Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Oldman731 on April 29, 2015, 04:11:57 PM
-
A few years ago I had some time to motor around the Bulge area. While in Clervaux I took these two shots. The 88 on that carriage was interesting enough, but, looking back on it, I can't figure what the gun is on the Sherman. Appears to be too long to be the usual 75, and no muzzle brake like the 76s...could it be a 3-inch?
Took a close-up of the sign in front of the tank to authenticate the tank.
(http://i1234.photobucket.com/albums/ff406/Oldman731/DSCN0048.jpg)
(http://i1234.photobucket.com/albums/ff406/Oldman731/DSCN0049.jpg)
Would appreciate input from you knowledgeable types.
- oldman
-
Interesting...Sherman IB? It had a modified 105 mm M4 L/22.5 howitzer.
-
It's the 76 mm M1. The first few hundred didn't have a muzzle break. It looks like it's threaded for the muzzle break though, with a protective collar. Muzzle break could have been removed post war for some reason. You see a similar M4 (76) in the film "Fury". "Fury" has a muzzle break, but one of the other M4's only has a collar like that. The other two were 75 mm.
-
Right about the period of the Bulge (although I seem to recall it was before) all of the 76mm tanks were replaced with the muzzle brake variety. Certainly by the time the Allies were in as far as depicted in Fury the 76s would have all been updated. The updated armor plating is missing in this tank as well, so it was obviously just at the end of its useful life and left in the field. Unlike the German tanks the M4s had a tremendous useful life. Most Panthers were done at 150-200 miles while the majority of Sherman from Normandy to the Bulge had already clocked 1,500 miles and were replaced or due to be replaced.
-
Oldsmobile started threading the muzzles when it was decided that a muzzle break was needed, but it would take some time for the brake itself to be designed and produced. Many Shermans got the gun as depicted in the OP's photo (and in Fury) where the threads are covered by a collar ready to have the brake retrofitted in the field. However, it is likely that a number of tanks never got it, for any number of practical wartime reasons. Only the first few hundred 76 mm guns were not threaded and did not have the collar, but had a straight tube all the way to the muzzle, just like the 75 mm.
-
Fighting a defensive battle with constant retreats means you have to abandon equipment instead of repairing/upgrading
them as you can, when you take ground.
It's normally not the tank's fault you get low mileage, unless you press them into service too early (Panther at Kursk)
-
Immediately thought of this photo showing Patton and Secretary of War Stimson inspecting the 2nd Armored at the end of the war. Note the first two Shermans where you can see the end of the barrel have the muzzle brakes, then the next three are like the tank in Oldman's photo. It's about 50/50 in terms of having or not having the brake.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Helmets/Shermans_zpsqtsyosna.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/Helmets/Shermans_zpsqtsyosna.jpg.html)
-
It's normally not the tank's fault you get low mileage, unless you press them into service too early (Panther at Kursk)
That is just a ludicrous statement. The Panther, for instance, was a great tank when it worked. The problem is they failed regularly and after very few miles.
-
And if they weren't on the defensive the tanks would have been repaired and returned to service. T-34s also broke down often, but were easier to repair in the field. Shermans had a reputation for reliability, but I guess it varied with the many different versions and engine options.
-
I don't know how many years you have spent in a tank force, but my personal experience with serviceability under different weather conditions differs quite a lot.
If the Panthers at Kursk did not have to face the worst muddy terrain you can imagine, thing might have looked quite different even if we with facit in hand know they had many problems but the weather made it much worse.
I recommend reading some detailed books of Kursk offensive, as how-not-to-do-it.
I remember one instance we had 4 out of 12 tanks (IKV91) working, none from my platoon worked, and the S-tank guys faced the same problems (they where the red team at that exercise). Much of this was due to very shifting snow conditions during those weeks, from 30cm dry snow to 2 meter wet snow, clogging up tracks and put strain to gearboxes and other mechanical things.
