Why didn't they make it a little wider and lower
>>64301746https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y7C8gIpyTI
You called?
>>64301746>and lowerthere was a minimum height imposed by the front-transmission and the radial engine installedthe former required a drive shaft running through the interior and the latter meant that the transmission tunnel had to rise up higher to match the taller enginethe T20 prototype was intended to solve those problems, by having a rear powerpack that removed the side sponsons entirely, it just didnt see service because it wasnt enough of an upgrade over the M4 to warrant having 2 medium tanks at the same time and doubling production requirementsand it is also worth noting that the T20 was only a foot shorter than the M4, even the T-34 was only a foot shorterso it isnt such a monumental change in the grand scheme of things to shave a foot off the vehicle
I would like a woman that is wider and lower. But not obese.
>>64301746It was based on the M3 which had a bunch of wonky design requirements.
>>64301746Trains, roads, ships, manufacturing facilities/cranes.
>>64301746>COUGARSomeone keep the hitlerjugend away from this beast.
>>64301777It's funny how they wanted to get rid of the hull MG because it was a weak point in the armor but the retarded generals insisted on it being there.
>>64301778Blessed knower.
>>64303066the hull MGs on German tanks were quite effective at the time the Sherman was being designed, idiot
>>64303138
>>64303182talk like a bitch get slapped down like a bitch
>>64301746They should have made the tracks wider
>>64301746Mass produced hulls cannot be modified. Overhulls could be modified, and thats what they did.
>>64301746So it could be shipped by rail throughout Europe and loaded in all standard cargo ships without needing to take the tracks off.
>>64303302Grousers exist.
>>64303395the T20 only weighted 30 tons, so it would have actually helped with logisticsbut by the time the T20 was ready for service, priorities had shiftedthe M4 was already being mass produced at nearly a dozen factoriesbeing 5 tons lighter wasnt exactly a good reason to introduce a new vehicle with the same armor and gun but entirely different internal componentsthe improvements on the T23, another offshoot of the same program, were instead given as upgrades to the shermannotably the T23 turret to hold the 76mm gun for better AP performance with no loss to ergonomics and HVSS to improve off-road performance
>>64303302
>>64303302That is what a mine flail is for?
>>64303462my favorite part of that story was how they ran over so many changs that their guts clogged up the sprockets and caused the tank to throw a track.Thats some early 2000s browser game shit, trying to figure out how many chinamen you can just throw at a tank before it fucking breaks down kek
>>64301746Because it would have lost against picrel anyways.
>>64303066>>64303138Internal MGs were absolutely essential for close quarters defense in WW2 tanks. The engineers moaning about the weak points were retarded and didn't consider other aspects of what is required in a real battle. The lack of an internal MG was a huge drawback in the StuG III series that the later addition of a top mounted MG with gun shield never really fixed. The Ferdinands for example, was swarmed and destroyed by Soviet ground troops with Molotovs and dynamite at Kursk once they outrun their infantry support. They had no MGs whatsoever.Also the German counterattack at Carentan was halted by the 101st as the StuGs got disabled by suicidally brave paratrooper Bazooka teams that popped out in the open between shots when when the StuGs were reloading while small arms fire pinned the commanders inside of their turrets unable to man their top MGs to supress
>>64303574okay yeah but all three common sherman turrets had a coaxial MG
>>64303574This is generally a good take. If anything tanks needed more dakka as tanks have to deal with a lot of threats that don't comprise of other tanks and even AT guns.
>>64303604>>64303574another thing thats important for old tanks is that without stabilizers, the coax needed a second or two after stopping before firingthe hull machine gun could fire as soon as you stopped movingparticularly true of the sherman, since the gunner fired using their periscope rather than a sightso they were ready to snap fire the moment the vehicle was stable enough to fire rather than having to re-acquire their targets through a narrow field of vision
>>64303574>The Ferdinands for example, was swarmed and destroyed by Soviet ground troops with Molotovs and dynamite at Kursk once they outrun their infantry support. They had no MGs whatsoever.while that is true I doubt hull MG's would have made a difference. Ferdinand's drive trains were so fragile they could barely get out of their own way on dry flat ground without a mechanical breakdown. A hull MG would be better than none, but a more reliable drive train would have made a significantly bigger difference. You don't have to worry about being overrun by infantry if you can actually move under your own power and don't get out of position from support elements in the first place.
>>64301746
>>64303615shermans are stabilized though
>>64303574Do you retards not understand what a coax is?
>>64303629I don't think they know much of anything
>>64303629the hull-machine gun could swivel and fire faster than the coax which could only track as fast as the turret could turnthe benefit of having the second machine gun was better than the tradeoff in a weakpoint until the end of WW2
>>64303302>Duckbill grousers go thwapthwapthwapthwap
>>64303622In one plane only. And that's assuming the crew is one of the ones that actually got trained in operating and maintaining the stabilizer. Also it wasn't great by modern standards.
