M10, M36 tank destroyers: why open-topped turrets?

[Doug]

Did the larger cannons add so much weight to the M4A2 chassis that an
open-top was the only option?

On another note, why didn't they try shoe-horning larger cannon into the
Sherman? The Israelis did it (fitting a 105 mm AT gun, the Super-Sherman
presumably).

[mike]

Post by Doug
Did the larger cannons add so much weight to the M4A2 chassis that an
open-top was the only option?

It wasn't weight, as they had to add counterweights as it was,
nearly two tons, with the UK version even more.
Cited reasons for open top was to increase visability, and more room
for the crew.

Not worth the tradeoffs, and there were retrofit tops made for the M36
late in the war.

Post by Doug
On another note, why didn't they try shoe-horning larger cannon into the
Sherman? The Israelis did it (fitting a 105 mm AT gun, the Super-Sherman
presumably).

The postwar French 75 was pretty much the Kwk 42 L70 gun,
and was fitted to the original small turret of the M4A1 that had the
M3 75mm. The 105 was larger, and was fitted to the later 76mm
armed T23 turret-- the M51 ISherman

The major mod was to weld an armored box where the old mantlet
was, to allow the gun to be moved forward, for the increased recoil
stroke. As with the M10, heavy counterweight was needed to
balance the turret

The 17 pounder weighed similar to the M7 3" gun, while the
M3 90mm weighed about 500 pounds more.

One major reason for not upgunning the Sherman was doctrine.
Was normal for the M4 to do combined ops with close infantry,
even had a phone at the back of the hull so the grunts could
talk to the buttoned up TC.

Large tank killing guns with big muzzlebrakes could kill
your nearby troops from the blast. the 75&76mm
would bust eardrums and make them check their shorts,
but they would live to tell the tale. That, and HiVel guns
didn't normally do a good job of firing HE.

Now this doesn't mean that the US right and UK wrong in
having a few HQ tanks set as tankhunters. Just as Firefly
was made with the 17 pdr, the 90mm could have been
done easily to the T23 turret, or using the T26 Pershing
turret complete. They shared the same turret ring, all US
Mediums did.
So you had oddballs like Hellcats with M36 turrets, or
M4 hybrids back in the States. But none in combat.

It was possible, but not able to get past Army Doctrine and
personalities.

**
mike
**

[Duwop]

Post by mike
It was possible, but not able to get past Army Doctrine and
personalities.
**
mike
**

Uh-oh. another despicable National Failure(r) .

[Andrew Clark]

Post by mike
Now this doesn't mean that the US right and UK wrong in
having a few HQ tanks set as tankhunters.

The Firefly variant of the M4 was more than a few HQ tanks - it eventually
constituted about 20% of the British M4 fleet in operational service, being
trooped on a 1:3 basis in armoured regiments.

The 17-pdr was also fitted to the Churchill chassis in lesser numbers to
provide tank regiments (using the Churchill) with some AT capability.

[David Thornley]

Post by Andrew Clark
The Firefly variant of the M4 was more than a few HQ tanks - it eventually
constituted about 20% of the British M4 fleet in operational service, being
trooped on a 1:3 basis in armoured regiments.

Apparently the Fireflies were used in Cromwell regiments as well,
which must have been less desirable. The Germans liked to kill the
Fireflies first, and they'd stand out more among Cromwells.

Post by Andrew Clark
The 17-pdr was also fitted to the Churchill chassis in lesser numbers to
provide tank regiments (using the Churchill) with some AT capability.

How did they do that? I haven't seen any references to Churchills with
17pdrs before.


--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
***@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-

[Tero P. Mustalahti]

Post by David Thornley

Post by Andrew Clark
The 17-pdr was also fitted to the Churchill chassis in lesser numbers to
provide tank regiments (using the Churchill) with some AT capability.

How did they do that? I haven't seen any references to Churchills with
17pdrs before.

I think he meant "Cromwell chassis". That tank was the original
"Challenger" (A30). Some nice pictures here:

http://www.tanxheaven.com/a30challenger/a30challenger.htm

As one can see, the chassis was not exactly the same as Cromwell's. In
general the Challenger was considered a failure, since the turret proved
to be less than satisfactory. So the British ended up putting Fireflies
in Cromwell regiments as well.

There was a 17-pdr Churchill development, the A43 "Black Prince". It was
not put into production since the war was almost over by the time it was
ready and the much superior Centurion was also in pre-production.

The Black Prince was probably one of the slowest tanks designed in WW2;
maximum road speed was only 11 mph. Even the older Churchill models were
fast compared to that!

Black Prince photos:

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/7413/a43blackprince.html


Tero P. Mustalahti

[Walt]

If someone else said this, I missed it.

The reason for open top turrets on the M-36 and M-10 was so that the
gun could get maximum depression in a hull down position.

Imagine the vehicle rolled up to the optimum hull down firing
position. The front hull plate is going to be as close to parallel
with the ground as possible. And the main gun is going to be at full
depression looking out across the field of fire. When the gun fires,
the recoil is going to throw the breach of the gun beyond the coaming
of the open turret. A closed turret, therefore, would have to have a
higher silhouette.

This is a case when a picture would definitely be worth a 1,000 words.

Walt

[mike]

Post by Walt
If someone else said this, I missed it.
The reason for open top turrets on the M-36 and M-10 was so that the
gun could get maximum depression in a hull down position.

No, wasn't this, the M4A1 had its 75mm elevation range from +25 to
-12 Degrees, while the M36 was +25 to -10 and M10 was +30 to
-10. Achilles was worse, only +20 to -5

On the other side the Panzer MkIV was +20 to -10

Even the Soviet stuff, notorious for lacking depression, was
-3 to +29 in the early T34

**
mike
**

[Walt]

Post by mike

Post by Walt
If someone else said this, I missed it.
The reason for open top turrets on the M-36 and M-10 was so that the
gun could get maximum depression in a hull down position.

