User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/26/2018 10:46:08 PM EDT
 Myths of American Armor. TankFest Northwest 2015 Good video by our resident ARFCOMMER, who is an actual Tank expert. The M4 Sherman was a better tank than what you've probably been told by watching TV show documentaries about Tanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2018 11:35:54 PM EDT
[#1]
My uncle served under Patton in Africa and Italy as a tank driver and was much more impressed by the German Panther.
Of course, he was on the wrong end of the thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2018 11:39:05 PM EDT
[#2]
I am not an armor aficionado, but I agree. The History channel likes to characterize the Sherman as a little rinky dink tank, and does the opposite about the awesome and almost invincible Tiger. I feel like (and again, I don’t pretend to be an expert) the Sherman, especially the Firefly variant, was a very respectable tank. On the other end, the Tiger was never made in large enough numbers, and what few were made were only occasionally operational.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2018 11:39:25 PM EDT
[#3]
The history channel made it seem like the strategy was the crews in the first 3 of 4 tanks was to commit suicide in hopes that the fourth can sneak around back of the German before he gets done killing his friends.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2018 11:57:24 PM EDT
[#4]
This video has been posted before. He's quite convincing. The shermans was exactly the tank we needed for the overwhelming bulk of the fighting, much of which was infantry support. Even though it was out gunned and out armored by the panthers and tigers it still had less trouble with them than you would think.
The other thing a lot of people don't realize is that the TD's we fielded played a bigger role than you hear about. We made over 40,000 shermans of all types but we also make almost 10,000 of the various TDs. They did pretty much everything the tanks did with thinner armor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 12:04:22 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This video has been posted before. He's quite convincing. The shermans was exactly the tank we needed for the overwhelming bulk of the fighting, much of which was infantry support. Even though it was out gunned and out armored by the panthers and tigers it still had less trouble with them than you would think. The other thing a lot of people don't realize is that the TD's we fielded played a bigger role than you hear about. We made over 40,000 shermans of all types but we also make almost 10,000 of the various TDs. They did pretty much everything the tanks did with thinner armor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 12:16:19 AM EDT
[#6]
We do this subject almost regularly, OP.
One thing I've always wanted to ask The Chieftain is this: Does his "Shermans knocked out" number only include total losses, or does it included "knocked out and repaired"? The only time a Sherman was considered a total loss was if the tank burned enough to weaken the armor or if the turret ring in the hull was irreparably damaged. Shermans were "knocked out" and repaired all the time, often after the remains of the crew were scraped out/removed. I have much respect for Nicolas Moran as an historian, but there are/were a shitload of Sherman crewman who had little to no faith in their vehicles. I tend to believe first-hand accounts more than Johnny-come-latelies with an ax to grind. Why does he treat "official Army" reports as Gospel? Do you? The absolute best thing about the Sherman tank is that when the M-1 tank was being developed, the Officers in charge had mostly all been junior Armor leaders in WWII. They ABSOLUTELY refused to field a tank that was as crappy against the Germans as their Shermans were. Tell me, Arfcom….would the M-1 be the tank it is if the guys who designed it thought the Sherman was a superior tank? Seriously, guys, tell me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 12:17:24 AM EDT
[#7]
Still at odds with the armor penetration tables. (Facts).
