T23 with 90 mm gun?

Discussions on all aspects of the United States of America during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Carl Schwamberger.
Delwin
Member
Posts: 109
Joined: 17 Feb 2006 18:36
Location: Warsaw

T23 with 90 mm gun?

Post by Delwin » 11 Sep 2020 13:00

I could not find the details so I am opening new thread - has this idea (I understand considered in 1943) produced any prototypes or at least plans? Or was it just a general idea, quickly dropped in favor of 76 mm gun?

Delwin
Member
Posts: 109
Joined: 17 Feb 2006 18:36
Location: Warsaw

Re: T23 with 90 mm gun?

Post by Delwin » 12 Sep 2020 18:26

Delwin wrote:
11 Sep 2020 13:00
I could not find the details so I am opening new thread - has this idea (I understand considered in 1943) produced any prototypes or at least plans? Or was it just a general idea, quickly dropped in favor of 76 mm gun?
After quick look to history of M26 I found my question pretty exotic to say the least...

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 4232
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: T23 with 90 mm gun?

Post by Richard Anderson » 12 Sep 2020 18:34

Delwin wrote:
12 Sep 2020 18:26
Delwin wrote:
11 Sep 2020 13:00
I could not find the details so I am opening new thread - has this idea (I understand considered in 1943) produced any prototypes or at least plans? Or was it just a general idea, quickly dropped in favor of 76 mm gun?
After quick look to history of M26 I found my question pretty exotic to say the least...
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Beat me to it. :D

Indeed, the Medium Tank T25 and Heavy Tank T26 were the T23 with 90mm gun, the latter also with additional armor.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 8734
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: T23 with 90 mm gun?

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 15 Sep 2020 20:48

& without the electric transmission of the T23? Correct?

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 4232
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: T23 with 90 mm gun?

Post by Richard Anderson » 15 Sep 2020 21:30

Carl Schwamberger wrote:
15 Sep 2020 20:48
& without the electric transmission of the T23? Correct?
Nope. T25 and T26 were both planned as electric drive. T25E1 and T26E1 used the conventional Hydramatic transmission.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 8734
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: T23 with 90 mm gun?

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 15 Sep 2020 23:17

Ah, tripped by a nuance again.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 4232
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: T23 with 90 mm gun?

Post by Richard Anderson » 16 Sep 2020 00:41

Carl Schwamberger wrote:
15 Sep 2020 23:17
Ah, tripped by a nuance again.
Good old Army Ordnance. There of course was also the T26E2, the T26E3, T26E4, T26E5... :lol:
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 8734
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: T23 with 90 mm gun?

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 16 Sep 2020 02:13

Taking the limits of 90mm gun production then, what the advantage of choosing T23 or T26 production over M36 production? I'm unsure there is any.

EwenS
Member
Posts: 212
Joined: 04 May 2020 11:37
Location: Scotland

Re: T23 with 90 mm gun?

Post by EwenS » 16 Sep 2020 12:29

Well first you are dealing with two different branches of the US Army - tanks and tank destroyers and two different streams of development fulfilling two different doctrines, albeit occurring in a similar timescale.

AIUI the tank branch couldn’t make up its mind what kind of tank it wanted to succeed the 1942 era 75mm Sherman. In 1943 it elected to put the 76mm into the Sherman with production starting Jan 1944. But was something heavier required? One argument related to shipping. Was it better to ship two 30 ton medium tanks or one heavy tank? Quality v quantity? And the potential disruption of production involved in such a switch at a time when the Armoured forces were still being built up. The 10 prototype T26E1 didn’t appear until Feb- May 1944 with the productionised T26E3 appearing in Nov 1944 and entering combat, on a trial basis, in March 1945. The invasion of Japan would have been its first real test.

It was intended that the successor to the M10 tank destroyer would be the 76mm armed M18 Hellcat. But it was becoming clear in 1943 that the 90mm gun would be required. So an extra 300 M10A1 hulls were produced in early 1944 pending development of a suitable 90mm turret with production vehicles appearing in April and entering combat in Sept. The remaining M36 produced were based on remanufactured M10A1 hulls augmented by M36B1 (on M4A3 hulls) and later M36B2 (on remanufactured M10 hulls).

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 4232
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: T23 with 90 mm gun?

Post by Richard Anderson » 16 Sep 2020 15:51

Carl Schwamberger wrote:
16 Sep 2020 02:13
Taking the limits of 90mm gun production then, what the advantage of choosing T23 or T26 production over M36 production? I'm unsure there is any.
M36 wasn't a tank.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 4232
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: T23 with 90 mm gun?

Post by Richard Anderson » 16 Sep 2020 16:44

EwenS wrote:
16 Sep 2020 12:29
Well first you are dealing with two different branches of the US Army - tanks and tank destroyers and two different streams of development fulfilling two different doctrines, albeit occurring in a similar timescale.
Technically, neither were "branches" which implies a regular constituted part of the Army. Armor was created as a provisional "force" and the Tank Destroyers as a provisional "command".

