Soviet tank tech tree

[keynes2.0]

So this adoption of the 76mm as the main gun for the Sherman was accidental, perhaps an uncorrected typo on a requisition form. Or maybe the US Army decided they didn't like being at such a disadvantage vis-à-vis German armor anymore.

Dont be intentionally obtuse. Just because they decided that better tank fighting ability was important didn't mean they decided it was the only thing that mattered.

Just look at production of tank destroyers. They had the M4 chassis and most of the same parts and could be built on the M4 production lines. So the Americans must have seen that tanks primary job was fighting tanks (as you say.) Naturally they responded by... cutting production of tank destroyers by 75% in '44 and cutting it further in '45.

 

[plasticpanzers]

Thought I would pop in a mo to correct Keynes. Common misconception that the M10 had a 76mm gun. It in actuality had a 3in gun
adapted from the 3in antinaircraft gun such as the M36 had an adapted 90mm antiaircraft gun. The 76mm was on the M18 and M4/76.
oh do try and get your facts straight... ta ta....gone again....hi ho Silver, Away!!

 

[frolix42]

Do you actually know what a breakthrough tank is? It is a heavy tank like the Tiger, KV, or IS. The Panther was meant to be, basically, a better version of the T-34 and replace the PzIV as Germany's main medium tank.

Was the Panther at 45 tons not heavy enough? The Panther is not lighter than the KV-1, and it's more heavily armed. It's rate of fire was exponentially higher than the IS tanks. The Tiger's main gun was not noted for it's HE power either. So the main weakness of the Panther in a tactical scenario is it's side armor. When attacking an enemy in a fixed position it's easy to keep your frontage in the correct position. It's speed and agility make it more effective than the Tiger in the enfilade once the breakthrough had been made.

At the Bulge, at Kursk the Panther was used in a breakthrough role but could not overcome strategic forces arrayed against it. At Korsun–Cherkassy Pocket it did perform well in limited offensives. I don't think it is fair to ignore how the Panther stepped into the role the Tiger, by being expensive, scarce and unreliable, left only partially filled. Through necessity the Panther was tasked to act as a breakthrough tank.

And? I didn't say there was no need for tanks to fight tanks, I said "killing tanks isn't the sole or even most important purpose of a tank". It was useful to have some tanks with better AT guns, like the 76mm Sherman, the Firefly, or the T-34-57, but for the most part a better HE shell was more important.

Isn't this Tank-Destroyer doctrine? For me the upgrade of the T-34/85 was a more logical development because you cannot hope to always have the few T-34-57s at the correct place and time to destroy Panthers, Tigers and other heavy armor.

The US didn't intend to arm the bulk of their Shermans with 76s during WWII, the Germans did intend to replace all their medium tanks with Panthers.

If the US replacing it's 75mm Shermans with 76mm Shermans depended on the 76mm having adequate HE rounds, it suggests to me that the complete transition of the Pz4 to the Panther would involve an analogous improvement of the 7.5 cm KwK 42's HE capacity. At what point did the US Army collectively realize that it's main tank needed significant AT Capacity? No one can know for sure, but I believe that it at the very least began before the end of WW2 and it was influenced in a large way by the Panther.

 

[keynes2.0]

Thought I would pop in a mo to correct Keynes. Common misconception that the M10 had a 76mm gun. It in actuality had a 3in gun
adapted from the 3in antinaircraft gun such as the M36 had an adapted 90mm antiaircraft gun. The 76mm was on the M18 and M4/76.
oh do try and get your facts straight... ta ta....gone again....hi ho Silver, Away!!

Um... 3 inches is equal to 76 millimeters. I never actually said they had the same model, just the same caliber.

Thanks for nothing!

 

[D Inqu]

Because there must be only one tank for one role? The Panther is verboten from calling itself a breakthrough tank in any circumstance!

Again. A breakthrough tank is a doctrine/utilisation/capabilities issue. The german "Spitze" idea was for a heavy superior tank to be used as a strategic tool to reinforce Panzer Corps to give them power to break powerful defences. The Panther a completely different tank from the design stage.
1. Very weak side armor for its weight. The very idea of a breakthrough tank calls for closing in on the enemy. Side armor cannot be neglected.
2. Low HE power gun - again completely inappropriate for a breakthrough tank, which will may get no armor opponents for a while.
3. From the beginning designed as a "standard" tank, to fill Panzer divission, not reinforce them.

