.
First, you committed a typo, the 75mm was lower in velocity than the 76mm. But hey whatever, [8-|]
My understanding of the issue is this.
Pre war doctrine dictated vehicles such as the M4 series were “Infantry Support” tanks. As such they were nothing more than rolling “pill boxes” capable of laying down mass quantities of firepower while travelling forward with the infantry.
“Tank Destroyers” were developed to engage the enemies armor. Thin skinned, big guns, able to move quickly and use speed as a form of protection. The M3 half tracks with 75mm AT guns were part of this equation as well. When used in Tunisia they were quite capable, yet very vulnerable.
As said generations ago, even your best plans fall apart upon first contact with the enemy. The Panzerwaffe refused to follow US Army doctrine and engaged anything painted OD everywhere at anytime.
Now I read that internal squabbling over procurement and purpose delayed the 76mm gun as well as the much needed M26 Pershing with the 90mm gun.
Well as was said, you go to war with what you got. Conspiracy? I think not.
Over burdened, over complicated system of development and procurement? I think so.
Being I’m from Chicago, I’m also convinced someones Brother-In-Law somewhere, had a contract to build something. [;)]
Actually we went to war with mediums against mediums. While the Panther could be argued to be a heavy tank, it was not in the German army. Tigers were not frequently encountered. Until Normandy, Panzer IVs were the Sherman’s most common tank foe. The Sherman was indeed in some points constrained by logistics. The weight was kept in a certain region due primarily for bridge purposes. Heavier tanks had issues with bridges world wide, and in areas with lots of waterways, this significantly affects route planning.
You have the 76mm and 75mm guns confused. The 75mm was a medium velocity gun with good HE and so so armor piercing performance. Whe n designed in 1941 and introduced in 1942 it was on par with the other two top medium tanks of the time, the T-34/76 and the Panzer IV. But it lagged behind those two in up gunning due to not facing the same pressures of the Eastern Front battlefield cauldrons driving improvement.
The 76mm gun had far superior armor piercing capabilities over the 75mm, which was later fitted, but was “downgraded” so to speak, having the barrel length reduced and correspondingly losing some muzzle velocity. But the later war developed “hypershot” ammuntion countered that handicap, and gave a far superior ballistic performance. Unfortunately doctrine and logistics were not in line with battlefield realities.
Two final points. One, the Sherman and US armor doctrine functioned as intended in the PTO. Yes the Japanese armor threat was minimal when compared to the Germans. But consideering that most pre WWII US war planning saw a war in the Pacific as probable, vs planning for a war in Europe, it is seldom remembered that the PTO saw the Sherman operate exactly as intended. Two, Korea- the M4A3E8 (aka M4A3 76mm HVSS) had no probelm with the T-34/85. Each could penetrate the other at standard combat ranges with their main gun, so the US doctrine, crew training, and gunnery, was usually the deciding factor in battle. Another often overlooked aspect of the Sherman’s history.
It would be quite humorous to see a Tiger try to swim to shore.
AUSTanker, thank you for your service and good luck with your book. I’ll give 'er a look though I need another reference book like I need another hole in the head…
Steve: OG and SP, have good points there. You also might want to read this, Zaloga takes on some old misconceptions:
I’ve just finished reading the interview with the author and found it very interesting and informative. Funny when you get comments from John after the interview. This guy is a tool with some of the stuff he’s posted.
Thanks for the link Gamera. I enjoyed it.
Amazon listing for major new book- “For Want of a Gun: The Sherman Tank Scandal of WWII.” See also the brief sneak preview video- lots of tank photos:
Yup, the Infantry Museum is hugely impressive- with a little publicity and support, the CAV and ARMOR one will rock, too!
Amazon listing for major new book- “For Want of a Gun: The Sherman Tank Scandal of WWII.” See also the brief sneak preview video- lots of tank photos:
Remember what Moriarty said to Oddball in “Kelly’s Heroes”: “this thing’s a piece of junk!” as he was talking about their newly acquired Tiger.
I’m still trying to figure out why Oddball was wearing an AAF flight helmet…and remember those “tanker helmets” in the BOB movie- looked like rejected props from a 1950s sci-fi B movie!
That old Monogram 1/72 “short-wing” B-26 is a fun kit!!
Oops, sorry about the caliber mixup. Like it said, I’m no expert in armor.
My father served on the M40 GMC from 1950 to 1954. Defended the Michigan UP against invasion. He did not get sent to Korea, but many of his like did, early.
The M4 chassis served so many armored units in so many countries for so many years, that it proofs out as probably the most successful armored fighting vehicle of all time.
That tank helped win a LOT of wars.
Hmmm;
Yeah , I gotta get my two cents in here !
Although I don’t know much about Armor I do know the general histories of some of the vehicles , but , Not the Generals .
In the Navy we had some Lu-Lus too . take two well known admirals whom shall be unamed here , from the Pacific Theater . The Sherman , I do remember from my uncles, was referred to as the "Ronson ’ Because of it’s Gasoline fueled powerplant .
Hey , this thing can get out of hand .We did not have the kind of Armor the other side had . Even from the very beginning . I will say this .The men who fought these machines were brave Outstanding men .And they made the decisive use of the product they were given .
I don’t care what you want to argue , the Tankers of the ETO were some of the best . The Machines , Well, I hold that in reserve . Tanker - Builder
I can’t say it will be a great book since both books you listed do not come out until January of 2017. Considering the price, I’m not sold whether it’s worth buying for those prices. How can anyone give high praises for the books without reading it first? Sounds to me you’re promoting these highly for a colleague or for yourself.
I think it’s a double post, there’s one book.
AUS has identified himself as the author, Christian DeJohn.
Everything has to be a ‘scandal’ or ‘dark conspiracy’ to sell a book these days. Otherwise I doubt another book about the Sherman would sell any copies at all. Simply telling the truth, that the Army believed the M4 was adequate for intended role (infantry support and exploitation of breakthroughs) and that doctrine was the tank destroyers were supposed to handle enemy armor is not sexy enough for ‘AUS’ to sell his tome.
I gotta agree with Rob on that. It is deceptive. Especially when one is pitching an item for sale.
I seriously do wish him well on the sale of this book, but it’s way out of my price range personally. I’m a bargain shelf/overstock clearance/secondhand kind of guy for most of my library.
Nope its still there…just now the D.A.T.'s and stinking Cav have infested Ft. Benning like cockroaches. [;)]
Its no longer Home of the Infantry. Sad day for sure.
Steve Zolga’s book Armored Thunderbolt is one of the best books on the M4 Sherman that has been written.
Is solicitation even allowed in here???
My thoughts exactly.