| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Type941
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 1311
Location: U-52
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:23 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
i doubt what they were up against were some elite T34s! I think by Korea russians had some much better battle tanks.
We haven't even adressed the fact that Sherman was such a juicy target, with such a high profile. That can't be cureb by upgrade, neither can the inferior suspension.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bradclark1
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Posts: 1007
Location: Connecticut, USA.
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 1:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Type941 wrote: | I find it still a bit puzzling why americans insist sherman was such a great tank, guys stop being subjective. It was a good fast light tank but nothing else. Only necessary modifacations made it better. it was also very poor on cross country and against anti tank traps (like rails stuck into ground). Hard to argue with blind patriotism really.  |
The Sherman was a piece of crap for a "Tank". It was superior in reliability and simplicity but as a tank killer it sucked. You read just about any American infantry experiences in WW2 and more often then not when they were up against german armor U.S. tanks high-tailed it. Lets face it I would too if I only stood a slim chance of not being destroyed.
Something like 40,000 Shermans were built. We won by numbers not by quality.
Last edited by bradclark1 on Mon Apr 10, 2006 1:46 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CCIP
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 3224
Location: Ottawa, Canada [Grid BA7311]
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 1:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's more the fact that it was the main tank unit and the Americans won. In the public mind, the association means that they won "by" this tank rather than "with" it.
That said, it's always true that it's not the tank but the crew that really counts. And there were some remarkable Sherman drivers, too  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bradclark1
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Posts: 1007
Location: Connecticut, USA.
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CCIP wrote: | | That said, it's always true that it's not the tank but the crew that really counts. And there were some remarkable Sherman drivers, too |
That being said it only goes so far.
I don't know of any American panzer aces. Who were they? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Abraham
Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 3313
Location: Amsterdam Holland
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 1:50 pm Post subject: Busting Tank Myths: T-34, M4, and MkIV Compared |
|
|
| TLAM Strike wrote: | | Type941 wrote: | | TLAM Strike wrote: | | IIRC the good old Sherman (the up gunned ones) did fairly well against the T-34/85s (Korea) and Pattons (Israel and India-Pakistan) in the 50s and 60s. That definitely says something about the Sherman. |
The good old sherman in Korea was not the one we are talking about - not the one in ww2. It had proper gun, etc. Comparing apples to oranges here mate. |
I did mention I was taking about the Upgraded ones. But it says a lot that the basic Sherman design that it could be upgraded and still be capable 30 years after they were built. |
Actually, "Super" Shermans with improved tracks, Continental diesel engines and a ridiculous long smooth bore French 105 mm gun were fighting in the Oct. 1973 Jom Kippur war against T-62's! More than thirty one years after their introduction on the battle field.
Today they can still be seen in the Israeli Armoured Corps Museum in Latrun (check The Avon Lady's website) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CCIP
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 3224
Location: Ottawa, Canada [Grid BA7311]
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 1:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bradclark1 wrote: | | CCIP wrote: | | That said, it's always true that it's not the tank but the crew that really counts. And there were some remarkable Sherman drivers, too |
That being said it only goes so far.
I don't know of any American panzer aces. Who were they? |
I think that's a fair statement though, but there's surely more to it than only the tank. The german panzer crews had been fighting for almost 5 years before 1944, and not always with prime equipment either.
There were men like Lafayette Pool though, give your guys some credit 
http://www.3ad.org/wwii_heroes/pool_lafayette/pool_home.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Type941
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 1311
Location: U-52
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wham. 100mm.   |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
STEED
Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 1671
Location: England
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Type941 wrote: |
Wham. 100mm. |
| Quote: | This prototype was a try to quickly get a tank with even more firepower than the T 34/85. The concept was the same as the invention of the T 34/85 but now this very model was the prototype for the new one. A heavy 100 mm gun was put on a hull from a T 34/85 that had a bigger turret, and that was it. Unfortunately the result wasn't quite the same success as model before, and the prototype was not developed further. The heavier guns had to stay on the heavy tanks, especially the new magnificent JS 3 that was developed at about the same time.
|
Opps a little to big never mind. Interesting prototype never the less makes you wonder. :hmm: |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Type941
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 1311
Location: U-52
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
did IS 3 (JS3) ever fight in WW2? seems like a perfect predecessor of russian classic main battle tank.
If I remember right, they just showed them at victory parade in berlin in 45.
Monster!
