User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 1:27:07 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
T34 was a tough tank. Arguably the best tank fielded in 1941 in large numbers, and the Germans did have difficulty with it. Fuck, maybe I'm the one having reading comprehension issues this morning. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I am talking about when the Germans were kicking the Soviets ass. In the beginning, the Germans came up against T-34s when the Germans were vastly more experienced. Yet had a lot of trouble with the T-34. I'm just making a point, that you don't need well trained troops to make a tough tank. Just because the T-34s in Korea were Korean piloted, doesn't mean the Sherman would dominate and have no trouble killing them. Fuck, maybe I'm the one having reading comprehension issues this morning. 
I think a Good tank crew is better than just a good tank. That was one of the reasons behind the Merkava being as survivable as possible. The crew is more important than the tank, in the eyes of Western countries. You can roll new tanks off the assembly line, you can't just mass produce a good tank Crew. No doubt about that. But yeah, the Germans were very superior in skill and experience over their Russian enemies. But still had trouble with the T-34. So I don't believe in the "Well the Koreans got their ass kicked, because they were Koreans". I think the Americans Sherman > The Soviet top of the line T-34. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 1:28:41 PM EDT
[#2]
And if the M-4 had been replaced, in 1944, it would have been with a T-20/T-23 variant armed with the 76 mm gun standardized as the M-27. The T-23 series actually developed the 76mm turret used on later Shermans.
This is a T-20E3 with 76mm gun. 
Pershing was originally not seen as an M-4 replacement, but rather as a heavy tank in a seperate class. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 1:31:27 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Fucking straw man much. The t34/85 used in Korea were Russian, never said they were not. What I did bring up is that the Sherman and T34 used were both upgraded over the models found in 45. And that they were not Soviet crews or commanders. Believe it or not the Soviet commanders in 45 had a lot of experiance conducting deep operations using armored forces. T34/85 - "Production of the T-34-85 began in February 1944, first using the 85 mm S-53 gun and then in mid-1944 the 85 mm ZiS-S-53 (the ZiS-S-53 was a modified S-53 designed by the Grabin Design Bureau in order to simplify the gun and reduce its price; the ballistics of both were the same)." |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 1:32:10 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If he doesn't I will. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So, is Op saying that the Sherman tank was better than the German Tiger tank?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 1:33:30 PM EDT
[#5]
Everything I "know" about WWII tanks, I learned from Kelly's Heroes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 1:33:30 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No one argued that, it's a straw man he put up. What I said is that the Sherman and T34s that faced off in Korea are not the same tanks as 1945, and that the Korea's did not have experienced commanders or crews when compared to 45 Soviets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 1:35:33 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The majority of Sherman's in Korea had 76mm or 105mm guns, the majority in ww2 had 75mm guns. The majority of T34s in Korea had 85mm guns, the majority in ww2 had 76mm guns. Also improvements in tracks, etc The Sherman was a better tank, I've never said it wasn't. What I pointed out s that comparing results from Korea to some hypothetical US/Soviet 1945 is not entirelly accurate reprsentation of what would have happened. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 1:36:24 PM EDT
[#8]
I love these threads
2-3 people who know of what they speak. A dozen others loudly proclaiming their ignorance while believing they are the experts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 1:48:31 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Close air support, P47’s, even P63’s, A26’s and B25’s would have decimated them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
T34 was better with it's slopped armor. If we would have fought Russia after WW2, we would've needed something better. USAAF and RAF CAS could have decimated Soviet CAS, dump their bomb loads and mad mincemeat of IL-2 with .50 cals and .20MM cannon |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 1:50:56 PM EDT
[#10]
Panther service manual: Step 1 - Remove tank
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 2:14:49 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It’s WWII. The enemy is 5.3 miles up the road. You have your Sherman, however your unit captured perfectly in tact and fueled/max ammo: 1. Tiger 2. Panther 3. Stug IIIg 4. Tiger II 5. M10 Reports of 8-15+ German tanks ahead. Which do you choose? If you pick the Sherman, you’re an idiot. The Sherman was reliable and a 75mm HE round caused more fragmentation than an 88mm HE. Against flesh, it was good, against steel? Any person with a brain would pick a superior tank. It was not the Sherman. No matter how you try to patriot it. 1. Run 2. surrender 3. Die |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 2:16:53 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Back in the 80s, I knew a WW2 Canadian Army veteran. He told me that the Canadian Army had a nickname for the Sherman. They called it "the Ronson", after the lighter. Because it burned very easily 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 2:24:08 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Back in the 80s, I knew a WW2 Canadian Army veteran. He told me that the Canadian Army had a nickname for the Sherman. They called it "the Ronson", after the lighter. Because it burned very easily 
We know if 4 people watch a traffic accident, each person will have a different version of events. Eye witness accounts don't get much weight in courts rooms. They are notoriously unreliable. I don't know why people think war stories should be any different. Not to mention, ALOT of troops embellished their experiences. Or you just get outright propaganda about a single tank being surrounded and picking off 8 American tanks until a lucky round knocked them out.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 2:37:32 PM EDT
[#14]
Some of you, need to turn off the History Channel and read some books on the subject...and Death Traps doesn't count as potions of that book has been debunked numerous times.
