Jumbo Sherman - Why did not the US make more of them?
Select messages from
 # through # Forum FAQ
[/[Print]\]

Close Combat Series -> The Mess
#1: Jumbo Sherman - Why did not the US make more of them? Author: jakebullet70, Location: Washington State / Kherson Ukraine PostPosted: Sun Jul 13, 2014 2:38 am
    —
I was reading about this today. The US only made A few hundred of these. Why did they not just switch production and make all Shermans Jumbo? There would of been a lot less dead US tankers.
#2: Re: Jumbo Sherman - Why did not the US make more of them? Author: HogansHeros,  PostPosted: Sun Jul 13, 2014 5:12 am
    —
I'm certainly no expert, but I think there were already plans to switch over to M26 Pershings and they probably decided not to switch production twice
#3: Re: Jumbo Sherman - Why did not the US make more of them? Author: Bungarra, Location: Murchison region, West Australia PostPosted: Sun Jul 13, 2014 10:56 am
    —
For those of you that have not read the link Tanks for sale

Here is the spiel

The tank being offered, Assault Tank M4A3E2 “Sherman Jumbo”, serial number 50331, registration number 3082929, is an extremely rare vehicle with possibly only 7 or 8 left in existence. It is an incomplete restoration that is nearly finished. The exterior is in excellent shape with good paint. Some minor punch list items need to be added such as the gunner's sight housing and turret spotlight. Both taillights are present. No headlights are included as the M4A3E2 was not fitted with them. The suspension has been fully restored and is fully functional. It is equipped with T51 rubber block tracks. The roadwheels are C85163 “Stamped Spoke” type while the idler wheels are the matching C85164 “Stamped Spoke” type. The drive sprockets are a variation of the D47366 type. Spare track block holders are fitted to the hull rear plate. All hatches open and close normally. All driver's controls operate normally. Restoration of the interior is incomplete with the wet stowage ammunition bins and other sheetmetal items needing to be installed. These parts are included with the vehicle for the buyer to install. The engine runs on four cylinders; a bad magneto or magneto drive is suspect.

In early 1944, plans for the invasion of Europe were well underway. In February of that year, the Army Ground Forces requested that the existing light and medium tanks designs be modified in order to create an assault tank to be used for infantry support against the expected German fortifications. The M4A3 was the type chosen to be modified. The modifications were authorized in March 1944 and the vehicle was designated Assault Tank M4A3E2.

The standard M4A3 was modified by welding an additional 1.5-inches (38-mm) of armor over the hull front and on the hull sides. This increased the protection to 4-inches (102-mm) and 3-inches (76-mm) respectively. A new cast differential and final drive housing was produced that had a maximum armor thickness of 5.5-inches (140-mm). In addition to the hull modifications, a new turret casting was used. It was based on the turret of the 76-mm gun armed T23 and had 6-inches (153-mm) armor all around. The 75-mm M3 gun was mounted in the T110 combination gun mount that had a gun shield 7-inches (179-mm) thick. Due to the increased weight, the final drive ratio was increased from 2.84:1 to 3.36:1. To cope with the increased ground pressure, extended end connectors or “duckbills” were mounted on the tracks. Fisher Tank Arsenal began production of the M4A3E2 in May 1944 with 254 being built by the time production ended in July the same year.

The M4A3E2 began to reach the troops in Europe in the Fall of 1944. Their thick armor made them immediately popular with U.S. tankers. Many were used as the “point” tank as they were able to absorb hits that would've knocked out normal M4's. During the German Ardennes offensive of December 1944, commonly referred to as “The Battle of the Bulge,” a M4A3E2 belonging to the U.S. 4th Armored Division was the first U.S. tank to breakthrough to the embattled 101st Airborne Division who were surrounded and holding the perimeter around the important town of Bastogne. This particular M4A3E2, nicknamed “Cobra King” survived the war and is currently at Ft. Benning, Georgia. Beginning in early 1945, many M4A3E2's were upgunned with the 76-mm M1A1/A1C gun in order to provide it with better anti-tank capability. The M4A3E2 remained in service through the end of World War II with several surviving vehicles equipping U.S. Army National Guard units until the early 1950s. Because of the small number of M4A3E2's produced, it is safe to surmise that all of the surviving vehicles are veterans of the European Theater of Operations during World War II.
#4: Re: Jumbo Sherman - Why did not the US make more of them? Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Sun Jul 13, 2014 11:16 am
    —
Quote:
In early 1944, plans for the invasion of Europe were well underway. In February of that year, the Army Ground Forces requested that the existing light and medium tanks designs be modified in order to create an assault tank to be used for infantry support against the expected German fortifications. The M4A3 was the type chosen to be modified. The modifications were authorized in March 1944 and the vehicle was designated Assault Tank M4A3E2.

