How different would WW2 have been if Patton was allowed to rush

>>32082065
yes

>>32082065

The result would've been the same with the US taking slightly less tank losses.

Also, Patton thought the M26 was too heavy for American logistics and European bridges to handle. What makes you think he would support the M60?

>>32082065
He'd have to rush it by 15 years

>>32082065
The M60 wasn't introduced until 15 years after the war ended. There's no way it could have been rushed into service during the war.

>>32082065
>>32079926

>>32082114
Whats in development and whats fielded are usually that much apart
The B29 was in development in the early 30s for example
M60 was probably being developed in the mid 1930s

File: M26Belgium.jpg (1MB, 1600x1071px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x1071px

>>32082194

>M60 was probably being developed in the mid 1930s

No, you're comparing the most technologically advanced aerospace program in history at the time to pieces of cast and rolled steel. The B-29 cost more to develop than the atomic bomb. Tanks are nowhere near that complicated and it really just takes common sense to design good ones. People were inexperienced with tank warfare at the time so made all kinds of questionable design choices.

For example, one of the direct predecessors to the Patton, the M26 Pershing's development, which started in 1942 and it had been fielded by 1945.

Look familiar? That's because if you upgrade the engine you get an M46 Patton, which is only a few steps away from being an M60.

>>32082194
How are you able to be this removed from reality? Does gravity even exist in the place where you live?

>>32082292
how much would AR500/AR550 steel improve WW2 tanks if it was available in plates of various size thickness?

>>32082194
>M60 was probably being developed in the mid 1930s

The tank the M60 was based on didn't even appear on the battlefield until after WW2, dumbfuck.

This is one of those rare cases where OP isn't just autistic, but also dumb as fuck. Most of the time, autistic people are at least intelligent or well-read, but OP is simply sperging out with no thought given to content or meaning.

He's basically just taking a shit into the reply box and hoping we won't make fun of him for it. What a fucking retard.

>>32082292
Thats basically the M60
It just didn't have the deisgnation yet but more or less it was the same

How is tank armor made??

Is it cast, forged, etc?

>M60
If Patton had the capability to warp time and get tanks from the future, he might as well have gone for the Abrams.

Also, >>32082455.

File: Two-American-soldiers-inspect-a-destroyed-German-King-Tiger-tank-Belgium-1944-small.jpg (37KB, 500x417px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 500x417px

>Would the US have been able to deal with the Tiger threat more if had been allowed to happen?

I think they dealt just fine. The Tiger was a meme tank that hurt Germany more than it helped.

>>32082472
>Is it cast, forged, etc?

It depends on the tank.

You can build tank armor any way you like. Whatever you think will work.

There's tank armor which is literally just a bunch of steel bars welded together, while other kinds are dense composites of various materials.

>>32082065
>Would the US have been able to deal with the Tiger threat

The vast majority of Tigers were encountered by British forces, not the Americans. IIRC the number of Tigers that fought US forces can be counted on one hand.

We also won that war, by the way. The Germans lost, despite their tanks.

>>32082065
76 mm can deal with the tiger anyway
even 75 mm works if your feeling suicidal

besides all that most tigers were killed with aircraft or artillery

>>32082427
>>32082427
pls respond

>>32082523

That stat likes to get thrown around a bit, but it's somewhat problematic in its use, mostly because of nuance which the internet does not understand.

The stat is from Steve Zaloga, and it was introduced to the internet by Nick Moran, the world of Tanks guy. The stat is actually "there were three known instances where US Forces ran into Tiger I Tanks between D-Day and April 1945.

The US ran into Tiger Is in North Africa and Italy quite a few times before D-Day, and that makes sense because Germany was still actually making them at that point.

The US did run into Tiger IIs more than the Brits did, especially in the Bulge where a large number were thrown into the fray.

>>32082582
how would the brits have more encounters anyways

they had a fraction of the forces the US committed in WW2 in every area (tanks, arty, soldiers, planes, etc)

>>32082660

The Brits were in the area of Normandy where the Germans sent their Tigers. The Americans were not. It's that simple.

File: 3005_3060572c.jpg (697KB, 2805x2211px) Image search: [Google]

697KB, 2805x2211px

>>32082292
>>32082470
Yeah, okay, guys. No.

The M26, and its M46 modernization, were not a 'few steps from being M60s.'

A very truncated explanation of the development since the M46:

-A new Medium tank, designation T42, was intended to become the new standard for the United States in the postwar world. The M46 was to be a stopgap measure.

-The T42 fell through. The armored corps scrambled to produce yet another stop-gap. This was done by marrying the M46 hull to the T42 turret. With some additional modifications, this became the M47 Patton.

