Author Topic: How about a Sherman Tank? (Read 5589 times)

Pongo · « **Reply #120 on:** November 09, 2004, 08:30:08 PM »

Arlo.
If they added a m4a3 75 with its stabilized gun..it would be a great tank in the game. It would just have lots of trouble killing Panzers and T34s at range. It would be a fabulous town destroyer and would be very resiliant to air attack.
So not a great anti tank tank. But in AH we can allways mix it in with friendly tigers and Panzer IVs, so who cares that it wont be the best tank dueling tank out there, it will certainly be the best base destroying tank out there.

Befor they add anymore tanks though. They have to fix it so that a T34 can instantly and always kill a Tiger with a tail shot from < 100 yards..
If the tiger gets out manuvered it has to pay the price..
Right now its kind of silly and has no basis in reality. I have seen 4-5 10 ft shots into a Tigers rear from a T34 and the tiger wasnt killed. That is just silly.

Shuckins · « **Reply #121 on:** November 09, 2004, 09:17:14 PM »

Grunherz,

The M4A1 had a maximum sustained top speed of 21 mph, with a short term top speed of 25 mph. The M-26's maximum sustained top speed was 25 mph, with a short term top speed of 30 mph.

Later models of the Sherman, specifically the M4A3, had a maximum sustained top speed of 26 mph, with a short term top speed of 30 mph.

It appears we were both right...and both wrong.

Yo Mama!

Regards, Shuckins/Leggern

humble · « **Reply #122 on:** November 10, 2004, 10:50:38 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Howitzer
Well it sounded like he was stating it from gathered information... was curious if anyone else had heard anything of the sort. It is also funny that you bring up the topic of the durability of the vehicles. Apparently according to Ambrose's facts around the August 44' time frame the panzer divisions were losing the majority of their vehicles to breakdowns due to overuse and poor durability. He specifically mentions the amount of miles the tracks were rated for compared to the shermans.

We don't have to deal with the whole durability thing in AH so maybe our views are different. But forget about the Sherman, bring us the King Tiger LOL

1st,

The sherman had a different track system (rubber instead of steel traction pins). This hampered them in many ways but provided longer lasting tracklife...also tracks were reversable.

2nd,

Germans didnt have any type of vehicle recovery system for either combat or breakdown. This resulted in two problems, all combat loses were final & vehicles werent systematically canibalized for parts. The US shermans broke down and died at a much higher rate but each combat command had an integrated recovery function. Damaged vehicles were either repaired or canabalized (often within 24 hours)....one instance I remember was 17 tanks "destroyed" were sent into action next day (with three man crews BTW) and 15 were dead again by 3PM. Average life expectancy of a sherman tank crew member in August of 1944 wasless than that of a luftwabble "baby seal"....

MiloMorai · « **Reply #123 on:** November 10, 2004, 11:15:55 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by humble

2nd,

Germans didnt have any type of vehicle recovery system for either combat or breakdown. This resulted in two problems, all combat loses were final & vehicles werent systematically canibalized for parts.

Might want to re-check that statement. Look for bergpanzer and Famo halftracks in your search.

Pongo · « **Reply #124 on:** November 10, 2004, 12:10:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by humble
2nd,

Germans didnt have any type of vehicle recovery system for either combat or breakdown. This resulted in two problems, all combat loses were final & vehicles werent systematically canibalized for parts. The US shermans broke down and died at a much higher rate but each combat command had an integrated recovery function. Damaged vehicles were either repaired or canabalized (often within 24 hours)....one instance I remember was 17 tanks "destroyed" were sent into action next day (with three man crews BTW) and 15 were dead again by 3PM. Average life expectancy of a sherman tank crew member in August of 1944 wasless than that of a luftwabble "baby seal"....

The germans had a phenominal tank recovery system. I dont know where you got an idea to the contrary.