The perfect example of a breakthrough tank is the IS-2. Same weight as the panther, but much more armor and firepower, giving that edge to tanks corps. The tanks were deployed in "independent regiments" (battalion level in size) to reinforce the units.

Er...yes they did do it, half of the US Shermans in Europe were 76mm models in May 1945 and when the war was over the most advanced 76mm +105mm howitzer models were the only ones kept in service. This is not surprising, post-war every nation started downsizing their less advanced models.

They went the minimum upgrade package to keep the gun adequate to the opponents faced. Attempts to put the 90mm gun remained experimental. The 105mm variant, being a low muzzle velocity artillery support, with limited AT power further shows how the US was not interested in the paper "superiority" of the German tanks.

Talk about loaded language. "Held until" early 1944 production of their front line tank with a gun that had more AP power than the (76mm) model the Americans started adopting in late 1944. It seems to me the Soviets gauged what was needed to fight late-war German armor better than the Americans.

Ehm, the 76mm had more AP power. By a long shot with HVAP.

 

[frolix42]

Low HE power gun - again completely inappropriate for a breakthrough tank, which will may get no armor opponents for a while.

So you think the Tiger wasn't a breakthrough tank?

They went the minimum upgrade package to keep the gun adequate to the opponents faced. Attempts to put the 90mm gun remained experimental.

No, the Sherman tank wasn't a good AT chassis which is why all of the *rah rah Sherman* fans do their best to minimize the importance of AP. The length of the 76mm gun barrel unbalanced the M4 and so had to be reduced by 15 inches. This reduced it's AP power.

The 105mm variant, being a low muzzle velocity artillery support, with limited AT power further shows how the US was not interested in the paper "superiority" of the German tanks.

The US made an armored vehicle howitzer, therefore it was uninterested in countering German tanks? The Germans made submarines, therefore it further shows they were uninterested in the paper "superiority" of the Allies on land.:rofl:

Ehm, the 76mm had more AP power. By a long shot with HVAP.

Where is RussianBias when he'd actually be useful?
Historian Roger Ford writes in his book "The Sherman Tank" a small note about The Sherman and the Soviet T-34.

"Was the Sherman as good an all-round tank as the other main contender for the dubious title of 'Best Allied Armored Vehicle' the Soviet T-34/85? The Red Army, which got over 4000 Shermans, 2073 of them 76mm gunned tanks, as part of Lend Lease didn't think so, but that says little or nothing about the real comparative merits of the two, for the T-34 was conceived specifically for the sort of conditions to be found in European Russia, and the Sherman was not. When the two types met in combat, in Korea, they proved to be quite well matched; the better ballistic performance of the Russian 85mm gun was effectively cancelled out by the speed with which an experienced Sherman turret crew could train and fire the stabilized 76mm gun of the M4; there was little difference in the effectiveness of the two tanks' armor."

And this with all that HVAP which we all know to be so plentiful during WW2.

 

[Darkrenown]

Was the Panther at 45 tons not heavy enough? The Panther is not lighter than the KV-1, and it's more heavily armed. It's rate of fire was exponentially higher than the IS tanks. The Tiger's main gun was not noted for it's HE power either. So the main weakness of the Panther in a tactical scenario is it's side armor. When attacking an enemy in a fixed position it's easy to keep your frontage in the correct position. It's speed and agility make it more effective than the Tiger in the enfilade once the breakthrough had been made.

A "heavy" tank isn't purely a matter of weight, as D Inqu says, it's a matter of design and intended role - tanks not intended as breakthrough tanks could still be used to lead attacks, but it wasn't optimal. And you cannot attack across an infinite front, your attack is only going to be so wide and then there's going to be enemies you are driving past firing into your sides. Nor do you typically destroy every enemy in your path, some are either bypassed or remain hidden/unnoticed until you are passing them and give you a nasty surprise.

Also, the 88 fired a shell with ~1/3rd more HE filler than the 75/48 (the /70 had about 10% less HE than the /48 and also had a thicker casing which made it still less effective), which was why it was used over a 75mm gun.

Isn't this Tank-Destroyer doctrine? For me the upgrade of the T-34/85 was a more logical development because you cannot hope to always have the few T-34-57s at the correct place and time to destroy Panthers, Tigers and other heavy armor.

The 85 was indeed the logical gun upgrade for the t-34, so long as you accept that tank-fighting wasn't the key role for a tank, since it increased both AP and HE capabilities. If only AP mattered, the T-34-57 could have become the main version from 1941 onwards instead of waiting until 1944 to roll out the 34-85.