>>64301777Checked.
>>64303636>the hull-machine gun could swivel and fire faster than the coax...Do you not know the only way to "aim" the hull MG in a Sherman was with tracers? It definitely wasn't "faster than the coax". Jesus fucking Christ, who, or what, am I trying to talk with here.
>>64303685he also discounts the utility of the stabilizerhe must be brown
>>64303685>Do you not know the only way to "aim" the hull MG in a Sherman was with tracers? Iits faster to walk tracers on target than it is to aim with the whole turret>It definitely wasn't "faster than the coaxyeah, it isthe coax is still limited by how fast you can slew the whole turret and aim with the telescopic sightthe hull gun could fire as soon as it could stop movinghull MGs stuck around on almost every vehicle of the war until the end because they were useful, moreso than just a coax
>>64303702>its faster to walk tracers on target than it is to aim with the whole turretI rest my case.
>>64303702>my hull mounted MG with an extremely limited field of fire is better and more important than my coax MGI think you should kill yourself
>Be best Sherman variant>Use coax only
Remember: The hull mounted machine gun was so important and decisive that all MBTs make exclusive use of them rather than mounting a coax MG or remote weapon station
>>64301746Had to fit them into a Liberty Ship. The shorter and thinner you could make them the more you could fit in a cargo hold. This also put a hard limit to how heavy you could make an M4 until it arrived in Europe if you wanted to use the Liberty Ship's cranes.
>>64303719>I think you should kill yourselfit was better to have a hull mounted MG during WW2 and the trade off in a weakpoint was a good deal until after the war
>>643037291920-1940s tanks were supposed to attack infantry from close range under artillery fire and complete chaos, point-blank even, bad enough that the enemy could use AT grenades, after the invention of the RPG and ATGM hull machine guns lost all its usefulness.
>>64303574ThisMGs were by far the most effective antipersonnel weapon of the tank, and a lot of Allied casualties were inflicted by the MGs on German Panzers>>64303616>and don't get out of position from support elements in the first place.There were instances of Panzers very successfully using their MGs offensively while the Panzergrenadiers caught up; this is especially important when you consider that at the time, all armies were struggling to find the ideal tank-infantry mixA hull MG is a very small investment to provide a little insurance for that case, both in defence and in offence>>64303629>t. Cranks turret traverse furiously to try and aim the coax at one dashing soldierIdiot>>64303685>the only way to "aim" the hull MG in a Sherman was with tracerAre you being deliberately disingenuous or just retarded?The subject is not aiming, but the actual manipulation of the hull MG, ie picking up the fucking handle and pointing it, as opposed to cranking the wheels to line up the turret and coax with the targetOBVIOUSLY it's faster and easier to manipulate and move the hull MG, which makes it more effective at engaging small fleeting targets like infantrymenThe Sherman's designers were taking direct lessons from combat experience, not talking out of their armchair theorycrafting ass like you
>>64303741>after the invention of the RPGSo 1942...
>>64303748>MGs were by far the most effective antipersonnel weapon of the tankGuess the bongs didn't fuck up not developing HE rounds for their tank guns and needing to rely on MG fire then. All those burnt out tanks knocked out by AT guns in the Western Desert because they were out of MG range must have just been an illusion
>>64303748>the subject is not which is actually more effective but which is faster to operate in this meaningless scenario i concocted in my retarded smooth brainI hate this retarded board so much.
>>64303751Kinda, you can see all the "cope armor" of late war. 1943 was the swan song of pre-war designs and all of them evolved into "TD" with thick frontal armor and far less useful against infantry by their own.
>>64303748The Sherman's hull MG kinda sucked dick compared to the German versions.German versions had actual gunsights alongside them.
>>64303770So scrapping the hull machine gun would have been a sensible choice, aka the thing that keeps getting pointed out.
