Jump to content


Bigger turret, less room.


  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

The_Chieftain #1 Posted Nov 16 2016 - 00:27

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 9470 battles
  • 9,365
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

 

 

One of the problems known with Firefly is that the turret was a little cramped.  

 

The 17pr is not a small gun to be crammed into the limited space of a turret with a bustle measured in inches, and no front overhang. As I have mentioned elsewhere, US Army Ordnance had a crack at putting the somewhat smaller and lighter 76mm into the same turret, and Armored Force found it unsatisfactorily cramped, rejecting it.

Another lesser known issue for Firefly is that in order to be converted, the tank had to be a 75mm one, with the smaller turret. This is part of the reason why the 75mm Sherman remained on the production lines, even after the US Army had decided to switch production to the 76mm for its own use. But it does beg the question: Why did they mandate the use of the 75mm tank? Surely the 76mm turret, bigger as it was, would have been a better match, and reduced some of the limitations which Firefly was under? How could the British have missed this? There are two schools of thought for this: One was that it was related to the ammunition stowage itself. Certainly it was well known that the British preferred to convert dry stowage Shermans as opposed to wet stowage ones. As the dry stowage racks were very simple, this doesn’t seem to be a surprise, but it didn’t mean that the wet stowage could not be converted at all. It just took a few extra man-hours. Surely the increased capability of a crew with room to move about would be worth the extra time in the factory?

The other possibility is that the larger turret quite simply didn’t work out for some reason. This seems a little counter-intuitive, but perhaps an American experiment can shed some light on the subject.

Presumably not having much better to do with their time, Armored Board asked the question “just how good would the 75mm gun be if it was in the bigger turret?”, grabbed a spare tank, and had a crack at it.

So, there are two points to note about this tank, which is obviously a later-built M4A1.

Firstly, the suspension is an early version of HVSS, with the standard 16 9/16th of an inch track. The system had not yet been changed to the wider type with twin roadwheels. At this stage, further development was still necessary.

The other, of course, is the fact that there’s a small little gun protruding from the gunshield of the T23-type turret. The bottom line was that they couldn’t get the gun to work, at least, not easily. The problem is the shape of the turret. Look at it from the side.

The trunnions (i.e. the pivot point around which the gun should be balanced) is well forward, and note how the turret front is sortof ‘elongated’ or ‘pinched’ as a result.

 

  

The bottom line is that there was no room for all the gun control equipment, the sights, elevating gear, gun components, recoil mechanism, and so on, in that narrower, elongated part of the turret. They couldn’t get the gun to work reasonably, and concluded that the 75mm could not be acceptably installed into the larger turret. In addition, they concluded that the 75mm loader didn't actually need the extra room behind the gun to operate efficiently, and so the extra weight of the larger turret was not necessary on a 75mm-equipped tank. The experiment was, thus, cancelled, and as a result, the production lines for the small turrets continued for export sales and Marines.

It is not unreasonable to conclude, thus, that a similar issue may be encountered in the 17pr installation. It’s not just the gun. It’s the recoil system, the elevation system, the optics, coaxial MG.... Go check out the 17pr M10 video I did for an idea as to just how big that 17pr system is.

Yes, I know, that's not the tank-mounted variant: The horizontal cylinders and vertical breech block give that away, but the point is, I think, made. As it was, they had enough difficulty getting the elevation mechanism to fit within the turret ring: They actually had to cut out some of the turret basket cage at the front under the gun in order to get the mechanism to fit into the M4: Clearance with the hull side at 90 degree traverse must have been very tight. This would all have to 'shove' forward to fit on the forward trunnions of the T23 turret.

Is it possible to have placed the 17pr into the turret by designing an entirely new recoil mechanism, cradle, mount and so on? Possibly. Possibly not. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone looked into it, but it would mean changing a production line yet again, with accompanying time delay issues as the factories re-tooled.

It’s not always going to be the case that one can just go grab a gun, install it into a vehicle, and call it ‘good’ without having some glitches, unless the vehicle was designed specifically to have the weapon in mind to begin with. And so, obviously, it’s not just a case of ‘bigger turret = more room = bigger gun’, either. Although, it’s not a bad rule of thumb to start with.



