Sherman gun question

[alpini13]

speaking of the shermans reliability....YES,  they reliably burst into flames rather easily from enemy fire,lol

[Chalenge]

Just to demonstrate the difference, you can tell the Oldsmobile 76mm (actually Olds made all of the 76mm guns) from the 75mm because of the barrel length. The original Olds 76 (M1A1) was mounted to the M4A1(76) as an "unthreaded" gun.



The Olds 76mm M1A1C was mounted to the M4A3(76) and were threaded and collared initially, until the brakes were available. This does not mean that all tanks eventually received brakes, but that dispersal units did not initially mount brakes before the tank went into combat (until they were readily available).

[hitech]

Finally........someone who can spell "brake".

Yea many people break the spelling of brake.

HiTech

[MiloMorai]

speaking of the shermans reliability....YES,  they reliably burst into flames rather easily from enemy fire,lol

No worse than any other AFV.

[save]

No worse than any other AFV.

Not entirely true if you believe what British No. 2 Operational Research Section concluded : Copied from Wiki on the M4:

Research conducted by the British No. 2 Operational Research Section, after the Normandy campaign, concluded that a Sherman would be set alight 82% of the time following an average of 1.89 penetrations of the tank's armor; in comparison they also concluded the Panzer IV would catch fire 80% of the time following an average of 1.5 penetrations, the Panther would light 63% of the time following 3.24 penetrations, and the Tiger would catch fire 80% of the time following 3.25 penetrations.[91] John Buckley, using a case study of the British 8th and 29th Armoured Brigades found that of their 166 Shermans knocked out in combat during the Normandy campaign, 94 (56.6%) were burnt out. Buckley also notes that an American survey carried out concluded that 65% of tanks burnt out after being penetrated.[92] United States Army research proved that the major reason for this was the stowage of main gun ammunition in the sponsons above the tracks. A U.S. Army study in 1945 concluded that only 10–15 percent of wet-stowage Shermans burned when penetrated, compared to 60–80 percent of the older dry-stowage Shermans.[93]

Penetration often result in casualties, but depending on where the penetration is on the AFV, you might want to abandon the vehicle or not.

[Chalenge]

The main cause of armor losses was not the tank design itself, but the philosophy that overwhelming numbers would defeat the enemy even where the equipment could not match the enemies' equipment. You see this in the air war where the USAAF just threw huge numbers of bombers at Germany in a bid to allow attrition to wear the enemy defenses down. The 'experts' at the time had calculated that Germany simply could not outlast our supply capabilities. So, there was not even an attempt to improve our equipment beyond what could be done without slowing down production.

We could never do this today because the first time the announcement is made that products from South America are unavailable because we need all transports to ship goods to Europe there would be riots and a change of policy.

[Squire]

So, there was not even an attempt to improve our equipment beyond what could be done without slowing down production.

I don't think I entirely agree there. There were improved combat aircraft designed and put into service from 1942-45; P-40s, F4Fs and early models of the B-17, B-24, P-47 and P-38 gave way to F6Fs, Corsairs, P-51s and late model P-38Ls, B-17Gs (Pathfinder versions with H2S radar as well), P-47Ms and others. 

...and then the B-29 Superfortress. Hardly evidence that the USA was not interested in improving equipment.

Production was a priority though I agree, and some sacrifices were made to get the "100,000" but thats in wartime and thats to be expected.

[Chalenge]

None of that slowed production. Even the B-29 was already in development prior to the war.

[Squire]

How do you know that? your saying Boeings production of B-17s was not affected at all by them building the B-29 instead of B-17s in some plants? I don't buy that. On its face it makes no sense.

You know the B-29 program cost more than the Manhatten Project right?

Btw; Fw 190, Bf 109, He 111, Ju 88, Do 17, Ju87 were all pre war designs. The He 177 flew a month after the war began and was a pre war design as well. So the Luftwaffe also did not care about improvements? fighter production for them also went up from 1942-1944 so they also sinned in not building fancy enough planes to slow production (if that's your theory)...

I just don't get your argument. If they didn't care why build a F4U-4 why not just fly Wildcats until 1945? If they didn't care? Why build the P-51?

You can't possibly compare US ac production after 12-1941 with production pre 12-1941. The USA constructed a gargantuan (you hardly ever get to use that word in a sentence  )war industry after Pearl Harbor production figures were NEVER going to be "slowed down".

[MiloMorai]

Even the B-29 was already in development prior to the war.

Only if WW2 began Dec 7 1941.

The B-29 is a bit of a stretch tho as Boeing did some development studies for a new bomber but the Model 345 was in response to an Air Corp spec issued December 1939 and submitted on 11 May 1940.

Squire, the F4U was a prewar design.

[Chalenge]

Yeah, I was going by what General Lemay wrote in his book on the subject. The B29 actually predates the B17, and the reason it does makes perfect sense. The Air Corps realized they would need a very long range bomber in order to deal with the tremendous distances of the Pacific area of operations. It was not that they foresaw combat with the Japanese, but that they were tasked with planning for contingencies.

It was Billy Mitchell that sounded the alarm for a need of such a project in his magazine article titled Are We Ready for War with Japan?, which he penned and published in 1932. The project, however, was initiated without actual plans for war just two years later (April 1934) when the Army General Staff gave approval for "Project A." Material Command did not issue approval for the beginnings of the B17 project until two months later.

Obviously it was easier to overcome the engineering complexities of the B17, than it would be for the B29. Yet, the B29 predates the B17 for concept and approval.

[FBKampfer]

Okay, the concept predates the specific proposal request that would actually become the B-17.

But you must admit you're being a bit disingenuous saying the B-29 predates the B-17. You must be fully aware of all implications carried with that statement, and how people will take it.

Especially when it's all in defense of your original point that the B-29 had no effect on the B-17 production.

[MiloMorai]

The Project A bomber, the XB-15, looks more like a B-17 than a B-29.

[Chalenge]

Especially when it's all in defense of your original point that the B-29 had no effect on the B-17 production.

Not at all. Project A had a long way to go before it was fully realized as a B-29, but you cannot ignore the absolute need for that aircraft. Even Billy Mitchell could see that it would be needed, and it was.

The XB-15 was a rough draft, since there was no way to even judge what would be required to pull the concept into a fully realized aircraft. Nevertheless, it was part of the project and development cycle of what would become the B-29. Trying to differentiate between the many concepts of the time can be difficult, because there were more than a few companies trying to claim a portion of the design budget. Boeing itself seemed confused as to the ultimate direction of the project, but you can readily see that the XB-15 could never fulfill the requirement to fly at 35,000 feet (which, ironically the B-29 would not have to do in the end). Still, it was an aircraft that served as a stepping stone toward the success of the project and as such it was an important step. There is no mistake. The XB-15 was tied directly to the B-29.

[MiloMorai]

The Wright Flyer of 1903 was a rough draft for the B-29.