Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Sherman "1946"???

Expand Messages
  • Thomas Antonsen
    In WW2 modeling circles, its quite common among modellers of German armour to build models of German armour designs, which have just been sketched on a
    Message 1 of 16 , Jul 3, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      In WW2 modeling circles, its quite common among modellers of German armour to build models of German armour designs, which have "just been sketched on a napkin", these designs are commonly referred to as "1946" models, as to indicate, they "could" have appeared in 1946, had the war in Europe dragged on.

      As a devoted Sherman fanboy, I use every opportunity to promote the Sherman tank as a model subject, and thus I wonder, what could/would the Sherman have developed into, had the M26 been delayed and a stop gap measure had to be found by further upgrading the M4A3, wet, T23 turret?

      My own ideas, call them crooked, if you so please:

      Hull:
      A horseshoe shaped hull armour kit with increased performance against both APDS and HEAT rounds. Think the concrete armour panels for hull sides and front in some "magic" metal, which could stop a 88mm round as well as a slat armour screen as on current M1126 Stryker in Iraq/Afghanistan. Dimensions of this horseshoe armour could not exceed the width of the T-66 tracks. Slat armour would be extra width outside of the horseshoe.

      Turret:
      Same concept, flat plate horseshoe armour mounted on the T-23 turret with extra slat armour to counter HEAT rounds.

      Maingun:
      90mm gun as per M36. Is it possible to fit the 90mm gun inside the T-23 turret?

      Suspention:
      Regular HVSS

      FCS:
      When did US tanks get the ablility to fire on the move (and hit the target on the move)?

      Engine:
      Diesel? Was the M60 the first US tank with a diesel engine (apart from the M4A2)?

      What else:
      Other obvious upgrades along with the above mentioned? These should be possible to build with 1946 US industrial capabilities.

      Regards Thomas Antonsen
    • xstuff@juno.com
      M3A1 Stuart had a diesel motor before the M4A2 Sherman. ... From: Thomas Antonsen To: G104@yahoogroups.com Subject: [G104] Sherman
      Message 2 of 16 , Jul 3, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        M3A1 Stuart had a diesel motor before the M4A2 Sherman.

        ---------- Original Message ----------
        From: "Thomas Antonsen" <thomcat2@...>
        To: G104@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [G104] Sherman "1946"???
        Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2011 22:49:54 -0000

         

        In WW2 modeling circles, its quite common among modellers of German armour to build models of German armour designs, which have "just been sketched on a napkin", these designs are commonly referred to as "1946" models, as to indicate, they "could" have appeared in 1946, had the war in Europe dragged on.

        As a devoted Sherman fanboy, I use every opportunity to promote the Sherman tank as a model subject, and thus I wonder, what could/would the Sherman have developed into, had the M26 been delayed and a stop gap measure had to be found by further upgrading the M4A3, wet, T23 turret?

        My own ideas, call them crooked, if you so please:

        Hull:
        A horseshoe shaped hull armour kit with increased performance against both APDS and HEAT rounds. Think the concrete armour panels for hull sides and front in some "magic" metal, which could stop a 88mm round as well as a slat armour screen as on current M1126 Stryker in Iraq/Afghanistan. Dimensions of this horseshoe armour could not exceed the width of the T-66 tracks. Slat armour would be extra width outside of the horseshoe.

        Turret:
        Same concept, flat plate horseshoe armour mounted on the T-23 turret with extra slat armour to counter HEAT rounds.

        Maingun:
        90mm gun as per M36. Is it possible to fit the 90mm gun inside the T-23 turret?

        Suspention:
        Regular HVSS

        FCS:
        When did US tanks get the ablility to fire on the move (and hit the target on the move)?

        Engine:
        Diesel? Was the M60 the first US tank with a diesel engine (apart from the M4A2)?

        What else:
        Other obvious upgrades along with the above mentioned? These should be possible to build with 1946 US industrial capabilities.

