Jump to content


Ordnance vs AGF: Pershing Part 2


  • Please log in to reply
132 replies to this topic

The_Chieftain #1 Posted May 30 2014 - 23:41

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 13362 battles
  • 9,903
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

For Part 2 of the Pershing development overview, I’m going to hand the keyboard over to some poor un-named sod in the Ordnance Branch in about 1946 whose job it was to type out Ordnance’s after-action report for the war. One part of this AAR was “Ordnance’s interactions with other agencies”, and for the section on ‘dealing with Army Ground Forces’, they chose to use the T26 development process as an example. I thus copy below, again without comment (I’ll save the analysis for a future part), with the caveat that the below is purely from Ordnance’s perspective. Over to you, aforementioned poor, un-named sod:

 

The chasm separating the AGF position and the Ordnance position regarding the development role of the Ordnance Department is most evident in the controversy relative to heavy tanks. This dispute was increased in intensity by another difference of opinion as to the value of heavy tanks. Lt. Gen. Lesley J. McNair, Commanding General, AGF, was one of thefounders of the school of thought which held that the best defense against armor was armament, that tank-versus-tank battles were neither necessary nor desirable. This school of thought, therefore, did not believe it imperative that the United States remain at least abreast of Germany as regards the size of tanks.

One type of heavy tank, the M6, weighing about 60 tons and mounting a three-inch gun, had been standardized in February 1942, before the creation of Army Ground Forces. This tank was not put to any appreciable use, however, because Ordnance attempts to create a requirement for the M6 were rebuffed by AGF and production of only 40 of these tanks was authorized.

While the Heavy Tank M6 was being written off as a usable combat vehicle, the Ordnance Department, with the approval of Services of Supply, had begun the development of a new medium tank, the T20, which wall expected to take the place of the Medium Tank M4. As the T20 developed, it grew heavier until it reached in the T25 and T26 models, the proportions of a heavy tank. From whence came the impetus for the construction of these heavy tanks (the T25 was to be a medium tank mounting a 90-mm gun and the T26 was to mount the 90-mm gun and armor equivalent to that of the German Mark VI) is subject to debate between AGF and the Ordnance Department. AGF was of the opinion that "the using arms desired development of this type of vehicle with heavier armor and a 90-mm gun.” In writing the Ordnance Committee Minute suggesting development of the heavier tanks, however, Ordnance reported that "the Ordnance Department requested that at least 50 tanks be equipped with 90-mm guns which was agreed to by General Devers (Armored Force) and General Moore (AGF)." Representatives or the armored Force and the Tank Destroyer Command signed this proposal on behalf of the using arms.

Devers.

The T26 tank received some potent backing in November 1943 when General Devers, erstwhile commander of the Armored Force and at that time commander of the European Theater of Operations, requested that 250 be produced. Production of only ten of these tanks had been previously authorized. As the developer and enthusiastic believer in the value of the T26, Ordnance was entirely willing to accede to the request of General Devers. When asked to comment on the ETO request, AGF made two replies, both unfavorable. In these memoranda, one prepared personally by General McNair, AGF contended that the M4 series of tanks was adequate for the defeat of Germany and that these tanks, plus a suitable tank destroyer, were the logical answer to the heavier German tanks. It was recommended that the T26 continue to be considered only a developmental type.

Despite the objections of AGF, General Devers, in December 1943, repeated his request that 250 heavy tanks of the T26 type be produced. Personnel of the Requirements Section, AGF, recommended that General McNair repeat the AGF objections, claiming that no heavy tank had yet been found satisfactory. That torsion bar suspension had never been used before on tanks even half as heavy as the T26, and that the adequacy of the power plant proposed for the new heavy tank was questionable. General McNair, however, refused to continue this aspect or the controversy and raised no further objection to the procurement of a total of 260 T26 tanks. Although General Barnes was reasonably certain on 11 December 1943 (the day after General Devers' second cablegram) that Ordnance would be allowed to build the additional 250 heavy tanks, official notification of the change in the program was not received by the Ordnance Department until 10 January 1944.