No, wasn't this, the M4A1 had its 75mm elevation range from +25 to
-12 Degrees, while the M36 was +25 to -10 and M10 was +30 to
-10. Achilles was worse, only +20 to -5
On the other side the Panzer MkIV was +20 to -10
Even the Soviet stuff, notorious for lacking depression, was
-3 to +29 in the early T34
**
mike
**

The point I made was that the recoil of the breach would go beyond the
top of the turret coaming on M-36 or M-10. If the turret were closed,
it would had to have a higher top or "ceiling".

Why do you think the turret was open? So the crew would be sure to
get rained on? To ruin the ammo or electronics?



Walt

[Walt]

Post by mike
No, wasn't this, the M4A1 had its 75mm elevation range from +25 to
-12 Degrees, while the M36 was +25 to -10 and M10 was +30 to
-10. Achilles was worse, only +20 to -5

The point I was trying to make was that to have a top on the turret of
M-36/M-10, it would have to be very high to allow the gun full recoil.
Take off the top, and you have no problem. As designed, at full
depression, the gun recoils above the top of the coamng of the turret.

Looked at another way, you might could slice a good 12 inches off the
top of a Sherman - to lower the height, and still allow for full
recoil.

I don't think anyone in the thread but me has actually spoken to -
answered the question posed by the OP - Why were the turrets open on
these vehicles?

Walt

[D***@comcast.net]

Post by mike

Post by Walt
If someone else said this, I missed it.
The reason for open top turrets on the M-36 and M-10 was so that the
gun could get maximum depression in a hull down position.

No, wasn't this, the M4A1 had its 75mm elevation range from +25 to
-12 Degrees, while the M36 was +25 to -10 and M10 was +30 to
-10. Achilles was worse, only +20 to -5

I think Walt missed Mike's point. Although the M10/M36 had two degrees
less depression than the M4, the only way the TD depressed as far as
it did was to open the top and allow for the longer recoil.

David Wilma
www.HistoryLink.org the online encyclopedia of Washington State HIstory

[mike]

Post by D***@comcast.net
I think Walt missed Mike's point. Although the M10/M36 had two degrees
less depression than the M4, the only way the TD depressed as far as
it did was to open the top and allow for the longer recoil.

But the weapon with the longest recoil, the 17pdr in the Achilles,
had the least depression in its elevation -5 to +20

Post by D***@comcast.net
From what I recall from a TD book(somewhere I've packed away)

the main reason was better visibility for the TC, and more room for
the loader, not weight(since the M10 had thousands of pounds worth
of dead counterweight, that might as well been 1/4" of toparmor[1],
or the elevation, after all the T26 Pershing had -10 to +20 with the
same gun as the M36.

a -10 depression with even the 90mm's recoil stroke, won't get
the breechblock anywhere near the top, and bulging the roof
in that spot, if needed, makes more sense the removing all the roof

I've read nothing that the Achilles was less effective in combat
in having to crest a ridgeline due to that -5 depression difference
betwixt that and its close cousin, the M10

The big faults laid at the M10 was slow manual turret traverse,
and an overly heavy for its power, 3" gun, and that open top.
Since they were being phased out after 1944, they never got
the 1945 field roof modification the M36 had.
Loading Image...

[1]as Steel is around 40lbs per Sq. Foot for an Inch thick,
a roof would have only added a couple hundred pounds

**
mike
**

[Doug]

Thanks Mike et. al. The other question I had was W.R.T. the counterweight.
What would've happened had it been removed? Was it just dead weight (I'm
imagine they could put something useful there [batteries, radio equipment,
ammo])?

How did these tank destroyerss (M36 and M10) stack up against the Tigers
(armor, main gun velocity, armor penetration capability at range etc.)?

Post by mike

Post by D***@comcast.net
I think Walt missed Mike's point. Although the M10/M36 had two degrees
less depression than the M4, the only way the TD depressed as far as
it did was to open the top and allow for the longer recoil.

But the weapon with the longest recoil, the 17pdr in the Achilles,
had the least depression in its elevation -5 to +20

Post by D***@comcast.net
From what I recall from a TD book(somewhere I've packed away)

the main reason was better visibility for the TC, and more room for
the loader, not weight(since the M10 had thousands of pounds worth
of dead counterweight, that might as well been 1/4" of toparmor[1],
or the elevation, after all the T26 Pershing had -10 to +20 with the
same gun as the M36.
a -10 depression with even the 90mm's recoil stroke, won't get
the breechblock anywhere near the top, and bulging the roof
in that spot, if needed, makes more sense the removing all the roof
I've read nothing that the Achilles was less effective in combat
in having to crest a ridgeline due to that -5 depression difference
betwixt that and its close cousin, the M10
The big faults laid at the M10 was slow manual turret traverse,
and an overly heavy for its power, 3" gun, and that open top.
Since they were being phased out after 1944, they never got
the 1945 field roof modification the M36 had.
http://www.usmilitarymuseum.org/Newsletter/0206/jack13.JPG
[1]as Steel is around 40lbs per Sq. Foot for an Inch thick,
a roof would have only added a couple hundred pounds
**
mike
**

[Bruce Burden]

Doug <barronbranek-***@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
: Thanks Mike et. al. The other question I had was W.R.T. the counterweight.
: What would've happened had it been removed? Was it just dead weight (I'm
: imagine they could put something useful there [batteries, radio equipment,
: ammo])?
:
The counter weights were used to balance the weight of
the gun. As somebody already mentioned, the turrets were not
powered, but were manual traverse. With the initial unbalanced
turrets, it was very difficult to traverse if the vehicle were
on a slope, or something other than level ground.

Yes, it was dead weight. Around 3600 pounds worth.

Bruce

[mike]

Post by Doug
Thanks Mike et. al. The other question I had was W.R.T. the counterweight.
What would've happened had it been removed? Was it just dead weight (I'm
imagine they could put something useful there [batteries, radio equipment,
ammo])?

Big Cast Iron chunks. Later M10 weights were shaped so the crew got
some storage space for personal gear with hinged doors.

