February, 1945 - What tank do you choose?

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Logan Hartke
Member
Posts: 1226
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 18:30
Location: Illinois, USA

Post by Logan Hartke » 08 May 2002 05:24

Here you go...

http://www.geocities.com/spoelstra.geo/ ... ecce_1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/spoelstra.geo/ ... _recce.jpg
(You must manually type in the two above adresses to see the pictures since they are geocities pics.)

Image

Logan Hartke

Xanthro
Member
Posts: 2803
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 00:11
Location: Pasadena, CA

Post by Xanthro » 08 May 2002 06:47

Logan Hartke wrote:I had to respond to the same thing twice over on the Military History Forum; here's what I said...
It fits perfectly. In the book, "U.S. Military Tracked Vehicles" by Fred W. Crismon, there are two pictures of the T32. The second one is captioned with this...
The Chrysler Corporation was the development facility for the T32, and on 16 January 1945 they posed the vehicle for formal portraits.
Therefore, I know that it fits perfectly. Come on Random, you know me better than to come forward with something like this without having researched it.
then Caldric said...
Chamberlin, American British Tanks ..., Also states 1946, with the order for the first pilot models being placed in Feburary 1945. Now they could have very well have had a prototype in 1945. But the according to the above the Pilot Models did not arrive till 1946 and no order for the Tank were issued.
and I replied...
Remember, Caldric, I have that book, too. Don't think for a second that I didn't look the T32 up in both books before I made my decision. After reading them both, cover-to-cover, I am confident that the "U.S. Military Tracked Vehicles" is more accurate. Its bibliography spans 4 pages and the book to years to research and assemble. I trust it far more. I especially trust it since it is able to give an exact date and location for the photograph.
One photograph came directly from the makers (Chrysler Corporation) and the other came from the Richard Hunnicut collection. I trust this book far more, as they got their info from the people who made the tank. Also, why would they bother building the T32 after the bigger, heavier T29 series that replaced it in the line of prototypes?
Logan Hartke
Logan, while I'm sure the reference you choose is usually acurate, I still believe it's wrong in this cas, because of the following.

1) The T32 started development after the T29. They basically go in numerical order. The T29 is not a replacement for the T32, it preceeds it by months.

2) The T32 is an improvement over the T26, and specifically the T26E4 which also used the T15E2 as the main armament.

Since the T26E4 didn't go into production until March 1945, 25 built, and the Detroit Arsenal didn't start building T26s until March 1945, when the name was changed to M26, I find it highly unlikely that BEFORE this date, an improved version was available as a working prototype.

3) The Army resisted using the 90mm gun until after the Battle of the Bulge. Initially, the Armored Force board actually tried to have the 90mm guns replaced by 75mm. This was because they feared that having a large main gun on a tank would encourage US tanks to fight Germans tanks, and according to US doctrine at the time, that was the field for Tank Destroyers. It took the set back of the Battle of the Bulge to get the M26 certified as combat ready, though production began in Nov 1944.

Since the US Armored Force board was against using even the standard 90mm, why would a prototype with an improved 90mm be ordered BEFORE the Battle of the Bulge when then specifications changed?

It wouldn't. There was no need to improve the M26 firepower because it was facing obstacles to its acceptance by having too much firepower.

I don't think it's likely that between early Jan and late Feb 1945, the Detroit Arsenal created a prototype of the T32 with a gun that wasn't tested on any other platform, and changes to a production run that hadn't even begun yet.

I find it far more likely that the T32 was ordered in Feb 1945 as opposed to being built, as this fits the overall facts of US tank development and procurement.

To show that the T32 was already built in Feb 1945, we'd need more information than any reference would likely give. We'd need an explanation of how this improvement over the T26 came about so quickly.

It's a fun discussion though.

Xanthro

Logan Hartke
Member
Posts: 1226
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 18:30
Location: Illinois, USA

Post by Logan Hartke » 08 May 2002 07:27

1) The T32 started development after the T29. They basically go in numerical order. The T29 is not a replacement for the T32, it preceeds it by months.
Most of the time, yes, but many projects are completed out of order due largely to size, complication and the needs of the US Army. The T32 was smaller, less complicated and more in-line with what the US Army wanted, which is more than enough reason to complete it sooner.
2) The T32 is an improvement over the T26, and specifically the T26E4 which also used the T15E2 as the main armament.

Since the T26E4 didn't go into production until March 1945, 25 built, and the Detroit Arsenal didn't start building T26s until March 1945, when the name was changed to M26, I find it highly unlikely that BEFORE this date, an improved version was available as a working prototype.
Two pilot models of the T26E4 trundled out of the factories in late '44 which puts them before the T32.
3) The Army resisted using the 90mm gun until after the Battle of the Bulge. Initially, the Armored Force board actually tried to have the 90mm guns replaced by 75mm. This was because they feared that having a large main gun on a tank would encourage US tanks to fight Germans tanks, and according to US doctrine at the time, that was the field for Tank Destroyers. It took the set back of the Battle of the Bulge to get the M26 certified as combat ready, though production began in Nov 1944.