If we would have to face and advancing enemy ,we would have lost 9 out of 12 tanks in the company.
Next drill we had 2 years later I always had at least 3 of my 4 tanks working, in good dry snow, some also owed to new tracks, and fixed gearboxes. Me in commanders cupola below.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3203/5842326719_7e7715ce04_z_d.jpg)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7414/12995013514_9f16cf2712_b_d.jpg)
That is just a ludicrous statement. The Panther, for instance, was a great tank when it worked. The problem is they failed regularly and after very few miles.
-
The British captured an intact early model Panther Ausf. G near the Dutch village of Overloon. The tank was pressed into service with the 4th Armored Battalion of the British 6th Tank Brigade. The tank was nicknamed "Cuckoo" and served with the unit in late 1944 to early 1945. Without spares of any kind the British kept the Panther running and it proved a valuable asset in several battles. Cuckoo marched on its own tracks from Belgium through the Netherlands and into Germany, where its journey, and service to freedom ended.
Cuckoo first saw service helping the artillery barrage on the Gejsteren castle, north of Venlo, on the Meuse River. After an infantry attack on the castle failed, the decision was made to bombard the castle with artillery. During the artillery bombardment on the castle, they found Cuckoo to be a worthy newcomer with its ability to shoot 75mm shells through selected windows with extreme accuracy.
After the assault on the castle, during operation "Blackcock" Cuckoo was deployed again, now joining in on an attack on the German town named Waldenrath. Cuckoo was noted as performing very well again with its mobility being especially noticeable compared to the 4th Armored Battalion's Churchill tanks. A veteran remarked: "The road conditions were abominable all day, whereas the Churchill's and the Crocodiles, with no ice bars, slid into ditches at every possible opportunity, "Cuckoo" the Panther, eight tons heavier, trundled merrily along with no difficulty at all."
Cuckoo's career ended during operation "Varitable". When the tank was heading towards the east of Kleve in Germany the fuel pump broke down, lacking a replacement pump the crew sadly had no other choice than to abandon the tank.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/cuckoo11.jpg)
"Cuckoo" and crew.
-
<S> Cuckoo job well done mate!
-
Muzzle brakes were adopted due to the dust clouds raised by the M1 gun when fired, obscuring the target. The brake directed the blast sideways. There were similar issues with the 90mm on the M36 and M36B1 TDs.
-
Immediately thought of this photo showing Patton and Secretary of War Stimson inspecting the 2nd Armored at the end of the war. Note the first two Shermans where you can see the end of the barrel have the muzzle brakes, then the next three are like the tank in Oldman's photo. It's about 50/50 in terms of having or not having the brake.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Helmets/Shermans_zpsqtsyosna.jpg)
BTW, what look like 75mm guns in this image are actually the earlier Oldsmobile 76mm, which did not receive the muzzle brake until (as I said already) around the time of the BOTB.
-
Muzzle brakes were adopted due to the dust clouds raised by the M1 gun when fired, obscuring the target. The brake directed the blast sideways. There were similar issues with the 90mm on the M36 and M36B1 TDs.
Finally........someone who can spell "brake".
-
speaking of the shermans reliability....YES, they reliably burst into flames rather easily from enemy fire,lol
-
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.
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/76mm_mount1_zpsnvcvduou.jpg)
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).
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/76mm_mount2_zpsms97g9fe.jpg)
-
Finally........someone who can spell "brake".
Yea many people break the spelling of brake.
HiTech
-
speaking of the shermans reliability....YES, they reliably burst into flames rather easily from enemy fire,lol
No worse than any other AFV.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
None of that slowed production. Even the B-29 was already in development prior to the war.
-
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".
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The Project A bomber, the XB-15, looks more like a B-17 than a B-29.
-
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.
-
The Wright Flyer of 1903 was a rough draft for the B-29.
-
Thank you for admitting defeat. Now let the thread get back to the Sherman.