World War 2 Tank Main Gun Development

[Saxondog]

Thanks OZ,another one for my growing collection.That sure seems to be a Shermen chassis.Sax

[Woz]

We had the Archer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_(tank_destroyer)

[Crispy]

Thanks for the link WOZ, i've never heard of those before. An intersting design in that the gun fired "backwards" allowing the tank to drive "forwards" out of cover and away from the enemy.

[Ex_Pat_Tanker]

*ex-pat don's his anorak*
the Archer was a 17 pounder on a valatine chassis

[Tankie]

Reminds me of the old joke about Italian tanks having two forward and ten retreat gears.

The Bishop was a similar up-gunning of a valentine using a 25-pr but with an all round traverse, although strictly it was self propelled artillery

[thecommandernj]

              The US Army was always playing catch-up. I agree with servoblast...Walter Christie was a genius just like another innovator, Robert Goddard. The Army found Christie difficult to work with and dismissed him and his revolutionary tank design. Robert Goddard was never taken seriously by the military and the only man took notice was Werner Von Braun. You know....the V1 & V2 guy who took our astronauts to the moon.  The Russians liked the Christie design and were fond of copying/reverse engineering. The Germans liked "wonder-weapons" and Hitler was fascinated by them. They frequently up-gunned tanks and guns in the field or depots. They always wanted bigger and better. It is almost sad that many of the tanks developed for a specific purpose were later found to be deficient for their intended use and proficient at something altogether different. The Sherman was intended to support troops, not fight Tigers. The Tiger I was envision as a "Durchbruchwagen" or (auf English) a "Breakthrough tank" to spearhead attacks. It wound up better suited to stand-off defense and taking out the enemy at great distances. The Sheman was thinly armored and the weak gun was intended to be very durable and long lasting. A poor match since the tank was easily knocked out and the weak but reliable, long lasting gun rendered moot. Even Patton believed that Sherman was sufficient until it was obvious to all the Allies that it was a "day late and a dollar short".  It was sheer weight of numbers that won that fight.
          The phrase Quantity has a quality all its own... was never more true. The Stug was intended to assist troops as an assault gun not fight tanks as it was used en mass. In each county there were a core group of forward thinkers and inventors seeking a better mousetrap. The venerable 88 mm Fliegerabwehrkannon was for AA defense not a tank gun hence the phrase FLAK (or grief). Most tankers never take notice of the fact that the Tiger I was deployed to the field long before the Panther but that the Tiger is a Panzer VI and the Panther is a Panzer V. The Germans had to make everything perfect and of the highest quality. Quality trumped quantity and who got the first with the most usually won. Just like the V2 rocket and the ME 262 it was too little too late. If the Pershing M 26 had been developed in time for Normandy maybe out troops would have been home for Christmas of '44.
    We all benefitted from the developments of WW II....from surgical staples to the NASA space program. War is a catalyst that puts development and innovation on the fast track. DaVinci's tank has come a long way...                                                         
                                                I'll get off my soapbox now....God Bless  Bob  thecommandernj

[daviddunlop]

Hello Oz.

That is the Ram 3.7, but a different pic than the one I have in my files. I will look for it this week and scan it in 

Saxondog.

Definitely not a Sherman hull. Pure Canadian Ram. Suspension units were common to both vehicles, along with a few other external bits. The Canadian Grizzly looks even more like the cast hull Sherman, but interior layouts were quite different, and the Ram and Grizzly hulls both had noticibly less ground clearance than the Sherman. The Ram had a much lower overall profile than the Sherman, but if the Grizzly did, it was not by more than an inch or two.

The Ram 3.7 testing predated the Sexton and M10, but it is interesting that the 'steps' on the rear side of the Ram 3.7 show up on the Sexton sides and the angular armor plate sides of the Ram 3.7 look very much like the profile that showed up on the M10.

David