Despite the fact that Ordnance had been allowed to proceed with the limited procurement of 250 additional units of the T26 this number was not sufficient to assure creation of the production capacity which would be necessary should the War Department decide to go into mass production of the heavy tank. Ordnance, therefore, was anxious to receive authority for limited procurement of a still larger quantity. Ten days after receipt of permission to procure the additional 250 vehicles, General Barnes met with General Moore of AGF and expressed the hope that AGF would "go along with the program on the T26 (the size of the proposed procurement program was not indicated)," but General Moore did not hold the proposal in favorable regard.

More evidence of disagreement between the Ordnance Department and AGF concerning the value of the T26 tank is given in a February 1944 conversation between General Barnes and Colonel M. K. Barroll, an Ordnance officer serving with the General staff. Colonel Barroll reported that he had "heard they (presumably AGF) want to put a lot of armor on the last of the M4A3s off the line and was afraid the main idea is to buck the heavy (T26) job. General Barnes asked Colonel Barroll to "watch" the situation.

Apparently no action was being taken by higher authority to increase the number of heavy tanks under procurement because by 28 February 1944 General Barnes was discussing the preparation of a letter to Headquarters Army Service Forces, for the signature of General Campbell, asking whether or not the War Department desired heavily armored tanks and, if so, at what rate of production. It was General Barnes’ opinion that further production of M4 tanks was a waste of government funds. No such letter was ever sent, although General Banes continued upset over the situation, two days later telling General William A. Borden, another Ordnance officer on duty with the General Starr, that he was in favor of informing higher authority that the Ordnance Department would assume no further responsibility for the probable lack of properly armored and properly gunned tanks for operations of late 1944 and early 1945.

In the following month, however, AGF opposition to larger production of the T26 was overridden and production of 6,000 heavytanks (including 45 both T25 and T26 models) was informally authorized. A break in the deadlock between Ordnance and AGF was foreshadowed 5 April 1944 when Robert E. Patterson, Undersecretary of War, telephoned General Barnes to tell him that Lt Gen William S. Knudsen, War Departmenproduction director, had been talking about the new tanks. Mr. Patterson expressed interest in the vehicle and said he would like to see the new tanks produced in 1944 and inquired as to what should be done to bring about that end. General Barnes suggested that Mr. Patterson talk to General Somervell about getting a production order released. The need for production of the larger number of heavy tanks was made known to the Ordnance Department within a week. General Barnes told his Executive Officer, Colonel S. B. Ritchie, that the large order had come as a result of a reversalof AGF position with respect to heavy tanks. Army Ground Forces, however, said that the production authorization had been increased by the War Department over AGF objections.

Even though it had been overruled with respect to the extent of limited production of heavy tanks, AGF continued dissatisfied with these vehicles and asked that 75mm and 76mm guns replace the 90mm guns included in the basic design of both the T25 and T26. AGF had been pondering such a request in April 1944, but delayed making it until July. Army Service Forces agreed to study of the possibilities of the lighter guns on these tanks and passed the letter to Ordnance. The Ordnance Department was merely lukewarm to this proposal, suggesting that it be given low priority, since Ordnance already had formal authorization for completion of the development 'of the tank mounting the 90mm gun and all available personnel were at work on that project. It was also pointed out that the 75-mm gun was currently available on the new M24 Light Tank, the 76-mm gunon the M4 Medium Tank. Army Ground Forces did not belabor the issue, merely asking that study of the lighter guns beundertaken when current projects were completed. In the beginning of this discussion of the size of the gun to be mounted on the T26, General Campbell told General Barnes he would be inclined to include the 90-mm turret on the vehicles coming off the production lines, pending the outcome of the controversy. All T26 tanks produced mounted the 90-mm gun.

The argument over heavy tanks was actually a three-sided one, the Armored Force holding views which failed to coincide with those of either Headquarters, AGF, or the Ordnance Department. Since the Armored Force was a component of Army Ground Forces, however, the differences of opinion, "which were fought out bitterly around 1943" were brought to a decisionwithin AGF and a more or less united-front presented to the Ordnance Department. The Armored Force point of view, as seen.by the Ordnance officer attached to Headquarters, AGF, was generally as follows:

"The policy of the Armored Force was that the M-4 medium tank was already in large production and was the one tank that could be delivered in quantity for the operations in 1944. Therefore they felt that the first priority on development should be the elimination of the bugs from the M-4 tank to make this vehicle as effective as possible on the battlefield. Following this development they proposed to modify the M-4 tank to provide it with the 90-mm gun in order to get this weapon on the battlefield by 1944. It was the feeling of the Armored Force Board that General Barnes and Colonel Colby of the Ordnance Department, by dropping the development of the M-4 type tank and proceeding with an entirely different and new design as exemplified in the T20 series of tanks which was finally standardized as the M-26, would not be able to get the service tested tank in the theaters in quantity in time to be of any real value. They felt that the M-4 modified to incorporate the 90mm gun would enable them to get tanks with high powered guns in the theater in time to be used in 1944. I am told that it was General McNair himself who ruled against the installationof the 90mm gun the M-4 tanks. In making this decision I understand he acted on the advice of his G-3, General Lentz, rather than the Development Section of his Requirements Division.'