 

[D Inqu]

So you think the Tiger wasn't a breakthrough tank?

Well, obviously it wasn't. It could not be used in any breakthrough due to being overweight, and the 88m was not ideal. Yet it was a lot closer to a breakthrough tank than the Panther by having good (for 1942) all-round armor and usage tactics. Had it been developed as designed, it would have been a true breakthrough tank.

Where is RussianBias when he'd actually be useful?
Historian Roger Ford writes in his book "The Sherman Tank" a small note about The Sherman and the Soviet T-34.
And this with all that HVAP which we all know to be so plentiful during WW2.

How about numbers? The 85mm gun could penetrate around the same (the 76mm being marginally better) with regular ammunition. The 76mm performed noticeably better with HVAP than the 85mm with APCR. Now the HVAP "plentiful" as the were, still exceeded in number the prodution of APCR for the soviets. And the in-field performance of the 85mm suffered compared to firing tests due to rushed manufacturing and poor shell quality until late 1944.

You are trying to stretch facts so hard, but it just isn't working.

No, the Sherman tank wasn't a good AT chassis which is why all of the *rah rah Sherman* fans do their best to minimize the importance of AP. The length of the 76mm gun barrel unbalanced the M4 and so had to be reduced by 15 inches. This reduced it's AP power.

Seriously, does it not sink through yet? Tanks in WW2 did not have to be amazing AT platforms. Tank vs tank duels were not the only, the main or even the desired activity.

The Sherman was kept at "good enough" AT level that allowed to take on it targets at the likely engagement ranges. Just like the T-34. Both were slightly upgunned during the war to match the appearnce of heavier armored enemies, but not at the detriment of other characteristics.

 

[frolix42]

How about numbers? The 85mm gun could penetrate around the same (the 76mm being marginally better) with regular ammunition. The 76mm performed noticeably better with HVAP than the 85mm with APCR. Now the HVAP "plentiful" as the were, still exceeded in number the prodution of APCR for the soviets. And the in-field performance of the 85mm suffered compared to firing tests due to rushed manufacturing and poor shell quality until late 1944.

Numbers? I see *rah rah* Sherman stronger than T-34! Can you provide me a scholarly source that supports your conclusion like I just did to contradict you?

Both were slightly upgunned during the war to match the appearnce of heavier armored enemies, but not at the detriment of other characteristics.

The "other characteristics" being HE power.

Unless the reason they did not do it was because the tradeoff was not worth it.

It starts to look bad when you contradict yourself.

 

[D Inqu]

Numbers? I see *rah rah* Sherman stronger than T-34! Can you provide me a scholarly source that supports your conclusion like I just did to contradict you?

Please begin with providing a source. A liberal prose account without actual stats is meaningless. If you are intersted in AP characteristics, look it up, it's not hard.

The "other characteristics" being HE power.

And weight, terrain travesability, turret size, cost, production rate...

It starts to look bad when you contradict yourself.

So you claim the Americans were keen on upgrading the Sherman AT capabilities. I reply that they didn't, they kept the same caliber and ditched major upgrades (like the proposed 90mm).

You, trying to still claim that US wanted "Sherman AT POWAR" state the US have even reduced barrel length on the 76mm (which is bad for muzzle velocity, accuracy and thus AT capabilities) for the sake of other characteristics (like gun balance). Thus further proving my point.

Yet you are still convinced I am the one contradicting myself. Seriously man, you make not sense at all.

 

[frolix42]

Please begin with providing a source. A liberal prose account without actual stats is meaningless.

http://www.amazon.com/Sherman-Tank-Weapons-War/dp/1862270422
It's on my desk, page 87.
Or since you don't strike me as a reader of books, you could go on any reputable website and reach the same conclusion.

If you are intersted in AP characteristics, look it up, it's not hard.

In this light you come across as very lazy spouting "facts" without proof, then demanding I refute you. Very well.
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/usa/guns/76-mm.asp
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/ussr/guns.asp
Tables from a website which show that 76 mm gun M1 mounted on a Sherman has less AP value than a 85mm ZiS-S-53 mounted on a T-34/85.

And weight, terrain travesability, turret size, cost, production rate...

So what "tradeoff" were you referring to when you said it wasn't worth upgrading the 75mm to the 76mm? Because apparently you later forgot that you said this and asserted that when it was upgraded and it didn't come at any detriment to it's characteristics. I find this happens a lot with people who are pulling facts out of their butt.

