Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 54

Thread: M-27 Tank: Should the US Have Replaced the M4 Sherman?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    6,982

    Default M-27 Tank: Should the US Have Replaced the M4 Sherman?

    Designed from the T-20 prototypes, the US Army Ordinance Dept. had a ready replacement for the Sherman that was already beginning to show it limitations. The M-27 had sloping armor, mounted a 76mm higher velocity gun putting it roughly on par with the T-34...


    The M27

    With their 76mm guns, torsion bar suspension and low silhouettes, the T20E3 and T23E3 were roughly comparable to the Russian T34, and the German Panzer IV so, on the basis that the M4 was becoming obsolete, the Ordnance Department requested the T23E3 and the T20E3 be standardised as the M27 and M27B1 in July 1943. However, the request was rejected and neither design was ever mass produced.

    The reason for this lay partly in the decision of the Army Ground Forces command (AGF) not to act upon the growing obsolesence of the M4 design. The Sherman had performed admirably in North Africa and Italy so there was no sense of urgency to replace it. German Tigers had already been encountered by this time, but only in small number and the AGF did not expect to see them fielded in quantity.

    Additionally, the AGF declined to adopt the M27 as they did not wish to interrupt M4 production, although by 1943 the manufacture of M4's had reached such a mammoth scale it seems unlikely that a staged switch over to M27 production would have significantly reduced tank output. Perhaps also of significance the M27 would have mounted the 76 mm gun, the introduction of which to the tank force was opposed by the AGF. The Ordnance Department would later suffer almost equal difficulty convincing the AGF to accept the upgunned versions of the Sherman with the net result that not a single 76 mm armed Sherman was in service in time for D-Day, even though they could have been available months earlier. The AGF's reason for rejecting the 76 mm gun was that it would encourage tank crews to stalk enemy tanks, an idea in conflict with then current US armour doctrine, and had a much less effective high explosive shell than the 75mm M3 Gun. The 76mm and 90mm guns were both accepted much more readily into the Tank Destroyer service, however US tanks would not always be able to avoid direct confrontations with German tanks and the shortcomings of the 75mm M3 gun against armour would handicap American tanks for much of the war.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T20_Medium_Tank

    The M-27 would ultimately evolve into the M-26E3 Pershing Tank, with a more powerful gun and thicker armor...



  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    24

    Default Re: M-27 Tank: Should the US Have Replaced the M4 Sherman?

    I think the should've just because of the fact the Tiger and the 88 gun the Sherman didn't have a chance but maybe this may of had a bit more of a chance to survive

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    96

    Default Re: M-27 Tank: Should the US Have Replaced the M4 Sherman?

    That wasn't the US doctrine at the time, tank VS tank.

  4. #4

    Default Re: M-27 Tank: Should the US Have Replaced the M4 Sherman?

    Like history? Me too!
    Updated often with cool vintage and history stuff: http://history.writingwithtony.com/

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    96

    Default Re: M-27 Tank: Should the US Have Replaced the M4 Sherman?

    Good stuff! Thanks for the read!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    New York, New York
    Posts
    251

    Default Re: M-27 Tank: Should the US Have Replaced the M4 Sherman?

    it sure would have saved alot of lives of tank crews but could these be produced as fast as the sherman?, there would be a brief period of time after switching production from the M-4 to the new model, but that means that for a very short period of time there would not only be a shortage of shermans for a while, but there wouldnt be any new of these new, improved tanks better, so the US would be sacrificing quality AND quantity

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    West Lafayette Indiana
    Posts
    265

    Default Re: M-27 Tank: Should the US Have Replaced the M4 Sherman?

    Quote Originally Posted by overlord644 View Post
    it sure would have saved alot of lives of tank crews but could these be produced as fast as the sherman?, there would be a brief period of time after switching production from the M-4 to the new model, but that means that for a very short period of time there would not only be a shortage of shermans for a while, but there wouldnt be any new of these new, improved tanks better, so the US would be sacrificing quality AND quantity
    First note that there were hundreds of production changes in the M4 Sherman series. Some wereas great as the difference between cast upper hulls and welded hulls. Several completely different turrets were fitted. All of these changes had their effect on slowing production.

    If you get hold of Hunnicutts book on the M26 Pershing Tank you will find detailed information on the components of the entire T20 thru T26 series. Nearly everything in the T20 & T23 was compatible with the older M4. Same basic engine, same track parts, same motors for turning the turret. One of the turret designs for this series was used on the M4 with the 76mm gun. The only fundamental difference between the M4 & T20 was in the hull or chassis. It was a completely new design, derived from observations of destroyed tanks in Africa in 1942. A lower sillouete, better side armor, better ammo storage. Changing over hull production would have been the only significant manufactoring change.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    6,982

    Default Re: M-27 Tank: Should the US Have Replaced the M4 Sherman?

    Quote Originally Posted by Carl Schwamberger View Post
    First note that there were hundreds of production changes in the M4 Sherman series. Some wereas great as the difference between cast upper hulls and welded hulls. Several completely different turrets were fitted. All of these changes had their effect on slowing production.