Basically every German tank and anti tank gun from 1943 onwards can kill a Sherman at 2,000 yards. Some versions of the 88 can do it from 3,000 yards. Sherman has to get close to kill most German armor with a frontal shot. Not happening against a Panther or Tiger. Funny how none of the guys who were actually there talked about how good a Sherman was, on either side for that matter. At the end of the day America could make more Shermans than Germany could make 88mm shells. German armor was destroyed by: 1). German lack of gas 2). German lack of spares 3). Allied tactical air strikes 4). Allied heavy artillery America could have still rolled up the German armor without any tanks at all. Before someone brings up the 17 pounder, that was like having a .300 Win Mag made by BSA with Russian Tula ammo, topped with a Chinese made BSA scope. It was NOT accurate and the optics sucked. The 75mm on the Panther was like a .300 RUM with match ammo with a Schmidt & Bender scope. The Sherman sucked. It’s funny this topic has only come up recently when people feel it politically expedient. Mean Nazis can’t possibly make better stuff. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 12:30:21 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Still at odds with the armor penetration tables. (Facts). Basically every German tank and anti tank gun from 1943 onwards can kill a Sherman at 2,000 yards. Some versions of the 88 can do it from 3,000 yards. Sherman has to get close to kill most German armor with a frontal shot. Not happening against a Panther or Tiger. Funny how none of the guys who were actually there talked about how good a Sherman was, on either side for that matter. At the end of the day America could make more Shermans than Germany could make 88mm shells. German armor was destroyed by: 1). German lack of gas 2). German lack of spares 3). Allied tactical air strikes 4). Allied heavy artillery America could have still rolled up the German armor without any tanks at all. Before someone brings up the 17 pounder, that was like having a .300 Win Mag made by BSA with Russian Tula ammo, topped with a Chinese made BSA scope. It was NOT accurate and the optics sucked. The 75mm on the Panther was like a .300 RUM with match ammo with a Schmidt & Bender scope. The Sherman sucked. It's funny this topic has only come up recently when people feel it politically expedient. Mean Nazis can't possibly make better stuff. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 12:32:18 AM EDT
[#9]
My dad's older brother commanded M4's in France and Germany. They were great for infantry support, what they were designed for. Against Tigers, Panthers and anti-tank weapons they were flaming coffins. My uncle had 4 or 5 tanks knocked out from under him, crew killed and injured. He said many of the German rounds, the 88's, went right through the tank and exploded outside opposite where they hit. The Spaulding is what did the damage inside to both men and the tank. They ran from Tigers, period. He told us of a short battle where a Tiger took on 8 Sherman's and won. His tank was decorated as the first allied tank across the Rhine. Fighting with Patton was simple. Load your tank with all the fuel and ammo you could and drive that way until you ran out or were too shot up to proceed. It must have been hell. He did not talk about it much. He is at peace now, buried in a small country cemetery along side his wife. He was the best.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 12:35:44 AM EDT
[#10]
The Jumbo is pretty cool, and the firefly.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 12:38:29 AM EDT
[#11]
The pre-internet History channel has in retrospect done SO MUCH to fuck up peoples perceptions on the effectiveness of US military equipment, while at the same time promoted unrealistic views of effectiveness of foreign military equipment.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 12:45:03 AM EDT
[#12]
I've seen that video several times before and he makes a compelling case.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 12:48:07 AM EDT
[#13]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 12:55:14 AM EDT
[#14]
My understanding is that it was good for what it was designed to do, which was not being an AT/MBT. At non-AT/MBT things, it did well, and did reasonably well against Pz2, Pz3, and early gen Pz4. And got smoked in non-combined arms tactics against other tanks, but that played into other armies' strengths anyways.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 1:31:43 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Still at odds with the armor penetration tables. (Facts). Basically every German tank and anti tank gun from 1943 onwards can kill a Sherman at 2,000 yards. Some versions of the 88 can do it from 3,000 yards. Sherman has to get close to kill most German armor with a frontal shot. Not happening against a Panther or Tiger. Funny how none of the guys who were actually there talked about how good a Sherman was, on either side for that matter. At the end of the day America could make more Shermans than Germany could make 88mm shells. German armor was destroyed by: 1). German lack of gas 2). German lack of spares 3). Allied tactical air strikes 4). Allied heavy artillery America could have still rolled up the German armor without any tanks at all. Before someone brings up the 17 pounder, that was like having a .300 Win Mag made by BSA with Russian Tula ammo, topped with a Chinese made BSA scope. It was NOT accurate and the optics sucked. The 75mm on the Panther was like a .300 RUM with match ammo with a Schmidt & Bender scope. The Sherman sucked. It’s funny this topic has only come up recently when people feel it politically expedient. Mean Nazis can’t possibly make better stuff. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 2:20:22 AM EDT
[#16]
Despite the gun being able to penetrate the frontal armor of the Sherman much farther out than the Sherman could reply; you needed to be well trained and practiced to make such a shot.
Such training and practice was getting thin on the ground by the time Sherman was seeing a lot of Tiger and Panther. The most common German tank was the Panzer IV, and even with the up-armoring it was getting by the H model the Sherman's gun could take it at ranges where hits were likely to happen. Never mind that the M4 gunner had much better situational awareness than the gunner on the German tanks. We gave the gunner a nice wide angle view periscope in addition to the sight zeroed to the gun. The German tanks have soda straw fields of view and did a lot of slewing around. They were scary because they were opposing an advance from cover and ambush. Getting in the first shot, regardless of result, will tend to skew the results in your favor because the guy being shot at is rattled from then on and in a hurry to shoot back. I love how everyone forgets who won this war. Don't let "Fury" be your guide to how tank warfare in WW2 was conducted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 4:35:28 AM EDT
[#17]
Was watching a WWII tank video. When asked how his Tiger was destroyed by a Sherman, he replied "I ran out of ammo before they ran out of Shermans".