Last edited by Type941 on Mon Apr 10, 2006 3:42 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
STEED
Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 1671
Location: England
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | By the end of 1944 IS-2 was developed an improved into the model IS-3. Thicker armour but did not weigh more. Automatic smokethrowers. "Mother" of modern tank designs. If the IS-3 reached frontal units in 1945 is questionable. Modernised (M-version) until 1952 due to engine troubles and out of service at the end of the 1950s. Its well-designed turret made it harder to knock out. The frontal plate had no openings for visors, and the driver was seated directly below the turret. A handful were exported to Egypt, Czechoslovakia and Poland. Nickname: "Pike". |
IS4 & IS5 were prototypes around 1944/45 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Torpedo Fodder
Joined: 02 Aug 2003
Posts: 1224
Location: Whitby, Ontario
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| After the 100mm-gunned T-34 prototype was deemed unviable for service, the Soviets decided that if they wanted a 100mm-gunned medium tank, they'd have to build a new design, and so the T-44 was was born. Based on cancelled pre-war plans for an advanced T-34M, the T-44 had a similar turret design to the T-34/85, but an all-new, more heavily armored hull. The T-44's hull design was later used for the T-54/T-55 series. The T-44 never saw action, and it had numerous mechanical problems, so much that production was actualy halted before T-34/85 production, and only 2,000 were built. In the end, both tanks were replaced in production by the T-54, although the T-44s were later upgraded to the mechanical and fire control standards of the T-55 and remained in service until the mid '70s. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
STEED
Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 1671
Location: England
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Don't forget about this one -
| Quote: | | Based upon the T-34/85 the T-44 appeared in 1944. The low design was revolutionary and its new transversial transmission. Early machines proved to be unreliable. Production: 1944 - 25, 1945 - 800. It saw limited front service in the war, and major production order was given in 1946. It was used only by the Soviet Army, and its combat record from the war is largely uncovered. They remained serving as training vehicles for recruits until 1963. The T-44 had the ID-mark: (like the followers T-54/55) a big gap between the first two wheels. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bradclark1
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Posts: 1007
Location: Connecticut, USA.
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yep. He qualifies as a panzer ace. Good to know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CCIP
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 3224
Location: Ottawa, Canada [Grid BA7311]
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 10:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bradclark1 wrote: |
Yep. He qualifies as a panzer ace. Good to know. |
I learned about him from playing a mission in Combat Mission, actually.
At the rist of over-stating - the Americans, like all others in the war, had their share of aces. I think the frequent post-war focus on German "uber-legends" is a bit skewed :hmm: |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neutrino 123
Joined: 04 Jul 2005
Posts: 52
Location: UCLA, Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Whoops, I forgot to mention the Sherman's high profile, making it an easier target. It also had a gyrostabilizer, which let is fire on the move better then other tanks. However, firing on the move was still an inferior method, so the gyrostabilizer was only useful sometimes.
| Type941 wrote: | Overall on balance T34 was the better tank. Faster to built, super light aluminum engine which was easy to maintain, it has the BEST gun when the war begun (others would catch up oh-so late) and it has the best suspension of all tanks throughout the whole war, not to mention superior cross country ability. Really, Sherman was only good because there were so many of them. Perhaps one on one, the late versions of Mk4 with more powerful guns were superior, but that doesn't really count when you can't get beyond 50km without refueling, or have no support from air.
|
The T-34 had the best milage, and the Sherman the worst, but the Sherman also carried more fuel, which made up for it on the tactical level, and the range was much more then 50km. The MkIV was between the Sherman and T-34 in both range and fuel consumption. The onwar site I linked to has details.
When the T-34 was designed, it was by far the best (it entered service well after the war began). When the Sherman was designed, it was adequate. However, the Sherman was designed later in the war. The actual abilities of the tanks are quite similar.
The MkIV had rather poor cross-country ability, but the Sherman had decent off road mobility. The late model Shermans had improved HVSS suspension, and excellent off-road ability on par with the late T-34s (which were actually worse off-road then the mid T-34s due to added weight from the new turret and gun).
| Type941 wrote: |
Really, the german tanks were all throughout the war:
- overweight
- underpowered
- unreliable
- fuel hungry
There really was no such thing as a sweeping mega fast German blitzkrieg machine.
|
You are thinking of the later German tanks. The early ones were less reliable then the Sherman and T-34, but were not overweight, underpowered (though they did have poor off-road ability due to small tracks), or fuel hungry.
There really was a fast sweeping German blitzkrieg machine. Poland, France, and Barbarossa are clear examples of this. The early German tanks had good road-movement ability, a useful component in a blitzkrieg (off-road comes in mainly in tactical situations). Remember, though, that the operational speed of mechanized units is corrolated with tank speed, but there are other factors. The panzer and motorized divisions were able to move fast enough to cause confusion behind enemy lines, and to surround units.
Also note that the operational speed of a 'fast' large unit would be considered quite slow compared to its individual vehicles.
| Type941 wrote: |
PS. German and Russian tanks were meant to fight other tanks. Sherman weren't. Hence so many changes had to be made to it to make it combat worthy against Germans.
|
This is true, and is one of the few mistakes that Patton made (he supported this concept). However, the U.S. forces were well-supplied with tank destroyers with 76.2mm guns (medium velocity), which could deal with the Tiger and Panther at shorter ranges. The tank destroyers were actually quite effective against enemy armor, but idiot commanders would often use them as tanks, resulting in additional losses (they had thin armor and open roof turrets - making them vulnerable to artillery and the lighter German AT weapons like the 50mm gun). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