FrozenKemp #2 Posted Nov 22 2016 - 21:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 39513 battles
  • 3,094
  • [27PZR] 27PZR
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011
Always interesting! Thank you!! 

stalkervision #3 Posted Nov 22 2016 - 22:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 45874 battles
  • 7,036
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

Just use the bigger hammer approach to get it in. :P​   The US army airforce crammed gas everywhere in the Mustang including right behind the pilot for more range which made the plane unstable to fly in any radical maneuvers till this tank was emptied. Lots of funny stories about pilots who forgot to drain this fuel tank down and tried to maneuver the mustang like normal. 

 

 



Red_chrome #4 Posted Nov 22 2016 - 22:06

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 3680 battles
  • 151
  • [H8-ME] H8-ME
  • Member since:
    12-21-2015
Thanks, this is really informative. Helps us understand things like why the Tiger I's turret was shaped with such a short & flat mantlet.

cwizard59 #5 Posted Nov 23 2016 - 02:26

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 23418 battles
  • 55
  • [RMNT] RMNT
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011
This article was great. I now see it is more than how big a gun will fit in the turret.

JasonLeeStrickland #6 Posted Nov 23 2016 - 03:43

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 12634 battles
  • 352
  • Member since:
    09-20-2014

This is what made me mad after I first joined, the M1A1 is huge on the outside. Than you get inside and there isn't room to turn yourself around without hitting 10 different metal corners.

 



YANKEE137 #7 Posted Nov 23 2016 - 04:03

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 4229 battles
  • 899
  • [SOFAT] SOFAT
  • Member since:
    08-17-2015
Wondered about that myself- thought it had to do with the Shermans already on hand being 75mm units. There were several hull versions of the Firefly- M4, M4A1(?) and composite.


WulfeHound #8 Posted Nov 23 2016 - 05:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 12851 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

View PostYANKEE137, on Nov 22 2016 - 22:03, said:

Wondered about that myself- thought it had to do with the Shermans already on hand being 75mm units. There were several hull versions of the Firefly- M4, M4A1(?) and composite.

 

Fireflies were M4, M4A4, and M4 Composite

Zinegata #9 Posted Nov 23 2016 - 11:02

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9514 battles
  • 5,380
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010
Great article demonstrating how people need to stop pretending that tanks are interchangeable Lego pieces and that adding a new gun is just a matter of slapping one on an existing turret or chassis. Hopefully it will reduce the fascination for all of the horrific kit-bashed variants.

Oagr_19D30 #10 Posted Nov 23 2016 - 17:42

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 13057 battles
  • 214
  • [LDZP] LDZP
  • Member since:
    01-15-2016
Great read, seems intuitive that this dilemma would help lead to open top turrets when they went to even bigger guns in TDs.

mugsy1965 #11 Posted Nov 23 2016 - 20:23

    Private

  • Players
  • 18477 battles
  • 4
  • Member since:
    07-24-2013

Keep in mind the Israelis DID make the mods to the Sherman to shoehorn in counterweighted turrets 105mm main guns :)

 

 



ledhed14 #12 Posted Nov 23 2016 - 23:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 14051 battles
  • 6,210
  • Member since:
    07-30-2011

Well I am certain they would have liked what Israel did to make these tanks work and survive in the desert wars . An " if only " because the french did not yet have a Country back yet . The Firefly DID solve a problem for the UK and it's Canadians and others who used the Conversions , along with the " applique " armour and improvements .

17 lbr did the job until something better came along .

 I ALWAYS wondered why they did not ever make a high velocity long barrel version of the Sherman with better armour as an upgrade . We had the engine power , but the suspension was not ready . Early Easy Eights used same short 75 . I understand it effective for infantry and liked for many reasons , but even using the the SAME shell a LONGER version of the gun would have produced higher muzzle velocity until the point of diminishing returns , but a choked / squeeze bore ,similar to other designs would have improved the anti tank capability .

 I realise WWII reality of acceptable losses is a factor , but I have trouble wrapping my head around this . Once the tank was proven to be not up standards of German armour ( MKIV Mediums with long 75 " Gun ) as well as many Stug G's and the occasional Tiger and later Pather versions  , it just SEEMS using what have to increase its effective range and penetration would be the FIRST thought . It seems no matter where I look I can find no attempt to do this .

