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