My favorite quote when this type of discussion comes up... The Sherman tank operated within the broader context of this American art of war. The Sherman succeeded on the World War II battlefield not because it was the best tank, but because it was part of the most modern and effective army. German officers complained about the poor quality of American infantry because they would not fight without tanks, would not fight at night, and depended too much on artillery fire support. German man war memoirs constantly lament Allied airpower as though it was somehow unchivalrous and unfair to plague the heroic German infantry landser and panzerman with this impersonal menace. The German man commanders did not comprehend that they were facing a more modern military machine that placed greater emphasis on firepower and industrial prowess to dominate the battlefield and therefore depended less on the traditional combat arms. The U.S. Army did not insist on fielding the best tank, but it did insist on fielding enough tanks that were good enough. Steven Zaloga. Armored Thunderbolt: The U.S. Army Sherman in World War II (Kindle Location 2277). |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 2:43:55 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And you are WRONG. M4E8 - May, 1944. T34/85 - "Production of the T-34-85 began in February 1944, first using the 85 mm S-53 gun and then in mid-1944 the 85 mm ZiS-S-53 (the ZiS-S-53 was a modified S-53 designed by the Grabin Design Bureau in order to simplify the gun and reduce its price; the ballistics of both were the same)." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Fucking straw man much. The t34/85 used in Korea were Russian, never said they were not. What I did bring up is that the Sherman and T34 used were both upgraded over the models found in 45. And that they were not Soviet crews or commanders. Believe it or not the Soviet commanders in 45 had a lot of experiance conducting deep operations using armored forces. T34/85 - "Production of the T-34-85 began in February 1944, first using the 85 mm S-53 gun and then in mid-1944 the 85 mm ZiS-S-53 (the ZiS-S-53 was a modified S-53 designed by the Grabin Design Bureau in order to simplify the gun and reduce its price; the ballistics of both were the same)." |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 2:46:52 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I love these threads 2-3 people who know of what they speak. A dozen others loudly proclaiming their ignorance while believing they are the experts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 2:54:48 PM EDT
[#17]
The Sherman was a fine tank when asked to do what it was designed to do . It was great in 1942 . And compared well to other tanks of the same size/ tonnage .
The Sherman was classified as a medium tank . Reasonable armor ( but not great) and a 75 mm gun of rather poor velocity/ performance. In France in 1944 after no major upgrades ... it started to show its age against bigger German tanks . Panthers , Tigers etc. Also the lack of thicker armor made it vunerable to most AT weapons. 75mm Pak 40 , panzerfaust , 88mm , etc. We did build a shit ton of them and they were reliable . Just not made to handle Tigers and Panthers . |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 2:59:19 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Except that the Sherman also has sloped armor. And the M4A3E8(76), with its 76mm M1 gun, ate T-34/76 and T34/85 tanks for lunch in Korea. Did well enough in the terrain of Korea that some units actually "downgraded" from M26 Pershing to 76mm HVSS Shermans, because the 76 would kill a T-34 just fine and the M4 with GAA and HVSS was far more mobile. And the Army knew thee 76mm gun was needed, which is why they ended production of the 75mm version around the end of 1943. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 3:16:01 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Its a discussion, not a doctrinal thesis. I'm sure you'll let us all know who is right and who is wrong? Those who don't just talk about things they heard in popular culture (fed by movies, tv shows, and badly researched books), flawed veteran stories (there's a reason why I, as a historian, take witness accounts with a grain of salt, especially 70+ years after the event), and spout on about 'Ronsons' and how amazing the Tiger was. Those in the know, like Moran, do the research, use primary documents, and look at vet amounts through the lens of those primary documents. Historical research is about piecing together the big picture through the use of smaller, reliable pieces that often need to be found, filtered from the junk, and interpreted. Just saying "well, this veteran said x" doesn't cut it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 3:28:08 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I am wrong on that, thanks. I'm much better read on German armor and the overall picture of the war, I had it in my mind that the Easy 8's were not seen widely. I dug out a few books, double checked, and yes you are right. 