>>64303757>HE roundsYour ignorance and persistence in armchair theorycrafting from ignorance leads you to such irrelevanceThere were 3 key issues with the British tanks in Africa. 1stly, the Germans eventually developed longer range guns than the British guns, so the question of HE or AT shell was IRRELEVANT, moron.2ndly, the Germans developed effective antitank techniques of flanking and concealment. The British quickly caught on and pulled off their own tank ambushes in the exact same way, but the initial ambushes were of course devastating3rdly was the question of developing effective combined-arms by combining tanks, infantry and antitank support in a way that could make up for each other's strengths and weaknesses. This was a much more intensive and long-term effort that frankly is continuous as both sides develop new weapons and tactics.It is in fact precisely in the Western Desert campaigns that the importance of hull MGs was noted. German MGs were devastatingly effective and were specifically noted in After Action Reports as contributing to their impact in AND in exploitation after the breakthrough; they could gun down both defending enemy infantry and fleeing support personnel. How many shells can a tank carry? You'll run out quickly if you only have them; you use up many shells breaking through the enemy, and then you have limited ammo to exploit the breakthrough and leave some to defend against counterattack.This is how MGs can be used in offence, not just for defenceBut you don’t know this because you're an ignorant fool trying to eke out a tiny sliver of knowledge with a heaping pile of shitty guesswork>>64303767>meaningless scenario i concocted in my retarded smooth brainThe same to you>>64303771Yes but it's still better than having nothing
>>64303802>More Bong tanks were destroyed by towed antitank guns than by other tanks>I'll just ignore this to continue with smug meaningless scenarios concocted by my retarded smooth brainLike ESL clockwork
>>64303772The sensible choice was patching them after production if it was a problem to avoid obstructing the production line, Shermans didn't get post-1943 designs production and they couldn't make a support vehicle so keeping the MG was logical. Post war designs from scratch didn't have it but there's a gap that wasn't filled until the fielding of IFVs and better APCs.
>>64303771>German versions had actual gunsights alongside them.the gunsights allowed for more precise shooting, but it also meant reduced field of vision and slower acquisition time after coming to a stopso it was more of a trade off
>>64303815See >>64303720
>>64303839The Firefly was a tank converted into TD. Bongs designs transitioned into Tank-TD, just like Germans and Soviets after 1943-1944, it was a natural trend but that left a gap.The 'tank' was an universal AFV between 1920s and 1943, after that it was a flawed universal AFV and it stopped to be an universal AFV in the 1950s-1960s.
>>64303841Anon, if the bongs could figure out how to weld armor over the hole left by removing the MG I'm sure Detroit could've done so as well
>>64303852Because Detroit was busy making the tanks and they had a lot of locals sucking their food aid in Europe. Work division.
>>64303856Doesn't take too much effort to retrain the guy who fits the obsolete hull MG to cover the hole instead, in fact it'd take less time to weld some pre-cast plate over the hole
>>64303810If you'll read my answer above you'll see I said "guns" instead of either "tanks", "tank guns", or "antitank guns" precisely because the problem was BOTH, in the form of the famous 88mm flak gun, repurposed; and the 75mm Panzer IV This is my last reply to you, as I refuse to cast any more pearls to swine>>64303815Given how little tank on tank combat eventually manifested in 44 and 45 in the ETO, and how much anti-infantry combat came up, it WAS in fact the right decision to just go with itThe idea that it's somehow better to delete the hull MG so as not to have Panzerfausts penetrate the weak spot of the ball MG mount, instead of having a hull MG to rapidly kill any Panzerfaust wielder in the front arc regardless of where they were aiming at, is just that guy trying to defend his retarded construct; it's clearly irrationalPost-war, the focus shifted because it was no longer expected that tanks would engage infantry in such close combat any more. The assessed tradeoff no longer favoured hull MGs. A big part of this is the development of combined arms tactics.
>>64303866>hull MG so as not to have Panzerfausts penetrate the weak spot of the ball MG mount, The hull MG wasn't a weak spot in that situation (and ignoring if it didn't destroy the panzerfaust) because the panzerfaust could penetrate any tank in service from nearly any angle... it's against tanks that it could be a problem, that's why TD didn't have it (M10/36, M18, Firefly, Avenger). The hull MG was a net positive for a tank.
>>64303852>>64303865The bongs actually did, and discovered that it was pointless. Penetration tests showed that the add-on plate had zero (!) practical extra defence against enemy antitank cannon. They didn't know how to make spaced armour work then.(It's more than just the spacing.)So once again: hull MGs were useful in WW2. But much less in the post-war battlefield.>>64303883>it's against tanks that it could be a problem, that's why TD didn't have it (M10/36, M18, Firefly, Avenger)Fair enoughBut the context of the post I replied to was specifically the PanzerfaustWhich is why I said it was disingenuous and irrational>The hull MG was a net positive for a tankYep
>>64301746The height is for the tall engine/transmission, it looks relatively taller than it is because it's narrow. The narrowness is for mass transit and near universal rail transport and bridging. It was used worldwide. The main drawback is it was undergunned to fight the new tanks designed for the slugging match in the eastern front. But it didn't matter because America could usually rely on their other, better ways to handle tanks.
>>64303748>There were instances of Panzers very successfully using their MGs offensively while the Panzergrenadiers caught upYou misunderstand. Ferdinands had the opposite problem, they couldn't keep up with anything. If they could actually move under their own power without breaking down they wouldn't need to deal with enemy infantry in the first place.