The M36 had better designed turret, with the counterweight as a
integral rear bustle, that was the ready ammo rack

Both had one Machine Gun in AA mount at the rear(again, every
bit of weight to the rear, help the poor balance. no Coax or
Hull gun like the M4, limiting use against infantry.

Post by Doug
How did these tank destroyerss (M36 and M10) stack up against the Tigers
(armor, main gun velocity, armor penetration capability at range etc.)?

_Seek, Strike, and Destroy: U.S. Army Tank Destroyer Doctrine in
World War II_
credits a M36 (IIRC from the 776th TD)with a Panther kill at
3200 Yards, and other sources mention the accuracy of the
M3 90mm in pillbox reduction, able to fire thru the slits at range.
Generally, the M3 90mm and the KwK 36 were fairly equal in
performance.
Armor wise, the less said the better.

The M7 3" Gun was a couple hundred pounds lighter than the M3
90mm, but is performance wasn't all that great, the 76mm was made
to duplicate its performance, but lighter for M4 tanks

for the M10 at Anzio, read this period piece thats online
http://www.lonesentry.com/brassingoff/index.html

Only Slugger crews felt anywhere comfortable about engaging
Tigers before the T26 showed at the end of the War

Tigers had a better suspension system- smoother ride, and a
regenerative gearbox that allowed easy turns, while the M10/M36
shared the M4's Cletrac that was pretty much unchanged from
1920s Bulldozers. M10s were Diesel, while M10A1/M36 were Gas.
All US Tanks were far easier to maintain than the Nazi Armor

**
mike
**

[Doug]

Thanks again Mike, the website: >
http://www.lonesentry.com/brassingoff/index.html
appears to be down (at least today 6-17).

Post by mike

Post by Doug
Thanks Mike et. al. The other question I had was W.R.T. the
counterweight.
What would've happened had it been removed? Was it just dead weight (I'm
imagine they could put something useful there [batteries, radio equipment,
ammo])?

Big Cast Iron chunks. Later M10 weights were shaped so the crew got
some storage space for personal gear with hinged doors.
The M36 had better designed turret, with the counterweight as a
integral rear bustle, that was the ready ammo rack
Both had one Machine Gun in AA mount at the rear(again, every
bit of weight to the rear, help the poor balance. no Coax or
Hull gun like the M4, limiting use against infantry.

Post by Doug
How did these tank destroyerss (M36 and M10) stack up against the Tigers
(armor, main gun velocity, armor penetration capability at range etc.)?

_Seek, Strike, and Destroy: U.S. Army Tank Destroyer Doctrine in
World War II_
credits a M36 (IIRC from the 776th TD)with a Panther kill at
3200 Yards, and other sources mention the accuracy of the
M3 90mm in pillbox reduction, able to fire thru the slits at range.
Generally, the M3 90mm and the KwK 36 were fairly equal in
performance.
Armor wise, the less said the better.
The M7 3" Gun was a couple hundred pounds lighter than the M3
90mm, but is performance wasn't all that great, the 76mm was made
to duplicate its performance, but lighter for M4 tanks
for the M10 at Anzio, read this period piece thats online
http://www.lonesentry.com/brassingoff/index.html
Only Slugger crews felt anywhere comfortable about engaging
Tigers before the T26 showed at the end of the War
Tigers had a better suspension system- smoother ride, and a
regenerative gearbox that allowed easy turns, while the M10/M36
shared the M4's Cletrac that was pretty much unchanged from
1920s Bulldozers. M10s were Diesel, while M10A1/M36 were Gas.
All US Tanks were far easier to maintain than the Nazi Armor
**
mike
**

[mike]

Thanks again Mike, the website: >http://www.lonesentry.com/brassingoff/index.html
appears to be down (at least today 6-17).

Didn't have problems earlier.
try archive.org That site has a lot of good period reports
and histories online

**
mike
**

[Walt]

Post by mike
Tigers had a better suspension system- smoother ride, and a
regenerative gearbox that allowed easy turns, while the M10/M36
shared the M4's Cletrac that was pretty much unchanged from
1920s Bulldozers. M10s were Diesel, while M10A1/M36 were Gas.
All US Tanks were far easier to maintain than the Nazi Armor
**
mike
**

Tigers did not have a good suspension system. Failure of an inner
wheel required the removal of at least 2 others. You don't see that
type suspension in use now, do you? But torsion bar suspension, used
by M18, M-24, M-26 -is- still in use.

And US tanks from M-5 on up (That is to say larger) had hydramatic
automatic transmissions, although every US tank might not have had
them.

Walt

[james]

Post by Walt

Post by mike
Tigers had a better suspension system- smoother ride, and a
regenerative gearbox that allowed easy turns, while the M10/M36
shared the M4's Cletrac that was pretty much unchanged from
1920s Bulldozers. M10s were Diesel, while M10A1/M36 were Gas.
All US Tanks were far easier to maintain than the Nazi Armor
**
mike
**

Tigers did not have a good suspension system. Failure of an inner
wheel required the removal of at least 2 others. You don't see that
type suspension in use now, do you? But torsion bar suspension, used
by M18, M-24, M-26 -is- still in use.
And US tanks from M-5 on up (That is to say larger) had hydramatic
automatic transmissions, although every US tank might not have had
them.
Walt

Saw an episode of Battlefield Detectives on the Battle of the Bulge,
and they discussed how the Tiger's suspension, weight and fuel
consumption were very unsuited to a trip through the Ardennes,
especially since some of the routes crossed hills instead of following
valleys. The implication was that a lighter tank would not have had so
many issues.

James

[mike]

Post by james
Saw an episode of Battlefield Detectives on the Battle of the Bulge,
and they discussed how the Tiger's suspension, weight and fuel
consumption were very unsuited to a trip through the Ardennes,
especially since some of the routes crossed hills instead of following
valleys. The implication was that a lighter tank would not have had so
many issues.

Tiger II wasn't really needed for that operation, as any Tiger I or
Panther could already deal with any US armor at 3000m(save the
rare M4 Jumbo).

