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.
EwenS
Member
Posts: 227
Joined: 04 May 2020 11:37
Location: Scotland

Re: T23 with 90 mm gun?

Post by EwenS » 18 Sep 2020 12:23

Delwin wrote:
16 Sep 2020 20:09

Also (finally) worse mobility than Sherman (with exception of B1 version - using the same chassis) - especially comparing to HVSS version.
First time I’ve heard that said. How so?

The M10 used the lower hull, engine and running gear from the original M4A2 Sherman, and the M10A1 the same from the M4A3 Sherman, complete with the VVSS suspension. They were about a ton lighter. The M36 was produced from remanufactured M10A1 hulls and later M10 hulls. The 187 M36B1 built on M4A3 hulls used the same VVSS suspension.

The HVSS suspension was a distinct improvement to the Sherman but no M4s were produced with it until Sept 1944 nor reached combat until Dec1944.

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

Re: T23 with 90 mm gun?

Post by Delwin » 18 Sep 2020 14:18

As far as I can recall the problems were similar as to Shermans and they tried (less successfully though) use the end connectors to tracks which proved - not sure why (some changes in the chassis?) to be more difficult than in case of Sherman's. Obviously HVSS was not used although you correctly point out out that numbers of E8 tanks were not that impressive at the end.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 4368
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: T23 with 90 mm gun?

Post by Richard Anderson » 18 Sep 2020 16:05

Delwin wrote:
18 Sep 2020 14:18
As far as I can recall the problems were similar as to Shermans and they tried (less successfully though) use the end connectors to tracks which proved - not sure why (some changes in the chassis?) to be more difficult than in case of Sherman's. Obviously HVSS was not used although you correctly point out out that numbers of E8 tanks were not that impressive at the end.
I'd have to dig, but I don't recall any particular mobility issues with the M10 chassis that made it worse than the M4...they were after all more or less the same thing. The issue with EEC was that they were in short supply, frequently broke, and were needed for tanks so that they could 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: 8851
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: T23 with 90 mm gun?

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 21 Sep 2020 20:00

Game designers generally rate the cross country speed of the M10 slightly higher than the M4 Medium Tank. Usual rational is lower weight = a better HP to weight ratio. I cant recall the numbers myself.

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

Re: T23 with 90 mm gun?

Post by Delwin » 21 Sep 2020 21:04

I found 50 % - actually it is location 8230 (Kindle version) of book on Ardennes ( Hitler's Last Gamble: The Battle of the Bulge: not sure it was your part Rich :-)): poor cross-country mobility but I admit no mention of below M4 level. Unfortunately I cannot recall where I read about problem with end connectors in M10. It is likely that was some book by Zaloga but I searched "usual suspects" and I cannot pin it. It was a discussion for particular TD battalions having problems with end connectors which required removal of some elements of chassis (?). This created my impression that sth was changed comparing to Sherman since I have not read anything similar about M4. I need to admit that I read few books at the same time plus internet sites ( it might be website as well) so it may take a whle before I jump to correct source...

EDIT:

OK - got it. This is page 16 of Zaloga book on M10/M36

https://books.google.pl/books?id=WZqlCw ... rs&f=false

The text below the photo mentions that at M10 and M36 there was a problem with underhang and front fenders in relation to endconnectors. Not sure if the same story applies to M4.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 4368
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: T23 with 90 mm gun?

Post by Richard Anderson » 24 Sep 2020 22:42

Delwin wrote:
21 Sep 2020 21:04
The text below the photo mentions that at M10 and M36 there was a problem with underhang and front fenders in relation to endconnectors. Not sure if the same story applies to M4.
Interesting, I had not run into that before. I suspect Mick Moran picks up on that problem in Can Openers too. I don't think that would be a problem with the tank hull though, since there were no overhangs like that.
"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

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2473
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: T23 with 90 mm gun?

Post by Yoozername » 25 Dec 2020 19:41

EwenS wrote:
18 Sep 2020 12:23
Delwin wrote:
16 Sep 2020 20:09

Also (finally) worse mobility than Sherman (with exception of B1 version - using the same chassis) - especially comparing to HVSS version.
First time I’ve heard that said. How so?

The M10 used the lower hull, engine and running gear from the original M4A2 Sherman, and the M10A1 the same from the M4A3 Sherman, complete with the VVSS suspension. They were about a ton lighter. The M36 was produced from remanufactured M10A1 hulls and later M10 hulls. The 187 M36B1 built on M4A3 hulls used the same VVSS suspension.

The HVSS suspension was a distinct improvement to the Sherman but no M4s were produced with it until Sept 1944 nor reached combat until Dec1944.
The M10 would then use the diesel engine (co-joined), and the M10A1 would use the gasoline Ford V8. The V8 would be better. I think the B1 would also have the V8.

