US tank design and philosophy

[DogDodger]

2 hours ago, RichTO90 said:

I see a lot of people haven't bothered to read my book

You're currently 49th in my to-read stack.

[DKTanker]

2 hours ago, RichTO90 said:

I see a lot of people haven't bothered to read my book and haven't bothered to follow Manic's videos. 🤪

Does your book talk about the 90mm project being dustbinned such that by the time people started discussing the efficacy of a 90mm armed M4, the answer was, "Well, we shitcanned the entire project and it's just too late to start over."  I didn't realize that had happened until Manic posted a picture of one of the reports. https://www.tanknet.org/uploads/monthly_2025_01/image.jpeg.ad55d55dbb20d7a53af86398a0cf4d05.jpeg

So now we need to ask why?  Probably for the same reason why the evolution of US AT ammunition stagnated, as recently pointed out by others.  The M4 with its 75mm was seen as more than adequate for the duration with no credence ever seriously given to the idea that the 3rd Reich might field tanks with heavier armor and guns that could ventilate an M4 just as surely as a child can blow out the candles on his birthday cake.

Edited January 14 by DKTanker

[RichTO90]

1 hour ago, DKTanker said:

Does your book talk about the 90mm project being dustbinned such that by the time people started discussing the efficacy of a 90mm armed M4, the answer was, "Well, we shitcanned the entire project and it's just too late to start over."  I didn't realize that had happened until Manic posted a picture of one of the reports. https://www.tanknet.org/uploads/monthly_2025_01/image.jpeg.ad55d55dbb20d7a53af86398a0cf4d05.jpeg

So now we need to ask why?  Probably for the same reason why the evolution of US AT ammunition stagnated, as recently pointed out by others.  The M4 with its 75mm was seen as more than adequate for the duration with no credence ever seriously given to the idea that the 3rd Reich might field tanks with heavier armor and guns that could ventilate an M4 just as surely as a child can blow out the candles on his birthday cake.

No, I doesn't because that is a total misreading of what that says. I do talk about why that particular M4(105) on the assembly line was pulled aside and had a T26E3 turret assembly dropped onto it for that photo op though. The problem is that they were already putting 90mm guns on M4 chassis, but they weren't tanks, they were tank destroyers. Putting T26E3 turrets on M4 chassis was a non-starter because they needed the T26E3 turrets to put on T26E3 chassis. The turret was not an excess item.

The Armored Force saw the 75mm as more than adequate...well, until Devers took over from Chaffee who was dying. Devers was an artilleryman and saw the advantage of more powerful guns. OTOH, the Armored Force wanted adequate ammunition storage, so their ideal was well described to Ordnance - it was basically an American version of the 7.5cm KwK 42. So Ordnance said, we have a better idea, like it or lump it, we'll design a tank around the 90mm. Wait a second sez Armor, can you give us 70+ rounds of stowage. Sure sez Ordnance, and deliveries the T26E3 with 59 rounds of stowage. Wait sez Armor...you see where this goes.

Meanwhile, the 76mm M1 Gun was a perfectly find gun, with a terrible APC projectile and worse fuzing. Wonderfully accuracy, but against heavy armor the projectile tended to deform or the fuze actuated early or both. Oh, BTW, the Navy designed 3" APC projectiles were superior in design to the Army, but the Army did not know that until they were tested side by side...in 1946. Oh, Ordnance also knew the German designed projectiles were far superior, as early as April 1943, and made zero effort to copy the design specifications.

Tell me how all that is McNair's or AGF's fault.

I cud go on an on but I would prefer you read the book and then ask questions.

 

Quote

 

 

[futon]

The T-34 got the 85mm about, maybe 9 months earlier than M4 got the long 76. Although, the Soviets probably were more impacted by tank warfare thus probably felt the necessity to upgun more strongly.