http://armorfortheages.com/MilitaryVehicles/CobraKing/CobraKing.html IIRC, she was restored to her 75 MM configuration. "After Bastogne, Cobra King continued as part of the 4th Armored Division. At some point it had, like many other Shermans, a wire matting welded to the hull and turret. This wire matting held cut tree branches used for camouflage. It also had its 75mm gun upgraded to a 76mm and had an aircraft .50 caliber machine gun added as a coax replacing the standard .30 caliber." |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 3:36:16 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
T34 was better with it's slopped armor. If we would have fought Russia after WW2, we would've needed something better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 3:36:17 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Uhhh...we did fight the T-34 after WW2, and as others have posted, the Easy eights slaughtered the uber T-34. They used Easy Eights because Pershings were overkill. The M-26 and its descendants (M-47, M-48, M-60) are vastly underrated tanks and were more than a match for their Soviet foes. Same for Centurion (for the first time since Little Willie, the Brits got a tank right). |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 3:45:09 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For a nation that has to ship all it's men and equipmentacross giant oceans. And can't immediately drive the tank to the front lines after completion. Or can't just drive the tank back to the factory and have it repaired. The Sherman worked quite well and could perform a bunch of tasks besides JUST fighting. Yeah, the Sherman was better than a Tiger. And I bet US Armored Corps would have faired much better against the Soviets than the Germans did. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 5:06:34 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: WWII we were attacking, and had to ship everything in/ Cold War, we were defending, and could pre-position equipment and fight from prepared positions with stocks of ammo and fuel. So - pop quiz - you are putting tanks into France August 1944. You can ship 3 Shermans, or 1 M26 pershing per unit of space - (assuming the M26 exist, which they DON'T) BTW, when you get there, you can unload the 22 ton Sherman. All the facilities to unload a 46 ton Pershing were destroyed by the krauts on their way out. So which do you choose - 1 tank that doesn't exit and can't be unloaded if it did, or 3 Shermans? I want to know if The_Chieftian counted "knocked out" Shermans by only including destroyed Shermans or did he also include "knocked out and repaired"? Are any and all first-hand accounts casting doubts on the M-4 Sherman's performance during WWII wrong? Were they all a bunch of spineless pussies afraid of their shadows? The modern consensus damn sure points that way. Are YOU aware that the 76-mm-armed Shermans sat in England during the Invasion because it was felt they were not needed? Boy, was the Army in for a rude surprise. They couldn't ship the 76 Shermans over the Channel fast enough. THEN they found out the 76mm was only marginally better (one inch better penetration over the 75mm). Ike himself was apprised of this and when he found out, he shit cinder blocks. The Sherman wasn't a bad tank, but it damn sure wasn't the "Best" tank folks nowadays make it out to be. It needed the 76mm HVAP tungsten-cored AT round to have any chance of penetrating Panthers and Tigers, and those rounds were in VERY short supply AND mostly ear-marked for TD units in WWII. Have YOU ever read "King Of The Killing Fields"? The XM-1 program officers had all been junior Armor officers in the ETO during WWII. Their experiences in WWII serving in Shermans shaped their beliefs in what the Army's new tank would be. I ask again, would the M-1 be the tank it is if the guys designing it had thought the Sherman was the best tank of WWII? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 5:15:34 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Didn't slope on the sides tho |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 5:48:49 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Germans trained extensively on using the gun at stand off ranges, they had to. Firing at moving targets was also something that tank commanders had to do in training. Not quite sure your definition of effective ranges. The 75mm on the Stug III and Pkz. IV can punch through the front of Sherman at 2,000 yards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.5_cm_KwK_40 The low velocity 75mm on the Sherman has to close to a distance of 500 yards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/75_mm_Gun_M2/M3/M6#M3 Due to the fact the German tanker had a higher level of gunnery training, German optics, higher velocity and superior accuracy of the Kwk. 40 75mm the hit probability of the German 75mm was WAY higher than that of the Sherman's low velocity 75mm. Plenty of places in Western Europe that give you 2,000 yards line of sight. Situational awareness for all German tanks came from the Tank commander standing with his head above the hatch. They NEVER drove around with all the hatches buttoned up. Which is why they lost so many tank commanders to head wounds. Many German tank commanders would often do a reconnaissance on foot. Not a common US Army tanker tactic. Afraid there isn't any difference in SA between the 2. Even the lowly Panzer IV enjoyed a level dominance over the standard Sherman that M1A1 Abrams enjoyed over a T55. The Sherman sucked. At the end of the day it didn't matter. The Germans could have had M1A2 Abrams and still would have lost against the Americans. Advance