>>64303899The firepower limitation of the M4 had an origin in the doctrine first, and ammo logistics second, by 1945 they M4 hull had turrets with 76.2 mm and 90 mm (M36B1).>inb4 HE shell of the 76.2 mm, it was designed to be bad on purpose. The only problem of those larger calibers was ammo capacity not effectivity of their shells that should be similar or better than the 75
One Ferdinand destroyed in a close-range attack was assigned to a night outpost, an unsuitable role.The problem in the northern Kursk theater was not so much a lack of Ferdinand machine guns, but rather the density of artillery fire, which resulted in the accompanying infantry and armored vehicles being wiped out.The upgrade request included the addition of a machine gun, but oddly, it fired from the main gun barrel.
>>64303629>turret being devoted to MG duties instead of using main gun>coax on a turretless assault gunabsolute niggerbrained take
>le hull gun autism debateA lot of people are forgetting that the hull machine gun position was taken up often by the radio operator in a lot of tanks. Really what killed it as a concept is more that with improvement in radios and the need for bigger guns and somewhere to store that ammo then it was made redundant. If that fifth crewman was still needed then a hull gun is a cheap way to augment firepower without really compromising the design.Before the advent of stabilizers hull machine guns could be fired reasonably well on the move as in a controllable state. Weren't likely to hit anything but the whole point was to make the person you were shooting at head down and if it did that then its job was done.
>>64303930>an unsuitable rolethe Americans and British in the ETO also had tanks assigned to night duties, in case the enemy tried a night-time armoured assault, and I read of one night-time tank duel (American tank lost)the issue might have been insufficient infantry support, or lack of skill in placing sentries to engage infiltrators or in concealing the tank, which is unsurprising for the Wehrmacht at that stage of the war>oddly, it fired from the main gun barrelmaybe they thought it was impractical to modify the production line for a more traditional MG mount
>>64303912Yeah I know they up-gunned them a few times with various success. I heard the firefly was a bit of a frankentank and didn't fit the hull well, and the 76mm was alright. I don't see much urgency to rush a bigger tank in or upgun them anyway because the allies at that point had so many options to kill the handful of tanks it wasn't sufficient on.The idea of killing tanks with tanks feels marginal to me anyway. They should be able to of course. But I think a lot of the urgency to view "has to kill every other tank in the world" as a primary design characteristic stems from shitty strategic overextension where they had to send whatever they had to stop whatever was coming. And ww2 tank romanticism of course.
>Not a single person spent 30 seconds on Wikipedia to know it was because it is based on the M3/k/ is a silly place.
What do you think about my MG setup guys?
>>64304000Akshually it's based on the M2, the M3 was a stopgap solution for bongs because the M4 turret needed more time. And the M2 medium is based on the M2 light tank.
>>64303912>The firepower limitation of the M4 had an origin in the doctrine firsthe 75mm was chosen primarily for its hole-punching ability, and when the M4 rolled out in 1942 the 75mm gun had more punch than most other guns on the battlefieldthe germans didnt get the long 75mm in large numbers until mid-1943the sherman wasnt designed for infantry support, though it was used heavily in that role through the STBs, but its main use was in armored divisions where anti-tank capability was expected to be a major function>>64303999tank on tank combat was a major part of their function, especially the british who considered enemy tanks to be TDs were meant to be a defense against concentrated armor, or later in the war as replacements for towed guns, but tanks were still the primary weapon to use against enemy tanks the sharp decline in tank on tank combat was a result of the germans running out of tanks to kill
>>64304000the reason for the height was already explained within the first 5 posts
>>64304018I see. I always assumed they would rather use artillery or aircraft if feasible. Especially on the offensive where a tank could be at a big disadvantage against another tank. But I guess if the tank is the primary anti-tank weapon in the doctrine, and the enemy has enough heavy tanks, you might as well have as many tanks as possible gunned to kill the heaviest tanks.
>>64304007only makes sense if the turret crew also had full 360 degree rotation seats and mirrored controls so that by rotating the turret 180 degrees you can flip the tank from Anti-Tank Mode to Anti-Infantry Mode like a Japanese transforming robot
>>64304040so:the 75mm gun on the Sherman wasn't adequate to deal with late war german tanks, and the 76mm and new turret to put it in was developed specifically to give the Sherman more anti-armor punch, but I've heard it had a worse HE shell for infantry supporttrading infantry support for AT capability was a deliberate choice, but the 75 wasn't completely replaced, there was a decent mix of 75 and 76 rolling out of the factories at the end of the warthey also made the opposite choice, the 105 howitzer version of the Sherman had no real anti-tank capabilities and was used exclusively to throw HE shells into fortifications for infantry supportso yeah tanks are both anti-tank and infantry support
>>64304018>M4 rolled out in 19426 months later the M10 was in production using a gun designed in the 1939-1940 (M6). >the germans didnt get the long 75mm in large numbers until mid-1943Since spring of 1942 and used them where the enemy had more tanks.One of the excuses for delaying the adoption of the HV gun, something the British were doing since before the D-day was the mediocre HE shell designed in [[[[[1917]]]]], that isn't a problem of the gun but the retards in the BuOrd.
