M3 Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles

[Zaskar24]

Thank you for posting the picture Logan as well as the information on the books.  Anything like that will have to wait until the Christmas bills are paid though.     I will be adding them to my Amazon wishlist so that I can buy them in the future.

I wonder how much adding the T26 turret effected the mobility of the Sherman as well as it's combat range?  I would guess that the tow turrets had a weight discrepancy of quite a bit.

[dy031101]

Found this on Wikipedia...... an infantry/assault tank version of the Sherman.

Whereas the M6 looks like a heavy tank by any standard, the T14 seems to my untrained eyes be in the same class as the M26 (I'm not saying it's on par with the Pershing in all aspects though) right off the drawing board and out of the factory.

Based on a vehicle that can take the turret of the M26, I'd expect the T14 to at least be able to do the same...... but would its upgunning potential remain the same as with the Sherman?

[Rick Lowe]

It's probably already been covered, but IIRC wasn't the 17-pdr quite inaccurate at ranges over about 800 metres?

One reason they went to the 20-pdr after the war.

Rick

[rickshaw]

It's probably already been covered, but IIRC wasn't the 17-pdr quite inaccurate at ranges over about 800 metres?

One reason they went to the 20-pdr after the war.

Rick

The 17 Pdr wasn't inaccurate.  Its ammunition was.  In particular its APDS round.  Something which was inherent in APDS and which wasn't really cured until APFSDS was developed.   That is why for long range engagements in the 1950s and 1960s, HESH and HEAT were preferred.   Even the 20 Pdr with APDS had dispersion problems over 1,000 metres, BTW.

[NARSES2]

It's probably already been covered, but IIRC wasn't the 17-pdr quite inaccurate at ranges over about 800 metres?

One reason they went to the 20-pdr after the war.

Rick

The 17 Pdr wasn't inaccurate.  Its ammunition was.  In particular its APDS round.  Something which was inherent in APDS and which wasn't really cured until APFSDS was developed.   That is why for long range engagements in the 1950s and 1960s, HESH and HEAT were preferred.   Even the 20 Pdr with APDS had dispersion problems over 1,000 metres, BTW.

Never knew that. I do wonder what average engagement ranges were in Europe compared to the Eastern Front, and if indeed they were that much different. Once out of the Bocage I've not read anything that really talks about this from an Allied perspective. Just something that would be interesting to know.

Chris

[Rick Lowe]

Quote:
(The 17 Pdr wasn't inaccurate.  Its ammunition was.  In particular its APDS round.  Something which was inherent in APDS and which wasn't really cured until APFSDS was developed.   That is why for long range engagements in the 1950s and 1960s, HESH and HEAT were preferred.   Even the 20 Pdr with APDS had dispersion problems over 1,000 metres, BTW.)

OK, I didn't realise that. All adds to the pool of information. 

Rick

[dy031101]

Now I am thinking...... is the Pershing tank turret better-protected and/or roomier than the T23 turret used by many upgunned Shermans?

Just wondering how competitive would a M4 (with or without the "Jumbo" or other hull up-armouring package) or T14 equipped with a logistically-sound engine (one of those used by the more-modern tanks in the inventory, especially when we go into the '60s and beyond), HVSS suspension, Pershing turret, and M51's 105mm gun have been......  

[rickshaw]

It's probably already been covered, but IIRC wasn't the 17-pdr quite inaccurate at ranges over about 800 metres?

One reason they went to the 20-pdr after the war.

Rick

The 17 Pdr wasn't inaccurate.  Its ammunition was.  In particular its APDS round.  Something which was inherent in APDS and which wasn't really cured until APFSDS was developed.   That is why for long range engagements in the 1950s and 1960s, HESH and HEAT were preferred.   Even the 20 Pdr with APDS had dispersion problems over 1,000 metres, BTW.

Never knew that. I do wonder what average engagement ranges were in Europe compared to the Eastern Front, and if indeed they were that much different. Once out of the Bocage I've not read anything that really talks about this from an Allied perspective. Just something that would be interesting to know.

