Could America have used heavy tanks?

MacArther · 03-04-2008, 12:49 PM

We all know that America focused on producing more M4 Shermans that the enemy had tanks combined, but could American factories be modified to make heavier tanks? Could strategies have been devised to use them, or would they be thrown into the fray alongside the M4s? Thoughts and comments on America using a heavy tank (besides the Pershing at the end of the war) are welcome...

freebird · 03-04-2008, 12:52 PM

I think it would have been a good idea. There are situations where the defender is in such a good defensive position that weaker tanks cannot disloge him, no matter how many are sent to attack the position.

Konigstiger205 · 03-04-2008, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freebird

I think it would have been a good idea. There are situations where the defender is in such a good defensive position that weaker tanks cannot disloge him, no matter how many are sent to attack the position.

I actually saw an interesting top of tanks and at some point someone told a story from the war where the germans had an 88 put near a narrow road, the road allowed only one tank to pass so the americans kept sending Shermans who where destroyed one after another, apparently eventually the germans ran out of shells for the 88 but the americans still had plenty of tanks.

syscom3 · 03-04-2008, 12:59 PM

The US strategy for armoured warfare, was to use the Sherman tank used in the mobile part of the battle to "go deep" and cutoff enemy strongpoints with dedicated tank destroyers to go "one on one" with the enemy tanks.

Obviously, this strategy didnt work out so well.

End result was the M26 being developed and used with good success.

Too bad the tank wasnt developed earlier on.

freebird · 03-04-2008, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

The US strategy for armouored warfare, was to use the Sherman tank used in the mobile part of the battle to "go deep" and cutoff enemy strongpoints with dedicated tank destroyers to go "one on one" with the enemy tanks.

Obviously, this strategy didnt work out so well.

End result was the M26 being developed and used with good success.

Too bad the tank wasnt developed earlier on.

Quite right. Imagine how much better "Market Garden" would have gone if the Allies had a heavy tank that was immune to enemy AT, instead of the vulnerable Sherman/Firefly

Arneken · 03-04-2008, 03:10 PM

Indeed the Allieds would be in the ruhr-area and end war.

The tiger and koningstiger had their little faults, didn't they? Too heavy for some roads, too slow.

The Americans could have got these problems too maybe.

I'm not really a tanks-specialist.

Thorlifter · 03-04-2008, 03:35 PM

It would have been nice, I think, to have a heavier tank. Didn't they call the Sherman a "Widow Maker"? I think it would have been very appreciated by the tank crews. But like Arneken, I'm not a tank expert.

freebird · 03-04-2008, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thorlifter

It would have been nice, I think, to have a heavier tank. Didn't they call the Sherman a "Widow Maker"? I think it would have been very appreciated by the tank crews. But like Arneken, I'm not a tank expert.

Yes, unlike the excellent US aircraft, the US tanks had a rather poor reputation. The Shermans were known to the Germans as "Tommy cookers" for their tendancy to 'brew up", and to the British as "Ronson's" {lights up first time - every time}

The Russians had a name too for the Grant tanks they got - "coffin for 7 brothers"

Soren · 03-04-2008, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Quite right. Imagine how much better "Market Garden" would have gone if the Allies had a heavy tank that was immune to enemy AT, instead of the vulnerable Sherman/Firefly

Considering the firepower that the Germans possessed that would've been impossible Freebird.

The German AT guns were so powerful that not even the massively up armored versions of the Churchill tanks could feel safe at 2km range, the 88mm KwK43 being capable of pucnhing straight through its armor past 3km.

Furthermore the M-26 Pershing wasn't a success, it was waay to unreliable (More unreliable than the Tiger Ausf.B), and its armor was to thin to provide sufficient protectiong against even the PaK 40 at 1,000m.

Also the Allies really had no experience building heavy tanks, and so had they decided to attempt this by 44 they wouldn't have been able to produce any very effective tanks, there lack of knowledge in this area simply being to great.

Thorlifter · 03-04-2008, 08:39 PM

Thanks for the post, Soren. Good info since, like I said, I'm no expert at tanks.

syscom3 · 03-04-2008, 09:13 PM

The 90mm gun would have meant the Panther and Tiger were at risk at far longer ranges than the pathetic gun the Sherman had.

As for reliability, it wasn't so bad as to not be kept in action by the immense logistics base the allies possessed.

Famous last words..."the US had no experience in [fill in the blank]..."

freebird · 03-04-2008, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soren

Considering the firepower that the Germans possessed that would've been impossible Freebird.

The German AT guns were so powerful that not even the massively up armored versions of the Churchill tanks could feel safe at 2km range, the 88mm KwK43 being capable of pucnhing straight through its armor past 3km.

Furthermore the M-26 Pershing wasn't a success, it was waay to unreliable (More unreliable than the Tiger Ausf.B), and its armor was to thin to provide sufficient protectiong against even the PaK 40 at 1,000m.

Also the Allies really had no experience building heavy tanks, and so had they decided to attempt this by 44 they wouldn't have been able to produce any very effective tanks, there lack of knowledge in this area simply being to great.

I don't think "lack of knowlege" would apply, the British had quite a bit of experience in tanks {using the first ones in battle!}, although not always successful. The British Tortoise would have worked quite well, had they not put it's development on the "back burner". It was designed to withstand any German AT gun {225 mm armour}, and also had the powerful 94 mm gun. The problem was that the powers in charge decided that they didn't need it, so its development was slow. The difficulties that the Shermans or Fireflys faced dealing with only a few Jagdpanthers on the first day of Market Garden really showed how inadequate the Allied tanks were.

Soren if you are saying that the German tanks were far better than Allied ones it's hard to argue with that. You are also correct that 1944 is too late to start to work on this, they would have had to identify the need for a heavy tank in 1941-1942 and start development then.

Konigstiger205 · 03-05-2008, 02:08 AM

Well the U.S. adopted the numbers strategy, plus in 1944 the main threat to the panzers divisions was the U.S. Airforce .

The Basket · 03-05-2008, 02:24 AM

I would say the Sherman was very successful and got the job done.

The fact it could be built in huge numbers was its good point. Also a heavy tank is a logistic nightmare.

The Sherman was easier to transport by rail and can use weaker bridges. Watched a programme about this very issue.
The weaknesses of the Sherman were known but their was no way a better tank could be built in big numbers for D-day. So it was the Sherman or nothing. The quality of a tank has to be guaged also with its quantity. The Tiger was built in such low numbers and was a nightmare to maintain and build.

Yeah the Tiger was excellent but get a rocket firing Typhoon on its case and Tiger go boom.

Best to have 100 Shermans than 10 Tigers.

Konigstiger205 · 03-05-2008, 04:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Basket

Best to have 100 Shermans than 10 Tigers.

Well the Tiger had many problems but it was on hell of a tank and in the right hands it was the worst nightmare for allied tanks.Lets remember what one Tiger did at Villers-Bocage.