But any of the 'Big Cats' had a good percentage of dropouts
from a regular Road travel, before a single Allied round was shot at
them.
Mechanical breakdowns was a real issue, with the Panther being the
worst

IIRC, a Tiger got 2 gallons per mile while the Pershing got 2.5
Gallons per mile
on the road. Both had issues with lightly built bridges

But a better idea of endurance is Gallons per Hour used while the
engine is
turning over, as idling wastes much gas

**
mike
**

[Bruce Burden]

james <***@idirect.com> wrote:
:
: Saw an episode of Battlefield Detectives on the Battle of the Bulge,
: and they discussed how the Tiger's suspension, weight and fuel
: consumption were very unsuited to a trip through the Ardennes,
: especially since some of the routes crossed hills instead of following
: valleys.
:
The Sherman was much preferred in Korea over the Pershing
(T-26) for exactly the same reason. Same engine, 10 additional
tons to move.

The M-26A1 attempted to rectify the HP deficit, but it was
too little, too late.

Bruce

[Doug]

Wouldn't a Sherman be meat for the T-34's the N.K.'s were using? T-34's were
as fast, at least as well armed and had better armor.

Post by Bruce Burden
: Saw an episode of Battlefield Detectives on the Battle of the Bulge,
: and they discussed how the Tiger's suspension, weight and fuel
: consumption were very unsuited to a trip through the Ardennes,
: especially since some of the routes crossed hills instead of following
: valleys.
The Sherman was much preferred in Korea over the Pershing
(T-26) for exactly the same reason. Same engine, 10 additional
tons to move.
The M-26A1 attempted to rectify the HP deficit, but it was
too little, too late.
Bruce
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I like bad!" Bruce Burden Austin, TX.
- Thuganlitha
The Power and the Prophet
Robert Don Hughes

[mike]

Post by Doug
Wouldn't a Sherman be meat for the T-34's the N.K.'s were using? T-34's were
as fast, at least as well armed and had better armor.

Other way around, M4A3E8 pretty much did in the T-34. Both were
similar in armor/gun power/manouver, but the Sherman had better
optics, and crews behind them.

Early on, the light Chaffees had troubles.

Just like the updated Sturmoviks the were using,the IL-10,
were just targets to Corsairs and Mustangs. WWII Vets owned them.

**
mike
**

[Doug]

Weren't the NK's using the T34/85's? The M4A3E8 had the same armor as the
Jumbo (M4A3E2) Shermans but a 76mm main gun and wider track width? The 85mm
T34's didn't have superior range or armor penetration?

Post by mike

Post by Doug
Wouldn't a Sherman be meat for the T-34's the N.K.'s were using? T-34's were
as fast, at least as well armed and had better armor.

Other way around, M4A3E8 pretty much did in the T-34. Both were
similar in armor/gun power/manouver, but the Sherman had better
optics, and crews behind them.
Early on, the light Chaffees had troubles.
Just like the updated Sturmoviks the were using,the IL-10,
were just targets to Corsairs and Mustangs. WWII Vets owned them.
**
mike
**

[Walt]

Post by Doug
Weren't the NK's using the T34/85's? The M4A3E8 had the same armor as the
Jumbo (M4A3E2) Shermans but a 76mm main gun and wider track width?

76mm guns were fitted on many of the M4A3E2's in WWII. And the
M4A3E8's used in Korea DID NOT have the same armor as WWII Jumbos
(M4A3E2).

The Jumbos had a special turret with a front mantlet of 7" thickness,
for one thing. Off the top of my head, the turret sides of Jumbo were
4" think and the hull front and sides had applique armor never fitted
on standard M4A3E8's, even in foreign service.


Walt

[Richard Macdonald]

Post by Doug
Wouldn't a Sherman be meat for the T-34's the N.K.'s were using? T-34's
were as fast, at least as well armed and had better armor.

No, the M-4A3E8 that was used in Korea with its 76.2mm gun had
comparable penetration (both could penetrate each other at comparable
ranges) and armor to the T-34/85 along with comparable cross country
performance, better automotive reliability and radios and a better
crew compartment and vision arrangement. Overall, between the two,
crew quality and command and control will be the deciding factors.

[mike]

Post by Richard Macdonald
No, the M-4A3E8 that was used in Korea with its 76.2mm gun had
comparable penetration (both could penetrate each other at comparable
ranges) and armor to the T-34/85 along with comparable cross country
performance, better automotive reliability and radios and a better
crew compartment and vision arrangement. Overall, between the two,
crew quality and command and control will be the deciding factors.

My other post seems to be AWOL, but you covered most of the points.
the S-53 85mm gun had slighly worse AP performance, without HVAP
in the mix, but had a slightly better HE round. The 76mm HE was
notoriously poor. While the Soviet round had nearly the same amount
of filling as the excellent M3 75mm (did start out as the 'French 75'
after all) higher MV and HE just buries the round deepr before
exploding,
and Soviet QC didn't help either

For AP, neither had a frontal 'immunity zone' until past 1500 yards,
where
the soviet optics would be less than helpful.

IIRC, before the '56 War, Optics in the M4 allowed successful sniping
at 4000m against the Syrians, though ranging shots were needed.

Another factoid was the rubber bushed M4 'live' track had a longer
rated life, sometimes thousands of miles- than the engine in the T34,
and Christie based track wore quickly, as well
**
mike
**

[Doug]

Thanks Mike and Walt, I did manage to find a picture of the Easy 8, but not
many specs on it. Did the Easy 8 have the upgraded hull armor the Jumbos
did?

During the Korean conflict/war were T34/85's still used by Soviet forces?
The Soviets obviously had better tanks than the T34/85 by the early 50's.
Were the JS3's the replacement MBT for the soviets?

Post by mike

Post by Richard Macdonald
No, the M-4A3E8 that was used in Korea with its 76.2mm gun had
comparable penetration (both could penetrate each other at comparable
ranges) and armor to the T-34/85 along with comparable cross country
performance, better automotive reliability and radios and a better
crew compartment and vision arrangement. Overall, between the two,
crew quality and command and control will be the deciding factors.