Since the US Armored Force board was against using even the standard 90mm, why would a prototype with an improved 90mm be ordered BEFORE the Battle of the Bulge when then specifications changed?

It wouldn't. There was no need to improve the M26 firepower because it was facing obstacles to its acceptance by having too much firepower.

I don't think it's likely that between early Jan and late Feb 1945, the Detroit Arsenal created a prototype of the T32 with a gun that wasn't tested on any other platform, and changes to a production run that hadn't even begun yet.

I find it far more likely that the T32 was ordered in Feb 1945 as opposed to being built, as this fits the overall facts of US tank development and procurement.
Multiple American tanks were ordered with 90mm guns and some built before the Battle of the Bulge was over. The T26E4 was among them. The T32 (according to my source) came out two or three months afterwards; that seems about right. Also, the fact that the picture credits are given to the manufacturer and that an exact date was found for the photograph, I trust this source.
To show that the T32 was already built in Feb 1945, we'd need more information than any reference would likely give. We'd need an explanation of how this improvement over the T26 came about so quickly.
I'd like more evidence as well.
It's a fun discussion though.
It sure is. I'll agree 100% with that.

Logan Hartke

User avatar
paddywhack
Member
Posts: 153
Joined: 08 May 2002 08:54
Location: dublin ireland

Post by paddywhack » 08 May 2002 09:41

well this is my first post so hello :) my tank if i could pick one would be the joseph stalin 111 now theres a tank with witch to cause some damege :D

Ron Birch
Member
Posts: 515
Joined: 05 May 2002 00:56
Location: USA

Post by Ron Birch » 08 May 2002 10:06

Alright Logan now there is a tank for me.....sunroof....tell me though is the white flag optional or standard equipment. 8O 8O :mrgreen:

Logan Hartke
Member
Posts: 1226
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 18:30
Location: Illinois, USA

Post by Logan Hartke » 08 May 2002 15:09

Well, since it is British, I think it's standard; just kidding, just kidding.

Logan Hartke

Marion L. Anderson
Member
Posts: 17
Joined: 09 May 2002 22:07
Location: Bellflower. Ca U.S.A.

Post by Marion L. Anderson » 10 May 2002 18:36

Before any of you choose a German tank I believe you had better go read what I have written about the Maybach engine and it's troubles at this site; http://pub82.ezboard.com/fpanzer4520frm ... D=17.topic . These engines aren't very dependable or powerful enought for the Tanks they put them in. We are talking about the Maybach :( HL 230 and up. Yours, M.L. Anderson
WW-II NAVY

User avatar
Skorzeny
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: 16 Jun 2002 11:30
Location: Jagverband Mitte

Post by Skorzeny » 28 Jun 2002 17:59

It depends on what sort of war you're fighting as to which vehicle would suit you best. I might even be pursuaded to go to war in the Centurion. Of course I'd want to be armed with an L7, and maybe reactive armour!

Seriously though, Centurion ok, Jagdpanther for defensive battle, the T32 sounds interesting, or maybe an 88 armed Panther....ah , so many choices!

User avatar
T.R.Searle
Member
Posts: 1027
Joined: 27 May 2002 23:31
Location: Canada

Post by T.R.Searle » 28 Jun 2002 18:44

I would probably pick a Panther or a Tiger I. Possibly a Soviet IS-2 or a Hetzer.

T.R.Searle

User avatar
THENIELANDS
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: 17 Jun 2002 05:14
Location: CALIFORNIA

Post by THENIELANDS » 28 Jun 2002 19:37

THE KING TIGER IS MY CHOICE. PLENTY OF ARMOUR AND FIRE POWER.

JEREMY

Mike R
Member
Posts: 555
Joined: 04 Jun 2002 04:20
Location: Ohio, USA

Post by Mike R » 28 Jun 2002 22:42

Maybe a nice lil Renault or Hotchkiss to cruise around in?? Heck, even a Panzer 35 or 38t wouldnt be so bad! :lol:

-Mike

Pablo Sanchez
Member
Posts: 13
Joined: 17 Jun 2002 03:22
Location: The USA

Post by Pablo Sanchez » 29 Jun 2002 03:31

I would be a tank driver working for the Maus project, because then I could stay far from combat.

Being serious, I would probably pick the King Tiger, for the survivability. If I was fighting in February, I only needed to survive a few months for the end of the war. So I would keep my front facing the enemy, and run for the West with a white flag at the first opportunity. :P
"Za rodina!"

Return to “What if”