Posted on 06/02/2009 11:14:06 AM PDT by franksolich
The original tanks got their cat tracks not from military design, but from the Holt Tractor Company of California, who made the track design on tractors to get ag tractors into flooded rice fields. That was in 1904/1905.
Holt later became Cat through merger and name change.
The Brits developed their own ag tractors with continuous cleat machines too.
If you’re ever near an antique tractor show or museum, you might see older Holt machines, - they say Holt on the nameplace, and they have a wiggly “Caterpillar” running vertically up the front radiator shroud on both sides. They’ll have model numbers like “10-20” — 10 draft HP 20 PTO HP. Cute little machines, very collectable.
Why wasn’t the T-34 adopted by US forces?
1. US Armor Branch was run by horse cavalry & artillery officers who couldn’t agree on tank designs. The cavalry officers (like Patton) favored light, maneuverable designs. The Infantry & Arty officers wanted heavy armor & a bigger gun. The feeling was that the T34’s speed was a waste if marching infantry couldn’t keep up.
2. US doctrine for fighting enemy tanks called for a different armored vehicle... the Tank Destroyer. These heavy, open turret vehicles were designed to lay in ambush to nail an enemy tank freeing US tanks to maneuver (or so the theory went). You’ll notice that nobody really fields Tank Destroyers or Assault Guns anymore. But they were highly popular on all sides in WW2 due to their cheaper construction.
3. It’s doubtful that the Soviets could have shipped meaningful numbers of T34’s to the US. In any case, “Not Invented Here”.
You see them in your nightmares, don’t you? ;-)
When I was a little lad, I lived in a farming community alongside the Platte River of Nebraska.
There was an antique tractor in the city park, with steel (or iron) wheels that had spikes, or cleats, on them.
There was agricultural equipment all around, and in use, but never in my life did I ever see another tractor with steel (or iron) wheels that had spikes, or cleats, on them.
I assume this tractor was not native to the area, and being exhibited simply as a curiosity.
No, that was common in the early days of tractors all over the midwest. Rubber ag tires came much later than you might think - steel wheels were common up into the mid/late 20’s, and then again in the depths of the Depression. It wasn’t until after WWII that they finally petered out.
You still see steel wheels on modern ag tractors on some Mennoite/Amish farms.
Go see a tractor pulling competition sometime - observe the sidewalls of the tires closely when they’re really pulling hard near the end of the run. You’ll see what took so long in tire development - the torsional strength necessary in the sidewalls on ag tires is NOT trivial.
The Israelis never throw anything away. They may still have a few Sherman’s operating as rocket launchers or engineering vehicles. I think they still have half-tracks, too.
Yes, sometimes. The Cat dealer was 55 miles away. Manitowoc was many hundreds. Amazingly, we got better service on the cranes than for any of the Cat stuff.
“You might be thinking of the T-10-2-4 which ran on Dr. Pepper.”
LOL! Thanks.
Everything is air-droppable...at least once. ;-)
Lack of fuel played as big a part as anything else in regard to the demise of the 3rd Reich.
American industry exercised remarkable innovation during the war and quickly adopted weapons and equipment to the battlefield. The M26 Pershing tank which saw very limited use at the tail end of WWII implemented the lessons learned and overcame many of the Sherman’s shortcomings. Similarly, the Midway class of aircraft carriers and the A1 Skyraider, although both just a weeee bit late for the war were so advanced for their time they were both used well into and beyond the Viet Nam era. They would have been devastating to the Japanese had things lasted longer.
My daddy,a WW2 vet used to talk about the horror of seeing
a Sherman getting hit and turning into a burning inferno.
Not the best way go out
A Panther was pretty bad about burning as well
Hell,in VN I remember the tank guys got so they had ordered
to stay inside the M-48.They didn`t burn,at least I never saw on burn,just a hull flapping being recovered
That's correct. The Sherman was a gas burner, which had the unfortunate tendency when hit to explode in flames. The others ran on diesel.
It’s not the Internet, it is Free Republic. Everybody here knows too much and can’t wait to prove it. ;-]
WARNING: Typical FR thread wander ahead:
Which is why I think Smoot Harley was a good idea. I know of no instance where the French/Belgies/Dutch/Danes or Norskis sabotaged their own industrial equipment to deny it's value to the Germans.
We now return our topic.
Hey NVDave, didn't Patton propose that we lube our tracks with German intestines?
[A] The differences between the Sherman and the T-34: Engine. T-34 diesel, Sherman gasoline [hence the German knicknames “Ronson” and “Tommy cooker”.
Gun: Sherman went from anemic 75mm to anemic 76mm. T-34 went from very good 75 to very good 85 in the T-34/85
Chassis. The T-34 was the first battletank to have decent armor that was sloped. Could take a better hit than a Sherman.
Suspension: USSR used the Christie suspension [U.S invented. Turned down by U.S Army], and wider tracks. Better maneuverability in poor terrain.
[B] The Centurion was far superior to the Sherman. Bigger gun, more weight. Better armor, vwery reliable.
[C]The Heavy Allied tanks were:
Great Britain: Sherman Firefly, mounting a 17pounder on a Sherman. the Centurion at the VERY end of the War.
U.S: The Pershing. First appeafred in 1945, 90mm gun.
USSR: KV 1, KV 2 [in service in 1941], Joseph Stalin 1, 2, and 3 120mm gun
Specialized training skills because tank was a heavy: Excpet for design and equipment differences, none.
[D] Track life depends on wear and tear, terrain, combat etc. Probaly the most fragile part of a tank [I was a tanker].
[E] I would argue that the T-34 wasn’t the best tank of the war. The Mark V ‘Panther was. Be that as it may, the T-34’s engine had some unique mettalurgy [one reason the Germans didn’t just copy it. Plus, the U.S had decided to concentrate on the one tank type, the M-4 Sherman. to the almost exclusion of all other types. the Chaffee, a light tank, was in many respects superior to the Sherman, but developed later, and produced in limited quantioties. Since the Brits stopped most of their tank production, and used the Shermans, they rode with the U.S decisions
By the bye,the only part of a T-34 designed by an American was the suspension [Walter Christie]. The USSR had bought two his prototypes in the 30s. They were using his suspension on their tank lines well prior to the T-34. the rest of the tank was Soviet designed.
[F] The Sherman was the western Allies main battle tank in WW II. It was considered a medium tank [weighed the same as a Mark IV]. Its equivalent now would be the Abrams A2, and the British Challenger.
In the Military Channel’s countdown of top ten all time best tanks, the T34 came in first.
“The feeling was that the T34’s speed was a waste if marching infantry couldn’t keep up.”
And they were RIGHT...
The German’s dealt with t-34’s by peeling off the Infantry support with artillery, then attacking the still-advancing tanks with flanking fire and 88’s.
This worked with great effect, in part because Soviet tanks in the field were rarely allowed to retreat. At Seelow, the Russians lost 600 tanks in 96 hours of fighting, in one area alone.
“You’ll notice that nobody really fields Tank Destroyers or Assault Guns anymore.”
That’s because the TD’s and Assault guns ended up being used in the Tank role anyway. Why do that when you can multi-role a real tank?
The U.S., Russia, and the Brits all ended up using the lesser-armoured TD’s, which were supposed to be used in the Anti-tank role, as tanks, time and time again, and with great loss, to fill gaps when other equipment wasn’t available.
The Germans also ended up using StuG’s and Hetzers as tanks, instead of tank destroyers, a role they were not suited for, when nothing else was available.
The later Jagdpanthers, and Jagdtigers could stand against tanks, but thier limited gun traverse made them vunerable to flanking attacks and Infantry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.