My other post seems to be AWOL, but you covered most of the points.
the S-53 85mm gun had slighly worse AP performance, without HVAP
in the mix, but had a slightly better HE round. The 76mm HE was
notoriously poor. While the Soviet round had nearly the same amount
of filling as the excellent M3 75mm (did start out as the 'French 75'
after all) higher MV and HE just buries the round deepr before
exploding,
and Soviet QC didn't help either
For AP, neither had a frontal 'immunity zone' until past 1500 yards,
where
the soviet optics would be less than helpful.
IIRC, before the '56 War, Optics in the M4 allowed successful sniping
at 4000m against the Syrians, though ranging shots were needed.
Another factoid was the rubber bushed M4 'live' track had a longer
rated life, sometimes thousands of miles- than the engine in the T34,
and Christie based track wore quickly, as well
**
mike
**

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by Doug
During the Korean conflict/war were T34/85's still used by Soviet forces?
The Soviets obviously had better tanks than the T34/85 by the early 50's.

The Soviets continued production
of the T-34/85 until June 1964.

By that time, they were being issued
only to satellite armies and foreign
clients.

But they remained in reserve service
with the Soviets for many more years.

Post by Doug
Were the JS3's the replacement MBT for the soviets?

The successor to the T-34 was the
unsuccessful T-44. A few saw action
in 1945, but it had enough problems
that production was halted in 1949.
The units produced were used in
Hungary in 1956, and in training
until 1963, but never exported.

The next major Soviet tank was the T-54,
which was the T-44 with a lot of fixes.

The JS-3 was the last major Soviet
"heavy" tank. There was a T-10 heavy
tank produced from 1953.

However, by that time the difference
between the 35-ton T-54 and the 49-ton
T-10 in effective armor and gunpower
was not enough to justify the added
weight.

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by Doug
Thanks Mike and Walt, I did manage to find a picture of the Easy 8, but not
many specs on it. Did the Easy 8 have the upgraded hull armor the Jumbos
did?

No- same armor as the earlier M4.

The biggest advantage was the US gear was so modular,
you could mix and match most any part, so E8 suspension could
be added to any Sherman hull, though in practice it was normally to
the 'best' Shermans, the M4A3&T23 turret with wet Ammo storage

Chrysler offered the Army a field kit to make Jumbos from any
Sherman, but Army didn't bite. 3rd Army had a field program
for making Jumbos, Patton forbade the 'rolling junk pile' of erzatz
armor (sandbags, logs,etc) as that overloaded the chassis for little
gain in real protection.

Post by Doug
During the Korean conflict/war were T34/85's still used by Soviet forces?
The Soviets obviously had better tanks than the T34/85 by the early 50's.
Were the JS3's the replacement MBT for the soviets?

They were in backup storage till the USSR fell apart.

T34 was still the main tank exported to Soviet clients, though
in the '60s the T54/T55 was the main export, followed by the T62

JSIII and T-10 had real reliability issues, though on paper were
fearsome,
Egyptians had poor performance from JSIII in the desert conflicts,
and as late as 1973 the Isherman still was effective against the
Soviet exports.

**
mike
**

[mike]

Post by Walt
Tigers did not have a good suspension system. Failure of an inner
wheel required the removal of at least 2 others.

But gave better ride. Interleaved allowed two more axles per side
vs the Pershing, more travel, softer ride, less load per axle. But
mud/snow packing was a drawback.

There is good performance wise, and good maintenance wise.
like on heavier tanks, Horstman type like on the UK tanks
didn't break as often as torsion bar setups, and was faster to replace
if something did go wrong.

Then you had the Volute Spring setup. Light, Durable, but rough
riding, and took up no internal hull space, unlike Christie coil
or torsion bar trailing arm setups.

Drawbacks with each, advantages with each. pick and choose.
many modern MBTs use hydropneumatic suspension, over twice the
travel movement vs torsion bar setups

Post by Walt
And US tanks from M-5 on up (That is to say larger) had hydramatic
automatic transmissions, although every US tank might not have had
them.

One down side was no lockup torque converters, resulting in worse
range than a manual box

**
mike
**

[Walt]

Post by mike

Post by Walt
Tigers did not have a good suspension system. Failure of an inner
wheel required the removal of at least 2 others.

But gave better ride. Interleaved allowed two more axles per side
vs the Pershing, more travel, softer ride, less load per axle. But
mud/snow packing was a drawback.

If interleaved suspension were very good it would still be used.

I'd wonder if better ride could balance increased need for maintenance
and down time. Remember that the crews even in combat were in their
tanks only about 10% of the time.

Walt

[Shawn Wilson]

Post by Doug
How did these tank destroyerss (M36 and M10) stack up against the Tigers
(armor, main gun velocity, armor penetration capability at range etc.)?

I am going to cheat and pull figures from the encyclopedia in the game Steel
Panthers: World at War (available *free* (legit) on the web at various
places), it has an active community with people with some stickleness for
accurate detail-

Tiger I-
Armor* TF 159, TS 87, HF 112, HS 87
Max penetration 162**

M10-
Armor TF 63, TS 25, HF 45, HS 19
Max penetration-142

M36-
Armor TF 84, TS 38, HF 70, HS 19
Max penetration- 185


* Turret Front, Turret Side, Hull Front, Hull Side
** I /think/ the units of all of these are in millimeters, but it is in the
encyclopedia without units.


Basically neither tank destroyer had armor capable of stopping anything
worth stopping. The M10 had a decent tank gun, the M36 an excellent one.
The Tiger was, of course, the epitome of heavy armor and a powerful gun.

No doubt some one will be along shortly to explain how all these figures are
wildly inaccurate and misleading...