That's it for now. Next time we return to this topic, we shall likely have a look at just how the Zebra mission got off the ground.

 

For those of you who don't know, I've a Facebook page here , and once in a blue moon, I stream at http://www.twitch.tv/the_chieftain



knucklehead47 #2 Posted May 31 2014 - 14:16

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 29766 battles
  • 248
  • Member since:
    03-12-2011

Is that 1st pic Edward R Murrow ?

 



kd7fds #3 Posted May 31 2014 - 15:16

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 17030 battles
  • 41
  • [3A82B] 3A82B
  • Member since:
    05-08-2012
Yes, that is Edward R Murrow.      I confirmed this by checking the image url   http://worldoftanks....wtypewriter.png    and by a google image search which agrees that it is Edward Murrow

S842 #4 Posted May 31 2014 - 17:30

    Captain

  • Players
  • 52178 battles
  • 1,213
  • Member since:
    03-02-2013

So I will ask for the hundredth time, why is there no 90 mm gun for the M4 in the game?  A prototype M4 with Pershing turret and 90 mm gun was built in summer 1944, so I can not understand why this is not in the game.

 

Hello, hello, knock, knock, WarGaming are you listening?



Walter_Sobchak #5 Posted May 31 2014 - 17:40

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010
Very interesting.  I did not know that support for the 90mm M4 was that strong.  I was under the impression it was just an experiment that ordnance thought up, no idea it had such strong backing from Armored Force Board.

The_Chieftain #6 Posted May 31 2014 - 18:02

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 13362 battles
  • 9,903
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostS842, on May 31 2014 - 17:30, said:

So I will ask for the hundredth time, why is there no 90 mm gun for the M4 in the game?  A prototype M4 with Pershing turret and 90 mm gun was built in summer 1944, so I can not understand why this is not in the game.

 

Hello, hello, knock, knock, WarGaming are you listening?

 

Hmm. With all our research, we never knew that such a thing existed. I wonder how we missed it and that nobody else has brought such a thing to our attention before?



Dominatus #7 Posted May 31 2014 - 18:05

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10311 battles
  • 13,793
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    12-21-2010

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on May 31 2014 - 12:40, said:

Very interesting.  I did not know that support for the 90mm M4 was that strong.  I was under the impression it was just an experiment that ordnance thought up, no idea it had such strong backing from Armored Force Board.

WHile I was reading that, I was wondering if they were talking about a proper 90mm M4 or just the M36.



The_Chieftain #8 Posted May 31 2014 - 18:09

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 13362 battles
  • 9,903
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on May 31 2014 - 17:40, said:

Very interesting.  I did not know that support for the 90mm M4 was that strong.  I was under the impression it was just an experiment that ordnance thought up, no idea it had such strong backing from Armored Force Board.

 

In fairness, I think I am inclined to not overstate that issue. The question would remain as to whether such a tank could be built to satisfactory standards. The US Army didn't not like to accept bodge jobs like the early M4(76), a new turret would likely be needed. That new turret was T26's turret, and if it couldn't be built much faster than T26, I don't see how it would have had very much effect during the war.



Walter_Sobchak #9 Posted May 31 2014 - 18:36

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

View PostThe_Chieftain, on May 31 2014 - 13:09, said:

 

In fairness, I think I am inclined to not overstate that issue. The question would remain as to whether such a tank could be built to satisfactory standards. The US Army didn't not like to accept bodge jobs like the early M4(76), a new turret would likely be needed. That new turret was T26's turret, and if it couldn't be built much faster than T26, I don't see how it would have had very much effect during the war.


