Jump to content


The End of the M4(75)


  • Please log in to reply
212 replies to this topic

Legiondude #21 Posted Aug 10 2013 - 23:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 20227 battles
  • 23,129
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011
“Discontinue mounting the 75mm gun and turret on rnedium tanks as soon as the production models thereof are so modified as to accommodate the 76 mm gun and turret, but in no event later than 15 December 1943 for the M4 and M4A1 models, and 15 January 1944 for the M1A2 and M4A3 models”

Typo? I assume it's supposed to say M4A2

Alain_Mafart #22 Posted Aug 10 2013 - 23:06

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 4613 battles
  • 85
  • [3_NZ] 3_NZ
  • Member since:
    01-18-2012
Off-topic but something this article made me ponder; what was the thinking in the placement of turret crew.

US tanks, for instance, had the loader on the left. German tanks put the loader on the right. Why.

Does anyone have any links to articles about this.

Ghost_of_Fail_Teams_Past #23 Posted Aug 10 2013 - 23:09

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 31819 battles
  • 619
  • Member since:
    12-12-2011
Very revealing, good read, wish I'd known this earlier.

Ghost_of_Fail_Teams_Past #24 Posted Aug 10 2013 - 23:10

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 31819 battles
  • 619
  • Member since:
    12-12-2011

View PostLegiondude, on Aug 10 2013 - 23:02, said:

“Discontinue mounting the 75mm gun and turret on rnedium tanks as soon as the production models thereof are so modified as to accommodate the 76 mm gun and turret, but in no event later than 15 December 1943 for the M4 and M4A1 models, and 15 January 1944 for the M1A2 and M4A3 models”

Typo? I assume it's supposed to say M4A2

I'm guessing so, it would be silly to put a 76mm gun on an M1A2... the 120mm gun it has now is much better :teethhappy:

badperson #25 Posted Aug 10 2013 - 23:12

    Captain

  • Players
  • 46755 battles
  • 1,222
  • [E-WAR] E-WAR
  • Member since:
    05-19-2012
Fascinating read.  Thanks chief!  I am actually a bit surprised to see that the 76 was intended all along.  My perception of the 75mm Frenchy is that it was actually quite powerful, more than adequate for anything it was likely to encounter short of a heavy tank.  So it surprises me that they already deemed it an inadequate stopgap gun.
.
BTW, see all this talk about the 105 HEAT?  Maybe sometime you could tell us about the distribution of HEAT for howitzers and other guns, who had how much etc.  Hell, if you have it off the top of your head you could even tell us right here in the thread [/wish]

Edited by badperson, Aug 10 2013 - 23:18.


favrepeoria #26 Posted Aug 10 2013 - 23:29

    Captain

  • Players
  • 28760 battles
  • 1,629
  • [RATM] RATM
  • Member since:
    06-08-2011
About the 105s with HEAT ammo before nerf. You could make money pretty easy by just making the shot count and not just slinging willy nilly.

The M4 against pz4 and 3 in Africa was more than match for them and would have done better if the crews were experienced as the Germans were with multiple years of war under their belt. The Germans were actually quite surprised when they ran into the first M3 Lees because the 75 overmatched the armor at that point

baptank #27 Posted Aug 10 2013 - 23:35

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 21298 battles
  • 270
  • [NASF] NASF
  • Member since:
    11-15-2011
Great read. Very interesting.

1snowleopard #28 Posted Aug 10 2013 - 23:41

    Private

  • Players
  • 6074 battles
  • 1
  • Member since:
    07-26-2011
The Sherman was not a bad tank. It was the wrong tank in the wrong place and had not been properly designed for that scene. However check the desert for the Israeli  upgrades in the desert wars they fought against Russian post war tanks.

Dodge_The_Bullet #29 Posted Aug 10 2013 - 23:57

    Major

  • Players
  • 8781 battles
  • 3,872
  • [P-F] P-F
  • Member since:
    11-05-2011
Chief needs to make a post about the M10 wolverine with 105mm because the 105 was used in China

ramlaen #30 Posted Aug 11 2013 - 00:01

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 24045 battles
  • 259
  • Member since:
    11-13-2012

View Post2beoldimp, on Aug 10 2013 - 23:41, said:

It was the wrong tank in the wrong place and had not been properly designed for that scene.

Historical evidence suggests otherwise.

EndlesNights #31 Posted Aug 11 2013 - 00:22

    Captain

  • Players
  • 23498 battles
  • 1,098
  • [SPIDY] SPIDY
  • Member since:
    09-22-2011
Good read, I find it is also note worth to mention that the standard rounds for the 75mm M3 Cannon had better penetration in comparison to the T-34s 76 mm L-11 or the 76 mm F-34. So I find it rather odd when the M4 Gets flak for having an inadequate gun for anti-armour purposes, while the T-34 was inferior in direct comparison.

Xlucine #32 Posted Aug 11 2013 - 00:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 7644 battles
  • 7,603
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011

View PostMeplat, on Aug 10 2013 - 20:53, said:

In truth, most WW2 tanks likely would not do well when slapped with a conventional 105mm HE shell.
Five and some pounds of HE stuffed into a fourty-some pound projectile, greeting the target at about 1000FPS  is a lot of energy to deal with all at once.

Obligatory:
Posted Image

Quote

Not even going to discuss the 105 HEAT performance in game. Seems to exist in it's own magic realm , or damn near it.

It's pretty spot on penetration-wise compared to hunnicutt, the issue is the fuse is far too reliable for the period.

Meplat #33 Posted Aug 11 2013 - 01:00

    Major

  • Players
  • 6743 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012
It's more the damage differential versus the HE shell, and seemingly superball coated shell ogive.