 

 

 I am still " bugged " by the Torpedo's that did not work and the attitude of those who had the job to provide a version that did but blamed the messengers , the distinct lack of 20 mm mounts for defense when it was known 50 cal did not work anymore .  The fact they didn't accept Christie's suspension design and thus start with lower profile and better maneuverability .Instead we ended up having to fight those designs . It's quite the list of blunders and missed opportunity that killed the soldiers both ours and allies . We did great things and most was done right , the amazing story of the Mustang is an example that shows what is possible when things work .

 I still , after reading much on the tankers and their stories , find it hard to forgive those who decided what acceptable losses are.


Edited by ledhed14, Nov 24 2016 - 00:13.


Kyphe #13 Posted Nov 24 2016 - 03:55

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 315 battles
  • 843
  • Member since:
    01-27-2012
The British also had difficulty converting later models of the M10 to 17pdr once the turrets had been redesigned from the 3in gun to the 76mm, with the T70 turret being completely incompatible with the 17pdr. Though ofc this could be for a completely different reason.

CaptianNemo_VA_ #14 Posted Nov 24 2016 - 17:36

    Captain

  • Players
  • 293 battles
  • 1,672
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-27-2013

View Postledhed14, on Nov 23 2016 - 14:33, said:

Well I am certain they would have liked what Israel did to make these tanks work and survive in the desert wars . An " if only " because the french did not yet have a Country back yet . The Firefly DID solve a problem for the UK and it's Canadians and others who used the Conversions , along with the " applique " armour and improvements .

17 lbr did the job until something better came along .

 I ALWAYS wondered why they did not ever make a high velocity long barrel version of the Sherman with better armour as an upgrade . We had the engine power , but the suspension was not ready . Early Easy Eights used same short 75 . I understand it effective for infantry and liked for many reasons , but even using the the SAME shell a LONGER version of the gun would have produced higher muzzle velocity until the point of diminishing returns , but a choked / squeeze bore ,similar to other designs would have improved the anti tank capability .

 I realise WWII reality of acceptable losses is a factor , but I have trouble wrapping my head around this . Once the tank was proven to be not up standards of German armour ( MKIV Mediums with long 75 " Gun ) as well as many Stug G's and the occasional Tiger and later Pather versions  , it just SEEMS using what have to increase its effective range and penetration would be the FIRST thought . It seems no matter where I look I can find no attempt to do this .

 

 

 I am still " bugged " by the Torpedo's that did not work and the attitude of those who had the job to provide a version that did but blamed the messengers , the distinct lack of 20 mm mounts for defense when it was known 50 cal did not work anymore .  The fact they didn't accept Christie's suspension design and thus start with lower profile and better maneuverability .Instead we ended up having to fight those designs . It's quite the list of blunders and missed opportunity that killed the soldiers both ours and allies . We did great things and most was done right , the amazing story of the Mustang is an example that shows what is possible when things work .

 I still , after reading much on the tankers and their stories , find it hard to forgive those who decided what acceptable losses are.

 

There were many side projects to improve the M4 or even outright replace it everything from the T20 and T23 to the M7...

As far as improvements went there was the Anti-HEAT round armor that would have added 11 tons to the weight of the tank (7 tons to the T26) but would have protected it against 8 inches of HEAT jets. There were spaced armor panels designed and ready in January of 1945 for the pacific to decap Japanese 47mm APC rounds. There was the M4+T26 turret combo which weighed in at 102,000 lbs and could do about 15 mph in testing. And then there is the tracks... hundreds of pages on everything from improving roadwheel-track wear to wider tracks and super wide tracks...  Then there is the improved ammunition and testing... higher velocity 75mm cannons... And then there is talk about explosive armor to fight HEAT rounds (Theorized in 43, designed in 44 and tested in 45) and one of the more interesting bits... talk and testing of ammunition fires and ways to control them which lead to discussion about venting and blow off panels...

And for British M4 variants... requests for up to 3 and 1/4 inch hull side armor...  although they did say they would accept 3 inches... US Army however balked at that since it would really push the weight of the vehicle up(causing reliability issues) and they didnt want to go past about 45 tons (US) where as this would have pushed it closer to 47 tons.

 

Nemo.