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 4:49:49 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We do this subject almost regularly, OP. One thing I've always wanted to ask The Chieftain is this: Does his "Shermans knocked out" number only include total losses, or does it included "knocked out and repaired"? The only time a Sherman was considered a total loss was if the tank burned enough to weaken the armor or if the turret ring in the hull was irreparably damaged. Shermans were "knocked out" and repaired all the time, often after the remains of the crew were scraped out/removed. I have much respect for Nicolas Moran as an historian, but there are/were a shitload of Sherman crewman who had little to no faith in their vehicles. I tend to believe first-hand accounts more than Johnny-come-latelies with an ax to grind. Why does he treat "official Army" reports as Gospel? Do you? The absolute best thing about the Sherman tank is that when the M-1 tank was being developed, the Officers in charge had mostly all been junior Armor leaders in WWII. They ABSOLUTELY refused to field a tank that was as crappy against the Germans as their Shermans were. Tell me, Arfcom….would the M-1 be the tank it is if the guys who designed it thought the Sherman was a superior tank? Seriously, guys, tell me. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 9:10:37 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This matches my grandfather's analysis. He drank himself to death, mostly from the shit he experienced in Korea (task force Smith...) and he had absolute hate for the Sherman and respect for the T34 (faced them in Korea). He was artillery (and said the tank was treated like mobile artillery and real gun tubes did a much better job), battlefield commissioned in WW2 and did north Africa, Italy and the invasion via southern France to get to Germany. Experts can have their opinions, he had his. RIP Percy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 9:16:37 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sherman Easy Eights enjoyed about a 2.5 to 1 kill ratio advantage over T-34/85's in Korea. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 9:24:31 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Still at odds with the armor penetration tables. (Facts). Basically every German tank and anti tank gun from 1943 onwards can kill a Sherman at 2,000 yards. Some versions of the 88 can do it from 3,000 yards. Sherman has to get close to kill most German armor with a frontal shot. Not happening against a Panther or Tiger. Funny how none of the guys who were actually there talked about how good a Sherman was, on either side for that matter. At the end of the day America could make more Shermans than Germany could make 88mm shells. German armor was destroyed by: 1). German lack of gas 2). German lack of spares 3). Allied tactical air strikes 4). Allied heavy artillery America could have still rolled up the German armor without any tanks at all. Before someone brings up the 17 pounder, that was like having a .300 Win Mag made by BSA with Russian Tula ammo, topped with a Chinese made BSA scope. It was NOT accurate and the optics sucked. The 75mm on the Panther was like a .300 RUM with match ammo with a Schmidt & Bender scope. The Sherman sucked. It’s funny this topic has only come up recently when people feel it politically expedient. Mean Nazis can’t possibly make better stuff. They also didn’t think much of the American tanks. Called them “Ronsons” or “Tommy Cooker”. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 9:26:08 AM EDT
[#22]
The definitive book on US tank development in WW Ii is "Faint Praise", by Charles Bailey. Unfortunately it is out of print. To understand US tank development and procurement, you have to understand the interactions between Army Ground Forces (Gen Mcnair), its subordinate cammand, the Armored Force, and Army Ordnance az well as US tank and tank destroyer doctrine.
Bottom line is the available replacements for the M4 (T20 series) would have been at best a marginal improvement and in Army Ground Force's opinion did not warrant the resources and effort to replace the M-4. In retrospect this was a sound decision. The Armored Force wanted the M-4 upgunned to 90mm, but AGF nixed that, reasoning that the M-36 TD was sufficient to get the 90mm into action. AGF also opposed deploying the M-26, but was overruled directly by General Marshal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 9:59:59 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The absolute best thing about the Sherman tank is that when the M-1 tank was being developed, the Officers in charge had mostly all been junior Armor leaders in WWII. They ABSOLUTELY refused to field a tank that was as crappy against the Germans as their Shermans were. Tell me, Arfcom.would the M-1 be the tank it is if the guys who designed it thought the Sherman was a superior tank? Seriously, guys, tell me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 10:06:35 AM EDT
[#24]
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 10:12:02 AM EDT
[#25]
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? Stugg IIIg gets murdered as it has no turret TigerII never makes it out of the motor pool I'll take a mix of M10s/Sherman's, attached infantry support, with air and artillery to prep the Germans. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 10:15:13 AM EDT
[#26]
The Sherman got the job done.
