But I thought the 76.2mm gun needed a slightly larger turret with a weighted counterbalance IIRC? At least from the factory. I suppose if the 76 was field modded, who knows?
The project historian said that the field mod of the gun required only changing the tube, retaining the original breech, and recoil mechanism. Cobra King was a M-4-A3-E2 “Jumbo” Assault tank, a factory short run of about 250 units. These were heavily uparmored machines and would have had a stronger turret. They also had a hugely reinforced gun shield which may have provided some balance. The only other modifications were in repositioning of ammo storage to allow for the additional cartridge length.Alot of rough welding there. As we were just talking, he may have omitted some details, I will see if there is more to the story.
I was “asked” to attend a lecture by Dr. Demming many years ago, it was given at the G.M plant I worked in, the place was transitioning from aerospace, military, and commercial avionics to automotive electronics. The whigs thought that it would benefit our enterprise, and wanted a vertical slice of personnel to attend.(even a few of us wogs from the Oar decks) The man was brilliant, made clear, and unmistakable sense. After the applause, and hand shakes, the Whigs decided it was unwise to invest in unproven theories, and kept the old ways they were so used to. Japan saw it differently…
Unproven theories? The guy got handed the entire US war industry on a platter during WW2 to apply his theories to!
What a bunch of muppets!
Well, G.M. has been referred to as the Generally Motionless Corporation. This because accountants began calling the shots, displacing the more useful engineering, and car oriented management types. The real shame is, that G.M. did adopt some of the practices outlined by the good Dr. Statistical process control, massive charting programs covering every possible process. What they didnt do, was follow up, and utilize what they learned. They couldn’t let go of cost anxiety, and spent dollars, to worry about nickles. When the process failed to be a magic money machine, they dumped it, and reverted to the old centralized, over burdened management system. Like a rowing race, where they should have 6 oarsmen and a boss directing, they had 1 oarsman, and 6 bosses,each demanding of the next why they weren’t getting anywhere.
I found some additional info on the 76mm upgrade, The Jumbos were built using the T-80 turret planned for the T-23 program. (then thought to be the Sherman’s replacement) The new turret was heavier, and larger, appearantly designed to hold the 76mm gun. This must be the reason why the swap was so easy. There were concerns about the length of the 76mm gun as being too long to avoid planting the muzzle on rough terrain. the tube was shortened from 57, to 52 calibers, about 15 inches. This reduced the efficiency of the gun about 10%. I have to qualify that some of this info is from wiki, and is from a tangle of different development programs having many common parts, but different designations.
I thought the Jumbos might have had a bigger turret. I think I read that by the end of the War, most Jumbos had been upgraded with the 76mm gun in field and were used largely to “stalk” bigger German cats --as their original mission of blasting through the Siegfried Line turned out to be the figment of the imagination of those that read, and believed, German propaganda (“stalk”–as in the filthy word to the dogmatic, theological adherents to the Tank Destroyer Doctrine)…
From what I have read, the Jumbo was intended for use as the spearhead when engaging strong points, or fortifications. Which accounts for the retention of the 75mm gun as it was said to have an HE round superior to that of the 76. (what?! you may say?? could it be, I dunno, thats what it says…) My guess is by that time the Tank Destroyer doctrine was being ignored, and the Jumbo, being so well protected, stood a much better chance against the Panther, and Tiger, so some bright boy decided to screw in the better barrel and give it more bite. I dont know if the 76.2 was capable of perfing the glassis of either one at great distance, but it may well if in a close fight ,would also do well on the sides, and back. (at least better than the 75mm cork popper) As to the Siegfried line, I have no info on it, but my opinion would be that it would be a contributor certainly, but being only 254 in number (if there were no losses in the meantime)unless they were concentrated along a very narrow front, I’m not certain they would make a decisive difference.
A new video exclusive of my YUT channel, the rocket launching Shermna Calliope:
You see that GI takeing the pins out of the rockets (in other words arming them) while loading the Calliope? I wonder if any of them ever dropped such a armed round while loading!
Deaf
I visited the website for the Cobra King project,after completing the tear down, they have it in the paint shop. The pics are all copyrighted, so I can only give you the link to the site, where you can see the entire process. http://www.armorfortheages.com/Volunteers/Projects/CobraKingProject/CKProjectPage41.htm
I don’t totally disagree, but it should be noted that the M4A3E8 (76mm HVSS – using proper ammunition) Sherman had a vastly superior kill ratio over the T-34/85 in Korea. This might have a lot to do with training however…
[QUOTE][/QUOTE]This might have a lot to do with training however…
It always has alot to do with training! Get a Tiger Tank and put in a crew of conscripts with only a few hours of training against a Sherman crew who have been through battles and the outcome will not be in doubt.