Considering that by the end of the war only half the M4 tanks in Europe had the 76mm gun, I would be inclined to agree that getting a Sherman with a T26 turret to the European theater in any appreciable numbers would have been quite difficult in the required time frame. 



bugwar #10 Posted May 31 2014 - 20:11

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 26981 battles
  • 498
  • Member since:
    01-07-2011

Ya know, I thought that the infighting among generals went out with the Civil War.

Guess it just went from the front page news to hiding in back channel squabbles.



S842 #11 Posted May 31 2014 - 22:47

    Captain

  • Players
  • 52178 battles
  • 1,213
  • Member since:
    03-02-2013

View PostThe_Chieftain, on May 31 2014 - 19:02, said:

 

Hmm. With all our research, we never knew that such a thing existed. I wonder how we missed it and that nobody else has brought such a thing to our attention before?

 

Well maybe just read the forum!  I personally started two threads on this and there have been more by other members here.  But nice that this is finally realized.

 

There is ample reason for additional guns to be available for the M4 in the game on the American tree.  First, 100 AMERICAN M4's (not to be confused with the British Firefly) were re-gunned with the 17 pounder following the Battle of the Bulge.  From Wiki:

"After the heavy tank losses of the Battle of the Bulge, in January 1945, General Eisenhower asked that no more 75 mm M4s be sent to Europe: only 76 mm M4s were wanted.[56]

Interest in mounting the British 17-pounder in U.S. Shermans flared anew. In February 1945, the U.S. Army began sending 75 mm M4s to England for conversion to the 17-pounder. Approximately 100 conversions were completed by the beginning of May."

 

Secondly, a prototype M4 with Pershing turret and 90 mm gun was built in summer 1944.  Again from Wiki:

"The 90 mm gun developed by U.S. Ordnance could not be easily installed on the M4, but was installed on the open turreted M36 tank destroyer, and was the main gun for the T26 tank project (which eventually became the M26 Pershing). An attempt to upgrade the M4 Sherman by installing the 90 mm T26 turret on a M4A3 hull in April 1944 was halted after realizing it could not go into production sooner than the T26 and would likely delay T26 development."

 

And here it is:

 

Finally, there are the so-called Israeli "Super Shermans", the M-50 with a French 75 mm gun (based on the German 7.5 cm Kwk 42 L/70) and the M-51 with the French 105 mm Modele F1 gun.  The Egyptians also had the Sherman M4A4 model with the French 75mm in an oscillating turret.  I realize that the Super Shermans did not fight in the American army, and so may not warrant existing in the American tree.  Once more from Wiki:

"In combat against the Arab armies, the M-51 proved itself capable of fighting newer, heavier tanks like the Soviet-built T-54/55/T-62. The M-51's 105 mm gun could penetrate these adversaries using HEAT ammunition. The M-51 served well during its time, and is regarded as an excellent example of how an obsolete tank (the Sherman) can be upgraded beyond the limits of its original capabilities."

 

So I hope that WarGaming will consider adding more gun selection to the Sherman line in the game.

Attached Files

  • Attached File   Sherman with 90mm.jpg   8.84K


OlPaint #12 Posted May 31 2014 - 23:14

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 18622 battles
  • 15
  • Member since:
    11-13-2010

View PostThe_Chieftain, on May 31 2014 - 19:02, said:

 

Hmm. With all our research, we never knew that such a thing existed. I wonder how we missed it and that nobody else has brought such a thing to our attention before?


With respect, the 90mm M4 has been suggested numerous times on the forums. 

From 2010:  http://forum.worldof..._fromsearch__1  Post #31 in this thread was by Overlord stating that the 90mm Sherman would be a premium vehicle.

From 2011:  http://forum.worldof...__fromsearch__1

Feb 2014 in Suggestions forum:  http://forum.worldof...m#entry6561151  Post #9

From April 2014:  http://forum.worldof...mm#entry6927486

 

Also, From 'For The Record' in October 2013:  http://ftr.wot-news....-mm-and-the-m4/

 

There are, of course, many other threads with references to this vehicle, this is just a sample.  There's a lot of obscure prototypes to research out there, but it's always a little disheartening to see information on actual running hardware crop up that doesn't get implemented in-game, but obscure napkin sketches and physically improbable tanks make it into the regular tech trees.

