bridge was designed and field long before anyone though about building the Pershing. Caption with the photo: "This is one method of crossing a 60 ton Bailey bridge. The heavy timbers were used to protect the bridge curbs." This tight fit problem wasn't corrected until after the end of WW II. I sure most expericened tracked vehicle operators will look at that photo and cringe with the though of 'throwing a track' right in the middle of that. Then try doing a crossing like that under fire. Surprised

Note: Width of a T-23, T-23E1, T-23E2 and T-23E3 was 138 inches over the sandshields.
My guess is the sandshields only added an inch or so to the width.

Note: M-6A1 Heavy tank: Width over track armor 123 inches.
Combat loaded weight: 126,300 pounds (or 63 tons).
Looks like a M-6A1 would fit on a Bailey Bridge, but it would need more panels added to rise the load limit.

My 2 cents on the bridge problem.
Sgt, Scouts Out! Smile

_________________
"You can never have too much reconnaissance."
General G.S. Patton Jr.
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
C_Sherman
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 590

PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:05 pm
Post subject: Re: The Sherman Tank, The Good, The Bad, and The Distorted F

- Roy_A_Lingle

The Bailey bridge was designed and field long before anyone though about building the Pershing. Caption with the photo: "This is one method of crossing a 60 ton Bailey bridge. The heavy timbers were used to protect the bridge curbs." This tight fit problem wasn't corrected until after the end of WW II. I sure most expericened tracked vehicle operators will look at that photo and cringe with the though of 'throwing a track' right in the middle of that. Then try doing a crossing like that under fire. Surprised

Note: Width of a T-23, T-23E1, T-23E2 and T-23E3 was 138 inches over the sandshields.
My guess is the sandshields only added an inch or so to the width.

Note: M-6A1 Heavy tank: Width over track armor 123 inches.
Combat loaded weight: 126,300 pounds (or 63 tons).
Looks like a M-6A1 would fit on a Bailey Bridge, but it would need more panels added to rise the load limit.

My 2 cents on the bridge problem.
Sgt, Scouts Out! Smile


Hi all,

As any engineer will tell you, the challenge isn't normally the dimensions of the vehicles crossing, it's the Load Class of the vehicle(s).

Bailey Bridges can easily handle up to MLC (Military Load Class) 100 crossings *if* they are constructed to handle that. MLC 30+ requires significant additional resources (panels, linkage sets, anchors, installation equipment/cranes, and much more time). It's not impossible, but to install such a bridge at every water crossing across Europe would rapidly strain the available bridging assets of the Allied armies.

Existing bridges in Europe at that time, even undamaged, were generally not designed to handle loads over MLC 20. This means that even capturing existing bridging intact was no guarantee that a heavy tank will be able to use it safely. (Some here may recall a large-scale effort to upgrade the German road bridge system in the 70's, to better support the growing weight of NATO AFVs.)

Just a little gas for the fire...

C

MLC = Military Load Class: For tracked vehicles, roughly the same as the overall weight in tons. For wheeled vehicles, the computation is more complex, and depends on the number of axles and tire size, among other factors. The MLC capacity of a bridge is based on the construction materials and structure of the the bridge, as well as the approaches and roadbed. Most not-modern bridges top out in the MLC 20-25 range, with higher MLCs usually requiring modern steel or concrete construction.

_________________
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
SHAWN
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 31, 2006
Posts: 484

PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:05 pm
Post subject: Re: The Sherman Tank, The Good, The Bad, and The Distorted Facts

yes, i realize we are all civil here. i think remembering back to the old forum (no registering to post/reply) you had more folks commenting, many along the lines of what doug had mentioned (i just saw this or that on the boob tube). i think we are all pretty familar with everyone who is conversing on the forum now... so no blood, but you make a good point bob.
roy, glad you feel that way about the sherman now.
i agree with the 20/20 hindsight part...

there is a big difference between doctrine and reality... war distinquishes the two very quickly, "sorts" things out, defines them if you will.