So you claim the Americans were keen on upgrading the Sherman AT capabilities. I reply that they didn't, they kept the same caliber and ditched major upgrades (like the proposed 90mm).

The 90mm was not a reasonable choice for the Sherman's main gun, and it is very obvious it has nothing to do with a need or lack thereof for AT capabilities. If you can't realize that if the US had to shorten the 76mm barrel in order to keep the tank balanced, then mounting an even longer and heavier gun isn't reasonable, there is no hope for you.

You, trying to still claim that US wanted "Sherman AT POWAR" state the US have even reduced barrel length on the 76mm (which is bad for muzzle velocity, accuracy and thus AT capabilities) for the sake of other characteristics (like gun balance). Thus further proving my point.

No one is debating that the Sherman was a tank designed to have good AT power except for you with your false claims about the 76mm superior penetration to the 85 mm ZiS-S-53 gun. However it was clearly an aspect the US Army wanted improved as shown by the introduction of the 76mm in the first place. I have a feeling that you would cite the sun rising in the east as proof of your points as well.

 

[frolix42]

There was no desire to even try to switch fully to the 76mm gun, the 75 had a far better HE shell.

I've also managed to harness The_Chieftan for my own nefarious ends: End of the M4(75)

http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/pc-browser/21/the_chieftains-hatch-end_of_75_M4/

A document dated 17 August 1943 lays out the plan pretty bluntly.

“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”

This is not an indication of a desire to keep a mix of M4(75)s and M4(76)s for a mix of anti-infantry and anti-armour work. This is indication of an understanding of obsolescence of the 75mm and a desire to eventually eliminate it in favour of the 76mm. That said, a large meeting on 20SEP43 between the Army and tank manufacturers acknowledged that the use of 75mm, 76mm and 105mm M4 tanks would be used “to provide a well-balanced team,” but that was probably just an acceptance of the fact that they had already built thousands of M4s with 75mm guns and they may as well use them.

So perhaps I've been a little to hard on the US Ordinance Corp. They seem to have recognized the insufficiency of a tank optimized for a pure HE support role.

The US didn't intend to arm the bulk of their Shermans with 76s during WWII, the Germans did intend to replace all their medium tanks with Panthers.

In light of this I think your assertion that this is a false analogy is is wrong. Both upgrade projects were desired outcomes but could not be accomplished by May 1945 due to immediate need for vehicles, even semi-obsolete ones.

 

[plasticpanzers]

As I ride back in to fight injustice. Wrong again Keynes. The 3 in and the 76mm fire a different shell. They are not interchangeable.
There firing characteristics and ammo capabilities are really different. This is beginners research on US vehicles knowledge.
Gives me an idea you a onliner clicker researcher and actually know very little on the real thing.
Exit stage left.....

 

[keynes2.0]

As I ride back in to fight injustice. Wrong again Keynes. The 3 in and the 76mm fire a different shell. They are not interchangeable.
There firing characteristics and ammo capabilities are really different. This is beginners research on US vehicles knowledge.
Gives me an idea you a onliner clicker researcher and actually know very little on the real thing.
Exit stage left.....

What a wonderful refutation to something I never said.

Bravo! 10/10

 

[frolix42]

As I ride back in to fight injustice. Wrong again Keynes.

Bless you in the name of all those who have fallen blocking and ignoring those who persistently post factual inaccuracies.

 

[keynes2.0]

Frolix, point me to where I said the 3 inch and the 76mm fired the same shell please? I'm sure it will only take like 60 seconds to search the thread and find the post. I'm sure you are aware of this since you are cheering on the guys efforts.

 

[plasticpanzers]

Tallyho! I swoop from above

76mm is 76mm....3 inches is 76.2mm

'math is my friend. it has taught me many things. why are you mad at my friend?'

uh....you said the 3in is equal to 76mm..... not the same measurement. not the same gun. not the same shell. it does not compute...

I fly my Typhoon up into the clouds, leaving a cannon shattered barrel of water and a deceased water foul. Must have my ground
crew paint another sitting duck under the canopy. Up...UP...AND AWAY......

 

[SFSLovenought]

That is an incredible propaganda poster, I love it.

 

[frolix42]

That is an incredible propaganda poster, I love it.

It's a great use of Art Deco influence, with bold geometric shapes, that conveys firmness in the faces and the soldiers marching by.

 

[GermanPower]

Bless you in the name of all those who have fallen blocking and ignoring those who persistently post factual inaccuracies.

Frolix you are really biting down man, I gave up with the arguing it began to go nowhere. That photo is quite entertaining however.