Army tanks in Toronto?

[devil_dice]

Yeah...fits perfectly with that Liberal election ad that said Stephen Harper wants to put troops in Canadian cities....

and

"I am not making this up"

....

And in case you don't recall, the only prime minister to actually send troops into a Canadian city was Liberal.

To be fair, Trudeau only sent in the military at the request of Bourassa and the mayor of Montreal, Jean Drapeau. In general though it saddens me that the military doesn't have more of a public presence in Toronto. Not the 'soldiers with guns on our streets' type, but just the recognition that the military is there. Considering there are nearly a dozen reserve regiments in the city, I hardly ever see anyone in uniform except for near Moss Park on a wedneday night.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Keeping in mind that the entire Canadian Armed Forces consists of 62,000 full-time personal and 35,000 Reservists, it's not surprising that you don't see them often.

 

[devil_dice]

True my good man. Plus a third of them are on the East Coast. I'm surprised there's a tank at the cemetery at Park Lawn/Yonge. I think i'll swing by there sometime soon, must be quite a sight. I went to the Imperial War Museum a couple of times in London last time I was there and they had a big collection of tanks/guns/aircraft/WWI-era submarines. Certainly a sight to see

 

[buildup]

There's a column of T-72s on Parliament Hill. But that's a drive.

 

[Admiral Beez]

went to the Imperial War Museum a couple of times in London last time I was there and they had a big collection of tanks/guns/aircraft/WWI-era submarines. Certainly a sight to see

The new war museum in Ottawa has a lot of vehicles on display. I was there earlier this year and recall seeing the following tanks, Chieftan, Leopard 1, Panther, Centurion, Sherman (x2), Ram, T-72, T-34 and I believe a Tiger.

 

[Therion]

I'll have to see it to confirm, but if the Sherman in North York is a Firefly model (used extensively by the Canadians) then it would be one of the very best medium-weight tanks in allied use, even better than the T-34, to go up against a Panther or Tiger.

I can't tell right now if it is a Firefly, there's too much foliage in the line of sight. The Firefly was definitely better than a T-34 fire-power wise, even the 85 variant was inferior to the German 75 and 88 mm guns, which I think the 17-pounder match pretty closely. The sloping armor of the T-34 was a definite advantage in defence, though.
The problem, of course was that not many Shermans were equipped with the 17-pounder, whereas all the T-34s had guns that could penetrate armor at a decent range.

Good to see another armor enthusiast on these boards!

 

[Therion]

There's a column of T-72s on Parliament Hill. But that's a drive.

Goddamit, looks like the Russkis are coming our way. Grab the shotgun pa, it's gonna be a messy hayride!!!

 

[Admiral Beez]

The problem, of course was that not many Shermans were equipped with the 17-pounder, whereas all the T-34s had guns that could penetrate armor at a decent range.

We must remember US combat doctrine of the time. First of all, the Sherman's original 75mm gun was a much better HE weapon than the 17-pounder or the later 76mm US gun. This was due to the US doctrine of using their tanks to kill infantry in protected positions. The enemy's tanks were to be engaged with tank destroyers like the M10 Wolverine or fixed position anti-tank guns.

By the time D-Day came about, the 75mm-armed Shermans were operating in both huge numbers and under near complete allied air superiority. Thus, if any German tank moved on the battlefield, it was very likely to be killed by a Typhoon, Thunderbolt or any of the other allied aircraft flying overhead. On the Soviet front, allied air superiority was not as assured, so if you were in a T-34 you had a much greater chance of encountering a German tank than if you were in a Sherman in France; so you needed the best anti-tank gun available.

 

[Therion]

We must remember US combat doctrine of the time. First of all, the Sherman's original 75mm gun was a much better HE weapon than the 17-pounder or the later 76mm US gun. This was due to the US doctrine of using their tanks to kill infantry in protected positions. The enemy's tanks were to be engaged with tank destroyers like the M10 Wolverine or fixed position anti-tank guns.

But that specific US doctrine came about because the Sherman's gun was inadequate for anti-tank purposes, not the other way around. The 75 mm M1 gun was designed for dual roles, to replace the 37mm/short barrel 75 combo on the M3. I think the U.S. would very much have loved to use the Sherman for anti-tank roles, as it would have lead to much more opportunities for breakthroughs, instead of having to wait for air support or artillery to remove the armored threat.