to contact, get on radio call in 155mm / 175mm artillery and tactical air support. Replace lost tanks and crews tomorrow morning with new ones. Rinse, wash, repeat all the way to Berlin. Doesn't matter what your enemy is in with that level of dominance. Quote HistoryQuoted: The Germans trained extensively on using the gun at stand off ranges, they had to. Firing at moving targets was also something that tank commanders had to do in training. Not quite sure your definition of effective ranges. The 75mm on the Stug III and Pkz. IV can punch through the front of Sherman at 2,000 yards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.5_cm_KwK_40 The low velocity 75mm on the Sherman has to close to a distance of 500 yards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/75_mm_Gun_M2/M3/M6#M3 Due to the fact the German tanker had a higher level of gunnery training, German optics, higher velocity and superior accuracy of the Kwk. 40 75mm the hit probability of the German 75mm was WAY higher than that of the Sherman's low velocity 75mm. Plenty of places in Western Europe that give you 2,000 yards line of sight. Situational awareness for all German tanks came from the Tank commander standing with his head above the hatch. They NEVER drove around with all the hatches buttoned up. Which is why they lost so many tank commanders to head wounds. Many German tank commanders would often do a reconnaissance on foot. Not a common US Army tanker tactic. Afraid there isn't any difference in SA between the 2. Even the lowly Panzer IV enjoyed a level dominance over the standard Sherman that M1A1 Abrams enjoyed over a T55. The Sherman sucked. [color=#0000ff] Horseshit. The sherman was superior to the 3 and 4 and was capable of killing tigers and panthers. The gun and armor and mobility were the nearly ideal combination for the fight if faced. Additionally It's reliability and ergonomics cannot be underestimated in the amount of battlefield effectiveness it provided. Amazingly few tank crewmen died, From wiki:Facing the early Panzer III and Panzer IV in North Africa, the Sherman's gun could penetrate the frontal armor of these tanks at normal combat ranges, within 1,000 yd (910 m). Also: A Waffenamt-Prüfwesen 1 report estimated[91] that with the M4 angled 30 degrees sidewards, the Sherman's glacis plate was invulnerable to shots from the Tiger's 8.8 cm KwK 36 L/56[92] and that the Panther, with its 7.5 cm KwK 42 L/70, would have to close in to 100 meters (110 yd) to achieve a penetration in the same situation.[93] Although the later-model German medium and heavy tanks were greatly feared, Buckley opined "The vast majority of German tanks encountered in Normandy were either inferior or merely equal to the Sherman."[94][/color] Advance to contact, get on radio call in 155mm / 175mm artillery and tactical air support. Replace lost tanks and crews tomorrow morning with new ones. Rinse, wash, repeat all the way to Berlin. Doesn't matter what your enemy is in with that level of dominance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 5:58:17 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It isn't about patriotism. Its about logistics, which you do not understand. I would select a German tank in your your hypo, but your hypo never happened. Her's a better hypo, and more realistic. You are commanding a German platoon tasked with holding a strategic intersection. You have no tank support and no anti-tank guns. A company of Shermans is fast approaching. Do you? 1. Run 2. surrender 3. Die Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It’s WWII. The enemy is 5.3 miles up the road. You have your Sherman, however your unit captured perfectly in tact and fueled/max ammo: 1. Tiger 2. Panther 3. Stug IIIg 4. Tiger II 5. M10 Reports of 8-15+ German tanks ahead. Which do you choose? If you pick the Sherman, you’re an idiot. The Sherman was reliable and a 75mm HE round caused more fragmentation than an 88mm HE. Against flesh, it was good, against steel? Any person with a brain would pick a superior tank. It was not the Sherman. No matter how you try to patriot it. 1. Run 2. surrender 3. Die People are trying to make a turd into a Red white and blue Tank because of logistics. Why was the Sherman dropped after WWII? Hell it was being replaced during the war. It dropped fast. We still used the P-51 in Korea. Sherman’s were being removed as fast as Patton’s could be made. Why such a rush to remove if such a superior tank? Later variants had decent guns but could not take a hit. Do you want me to pull up US service reports on how they felt about their tank? “Tiger” was not allowed to be said over comms during African theater. The 75mm was welcomed by the British at the very beginning but even they knew it was not going to last. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 6:23:47 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I understand logistics just fine. People are trying to make a turd into a Red white and blue Tank because of logistics. Why was the Sherman dropped after WWII? Hell it was being replaced during the war. It dropped fast. We still used the P-51 in Korea. Sherman’s were being removed as fast as Patton’s could be made. Why such a rush to remove if such a superior tank? Later variants had decent guns but could not take a hit. Do you want me to pull up US service reports on how they felt about their tank? “Tiger” was not allowed to be said over comms during African theater. The 75mm was welcomed by the British at the very beginning but even they knew it was not going to last. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 6:52:54 PM EDT
[#29]