Arlo · « **Reply #125 on:** November 18, 2004, 12:58:28 PM »

Perk the oddball variant (100 perkies). Plays loud music and shoots paint ... pretty pictures. Has a pipe stuck on the barrel. Make it just as easy to kill but give it a 10% hit bubble.

Just for fun, baby.

rshubert · « **Reply #126 on:** November 18, 2004, 03:01:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pongo
The germans had a phenominal tank recovery system. I dont know where you got an idea to the contrary.

Maybe humble was confused by the fact that you can't recover the vehicle if you don't own the ground. No tank recovery method works when you're retreating.

~~shubie~~

humble · « **Reply #127 on:** November 18, 2004, 04:45:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pongo
The germans had a phenominal tank recovery system. I dont know where you got an idea to the contrary.

It's actually very well documented that they did not have an integrated vehicle recovery doctrine. All US armoured divisions had a maintanence & recovery function integrated directly into each combat command that "harvested" damaged/disabled tanks on a daily basis. There was no such german equivelent doctrine on either front. Obviously it's tough to recover tanks when you lose the ground. However a significant number of shermans were recovered from active battlefields and the recovery teams were often under fire. The only reason the allies were able to win the ground war in europe was because of this systematic recovery. Allied tank loses exceeded 250% of the total number deployed in theater....so the "average" sherman was destroyed and reused 2.5 times.

The recovery system was so well run that crew loses were often the limiting factor. By late 1944 many crews had 1 or 2 infrantry conscripts and often tanks were sent into battle with 3 man crews. Obviously the germans had recovery vehicles and maintanence companys as well however they had no similiar operational doctrine. A great many damaged or disabled german tanks were simply left behind even when recovery was possible.

Karnak · « **Reply #128 on:** November 18, 2004, 04:52:38 PM »

The M-26 was faster than the M4 only on flat, hard surfaces and it did that with gear ratios. As soon as it came to climbing hills the M4 would easily out pace it. We use M60s in Korea now because it climbs hills better than the faster M1.

IIRC the slow bellybutton Churchill climbed hills faster than the M4 did. Speed on a flat road and actual combat speed are often two different things.

Grits · « **Reply #129 on:** November 18, 2004, 10:51:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
We use M60s in Korea now because it climbs hills better than the faster M1.

We use M60s in Korea because the M1 is better used elsewhere, like an active combat area. The Marines do like the M60 better though because its easier to haul around on ships.

Kurfürst · « **Reply #130 on:** November 19, 2004, 05:05:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by humble
It's actually very well documented that they did not have an integrated vehicle recovery doctrine. All US armoured divisions had a maintanence & recovery function integrated directly into each combat command that "harvested" damaged/disabled tanks on a daily basis. There was no such german equivelent doctrine on either front.

I am getting a VERY different reading on that from detailed histories on the Kursk battle, Normandy, and unit history of the 503rd heavy panzers..

In fact Rommel received practically no replacement tanks in Normandy, they had tanks only because of the the work of the tank recovery teams. That *they didn`t have the doctrine* stuff smells to me.

Angus · « **Reply #131 on:** November 19, 2004, 05:35:03 AM »

I know for a fact that the Germans did a very good job on tank repair/recovery under Rommel in N-Africa.

flakbait · « **Reply #132 on:** November 19, 2004, 06:42:27 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by humble
It's actually very well documented that they did not have an integrated vehicle recovery doctrine. All US armoured divisions had a maintanence & recovery function integrated directly into each combat command that "harvested" damaged/disabled tanks on a daily basis. There was no such german equivelent doctrine on either front.

