U.S. Army turned down the Funnies

I thought the discussion was about Stugs and Shermans?
(actually looks at title of the topic, rather than the threads contained therein)
Oh! Ooops!

Oh well.

I find it more amazing that the US had their own pre-D-Day "funnies", but, for one reason or another, never put them into production.

Edit: Although it does seem to me that the US took it's good old time developing their "funnies". Does anyone know the reason for this. Was it because that their "funnies" were poor designs, or was it that they did not want to waste tanks on such specialized tasks?

 

I believe that the view was the US already had (foot) engineer companies that could do any of these tasks, and do them better. To start to develop "funnies" would take time and more (specialized vehicle) training.
What they didn't take into proper account was that engineers would be badly vulnerable to enemy fire while trying to do tasks.

 

Yes to be a combat engineer was a dangerous job, people think of engineers as soldiers who build pontoons and make roads, but a lot of nations used them as assault troops, armed with satchell charges and Bangalor torpedoes, I would rather be in a Sherman Crab then be exposed it enemy fire doing the same job (clearing a path through a mine field).
Regards Yan.

 

I apologize for making the thread go off course with my comparison, and I can see how you consider the M36 comparable to my PzIII stug comparison, but what I really meant was the stug was a step down in sophistication, while the m36 was a step up. Therefore the M36 would be much like saying the IVJ is the best pzIII model because its drivetrain is the same, and its construction is very close, yet very different.


But back to the Funnies, kinda. Whats up with the US not adopting the superior british flamethrower? Ours was a total piece of junk in comparison, particularly useful range.

 

I wonder if the sand around the American beaches was a lot firmer, they sent divers in to check out the sand on the Normandy beaches to see if it was strong enough to support armour, thats were the Churchill (bobin) carpet layer came into fruition. it could lay a canvas carpet over the soft sand and other vehicles could follow.

 

Yes, the footing on the American beaches was firmer, particularly on Utah, which was the widest beach with the shallowest gradient of all the D-day beaches. Gold, Sword, and Juno all had seawalls over at least a portion of their length, which tended to collect deep sand. As it transpired the rough weather in the Channel had eroded all the beaches somewhat so that the deep sand was not quite the hazard SHAEF planners supposed it to have been.

The Churchill AVRE might have been a blessing on Omaha, considering the high casualties taken by V Corps to open the beach exit roadblocks, partcularly the big one flanking the main German strongpoint at Les Moulins. However, as powerful as the "flying dustbin" spigot mortar bomb was I doubt one shot from an AVRE could defeat those obstacles. As it was the roadblocks turned out to be so formidable that it took many hours for American combat engineers to clear those exits for anything more than foot traffic. Also, the Germans enjoyed a considerable height advantage over the invading V Corps, allowing them to shoot down on the thin roof armor of tanks. Any AVRE that positioned itself to shoot effectively at the roadblock would have likely been destroyed before any significant progress would have been made.

The Sherman Crab flail tank might have been useful on Utah Beach, where casualties from buried mines was proportionately high. However, as I have noted, Utah was the widest beach crisscrossed by unobstructed enfilading fire from at least seven widerstand nests. The Crab could only work at a slow walking speed. Having infantry bunched up behind a flail tank as it makes its slow progress up the beach would probably get more men killed than having them run as fast as possible through the mined area. Just like the Athenians at Marathon, the less time spent in the beaten zone the better.

 

Good points.

 

The "funnies", core of two of the enduring myths of WWII!
The main reason the US Army did not adopt the British "Funnies" is that there weren't enough of them available in time. Eisenhower in particular loved the funnies, especially the DD, and ordered them to be incorporated into the US assault groups for D-Day. The US Army ordered M4 based “funnies” from British industries in February 1944, including DDs, 25 flail tanks and 100 Sherman Crocodile flame thrower tanks, but the British and Canadian demand was so great that it was impossible to meet the US order. The US even ended up providing 80 DD Sherman kits to the British and Canadians, from 350 DD kits produced by US industry. The funnies ordered from the British didn't arrive until about a month after D-Day. Of the M4 Crocodiles, only four were ultimately delivered. It is true that the US Army did not go with the Churchill bridging and fascine funnies [AVREs apparently were not offered], having decided the the M4 Sherman tank dozer was a more versatile vehicle. One reason given by Bradley for not going with Churchill based funnies was the time required for familiarization and training, and the logistical issues involved with using British equipment. The British 79th Armoured Division was fully committed to supporting the British/Canadian assault forces and would have had precious little left to attach to the US Army. In any case there were two DD equipped tank battalions of US Army DDs, one for Utah and one for Omaha, attached to the US assault forces on D-Day. Flame throwing tanks from the British 79th Armoured Division were attached to US formations on several occasions and they were much appreciated by the US infantry.
It is interesting to see the NIH flag raised so early, when there is abundant evidence that the US was willing to accept IOT,57mm (6pdr) AT guns, P-51 Mustangs with Merlin engines and LSTs to name a few.