        Regards Thomas Antonsen



        ____________________________________________________________
        57 Year Old Mom Looks 27!
        Mom Reveals $5 Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
        SkinCareUpdate.com
      • tankmodeler@rogers.com
        If you want to push the Sherman design, you d probably look first at what the Isrealis did a few years later and then pick from that the most likely upgrades.
        Message 3 of 16 , Jul 3, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          If you want to push the Sherman design, you'd probably look first at what the Isrealis did a few years later and then pick from that the most likely upgrades. Those are all both possible and practical, except not for 1946 as many of the components were unavailable until the mid fifties.
           
          If we are speaking of a 1946 upgrade of the Sherman, then you have to think in terms of the differences between the Panther and the E50. The basic HVSS is kept, but upgraded to handle loads of 40-42 tons. The hull height is cut down as much as possible to reduce hull height and a new flat 10 diesel of, say, 650 HP installed (a non-existant engine, but, what the heck, this is make-believe). The rear hull is stretched to handle the new engine and the hull shape changed to resemble the M10 or M3A3, except with much higher levels of armour, say 100mm on the glacis and 50mm on the sides, all sloped at least 40 deg. The bow gunner is eliminated and additional ammo stored there. The angled sponsons are used as spaced armour and filled with diesel, at least in tha aft portion of the vehicle. All ammo is in water jacketed bins and stored below the level of the floor of the sponsons.
           
          The turret would be new, shaped somewhat like the M41 Walker Bulldog, mounting either a 17 pdr whose AP performance was better than the Pershing's 90mm or the longer 90mm of the Super Pershing. The former would make for a much better medium tank as the limited ammo storage space for the latter would seriously compromise combat effectiveness plus the long 90mm was really overkill for something like a medium tank. The turret ring would be increased to approximately 80". If the vehicle is kept in service until 1949 or so, the 17 pdr is replaced by a 20 pdr and then an L7 105mm. Again armour levels would be increased with an angled mantlet of 150mm backed by a front turret thickness of 100mm with 75mm sides & rear.
           
          Gun ranging could be by stereoscopic ranging, but this was pretty much in unknown in the West until many years later, after the war.
           
          How's _that_ for a '46 version of a Western tank?
           
          Sounds like a possibility for a "what if" model building campaign on Armorama...
           
          Paul Roberts



          From: Thomas Antonsen <thomcat2@...>
          To: G104@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Sun, July 3, 2011 6:49:54 PM
          Subject: [G104] Sherman "1946"???

           

          In WW2 modeling circles, its quite common among modellers of German armour to build models of German armour designs, which have "just been sketched on a napkin", these designs are commonly referred to as "1946" models, as to indicate, they "could" have appeared in 1946, had the war in Europe dragged on.

          As a devoted Sherman fanboy, I use every opportunity to promote the Sherman tank as a model subject, and thus I wonder, what could/would the Sherman have developed into, had the M26 been delayed and a stop gap measure had to be found by further upgrading the M4A3, wet, T23 turret?

          My own ideas, call them crooked, if you so please:

          Hull:
          A horseshoe shaped hull armour kit with increased performance against both APDS and HEAT rounds. Think the concrete armour panels for hull sides and front in some "magic" metal, which could stop a 88mm round as well as a slat armour screen as on current M1126 Stryker in Iraq/Afghanistan. Dimensions of this horseshoe armour could not exceed the width of the T-66 tracks. Slat armour would be extra width outside of the horseshoe.

          Turret:
          Same concept, flat plate horseshoe armour mounted on the T-23 turret with extra slat armour to counter HEAT rounds.

          Maingun:
          90mm gun as per M36. Is it possible to fit the 90mm gun inside the T-23 turret?

          Suspention:
          Regular HVSS

          FCS:
          When did US tanks get the ablility to fire on the move (and hit the target on the move)?

          Engine:
          Diesel? Was the M60 the first US tank with a diesel engine (apart from the M4A2)?

          What else:
          Other obvious upgrades along with the above mentioned? These should be possible to build with 1946 US industrial capabilities.