Deaf
Many Thanks for posting that link Tg my friend. 
Most interesting to see the work they have done.
Warm, Kind and Respectful Regards TG my friend, Uyraell.
Thank you my friend, all of the work has been done by 6 or 8 guys working part time. (with occasional help from the Army) The plan is to restore the exterior to the Bastogne livery,and weaponry, replacing the super 76 main gun with the proper 75mm tube, proper tracks etc. while preserving the decrepit interior so people can see the effects of the fire, and other damage incurred when it was knocked out. I do not think that they will bother to restore the automotive functions though I would have liked it if they did.
Of course. But don’t assume the U.S. tankers of 1950 were necessarily much better than their North Korean or Chinese counterparts. In fact, the Chinese PLA tankers, to whatever extent they were sent into Korea circa 1950, might well have had far more combat experience than their American antagonists as the PLA had a very large numbers of veterans of the Chinese Civil War which played no small part in their initial routing of U.N. forces. But yes, on the whole–despite having a very dis-unified armored doctrine due to the emphasis on nuclear weapons–the Army and Marines probably still had better trained tankers. But it should be mentioned that the military suffered a severe rot from a massive, ill-planned post-WWII draw-down and a well documented rudderless direction regarding conventional tactics from poor senior leadership, uneven middle management, focus on atomic warfare, and budget cuts. But while the T-34/85 had better armor and possibly a better gun–I’ve not compared the two directly, but I suspect the Soviet 85mm might have had a slight edge over the 76mm–the Sherman certainly had many intangibles in optics, crew comfort, etc. over the T-34. But then tungsten ammo might have made all the difference and swung things back in U.S. favor AFAIK…
My late uncle was a Sherman commander in Korea. He told me about a training course and I don’t remember the exact details because that was 30 years ago,but he said his tank was a crewman short and that the ways for the main gun were so worn that he could “adjust” the point of aim by giving the breach a push with his hand. He told me that his tank came in first place and one reason was that he could get the gun on target quicker since he was able to bump the breach and get on target quicker. I wonder if the stabilization mechanism having more parts was what caused the gun to become “loose” or if that was a problem in all well used tanks. He said the most afraid he had ever been was while changing a track in a minefield and also when there were so many Chinese troops attacking that they couldn’t shoot them all and had to run many over. He mentioned something I didn’t quite understand then since I was so young about the German and Soviet tanks having “live” tracks…something about the Sherman’s tracks being more quiet I think. That was the summer I got to stay with him and help him haul gravel and work on big machines,I was young but that was the time when my main hobby was tanks and building models of them so it was cool getting to talk to him and spend time with him.
From Wiki
Tracks may be broadly categorized as “live” or “dead” track. “Dead” track is a simple design in which each track plate is connected to the rest with hinge-type pins. These dead tracks will lie flat if placed on the ground; the drive sprocket pulls the track around the wheels with no assistance from the track itself. “Live” track is slightly more complex, with each link connected to the next with a bushing that causes the track to bend slightly inward. A length of live track left on the ground will curl upward slightly at each end. Although the drive sprocket must still pull the track around the wheels, the track itself tends to bend inward, slightly assisting the sprocket and conforming to the wheels somewhat.
My understanding when I did my training on tracked armoured vehicles was that it also had to do whether it had track support rollers or not as well.
The connector pins on live track blocks are set in rubber bushings which act as torsion springs. The pin ends have flats milled into them ,and the end connectors have bolts that draw up a wedge shaped nut into the flats of the two joined pins. This sets the tension in the bushings, and that causes the blocks to want to hinge to the inside.
While return rollers are not exclusive to live track designs, they are the general rule. And although the dead track was used in more modern vehicles, the droopy dead track is a vestigial trait from the Christie designs where the tracks were used for off road operations, and removed and stowed for road use, the front road wheels (the term being coined in the Christie designs) being steerable.
Thanks for the answers guys. I wish I would have been older when I got to talk with my uncle.
Well, you’re in a place where information is freely available,The M-4 Sherman is about the most developed tank in U.S. history, so there will be alot of information available. And as in the military, the only dumb question is the one not asked.