>>64304060>Since spring of 1942 and used them where the enemy had more tanks.they only had 250 panzer IV specials available for case blue, and only about 150 of them were sent to north africait wasnt until kharkov in 1943 where they made up a significant portion of panzer IVs, and it wasnt until kursk when they had totally replaced the 5cm panzer III
>>64304007Perhaps because it was front-heavy, the turret was often seen facing backwards even when not being transported.The machine gun had been around since the KV, so it's possible that they were very afraid of enemy soldiers approaching and having mines planted under the turret bustle.
>>64303999>The idea of killing tanks with tanks feels marginalthe evolution and change of tactics needs to be addressed hereinitially, all armies assumed that the pace of mechanised combat would be such that tanks would outrun their support, so they needed to carry their own antitank support with them, rather than rely on e.g. towed antitank gunshence the different specialised Infantry Tanks and Tank Destroyers and so onhalfway through the war it was realised that it was difficult to manoeuvre so expertly such that you could always put your antitank tanks against the enemy's other tanks, and have your own tanks avoid the enemy's antitank tanks. there was also a lack of tank production as the scale of war expanded massively into a Totalenkrieg more Total than anything ever seen before (or since). tanks thus became more generalist.but then on the German side, they reached the limitations of what a generalist chassis could do, and began developing more specialised tanks i.e. heavy tanks and tank destroyers, even as they began running out of tanks and fielding a more infantry-heavy forcethus on the Allied side, there was a switch back to more specialised anti-infantry (i.e. the manufacture of HE shells) and anti-tank (Firefly, the Sherman 76mm gun, M18 and Pershing) development and productionTL;DR it's complicated, and this is one of the areas of the war which saw constant change back and forth
>>6430405675mm production was almost totally stopped after 1944, with only a few thousand being produced by thenthe reason for the large number of 75s still in service in 1945 was sheer inertia, the divisions who landed in normandy all had 75s equipped and they kept those until the end of the warand M4s took at least month to actually see combat after they rolled off the factory floor, due to the several week travel time to britian and then a week more to actually be issued to a unit armored divisions saw more tank combat, which meant more replacements and higher priority on long guns, and often had all or most of their tanks armed with 76s with only a few 75s being kept around for use with specialty rounds like WP
>>64303899It was actually possible to use a shorter engine for the M4, see the Diesel Shermans. Americans preferred the Radial engines because they were reliable and damage resistant but that was secondary to the need to pack as many tanks in a cargo ship as possible.
>>64304093>Americans preferred the Radial enginesthey actually preferred the V8 gas engine the mostthe radial engine was their preferred engine solely because it was their best engine for tanks at the start of the warthe diesel engine was actually two commercial engines driving a single crankshaft and the chrysler multibank was 5 car enginesso between those two, the radial engine just seemed more suited to the taskbut the ford GAA ended up being the best overall, but by the time it was ready, it was too late to modify the sherman to make use of the smaller engine and it was simply dropped into the engine bay
>>64304075>The machine gun had been around since the KV, so it's possible that they were very afraid of enemy soldiers approaching and having mines planted under the turret bustle.Yeah
>>64304108
>>64304093The radial was a legacy of the Light M2. The high profiles made easier to test different engines but by 1943 there're far better and lower alternatives.
Hull mgs arent enough, how the fuck do you guys think you're going to be able to shoot the infantry under you unless you've got bullet deflector plates on your tanks ass?>>64304007>>64304046>>64304075By my recollection it was in part of tanks being envisioned as breaking through trenchlines. You could park your tank across a trench and clear both sides simultaneously, as well as watch your own ass for troops you bypassed during the breakout
>>64304105Certainly the Ford GAA was the best with 450 hp but the US had a tendency to prefer radials, especially in aircraft.
>>64304046Looking at the internal layout it looks like the commander operates the MGs, the gunner and loader can keep firing the main gun. However it looks like he can probably only operate one MG at a time.
I think the real question is why didn't they do the obvious thing and put a second side gun on the M3, give it a bigger turret ring and swap in the M4 turret when it became available?
>>64301778>the T20 prototype was intended to solve those problems, by having a rear powerpack that removed the side sponsons entirely, it just didnt see service because it wasnt enough of an upgrade over the M4 to warrant having 2 medium tanks at the same time and doubling production requirementsThis statement confuses and enrages the german poster
>>64303751>RPG>Not rocket-propelled>Range: 30m
>>64304419what?
>>64304419>just make bigger turret ringcan't do that without basically redesigning a tank and at that point, you're building a new tank>second side gun on the M3just how roomy do you think the M3 is?!