The standard M4A3 was modified by welding an additional 1.5-inches (38-mm) of armor over the hull front and on the hull sides. This increased the protection to 4-inches (102-mm) and 3-inches (76-mm) respectively. A new cast differential and final drive housing was produced that had a maximum armor thickness of 5.5-inches (140-mm). In addition to the hull modifications, a new turret casting was used. It was based on the turret of the 76-mm gun armed T23 and had 6-inches (153-mm) armor all around. The 75-mm M3 gun was mounted in the T110 combination gun mount that had a gun shield 7-inches (179-mm) thick. Due to the increased weight, the final drive ratio was increased from 2.84:1 to 3.36:1. To cope with the increased ground pressure, extended end connectors or “duckbills” were mounted on the tracks. Fisher Tank Arsenal began production of the M4A3E2 in May 1944 with 254 being built by the time production ended in July the same year.

that part is actually from the Hunnicut's book about Sherman which also says that after successfull combat trials of M4AE2 during the fall 1944 the Ordnance Committee decided to order more Jumbos that time with HVSS and 76mm guns but as M26 was in production already it was decided to design a new assault tank M26E5 by up-armoring M26 and in January 1945 10 M26E5 were ordered.
the production of M4A3E2 was limited by a high price of production and the need of the different equipment especially to cast new turrets.
#5: Re: Jumbo Sherman - Why did not the US make more of them? Author: vobbnobb,  PostPosted: Sun Jul 13, 2014 4:25 pm
    —
They couldn't just switch all shermans to jumbo in the theatre that would be beyond doable. (sandbags and tank treads around the tanks helped here) From what I read the extra armor was too much weight for the suspension on the sherman.. I don't think they knew that the Germans would produce such high quality tanks that the 75mm couldn't handle. The Jumbos came out very late in the war and were not that great.. The Sherman is the next best thing from the M3 Lee tank. When it was made the only enemy it had was the Panzer mark I II III and maybe early 4's which it could hold a battle with. When the Mark IV's came out with upgraded high velocity 75mm guns, that's when the shermans started to do terrible. Also the German AT weapons ate them for breakfast and didn't come out later in the war like panzerschrek (copied by Germans from the bazooka and they uped it) Everyone in higher command said that the sherman was more for speed fighting than standoff battles with other tanks, even the crew knew they were garbage. They put gyroscoped barrels on them so they can engage tanks while on the move or trying to sneak around to it's sides or rear.

The US had different tactics than the Germans, swarm the enemy with small cheap medium-light tanks. Tanks only have one barrel and a slow reload and if you swarm them, they are done. 1 tanks fires at it directly with AP or indirectly with HE as another sneaks around to attack it's rear or sides. The one in front most likely always got destroyed but maybe not if he popped smoke first Very Happy
#6: Re: Jumbo Sherman - Why did not the US make more of them? Author: dj,  PostPosted: Sun Jul 13, 2014 4:53 pm
    —
Yes by the time the US invaded France, the war was almost over anyways.   Germany managed to produce only a tiny fraction of what US and USSR were able to amass.  One one one, regular Sherman had no chance, but US had huge numerical advantages, lots of AT & artillery support.  Plus total air supremacy by '44.  So just wasn't necessary.
#7: Re: Jumbo Sherman - Why did not the US make more of them? Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Sun Jul 13, 2014 5:06 pm
    —
dj wrote (View Post):
Yes by the time the US invaded France, the war was almost over anyways.   Germany managed to produce only a tiny fraction of what US and USSR were able to amass.  One one one, regular Sherman had no chance, but US had huge numerical advantages, lots of AT & artillery support.  Plus total air supremacy by '44.  So just wasn't necessary.

Jumbo wasn't ment as AT tank it was ment as Infantry Support or Assault tank and the US officials thought it was neccessary to have such tanks even in 1945.
#8: Re: Jumbo Sherman - Why did not the US make more of them? Author: mooxe,  PostPosted: Sun Jul 13, 2014 5:15 pm
    —
http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/

Nice website on the very fine details of Sherman tanks.
#9: Re: Jumbo Sherman - Why did not the US make more of them? Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Sun Jul 13, 2014 5:30 pm
    —
mooxe wrote (View Post):
http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/
Nice website on the very fine details of Sherman tanks.

thanks Mooxe, great resource!
#10: Re: Jumbo Sherman - Why did not the US make more of them? Author: jakebullet70, Location: Washington State / Kherson Ukraine PostPosted: Sun Jul 13, 2014 5:43 pm
    —
Even if they where over weight, how long did a Sherman last in combat?
I mean giving up 3 or 4 shermans to get a panther or a tiger sounds good on paper unless you are on of the tankers doing it.

Its just that the Jumbo sounds like it gave equal footing to the US tankers against the Germans and just maybe you could survive being on point.  Smile
#11: Re: Jumbo Sherman - Why did not the US make more of them? Author: GMAK, Location: Montreal PostPosted: Mon Jul 14, 2014 5:23 am
    —
I mean I bet even the best expert can't tell. Strong question.
Close Combat Series -> The Mess


output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Page 1 of 1