-M48 is developed with an entirely new hull, and entirely new turret. This was an entirely new vehicle, and not a hodge-podge upgrade from the M46/M47. This hit the scene in 1953. All 'Patton' tanks before this were direct evolutionary developments of the M26 'Pershing.' This was entirely new.

-M60 was developed after this, coming out in 1961. Again, like the M48, this was an entirely new hull, new turret, new everything. It is not an evolution. It is its own vehicle.

>>32082194
The requirements laid out for the M60 were not penned until 1957.

The best you're going to get for an American tank what-if scenario is "Pershing by D-Day." Unfortunately, it could never have happened. A more realistic expectation is to ask for the M4 Sherman to have been replaced by one of the T23 developments by then, albeit that would have left American allies tankless as the production would have been halted as factories were retooled for an entirely new design.

My favorite scenario for an American tank what-if involves either the fielding of the M6 (to see how the Sherman would be remembered if it had a heavy counter part, like the German equivalent) or a more serious impetus on upgunning the Sherman, since efforts for it were made as early as 1942.

>>32082787
Mine is for a new Sherman turret that can mount the 90mm. Given that the IDF was later able to mount a 105mm, it should have been very doable, and would have defeated anything it faced.

Sure, it wouldn't have had the armor to resist 88mm, but given the numbers involved, that wouldn't have been that great an issue.

>>32082917
There was a proposed design for it, along with lowering the hull profile, when the M4A3 was approved for production. There was also a workable prototype of the M26 turret on the M4A3.

>>32082065
>Would the US have been able to deal with the Tiger threat
Didn't the US found fought like 5 or 6 tigers in the entire war? IIRC most of the tanks US fought were Pz IVs who were wrongfully claimed to be Tigers until proven otherwise. Brits and canadians fought a lot of Tigers I believe.

File: T26_turret_on_M4_chassis.jpg (41KB, 500x305px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 500x305px

>>32082917
>>32083035
She's a QT

>>32083105
This is a quote taken out of context by a respected historian. He specified specific dates, in Northwest Europe, and only said those were 'confirmed.' The U.S. saw plenty of 'Tigers' in Africa and Italy.

>>32082582
>The US ran into Tiger Is in North Africa and Italy quite a few times before D-Day, and that makes sense because Germany was still actually making them at that point.


They kicked the shit out of them in North Africa and Italy as well, with nothing but M10's and M4A1's.

>>32082427

Almost none, because AR500 steel is too brittle to serve as tank armor.

The harder a steel alloy is, the more resistance it offer, but it's also more brittle. Conversely, the softer the alloy, the tougher, more ductile, and more resistant to deformation.

AR500 is very very hard steel, which is ok for small arms protection because there's not enough cross section density in a small arms bullet to shatter the plate. When dealing with APC tank rounds, if you make the plate too hard, the shock of impact shatters the steel.

>>32082194
>M60 was probably being developed in the mid 1930s
what the fuck

>>32083105
>IIRC most of the tanks US fought were Pz IVs who were wrongfully claimed to be Tigers until proven otherwise
In all fairness a pz4 H/J with the skirts looks like a tiger from a mile

>>32083172
Yeah, I forgot about the mediterranean theater, but ignoring Italy and Africa those low encounters with T1 numbers would be true, rite? From France '44 to Northwestern Germany '45?

>>32083199
Yeah, I can never find it in myself to blame tank gunners for mislabeling Pz.Kpfw IVs as Tigers. The Tiger is pretty much just a big mark IV. Yeah, I know, you can look at the suspension to see the difference. But other than that, they both look like someone kicked a shoe box about three hundred times into the shape of a tank.

>>32083199
PzIV Hs is my waifu, bud
Dont offend her by comparing it with that monstruosity

>>32083217
'Confirmed.' If I recall, Zaloga - who made that quote - admitted that they probably ran into Tigers more often than that, but just pointed out that those were the only 'confirmed' cases.

>>32083241
I read some years ago that the US ran into more Tigers II than Tigers I, but I have no idea if thats true.

File: 1449582073063.jpg (79KB, 650x488px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 650x488px

>>32083181
>tfw when we ran into ferdinands in italy our M10 gunners would literally skip round under them up into the hull

>>32083199
>>32083229
Yeah it's literally just a box on a box. I could see why they would say that.

The thing I want to know is, if Shermans had easier access to HVAP rounds, would people act like the Tiger/Panther are the end all be all?

>>32083257
There's at least one known case in Italy where an M10 just shot the drive wheel off a Ferdinand, and the crew abandoned it.

