Jump to content

Official Firefly Testing.


Manic Moran

Recommended Posts

Interesting conversion they tried.

 

"An M4 turret with the 17 pdr mounted has been received at Fort Knox, and it is understood that tests will be undertaken in the near future, mounting the turret on a M26 heavy tank. This appears to be a fruitful line of investigation which might well be Followed up by D.T.D.

 

It would be useful to see whether this combination of smaller internally dimensioned turret can be satisfactorily fought. if such proves feasible, then a calculation as to the overall weight of a turret brought up to M26 turret armour standards should be made.

 

It seems probable that with the reduced dimensions of the M4 turret, a heavy tank could be composed comparable in armour to the M26, but lighter in overall weight. Such a tank would consist of an M4 turret suitably thickened externally with a new mantlet, the 17 pdr. gun and the M26 hull and power plant."

 

 

and just for fun. turret model switch from WoT, Jumbo turret on the M26 hull, just imagine the 17lbr in the guns place.

 

http://imgur.com/a/1w5tM

This line of thinking led to the post war M47?

With cues taken from the Schmalturm obviously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 145
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

This line of thinking led to the post war M47?

With cues taken from the Schmalturm obviously.

 

Obviously? Have you ever taken a look at the turret shape of the M24? I think it more obvious that the turret shapes of the M41, M47, and M60A1 were influenced by the thinking that led to the shape of the M24 turret.

Edited by DKTanker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting conversion they tried.

 

"An M4 turret with the 17 pdr mounted has been received at Fort Knox, and it is understood that tests will be undertaken in the near future, mounting the turret on a M26 heavy tank. This appears to be a fruitful line of investigation which might well be Followed up by D.T.D.

 

It would be useful to see whether this combination of smaller internally dimensioned turret can be satisfactorily fought. if such proves feasible, then a calculation as to the overall weight of a turret brought up to M26 turret armour standards should be made.

 

It seems probable that with the reduced dimensions of the M4 turret, a heavy tank could be composed comparable in armour to the M26, but lighter in overall weight. Such a tank would consist of an M4 turret suitably thickened externally with a new mantlet, the 17 pdr. gun and the M26 hull and power plant."

 

WTF do that? Why not mount the 17 pdr in the M26 turret or mount a 90mm gun in the M26 turret? Wait.....

 

On a different tack, It is interesting that the M4 never sported the M26 with 90mm, not even post war. Nor, does it seem that Israel was interested in doing it for their fleet of M4s. Of course it well could be that there were no M26 turrets which could have been made available to Israel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do it? Dunno

 

In the end they weren't able to do it, they wanted to but some issue they never went into detail on in a little blurb in 1946 said something made mating them not possible and then ended up sticking the M4 turret with the 17lb on a standard sherman hull for testing.

 

 

They did have a M4 with an M26 turret for testing.

 

 

They also wanted to or did? (one source says they did) put a M26 turret on the M6 heavy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

On a different tack, It is interesting that the M4 never sported the M26 with 90mm, not even post war. Nor, does it seem that Israel was interested in doing it for their fleet of M4s. Of course it well could be that there were no M26 turrets which could have been made available to Israel.

 

Availability might be an issue here. By the time Israel was able to obtain M4s en masse and have things done to them, it was in cooperation with France - so French guns were logical; the 75mm was readily available as the French were toying with it already and same goes for the "step up" to 105mm, so there was little motivation to explore a thing that would bring about as many issues as the 105mm, but with lower performance. At least that would be my take.

 

Heck, Yugoslavians tried to make a 122mm gun work in Sherman 75 turret as an assault gun :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

This line of thinking led to the post war M47?

With cues taken from the Schmalturm obviously.

 

Obviously? Have you ever taken a look at the turret shape of the M24? I think it more obvious that the turret shapes of the M41, M47, and M60A1 were influenced by the thinking that led to the shape of the M24 turret.

True.

 

"obviously" may probabaly not have been the right choice of word. Wanting a slim small turret and adding a stereoscopic rangefinder leads to similar shape in the end I think. Coevolution.

Edited by Panzermann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I understood at some point they figured out that the petals were causing some of the errors, when did they find that out?

 

I don't know, but the fix wasn't applied until 1954.

 

Interestingly, it said that it wasn't necessary when the same projectile assembly was fired from 77mm. Evidently there was some particular velocity which 77mm didn't reach but 17pr did which caused the separation problems.

 

 

Sounds like the 77mm should have been fitted to the "Firefly II", as it was almost as good as the 17pdr, smaller, and more accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

By a life time of reading letters and diaries and meeting notes and summaries that have survived.

 

It was always expected that tanks would fight tanks, but it was not the tanks preferred role. It was always expected using tank destroyers to destroy tanks was the best use of their capabilities and was its preferred role. However, there was never a decision that "tanks do not fight tanks, tank destroyers do". Unless you have found that phrase in a letter, diary, meeting note, or summary?