Bean223 #34 Posted Aug 11 2013 - 01:03

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 21315 battles
  • 540
  • Member since:
    11-29-2010

View PostMack54, on Aug 10 2013 - 21:13, said:

Late in 1943 and well into 1944 there were a number of longshoreman strikes on both the west and east coasts which slowed military shipping considerably. I could go into the politics and certain concessions made by the U.S. Government to get ships loaded with supplies,vehicles, ammunition and men bound for both the European and Pacific theaters, but that story would bleed over into another area entirely. Let us just say that the Mafia, the unions, and the U.S.Government came to an understanding and leave it at that. By the time D-Day came along shipping conditions on the North Atlantic were not good due to weather, slowing the delivery of men and material even more. Thus U.S. and allied tankers were stuck with the inferior M-4 Sherman ( The Zippo, The Ever Light, Mass Grave For Five Brothers, etc.)which had been delivered and stockpiled since 1942-44 in England. The only tanks that were designed/equipped with the intent of landing in direct support of the (U.S. and many allied) infantry troops on D-Day were the "swimming" or duplex-drive Sherman tanks, and only a few of those (mainly under British command and control) actually made it ashore and engaged German/Axis troops and positions. Many of the Duplex-Drive Shermans sank in the rough seas (they were launched too soon and in water too deep) during the landing(s),while others were destroyed by mines, mortars and direct fire from German artillery positions (once the Germans got over their initial shock at seeing the strange looking "things" approaching the beaches). The least known fact, at least to most non-Common Wealth citizens, is the that it was tanks and Combat Engineer Vehicles on the beaches assigned to British/Common Wealth troops that had the most success against Nazi positions on D-Day. It could even be said with no small degree of accuracy, that the British Combat Engineers, in English designed and manufactured armored vehicles, were the most effective armored force to land on D-Day. It would be many weeks after the Normandy Breakthrough before "up-gunned" Shermans would arrive in any appreciable numbers and even then the British would prove to have the "Better Idea" with the long 76mm mounted on some Lend Lease Shermans. Strangely or perhaps ironically, it was the Israeli Army that provided the Sherman with it's heaviest and best main gun when a 105mm (NATO quality or better) was mounted and used effectively against Russian T-54 and T-55 tanks (and trains strangely enough). That "version" became known in certain circles as the Super Sherman...
You know, now that you mention it. We've got Leopard 1 tanks, T62s, M60 Pattons for Pete's sake.....WHY NOT have a Israeli Super Sherman!?!?!?!?!
I think that would make a very nice tier 7 Prem tanks

Edited by Bean223, Aug 11 2013 - 01:04.


Meplat #35 Posted Aug 11 2013 - 01:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 6743 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View PostBean223, on Aug 11 2013 - 01:03, said:

You know, now that you mention it. We've got Leopard 1 tanks, T62s, M60 Pattons for Pete's sake.....WHY NOT have a Israeli Super Sherman!?!?!?!?!
I think that would make a very nice tier 7 Prem tanks

Because reasons.

INKRO #36 Posted Aug 11 2013 - 01:14

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 9797 battles
  • 1,051
  • [RD] RD
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View PostEndlesNights, on Aug 11 2013 - 00:22, said:

Good read, I find it is also note worth to mention that the standard rounds for the 75mm M3 Cannon had better penetration in comparison to the T-34s 76 mm L-11 or the 76 mm F-34. So I find it rather odd when the M4 Gets flak for having an inadequate gun for anti-armour purposes, while the T-34 was inferior in direct comparison.

Realistically you could say that most variants of the Sherman and T-34 would be even money with each other, with the edge going to the Sherman for the later models with wet stowage and HVSS suspension compared to the Soviets holding off on further upgrades for the sake of mass production. The -34 as a design is two years older than the M4 though, so that probably does count for something

Meplat #37 Posted Aug 11 2013 - 01:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 6743 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View PostINKRO, on Aug 11 2013 - 01:14, said:

Realistically you could say that most variants of the Sherman and T-34 would be even money with each other, with the edge going to the Sherman for the later models with wet stowage and HVSS suspension compared to the Soviets holding off on further upgrades for the sake of mass production. The -34 as a design is two years older than the M4 though, so that probably does count for something

You see a lot of the M4 series that obviously evolved from earlier U.S. mediums, so comparing the two designs in isolation of other vehicles in their lineage is a bit simplistic.

INKRO #38 Posted Aug 11 2013 - 01:28

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 9797 battles
  • 1,051
  • [RD] RD
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010
It's the same story though with the T-34 though, which owes quite a bit of it's features and design cues to the earlier BT series tanks. Hell, the A-20 is in the game for reasons other than torturing people going through the line you know. :tongue:

Edited by INKRO, Aug 11 2013 - 01:28.


favrepeoria #39 Posted Aug 11 2013 - 01:39

    Captain

  • Players
  • 28760 battles
  • 1,629
  • [RATM] RATM
  • Member since:
    06-08-2011
Would be hard to balance a super Sherman. Because of when the gun was made it would have pen like a tier 9 with a terrible fire rate. Since the premiums tend to follow historical specs it would be hard to say that the gun should have tier 7 med level of pen.

Meplat #40 Posted Aug 11 2013 - 01:49

    Major

  • Players
  • 6743 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View PostINKRO, on Aug 11 2013 - 01:28, said:

It's the same story though with the T-34 though, which owes quite a bit of it's features and design cues to the earlier BT series tanks. Hell, the A-20 is in the game for reasons other than torturing people going through the line you know. :tongue:

That was my point. You can't isolate the individual designs and make a fair judgement, because you have to assume both developed in a vacuum.
Which is plain silly.




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users