there were various doctrines and armor philosophies, etc that were being formulated between the wars, many doctrines that unfortunately would dictate the way armies would fight the war. once the fighting starts, things evolve very rapidly, then you are stuck with doctrines that turn out to be a crock. the wargames the u.s. conducted in 39, 40 lead to the development of the TD force. (the u.s. didnt run into any enemy heavies until 1943-- tigers in tunisia, panthers at anzio). how do you change your doctrine, etc. etc. that quickly... one cant. the many facets that formulated and built the u.s. armored force up until that point of say 1944, how do you change it, improve it (whatever you want to call it), how do you do that and yet, still have it perform/function and continue to fight...
drive, drive, drive, go, go, go ...
i think that the americans and the brits had a fairly good combined arms philosophy going-- the sherman fit into that operation...
the tank is a piece of artillery (can be heatedly contested but i think that still holds true even today).
the ground work was laid, the game plan drawn up, within reason, before "first contact" was even made, before many debated thoughts and philosophies could be proven or disproven...
things never turn out how you would often hope.
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
bsmart
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 2523
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:14 pm
Post subject: Re: The Sherman Tank, The Good, The Bad, and The Distorted F

- C_Sherman



Existing bridges in Europe at that time, even undamaged, were generally not designed to handle loads over MLC 20. This means that even capturing existing bridging intact was no guarantee that a heavy tank will be able to use it safely. (Some here may recall a large-scale effort to upgrade the German road bridge system in the 70's, to better support the growing weight of NATO AFVs.)

Just a little gas for the fire...

C



One reason why railroad bridges were so valuable. I know load limits are the critical factor in bridgeing but the problem I read about was a dimensional problem. Weight issues could be somewhat miticated by spacing out the heavy vehicles but if it's too wide, it's too wide the picture Roy found demonstrates that very well

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

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 1997
Location: El Paso & Ft Bliss, Texas
PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:56 pm
Post subject: Re: The Sherman Tank, The Good, The Bad, and The Distorted F

Hi Folks!

This has been touched on some by others, but I would like to lay this out for the record.

The Sherman had two problems.

1. The Doctrine that was developed as the U.S. started ramping up for a globe war and sadly didn't change until after the war ended. The details of this problem will make a good size book.

2. Size and weight restictions that limited the early designs and as the war progressed delayed the fielding of better protected tanks with larger weapons. The technical problems cause their own sets of delays, but in many cases, I feel they were used to support the "Doctrine".

Neil and Bob have been looking at the problems with shipping. The limits of shipping was Shocked A Shocked problem that did delayed things, that is true. Could what was shipped been changed? Yes it could have had the need to support a different 'Doctrine'. But then again, look what happiened to the Pershings that were shipped to the PTO.

Sgt, Scouts Out! Smile

_________________
"You can never have too much reconnaissance."
General G.S. Patton Jr.
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
SHAWN
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 31, 2006
Posts: 484

PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 4:22 am
Post subject: Re: The Sherman Tank, The Good, The Bad, and The Distorted F

The Sherman had two problems.

1. The Doctrine that was developed as the U.S. started ramping up for a globe war and sadly didn't change until after the war ended. The details of this problem will make a good size book.




the armored doctrines that the americans developed were very similar to the doctrines that the germans had pioneered and had been debated amongst the brits and french prior to the war. tanks werent meant to engage other tanks. thus they werent designed with anti-tank roles as there primary function. engaging and destroying armor was the role of the artillery, air support, and anti-tank guns. anti-tank guns (aka the tank destroyer) were developed to engage enemy armor, in the defensive posture, brought from the “reserve� or higher command elements, to the point(s) of enemy armor breakthrough. major general mcnair bore much of the responsibility for this way of thinking for the americans. only time would tell, if this american use of armor was effective. unfortunately, the americans entered the war late, had a retarded tank program, one which lagged way behind the germans, russians and brits. time and combat experience were against the americans.
all nations included, it was just a matter of time before folks had to realize that the more armor units start running across the battlefield, sooner or later they eventually would have to face each other. the germans and the russians learned this very quickly. americans didnt learn this until 1943/44 (too late, u.s. industry already producing according to the parameters set down in 1941/42).

