Jump to content


Photo

Tanks For Operation Downfall.


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#21 Inhapi

Inhapi

    Wielder of the Unicorn Hat

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 646 posts

Posted 17 November 2019 - 0826 AM

 

MG Barnes, the quixotic manager of Army Ordnance tank programs, had already ordered 1200 T-29 and 600 T-30, of which T-29/30 were reduced to 1152/504 on 12Apr45. I suspect that the rush to production would have required just what you mentioned. The first pilot T-29 was assembled prior to the end of the war but most priorities were slackened already upon the Japanese acceptance of terms so we cannot estimate how many production tanks could have been shipped to the Far East even if the acceptance trials went well.

 

Barnes had no authority to order tanks, that was ASF and General Somervell.

 

On 1 March 1945, OCM 26825 recommended procurement of 1,200 Heavy Tanks T29, even though Pressed Steel Car Company had barely begun production of the first two pilots. Army Service Forces approved procurement of 1,152 on 12 April,

 

 

Ordering tanks from the blueprints, seems like a recipie for long and numerous design alterations and refits before they were deemed combat ready.


  • 0

#22 Inhapi

Inhapi

    Wielder of the Unicorn Hat

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 646 posts

Posted 17 November 2019 - 0838 AM

Japanese AT guns were more effective than is commonly thought, but surely no worse than German 5 cm and 7.5 cm guns - not to mention German Pzjg and StuG or 8.8 cm AT weapons. Did the Japanese have a Panzerfaust or Panzerschrek equivalent?

 

They did have an 80 mm rocket launcher which was quite cumbersome (the weapon had to be fired from a siting position on a high bipod, not something you want to do close to the enemy)) and only about 300 were produced.

 

They also had a 74 mm bazooka like weapon which was produced in far greater numbers up to the end of the war.

 

Then there was the infamous "lunge" mine : a howllow charge on a pole to charge at with a tank like using a pike.

 

As gor guns:

 

The 47 mm was a good gun, seems light but could be easily hidden in ambushes and could penetrate the M4 easily from the sides (but was not in the league of the German PAK 40).

 

There were also quite a lot of 75 mm and 88 mm AA guns in the DP role in the home islands; these had AT shells; Since they could not be used against bomber raids due to insufficient ceiling, they AFAIK were pressed into the AT (and artillery) role. Ofc these were (semi) static.


Edited by Inhapi, 17 November 2019 - 0848 AM.

  • 0

#23 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,839 posts

Posted 17 November 2019 - 0901 AM

There was also 75mm Type 90 field gun that could penetrate M4 frontally and was reasonably light.


  • 0

#24 Rich

Rich

    intellectual bully ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,443 posts

Posted 17 November 2019 - 1038 AM

 

 

MG Barnes, the quixotic manager of Army Ordnance tank programs, had already ordered 1200 T-29 and 600 T-30, of which T-29/30 were reduced to 1152/504 on 12Apr45. I suspect that the rush to production would have required just what you mentioned. The first pilot T-29 was assembled prior to the end of the war but most priorities were slackened already upon the Japanese acceptance of terms so we cannot estimate how many production tanks could have been shipped to the Far East even if the acceptance trials went well.

 

Barnes had no authority to order tanks, that was ASF and General Somervell.

 

On 1 March 1945, OCM 26825 recommended procurement of 1,200 Heavy Tanks T29, even though Pressed Steel Car Company had barely begun production of the first two pilots. Army Service Forces approved procurement of 1,152 on 12 April,

 

 

Ordering tanks from the blueprints, seems like a recipie for long and numerous design alterations and refits before they were deemed combat ready.

 

 

Yep, they finally did what Barnes had attempted to do with the T23 and T26; order in quantity before service or field testing.


  • 0

#25 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,780 posts

Posted 17 November 2019 - 1620 PM

 Rich, an off topic question from an ex-sailor. Why did the Army use radial engines for tanks vs the Liberty engine?

The Sherman's radial had 450 hp with a displacement of 16 liters while Liberty tank engines were getting 340 on 27.

I get the impression that. US inline aircraft engines were not available for AFV use in the late thirties when the immediate predecessors to the Stuart and Lee/Grant/Sherman were being developed.