Unlike the Germans we had plenty of replacement troops, air superiority, fuel and ammunition for our units. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 10:16:18 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
but there are/were a shitload of Sherman crewman who had little to no faith in their vehicles. I tend to believe first-hand accounts more than Johnny-come-latelies with an ax to grind. . (2) You should do the opposite in fact. First hand accounts, especially of something as stressful as combat, are generally utter shit. Take all the usual garbage you get from eyewitnesses (plenty of studies on that) and toss in all the mental stress of combat. Easy example: My grandfather was an Anglico who went ashore with the second wave at Inchon at Blue Beach attached to A/1/1. He remembered watching 2/5 Marines take Wolmi-do. To his dying day he could not remember the tide going out and having to sit and wait hours between when 2/5 went ashore and when he did. It made him very upset but he was dead certain, despite all the books and accounts and everything showing it did, that it did not happen. The easy explanation for it was that he was a scared 19 or 20 year old kid about to make his first amphibious assault and was too busy worrying about doing his job and not dying to pay attention to the details. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 10:18:27 AM EDT
[#28]
While do people always bring up the tiger? Only 1,300 were made. Meanwhile the were 8000 Panzer iv and 10000 stugs made.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 10:23:39 AM EDT
[#29]
The Sherman wasn't near par with the German tanks until the M4A3E2 and M4A3E8 The Pershing was the real answer to German Armor, but it came too late.
The Sherman was a medium tank, not a heavy tank. The German's medium tank, the Panzer 4 still outgunned the Sherman due to having a high-velocity gun versus the early Sherman's short, low velocity cannon. The Sherman was an infantry support tank, and the M10 and M18 were the tank destroyers ( and pretty good ones). |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 10:24:53 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Tiger and Panther both break down on the way, you get killed by your own air support. Stugg IIIg gets murdered as it has no turret TigerII never makes it out of the motor pool I'll take a mix of M10s/Sherman's, attached infantry support, with air and artillery to prep the Germans. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 10:27:23 AM EDT
[#31]
The Sherman burned as easily as the German and Soviet tanks did, at least in the first years of its use.
However, inspection of the burned out tanks often showed they still had full tanks of fuel. It wasn't the fuel (petrol not diesel) that was burning it was the ammo. By 1944 we were fielding wet ammo storage containers that greatly reduced the risk. The Germans and Soviets didn't and they still burned fiercely after a penetration. If you need proof look at the famous video of the Pershing smoking the Panther. Hell, the Soviets still haven't improved their ammo storage. Their autoloader carousel-o-death is largely to blame for every one of their s#$tty tanks having the pop-a-top feature. But anyway, back on the subject...f$%k Belton Cooper! His drivel and the History Channel's constant reuse of his pathetic interviews are largely to blame for the bad status of the M-4. British Historians are to blame as well...their pride won't let them admit that without America, Lend-Lease, or our basically providing everything they need to fight they would have failed. The M-4 was vastly superior in all aspects to any contemporary British tank. Brit Historians are also to blame for the rampant popularization of the world's worst tank, the T-34. Its funny how we see the T-34 as unbeatable, but the lucky Soviet Ivans who got Shermans vastly preferred them to their own homebrew wunderwaffe. The T-34 was, is, and will be hot garbage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 10:39:58 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Spaulding is what did the damage inside to both men and the tank. 
The word you are looking for is spalling. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 10:45:51 AM EDT
[#33]
The term is Spalling.....