[Doug]

That's grim. I read on wikipedia that the Panthers had a special,
high-velocity 75mm cannon that had more armor penetration capabilities than
the 88mm ("The 75mm gun actually had more penetrating power than the 8.8 cm
KwK 36 L/56 gun"). Was the Panther's 75mm cannon ("semi-automatic 7.5 cm
Rheinmetall-Borsig KwK 42 (L/70)") ever fitted to the Panzer IV's or any of
the jagpanters, sturmgeshutz's etc.?

So by these armor stats it looks like Panthers, Tiger I's and Tiger II's all
had a good chance of defeating allied TD's.

Post by Shawn Wilson

Post by Doug
How did these tank destroyerss (M36 and M10) stack up against the Tigers
(armor, main gun velocity, armor penetration capability at range etc.)?

I am going to cheat and pull figures from the encyclopedia in the game
Steel Panthers: World at War (available *free* (legit) on the web at
various places), it has an active community with people with some
stickleness for accurate detail-
Tiger I-
Armor* TF 159, TS 87, HF 112, HS 87
Max penetration 162**
M10-
Armor TF 63, TS 25, HF 45, HS 19
Max penetration-142
M36-
Armor TF 84, TS 38, HF 70, HS 19
Max penetration- 185
* Turret Front, Turret Side, Hull Front, Hull Side
** I /think/ the units of all of these are in millimeters, but it is in
the encyclopedia without units.
Basically neither tank destroyer had armor capable of stopping anything
worth stopping. The M10 had a decent tank gun, the M36 an excellent one.
The Tiger was, of course, the epitome of heavy armor and a powerful gun.
No doubt some one will be along shortly to explain how all these figures
are wildly inaccurate and misleading...

[John Lansford]

Post by Doug
Was the Panther's 75mm cannon ("semi-automatic 7.5 cm
Rheinmetall-Borsig KwK 42 (L/70)") ever fitted to the Panzer IV's or any of
the jagpanters, sturmgeshutz's etc.?

There was a special JgPz IV variant that had the same Panther 75L70
gun instead of the usual 75L48. It caused so much front bogie wheel
wear due to the very long gun barrel they had to install all-steel
wheels instead of the rubber lined ones. The Sturmgeschutz versions
used the 75L48 gun that the PzKw IVH used, as did the JgPz IV & III
versions. The Jagdpanther used the 88L70 that the Tiger II had.

Post by Doug
So by these armor stats it looks like Panthers, Tiger I's and Tiger II's all
had a good chance of defeating allied TD's.

Actually, at the ranges they tended to fight, nearly any medium tank
could knock out the other side's tank, with the possible exception of
a standard Sherman facing a Tiger I or II from the front. The M10
could penetrate the Tiger or Panther's hull, while the German tanks
could penetrate the Allied TD's anywhere.

The Panther had a bad design feature on its front where an AP shot
hitting the lower half of the gun mantlet would deflect straight down
through the thin (1") armor on the top of the hull; even the 57mm AT
shell could knock a Panther out from the front if this hit was
accomplished. An upgrade to the tank was planned that would eliminate
the shot trap, but IIRC it was never deployed.

John Lansford
--
John's Shop of Wood
http://wood.jlansford.net/

[Briarroot]

Post by John Lansford
The Panther had a bad design feature on its front where an AP shot
hitting the lower half of the gun mantlet would deflect straight down
through the thin (1") armor on the top of the hull;

Many WW2 tanks suffered from the same design flaw.

Post by John Lansford
even the 57mm AT
shell could knock a Panther out from the front if this hit was
accomplished.

True, but deliberately engaging a Panther at any useful range and
attempting a shot requiring such a high degree of accuracy was akin to
suicide. The Panther (as with all tanks) also had very thin armor on
its hull floor, and there are stories of Panthers being knocked out by
AP rounds that ricocheted off the ground directly in front of the
vehicle and up into the fighting compartment. Again, not something
any sane Allied tank crew would voluntarily attempt! ;-)

Post by John Lansford
An upgrade to the tank was planned that would eliminate
the shot trap, but IIRC it was never deployed.

Late production Panther G mantlets were forged with a "chin" to
prevent downward deflections and hundreds of these variants did indeed
see service beginning in late 1944.

[Bruce Burden]

Briarroot <***@iwon.com> wrote:
: John Lansford wrote:
:
:> even the 57mm AT
:> shell could knock a Panther out from the front if this hit was
:> accomplished.
:>
: True, but deliberately engaging a Panther at any useful range and
: attempting a shot requiring such a high degree of accuracy was akin to
: suicide. The Panther (as with all tanks) also had very thin armor on
: its hull floor, and there are stories of Panthers being knocked out by
: AP rounds that ricocheted off the ground directly in front of the
: vehicle and up into the fighting compartment. Again, not something
: any sane Allied tank crew would voluntarily attempt! ;-)
:
I believe a veteran of the 636th TD Btn, attached to the 36th
ID said it was VERY common to practice "skipping" rounds into the
floor of the opposing tank.

It may seem suicidal, but if it is your best shot at knocking
out said vehicle, you do it.

Now, obviously this does not work if it has recently rained,
since the round will not skip very well. However, hard, rocky soil
like N. Africa and southern Italy - sure.

Col. Leggett is an interesting fellow - appartently he was
detailed to "fetch" a VIP (Prisoner) after the armistace - one
rather rotound fellow by the name of Goring.

Bruce

[Briarroot]

Post by Bruce Burden
I believe a veteran of the 636th TD Btn, attached to the 36th
ID said it was VERY common to practice "skipping" rounds into the
floor of the opposing tank.
It may seem suicidal, but if it is your best shot at knocking
out said vehicle, you do it.

Interesting. I would have thought such a deflection shot would fall
into the category of "Oh my God, a Panther! Fire!" The sort of thing
a Sherman crew might do in desperation before moving out of the
Panther's line of sight as rapidly as possible. Panthers were
vulnerable from the flanks and rear - but frontally, when one has to
face return fire from that gun? No thanks. I'd want to skedaddle! ;-)

[mike]

Post by John Lansford

Post by Doug
Was the Panther's 75mm cannon ("semi-automatic 7.5 cm
Rheinmetall-Borsig KwK 42 (L/70)") ever fitted to the Panzer IV's or any of
the jagpanters, sturmgeshutz's etc.?