one of us had brought up the idea of why the americans hadnt been a little quicker to design a heavy (or heavier) tank early than it had. it wasnt part of the armored doctrine at the time. tanks were to be fast and exploit, heavy doesnt fit this parameter. besides the french and british and the russians, no one had heavy tanks prior to 1942.
heavy tanks werent an element found in the blitzkrieg principles. the blitzkrieg had defeated the french and british heavy armor in 1940, and was well on it way to defeating the russian heavy armor in 1941. the americans had no real urgency to design and field a heavy tank. ** how can you change what you dont know to be broken yet. **

2. Size and weight restictions that limited the early designs and as the war progressed delayed the fielding of better protected tanks with larger weapons. The technical problems cause their own sets of delays, but in many cases, I feel they were used to support the "Doctrine".

yes, i agree roy, but i wouldnt use the phrase “support the doctrine�, more like fit the parameters laid out by the doctrine. size and weight restrictions meet the requirement of tanks that are mobile and can breakthrough and exploit the enemy. those restrictions were acquiring to the armored doctrine that the americans had adopted for its armored force. restrictions that werent necessarily determined by shipping, logistical support and the like. the pershing was well armored, well armed, and had adequate speed (could exploit and support�the role of the tank). armored warfare had evolved and had dictated that tanks will eventually have to engage AND defeat other tanks while still falling under the qualifications of being a tank and not a tank destroyer. the pershing met these qualifications, and for 1942 the sherman had met these qualifications.

anyway, never thought i would show favor for the russians but they were the only ones to really design heavy armor and with reasonable adequacy be able to support and sustain that heavy armor in the field effectively. they had many logistical problems but they didnt suffer such as the germans as to have that heavy armor be more of a detriment.
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
Roy_A_Lingle
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 1997
Location: El Paso & Ft Bliss, Texas
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 5:59 am
Post subject: Re: The Sherman Tank, The Good, The Bad, and The Distorted F

Hi Folks!

A Techical Point - The Pershing was needed because it had better protection.

Look at the following three photos and asked yourselfs if that is correct.

From an article in the old Journal of Military Ordnance titled "What's Wrong With the T26E3?" dated July 2002. Vehicle is Nu 25, Reg. Nu. 30119835, March 6, 1945. Vehicle was hit by a 75 or 88 mm round which went through the front under slope, started a secondary ammo fire which burned out the turret area. "Amazingly, the crew surivived unharmend."



This photo comes from Hunnicutt's Pershing book, page 18. Vehicle nu. 38, Reg. Nu. 30119848, vehicle name "Fireball", Feb 26, 1945. Hit three times by a Tiger I, first round hit near the coaxial machine gun port, entering the turret and killing the loader and gunner. The second and third rounds hit, but didn't penetrate. One destoryed the 90mm gun barrel which had to be replaced. Vehicle was repaired and returned to service by March 7th 1945.



This photo also comes from Hunnicutt's Pershing, page 192. The vehicle IS a M46 that was destoryed by a 85mm round from a T-34 during the Korean War. This photo still support my point because the T-23E3 and the M-46 both had the same front hulls and the Soviet 85mm round is between the German 75s and 88mm rounds.



If the front of a T-23E3 had better protection than the Shermans tanks, why did the 3rd Armored Division, cut up a Panther hull and weld parts of it onto a Pershing tank? Could it be, they had learned that the front of a Pershing wasn't any better than the Sherman is was replacing?

Was the T-23E3 with it's heavier armored really needed? Did shipping schedules need to be changed just so wider and heavier tanks could be sent?