Edited by R011, 17 November 2019 - 1626 PM.

  • 0

#26 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,787 posts

Posted 17 November 2019 - 1816 PM

Barnes certainly imagined that he was ordering the tanks, and so it was put in the postwar Ord Dept pubs on those tanks. Excuse by haste to find the data.

 

I know, this is almost as bad as taking Barnes for granted on the AFV naming!


Edited by Ken Estes, 17 November 2019 - 1817 PM.

  • 0

#27 Rich

Rich

    intellectual bully ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,443 posts

Posted 17 November 2019 - 2006 PM

 

 Rich, an off topic question from an ex-sailor. Why did the Army use radial engines for tanks vs the Liberty engine?

The Sherman's radial had 450 hp with a displacement of 16 liters while Liberty tank engines were getting 340 on 27.

I get the impression that. US inline aircraft engines were not available for AFV use in the late thirties when the immediate predecessors to the Stuart and Lee/Grant/Sherman were being developed.

 

 

Yep, they were lightweight, air-cooled, relatively compact, and had sufficient power for their size. The Army experimented with a number of engines in armored vehicles before the war and were happy with the radials until Ford produced the GA-series. At that point the Armored Force began going off radials.


  • 0

#28 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,263 posts

Posted 17 November 2019 - 2127 PM

 

 Rich, an off topic question from an ex-sailor. Why did the Army use radial engines for tanks vs the Liberty engine?

The Sherman's radial had 450 hp with a displacement of 16 liters while Liberty tank engines were getting 340 on 27.

I get the impression that. US inline aircraft engines were not available for AFV use in the late thirties when the immediate predecessors to the Stuart and Lee/Grant/Sherman were being developed.

 

 

In effect, were there ANY useful inline US aircraft engines between the Liberty and the Allison V-1710?


  • 0

#29 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,255 posts

Posted 18 November 2019 - 0455 AM

 

 Rich, an off topic question from an ex-sailor. Why did the Army use radial engines for tanks vs the Liberty engine?

The Sherman's radial had 450 hp with a displacement of 16 liters while Liberty tank engines were getting 340 on 27.

I get the impression that. US inline aircraft engines were not available for AFV use in the late thirties when the immediate predecessors to the Stuart and Lee/Grant/Sherman were being developed.

 

Thanks RO11, makes sense. I wonder if the army thought of inline engines during this time? Were the radials cheaper?


  • 0

#30 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,709 posts

Posted 18 November 2019 - 0521 AM

 

 

 Rich, an off topic question from an ex-sailor. Why did the Army use radial engines for tanks vs the Liberty engine?

The Sherman's radial had 450 hp with a displacement of 16 liters while Liberty tank engines were getting 340 on 27.

I get the impression that. US inline aircraft engines were not available for AFV use in the late thirties when the immediate predecessors to the Stuart and Lee/Grant/Sherman were being developed.

 

 

In effect, were there ANY useful inline US aircraft engines between the Liberty and the Allison V-1710?

 

 

Which is surprising when its remembered how damn good the US was at building diesel engines. Even more surprising that they didnt see fit to put them in tanks, other than a test group of Shermans.


  • 0

#31 Rich

Rich

    intellectual bully ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,443 posts

Posted 18 November 2019 - 1107 AM

 

 

 

 Rich, an off topic question from an ex-sailor. Why did the Army use radial engines for tanks vs the Liberty engine?

The Sherman's radial had 450 hp with a displacement of 16 liters while Liberty tank engines were getting 340 on 27.

I get the impression that. US inline aircraft engines were not available for AFV use in the late thirties when the immediate predecessors to the Stuart and Lee/Grant/Sherman were being developed.

 

 

In effect, were there ANY useful inline US aircraft engines between the Liberty and the Allison V-1710?

 

 

Which is surprising when its remembered how damn good the US was at building diesel engines. Even more surprising that they didnt see fit to put them in tanks, other than a test group of Shermans.

 

 

They did test diesel's extensively prewar, the Guiberson radial diesel. They also expanded Guiberson production as part of the engine expansion program, but in March 1942 the Armored Force turned its back on diesels for their use and the Guiberson factory shifted to building conventional gasoline radials, while the Guiberson diesel development program was finally cancelled. That left the twin-GM diesel, which utilized standard truck engines and then later the Caterpillar, which was also a diesel radial.