I am of the opinion that in 1943 the Sherman was quite good. Unfortunately, the wartime upgrades that other countries performed to their tank force did not happen with the Sherman. One of my books shows a M26 turret mounted on a M4 chassis with 90mm (is also on google if you search). If that was available in very early 1944 (ie in time for the landing) that would have made the Sherman quite capable for the remainder of the war. As it was, the several months manufacturing retooling time, then a few weeks of shipping meant that it was no faster than getting the m26 itself over there. I do think the Sherman had some good qualities just the upgrading/improvements were not quite keeping pace with Russia/Germany. Look at our aircraft development in comparison, that's one place where we didn't settle for "good enough".
I think its a good tank, it just missed that final wartime evolution to 85mm+ armament (I view it as 4 generations of tank weapons in WW2: 37mm, 57mm, 75mm, and finally 85mm+). The other downsides were somewhat handled with the Jumbo and HVSS versions, as well as wet ammo storage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 7:08:44 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Didn't slope on the sides tho Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Except that the Sherman also has sloped armor. And the M4A3E8(76), with its 76mm M1 gun, ate T-34/76 and T34/85 tanks for lunch in Korea. Did well enough in the terrain of Korea that some units actually "downgraded" from M26 Pershing to 76mm HVSS Shermans, because the 76 would kill a T-34 just fine and the M4 with GAA and HVSS was far more mobile. And the Army knew thee 76mm gun was needed, which is why they ended production of the 75mm version around the end of 1943. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 7:13:36 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Better on the defense than on the offense which was the scenario. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 7:17:45 PM EDT
[#32]
Up gunned Shermans were killing modern Soviet armor in the Middle East while the vaulted Panthers and Tigers rusted in the dustpile of history. Hell, research and read what the French thought of the Panther, post war, when they operated them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 7:19:52 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Up gunned Shermans were killing modern Soviet armor in the Middle East while the vaulted Panthers and Tigers rusted in the dustpile of history. Hell, research and read what the French thought of the Panther, post war, when they operated them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 7:21:31 PM EDT
[#34]
@manic_moran
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 7:22:31 PM EDT
[#35]
I remember reading somewhere that the Sherman could not be made larger, because they wouldn't fit through the railroad tunnels. Remember, we had to ship these things from Detroit all the way to Berlin!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 7:28:06 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I remember reading somewhere that the Sherman could not be made larger, because they wouldn't fit through the railroad tunnels. Remember, we had to ship these things from Detroit all the way to Berlin! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 7:28:47 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
T34 was better with it's slopped armor. If we would have fought Russia after WW2, we would've needed something better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 7:33:02 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I understand logistics just fine. People are trying to make a turd into a Red white and blue Tank because of logistics. Why was the Sherman dropped after WWII? Hell it was being replaced during the war. It dropped fast. We still used the P-51 in Korea. Sherman’s were being removed as fast as Patton’s could be made. Why such a rush to remove if such a superior tank? Later variants had decent guns but could not take a hit. Do you want me to pull up US service reports on how they felt about their tank? “Tiger” was not allowed to be said over comms during African theater. The 75mm was welcomed by the British at the very beginning but even they knew it was not going to last. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 7:34:21 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Actually the M26 Patton was withdrawn from Korea and replaced with M4s. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: I understand logistics just fine. People are trying to make a turd into a Red white and blue Tank because of logistics. Why was the Sherman dropped after WWII? Hell it was being replaced during the war. It dropped fast. We still used the P-51 in Korea. Sherman's were being removed as fast as Patton's could be made. Why such a rush to remove if such a superior tank? Later variants had decent guns but could not take a hit. Do you want me to pull up US service reports on how they felt about their tank? "Tiger" was not allowed to be said over comms during African theater. The 75mm was welcomed by the British at the very beginning but even they knew it was not going to last. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 7:34:45 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Slopped armor is a great example of accidental accuracy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
T34 was better with it's slopped armor. If we would have fought Russia after WW2, we would've needed something better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 7:42:00 PM EDT
[#41]
The Sherman's real strengths were logistics related, not combat related.
It did combat well enough, but was able to be made in huge numbers, was VERY reliable and VERY repairable and could move across most every road and bridge in Europe. I'd rather have a running Sherman at the place of battle than a broken down or stranded Tiger or Panther over there.------> |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 7:45:12 PM EDT
[#42]
thanks for posting.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 7:56:13 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Didn't know that. Pretty cool. Chilean M50/60 HVMS. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 8:17:31 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If sloping the armor on the sides and rear is a good idea, then why don’t modern tanks like the M1 do it? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Except that the Sherman also has sloped armor. And the M4A3E8(76), with its 76mm M1 gun, ate T-34/76 and T34/85 tanks for lunch in Korea. Did well enough in the terrain of Korea that some units actually "downgraded" from M26 Pershing to 76mm HVSS Shermans, because the 76 would kill a T-34 just fine and the M4 with GAA and HVSS was far more mobile. And the Army knew thee 76mm gun was needed, which is why they ended production of the 75mm version around the end of 1943. 1. Newer AP service rounds have made sloped RHA armor less effective with the advent of modern APDS and later APFSDS KE penetrators 2. Ballistic composite armor and ballistic / non-ballistic skirts for the hull 3. Armor is prioritized for crew protection and not the space taken up by the pack (engine and tranny). It’s assumed the rear of the tank needs less armor than the front and sides |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 8:24:20 PM EDT
[#45]
There are several compelling arguments in support of the sentiment expressed in the thread title. There are no compelling arguments against it.
Its also interesting to compare this thread to the recent yamamoto/burke hypothetical thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 8:35:56 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If sloping the armor on the sides and rear is a good idea, then why don't modern tanks like the M1 do it? M1. We made different decisions, so it doesn't have the slope that the Challenger does. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 8:37:49 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe it's substantial reason why we were so much better at logistics than everyone else? The other countries could take advantage of just producing a tank and having it go straight on a train to the front. Versus us, we had all the technical hurdles to over come and over coming those hurdles is what got us to be masters at logistics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 8:40:32 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Couple of reasons... 1. Newer AP service rounds have made sloped RHA armor less effective with the advent of modern APDS and later APFSDS KE penetrators 2. Ballistic composite armor and ballistic / non-ballistic skirts for the hull 3. Armor is prioritized for crew protection and not the space taken up by the pack (engine and tranny). It’s assumed the rear of the tank needs less armor than the front and sides |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 8:43:52 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
P-51's were not a primary fighter like they were in WWII. They were cheap and available surplus much like the Sherman and mainly used for ground attack which is not even a role they were well suited for. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: I understand logistics just fine. People are trying to make a turd into a Red white and blue Tank because of logistics. Why was the Sherman dropped after WWII? Hell it was being replaced during the war. It dropped fast. We still used the P-51 in Korea. Sherman’s were being removed as fast as Patton’s could be made. Why such a rush to remove if such a superior tank? Later variants had decent guns but could not take a hit. Do you want me to pull up US service reports on how they felt about their tank? “Tiger” was not allowed to be said over comms during African theater. The 75mm was welcomed by the British at the very beginning but even they knew it was not going to last. Point still stands. Sherman’s were being phased out during WWII because they sucked against German and later Soviet armor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 8:46:05 PM EDT
[#50]
It also cannot be understated just how effective the M4 design was in terms of keeping the tank in the field. The US shipped spare parts by the boatload, the parts were made to tight tolerances so they would fit without modifications, and the tank itself was built in a way that the crew could perform essential maintenance tasks fairly simply.
Compare that to the T-34. It was a reliable tank until it wasn't. Then, fixing it was a nightmare. Take a look at the rear engine hatch of a Soviet T-34. Everything is bolted down and access to the engine compartment appears to require a crane and a lot of wrench-turning time. 
Compare that to this Sherman. Two hinged doors that give easy access to the engine. 
|
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
