M3 Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles

[dy031101]

I didn't find anything on the T10 superheavy but did find expeimental tanks that would eventually become M26 started with VVSS and then HVSS......

Guess the DIY tank would be rather similar to the T22 experimental tank except that the engine and sprockets would be mounted forward......

If I'm aiming for late 1944 to mid 1945 for the backstory's timeframe, would it still be M3/early-M4 suspension units for me to start with?

[jcf]

Saur, is correct there was a US Super-heavy that did use a total of sixteen M4 medium-type HVSS units, however, it was the T28 aka the T95 105mm Gun Motor Carriage.

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/heavytanks/HeavyTanks.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank

[Sauragnmon]

My bad, must have had a wire crossed somewhere - T-10 was a Russian Heavy, the T-28 is the one I was meaning.  Thanks for the correction JCF.

[dy031101]

Does anyone know the composition of M4 Sherman fleet of the ROCA?

Photos of Chinese Shermans tend to depict those equipped with the 75mm gun.  I wonder if the ROCA also received the 76mm-gun-armed variants as well......

Other than the Shermans, the various medium tank prototypes meant as a replacement for the Shermans, and M18 Hellcat, had there been another vehicle designed to use the 76mm gun M1 (preferably lightly-armoured but with enclosed turret)?

[Zaskar24]

Scanning through this thread I saw at least one mention of what I was thinking of gun wise at least.  What does everyone think of a Jumbo with an the gun upgraded to the British 77mm HV, HVSS for the wider track, and to top it all off a more powerful diesel engine.  Add either a calliope and a hedge-cutter or bulldozer blade and you have one heck of hole opener/tank buster. 

That is if the 77mm HV would fit the Sherman's turret.  Which it should with a little less work then the 17 pdr I would think.  Or would a Comet's turret fit a Sherman's hull without major modifications?

Just a couple of thoughts.

[Joe C-P]

With all the models of obscure German tanks, one would hope someone makes a model of the badass US T28?
I wonder what that big gun would have done to (overhyped) Nazi panzers?

[dy031101]

I wonder what that big gun would have done to (overhyped) Nazi panzers?

But I've always thought that a 90mm-gun-armed T23 or T25 is more than enough to kick all their a*ses......  

Or T29 (105mm-gun-armed) or T34 (120mm-gun-armed) heavy tank...... but those two had even less in common with the Lee/Grant/Sherman than T28......

[rickshaw]

With all the models of obscure German tanks, one would hope someone makes a model of the badass US T28?
I wonder what that big gun would have done to (overhyped) Nazi panzers?

The T28 was not designed to destroy tanks.  It was designed to achieve breakthroughs through heavily defended linear defences (ie the Siegfried Line, et al).  As a consequence it was slow moving and lacked traverse except in a very narrow cone.  Basically you pointed the vehicle in the general direction of the target and advanced.

One of the problems all the larger calibre US guns suffered from was "shatter".  Their shells were prone to shatter when they hit high-hardness (ie invariably German) armour.   There were numerous cases of this occuring but it wasn't until Loren Bird published his exacting study of armour penetrations in the late 1990s that it was identified.

[Jschmus]

Heavy tanks not related to the M3/M4 family?  I have been waiting a couple of weeks for an opening for posting these:

The T29, with the high-velocity 105mm T5 gun:


And the T30, with the 155mm T7:


The things one finds when combing through Wikipedia in the wee hours.

[dy031101]

Existence is enough of a reason to post and/or open a dedicated thread I think.  

Updating a previous question of mine- it would appear that the ROCA during WWII only loaned the M4A4s [they were only regunned into Fireflies, so no (76)W version of it] for their Burma expedition, returning the tanks when the expedition was over.  The majority of US-made tanks actually in formal service with the WWII ROCA were the M3 light tanks.

It was claimed that the ROCA did receive 35 M4 Sherman tanks after 1947...... those would be the ones I'm interested in since I couldn't find what variant(s) they belong to.

[philp]

Try this.
http://www.china-defense.com/armor/bf_pla_armor/bf_pla_armor-3.html

[dy031101]

Try this.
http://www.china-defense.com/armor/bf_pla_armor/bf_pla_armor-3.html

While I didn't get much out of it, I increasingly come under the impression that all 76mm gun M1 within the ROCA came from M18 tank destroyers......

[Logan Hartke]

Scanning through this thread I saw at least one mention of what I was thinking of gun wise at least.  What does everyone think of a Jumbo with an the gun upgraded to the British 77mm HV, HVSS for the wider track, and to top it all off a more powerful diesel engine.  Add either a calliope and a hedge-cutter or bulldozer blade and you have one heck of hole opener/tank buster. 

That is if the 77mm HV would fit the Sherman's turret.  Which it should with a little less work then the 17 pdr I would think.  Or would a Comet's turret fit a Sherman's hull without major modifications?

Just a couple of thoughts.

The Comet's turret ring was 64" while the Sherman was 69".  They should be able to put a Comet turret on the Sherman's hull, but you'd need to weld a sleeve to it.  I don't see much point in it, though.  You can put a 17pdr in a T20-series turret.  Why not take the better gun?

In fact, the best option (in my opinion) and a more proven one would be an M4A3 Jumbo HVSS with an M26 Pershing turret.  They tested the M4A3 with the Pershing turret and they made HVSS Jumbos late in the war, so it is easily done.  Have a small number of assault guns per battalion with M2 dozer blade and a combination 105mm & flamethrower turret on the same hull (sans bow MG) and you'd have everything you need.

Cheers,

Logan

[Zaskar24]

Logan,
     You are correct that the Sherman family could provide everything needed for an assault group.  Though I was unaware that the Pershing's turret had been test fitted to a Sherman at all.  I do not suppose that anyone has pictures of this do they?  How much does the 77m HV lose performance wise over the 17pdr since all it was is a modification of later made to allow ease of ammo handling in a smaller turret?  Different breech, case, and a shorter barrel with the same 76.2mm round.

My original thought with the Comet turret on the Sherman hull was a field expedient to get at least on operable tank into service from two heavily damaged tanks.  Kind of like a, oh what is the word for it?  There is a site that is dedicated to building them but for the world I cannot remember what it is.   

[Logan Hartke]

How much does the 77m HV lose performance wise over the 17pdr since all it was is a modification of later made to allow ease of ammo handling in a smaller turret?  Different breech, case, and a shorter barrel with the same 76.2mm round.

It wasn't a great deal of performance, but powder is powder.  The penetration charts aren't that hard to find.

You are correct that the Sherman family could provide everything needed for an assault group.  Though I was unaware that the Pershing's turret had been test fitted to a Sherman at all.  I do not suppose that anyone has pictures of this do they?

I've attached a scan of the image to this post.  It comes from Zaloga's latest book on the Sherman.  I'd say it's the second-best book on the Sherman, second only to Hunnicutt's and it's a lot cheaper, a lot easier to read, and far handier, too.  Get it.  Seriously.  Buy it.

Value-wise it is THE best book on the Sherman in existence.

Armored Thunderbolt by Steve Zaloga

Cheers,

Logan