>>64304454Just make it a bit bulgy on the sides and taller to accommodate the three gunners and three loaders.
>>64304075Following the Winter War Soviets were a bit concerned of people climbing around on their engine deck i guess.
Reject six o'clock mgEmbrace four-thirty mg
>>64304118I think its a more reasonable laodout for ww1 than most cold war ones. The armour you face wont be to heavy but you will face a lot of infantry so you need something to mow them down when they charge you
>>64301812I never realized the gearbox just bolted on like that.
>>64304480>can't do that without basically redesigning a tank and at that point, you're building a new tank>>64304510>reject pleb high tea MG>embrace aristocratic afternoon tea MG
>>64304436Far better than the 0 to 5 m (+ timer) of an AT grenade.
They did
>>64304595Well, the housing is. America wanted the M4 to be super easy to maintain because the factory was literally an ocean away. There's similar bolts around the gun mantlet so I suspect you could yank that entire assembly out too.
>>64304436Please circle the rocket motor
>>64306569Pic rel aside and ignoring PG with sustainer motor, RPGs are still rockets that uses the tube to contain the motor pressure and as a expansion nozzle (if there's one). The CG8.4 and M40 are conventional cartridges designs with vent holes.
>>64303302can someone explain le joke
>>64303629i don't actually
>>64306639if you were to hypothetically hear that command from your TC, that means that you are instructing the driver to use the tracks on enemy troopsthat is: run them overthis isnt something that would happen normally, if you were in range to use tracks, the the enemy can fire off RPGs or use satchel charges, but tanks have been occasionally been found with blood on their tracks so it isnt unheard of
>>64306665thanks frenyou were so close to a nice get :/
>>64301746They did
>>64304718I dare you to explain why a super heavy M3 with two hull guns and a 75mm turret would not work.
>>64304718Despite the modest design issues a M3 with dual 75mms was feasible. Put a 75mm turret on top of that or just keep the 37mm, mass produce them and you have a wall of guns.The M4 McClellan would be a absolute nightmare in numbers.
>>64304435>Mein Fuhrer, Steiner's incremental upgrade will save us all.
>>64307285May as well call it the M4 Pickett considering how god damn useless that would be.
>>64307285>>64307061it's not that it wouldn't work or isn't feasiblemost ANY tank design would workbut how long do you have to design it? how many days to spend drawing up the blueprints?remember, those were the days when picrel is what a calculator looked like, and nearly all computations were done by hand. do you know how to use a slide rule?>you have a wall of guns.>not the M4 Stonewallsigh
>>64307394Don't you dare compare Picket to the strategic mastermind that was McClellan.>>64307403A mass production dual 75mm M3 aka the M4 McClellan would have the advantage of it's namesake: a slow, steady and safe wall of guns that could not be moved, could not be dislodged and had very good logistics. Sure the war might have lasted a bit longer but victory would be inevitable.This thread is now about McClellan as Supreme Commander in Europe in WW2, note the one thing he ever took risks in were amphibious operations and he was very good at beachhead operations.
>>64307467>ACW>amphibious opsnigga please
>>64307471In the Peninsula campaign McClellan carried out the largest and most successful US landing operation in US history until D-Day.
>>64307489>US landing operation in US historymmhmmbig caveat thereUS military history pretty much began in 1942. until then it was a relatively tiny backwater in military accomplishment, despite being the richest nation in the 20th century.
>>64301746>widerInfrastructure compatibility. Most importantly, the dimensions of the cargo holds of a Liberty Ship.>lowerNo space for that with the main drive shaft running through the bottom of the hull.
>>64307502As long as he was in charge he was literally invincible. He invented the American way of warfare using overwhelming logistics, huge numbers and overwhelming support. McClellan might not win you a war quickly or even win at all but as long as he was in command it was functionally impossible for his side to lose. McClellan's focus on logistics in creating the Army of the Potomac and the massive juggernaut that was the Union Army's support system is criminally underrated.
>>64307511You're memeing and I'll let most of it pass, but:>He invented the American way of warfare using overwhelming logistics, huge numbers and overwhelming supportnot really; the 20th century equivalent was invented by the British and first used at Second El Alamein. the Americans picked it up from them after the unsatisfactory Tunisian and Italian campaigns.
>>64304435Not really? The US had the luxury of being able to wait until a "universal" medium was a practical option. The Panzer III and IV both predate it by ~5 years design-wise, which makes a serious difference with how quickly the relevant technologies were advancing at the time. The Panzer IV was eventually upgunned to a medium-length 75mm gun, but had at that point reached the maximum of it's upgrade potential and was endemically overloaded and suffering various issues. That meant that further improvements in the face of advancing opposittion required the Panther to be designed as a successor.
>>64304510Unironically a great light tank. In 1935.