          Regards Thomas Antonsen

        • Logan Hartke
          Two proven concepts from late-war Shermans that were planned could have been combined to get an ultimate Sherman. The M4A3E2 Jumbo was actually being
          Message 4 of 16 , Jul 3, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Two proven concepts from late-war Shermans that were planned could have been combined to get an "ultimate" Sherman.  The M4A3E2 "Jumbo" was actually being planned for additional production on the HVSS chassis.  Likewise, the M26 Pershing turret was fitted to an M4A3 as a precaution against M26 troubles, as well.  Combine the two and you get a Sherman with ridiculous hull and turret armor, a 90mm gun, and acceptable ground pressure.  The engine was still 500 hp and the same engine as the Pershing, so the mobility would certainly still be acceptable.

            The armor and firepower would both comparable be superior to the Panther.

            Cheers,

            Logan

            On 7/3/2011 6:49 PM, Thomas Antonsen wrote:
             

            In WW2 modeling circles, its quite common among modellers of German armour to build models of German armour designs, which have "just been sketched on a napkin", these designs are commonly referred to as "1946" models, as to indicate, they "could" have appeared in 1946, had the war in Europe dragged on.

            As a devoted Sherman fanboy, I use every opportunity to promote the Sherman tank as a model subject, and thus I wonder, what could/would the Sherman have developed into, had the M26 been delayed and a stop gap measure had to be found by further upgrading the M4A3, wet, T23 turret?

            My own ideas, call them crooked, if you so please:

            Hull:
            A horseshoe shaped hull armour kit with increased performance against both APDS and HEAT rounds. Think the concrete armour panels for hull sides and front in some "magic" metal, which could stop a 88mm round as well as a slat armour screen as on current M1126 Stryker in Iraq/Afghanistan. Dimensions of this horseshoe armour could not exceed the width of the T-66 tracks. Slat armour would be extra width outside of the horseshoe.

            Turret:
            Same concept, flat plate horseshoe armour mounted on the T-23 turret with extra slat armour to counter HEAT rounds.

            Maingun:
            90mm gun as per M36. Is it possible to fit the 90mm gun inside the T-23 turret?

            Suspention:
            Regular HVSS

            FCS:
            When did US tanks get the ablility to fire on the move (and hit the target on the move)?

            Engine:
            Diesel? Was the M60 the first US tank with a diesel engine (apart from the M4A2)?

            What else:
            Other obvious upgrades along with the above mentioned? These should be possible to build with 1946 US industrial capabilities.

            Regards Thomas Antonsen

          • Logan Hartke
            That should have read: The armor and firepower would both be comparable or superior to the Panther. Cheers, Logan
            Message 5 of 16 , Jul 3, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              That should have read:

              The armor and firepower would both be comparable or superior to the Panther.

              Cheers,

              Logan

              On 7/3/2011 10:39 PM, Logan Hartke wrote:
               

              Two proven concepts from late-war Shermans that were planned could have been combined to get an "ultimate" Sherman.  The M4A3E2 "Jumbo" was actually being planned for additional production on the HVSS chassis.  Likewise, the M26 Pershing turret was fitted to an M4A3 as a precaution against M26 troubles, as well.  Combine the two and you get a Sherman with ridiculous hull and turret armor, a 90mm gun, and acceptable ground pressure.  The engine was still 500 hp and the same engine as the Pershing, so the mobility would certainly still be acceptable.

              The armor and firepower would both comparable be superior to the Panther.

              Cheers,

              Logan

            • Thomas
              I can t say for sure, but I would have imagined the US military would have simply had more M26 Pershings (with possible upgrades) produced and sent overseas.
              Message 6 of 16 , Jul 3, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                I can't say for sure, but I would have imagined the US military would have simply had more M26 Pershings (with possible upgrades) produced and sent overseas. Faster and more convenient than spending time on a tank that was considered obsolescent anyway.

                Yes, Israel used Sherman derivatives for decades afterward, but it was because that nation's resources were quite limited and they typically faced poor-quality enemy forces.

                Tom Radigan.

