Tanks

[KgB]

Originally posted by E25280
"American tanks stand up better under anti-tank fire than the Russian. . . Firepower, good visibility, and good armor are also qualities of our tanks."
 

You killing me.
If turret stuck at 11 o clock(took a hit or something else happened),driver could not get out,the door was right under the gun barrel.
I believe there was an incident when single panzer knocked out 8 British Shermans.
good tanks there were,indeed

[Karnak]

Originally posted by E25280
By 1944 the Germans were crushing formations of T-34s with relative ease -- when they had armor available.  Not surprisingly, then, they were also crushing the Shermans.  I contend the reputation of the T-34 was built up by its early successes in late 41 and 42 before German armor "caught up".  The Sherman's reputation was set in 1944 when facing already up-gunned German tanks.  IMO, both were good tanks, but neither deserves their reputation, one high and one low.

I agree, which is why I still maintain that the T-34/85 should have been the one added to AH, not the inadequate T-34/76.  The T-34/85 would hardly be a wonder weapon, it would just be solidly competitive with the Panzer IV H and able to face the Tiger I from a position of disadvantage, but with the hope of victory.

[Billy Joe Bob]

its ONLY the worlds largest tank ever.....
THE MAUS!!!!

[E25280]

Originally posted by KgB
You killing me.
If turret stuck at 11 o clock(took a hit or something else happened),driver could not get out,the door was right under the gun barrel.
I believe there was an incident when single panzer knocked out 8 British Shermans.
good tanks there were,indeed

Given the lack of head-to-head experience of US vs Russian tanks pre-Korea, it seems logical and valid to me to use the impressions of the enemy that faced both to compare relative strengths and weaknesses.  

I think the whole report, rather than an article written about the report, would probably shed additional light.  Unfortunately, the article only refers to it as the 1st Division G-2 report.  (For anyone who may not know, G-2 is just the intelligence section).  The only other clue is that it says the compiled report was distributed to subordinate commands on October 21, 1944.  I personally lack the patience to try to dig up the report through an internet search, and so will just stick with what the article says.

As for the 8 tank kills by a single panzer:  There were plenty of instances where single German tanks knocked out a large number of Shermans.  There are just as many instances of German tanks destroying slews of Russian T-34s.  There is also an instance during the seige at Bastonge where 2 M-10s and a battery of pak-75 howitzers knocked out 14 German MkIV tanks.  None of these really speak to the relative strengths of the tanks themselves, only that it is possible to run up a large number of kills if the situation is correct.

Turret sticking at 11o'clock -- I suppose this would stop the driver from bailing from his top hatch.  He also had full access to the rest of the crew compartment and all the other hatches as a result.  Not sure what this has to do with the overall quality of the tank, but I guess it would concern me if I was the driver.

So in the absence of contradictory evidence, I will stand by my original assessment.  Sorry if it made you roll your eyes, kgb, it's just the way I see it.  Feel free to disagree.

Best Regards,

[frank3]

Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob
its ONLY the worlds largest tank ever.....
THE MAUS!!!!

o











m



















g

[KgB]

Originally posted by E25280

So in the absence of contradictory evidence, I will stand by my original assessment.  Sorry if it made you roll your eyes, kgb, it's just the way I see it.  Feel free to disagree.

Best Regards,

Oh there is plenty of contradictory evidence:)
Did Germans use Shermans?
I know they used t34's
What wast the nick name of Sherman,i thunk Germans called them "Firecracker" or something,single hit was enough to set it on fire

[E25280]

Did Germans use Shermans?

After Operation Goodwood, the Germans captured enough Shermans to equip an entire company (and did).

The West Front was not nearly as fluid as the East Front, so the opportunity to capture US armor was less than the opportunity on the East front.

I wouldn't judge much from the fact the Germans used the armor after capturing it.  The Germans used captured French tanks as well.  By late '44 they were desperate for any servicable armor they could lay their hands on and would probably have used anything they could find ammunition and fuel for.

I agree, the Sherman did have a reputation for catching fire.  It used gasoline as a fuel, which caused fires much more readily than German or Russian tanks which were usually diesels.  By 1944, a single hit from a German panzer could also take out a T-34, the absence of fire notwithstanding.  If that is your primary definition of what makes a good tank or a bad tank, then I would agree with you.  It isn't my primary consideration.  (I think the Sherman by late 44 had undergone several modifications that delayed the onset of a fire, thus giving the crew time to bail -- exactly what escapes me at the moment.  I will have to research it and post on it later.)