 

 

McNair was very clear on that being a preference, in fairness. However, he did not write the Armored Force doctrine, and was willing to support his subordinates.

 

 

Indeed, but his opinion, recorded as early as c. 1936, was that it simply wasn't good use of resources to use tanks to defeat other tanks. As an artilleryman, he believed it was gunpower that would be best used against tanks, since an artillery piece was cheaper than a tank. Part of it was that few really envisaged that the development of tank suspension and engines would make it practical for them to mount guns as powerful as could be towed or SP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They did have a M4 with an M26 turret for testing.

 

They also wanted to or did? (one source says they did) put a M26 turret on the M6 heavy.

 

Yes, they did have an "M4 with an M26 turret", but it wasn't for "testing" it was for demonstration purposes only...and it was a T26 Pilot turret, not an M26 one. This was a one off and existed for all of about 24 hours in July of 1944. It was apparently done to demonstrate the practicality of doing so to BG Holly, Chief of the ETOUSA AFV&W Section, who was visiting DTA to see the T26 pilots and the M4A3E2 as he pursued his mission to get more tanks and more tank firepower to the ETO. The hull BTW is that of an M4 (105mm), which was pulled from the production line for the demonstration. No changes were made to hull stowage, it was never runn off the arsenal floor, and after the demonstration the two halves went off on their merry respective ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose they could have put T26 turrets on Shermans or developed a 90 mm gun turret for them, but wouldn't it still be easier to just build T26s for the few months left in the war?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose they could have put T26 turrets on Shermans or developed a 90 mm gun turret for them, but wouldn't it still be easier to just build T26s for the few months left in the war?

Yes that's why they never went anywhere with it The same for the M6 mounting the turret and 90mm but they got quite a bit more work done for that.

 

 

Dec 1943 Talk of drawing up an OCM to mount a 90mm with the possibility of the T26 turret on the M6 + water ammo stowage.

 

Feb 1944 RAD is issued to Baldwin to create engineering drawings of this.

 

March 1944 "90mm gun based on T26 turret is being mounted on heavy tank series" layout drawings are being made in development branch room and almost finished. Baldwin was unable to take RAD so it was issued to Chevrolet motor division. Mounting of the 90mm gun will consist of the following A) removal of present M6 turret and replacing it with the turret based on the medium tank, T26. B.) Stowage of the hull arranged for 90mm ammunition, C) Two .50 cal bow machine guns are replaced with a .30 cal bow machine gun.

 

April 1944 The project has been canceled by Verbal order from the Chief, development branch. The Drawings which are completed are being stored for future reference.

Edited by whelm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point that seems to be always missed here is that those actually involved in battle and not directly involved knew from experience that the Sherman, like other modestly gunned tanks during the WW2 arms race, needed a bigger gun. Oh no, ammo too heavy to load or something? But the Sherman is perfect as is? The Sherman was just another modestly gunned tank (despite it being US) so more firepower should always have been on the agenda.

 

The simple fact is that US Ordinance were not able to compete in gun development and so, to preserve their empire, they became part of the problem and failed to upgun the Sherman in a timely fashion. From that simple fact and apparently to preserve' Murrica yeah' we now have an industry of excuses. Which range from the unrealistic 'it was not needed' to fudging penetrating figures by manipulating ammo performance while at the same time denigrating the 17pdr's performance.

 

It really is boring to listen to and read this sort of apologist rubbish. Wake up.

Edited by richard g
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And considering penetration capabilities of 76mm M1 gun, it was a very good tank gun, that could deal with majority of threats, including Tiger I from the front.

 

So really no reason to call facts, and actuall fight with myths about M4, as "apologist rubbush".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This argument can also be considered in the light of the role of the tank anyway.

 

Even after Churchills received 75mm guns some were still equipped with 6pdr (with APDS available), specifically to deal with armour that the 75mm was not able to deal with.

 

Even a small number (and I repeat small) number of T-34 received 57mm guns for use against tank targets, as the 57mm had much better AP performance than the T-34's 76mm gun, but overall the 76mm had much better HE performance than the 57mm.

 

Meanwhile, the Royal Marines took their 94mm armed Centaurs inland after D-Day and fought as gun tanks for longer than anyone expected them to.

 

The Shermans' 75mm gun was a better HE deliverer than the 76mm gun, whilst the 76mm rivaled the 88mm gun of the Tiger. M4 'Cobra Kings' (M4A3E2) field equipped with 76mm guns were not too far short in ability to the Tiger.

 

So, what do you want your tank to do? The Firefly was a great tank destroyer, and still able to support infantry better than the Archilles due to better turret armour and better overhead cover. If the USA wanted a vehicle with a 90mm gun they had the M36 available, of course not as good as a tank than the M4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It really is boring to listen to and read this sort of apologist rubbish. Wake up.