                --- In G104@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Antonsen" <thomcat2@...> wrote:
                >
                > In WW2 modeling circles, its quite common among modellers of German armour to build models of German armour designs, which have "just been sketched on a napkin", these designs are commonly referred to as "1946" models, as to indicate, they "could" have appeared in 1946, had the war in Europe dragged on.
                >
                > As a devoted Sherman fanboy, I use every opportunity to promote the Sherman tank as a model subject, and thus I wonder, what could/would the Sherman have developed into, had the M26 been delayed and a stop gap measure had to be found by further upgrading the M4A3, wet, T23 turret?
                >
                > My own ideas, call them crooked, if you so please:
                >
                > Hull:
                > A horseshoe shaped hull armour kit with increased performance against both APDS and HEAT rounds. Think the concrete armour panels for hull sides and front in some "magic" metal, which could stop a 88mm round as well as a slat armour screen as on current M1126 Stryker in Iraq/Afghanistan. Dimensions of this horseshoe armour could not exceed the width of the T-66 tracks. Slat armour would be extra width outside of the horseshoe.
                >
                > Turret:
                > Same concept, flat plate horseshoe armour mounted on the T-23 turret with extra slat armour to counter HEAT rounds.
                >
                > Maingun:
                > 90mm gun as per M36. Is it possible to fit the 90mm gun inside the T-23 turret?
                >
                > Suspention:
                > Regular HVSS
                >
                > FCS:
                > When did US tanks get the ablility to fire on the move (and hit the target on the move)?
                >
                > Engine:
                > Diesel? Was the M60 the first US tank with a diesel engine (apart from the M4A2)?
                >
                > What else:
                > Other obvious upgrades along with the above mentioned? These should be possible to build with 1946 US industrial capabilities.
                >
                > Regards Thomas Antonsen
                >
              • mike
                ... For HEAT, give the crews some Marston Matting and brackets to weld them on at a decent stand off distance. ... Illustration of a chopped M4A3 hull with
                Message 7 of 16 , Jul 4, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Thomas Antonsen <thomcat2@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Turret:
                  > Same concept, flat plate horseshoe armour mounted on the T-23 turret with extra slat armour to counter HEAT rounds.

                  For HEAT, give the crews some Marston Matting and brackets to
                  weld them on at a decent stand off distance.

                  >
                  > Maingun:
                  > 90mm gun as per M36. Is it possible to fit the 90mm gun inside the T-23 turret?
                  >

                  Illustration of a 'chopped' M4A3 hull with 90mm

                  http://www.imperialclub.com/Yr/1945/46Tanks/Page078-079.jpg

                  I believe in 1944 Chrysler built a mockup of a Pershing turret on an Sherman,
                  and had a bolt-on field mod armor pack for the Hull. AGF wasn't interested
                  in either.

                  http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/df/T26_turret_on_M4_chassis.jpg


                  Post-war, that Medium Velocity GIAT 105 in the Israeli M51 had far more recoil
                  energy than the M3 90mm, and they didn't have to do any of the tricks like they
                  had in the M50, like torching a hole in the back of the turret and moving
                  the trunnion mounts forward.


                  > FCS:
                  > When did US tanks get the ablility to fire on the move (and hit the target on the move)?

                  M60

                  >
                  > Engine:
                  > Diesel? Was the M60 the first US tank with a diesel engine (apart from the M4A2)?

                  Diesel isn't a fix against fire, its a fix for longer range.

                  To reduce M4 fire hazards, go all electric turret rather than hydraulic, and
                  only stow main gun rounds along the floor

                  mike
                • Thomas Antonsen
                  First of all, tanks for all the comments, I feared, I would be the one thinking, this issue would be interesting. Apparently, this is not the case :-) To sum
                  Message 8 of 16 , Jul 5, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    First of all, tanks for all the comments, I feared, I would be the one thinking, this issue would be interesting. Apparently, this is not the case :-)

                    To sum things up, the point of departure for a "1946" Sherman would be, that production of the base vehicle should not be interrupted, after all, we're discussing a stop gap measure, since all agree, a reliable, well functional M26 is a better tank than any M4 variant. This means all improvements would be add-ons to the basic vehicle, since changes of the original design would impede production.

                    So base vehicle is still the M4A3, wet, with the Ford V8 engine, with HVSS.