Edited by CaptianNemo_VA_, Nov 24 2016 - 17:40.


zloykrolik #15 Posted Nov 24 2016 - 22:47

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 28512 battles
  • 407
  • [RDTT2] RDTT2
  • Member since:
    05-05-2012

Don't forget that the Sherman mainly operated in an infantry support role. Most of the main gun rounds fired by US tanks were HE. Thus why the 75 mm M3 gun was used for so long. Furthermore the US Army in Europe was at the end of a supply chain thousands of miles long across the Atlantic. Almost everything the Army used was made in the USA, transported to east coast sea ports, loaded on ships, convoyed across the Atlantic, unloaded in England or later in the continent, and then shipped up to the front.

 

Its one thing to say that this that or the other should have been done in hindsight, but another to be one to do it as it happens. Hasn't the Chieftain talked about the US doctrine of "battle need" & "battle worthiness"?



SwampFoxmondo #16 Posted Nov 27 2016 - 03:27

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 14329 battles
  • 23
  • Member since:
    11-29-2013

Chieftain,

 It seems that most times i hear you talk about the shermans....it's usually about some issue they had or some poor performance note you found. I would like to know what you have found that is supportive of the sherman. I realize that you have loads of background information. So why haven't seen:

  1.  The C.D.A. armor package that they came up with that would have been better than the Jumbos
  2.  The yes 90mm gun...hey we see every other country's wet dream of a tank made to work yet this one is forbidden because it's not possible...some of these tanks in this game never made it off the drawing board. So why for one that tried it in prototype form, didn't it make it in this game
  3. Ridged gun mount. This would have freed up space for the crew to perform and was lighter than the recoil guns
  4. Gun stabilizers - they designed 2, 2 axis gun stabilizers (IBM and one ARMY ord.) this would have allowed for a very quick drive, turn, fire scenario. Instead we all get the standard stabilizer add-on module if we add it on. Thats [edited]since this tank had it already.
  5. The experimental A65 C.D.A. high output engine that made 650 hp with a special transmission that earned the reputation in testing at a Hot Rod. This was also only 500 lbs the engine. The engine also saw no wear after 400 miles of operation when it was torn down to review
  6.  GM also made one that was in the Same power class
  7. The improved Tranny system that reduced the weight of the tank by taking out 20 gallons of oil, made it more reliable, gave it a full speed reverse planetary gear and add 25+HP to the tanks.
  8. Up armored differentials and other vital components
  9. The fact that yes there were weak spots in the armor of the sherman but they also made changes on the fly to cover these gaps. Usually the fixes would be made in the sand-casts and changed while in production. 
  10. Applique armor would be added over soft spots in the factory or when they were in the theater of operation by the service depot.
  11. Air conditioning system for the tank...this would allow crews to operate at a higher level 
  12. Torsion bar to lower ground pressure to less than 10lb 
  13. Wider tracks
  14. Plastic armor spikes (yes thats right). To help defeat HE and HEAT shells
  15. Spaced armor on the turret

All these could be added to the game...hell like I said there are many tanks in this game that never got off the drawing board...these all were built in various ways.

  •  I would also like to know why the HE and HEAT charge on the 105mm is pretty much crap. They were not that bad and = or better to other countries...there are countless battles where i'm damaging tanks 7-10% at a time at nearly 50 meters.
  • You also make the Jumbo hull statistically correct but the game seems to play it differently. This hull plate was outstanding so when I have crap tanks damaging it with 2 shots in the front armor mid glac. by over 70% that says problem.
  • Lastly, on the note of Armor....American Tanks were exceptional in Armor Quality (metallurgy). Ideal composition and hardening characteristics. The armor was so pure that in a recent Sherman Rebuild special they had issues with the weld torch cutting instead of welding due to the purity of it. In the same respect KV's and IS and T-34's all had poor armor. Some so bad that it was known to leak in the rain when it left the factory due to the forge cooling/hardening process. They also had several examples of armor so hard that when a shell it, it would shatter like glass.  
    • The Russian metal quality was so bad in some cases, that even mud in the treads would break pins. Yet, in the game, hit them with shells and they shrug them off. 

The USA tanks had better room, repairability, reliability and quality than any other tanks....for some reason this just seems to be ignored by the GAME....WHY????? 

