Author Topic: How about a Sherman Tank?  (Read 6003 times)

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24760
How about a Sherman Tank?
« Reply #135 on: November 24, 2004, 12:37:51 PM »

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24760
How about a Sherman Tank?
« Reply #136 on: May 17, 2005, 09:57:03 AM »

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24760
How about a Sherman Tank?
« Reply #137 on: May 17, 2005, 02:24:40 PM »

This is the first tank crew of U.S. 3rd Army to reach the Rhine in the breakthrough at Andernach. Aboard the tank are: Cpl William Hasse, Palisades Park, New Jersey; Pvt. Marvin Aldridge, Burlington North Carolina; T/4 John Latimi, the Bronx, New York; Cpl. Vincent Morreale, Trenton, New Jersey; and Cpl, Sidney Meyer, the Bronx, New York. 11th Armored Division. 41st Tank Battalion. March 9, 1945. Photo courtesy of The 11th Armored Division Association.

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24760
How about a Sherman Tank?
« Reply #138 on: May 17, 2005, 02:27:14 PM »

11th Armored Division tanks seen on the Autobahn in Bavaria, April 19, 1945.  Because they were so heavily defended, these roads were seldom used for fighting. Photo courtesy of The 11th Armored Division Association.

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24760
How about a Sherman Tank?
« Reply #139 on: May 17, 2005, 02:28:58 PM »

CCA armored column fording the Muhl River at Neufelden Austria with the help of A56ENG. May 4, 1945. Photo courtesy of The 11th Armored Division Association.

Offline humble

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6434
How about a Sherman Tank?
« Reply #140 on: May 17, 2005, 04:27:57 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.


A German document from North Africa gives detailed instructions for organizing a workshop platoon in a two-battalion tank regiment (which normally would not have this unit). In this case, a good illustration of how flexible German organization can be, personnel was obtained for the platoon by breaking up the battalion headquarters repair sections of the two battalions. This platoon was smaller than the workshop platoon designated by the pre-war organization for a tank regiment of three battalions, and was to operate in place of the battalion headquarters repair sections, under direct regimental command. The platoon was to serve as a link between the workshop company and the company repair sections. Like the latter, it would handle work requiring less than 4 hours. In attack, it would follow the central axis of advance, keeping in close touch with the workshop company's recovery platoon.

The light workshop platoon was to work on brakes, gears, and clutches of PzKw II's; on damaged gear-mechanisms of PzKw III's; and on valve defects in all types of truck and tank engines, except PzKw III's and PzKw IV's. Also, the platoon was to repair electrical and fuel systems; salvage and tow wheeled vehicles; repair wheeled vehicles; perform autogene welding and soldering work; and charge and test batteries and electrical apparatus.
http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/tankmaint/index.html

Since this thread is still kicking....

There is a huge difference between the organic capability and mission statements of the German and american combat maintanence units. German units were designed primarily to repair disabled/damaged vehicles. As a whole german armor was much less reliable then american armor and required greater basic maintanence...it was also much more complicated. American armor while inferior in many ways was much easier to maintain and also was designed to be much easier to canabalize. So the american army went into combat with a preconfigured "canabalization" policy far far different then any army it faced. The americans sustained far greater loses [tank](by %)while maintaining combat integrity then any army in the world.

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."-Pres. Thomas Jefferson

Offline soda72

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5201
How about a Sherman Tank?
« Reply #141 on: May 17, 2005, 04:49:02 PM »


This picture was taken in 1966 just moments before Linus would realize there would be no great pumpkin:










Hey when you gonna start fly'n again?
« Last Edit: May 17, 2005, 04:59:17 PM by soda72 »

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24760
How about a Sherman Tank?
« Reply #142 on: May 17, 2005, 04:58:22 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by soda72



Oh ye of little faith. I've moved. Hitech is only six miles down the road now. Hehehe. Weekly pilgrimage ..... with Scotch. (And you KNOW the Shermie fits his plans for TOD, baybee. Woof!) ;)

Offline soda72

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5201
How about a Sherman Tank?
« Reply #143 on: May 17, 2005, 05:04:02 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Arlo
Oh ye of little faith. I've moved. Hitech is only six miles down the road now. Hehehe. Weekly pilgrimage ..... with Scotch. (And you KNOW the Shermie fits his plans for TOD, baybee. Woof!) ;)


Well at least you can bring your case to them personally  :)

Do you plan on going to the con?

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24760
How about a Sherman Tank?
« Reply #144 on: May 17, 2005, 05:20:04 PM »
I always plan to. May actually make it this time. :)

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24760
How about a Sherman Tank?
« Reply #145 on: May 17, 2005, 05:41:26 PM »

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24760
How about a Sherman Tank?
« Reply #146 on: May 17, 2005, 05:44:33 PM »


I plan to skin one with the name "Great Pumpkin" ;)

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20386
How about a Sherman Tank?
« Reply #147 on: May 17, 2005, 05:51:40 PM »
Bout the only Shermans that would make a difference would either be the British modified Firefly Shermans with the 17 pounder gun, or the US Shermans up gunned with high velocity 76mm cannon.  M4A3E8s would probably stand a chance too.

The short barrelled 75 Shermans would probably be ignored for lack of hitting power.

Dan/CorkyJr
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24760
How about a Sherman Tank?
« Reply #148 on: May 17, 2005, 05:54:12 PM »
I'm a scenario man, Tiff. :D

Offline DaYooper

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 105
How about a Sherman Tank?
« Reply #149 on: May 17, 2005, 06:54:33 PM »
While the Sherman was a 'big chunk of metal' it was often filled with gasoline which, when ignited, caused the tank to burn quite well.

The Panzers ran on diesel and were tough to ignite.