>>32083270

Yes, because anyone who says TIGER BEST TANK is only saying that because BIG TANK BIG GUN and literally knows nothing else

File: tumblr_m32f8ipg7S1qhy7g3o1_500.gif (998KB, 450x338px) Image search: [Google]

998KB, 450x338px

>>32083257
Don't take stories like that seriously. I highly doubt that this was a common tactic, and I equally doubt that it's even possible. This smacks of the age-old ".50 cals bouncing off of the ground to penetrate the bellies of tigers" crock.

>>32083411
Considering events such as shell ricocheting off of the bottom of gun mantlets causing complete re-designs of the mantlet itself, such a theory isn't entirely far fetched.

File: 4thadshermancrew.png (969KB, 1280x846px) Image search: [Google]

969KB, 1280x846px

>>32083448
That's because they hit a legitimate shot-trap that bounced shells into the un-armored roof of the tank.

What the poster was proporting, however, was that M10 gunners were good enough to not only sail their shells like skipping stones over rough ground and hit the belly of enemy tanks on the rebound, but that the shell is preserving enough energy to make the penetration of the incredibly shallow plate.

I wonder just how much the ballistic cap of the shell gets completely demolished from this practice.

Well, anyway. I can end this real quick.

Source?

File: that's a nice frontal armor you got shame if anything happened to it.jpg (389KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

389KB, 1280x960px

>>32082065
What would happen is US would win more slowly, with more losses and would have probably had less territory under their control by the end of the war.
What you're suggesting is a waste of resources, the exact same thing as Nazi Germany did with its strategically failed Tiger I, Tiger II, Elefant and Jagdtiger programs.
Existing Allied combined arms easily handled any threats on the battlefield, and even American AFVs alone, Sherman, Wolverine and derivatives without proper infantry, artillery and air support could handle the inferior Panzer series tanks and assault gun derivatives, which comprised 95% of German armed forces.
"Tiger threat" was nonexistent except in the heads of terrified retarded illiterate farm hand grunts who couldn't even tell a Tiger I from a Panzer IV and called MG-42 "the Spandau". Case closed.

>>32083612
I wouldn't call the German heavy tank projects 'strategic failures.' Their mere construction didn't cause any sort of imminent collapse. Rather, one might argue, the expectation that they could maintain an offensive armored doctrine using a large number of inferior tanks is unrealistic. Especially since, for Germany, sheer manpower was becoming a problem. Pz.Kpfw IV ausf. H tanks, even if you have thousands of them, mean exactly nothing with no one crewing them.

As for heavy tank destroyers? They did exactly what they were intended to do. It's hard to really place blame on the machines for an overall strategic failure that had nothing to do with them.

>Existing Allied combined arms easily handled any threats on the battlefield, and even American AFVs alone, Sherman, Wolverine and derivatives without proper infantry, artillery and air support could handle the inferior Panzer series tanks and assault gun derivatives, which comprised 95% of German armed forces.

There are periods in which American tank types show their stuff against German tank forces. There are also times when German armored units win the slug-fest with American tanks. The campaign in the Lorraine saw several meetings between German and American armored units, and it was hardly as black and white as you make it sound.

Also, 95% of the German armed forces? What are you basing that off of?

>"Tiger threat" was nonexistent except in the heads of terrified retarded illiterate farm hand grunts
Farm hand grunts who were required to memorize complex mathematical algorithms to make reliable hits with their optical equipment.

>who couldn't even tell a Tiger I from a Panzer IV
The two tanks have a very similar outline from a distance.

>called MG-42 "the Spandau"
The only person to do that is Lindy.

>Case closed.
I have never seen someone manage to pull off a "QED" on their own post without coming off as, and indeed being, a total buffoon.

File: P47-Thunderbolt-On-Ground.jpg (98KB, 800x624px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 800x624px

>>32083278
Not surprising, as protocal for tankers is usually to just abandon when you think you're tank's fucked. Combine that with German troop quality later in the war, and you get predictable results.

>>32082065
First of all, the M60 wasn't even a twinkle in anyone's eye when WW2 was in full swing. Maybe you're thinking of the M46 Patton, which was a redesign of the M26 pershing. The M26 WAS used in the war, but to practically no effect. So I'm gonna answer this like you were referring to the M26.

It wouldn't have mattered at fucking all. People REALLY love to talk up the Nazi war machine like it was some kind of technological marvel, but the reality was that German heavy hitters like the Panther and both Tigers were rarely encountered on the Western front, and even then the US barely ever saw the heavy tanks the Germans deployed.
Even when Western armor did encounter machines like the Tiger and the Bengal Tiger, the 76mm guns some M4s were outfitted with by that point could threaten them. Failing that, American air superiority was absolute, and dive bombing/CAS is a tank's worst nightmare, especially for those giant Kruppstahl chunks.
Western Europe was mostly won on the backs of infantry and air raids.

>pic related, me on my way to fuck your tank