 

 

 



CaptianNemo_VA_ #17 Posted Nov 27 2016 - 19:53

    Captain

  • Players
  • 293 battles
  • 1,672
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-27-2013

View PostSwampFoxmondo, on Nov 26 2016 - 18:27, said:

Chieftain,

 It seems that most times i hear you talk about the shermans....it's usually about some issue they had or some poor performance note you found. I would like to know what you have found that is supportive of the sherman. I realize that you have loads of background information. So why haven't seen:

  1.  The C.D.A. armor package that they came up with that would have been better than the Jumbos
  2.  The yes 90mm gun...hey we see every other country's wet dream of a tank made to work yet this one is forbidden because it's not possible...some of these tanks in this game never made it off the drawing board. So why for one that tried it in prototype form, didn't it make it in this game
  3. Ridged gun mount. This would have freed up space for the crew to perform and was lighter than the recoil guns
  4. Gun stabilizers - they designed 2, 2 axis gun stabilizers (IBM and one ARMY ord.) this would have allowed for a very quick drive, turn, fire scenario. Instead we all get the standard stabilizer add-on module if we add it on. Thats [edited]since this tank had it already.
  5. The experimental A65 C.D.A. high output engine that made 650 hp with a special transmission that earned the reputation in testing at a Hot Rod. This was also only 500 lbs the engine. The engine also saw no wear after 400 miles of operation when it was torn down to review
  6.  GM also made one that was in the Same power class
  7. The improved Tranny system that reduced the weight of the tank by taking out 20 gallons of oil, made it more reliable, gave it a full speed reverse planetary gear and add 25+HP to the tanks.
  8. Up armored differentials and other vital components
  9. The fact that yes there were weak spots in the armor of the sherman but they also made changes on the fly to cover these gaps. Usually the fixes would be made in the sand-casts and changed while in production. 
  10. Applique armor would be added over soft spots in the factory or when they were in the theater of operation by the service depot.
  11. Air conditioning system for the tank...this would allow crews to operate at a higher level 
  12. Torsion bar to lower ground pressure to less than 10lb 
  13. Wider tracks
  14. Plastic armor spikes (yes thats right). To help defeat HE and HEAT shells
  15. Spaced armor on the turret

All these could be added to the game...hell like I said there are many tanks in this game that never got off the drawing board...these all were built in various ways.

  •  I would also like to know why the HE and HEAT charge on the 105mm is pretty much crap. They were not that bad and = or better to other countries...there are countless battles where i'm damaging tanks 7-10% at a time at nearly 50 meters.
  • You also make the Jumbo hull statistically correct but the game seems to play it differently. This hull plate was outstanding so when I have crap tanks damaging it with 2 shots in the front armor mid glac. by over 70% that says problem.
  • Lastly, on the note of Armor....American Tanks were exceptional in Armor Quality (metallurgy). Ideal composition and hardening characteristics. The armor was so pure that in a recent Sherman Rebuild special they had issues with the weld torch cutting instead of welding due to the purity of it. In the same respect KV's and IS and T-34's all had poor armor. Some so bad that it was known to leak in the rain when it left the factory due to the forge cooling/hardening process. They also had several examples of armor so hard that when a shell it, it would shatter like glass.  
    • The Russian metal quality was so bad in some cases, that even mud in the treads would break pins. Yet, in the game, hit them with shells and they shrug them off. 

The USA tanks had better room, repairability, reliability and quality than any other tanks....for some reason this just seems to be ignored by the GAME....WHY????? 

 

 

 

 

1. There is no better armor package. The Anti-HEAT round armor package would have added a severe ammout of weight to the vehicle... and made a normal M4 weigh as much as an M4 Jumbo. Actually more tbh.
1. Chrysler did come up with a drawing for putting the 90mm gun in the standard M4 turret. But it would have sucked donkey balls. (Read The Expanse). Even adding on an M26 does not help things and greatly renders the performance of the M4 mobility wise rather poor.
3. Ridged gun mounts DO NOT WORK. They are fine for a few rounds but repeated use will cause severe side effects... Just ask the Germans with putting ridged guns on Panzer IIs IIIs and IVs...  Everything from mount cracking to transmission housing cracking after a few dozen rounds.