Ordnance vehicle development was single stream, from the Ordnance Committee for the initial development requirements expression and approval, to the Ordnance Technical Division for initial technical development, then to the Ordnance T-AC for pilot fabrication, then to Aberdeen for engineering testing and either the Armored or TB boards (Fort Knox or Camp Hood) for service test.
AIUI the tank branch couldn’t make up its mind what kind of tank it wanted to succeed the 1942 era 75mm Sherman. In 1943 it elected to put the 76mm into the Sherman with production starting Jan 1944.
Actually, Armor did make up its mind, expressing a desire for a more powerful 3" gun in the medium tank as early as 11 September 1941. The issue was how Ordnance managed to get it into the tank, which was unacceptable to Armor. The M4A1 (76M1) of September-December 1942 was not approved for full production after testing demonstrated the turret traverse problems were not solved, which led to the M4E6 project that was acceptable, but in meantime the Tank Destroyer Command scarfed up the initial production of 76mm guns. When the M4E6 program was complete and approved it was November 1943, when tank production was rationalized, that and retooling meant production began in January.
But was something heavier required? One argument related to shipping. Was it better to ship two 30 ton medium tanks or one heavy tank? Quality v quantity? And the potential disruption of production involved in such a switch at a time when the Armoured forces were still being built up. The 10 prototype T26E1 didn’t appear until Feb- May 1944 with the productionised T26E3 appearing in Nov 1944 and entering combat, on a trial basis, in March 1945. The invasion of Japan would have been its first real test.
The actual "shipping" issue was ship design. The standard Liberty was designed - in theory - to accommodate as many as 260 25-ton medium tanks. However, it only had a single 50-ton boom handling cargo for hold No 2, otherwise the loading booms were limited to 15-30 tons for hold No 4. They could of course be loaded or unloaded at ports with dockside cranes capable of 30 tons or more, but that was not always going to be available in a theater of war. Note also that the design of all landing ships and craft was based upon the 25-27 ton medium tank anticipated in 1940-1942, but what they got was a medium tank weighing 35-plus tons in 1943-1945. The USMC discovered that the standard LCM-3 was dangerously overloaded with later production Medium Tanks M4. The weight increases also badly affected the ability of the Corps of Engineers to keep up with tactical bridging capable of handling the heavier tanks...to such a degree that the Engineers succeeded in getting a size and weight limit imposed through AR 850-15 on 28 August 1943.
It was intended that the successor to the M10 tank destroyer would be the 76mm armed M18 Hellcat. But it was becoming clear in 1943 that the 90mm gun would be required. So an extra 300 M10A1 hulls were produced in early 1944 pending development of a suitable 90mm turret with production vehicles appearing in April and entering combat in Sept. The remaining M36 produced were based on remanufactured M10A1 hulls augmented by M36B1 (on M4A3 hulls) and later M36B2 (on remanufactured M10 hulls).
Yep, except the Tank Destroyer Command and Center strongly resisted production of the M36, believing it was a step backwards. The other major limiting factor was development and production of the 90mm Tank Gun M3. It was August 1943 before production began and only 50 were completed by the end of the year. Another 1,638 were completed in 1944, of which 238 were allocated to tank projects and the rest to the T71 (M36) project.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 8734
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: T23 with 90 mm gun?

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 16 Sep 2020 18:13

Richard Anderson wrote:
16 Sep 2020 15:51
Carl Schwamberger wrote:
16 Sep 2020 02:13
Taking the limits of 90mm gun production then, what the advantage of choosing T23 or T26 production over M36 production? I'm unsure there is any.
M36 wasn't a tank.
& the distinction is important how?

Delwin
Member
Posts: 109
Joined: 17 Feb 2006 18:36
Location: Warsaw

Re: T23 with 90 mm gun?

Post by Delwin » 16 Sep 2020 20:09

Carl Schwamberger wrote:
16 Sep 2020 18:13
Richard Anderson wrote:
16 Sep 2020 15:51
Carl Schwamberger wrote:
16 Sep 2020 02:13
Taking the limits of 90mm gun production then, what the advantage of choosing T23 or T26 production over M36 production? I'm unsure there is any.
M36 wasn't a tank.
& the distinction is important how?
Armor - significantly weaker than Sherman. Also open turret - excluding offensive actions typical for tanks: M36 was very sensitive for infantry attacks in close combat. "Stupid" granade thrown into turret and... To some extent it was alleviated in versions with armored covers but it was still imperfect: mostly protection from artillery shells was obtained.

Also (finally) worse mobility than Sherman (with exception of B1 version - using the same chassis) - especially comparing to HVSS version.

When thinking about perfect and still IMHO almost realistic solution as to US tanks - T23 turret with 90mm (kind of T25 turret?) to be put on Sherman. Of course nothing comes without a price - need to rearrange the interior, less ammo etc. At the same time - still enough HE power. I am afraid however that at some stage it could have negatively impacted fielding of M26. Sherman with 90 mm is still extremely reliable (noting comments on Korea battles when Pershing was noted as much worse than his older cousin), logistical pluses - why we need a new tank at all? There is however also a question when it could be done so sufficient numbers can be fielded.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 4232
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: T23 with 90 mm gun?

Post by Richard Anderson » 16 Sep 2020 20:21

Carl Schwamberger wrote:
16 Sep 2020 18:13
Richard Anderson wrote:
16 Sep 2020 15:51
Carl Schwamberger wrote:
16 Sep 2020 02:13
Taking the limits of 90mm gun production then, what the advantage of choosing T23 or T26 production over M36 production? I'm unsure there is any.
M36 wasn't a tank.
& the distinction is important how?
If it isn't a tank it doesn't tank.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 8734
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: T23 with 90 mm gun?

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 16 Sep 2020 20:44

I notice in accounts from German soldiers, not the intel guys, or HQ staff reports, the distinction is not often made. If M10s fired on them its just another pair of "panzers". In the moment the distinction is largely irrelevant.

However this conversation has largely been of the M4 & other US tanks vs German tanks. In in the context of the 90mm gun vs Panthers or whatever would the differences in enemy tanks 'neutralized' be significant. Theres differences in tactics dictated by the vehicle performance & crew training, but I'm suspecting fielding X number of M36 vs Y number of T23 wont make a noticeable difference in enemy tanks knocked out by the 90mm guns.

Return to “USA 1919-1945”