From: Stephen Grammont (islander@midmaine.com)
Date: Fri Apr 08 2005 - 21:54:02 PDT
The 17 Pounder was offered to the US, but it was rejected for several
reasons, none of which wound up holding water after the problems in
Normandy. One of the reputed reasons, and probably most often repeated
ones, is that it was all about ego -> if it ain't US engineered, we
don't want it. Well... might have been a PART of the reason, but it
wasn't the major one. Afterall, the standard ATG at the time, the
57mm, was a nearly direct copy of the British 6pdr. The 37mm gun,
which was the standard for earlier war, was a near copy of the British
2pdr. I fail to see why the US would so suddenly sour on British
designs because of where they came from.
The real reasons, that I know of, are as follows:
1. Flawed Armor Doctrine. The Sherman was originally envisioned as a
breakthrough vehicle. Engaging other tanks was NOT its primary
function. Taking out fortifications and infantry fighting positions
was. Tank destruction was supposed to be done by Tank Destroyers. The
75 gun on the Sherman was a fantastic gun for this role and early
attempts to upgun the Sherman were rejected on the basis that taking
out tanks was the responsibility of artillery and TDs, and that a
better gun would only "encourage" tankers to take on enemy tanks.
Unfortunately, Normandy showed that the Tank Destroyer Doctrine didn't
work in reality (I'm trying for Understatement of the Year Award <g>).
So Shermans were upgunned and uparmored while new designs for a better
tank were developed (which lead to the M26 Pershing). But note that
75mm armed Shermans were used throughout the rest of the war since when
they were used as intended, with adequate combined arms support, they
were fearsome.
2. Ammo supply. The Fireflies suffered from extremely small ammo
loads. The Shermans with 75s, on the other hand, had more than enough
on hand.
3. Transportation. I've seen it said that logistically the longer
barreled guns were feared as being a problem for packing ships up
efficiently.
It is also interesting to note that the US 76mm gun mounted on the
Sherman was adequate, but not what it needed to be. So even AFTER the
US put their "best gun forward" the British 17pdr was still superior.
Also note that the Sherman's 75 was OK vs. the more common German AFV
types, and superior for taking out enemy AT guns compared to the 76mm.
I think the whole "superior, inferior" debate is rather pointless when
talking in grand generalities. Each nation had some good stuff, each
had things they should have either never fielded (utter crap!) or
should have been withdrawn sooner (turned into utter crap!). Also...
define superior? Many of the Soviet tanks are considered "superior" to
US and UK vehicles, yet Soviet crews who used Lend Lease US and UK
stuff would tell you different (except for the M3 Grant.. nicknamed
"Grave for 7 Brothers"). Yes, the Soviet tanks could go really fast
and kill when they hit... but the ride was horrible, crew safety was
not even an afterthought, and hitting was often quite a problem for
some models.
Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:42:53 PDT