4. If you read the older hatch articles Chief does go into some of them in detail. Also everything I have seen says that the stabilizers could not correct for the movement of the tank fast enough when on the move. Even the M60 in 1971 could not go above about 7 mph and hit a sitting target while on the move... The gun could not be corrected fast enough.
5. Thats your idea of a Hot Rod? =/  There's an M3 with an 1000 hp engine derived from an airplane engine... Now that is a Hot Rod. Even then... you have fuel consumption and track/roadwheel wear to worry about not to mention the suspension can only handle so much speed.
9. They did the same for the RAM Tank.
10. Not exactly... In the field yes... In the Factory not so much... Unless your thinking about the side escape hatch. Which was quickly deleted.
11. Everything I have seen said that it sucked... and there was more then one system trialed.  I mean technically it did work but it was very bulky and prone to breaking down and fragile when hit.
12. It would disrupt production far too much and make the tank technically taller.
13. There are several hundred pages of track tests... Wider tracks also add weight...  http://i.imgur.com/fjqoXt4.jpg It also takes a lot of time to get through the testing process. Adding on Grousers was more common although the most common seen in Europe are 1-1/2 inch models.
14. Spikes only work if they are the correct length... too short or too long and it  can actually help the HEAT round. And then there is the need for different length to cover more then one type of round... And then lastly and most importantly there is the process of attaching it to the armor pol;ate... IE Welding... because the spikes are made of steel... and welded to the plate. They are absolutely not Plastic. And when somebody says Plastic Armor... in the 1940s... it means composite of some sort... not Plastic in terms of PVC.
15. Only good if it was spaced out more then 14 inches and made at least 10-12mm thick. Even then a Panzerfaust would make holes in the tank. And better still... Highly spaced wire netting works even better and is lighter still. But it also snags on everything and if its not taught enough it can actually help make the HEAT round work better...  Having seen the reports from 1943 and 44 in the testing department... Spaced armor would have been useless. To defeat the Panzerfaust there were plans to put spaced armor plates 30 inches from the outside of an Churchill Tanks Turret...  In order to make it completely immune.    



CaptianNemo_VA_ #18 Posted Nov 27 2016 - 19:56

    Captain

  • Players
  • 293 battles
  • 1,672
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-27-2013
Oh on the M67... It was garbage... I should know... I have been working on writting an 105mm Anti-Tank Howitzer article detialing the 105mm rounds.
 

Block Quote

 Although Artillery Ammunition states that the M66 and M67 will officially penetrate 3-5/8ths and 4 inches at any range.  Additionally the British Situation Report No. 40 covering the M67E1 round gave an average depth of penetration of  4 inches to 4-7/8 inches for the M67 round.  Which makes the British Situation Report No. 35 all the more interesting because it gave a figure of 5.1 to 5.5 inches and an Aberdeen Proving Grounds Static Test of 12 inches.

 



The M4 can either support an 76mm gun and a metric ton of armor... (22,000 lbs worth) and wider tracks... Or you can put an M26 turret on it and wider tracks with no additional armor... You cannot and never will be able to have both.


Edited by CaptianNemo_VA_, Nov 27 2016 - 20:02.


shapeshifter #19 Posted Nov 27 2016 - 21:30

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 17861 battles
  • 2,861
  • Member since:
    09-11-2010

View PostCaptianNemo_VA_, on Nov 27 2016 - 13:56, said:

Oh on the M67... It was garbage... I should know... I have been working on writting an 105mm Anti-Tank Howitzer article detialing the 105mm rounds.
 



The M4 can either support an 76mm gun and a metric ton of armor... (22,000 lbs worth) and wider tracks... Or you can put an M26 turret on it and wider tracks with no additional armor... You cannot and never will be able to have both.

 

I believe that report on the 102,000 sherman was it loaded down as well, that was around the time they were trying to decide on an uparmoured new assault tank.

 

There's another section in the situation reports where they give basic turret weights including guns.

 

"May 1944, 17 pdr in M4 brought up again, and weight comparisons of current turrets listed "

 

M4 (75mm) turret weighs 4 1/2 tons,

M4-T23 (76mm) weighs 7 1/2 tons,

M4 (17 pdr) weighs 7 3/4 tons,

T25 (90mm) 8 1/2 tons

T26 (90mm) 10 tons

All weights include the gun but not the basket.