PostWar, the French had the mostly undamaged Factory the
Nazis converted to produce the KwK 42. Slightly modified by
changing to a shorter cartridge case(like with the US 3" vs the
7,62)
armed the AMX-13(a 15t light tank), and was transplanted into
surplus 75mm M4s, as the Israeli M50 SuperSherman

The MkIV had just too small a turret ring to put that original
Kwk 42 into a turret, though there was a test unit using
a fixed, non-recoil mount.
In the same way, the US didn't field M18 Hellcats with M36 turrets,
or M4 with Pershing turrets, even though test mules were made.

<snip>

Post by John Lansford
Actually, at the ranges they tended to fight, nearly any medium tank
could knock out the other side's tank, with the possible exception of
a standard Sherman facing a Tiger I or II from the front. The M10
could penetrate the Tiger or Panther's hull, while the German tanks
could penetrate the Allied TD's anywhere.

even though on paper the M7 3" was theoretically able to do so,
with 4" @1000 yards, in practice crews found it a waste of effort
for frontal penetrations, unless very close. From the side, the
Panther wasn't so mighty, able to he shot up by Stuarts.
**
mike
**

[Walt]

.

Post by John Lansford
Actually, at the ranges they tended to fight, nearly any medium tank
could knock out the other side's tank, with the possible exception of
a standard Sherman facing a Tiger I or II from the front. The M10
could penetrate the Tiger or Panther's hull, while the German tanks
could penetrate the Allied TD's anywhere.

That's not true. Shermans armed with the 75mm gun could not penetrate
Panther front plates at any useful range.

I've got an Osprey book here somewhere that quotes a US tank commander
saying he got -eight- hits on a Panther with the 76mm gun and no
penetrations. The range was from 800 to 300 yards.

There was a special "hot" ammo for the 76mm gun, HVAP, which had a
higher muzzle velocity. That gave a better penetration. It was still
no -guarantee- of penetration, even on the Panther. And that ammo was
not widely available.

The 76.2 mm gun on the Sherman was based on the Navy's "3 inch/50".
You humble narrator was on a gun crew that fired our twin mounted 3
inch/50's from the USS Simon Lake in 1975. Yes, even back then, I knew
it was the same gun as the Shermans used. We fired 8 rounds.

Since someone mentioned "Steel Panthers" I will mention "Combat
Mission Beyond Overlord". That's a good game. Once, though, I had 3
M4s w/76mm guns in a town and a Jadgpanther came around the corner
about 100 yards away. All three Shermans got a couple of hits without
penetration. The Jagdpanther killed them all. And when I ran the
turn again, I could see that every one of those M4's had several
rounds of the HVAP ammo. But the program apparently made them acquire
the target with regular AP before it would fire the hot ammo.

Dang it.



Walt

[Shawn Wilson]

Post by Doug
That's grim. I read on wikipedia that the Panthers had a special,
high-velocity 75mm cannon that had more armor penetration capabilities
than the 88mm ("The 75mm gun actually had more penetrating power than the
8.8 cm KwK 36 L/56 gun").

Yes, 188 for the 75mm on a Panther according to Steel Panthers.

Post by Doug
Was the Panther's 75mm cannon ("semi-automatic 7.5 cm Rheinmetall-Borsig
KwK 42 (L/70)") ever fitted to the Panzer IV's or any of the jagpanters,
sturmgeshutz's etc.?

Of course. It was used by the Jagdpanzer IV. The Jagdpanther used a high
velocity 88 with a penetration of 232

Post by Doug
So by these armor stats it looks like Panthers, Tiger I's and Tiger II's
all had a good chance of defeating allied TD's.

Definitely. The weak armor on American TDs was a major mistake. But mostly
the Allied solution to Tigers, et al, wasn't tanks or TDs, it was either
artillery or fighter-bombers. Heavy anti-tank guns were fairly rare for the
Allies until late in the war. Even then the 90mm on the Pershing and M36
(and the 17 pounder on the Firefly) only had a penetration of 185.

[mike]

Post by Shawn Wilson

Post by Doug
than the 88mm ("The 75mm gun actually had more penetrating power than
8.8 cm KwK 36 L/56 gun").

Yes, 188 for the 75mm on a Panther according to Steel Panthers.

Using the rare Tungsten core Ammo at the muzzle, but regular
APCBC was ***@1000m vs 105mm for the 88mm, and
130mm for the M3 90mm APC, all with plate set at 30 degrees

At 500, M3 HVAP was 221mm, 75mm PzGr40/42 was 174mm and
88mm PzGr 40 was 156mm

**
mike
**

[Doug]

Mike, weren't there two different versions of the 88? I thought the Tiger
2's had a more capable 88 than the Tiger 1's.

I never realized how good the US 90mm was. It was only used in the Pershing
and M36 TD though right?

Were the German SP w/th 128mm(stelbstafahrlafette) and 150mm (Hummel?) very
common? Were they able to pick off allied tanks at extremely long ranges (or
was this impractical)?

Your knowledge is amazing.

Post by mike

Post by Shawn Wilson

Post by Doug
than the 88mm ("The 75mm gun actually had more penetrating power than
8.8 cm KwK 36 L/56 gun").

Yes, 188 for the 75mm on a Panther according to Steel Panthers.

Using the rare Tungsten core Ammo at the muzzle, but regular
130mm for the M3 90mm APC, all with plate set at 30 degrees
At 500, M3 HVAP was 221mm, 75mm PzGr40/42 was 174mm and
88mm PzGr 40 was 156mm
**
mike
**

[David Thornley]

Post by Doug
Mike, weren't there two different versions of the 88? I thought the Tiger
2's had a more capable 88 than the Tiger 1's.

Yup. The Tiger II gun was really good.

Post by Doug
I never realized how good the US 90mm was. It was only used in the Pershing
and M36 TD though right?