In my opinion, they should have made more B1 by shipping kits. Basically just turrets with all the racks etc.

As an aside, i don't think HVAP or T33 ammunition may have reached the ETO troops in meaningful numbers in 1945. There was a short run of 3000 HVAP in Jan/Feb. 10,000 T33 (reworked M77) were made in March. Given the delay in shipping/distribution/training, it would be doubtful.

EwenS
Member
Posts: 227
Joined: 04 May 2020 11:37
Location: Scotland

Re: T23 with 90 mm gun?

Post by EwenS » 04 Jan 2021 21:50

Yoozername wrote:
25 Dec 2020 19:41
EwenS wrote:
18 Sep 2020 12:23
Delwin wrote:
16 Sep 2020 20:09

Also (finally) worse mobility than Sherman (with exception of B1 version - using the same chassis) - especially comparing to HVSS version.
First time I’ve heard that said. How so?

The M10 used the lower hull, engine and running gear from the original M4A2 Sherman, and the M10A1 the same from the M4A3 Sherman, complete with the VVSS suspension. They were about a ton lighter. The M36 was produced from remanufactured M10A1 hulls and later M10 hulls. The 187 M36B1 built on M4A3 hulls used the same VVSS suspension.

The HVSS suspension was a distinct improvement to the Sherman but no M4s were produced with it until Sept 1944 nor reached combat until Dec1944.
The M10 would then use the diesel engine (co-joined), and the M10A1 would use the gasoline Ford V8. The V8 would be better. I think the B1 would also have the V8.

In my opinion, they should have made more B1 by shipping kits. Basically just turrets with all the racks etc.

As an aside, i don't think HVAP or T33 ammunition may have reached the ETO troops in meaningful numbers in 1945. There was a short run of 3000 HVAP in Jan/Feb. 10,000 T33 (reworked M77) were made in March. Given the delay in shipping/distribution/training, it would be doubtful.
I'd disagree with you about generating M36 on the front line. Are you clear about the M36 development line?

It started in Oct 1942 with the first prototype turrets in Sept 1943. There was a lot of Army politics involved in moving it into production. Then there were trials and modifications to be made. So turret production couldn't start until Spring 1944.

In anticipation of the 90mm turret becoming available, in Jan 1944 300 brand new turretless M10A1 chassis were produced. The first 90mm M36 began rolling off the production line in April (25 vehicles), with all 300 completed by July.

They then turned to sourcing more hulls against additional orders for 300 in May 1944 and another 800 on 29th July after the fighting in Normandy revealed the need for the bigger gun. So total orders are now 1400.

During 1943 a total of 1413 M10A1 were built but all were retained in the USA for training purposes, an exercise that was winding down as units moved to Europe, thus making the hulls surplus to requirements. It was decided to convert them to M36. Initially only 913 could be located and these were converted between June and Dec 1944. As there was then seen to be a shortfall in the numbers of available new build and old M10A1 hulls (300 + 913 = 1213) v the orders for M36 (1400) it was decided to convert 187 M4A3 (with the Ford V8) tanks with 90mm turrets to create the M36B1. They were converted in Oct-Dec 1944.

And there the programme would probably have ended except that demand continued to rise. And the conversion program began again in May 1945. Another 200 M10A1 were found and converted between May and July 1945. Conversions were then focussed on the spare M10 in the USA with 724 converted from May to Aug 1945 as M36B2.

In terms of deployment, it generally took 4 to 5 months to get any piece of kit from the factory door in the USA to the front line in France. The first 40 M36 arrived in France in the first week of Sept 1944 i.e. well within that timeframe.

Given when 90mm turrets became available, it is impossible to see how shipping turrets to Europe to convert M10s already in theatre could possibly have resulted in the M36 arriving on the front line any quicker than historically. To get them sooner then the US Army has to realise earlier that it has a need for such a vehicle, expedite development and cut out the politics in the Army hierarchy.

Incidentally the first 2000 rounds of HVAP T4 ammunition arrived in France in Aug 1944 with first distribution to units on 11 Sept 1944 with more widespread use by Nov. An order for 20000 rounds of HVAP was placed in late summer and by Feb 1945 18000 rounds had been delivered to France with 42% being 76mm and the remainder 3" for the M10 tank destroyers. It was never plentiful with M4(76) being rationed to about 5 rounds per tank by Feb 1945. Some 6th Army units had virtually none in Dec/Jan 1944. The T30E16 90mm HVAP for the M36 began to appear in Jan 1945

One production problem was getting hold of the Tungsten for the core of the shells.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2473
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: T23 with 90 mm gun?

