WW 2 American "What if?" tanks.

[ksbearski]

Hi all-


You know, one of the things that I'm wanting to do is speculate about how the USA could have come up with better gunned tanks during WW 2.  Here's some speculation for you.

1.  If the 90 mm could be mounted on the M-36B2 (  on a Sherman Hull), why couldn't the USA build a Super Sherman with this same gun using a field mod like the British did on the Sherman turret to accomodate the 17 lbr?  Better yet, why couldn't the USA take some Jumbo Shermans and mount the 90 mm gun in that modified turret,  Now that would be a Tiger killer!

Any wild speculation on possible combo's is fine by me.

Feel free to jump right in.

Barry

[Keith Heitmann]

As I mentioned in the other thread, the government didn't want to disrupt production lines by making changes in the Sherman. They were producing tanks not only for the US forces, but for Britain, France, and other allied forces.

They may have also thought that the 75mm short barrel and 76mm longer barrel weapon and was sufficient given that the bulk of the German tanks was made up of Panzer IVs and not Panthers and Tigers like every one seems to think.  

Plus, they may have felt that the fighting ranges in western Europe would be closer than they were on the Eastern Front where tanks were being engaged at ranges out to 1000 yards or more.

In this case quantity over superior firepower would probably rule the battlefield. It worked pretty well for the Russians.

[ksbearski]

keith-

Great points, especially about production not being disrupted.  But, I can't help but wonder why the USA did not have one arsenal making turrets only, and outfitting these turret with bigger guns to be shipped off to the tank assembly plants to be mated with a hull.

Barry