That's the only uses I can think of on vehicles. It was originally an
AA gun, the standard US Army field heavy AA gun. It could be used as
an AT gun, much as the German 88mm that wound up on the Tiger, but
as far as I can tell was rarely used in that role.

Using normal shot, the US 90mm and German 88mm were quite comparable.
The British 3.7" counterpart was not good in the AT role, having been
designed more specifically for shooting at aircraft (not a bad idea with
an AA gun). The Italians also had an excellent 90mm gun, which saw
very little service. The best British AT gun was the 17pdr, which
proved difficult to fit onto a vehicle, so the 77mm variant was produced
for the Comet tank.

Post by Doug
Were the German SP w/th 128mm(stelbstafahrlafette) and 150mm (Hummel?) very
common? Were they able to pick off allied tanks at extremely long ranges (or
was this impractical)?

The only 128mm I'm thinking of is the Jagdtiger. I believe two companies
were fielded, of at most 10 Jagdtigers each. Very good gun, very good
armor, not particularly mobile.

The Hummel mounted a 150mm howitzer, not a gun. The 128mm was the
largest gun (in the sense of a direct-fire weapon) the Germans put
on a tracked vehicle, and it was generally overkill.

The problem of very long ranges was spotting something and hitting
it. On the Russian steppes, it was often possible to see an enemy
a long way off, but hitting the enemy was difficult at range. In
more close terrain (like most of Europe except the Russian steppes),
engagement ranges would probably be much closer, perhaps a kilometer
or less. Virtually no AFVs had range finders at this time.



--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
***@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-

[Taki Kogoma]

Post by David Thornley

Post by Doug
I never realized how good the US 90mm was. It was only used in the Pershing
and M36 TD though right?

That's the only uses I can think of on vehicles. It was originally an
AA gun, the standard US Army field heavy AA gun. It could be used as
an AT gun, much as the German 88mm that wound up on the Tiger, but
as far as I can tell was rarely used in that role.

ISTR that it was meant as a "Triple Threat" gun: Anti-Aircraft,
Artilery, and Coastal Defense.

[mike]

Post by Doug
Mike, weren't there two different versions of the 88? I thought the Tiger
2's had a more capable 88 than the Tiger 1's.

yes, higher MV

Post by Doug
I never realized how good the US 90mm was. It was only used in the Pershing
and M36 TD though right?

In the same way there were a handful of 'Super Pershings' fitted
with a higher power gun, the T15E2 at the very end of the war

***@1000m for APBC,***@1000 for HVAP

In general, the Nazis used cooler burning, triple base powder
that was easier on the rifling and less smoke. The hotter US
powder would erode barrels quickly if done as a standard load,
so came the HVAP, a hot load to be used in emergencies


US Doctrine on towed AT was goofy, Went into the war, wanting
most AT to be in the form of Gun Motor Carriages, self propelled.

After Tunisia, the Army felt that more towed guns was the ticket,
but didn't really have a decent AT, as the 37mm wasn't good
enough in 1942.
So there was the Americanized 57mm M1, the Brit 6 pdr and a
towed version of the 3", which was a beast, nearly 4900 pounds
vs the Nazi PAK 40 of similar performance, of 3100 pounds.

The 90mm was availiable in a AAA Mount much like the FLAK 36,
but near twice the weight, while the AT version(that showed in
late '44) the T5E2 was almost 5 tons, near a ton heavier that the
better
performing PAK 43, the 88mm L/71 on a AT mount. A lightweight
version, the T8 was shipped over in Feb '45, but seems to have
seen no combat

Post by Doug
Were they able to pick off allied tanks at extremely long ranges (or
was this impractical)?

Western Europe wasn't really like the Steppes of the Eastern Front,
getting opportunities for 3000+ yards were limited. Was more
likely in Italy, shooting across Valleys.

And since the Allies had so few heavy tanks compared to the Soviets,
anything more powerful than the 75mmL48 really wasn't needed,
as that could do 96mm at 1500m, able to deal with all Allied tanks,
save the Jumbo or Churchill.

**
mike
**

[Walt]

.>

Definitely. The weak armor on American TDs was a major mistake. .

The whole tank destroyer concept was a major mistake and the doctrine
was seldom applied as concieved any way.

I've heard the TD concept likened to the way the later US Army wanted
to use attack helos. But that -would- explain why the armor was
light. The concept was to move massed TD's to counter German tanks.
The TD doctrine had the TD's acting in battalion strength, but they
were very often parcelled out in company sized units.

Walt

[Bruce Burden]

Walt <***@aol.com> wrote:
: .>
:> Definitely. The weak armor on American TDs was a major mistake. .
:
Had the vehicles been used according to TDF doctrine, then
perhaps not. It is interesting to note that the Germans thought
the idea had merit with their Leo 1 series of vehicles. I note,
however, that the current Leo 2's are significantly heavier...
:
: The whole tank destroyer concept was a major mistake and the doctrine
: was seldom applied as concieved any way.
:
It was nice that TDF had a doctrine, but friction with in
the army meant that few officers were aware of the doctrine, or
indeed, the difference between a TD and a tank.

For that matter, "Caissons Across Europe" talks about a MP
not allowing the units 105mm M4's across an "artillery only" bridge.
Now, the bridge was rated for the 105mm M4's (indeed, that bridge
was built knowing these vehicles would be using it), but the MP was
told "no tanks". And, that was that. Tracks. Turrrt. Gun. Ergo, "tank".
:
: The concept was to move massed TD's to counter German tanks.
: The TD doctrine had the TD's acting in battalion strength, but they
: were very often parcelled out in company sized units.
:
Yep. Again, nice doctrine, but when the people in charge of
your units don't know (let alone care) about your doctrine, it
will have problems.

The TDF doctrine was that their units would be used from
ambush, which means, not leading the change down the road. :-)
In that secnario, light armor and the ability to quickly move
to a different prepared position would place a premium on speed,
at the expense of armor. Standing toe-to-toe with opposing tanks
was NOT part of TDF doctrine.

Bruce