Bunch a non Tankin Beotch's…. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 10:47:12 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Still at odds with the armor penetration tables. (Facts). Basically every German tank and anti tank gun from 1943 onwards can kill a Sherman at 2,000 yards. Some versions of the 88 can do it from 3,000 yards. Sherman has to get close to kill most German armor with a frontal shot. Not happening against a Panther or Tiger. Funny how none of the guys who were actually there talked about how good a Sherman was, on either side for that matter. At the end of the day America could make more Shermans than Germany could make 88mm shells. German armor was destroyed by: 1). German lack of gas 2). German lack of spares 3). Allied tactical air strikes 4). Allied heavy artillery America could have still rolled up the German armor without any tanks at all. Before someone brings up the 17 pounder, that was like having a .300 Win Mag made by BSA with Russian Tula ammo, topped with a Chinese made BSA scope. It was NOT accurate and the optics sucked. The 75mm on the Panther was like a .300 RUM with match ammo with a Schmidt & Bender scope. The Sherman sucked. It’s funny this topic has only come up recently when people feel it politically expedient. Mean Nazis can’t possibly make better stuff. The Sherman did not suck. Its was a solidly well built tank that in numbers performed well. The Panther was delicate and fragile..even glowed at night on early versions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 10:51:34 AM EDT
[#35]
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 10:52:17 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This matches my grandfather's analysis. He drank himself to death, mostly from the shit he experienced in Korea (task force Smith...) and he had absolute hate for the Sherman and respect for the T34 (faced them in Korea). He was artillery (and said the tank was treated like mobile artillery and real gun tubes did a much better job), battlefield commissioned in WW2 and did north Africa, Italy and the invasion via southern France to get to Germany. Experts can have their opinions, he had his. RIP Percy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 10:54:36 AM EDT
[#37]
My uncle drove one under Patton through France and into Germany, same tank never got hit. He liked the tank but hated 88s. He said the crack from them was horrible to hear.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 10:56:07 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
T34 was better with it's slopped armor. If we would have fought Russia after WW2, we would've needed something better. 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 10:56:35 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
T34 was better with it's slopped armor. If we would have fought Russia after WW2, we would've needed something better. 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 10:58:30 AM EDT
[#40]
Also remember that every American tanker that complains about their Sherman being knocked out by german guns is still here to tell the story.
IIRC that was a lot less common with the Soviet and German tanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 11:02:26 AM EDT
[#41]
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 And the Sherman burned about the same as a Panzer 4, T-34, or just about any of its contemporaries...until the "wet" storage of ammunition cut that rate dramatically. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 11:05:58 AM EDT
[#42]
I think it might depend on theater of operation....
 Failed To Load Title |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 11:06:13 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By famous copypasta:
I heard that the U.S. Ordnance Department was aware of the Sherman being a 'Tommy Cooker', and attempted to implement various measures to address this issue. The design team was lead by Sheldon Rosenstein, a convicted child-beater, arsonist, and avid necrophiliac. Sheldon was reportedly pen-pals with Shiro Ishii, and Oskar Dirlewanger. When questioned about these letters outgoing to hostile countries, Sheldon replied that he was merely exchanging 'tips and tricks'. Sheldon's team designed a mechanism that would lock the crew hatches shut, thus trapping the crew, when smoke was detected inside the sherman after being penetrated and set alight. Not only that, but apparently there was also a following feature that was a re-take on the Brazen Bull. When the crew was burning to death, their screams would be amplified by speakers that projected outside the tank. The U.S. Ordnance Department justified these features by proclaiming that the Germans would be frightened by the hellish screams of the sherman crews being incinerated, and allied soldiers would be more motivated to fight hard, lest the same fate befall them. Sheldon also later devised a system that had a 1 in 59 chance of setting off an explosive charge in the ammunition storage every time the Sherman's engine was turned on. Supposedly, this was to 'test the crew's luck before battle'. This innovation was well-received by the U.S. Army, but was rejected for budgetary reasons. Upon receiving news of the Army's rejection, Sheldon bludgeoned his manservant to death with a fire iron in a fit of unstoppable rage. Years after the war, Sheldon tragically died in a fire, which he had started in a New York orphanage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 11:07:24 AM EDT
[#44]
This is one of those threads where I cant decide if half the posters are trolling or serious...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 11:07:47 AM EDT
[#45]
So, is Op saying that the Sherman tank was better than the German Tiger tank?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 11:09:32 AM EDT
[#46]
Nah fuck that we needed the Pershing on D day
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 11:11:12 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, is Op saying that the Sherman tank was better than the German Tiger tank? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 11:16:11 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Agree with everything except the Stug 3...it was the best self propelled gun of the war and had one of the best kill ratios. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Tiger and Panther both break down on the way, you get killed by your own air support. Stugg IIIg gets murdered as it has no turret TigerII never makes it out of the motor pool I'll take a mix of M10s/Sherman's, attached infantry support, with air and artillery to prep the Germans. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 11:17:13 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
While do people always bring up the tiger? Only 1,300 were made. Meanwhile the were 8000 Panzer iv and 10000 stugs made. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 11:17:26 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Was watching a WWII tank video. When asked how his Tiger was destroyed by a Sherman, he replied "I ran out of ammo before they ran out of Shermans". The Guy in the video has actual battlefield data that was recorded. Not some bs "war stories" which as we know today that eyewitness accounts are terrible. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
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.