Edited January 14 by futon

[Markus Becker]

6 hours ago, DKTanker said:

The M4 with its 75mm was seen as more than adequate for the duration with no credence ever seriously given to the idea that the 3rd Reich might field tanks with heavier armor and guns that could ventilate an M4 just as surely as a child can blow out the candles on his birthday cake.

That could be done by any run of the mill Pak40/KwK version and was requiring an entirely new tank to counter, not just new ammo. 

BTW, didn't Nick find an original document that said US tankers weren't too worried about the vulnerability of the M4 to the guns of German tanks as long as their guns could kill those German tank. 

Edited January 14 by Markus Becker

[Rick]

10 hours ago, RichTO90 said:

I see a lot of people haven't bothered to read my book and haven't bothered to follow Manic's videos. 🤪

Read and watched yes, remembered, not so much. After filing taxes will re-read and re-watch for mental recuperation. 

[seahawk]

2 hours ago, Markus Becker said:

BTW, didn't Nick find an original document that said US tankers weren't too worried about the vulnerability of the M4 to the guns of German tanks as long as their guns could kill those German tank. 

This is a result of the numerical advantage. But this was due to the large production and streamlined production.

The ideal tank is largely immune to enemy hits and can easily destroy enemy tanks.

If you can not have this, crews usually prefer being able to destroy the enemy over being well protected but under gunned.

A bad tank is weakly armoured and under gunned.

But the worst tank is no tank.

And that is the point - Soviets and Allies had many tanks, while the Germans often had no tanks at all. The influence of this however becomes most obvious if you read the memories of simple infantry soldiers and not tankers.

Edited January 14 by seahawk

[Manic Moran]

I did, yes, somewhere. The Germans said something similar after encountering KVs.

[Markus Becker]

5 hours ago, seahawk said:

The ideal tank is largely immune to enemy hits and can easily destroy enemy tanks.

As designed the M4 was just this, wasn't it? With a relative hull armor of 90mm it should have been immune to it's own gun at 500 yards, APCR ammo excluded off course.

[Mike1158]

17 hours ago, RichTO90 said:

I see a lot of people haven't bothered to read my book and haven't bothered to follow Manic's videos. 🤪

Which book?

[old_goat]

12 hours ago, futon said:

The T-34 got the 85mm about, maybe 9 months earlier than M4 got the long 76. Although, the Soviets probably were more impacted by tank warfare thus probably felt the necessity to upgun more strongly.

Exactly. Already in the second half of 1943, it was an undeniable fact for the soviets that the T-34/76 was utterly inferior to Tigers and Panthers. Even worse, it was also inferior to Pz.IVG/H and Stug IIIG. Losses were simply unsustainable. Yes, it is true that frequently the main problem was poor leadership, but it doesnt change the fact that the T-34/76 was simply uncompetitive vs german tanks and assault guns. For all its good points, the same is true for the 75mm Sherman.

75mm APCR or even HEAT was a no go for the Sherman. Maybe it could have partially solve the problem vs Pz IV and assault guns, but thats all. APCR and HEAT had less after armor effect than normal AP. Neither was popular in german tanks. The americans did the right thing to install the 76mm. It was very effective vs Pz.IV/StuG, and below 800-1000m, still useful vs Tigers and Panthers. 

 

[RichTO90]

36 minutes ago, Mike1158 said:

Which book?

https://www.amazon.com/American-Thunder-Design-Development-Doctrine/dp/0811773817?s=books

[DKTanker]

12 hours ago, RichTO90 said:

 

Meanwhile, the 76mm M1 Gun was a perfectly find gun, with a terrible APC projectile and worse fuzing. Wonderfully accuracy, but against heavy armor the projectile tended to deform or the fuze actuated early or both. Oh, BTW, the Navy designed 3" APC projectiles were superior in design to the Army, but the Army did not know that until they were tested side by side...in 1946. Oh, Ordnance also knew the German designed projectiles were far superior, as early as April 1943, and made zero effort to copy the design specifications.

Tell me how all that is McNair's or AGF's fault.

The first bold part is precisely what I meant by lack of aforethought.

