pattoncommander
Posts: 4988
Score: 132
Joined: 12/28/2006
Last Login: 5/25/2013
From: Columbia,
SC, USA
Status: online
|
What killed our tank crews?
Looking at tank development through the years, it is very obvious that the design of the front slope or glacis plate has been a major negative factor in the US tank design. Sloped armor is the best design to allow an enemy round to skip off and be deflected. However, angled armor must be kept clear of any obstruction which would impede the movement of the striking round. When one looks at the front of the Sherman, one cannot help but wonder if any consideration was given to the armor or protection of the crew. First off, even with variations of glacis plate angles in Shermans models, one notices the ridge at the top of the transmission casing, which forms a lip that is more than sufficient to impede the deflection of an enemy round, giving it more preponderance to punch through rather than deflect.
Secondly is the gun travel lock in the center is a great device for stopping an enemy strike. The gun travel lock on the bow was totally unnecessary as the Sherman, Pershing and M-46 all had a travel lock on the inside. It was mounted to the turret roof and swung down to engage a lug on the top of the recoil cylinder and operated by the gunner or loader. For rail transport, the Shermans with the longer 76mm gun could have simply traversed the gun over the back deck as in M-26, 46 and all later tanks.
The bow machine gun is another weak spot and was eliminated as of the M-48. The loss of the 5th crew member was direly missed as it took away one man for maintenance, handling ammo and guard as well as the loss of the front cal 30 MG. This gun was critical in many conflicts where the turret was traversed to the side and enemy troops attacked from the front, as well as providing much more firepower when the tank was attacking a position. When the tank was in a stationary position, the bow gun was dismounted and the bow gunner served as dismounted security. Nevertheless, the gun position did present a weak spot in the armor and had to go. The loaders “pistol port” on Sherman, Pershings and the M-46 presented the same problem and subsequently removed from all later designs.
All the other fixtures on the front glacis plate were as much a hazard as they were helpful. On the Sherman, the headlamps, blackout drive and horn were protected by heavy brush guards which presented the same “skid brakes” to obstruct the smooth deflection of an enemy round. The M-26 design was somewhat improved in moving these items to the side or on the track guard (fender). The major problem was still the two tow hook mounts, which contributed to the loss of the first Pershing in Germany. The M-47 had a much cleaner front slope with the ventilator blower moved to the turret over hang but still had the tow hooks on the glacis plate. As of the M-48 and M-41, these were moved to the lower section.
The M-26, 45, 46 and M-47 all had the same escape hatches under the driver and bow gunner seats. When the turret was traversed about 45 degrees, the entire crew could exit without being exposed to enemy MG fire. However, these hatches were positioned at an angle toward the first road wheel and only an inch in thickness. It was learned in Korea, that when a tank hit a mine, the hatches tended to cause injury or death to whoever was seated above them. For this reason, the driver was moved the center, bow gun was eliminated and the lower armor as well as escape hatch substantially increased in thickness.
Armor design, proven by Russia was ignored by the USA. Although the T-34, which appeared in 1940 showed the advantages of sloped armor and was subsequently copied in the design of the German Panther and King Tiger, The USA did nothing to change the design of the armor on the Sherman. It would have been a relatively simple matter to change the side armor on later Sherman models and provide a slope to afford much more crew protection. With only 2 ½ inches on the side, it would have given the Sherman an approximate 3 or more inches of armor where the ammo was stowed.
The M-48 design was a totally radical change in American tank production. I personally am convinced that the change from M-47 to M-48 design was copied from the Russian JS-III which appeared in 1945. The M-48 provided much better crew protection although the added 4 tons and extended track width from 23 to 28 inches over the M-47 with no change in engine or transmission robbed the M-48 of maneuverability and speed. The M-60 was better, however all the positive points of the new gun and fire control were British and rest of the tank was simply much too big and clumsy in spite of the new diesel engine.
The M-1 Abrams is a totally different world in armor design. Maybe we have learned from past mistakes, but the entire tank is totally new and state of the art, with apparently no cost spared in developing a very fine, world class tank. Everything on the tank has been researched and developed to perfection. The new armor alone is the one major factor is combat survivability and combat experience has proven the Abrams is now one of the best tanks in the world and without doubt, the finest tank the USA has ever produced. Maybe we have finally learned, but at what cost in trying to save money.
William Campbell
_____________________________
HL M-26, M-46, M-41B, T-34/85, IDF M-51 (2)
Hide Signatures
|
Search This Thread
Printable Version
All Forums >> RC Cars, Buggies, Trucks, Tanks and more >> RC Tanks >> War Room >> what killed our tank crews? 
what killed our tank crews? - 