>>64301812>>64304595If you're interested in the topic, pic related is a great way to learn the layouts of a bunch of WWII tanks. Actually kinda worth it whenever it goes on sale.
>>64307511I can't even take this as a meme, fuck McClellan, fucking career politician. Sat on his ass on purpose doing fuck all, allowing Lee to regroup and build up the forces available to him.
>>64307517>the American way of warfare using overwhelming logistics, huge numbers and overwhelming supportThat's literally just WW1
>>64307511>but as long as he was in command it was functionally impossible for his side to lose.See that's the problemTime wasn't on the Union's side Politics matters in war
>>64307467>strategic mastermind that was McClellan>win battle, then run away, ensuring teh war continues and more of your soldiers die>strategic mastermindThis motherfucker squandered TWO opportunities to end the war years early, and both cases were utterly unforced.
>>64307544>>64307539>>64307559What heck did you just say about me, you misguided fellow American? I'll have you know I graduated middle of my class at West Point, and I've been involved in numerous logistical planning sessions, and I have over 3000 confirmed miles of railroads i've built. I am trained in logistics and I'm the top organizer of artillery in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but another wayward fellow American. I will slowly fortify my position while reinforcing my reserves the likes of which you have never seen. You think you can get away with retreating from me? Yes you can, i don't want anyone to get hurt. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of railroad executives across the Union and telegraph lines are being hung right now. I am the immovable wall that will just stand there and thwart you. You're in need of uniforms and shoes kid. I can be in one place, all the time, and I can out supply you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my pen. Not only am I extensively trained in logistics, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the Army of the Potomac and I will use it to its full extent to educate you as to why you are wrong to fight me, you misguided fellow citizen. If only you could have known what unholy logistical build up your little "clever" rebellion was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have have looked to your own supply lines. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you fools. I will build fortifications and field hospitals and you will envy them. I hope you guys come out ok from this war and as many of you get home as possible.
>>64307563>I can be in one place, all the timelol
>>64307563>you foolsyou were this close to greatness>misguided fellow American>I hope you guys come out ok from this war and as many of you get home as possible.could you explain this meme to me? not burger
>>64307590McClellan was sympathetic to the confederate cause and would have undoubtedly signed an armistice were it an option
>>64307601ah I see, thanksIt sounded to me like he was one of those "you have to be polite to your opponents, if not for this war we might be friends" kind of people
>>64307589Three times since i wrote it and that's the first one that gets a laugh every time.>>64307590McClellan was a logistical genius however he constantly went out of his way to avoid losses, even against enemy forces. He was a very decent person who hated war and refused to attack retreating enemy troops since he viewed them as misguided fellow citizens. >>64307601He wasn't sympathetic so much as he just didn't want to kill anyone, he knew they were wrong but would have agreed to a armistice as long as it limited the loss of life. He was too nice of a guy to do the hard decisions that would end the war as they would kill to many people.Basically he was too much of a good man to ever win but he couldn't be beaten militarily. He couldn't lose but he couldn't win either.
>>64307609Yes. He was a very good man morally, too good to actually win since that would require him being responsible for killing too many people. He was more or less invincible in defense but hopeless when it came to offensive operations, not only was he over protective of his troops he was over protective of the enemy troops as well.
>>64307590>could you explain this meme to me? not burgerThere were multiple times where he forced the Confederates to withdraw, but instead of pursing and routing them, he'd basically sit back and let them go, partly to avoid more casualties on the Union side, partly because he didn't like the fact that the war was happening at all.
>>64307616>>64307628>>64307629what about his non-ACW career?the question in my mind is, was he overly cautious in general, or was he too loathe to shed the blood of his enemies (no matter who they were), or was he hesitant to kill Confederate Americans?these are all 3 different things
>>64301746built on the chasis of the Lee, which was so high because of sponson
>>64306665first Gulf Wartanks fitted with mine blades and armored D9 bulldozers drove through the Iraqi trench linesburying/running them over
>>64306665The Russians figured out on the Eastern Front that if you get close to an enemy trench with a T-34 and turn real hard right in front of it you can pretty well bury the poor bastards manning it alive.
>>64307629>was he too loathe to shed the blood of his enemies (no matter who they were)This. He viewed them as misguided fellow Americans and didn't want to kill anyone.>>64307660He once refused to support an attack on a retreating CSA force claiming he was worried about being outnumbered and encircled while knowing damn well that not only did his Army outnumber the CSA forces that were still fighting but that including his massive reserve force he outnumbered them 3-1. He never attacked retreating troops, he just would not do it.He wasn't overly cautious so much as he just avoided any losses at any cost, he could take decisive action (he pulled off a pretty audacious amphibious landing early in the war) he just hated killing people. As Supreme Commander his strategy was to build a overwhelming force then more or less (very slowly) maneuver the CSA into admitting logistical defeat with as little actual fighting as possible.Worth noting his troops loved him and the CSA never even bothered trying to really fight him, he had a thing for massive amounts of siege guns, trenches ect so it would have been pointless to attack him. His army was basically a slow moving snapping turtle, you can't really hurt it but you get too close you might get hurt badly so you just avoid it.