Post by Yoozername » 04 Jan 2021 22:05

I'd disagree with you about generating M36 on the front line. Are you clear about the M36 development line?
What 'front line'? There were facilities in France. The main issue I am referring to is shipping. Shipping kits takes up less space/tonnage. This was done with planes and trucks also. Basically saving space.

T4 is 76mm ammunition. I am referring to 90 mm.

EwenS
Member
Posts: 227
Joined: 04 May 2020 11:37
Location: Scotland

Re: T23 with 90 mm gun?

Post by EwenS » 04 Jan 2021 23:35

Yoozername wrote:
04 Jan 2021 22:05
I'd disagree with you about generating M36 on the front line. Are you clear about the M36 development line?
What 'front line'? There were facilities in France. The main issue I am referring to is shipping. Shipping kits takes up less space/tonnage. This was done with planes and trucks also. Basically saving space.

T4 is 76mm ammunition. I am referring to 90 mm.
While you might be saving space on shipping, it takes the same duration of time to ship a turret as a whole tank. Then you have to withdraw vehicles from the front line or rely on having enough in reserve to allow them to be rotated through the in theatre conversion process as well as replace front line losses. And you have to have the heavy engineering facilities available to do the conversion on top of their day to day activities. I’d still argue that conversion in the factory where the whole vehicle can be brought up to the latest specs and generally refurbished is the better way of doing it.

I noted that 90mm HVAP became available in Jan 1945. There was however a greater need to provide it for the 76mm and 3” than the more powerful 90mm. Ultimately there were relatively few situations an M36 couldn’t handle without HVAP ammo.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 4368
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: T23 with 90 mm gun?

Post by Richard Anderson » 05 Jan 2021 00:51

EwenS wrote:
04 Jan 2021 23:35
I noted that 90mm HVAP became available in Jan 1945. There was however a greater need to provide it for the 76mm and 3” than the more powerful 90mm. Ultimately there were relatively few situations an M36 couldn’t handle without HVAP ammo.
Production of 90mm HVAP T30 began in January 1945 with c. 1,000 rounds produced plus another 2,000 in February, but it may not have been E16. :D The first rounds shipped were with ZEBRA and were 1,000 rounds of 90mm T30E15. It appears that after a production hiatus in March, the T30E16 variant began production in April with 5,000 rounds, then 10,000 each in May and June and 5,000 rounds in July. T30E16 was standardized as M304 in June 1945. It is unclear how many rounds of T30 actually made it to Europe after the original 1,000 in late February...I would be surprised if it was more than 3,000 rounds in total since it is unlikely any of production from April and later made it.

It is also curious that the original ZEBRA document states only 100 rounds each of T30E15 and T33 were shipped, which may have been a misprint for 1,000 inasmuch as it is known that 998 rounds of T30E15 arrived by 17 February...and it was actually 105 rounds of T33. :D
"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

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2473
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: T23 with 90 mm gun?

Post by Yoozername » 05 Jan 2021 20:44

Some numbers.
90ammo.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2473
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: T23 with 90 mm gun?

Post by Yoozername » 05 Jan 2021 23:25

As far as the 'M36 Development line', I will point out that of the 2324 90 mm M3 guns (the weapon itself) in total, 924 were produced April and later in 1945. The US stopped production in December, 1944. This allowed the M36 AFV to be built in December. But stopped in January. This is just 1400 M36 of all types that might have a good chance of getting to the war. By the way, these are listed as 'tank conversions'. I am citing the official production report.
https://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Stat ... 940-45.pdf


So, did the US switch to making 90 mm anti-aircraft guns? No, the 90 mm gun production switched to making M26 tank guns. They made 2002 M26 (all versions with 90mm) tanks. Not that many making it to the ETO. Shipping issues and whatnot.

M10 chassis production stopped in December 43. M18 (T70) had started in July of 43, albeit at a lower production rate (about half), and stopped in October of 44.

Given the 'Production Complete' status of the M10 and M18, the M36 was cobbling together what they could. The M36B1 was actually well liked. It was issued to TD battalions, but I would actually have made it a tank battalion asset similar to the M4/105 shermans.

M36 production 1944
April 25
May 100
June 120
July 155
August 100
September 0
October 125
November 383
December 392

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2473
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: T23 with 90 mm gun?

Post by Yoozername » 08 Jan 2021 20:42


EwenS
Member
Posts: 227
Joined: 04 May 2020 11:37
Location: Scotland

Re: T23 with 90 mm gun?

Post by EwenS » 08 Jan 2021 21:37

There is plenty of production data on US tank destroyer and M26 production here.
https://www.usautoindustryworldwartwo.com/

Return to “USA 1919-1945”