                    Turret would be the T-23 with M3 90mm gun as per M36 Jackson. Maybe a M36 style counterweight on the turret rear to balance the turret. Maybe a M41 style turret box/basket on the counterweight for the crews belongings. PSP/Marston matting on a framework for increased HEAT protection. As on the hull, think Pz. IV late marks again ( I believe, the screens where called "Thoma Schûrzen")

                    Hull would be Jumbo style, weld on extra armour with Jumbo style tranny cover. I still think, PSP/Marston matting on a framework for increased HEAT protection would be relevant on the hull sides as well. As on the turret, think Pz. IV late marks or IDF M113 "Zelda" again.

                    This leaves the engine, would it have enough power to carry the extra weight? Well, this is just an idea for a "what if" build, so I'll dispense with that issue ;-)

                    @Mike (message 9097), where does this "cut down" Sherman come from? I have never seen it before.

                    Regards Thomas

                    --- In G104@yahoogroups.com, mike <mooseheadc@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Thomas Antonsen <thomcat2@...> wrote:
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > Turret:
                    > > Same concept, flat plate horseshoe armour mounted on the T-23 turret with extra slat armour to counter HEAT rounds.
                    >
                    > For HEAT, give the crews some Marston Matting and brackets to
                    > weld them on at a decent stand off distance.
                    >
                    > >
                    > > Maingun:
                    > > 90mm gun as per M36. Is it possible to fit the 90mm gun inside the T-23 turret?
                    > >
                    >
                    > Illustration of a 'chopped' M4A3 hull with 90mm
                    >
                    > http://www.imperialclub.com/Yr/1945/46Tanks/Page078-079.jpg
                    >
                    > I believe in 1944 Chrysler built a mockup of a Pershing turret on an Sherman,
                    > and had a bolt-on field mod armor pack for the Hull. AGF wasn't interested
                    > in either.
                    >
                    > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/df/T26_turret_on_M4_chassis.jpg
                    >
                    >
                    > Post-war, that Medium Velocity GIAT 105 in the Israeli M51 had far more recoil
                    > energy than the M3 90mm, and they didn't have to do any of the tricks like they
                    > had in the M50, like torching a hole in the back of the turret and moving
                    > the trunnion mounts forward.
                    >
                    >
                    > > FCS:
                    > > When did US tanks get the ablility to fire on the move (and hit the target on the move)?
                    >
                    > M60
                    >
                    > >
                    > > Engine:
                    > > Diesel? Was the M60 the first US tank with a diesel engine (apart from the M4A2)?
                    >
                    > Diesel isn't a fix against fire, its a fix for longer range.
                    >
                    > To reduce M4 fire hazards, go all electric turret rather than hydraulic, and
                    > only stow main gun rounds along the floor
                    >
                    > mike
                    >
                  • mike
                    ... Well, the Ford V-8 did power the 95 ton T28, but yeah, a change in gearing would get you down between Centurion to Churchill speeds. Option B is to have
                    Message 9 of 16 , Jul 6, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > This leaves the engine, would it have enough power to carry the extra weight? Well, this is just an idea for a "what if" build, so I'll dispense with that issue ;-)

                      Well, the Ford V-8 did power the 95 ton T28, but yeah, a change in
                      gearing would get you down between Centurion to Churchill speeds.

                      Option 'B' is to have for go back to the original V-12 roots of the
                      engine, and stretch the hull, like the M4A4/M4A6.
                      Ford did do the V-12 for the postwar heavies, like the T29

                      Another plan would be to use a big radial, but don't do the diesel
                      conversion for the Caterpillar RD-1820 in the A6, just use the G200
                      from
                      the M6, its the same physical size, and lighter for 800 or so HP in
                      Gasoline form

                      >
                      > @Mike (message 9097), where does this "cut down" Sherman come from? I have never seen it before.

                      http://books.google.com/books/about/Tanks_are_mighty_fine_things.html?id=LrJJAAAAIAAJ

                      It was a PR book put out by Chrysler in 1946

                      You can read it online here
                      http://www.imperialclub.com/Yr/1945/46Tanks/Cover.htm

                      I believe that lower hull was from the time around the M4X, before
                      that was morphed off into the T20 series, when it was decided
                      that a lower driveshaft would be advantageous to get the turret
                      basket(and turret) lower, and that pic was Chrysler's idea for an
                      improved 90mm tank

                      Hunnicutt's Sherman goes a little into Chrysler corp M4 improvement program.