We of course need someone to make a AI slop image of the M4 McClellan which would be a M3 with two hull guns, the 'Super McClellan' would be a twin gun M3 with a Sherman turret on top.
>>64307724>As Supreme Commander his strategy was to build a overwhelming force then more or less (very slowly) maneuver the CSA into admitting logistical defeat with as little actual fighting as possiblehmin theory it might work, but the questions are 1) whether the CSA would sit still for it, and 2) whether the civilian economy can support such a long warkind of like, do you want to fight a devastating war spending 30% of your economy on the war for 5 years, or do you want to fight a nation-scale siege with your economy at 10% war spending for 20 years?nor is the question of rebuilding costs so clear-cut. on the one hand, it's obviously very costly in resources (and lives) to rebuild after option A. on the other, you can see from the Cold War that option B can be just as devastating.
>>64307776Economically and industrially there is no question that the Union could have adopted a turtle strategy where they built up a overwhelming force and slowly choked the CSA into submission, however politically it would have not been sustainable. We know that McClellan would have died from natural causes before he could do it (or in Office if he won the election against Lincoln) however no one knew that at the time, a slow strategy of attrition wasn't possible since the population of the North wouldn't stand for it. Economically and industrially is would work, however the domestic political will just wasn't there to do it.
>>64301746Isn't the T20 and Pershing a pancaked Sherman?
>>64307898sort of, but notthe T20 isnt really related to the sherman and was meant to be a clean sheet design whereas the sherman is a radically modified M3 leethe only components that were interchangeable between the two were the VVSS, which was abandoned on the T23 after trialing torsion bars and found them to be better than VVSS or HVSS
>>64301746Because it had to fit in Liberty Ships. 50 non-optimally shaped tank per ship beat 35 optimal ones per ship.Also, these had radial engines from aircraft (or a gagglefuck of small car engines nigger-rigged together in the case of the M4A4), which were high as fuck. Why were these engines used? Because they existed and were ready to build in bulk.It's all logistics. America didn't create its tanks with combat performance as the main framerwork, but with logistics instead. The best tank isn't the one with the biggest gun or thickest armor, it's the one that can be built by the thousands, quickly, and shipped by the thousands again to Tarawa, Kursk, Monte Cassino and the Irrawaddy delta at the same time. That tank is the Sherman, and it's the tank of the countries that won WW2.>>64303636>>64303629>>64303574A coax machine gun is good.A coax machine gun that comes with a hull machine gun a commander's machine gun and pistol ports is better.
>>64307663>built on the chasis of the Lee, which was so high because of sponsonRetard-kun, the Sherman was high because it needed a fucking angled driveshaft under the turret basket.
>>64308496>it needed a fucking angled driveshaft under the turret basket.But Y tho?
>>64301812why did most tanks have this layout?seems retarded
>>64308526Theory was that you'd use the return rollers to knock the dirt off the track so it wasn't fucking with the drive sprocket. That and it would be easier to work the transmission when you were practically on top of it. The T-34 had the transmission in the back and that contributed to the controls being particularly stiff and difficult.
>>64308519Because a radial engine has it's output in the middle of a very tall engine, meaning a high driveshaft.Yes they could've used a transfer-case to make the driveshaft conform to the bottom of the tank but they didn't do that for simplicity.
>>64308526>why did most tanks have this layout?Because in the early 40's, transmission technology was still primitive as fuck and unless you REALLY spent a shitload of money on fancy synchronized gearboxes and expensive shit, the controls are going to be so difficult that you might not even be able to smack it into top gear.Stick the transmission at the front and the driver won't kill himself trying to put it in fifth.
>>64308526Soviets tank didn't but their gearbox were harder (in the sense of requiring brute force) to use
>>64301778Also vertical volute suspension is thicc, but they still wanted sponsons
>>64308493>why radial engines? we had a bunch lying around>why the BAR? we had a bunch left over>why .50 cal on planes? we have a bunch lying aroundWW2 was such a shopkeeper's war.
>>64309768you fight with the weapons you have, not the ones you're about to build, half a minute yeah; it's been this way since the Renaissance, arguably
>>64301746They did retard, its called an M26 Pershing
>>64303619Based Degem Yud poster
>>64301746The Sherman is definitely the gayest looking tank of the well known ones from WW2. The first word that comes to mind looking at one of these is "cuck."
>>64303525Now THIS is fucking based!
>>64303525What calibre is that stub mortar even suppsoed to be?
>>64315320yeah
>>64301746because it won the war
>>64315320I'd say about 1200mm