  • 0

#32 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,780 posts

Posted 18 November 2019 - 2035 PM


 

 Rich, an off topic question from an ex-sailor. Why did the Army use radial engines for tanks vs the Liberty engine?

The Sherman's radial had 450 hp with a displacement of 16 liters while Liberty tank engines were getting 340 on 27.

I get the impression that. US inline aircraft engines were not available for AFV use in the late thirties when the immediate predecessors to the Stuart and Lee/Grant/Sherman were being developed.
 
Thanks RO11, makes sense. I wonder if the army thought of inline engines during this time? Were the radials cheaper?

The Army didn't have the budget to develop a proprietary tank engine. They had to take something commercial off the shelf. The only engines both lightweight and powerful enough were aero-engines. The best available ones then that were suitable were radials.
  • 0

#33 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,035 posts

Posted 25 November 2019 - 1422 PM

 

 

 Rich, an off topic question from an ex-sailor. Why did the Army use radial engines for tanks vs the Liberty engine?

The Sherman's radial had 450 hp with a displacement of 16 liters while Liberty tank engines were getting 340 on 27.

I get the impression that. US inline aircraft engines were not available for AFV use in the late thirties when the immediate predecessors to the Stuart and Lee/Grant/Sherman were being developed.

 

 

In effect, were there ANY useful inline US aircraft engines between the Liberty and the Allison V-1710?

 

 

Curtiss manufactured some. https://en.wikipedia...ki/Curtiss_D-12


  • 0

#34 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,993 posts

Posted 29 November 2019 - 1742 PM

The good thing about going Radials early on is that it made for a roomy engine compartment well suited to take other engines.


  • 0

#35 17thfabn

17thfabn

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 148 posts

Posted 30 November 2019 - 2044 PM

Sherman jumbos would have been useful in the grinding type of fighting that would be expected in the early fighting as the beachhead is established.

 

In the 75 mm vs 76 mm gun argument. As most here know the 75 has a better H.E. projectile, the 76 has higher velocity and better anti tank performance. Would the higher velocity of the 76 be useful in penetrating heavy defensive positions?


  • 0

#36 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,263 posts

Posted 01 December 2019 - 0131 AM

Sherman jumbos would have been useful in the grinding type of fighting that would be expected in the early fighting as the beachhead is established.

 

In the 75 mm vs 76 mm gun argument. As most here know the 75 has a better H.E. projectile, the 76 has higher velocity and better anti tank performance. Would the higher velocity of the 76 be useful in penetrating heavy defensive positions?

 

The 75mm would have been useful for 'pick and shovel' work of the type done by Brit Grants in the Burma campaign: that is, a few AP rounds to act as the pick and break up parts of the positions followed by some HE to clear the debris, then repeat.....

 

The M36 in stand off positions may have been useful.


  • 0

#37 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,780 posts

Posted 01 December 2019 - 0418 AM

Something like two tanks in each Sherman company would be armed with a 105 mm howitzer. Most of the rest of the tanks would be 76 mm armed Shermans along with some 90 mm armed M26.
  • 0

#38 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,780 posts

Posted 01 December 2019 - 0418 AM

.

Edited by R011, 01 December 2019 - 0419 AM.

  • 0

#39 seahawk

seahawk

    military loving leftist peace monkey

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,930 posts

Posted 01 December 2019 - 0511 AM

Maybe the lights and armored cars would have been in demand as well, in case the fight turns unconventional.


  • 0

#40 17thfabn

17thfabn

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 148 posts

Posted 02 December 2019 - 1912 PM

Something like two tanks in each Sherman company would be armed with a 105 mm howitzer. Most of the rest of the tanks would be 76 mm armed Shermans along with some 90 mm armed M26.

 

By the T.O.E. for a late war U.S. tank battalion each medium company would have one 105  mm howitzer tank. The HQ company would have three 105 mm howitzer armed tanks in an assault gun platoon.  For a total of six 105 howitzer armed tanks in the battalion. Of course the TOE could be modified for the upcoming invasion.


  • 0