                      Mike
                    • Trent Telenko
                      Sherman production was killed because the Nazi regime was.  As 1946 new production Sherman would only have hapened had the Nazi regime lasted longer or Russia
                      Message 10 of 16 , Jul 8, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Sherman production was killed because the Nazi regime was.  As 1946 new production Sherman would only have hapened had the Nazi regime lasted longer or Russia moved west.
                         
                        Historically Sherman production in 1945 was all either 76mm or 105mm armed.  A small number (187?) of M4A3 were equipped with a M36 90mm turret.
                         
                        If you want to see what a 1946 Sherman without Germany looked like, go see the T33, E20-20 equipped, Flame tank. The US Army Chemical Warfare Service/Ordnance plan was to build 300(+) in time for Operation Coronet using late 1945 production M4A3 (105mm) hulls and new cast turrets.
                         
                        It was a M4A3E2 with HVSS and a new turret armed with co-axial 75mm M6 gun, .30 cal MG and 3/4 inch E20-20 flame gun.  The commander's turret position had a E6R3 periscope flame gun modified to apply a secondary gasoline fuel to the common napalm supply.
                         
                        There was a significant possibility that four light weight "Scorpion" Phosphorus/Napalm flame throwers and "Backscratcher" fragmentation charges would have been added as well, had the Japanese kept fighting after the A-bomb attacks.
                         
                         


                        From: Thomas <bigverybadtom@...>
                        To: G104@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Sun, July 3, 2011 11:07:13 PM
                        Subject: [G104] Re: Sherman "1946"???

                         

                        I can't say for sure, but I would have imagined the US military would have simply had more M26 Pershings (with possible upgrades) produced and sent overseas. Faster and more convenient than spending time on a tank that was considered obsolescent anyway.

                        Yes, Israel used Sherman derivatives for decades afterward, but it was because that nation's resources were quite limited and they typically faced poor-quality enemy forces.

                        Tom Radigan.

                        --- In G104@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Antonsen" <thomcat2@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > In WW2 modeling circles, its quite common among modellers of German armour to build models of German armour designs, which have "just been sketched on a napkin", these designs are commonly referred to as "1946" models, as to indicate, they "could" have appeared in 1946, had the war in Europe dragged on.
                        >
                        > As a devoted Sherman fanboy, I use every opportunity to promote the Sherman tank as a model subject, and thus I wonder, what could/would the Sherman have developed into, had the M26 been delayed and a stop gap measure had to be found by further upgrading the M4A3, wet, T23 turret?
                        >
                        > My own ideas, call them crooked, if you so please:
                        >
                        > Hull:
                        > A horseshoe shaped hull armour kit with increased performance against both APDS and HEAT rounds. Think the concrete armour panels for hull sides and front in some "magic" metal, which could stop a 88mm round as well as a slat armour screen as on current M1126 Stryker in Iraq/Afghanistan. Dimensions of this horseshoe armour could not exceed the width of the T-66 tracks. Slat armour would be extra width outside of the horseshoe.
                        >
                        > Turret:
                        > Same concept, flat plate horseshoe armour mounted on the T-23 turret with extra slat armour to counter HEAT rounds.
                        >
                        > Maingun:
                        > 90mm gun as per M36. Is it possible to fit the 90mm gun inside the T-23 turret?
                        >
                        > Suspention:
                        > Regular HVSS
                        >
                        > FCS:
                        > When did US tanks get the ablility to fire on the move (and hit the target on the move)?
                        >
                        > Engine:
                        > Diesel? Was the M60 the first US tank with a diesel engine (apart from the M4A2)?
                        >
                        > What else:
                        > Other obvious upgrades along with the above mentioned? These should be possible to build with 1946 US industrial capabilities.
                        >
                        > Regards Thomas Antonsen
                        >