    If you get hold of Hunnicutts book on the M26 Pershing Tank you will find detailed information on the components of the entire T20 thru T26 series. Nearly everything in the T20 & T23 was compatible with the older M4. Same basic engine, same track parts, same motors for turning the turret. One of the turret designs for this series was used on the M4 with the 76mm gun. The only fundamental difference between the M4 & T20 was in the hull or chassis. It was a completely new design, derived from observations of destroyed tanks in Africa in 1942. A lower sillouete, better side armor, better ammo storage. Changing over hull production would have been the only significant manufactoring change.
    Excellent points. And I think the link states that with overall production of the M-4 in 1943, little disruption would have been noticed...



  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    East Tennessee, minding the Still...
    Posts
    3,611

    Default Re: M-27 Tank: Should the US Have Replaced the M4 Sherman?

    Although the Sherman was not as good a tank as the Pershing, or others of its type, there was a problem with supply. Not just of component parts, (those not common between the two vehicles,) but of transport. While rail cars should carry either one, the ships that carried the things were designed & set up to carry Shermans, and the other such vehicles that went with them. The loading plans for ships were very detailed, and took a long time to configure (development stage) It may have been too difficult for the shipyards to re-configure for the pershing, and its equipment, different ammo, all of that. It seems a trivial point, but that may have bearing on why the T-20 types took so long to get into the war.Just a thought.
    Last edited by tankgeezer; 02-22-2008 at 06:56 AM.
    Bring home Marine Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    6,982

    Default Re: M-27 Tank: Should the US Have Replaced the M4 Sherman?

    I think it should be clarified that the M-27 is similar too, and of the same DNA as, the M-26E1 Pershing. In fact he M-27 was almost a mini-Pershing that was lighter and could have gone anyplace the M-4 did. The Pershing was just an up-armored, slightly larger version with a bigger gun. A much bigger gun. The M-27 was pretty close to a T-34 in most other respects...

    The Pershing was ready for the War by August of 1944 in truth, but was rejected by the US Army Ground Forces Command despite several complaints that the Tank destroyers, while useful vehicles, were not up to par and the idea of using them to "stalk" panzers was simply impractical when on the offensive and commanders tended to find other uses for them. I think someone referred to them as the "US Army's most successful failure" although the M-36 Jackson "Slugger" served on into Korea...



  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2

    Default Re: M-27 Tank: Should the US Have Replaced the M4 Sherman?

    The problem with the T-23 was it's troublesome electrical drive system and wasn't ready for production. The T-25 was the better choice with a more conventional drive system and was essentially a t-26 with 1 inch less armor. In my opinion the better option was adapting the 90mm M3 tank gun for the M4.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    New York, New York
    Posts
    251

    Default Re: M-27 Tank: Should the US Have Replaced the M4 Sherman?

    Quote Originally Posted by Carl Schwamberger View Post
    First note that there were hundreds of production changes in the M4 Sherman series. Some wereas great as the difference between cast upper hulls and welded hulls. Several completely different turrets were fitted. All of these changes had their effect on slowing production.

    If you get hold of Hunnicutts book on the M26 Pershing Tank you will find detailed information on the components of the entire T20 thru T26 series. Nearly everything in the T20 & T23 was compatible with the older M4. Same basic engine, same track parts, same motors for turning the turret. One of the turret designs for this series was used on the M4 with the 76mm gun. The only fundamental difference between the M4 & T20 was in the hull or chassis. It was a completely new design, derived from observations of destroyed tanks in Africa in 1942. A lower sillouete, better side armor, better ammo storage. Changing over hull production would have been the only significant manufactoring change.
    yeah good point i didn't realize that,

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Yogyakarta
    Posts
    528

    Default Re: M-27 Tank: Should the US Have Replaced the M4 Sherman?

    I think,. Sherman would do just fine,.. few heavy's might be good,. but Allied won't won the war without Sherman,..

    let those Motor Carriages with their 9incher knock off those panza,..
    "My rule is: If you meet the weakest vessel, attack. If it is a vessel equal to yours, attack. And if it is stronger than yours, also attack."

    Stepan O. Makarov, Russian Admiral

  14. #14

    Default Re: M-27 Tank: Should the US Have Replaced the M4 Sherman?

    The Americans had no major need to replace the Sherman since the Allies had air superiority. Tigers slowing troops down? No problem, they can order a tank buster air strike.

    The only Allied tank that could really take a Tiger on was the Soviet T-34, yet the Allies were not really cowering in fear on the Western front.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    6,982

    Default Re: M-27 Tank: Should the US Have Replaced the M4 Sherman?

    Quote Originally Posted by bwing55543 View Post
    The Americans had no major need to replace the Sherman since the Allies had air superiority. Tigers slowing troops down? No problem, they can order a tank buster air strike.
    Somewhat true, but the tiger really wasn't the main problem since there were less than 100 operational at any one time in Normandy. The Sherman's high profile and overall exposure of side armor above the tracks made it quite a tempting target for infantry with panzerfausts. And even the far more numerous Pzkpfw IVs, long since upgunned (with the long barreled 75mm) and armored went from being an inferior tank to the Sherman to a much better one. Then of course, the Panther was simply in a different class...

    The only Allied tank that could really take a Tiger on was the Soviet T-34, yet the Allies were not really cowering in fear on the Western front.
    Not really. The supposed T-34 kill ratio to German tanks (11:1) was even greater than the Sherman's...And the improved Sherman (M-4A3E8) "Easy Eight" was pretty much equal to the T-34s (76) used by the Chinese and North Koreans during that War...



Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •