Quoted: Early on, the Russians installed radios only in unit commander's tanks. This made coordinated attacks impossible. I've read stories from the eastern front that after punching a hole through the front lines, Russian tanks would literally sit idle, having no intructions as to what to do next. Then, German 88 crews would easily pick them off, one by one.

Same technique in the air, the Luftwaffe learned if you took out the leader especially on Il-2 formations, picking off the rest was peacemeal.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: At the beginning of the war, our fighter planes were not as good as Germany's or Japan's.  It took a year or two for us to produce superior planes. That was the fault of the planners not the industry. IIRC, the official USAAF line was 'the ascendency of bombardment over pursuit' and they regarded fighters as secondary to bombers. Once they were given their head and told to 'go for it' the US designers churned out some magnificent fighters. And lets not forget, the F4U-1 Corsair was a pre war (1938) design! ANdy

The P-38 was a pre-war design as well.

Yes but traditonally American fighters operate best in the verticle plane versus the crank-and -bank plane of engagement.
This trate in U.S. fighter aircraft continuned until the late 60's early 70's.
It would have been nice if the generals could have gotten the M26 into action earlier. My uncle owes his life to a M26 in Korea, it saved his squad during a ambush.

US Army Ordnance is always behind the times.

We have not deployed an American design cannon on a tank in over 40 years.  The 105mm of the M60 and early M1 series was British and the 120mm of the M1A1 and M1A2 series is German.

The 152mm Shilelagh (sp?) of the M60A2 and M551 was American but is not really a tank cannon.  It fired an IR guided missile against tanks or low velocity HEAT or beehive rounds.

When I was on active duty in M1A1HC, the cannon was German, composite armor British, 2 of the 3 machine guns Belgian and pistols were Italian.

The "war over by Christmas 1944" mentality was a big mistake - that and the "120 divisions" decision led to many anti-aircraft units being cannabalized into infantry missions.

I read a book a few years ago written by a WWII ordanance officer, "Death Traps" was the title I think.

Anyway, the author indicated that it was Gen. Patton's fault that the M26 was not produced in greater numbers earlier in the war. At some point Gen. Patton was some sort of Armor consultant to the Ordanance Branch and did not feel that the M26 would be needed in Europe. Of course, this was well before D-Day, like in 1942 maybe.

It's too bad there were not a couple hundred M26s on the beach June 1944. Might have saved some lives.

I'll try to find the book when I get home and post the title and author. It was a pretty good read if you like WWII history.

My Grandpa was an infantry officer in WWII (ETO) and saw a lot of action. He was 99th Div and was in the Bulge and went across the Rhine etc. Whe I was a kid I asked him if they had a lot of tanks with them in the battle of the Bulge (like in the movie), he said " Hell NO! The only tanks we ever saw were German!" He was on Elsinborne Ridge, the North sholder of the Buldge. I've seen pics from the battle, lots of knocked out Panthers, Panzer IV's and Jagdpanthers etc. Must have sucked to look up and see one of those from your hole in the ground.

There were some US Tank destroyer units in that AO but I'm sure there were not enough to go around. I've read that the 99th had a company of M18 Hellcats. I think the knocked out German tanks in my Grampa's pics were from mobility hits with bazooka's and from Arty and Air Force.

I miss my Grandfather he was a very good man.

Capt. R. P. McElroy, 99th Infantry

Happy New Year,

Flyer

Quoted: A while back on TV I saw a Army armor General saying that the reason we went with the Sherman tank was that we didn’t have a larger engine at the time (I guess in adequate quantities). Never heard that before and I haven’t a clue if it’s true. .

I read in a book once that at least one American tank used a radial engine instead of an automotive or truck engine.

There were advantages and disadvantages to the M4 series of tanks.  There were advantages and disadvantages to the M26, as well!

To the M4's credit, it could go places the German tanks could never go.  The chassis allowed greater mobility over a greater variety of terrain.  This often allowed the M4s to be somewhere the Germans didn't expect them.  By the M4A3E8, the 76mm gun became standard, and was effective against most of the German tanks it encountered.  The gun on the M4A3E8 was stabilized to some degree (gyrostabilizers were coming into use at the time), so it could be fired more effectively on the move than the German counterparts.  Also, the United States and Great Britain were experimenting with more effective ammunition, Armor Piercing Composite Rigid and Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot, that also gave some extra effectiveness to the M4s.

To ANdy's credit, the 17 lbr was an extremely effective gun.  The Firefly with the 17 lbr was incredibly effective.  The speed and mobility of the Fireflies was much greater than that of the Churchills and most other British tanks at the time.  The British had the advantage of all of that fighting in the Sahara prior to the United States entering the war to learn some things.  The early war British armor doctrine was much like ours for the majority of the war.  We had to learn the same lessons, but we started a bit later.  

As far as the Diesel vs. Gasoline argument, of course diesel is better, but we were suffering enough logistical problems in 1944 without adding another fuel to the mix.  The mulberries were heavily damaged in storms and many of the European port cities were not able to accept supplies for quite a long time.  By September, the Allies chose to supply the British Army under Montgomery in Operation Market Garden due to a lack of fuel, ammo, and other expendables.  The Red Ball Express just couldn't keep up.  Although the Pershing would have been very nice, it would have been difficult to keep it in the fight due to the increased logistical demand.

In addition, the M4 was never intended to be a tank-killer.  It was an infantry support tank.  The M10 Wolverine and M18 Hellcat were the tank killers.  The M10 started life with the 76mm anti aircraft gun as its main gun.  I don't recall the M18's gun off the top of my head and I'm too lazy to look it up.  The Germans had difficulty imagining the speed of these tank destroyers advance.  I've talked to M10 commanders who literally pulled to the end of a Luftwaffe runway and shot aircraft trying to take off to escape the Allied advance.

For all of the logistical and manufacturing wonders the United States managed during WW-II, there are lots of things we fail to remember sometimes.  The USA had an almost 100% dependence on German optical glass for the M3 Lee/Grant series and this also impacted tank production.  By 1943, we had lines producing domestic optical glass in quantity, but I don't think we ever reached the level of quality of the pre-war glass.  That's just an example off the top of my head.

Also, remember, in the 1950s, we fought the Korean conflict with essentially the same equipment as we did WW-II.  The M4A3s performed very well in Korea, as well.  The M26 was not able to traverse a lot of the terrain that the M4 could manage, so although it was a better tank on paper, it could not always get to the fight.  The M4 could get anywhere it needed to be, and actually performed well against the T34s the Inmun Gun (North Korean Peoples' Army) had.

In conclusion, the M4 performed quite admirably against most medium tanks (tanks in its same class).  The German Mk IV was  the comparable German tank.  To compare the M4 to the Mk VI or Mk V German tanks is a dishonest comparison.  If there is any fault to be found in this discussion, it's that the United States did not produce a heavy tank until the end of the war.  The Tiger was a heavy tank.  The Churchill was a heavy tank.  The KV-85 the Russians had was a Heavy Tank.

The Sherman was a good, if not exemplary, medium tank.

Cheers,

kk7sm

Edited to fix my darned typos!

I don't recall the M18's gun off the top of my head and I'm too lazy to look it up.

It was a 76mm gun as well.  Major advantage to the M18 was its speed; top speed of 55 MPH.

Quoted: Quoted: A while back on TV I saw a Army armor General saying that the reason we went with the Sherman tank was that we didn’t have a larger engine at the time (I guess in adequate quantities). Never heard that before and I haven’t a clue if it’s true. . I read in a book once that at least one American tank used a radial engine instead of an automotive or truck engine.

The M3 Lee/Grant and the M3 Stuart both had radial engines the M5 Stuart did not did not because of high demand for radial engines for aircraft.

Quoted: Interesting fact;  The M26 Pershing was ready for production in early 1944. It was as good as and in some ways better than a Tiger. When they did reach the front in 1945 they totally PoWn3d the German armor they ran up against. So why was it not produced in time for D Day? The Generals thought WWII would be over by Christmas 1944 and decided they did not want to interupt production of the Sherman. In hindsight it was a fatally flawed decison. ANdy

There were MANY decisions made by the US Army Ordinance Board- and then later by Tank/Automotive Command- that were criminal, and killed literally thousands of US soldiers.

The decision to standardize on gasolne instead of diesel fuel (Nearly all the Detroit 6-71 engined Shermans went to the USMC, England, or Russia).
The decison to build a inferior 76mm gun instead of copying the 17pdr, like we had already copied the 6pdr for the infantry.
The decision to build the inferior APCR/HVAP type tungstin cored shell for our 76mm guns instead of the superior British developed APDS round.
Delaying work on the Pershing.
Since they did insist on keeping gasoline as a tank fuel, the failure to then copy the British and adapt the Packard Merlin as a tanke engine- or if Packard couldn't meet demand adapt the Allison V-12 in the same manner.
If they absolutely HAD to delay the Pershing, then the failure to make more of the heavy armored Jumbo Shermans.

Even when the Pershing WAS built it WAS very underpowered, its performance was no better than the Tiger I because the Ford GAF was just a bored out version fo the GAA V-8 in the A3 Sherman.  It was no faster than the heavy armored Jumbo Sherman for that reason.  Without Sabot ammo its gun performance was also no better than the Tiger 1s short 88mm.

The M46 Patton- which only arrived in numbers in Korea- was nothing more than a Pershing with the air-cooled Continental flat-12, a purpose built tank engine that inexplicably took the entire length of the Second World War to develop and even then was still gasoline.

Fortunately the men who were junior officers in the Armor community in the winter of 44' eventually became Generals.  And thanks to Creighton Abrams and William Deorsby who had to live through this we have the M1 tank.  Which is the best in the world in EVERY performance catagory.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Fortunately the men who were junior officers in the Armor community in the winter of 44' eventually became Generals.  And thanks to Creighton Abrams and William Deorsby who had to live through this we have the M1 tank.  Which is the best in the world in EVERY performance catagory. And not forgetting General Welborn G Dolvin too... Recalling his experiences in WWII, General Dolvin recounted...."The main thing that really fried your ass, believe me, is you get in battle and you get the first hit and see it richochet off. And you know the big bastard is going to turn the turret around and the next one is going to go right through you. And that's discouraging. You need a gun. The fellow riding in the tank deserves to win if he gets the first hit. That's all there is to it." Quoted from 'King of the Killing Zone - the story of the M-1, America's Super Tank' by Orr Kelly. ISBN 0-425-12304-9

AH! Someone who also read King of the Killing Zone!
But I did forget General Dolvin.

That is a great book, and any one who ever questions WHY we keep those heavy diesel guzzling besties around, or do other wierd things we do- like why every Bradley has a TOW launcher when Warriors dont ect needs to take a look at that.

Oh I also forgot in my list to mention our failure to issue the 3.5in Bazooka during WWII when it was only a copy of Panzershreck and we actually had prototypes in this country.  And it was so easy to prodcue that in 1950 when we finally did build it to fight in Korea we got them into production in something like six weeks...

Hey guys remember it's not all about the tank, it's the crew too. How did Michal Whitmann destory over 130 tanks with so called unrealiable german crap? Otto Carius was another German panzer ace with over 80 or 90 kills, he survived the war even, you see him on the history channel sometimes.

Thing is, the crews knew the strong points and the low points of their machines, just the sherman had too many low points in battle that the crew didnt matter much. Sure you can drive a model T in the indy 500, but whats the point? Winning is all that matters, not if it is super realiable.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: A while back on TV I saw a Army armor General saying that the reason we went with the Sherman tank was that we didn’t have a larger engine at the time (I guess in adequate quantities). Never heard that before and I haven’t a clue if it’s true. . I read in a book once that at least one American tank used a radial engine instead of an automotive or truck engine. The M3 Lee/Grant and the M3 Stuart both had radial engines the M5 Stuart did not did not because of high demand for radial engines for aircraft.

The M5 Stuart used 2 (one for each track) Cadillac V-8's. There's an Army/Navy store not far from here that had one for sale, but the engines were missing.

Quoted: Quoted: I'd rather be in a Sherman than any German tank during the war in the west. No you woudn't... Talk to some tank veterans from WWII. They were known as 'Tommy Cookers' by the Germans because they caught fire so easily. And the knickname 'Ronsons' that their own crew also often used was from a Ronson lighter advert of the time..'Lights first time, every time'. Few things are more demoralising than going into action in a tank you know will not protect you and you know cannot knock out the enemy until you are well inside the range at which they can destroy you. If a Shermans was hit it either immidiatly blew up and killed all the crew, or the surviving crew had about 2 seconds to try and bail out of a very cramped tank before it went up in blazing inferno and incinerated them. Very few Sherman tank crews survived a hit prior to the Easy 8 model. German tanks were much harder to set on fire and much easier to bail out of. The far superior M26 Peshing was available for production in early 1944 but the Generals decided the war would be over by Christmas and did not order it into production until the war stalled in the latter part of 1944. ANdy

My grandfather's Sherman was hit in the Ardennes. He was the only one to get out alive and became a POW. The Sherman was toast. He will tell you that at any one time thier 5 tank squad was operating with 2-3 tanks max.

Ironically his tank turret was manufactured at the same plant he worked in before he joined the Army and was marked as such.

Quoted: Hey guys remember it's not all about the tank, it's the crew too. How did Michal Whitmann destory over 130 tanks with so called unrealiable german crap? Otto Carius was another German panzer ace with over 80 or 90 kills, he survived the war even, you see him on the history channel sometimes. Thing is, the crews knew the strong points and the low points of their machines, just the sherman had too many low points in battle that the crew didnt matter much. Sure you can drive a model T in the indy 500, but whats the point? Winning is all that matters, not if it is super realiable.

Tiger 1 and Panther were not THAT unreliable.  They WERE harder to maintain than either a Sherman or a T-34.  Guess what, historicaly the more advanced a machine is the more complicated it becomes.
Plus both had bad reputations left over from their first months of issue, since neither model was properly tested.

Tiger King WAS as unreliable as its reputation.  Guess what?  It weight the same as a M1A2 but was running on the same engine as Tiger 1 and Panther used- that then then had to squeeze for another 100 hp.

Something that you dont hear about but should?  Pershing was about as unreliable as Tiger- because the Ford V-8 it ran on was also too small for it.

The British got it right- though belatedly- when they built Centurion around a detuned Merlin.

Why the Germans failed to think of building the Tiger around the DB601/3/5 or why WE failed to put the V1710 Allison in the Pershing- who knows.

Ultimately the US Army DID get a good engine- the Continental Flat 12- which matched the Merlins power in a physically smaller package and was AIR COOLED allowing them to eliminate a vunlerable cooling system.  But it was a clear case of 'perfect being the enemy of good'.

the Comet's 77mm gun fired a shortened version of the 17pdr shell and was less effective.  Still, it was much better than the 75 mm that the Cromwell or Sherman had.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The British got it right- though belatedly- when they built Centurion around a detuned Merlin. quote] The detuned Merlin, called the Meteor was also used in the Cromwell, not a bad medium tank but it had the Shermans 75, and the Comet, it's much improved sucessor a very good medium tank with the 77mm aka 17lb gun. ANdy

Originally the Cromwell had the 6pdr.  They changed it to a British designed 75mm that would shoot the same round as the US 75mm in order to have "commonality" in preperation for the Normandy invasion.  And it had a bigger HE round.

That was a mistake.

Because the 6pdr with APDS could knock out any German tank except King Tiger and Jagdtiger at 1000m

The Tiger could kill a Cromwell at 2000m but thats not as bad as it sounds since in Normandy you could not SEE 2000m anywhere.

The 6pdr with APDS had better performance than the US 76mm with its HVAP(APCR) round.

One saving grace is the limited number of Cromwells with the 95mm Howitzer, whos HEAT and HESH rounds would kill anything but a King Tiger at any range. (The British invented the HESH round expressly for Overlord- it was intended to destroy reenforced concrete pillboxes, it was only accidentally found to be good at killing tanks.  The 95mm Close Support Howitzer fitted to some Cromwells and Churchills was the first gun to have a HESH round)

The few US 105mm Howizter armed Sherman 'Assault Guns' were in a similar position.

Or would be if HEAT rounds had not been so scarce in the US Army in 1944 that they had to be rationed.  A lot of times Sherman assault guns in the US army had no anti-armor ammo whatsoever.

The 77mm gun, with its short breach designed to fit in the small Cromwell-sized turret ring, had roughly the same performance with full bore APCBC rounds as the US 76mm gun.  But the UK made APDS for it, which gave it 50 percent greater range against Panther and Tiger I than the US tank with its HVAP 12-1300meters against only 800m.