 

Enough of that, though, back to the Pershing...was the T26/M26 considered enough better as a fighting vehicle (or more ergonomic, or easier to handle logistically, or more comfy) that it received the Zebra Mission combat test whereas the earlier M6 did not?  Was it a matter of timing, different personalities, evolved threats, or were the issues with the M6 (poor turret layout, drivetrain issues, etc.) more severe than the T26/M26?

 

Douglas



JohnWulf #13 Posted Jun 01 2014 - 00:02

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 37749 battles
  • 33
  • Member since:
    05-31-2011

View PostS842, on May 31 2014 - 18:30, said:

So I will ask for the hundredth time, why is there no 90 mm gun for the M4 in the game?  A prototype M4 with Pershing turret and 90 mm gun was built in summer 1944, so I can not understand why this is not in the game.

 

Hello, hello, knock, knock, WarGaming are you listening?

Because it would terribly unbalance the tank within the Tier it operates...



Priory_of_Sion #14 Posted Jun 01 2014 - 00:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 14866 battles
  • 6,761
  • Member since:
    11-08-2011
Sarcasm is fun. Anyway great post.

chain_chomp #15 Posted Jun 01 2014 - 00:47

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 33376 battles
  • 55
  • [NTR] NTR
  • Member since:
    08-06-2012
 What is going on inside the Pershing that requires that bulge in the upper middle of the front hull armor? What's in there?

Meplat #16 Posted Jun 01 2014 - 01:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 6774 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View Postchain_chomp, on May 31 2014 - 16:47, said:

 What is going on inside the Pershing that requires that bulge in the upper middle of the front hull armor? What's in there?

There is a large ventilation blower mounted there.  You see the "bump" first appearing on the T-23.



The_Chieftain #17 Posted Jun 01 2014 - 01:14

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 13362 battles
  • 9,903
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostS842, on May 31 2014 - 22:47, said:

 

Well maybe just read the forum!  I personally started two threads on this and there have been more by other members here.  But nice that this is finally realized.

 

 

 

And...

 

View PostOlPaint, on May 31 2014 - 23:14, said:


With respect, the 90mm M4 has been suggested numerous times on the forums. 

 

 

<Sigh>

 

View PostPriory_of_Sion, on Jun 01 2014 - 00:27, said:

Sarcasm is fun. Anyway great post.

 

I know, it went right over their heads.

 

View Postchain_chomp, on Jun 01 2014 - 00:47, said:

 What is going on inside the Pershing that requires that bulge in the upper middle of the front hull armor? What's in there?

 

Ventilator blower.



S842 #18 Posted Jun 01 2014 - 02:15

    Captain

  • Players
  • 52178 battles
  • 1,213
  • Member since:
    03-02-2013

What is sarcasm?  I am a serious tanker.  All commands must be straight-forward least the commands be misunderstood in the heat of battle.

 

Does this mean no 90 mm, or 17 pounder, gun for the M4?

 



OlPaint #19 Posted Jun 01 2014 - 02:22

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 18622 battles
  • 15
  • Member since:
    11-13-2010

I don't assume that one person in one office of WG necessarily knows what another may have said or looked into.  So, yes, I missed the sarcasm.  I also don't assume that WG really gives a hoot what I think about their tech tree choices--but, hey, I have a forum account, so why not?  :smiles:

 

Douglas

 

 

 


Edited by OlPaint, Jun 01 2014 - 02:23.


The_Chieftain #20 Posted Jun 01 2014 - 02:47

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 13362 battles
  • 9,903
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

This is more for S842 than OlPaint. We've been doing this a few years. We have full-time historians whose job includes digging in the archives for information, and a good budget for book-buying. Not wishing to be too condescending, but It takes something being a lot more obscure than 'easy to find on the Internet with a brief Google search' for us to be unaware of it. In the case of the M4/T26 combo, we even leaked the garage icon for it (the one I linked to above). I find the idea that we may need to be 'informed' of an obvious series of vehicles such as the M4/T26 or the Israeli series to be a little insulting, and tend to react to such suggestions with a little sarcasm.

 

This game has a service life of a few years left in it yet. It's obvious that there are a number of vehicles and lines yet to be implemented, the (in)famous ones being the British lend-lease line and 'real-world' TD line. I can understand some disappointment that such vehicles may not have been implemented yet, but I think it's a reasonable conclusion that they haven't been implemented because we have specifically chosen not to implement it yet, not because of any ignorance or omission.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users