Chris

I've only read of engagement range analyse done by NATO on the North German Plain and then only from about the late 1960s onwards.   ASIUI, post-war development was considerable in Northern Europe so I'd be loath to base any conclusions on those NATO conclusions.  Even so, its unlikely that you'd have seen any ranges longer than about 3,000 metres for most engagements I suspect.

BTW, the 20 Pdr's APDS was quite deadly in well trained hands as the Indians showed against the Pakistanis in the "Patton Nagar" battle at Asal Uttar in 1965 where the usual procedure was to acquire the target, fire one APDS round set to 1500 metres, drop 500, fire another and then drop another 500 and fire the third.  If you were lined up and the target was under 1500 metres you were usually guaranteed at least one hit if not two and all were fired in substantially less than a minute.  The dispersion problem didn't really set in until over 1,000 metres and under 1,500 it was still only a few mils.  For the 6 Pdr and the 17 Pdr. APDS was pretty rare until the last few months of the war, so most kills were achieved with AP (actually APCBC).

[NARSES2]

[I've only read of engagement range analyse done by NATO on the North German Plain and then only from about the late 1960s onwards.   ASIUI, post-war development was considerable in Northern Europe so I'd be loath to base any conclusions on those NATO conclusions.  Even so, its unlikely that you'd have seen any ranges longer than about 3,000 metres for most engagements I suspect.

I've got the Osprey British AT Artillery 1939-1945 and although it talks about tactics it dosn't go into engagement ranges apart from the "Snipe" battle where it talks about German and Italian tanks being knocked out at ranges from 100 to 1,200 yards. The 17pdr handbook is quoted which gives a max range of 10,000 yards with an effective range of 4,000 yards, although most engagements were at considerably shorter ranges.

Have to dig around a bit. I've got a fair few memoir type books so I'll dig around.

[Rick Lowe]

... I always liked the MkIV with 17-pdr, but the MkIII has to be pretty cool, also - TWIN 25-pdrs, which were fired together to see whether the tank could stand up to the 17-pdr firing... as the twin 25s had more trunnion pull and recoil, it was assumed it could... 
\
Rick

[nev]

Now I am thinking...... is the Pershing tank turret better-protected and/or roomier than the T23 turret used by many upgunned Shermans?

Just wondering how competitive would a M4 (with or without the "Jumbo" or other hull up-armouring package) or T14 equipped with a logistically-sound engine (one of those used by the more-modern tanks in the inventory, especially when we go into the '60s and beyond), HVSS suspension, Pershing turret, and M51's 105mm gun have been...... 

Based upon what Zaloga says in his books, the "wet" stowage made a massive difference.  Armour was still paper thin but the chance of a fire was reduced ~75%.  Couple that with the 76mm gun and the Tungsten Core round and they could take out Panthers and Tigers (frontally) at 500m*  The big problem with the TC round was its rarity - only 1 or 2 rounds per tank.

*That seems to be Zaloga's yardstick for combat ranges on the western front, where the amount of cover and unit density was much higher than in the east.

[Rick Lowe]

Yeah, I understand it was reserved for the Tank Destroyers rather than the 'common' Tank units - even though they were the ones who saw more tank vs. tank action...

Cheers

Rick

[dy031101]

Based upon what Zaloga says in his books, the "wet" stowage made a massive difference.  Armour was still paper thin but the chance of a fire was reduced ~75%.

Okay...... still, is the Pershing turret tougher and/or roomier than the T23 turret?

[raafif]

Whif found while stamp collecting ....

Issued by Monaco in 1955 celebrating Jules Verne.
Is that a cast-hull Sherman SP on the right ?
Circus / potential War Machine on left.

[dy031101]

This webpage claims that Australia had an unrealized (due to the surrender of Japan) plan to mount a Sentinel Mk.3 (Thunderbolt?) turret onto their M3 Medium......

Does anyone know if the 25-pounder was to replace the turreted 37mm gun or the hull-mounted 75mm?