Bull sneeze they didn't. 358 recovery tanks were modified from Pz IV, V and VI chassis from '43 to '45 at the factory. Plus every tank had tow rings and hawsers as standard equipment. If a recovery tank wasn't available, and someone was crazy enough, they'd tow the thing away under fire if need be. The Germans were very adept at recovering their tanks, repairing them, and getting them back into the fighting. Although they prefered to use enemy tanks as recovery tractors, or dedicated vehicles, they'd readily use a Panther or Tiger to drag a knocked-out tank back to a repair facility. Panzer Commander (Hans von Luck) and German Tanks of World War II (S & R Hart) are rife with examples of this. If needs be I can quote chapters from both books verbatim. Me thinks you haven't been reading much about German armor. If they left tanks behind it was generally for one of three reasons. Either it was damaged beyond repair (engine or gun hits), there wasn't enough time to grab it before being over-run, or they didn't have the fuel. In Normandy alone too many tanks took hard hits and required abandonment, simply because fixing it meant fighting back through enemy lines to grab the thing and tow it to the rear. The later in the war you go, the more abandoned tanks you'll find due to a lack of fuel. Donctrine had little to do with it. The Allies were advancing rapidly, Germany didn't have much fuel reserves after early '44, and it wasn't worth lives to tow back tanks you couldn't fuel or fix in time for the next attack. If there was a chance at recovering a Pather, PzIV, or Tiger they'd usually take it. If not? They'd abandon it, the same as any other army.

As for the original thread, I'd readily agree to a Firefly or an M4A3 Sherman. I'd also love a Hellcat for drag-racing and an M7B1 (M4 chassis) Priest for manned arty work. More exotic jobs, like the M42, Wirblewind, and IS-2, would be fun too. I just don't see a real need for 'em.

-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]

humble · « **Reply #133 on:** November 19, 2004, 08:25:54 AM »

Again your missing the point, your own comments highlight the issue. They modified vehicles in 43-45 and utilized enemy vehicles as tractors. German Tactical doctrine didnt address the issue of vehicle recovery...just that simple. Common sense dicatates that smart field commnaders would do everything possible to maintian unit integrity and no self respecting tanker wants to become infantry. The facts are simple and straight forward, american armoured divisions had an integrated organized recovery capability with dedicated vehicles, officers and staff that systematically scoured the battlefied and recovered & refurbished american armour. The germans didnt and many sources highlight that as a distinct reason for the maericans ability to absorb tremendous losses and still maintain offensive pressure on the germans. Thats simply the reality....

humble · « **Reply #134 on:** November 19, 2004, 10:13:33 AM »

I think you have a misconception about the importance of doctrine in warfare. Cavalry needed ferriers and armour needs mechanics. The maintanence of vehicles is obvious and manditory. It makes perfect sense in a combat enviornment that all "reasonable" attempts to salvage vehicles would be made.

However "doctrine" in a far different animal. The french actually had more tanks than the germans (and better ones overall). However, the germans had a better combat doctrine for utilizing armour in warfare. If you look at the eastern front, the germans had a superior artillery doctrine, in fact no axis position was ever defeated while its organic artillery was in place and operational.

The american doctrine gave it 3 distinct advantages over every other army in the world.

1) It had the best artillery in the world (not individual guns but capability)

2) It had the best supply capability in the world

3) It had the best replacement capability in the world

A significant part of that replacement capability was the recovery and resuse of destroyed armour as a matter of doctrine. American armour fought in combat commands. This is subtely different than other doctrines. As an example an american armoured division is attacking a german infantry division....

On Monday CCB attacks supported by artillery and CCA...Tuesday CCA attacks...wed CCB attacks...now the german commander has in his mind inflicted 40% casualties on monday, 30% Casualties on Tuesday and 25% casualties Wed...this is 95% attrition (divide by 2 and you've attrited the allied division by 40%+. In his mind the americans are approaching a stage where they are combat ineffective. Further he's suffered 30% attrition and has expended a significant % of combat stores.

The americans continue to attack thursday & friday and the german division surrenders...simply unable to win the war of attrition. This happened again and again July/August/September/October 1944. It was also an integral part of the eventual victory in the "battle of the bulge". The fundemental strength of the american army in WW2 was in its doctrine...not its weapons systems...