 

 

It really is boring to listen to and read this sort of accusationist rubbish. Wake up.
Edited by Tim Sielbeck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 76mm gun issue really came down to the ammunition, the amount produced, issued and the M/V selected as I recall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 76mm gun issue really came down to the ammunition, the amount produced, issued and the M/V selected as I recall.

No doubt it's been discussed and I've forgotten, but how did the WWII 76mm ammo stack compare to that used in Korea, where I understand it was effective against T-34s?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point that seems to be always missed here is that those actually involved in battle and not directly involved knew from experience that the Sherman, like other modestly gunned tanks during the WW2 arms race, needed a bigger gun. Oh no, ammo too heavy to load or something? But the Sherman is perfect as is? The Sherman was just another modestly gunned tank (despite it being US) so more firepower should always have been on the agenda.

 

The simple fact is that US Ordinance were not able to compete in gun development and so, to preserve their empire, they became part of the problem and failed to upgun the Sherman in a timely fashion. From that simple fact and apparently to preserve' Murrica yeah' we now have an industry of excuses. Which range from the unrealistic 'it was not needed' to fudging penetrating figures by manipulating ammo performance while at the same time denigrating the 17pdr's performance.

 

It really is boring to listen to and read this sort of apologist rubbish. Wake up.

 

And I get bored listening to the same recycled ignorant rubbish. Especially from posters who have been told the facts before, but who apparently think that simply repeating the same recycled ignorant rubbish ad infinitum will eventually make it come true.

 

The Medium Tank M4 was designed AT THE VERY BEGINNING to be upgunned. The 75mm Gun was the initial armament, but it was ALWAYS planned to have alternate armaments of a 3" gun or 105mm howitzer. The requirement may be found in OCM 17202 of 11 September 1941. The first installation of a 76mm (3") gun was 1 August 1942, 8 months before the towed 17-pdr saw action and a year before the first Sherman 17-pdr was trialed.

 

The simple fact is US ORDNANCE (not Ordinance) WAS able to compete in gun development and was MORE timely than British Ordnance in developing a practical mounting absent the problems found in the kludged together British mounting. The primary fault found in the 76mm was not actually the gun, it was the chosen APC-T (actually an APCBCHE-T) projectile. Quite simply, the British AP-T round performed better and was better able to take advantage of the higher Mv of the 17-pdr, but end-of-war development by BRL found and solved the American projectile problems, but too late for the war. Furthermore, despite having to manufacture the new tank and then ship them across the Atlantic to the troops (the British arsenals doing the conversions were a tad closer), virtually the same number of Medium Tank M4 76mm (w) were in England as were Sherman 17-pdr on 1 June 1944. IT WAS THE COMMAND DECISION which made the difference, not some fictitious special ability bestowed on British Ordnance.

 

All of which have FUCK ALL to do with figure fudging or manipulated performance data NONE OF WHICH HAS APPEARED IN THIS THREAD. The only fudging going on here is YOUR FUDGING of the historical record.

 

So get stuffed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The 76mm gun issue really came down to the ammunition, the amount produced, issued and the M/V selected as I recall.

No doubt it's been discussed and I've forgotten, but how did the WWII 76mm ammo stack compare to that used in Korea, where I understand it was effective against T-34s?

 

 

The late-war development of the 76mm M79 AP-T which was specially heat-treated for additional hardness, worked much better than "vanilla" M79 and the same for 90mm M82 AP-T. 76mm T4E20 was also standardized as M93 HVAP in 1945 and performed very well. I think the hardness and fuzing issues on the M62 APC-T were worked on with some success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The late-war development of the 76mm M79 AP-T which was specially heat-treated for additional hardness, worked much better than "vanilla" M79 and the same for 90mm M82 AP-T. 76mm T4E20 was also standardized as M93 HVAP in 1945 and performed very well. I think the hardness and fuzing issues on the M62 APC-T were worked on with some success.

 

 

To add, vs real world targets 76mm M1 had almost same performances as Soviet 85mm ZiS-S-53 and German 7.5cm PaK40, and none complains about those guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

To add, vs real world targets 76mm M1 had almost same performances as Soviet 85mm ZiS-S-53 and German 7.5cm PaK40, and none complains about those guns.

 

Interestingly the KwK 40/L48 was being fielded on the Pzkw IV starting June of 1942, more than two full years before any US forces would have a comparable tank mounted gun. Whatever the reasons, whoever made the decisions, putting a more powerful armor defeating weapon on the M4 fielded by US forces really wasn't taken seriously until the summer 1944.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about putting the 77 mm in British Shermans? Anyone thought of it?

Inertia. So great was the inertia of using the M3 75mm and not up gunning, not even for the available homegrown 76mm and 3", there is no way it could be overcome to install the 77mm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...