Er, no, not really I'm afraid.phylo_roadking wrote:The M24 is a strange case - it had the gun....but not the armour; almost half the frontal thickness of the M5. Shows just how to get one aspect improved, you have to compromise somewhere else in the equation
The speed was only a few mph higher too - although the suspension etc. was admittedly a huge improvement.
Armor Basis (i.e. effective thickness) M5//M24 in inches
Hull Front Upper 2 1/2 // 2 1/2
Hull Front Lower 2 to 2 1/2 // 1 1/2
Hull Sides and Rear 1 to 1 1/2 // 3/4 to 1 1/4
Hull Top 1/2 // 1/2
Hull Bottom 3/8 to 1/2 // 3/8 to 1/2
Turret Front 2 // 2 to 2 1/4
Turret Sides and Rear 1 1/4 // 1 to 1 1/4
Turret Top 1/2 // 1/2
The only significant advantage the M5 had in armor was the lower hull front, which was one of the least vulnerable areas unless at very close range, when it would hardly matter. The only place where the armor was "half the frontal thickness" (actual rather than armor basis) was also the lower hull front; 1 inch in the M24, but better employed than the 2 to 2 1/2 inch thick plate on the M5 that wasn't sloped.
Maximum speed on level ground for the M24 was 35 MPH, for the M5 it was 36, so in fact it was slightly slower...except on any sort of grade where its wider tracks provided better traction. The M24 could cross a 6 1/2 foot trench compared to the 5 1/3 foot ability of the M5; the M24 could climb a 36 inch vertical obstacle, while it was only 18 inches for the M5; the M24 could ford 40 inch depths, the M5 only 36 inches; and the M24 had 17 inches of ground clearance, the M5 only 13 3/4; and finally, the M24 had only 10.7 lb./sq.ft. ground pressure compared to the M5 12.4. The center-guide tracks of the M24 were less prone to being thrown, while the torsion bar suspension gave a better ride.
The M24 was as well protected, easier to drive, was more maneuverable, and had much greater firepower, all in a vehicle only 5,750 pounds heavier in gross weight.