The second bold part is your attempt to build a strawman.  I never once named McNair, or any other person or agency.  I said there was a general lack of aforethought as I mentioned above.  That has always been my position whenever this topic comes up, with blame to no one or no one agency.  It would seem you tend to agree while simultaneously being apologetic.  Interesting dichotomy.

[Markus Becker]

39 minutes ago, old_goat said:

75mm APCR or even HEAT was a no go for the Sherman. Maybe it could have partially solve the problem vs Pz IV and assault guns, but thats all. APCR and HEAT had less after armor effect than normal AP. Neither was popular in german tanks. The americans did the right thing to install the 76mm. It was very effective vs Pz.IV/StuG, and below 800-1000m, still useful vs Tigers and Panthers. 

Huh? I thought the regular 75mm AP(C) ammo was effective against Pz.IV and Stug.III? 

I can see HEAT being not popular among German tankers because of the low MV but I'm fairly sure APCR was rationed because the tungsten was needed for machine tools, not because it lacked effect. 

[Markus Becker]

Why did the M4 become what he became? 

Twice as heavy as a Pz.III from 1940 with a gun twice as big and three times the effective armor. 

Did the US know how unimpressive German tanks were and decided to utterly overmatch them? Did they expect them to be heavier than in reality? IIRC the British and the French did and Germany spread disinformation using for example the experimental Neubaufahrzeug tanks. 

Or was it design and production bottlenecks? The US 37mm tank gun was correctly seen as obsolescent at best and the next bigger gun that could be provided ASAP happened to be a variation of the experimental T6 AA gun. And the size of that weapon than dictated the use of something the size of a medium M2. Which allowed armor to protect against the 75mm gun. 

[RichTO90]

4 minutes ago, DKTanker said:

The first bold part is precisely what I meant by lack of aforethought.

The second bold part is your attempt to build a strawman.  I never once named McNair, or any other person or agency.  I said there was a general lack of aforethought as I mentioned above.  That has always been my position whenever this topic comes up, with blame to no one or no one agency.  It would seem you tend to agree while simultaneously being apologetic.  Interesting dichotomy.

Is it lack of forethought or a simple lack of action? Or acting at cross purposes? The purview of the Ordnance Department was to provide the weapons and combat equipment required by the Ground Forces. Unfortunately, Ordnance all too frequently gave the Ground Forces what they thought the Ground Forces should have asked for.

And indeed, AGF and the Armored Force shot themselves in the foot too many times as well by delivering muddled messages to each other and to Ordnance. One of the classics of talking past each other is the conversation between Devers and Barnes over the 76mm and Medium Tank M4 on 5 August 1942. I'm not sure if I'm apologetic about it though - I didn't do it so what would I be apologizing for?

Sorry, no strawman intended. Simply pointing out the usual suspects are incorrectly identified.

[Mike1158]

34 minutes ago, RichTO90 said:

https://www.amazon.com/American-Thunder-Design-Development-Doctrine/dp/0811773817?s=books

Thanks for that, when I am flush perhaps.

[RichTO90]

14 minutes ago, Markus Becker said:

Why did the M4 become what he became? 

Twice as heavy as a Pz.III from 1940 with a gun twice as big and three times the effective armor. 

Did the US know how unimpressive German tanks were and decided to utterly overmatch them? Did they expect them to be heavier than in reality? IIRC the British and the French did and Germany spread disinformation using for example the experimental Neubaufahrzeug tanks. 

Or was it design and production bottlenecks? The US 37mm tank gun was correctly seen as obsolescent at best and the next bigger gun that could be provided ASAP happened to be a variation of the experimental T6 AA gun. And the size of that weapon than dictated the use of something the size of a medium M2. Which allowed armor to protect against the 75mm gun. 

The decision to field a medium tank with 75mm gun was quite literally made because the Military Intelligence Division said the Germans were fielding a medium tank with 75mm gun.