 

 

 

Other data

 

 

Jumbo Sherman Turret assembly complete with gun mounting and basket, 20,510 lbs
Gun mounting complete with 75mm round in breech and 30 cal ammo in feed tray, 4008 lbs
new final drive assembly 11,275 lbs
complete vehicle unstowed 79,720 lbs
fully equipped less crew, 84,600 lbs


compared to Hunnicutt who lists Unstowed 77,500 lbs, combat loaded 84,000 lbs


British note it would be very simple to put the 17 pdr into it

 

 



SwampFoxmondo #20 Posted Nov 28 2016 - 00:33

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 14329 battles
  • 23
  • Member since:
    11-29-2013

View PostCaptianNemo_VA_, on Nov 27 2016 - 18:53, said:

 

1. There is no better armor package. The Anti-HEAT round armor package would have added a severe ammout of weight to the vehicle... and made a normal M4 weigh as much as an M4 Jumbo. Actually more tbh.
1. Chrysler did come up with a drawing for putting the 90mm gun in the standard M4 turret. But it would have sucked donkey balls. (Read The Expanse). Even adding on an M26 does not help things and greatly renders the performance of the M4 mobility wise rather poor.
3. Ridged gun mounts DO NOT WORK. They are fine for a few rounds but repeated use will cause severe side effects... Just ask the Germans with putting ridged guns on Panzer IIs IIIs and IVs...  Everything from mount cracking to transmission housing cracking after a few dozen rounds.

4. If you read the older hatch articles Chief does go into some of them in detail. Also everything I have seen says that the stabilizers could not correct for the movement of the tank fast enough when on the move. Even the M60 in 1971 could not go above about 7 mph and hit a sitting target while on the move... The gun could not be corrected fast enough.
5. Thats your idea of a Hot Rod? =/  There's an M3 with an 1000 hp engine derived from an airplane engine... Now that is a Hot Rod. Even then... you have fuel consumption and track/roadwheel wear to worry about not to mention the suspension can only handle so much speed.
9. They did the same for the RAM Tank.
10. Not exactly... In the field yes... In the Factory not so much... Unless your thinking about the side escape hatch. Which was quickly deleted.
11. Everything I have seen said that it sucked... and there was more then one system trialed.  I mean technically it did work but it was very bulky and prone to breaking down and fragile when hit.
12. It would disrupt production far too much and make the tank technically taller.
13. There are several hundred pages of track tests... Wider tracks also add weight...  http://i.imgur.com/fjqoXt4.jpg It also takes a lot of time to get through the testing process. Adding on Grousers was more common although the most common seen in Europe are 1-1/2 inch models.
14. Spikes only work if they are the correct length... too short or too long and it  can actually help the HEAT round. And then there is the need for different length to cover more then one type of round... And then lastly and most importantly there is the process of attaching it to the armor pol;ate... IE Welding... because the spikes are made of steel... and welded to the plate. They are absolutely not Plastic. And when somebody says Plastic Armor... in the 1940s... it means composite of some sort... not Plastic in terms of PVC.
15. Only good if it was spaced out more then 14 inches and made at least 10-12mm thick. Even then a Panzerfaust would make holes in the tank. And better still... Highly spaced wire netting works even better and is lighter still. But it also snags on everything and if its not taught enough it can actually help make the HEAT round work better...  Having seen the reports from 1943 and 44 in the testing department... Spaced armor would have been useless. To defeat the Panzerfaust there were plans to put spaced armor plates 30 inches from the outside of an Churchill Tanks Turret...  In order to make it completely immune.    

First off thank you for reading my post ( my soap-box). I would like to respectively disagree  with a few of your notes saying they wont work. As for the armor package...I've only found 1 or a hard to see 2nd picture of the CDA version...i work for the company and in trying to see if i can pull and documents from our archive....

The 2 hot rod  engines they referenced in actual  testing at the range. But due to the wars end coming they killed it...like most of the stuff i mentioned.....

 

I guess my point in the post was....why do they offer tanks by all these countries that either sucked and never went into production or some never make it off the drawing board....yet ones based on the sherman seem to get the "it was not built or practical due to xyz" treatment. 

I said the same thing with that plastic spike part also but it does mention plastic...i thought steel myself also.

Again thank you for reading it






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users