                      • Shawn Ferguson
                        I d go with the T-26E3 turret on the A3, or more M4A3E2s with HVSS had the war keep going on.
                        Message 11 of 16 , Jul 8, 2011
                        • 0 Attachment
                           I'd go with the T-26E3 turret on the A3, or more M4A3E2s with HVSS had the war keep going on.
                                                                               

                        • Joe P
                          If the War in Germany had been forecast to go into 1946, I would hope internal politics in the Army would have allowed the Sherman production to phase out, and
                          Message 12 of 16 , Jul 9, 2011
                          • 0 Attachment
                            If the War in Germany had been forecast to go into 1946, I would hope internal politics in the Army would have allowed the Sherman production to phase out, and the M-26 replacing it. It is unfortunate that our Country produced the finest technology in Airplane, Ships, Small Arms, the Bomb, and less than the finest Tank.
                          • Kurt Laughlin
                            Ø If the War in Germany had been forecast to go into 1946 . . . If the war in Germany had lasted much longer than it did the big memorials on August 6th and
                            Message 13 of 16 , Jul 9, 2011
                            • 0 Attachment

                               

                              Ø  If the War in Germany had been forecast to go into 1946 . . .

                              If the war in Germany had lasted much longer than it did the big memorials on August 6th and 9th every year would be about the atomic bombings of Berlin and Munich . . .

                              KL

                            • Joe P
                              agreed
                              Message 14 of 16 , Jul 10, 2011
                              • 0 Attachment
                                agreed

                                --- In G104@yahoogroups.com, "Kurt Laughlin" <fleeta@...> wrote:
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Ø If the War in Germany had been forecast to go into 1946 . . .
                                >
                                > If the war in Germany had lasted much longer than it did the big memorials
                                > on August 6th and 9th every year would be about the atomic bombings of
                                > Berlin and Munich . . .
                                >
                                > KL
                                >
                              • Trent Telenko
                                The logistics of a A-bomb strike on Germany were non-trivial as it required B-29 s  in England and they were in China or the Marianas. The requirement to move
                                Message 15 of 16 , Jul 11, 2011
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  The logistics of a A-bomb strike on Germany were non-trivial as it required B-29's  in England and they were in China or the Marianas.
                                   
                                  The requirement to move a lot of B-29 to England, assuming a resurgent Germany, also runs into ME-262's.


                                  From: Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
                                  To: G104@yahoogroups.com
                                  Sent: Sat, July 9, 2011 6:56:04 AM
                                  Subject: RE: [G104] Re: Sherman "1946"???

                                   

                                   

                                  Ø  If the War in Germany had been forecast to go into 1946 . . .

                                  If the war in Germany had lasted much longer than it did the big memorials on August 6th and 9th every year would be about the atomic bombings of Berlin and Munich . . .

                                  KL

                                • mike
                                  ... Not a real problem, the 509th goes to England, Squadron marked as Photo-Recon --Boeing F-13A At the Same time, 8thAF continues Box Formations crating large
                                  Message 16 of 16 , Jul 11, 2011
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Trent Telenko <trent_telenko@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > The logistics of a A-bomb strike on Germany were non-trivial as it required B-29's  in England and they were in China or the Marianas.
                                    >
                                    > The requirement to move a lot of B-29 to England, assuming a resurgent Germany, also runs into ME-262's.

                                    Not a real problem, the 509th goes to England, Squadron marked as
                                    Photo-Recon --Boeing F-13A

                                    At the Same time, 8thAF continues Box Formations crating large
                                    portions of German Cities.

                                    Whatever passes for the Luftwaffe in August, 1945 is likely to be
                                    distracted by all those B-24&17s dropping real bombs
                                    and Zemke's Wolfpack flying P-47Ms, not 3 High flying 509th Recon
                                    Planes doing a run over Berlin.

                                    The Japanese typically didn't bother with the F-13s doing Photo or
                                    Weather runs either.

                                    mike
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.