Yes, the spurious reports on Neubaufahrzeug played a part. See pages 79-81. Intelligence reports on the Panzer Division also affected the early organization of the American Armored Division.

[RichTO90]

1 minute ago, Mike1158 said:

Thanks for that, when I am flush perhaps.

Sadly, I would not order it from Amazon UK. For some reason they are taking a large - 1.9 pound/752-page - book and shipping it without adequate packing or padding. I understand that Blackwell's is doing a better job.

[Mike1158]

22 minutes ago, RichTO90 said:

Sadly, I would not order it from Amazon UK. For some reason they are taking a large - 1.9 pound/752-page - book and shipping it without adequate packing or padding. I understand that Blackwell's is doing a better job.

Thanks for the heads up.

[old_goat]

36 minutes ago, Markus Becker said:

Huh? I thought the regular 75mm AP(C) ammo was effective against Pz.IV and Stug.III? 

Regular 75mm AP was effective vs Pz.IV turret front even at long ranges, but against the hull, only below 500 meters. The StuG was even worse target, since it was smaller and its protection was more uniform in the ~80mm range, so not really vulnerable past 500 meters. 

39 minutes ago, Markus Becker said:

 

I can see HEAT being not popular among German tankers because of the low MV but I'm fairly sure APCR was rationed because the tungsten was needed for machine tools, not because it lacked effect. 

Of course it had effect, but it was nowhere near as lethal as normal APCBC. Germans definitely preferred Pz.Gr.39, but obviously they were glad if they had some APCR too, since it was useful vs heavily armored targets, like IS-2. 

[Tim the Tank Nut]

I guess it would have been McNair that should've bashed heads over at Ordnance?

[RichTO90]

1 hour ago, Tim the Tank Nut said:

I guess it would have been McNair that should've bashed heads over at Ordnance?

Um, no, that would have violated Marshall's command structure. McNair commanded AGF. Somervell commanded SOS. The Ordnance Department was under SOS, it was not under McNair's command.

Again, the Ground Forces could make requests for items to fill operational requirements. Those requests passed to the Ordnance Committee, which was representatives of every major player. They evaluated requests and formulated recommendations for action to Ordnance. Ordnace then produced a design and a pilot, which was tested by Ordnance for function and then passed to the user for a service test - did it work the way it was needed?

The problem was, even the "streamlined" wartime acquisition process took a long time, and a lot of time was wasted by various Good Idea Fairies - Gladeon Barnes, Chief of the Ordnance R&D department was one of the most inveterate GIFs, in may ways he reminded me of Ferdinand Porsche.

[Manic Moran]

2 hours ago, RichTO90 said:

Is it lack of forethought or a simple lack of action? Or acting at cross purposes? The purview of the Ordnance Department was to provide the weapons and combat equipment required by the Ground Forces. Unfortunately, Ordnance all too frequently gave the Ground Forces what they thought the Ground Forces should have asked for.

And indeed, AGF and the Armored Force shot themselves in the foot too many times as well by delivering muddled messages to each other and to Ordnance. One of the classics of talking past each other is the conversation between Devers and Barnes over the 76mm and Medium Tank M4 on 5 August 1942. I'm not sure if I'm apologetic about it though - I didn't do it so what would I be apologizing for?

Sorry, no strawman intended. Simply pointing out the usual suspects are incorrectly identified.

How was that a case of talking past each other?

"Hey, I've got this new gun for you"

"Does it work?"

"Yeah, you've more punch than you need now"

"Will the conversion time slow down our ability to go fight while you make changes?"

"No"

"OK, fine".

 

Seems straightforward enough.

[RichTO90]

59 minutes ago, Manic Moran said:

How was that a case of talking past each other?

"Hey, I've got this new gun for you"

"Does it work?"

"Yeah, you've more punch than you need now"

"Will the conversion time slow down our ability to go fight while you make changes?"

"No"

"OK, fine".

 

Seems straightforward enough.

🤣 I'm trying to be NICE for once dammit!