Technical Point - more armor.
Sgt, Scouts Out! Smile

_________________
"You can never have too much reconnaissance."
General G.S. Patton Jr.
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: Wed Aug 02, 2006 8:51 am
Post subject: Re: The Sherman Tank, The Good, The Bad, and The Distorted Facts

I think the 3 AD attempt at a Super Pershing was an ordnance maintenance shop gone wild. Get any group of GI's who have the tools and the time and they love to modify equipment to make it 'better'.

So they get a new test Pershing with the new 'super' 90mm (It was even more powerful than the 90mm used in the regular Pershing) and they decide to modify the tank so it can go out 'Tiger Hunting' Extra armor, extra hydraulic cylinders to help move the heavier gun barrel with the extra armor, etc. It all probably defeated the purpose of getting a test tank out to the field in the first place. (Of course the fact that the supply system misplaced the ammunition for the new gun so they couldn't actually use it for several weeks didn't help.)

Roy brings up a good point about the first Pershings sent to Europe. It's been a while since I looked at the summary of what happened to them that is in the Hunnicutt book but I remember being surprised at how badly they got shot up in ashort period of time

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

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 26, 2006
Posts: 61

PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 10:36 am
Post subject: Re: The Sherman Tank, The Good, The Bad, and The Distorted Facts

The problem with the 90mm armed Sherman was breaking the 90s loose from Air Defence from what I understand. We might have had a better tank than the Pershing ealrier but they apparently tried to get too advanced and the army didn't like the support requirements. My impression is that we could have had 90mm armed Shermans by the summer of 44 if the army (and its various components) thought it was necessary. But you are dealing here with at least 4 major beurocratic organizations and probably more. If the user had stated clearly and loudly it was needed then it could have been accomplished and fairly quickly but there was no loud united voice to that regard until after D-Day.

I thought the occurance of Tigers in Africa was so rare that few conidered it a serious problem (short sighted I know but ....)
Back to top
View user's profile
SHAWN
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 31, 2006
Posts: 484

PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 12:22 pm
Post subject: Re: The Sherman Tank, The Good, The Bad, and The Distorted Facts

oh i agree whole heartedly roy. armored protection was the key, more armor indeed! it hurts to say, cause i are one, but we americans fell way behind in tank design and production, and we paid the price. we came out on top but it cost us. i think that the american automotive industry and all involved, given more time, addressing the issues sooner (hindsight again), could have designed or initiated a tank program much earlier than we had. the russians and the germans beat us, they got started in the arms race much sooner, but still they had us beat when it came to dealing with the armor protection dilema.
not all they did was successful, but they were addressing the problem. doesnt mean i feel they designed and built better tanks, they were just working on solutions.

i am going to quote an author here, makes a very good point, would apply to the Pershings as well as the Shermans:
"Perhaps the wonder is not that the M4 succeeded in spite of its early problems, but that, given the restrictions imposed by circumstances, it was as good as it was. At the time of its first service evaluations in early 1942, the M4 Sherman was easily one of the best all-around tanks in the world."

the arms race escalated very quickly and america fell even further behind.
at least i give the americans credit for at least showing the insight to be albe to design, initiate and implement "weapon systems", if you will, that they knew and understood that they had to support, that they could field. americans, didnt go ape and try to make all of these crazy super weapons and behemoths that werent practical for the circumstances at hand. no comments on that tortoise thingy. to reverse that logic, many of what the germans fielded, way to early, could they have saved more of their lives by not being so hasty? if time was of the essance, they couldnt afford it, that is a good pro for the sherman and american industry. america could continue to produce, make efforts for improvement, without distrupting the flow of production. we didnt stop, as the enemy, and start over from the ground up everytime with all of the new design, r&d, etc. to make a new tank. for the idea of designing a tank that could be produced at roughly 2000 a month, the americans were on their way to doing so. considering all of the changes and modifications that evolved during that production, the u.s. did very well. anyway...
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
LeeW
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 26, 2006
Posts: 61

PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 12:35 pm
Post subject: Re: The Sherman Tank, The Good, The Bad, and The Distorted Facts

Another thought is that designing a tank to be the best one on one is not necessarily the best way to design the tank that is best for the army. More armor means a lot more weight at that time and more resouces. While haveing a vehicle with the armor and weapons of a Sherman may have cost the US tankers more casualties (even that is not necessarily true) it probably saved US lives overall. The numbers of tanks that could be manufactured, transported, crewed, and supported meant that when the US needed a tank not only could one usually be found but there was a good chance that several could. This meant a lot of support for the infantry and it mde it easier to mass for breakouts and sustain said breakouts. I maintain that from the US Armies point of view there probably was no better tank that fought in WWII. Now a Sherman with a 90mm gun in 44 would have been better but that's a definite what if. Another thing about armor as I recall someone posted on the old board (or perhaps it was tank net) that the main complaint of US tankers wasn't the armor it was not having a big enough gun.
Back to top
View user's profile
Skeet
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: May 15, 2006
Posts: 18

PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 6:06 pm
Post subject: Re: The Sherman Tank, The Good, The Bad, and The Distorted Facts

Bob Smart wrote:

"They used...American AP that had the explosive filler removed (I assume they were delivered with the cavity empty and that they did notactually remove the explosive charge that the Americans designed the rounds for). "

Many years ago a WWII/Sherman vet told me they were really happy when their 75 mm Shermans were replaced with 3" navy gunned Shermans (his choice of words). I presume what he called 3" navy guns were the 76 mm gun.

He said they liked them because you could add "gunpowder" to the shell. I never fully understood what he meant by that, but his words stayed with me. After reading Bob Smart's comment, I'd guess they were talking about the same thing.

Comments?
Back to top
View user's profile
bsmart
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 2523
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 6:49 pm
Post subject: Re: The Sherman Tank, The Good, The Bad, and The Distorted Facts

- Skeet
Bob Smart wrote:

"They used...American AP that had the explosive filler removed (I assume they were delivered with the cavity empty and that they did notactually remove the explosive charge that the Americans designed the rounds for). "

Many years ago a WWII/Sherman vet told me they were really happy when their 75 mm Shermans were replaced with 3" navy gunned Shermans (his choice of words). I presume what he called 3" navy guns were the 76 mm gun.

He said they liked them because you could add "gunpowder" to the shell. I never fully understood what he meant by that, but his words stayed with me. After reading Bob Smart's comment, I'd guess they were talking about the same thing.

Comments?


Was this an American, British, or other Vet?

The Americans had an explosive filler in some of their AP rounds, other ones were solid. As I understand it once the APHE became standard the British did not want the filler in the round.

I don't know of any 76mm gun Shermans being issued to British units (Like the GAA engined M4A3 the U.S. tended to keep the 76mm Shermans for themselves, but 76mm gunned M4A2s were sent to the Soviets)

We had a discussion on the old board about the 'navy 3" gun'. I think this is one of those cases where word of mouth got it wrong but it became perpetuated and won't die. The M10 was equiped with an Army 3" (started life as an AA gun). I beleive the 76mm in the Sherman and the 3" used the same round. There were differences in the gun itself though.

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

Offline Offline
Joined: May 15, 2006
Posts: 18

PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 7:22 pm
Post subject: Re: The Sherman Tank, The Good, The Bad, and The Distorted Facts

This was a U.S. Army vet. I suspect that the grunts on the ground use words that weren't exactly true, but served their purposes.

This same vet used to talk about the German 88's. A lot of what he spoke about seemed to indicate they could have been 88's. But a lot of what he said made me wonder how (why?) the German's could be using 88's like that, i.e. indirect fire into camps/parks on reverse slopes. I posted that question a while back, and the consenus was that lot's of WWII vets from the ETO referred to all German artillery as 88's.
Back to top
View user's profile
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page    Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board
Page 2 of 4
All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  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