 

[Tranplanner]

It would be nice to see an example of a Valentine tank, which, IIRC, is the only tank-type built in Canada to see service with the Soviets against the Germans in WW2.

The new war museum in Ottawa has a lot of vehicles on display. I was there earlier this year and recall seeing the following tanks, Chieftan, Leopard 1, Panther, Centurion, Sherman (x2), Ram, T-72, T-34 and I believe a Tiger.

You should have been paying closer attention 'Beez, there is a Valentine at the War Museum...it was recovered from a Ukranian or Polish swamp and repatriated to Canada.

 

[Admiral Beez]

But that specific US doctrine came about because the Sherman's gun was inadequate for anti-tank purposes, not the other way around. The 75 mm M1 gun was designed for dual roles, to replace the 37mm/short barrel 75 combo on the M3.

I'm not so sure. If the US had wanted to, they certainly could have included a high velocity anti-tank gun requirement into the Sherman's specifications. For example, the 3-inch M1918 gun was developed during WW1, and by 1940 work was underway to make this into an anti-tank gun, resulting in the 3-inch M5 and M7, as installed in the pre-war M6 heavy tank and the wartime M10 tank destroyer. Any thinking that the Sherman wasn't up to the task of upgunning is not accurate, since the British 17pdr (76mm) was fitted, and the Israelis managed to fit 105mm French cannons into their Shermans.

The Sherman was given the 75mm M3 because the US thought this would be ideal for its anti-personnel and structure capabilities and sufficient to deal with any armour that got past the anti-tank regiments. I suspect the M3 was also chosen since it was in ready supply. Any delay to install the M10's M7 gun would likely have delayed Sherman production, meaning that FDR will have no Shermans to give to Churchill to fight the Second Battle of El Alamein in October 1942, meaning Monty has to settle with his M3s, Churchills, Matildas and Cromwells. The Cromwell was a good tank, but the Shermans won that battle.

With the exception of the British 2-pdr, all tank guns were designed for dual roles. For the record, the Sherman's 75mm gun was known as the M3, being a longer version of the M-3 tank's 75mm M2 gun.

 

[Admiral Beez]

You should have been paying closer attention 'Beez, there is a Valentine at the War Museum...it was recovered from a Ukranian or Polish swamp and repatriated to Canada.

You're right! I remember the rusted Valentine now, and recall how small it was compared to the Sherman, Panther, etc.

 

[Therion]

I agree that the Sherman was primarily built in an anti-infantry role, because of the lack of vision U.S. military leadership exhibited in recognizing the potency of concentrated armor. As such, I doubt there were any contingency plans to use tank destroyers to counter armor. If I remember correctly, the M10 wasn't used until Operation Torch. Second, U.S. air superiority wasn't guaranteed until after the second half of the war, so it is unlikely it was part of original doctrine.

My guess is that based on the British experience in France and North Africa, where the Panzer IV's short barrel 75 shot up the Allied tanks without a problem, the Americans thought that type of weapon would be enough to take on tanks. Ie. they didn't go to a more powerful gun because they didn't think they need to.


By the way, I was watching "Canada's Worst Driver", which was filmed at CFB Borden. I was shocked to see a Wirbelwind in the background, on display. A bit of research showed that it is one of only two surviving Wirbelwinds in the world. Not even Kubinka has one. Does anyone have a list of what's on display at Borden? It might be worth a trip up there.

 

[Admiral Beez]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worthington_Tank_Museum

My vintage bike group are thinking of making a group run up there.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Sheppard Ave. West; just west of Allen expressway, south side. It can be seen from the street.

Thanks. I see the tank on sat

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=...216,-79.467935&spn=0.000689,0.001349&t=h&z=20

The 75mm gun on the Sherman has a range of 8,400 meters, or 8.5 km. Interestingly, that's well within the 4km distance from the York Cemetery Sherman.http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&t=k&ll=43.767545,-79.417878&spn=0.000689,0.001349&z=20 Of course, to have a good gun fight with tanks you need to have a clear line of sight.

Now, both Shermans are within the 12.2km range of Moss Park's twin 25-pdr artillery guns, and the 15.5 km range of HMCS York's twin 4.7" guns (same as on Haida), so they'd better get moving.