Name This...(165)

[brady]

???

 

[fdiron]

Sherman Easy 8 with 76mm gun?

[Karnak]

Firefly

[Widewing]

M4A3 76(W) with VVS suspension.

My regards,

Widewing

[fdiron]

A better answer would be "death trap".  Watched a show on the history channel about the Sherman.  According to the history Channel, the Sherman was obsolete by the time it reached American forces in 1943 (the British actually got the Sherman first).

[GRUNHERZ]

Oh no dont get widewing started on the BB Shermans............  

[Widewing]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
Oh no dont get widewing started on the BB Shermans............  

I'm having flashbacks!  

My regards,

Widewing

[Widewing]

Originally posted by fdiron:
A better answer would be "death trap".  Watched a show on the history channel about the Sherman.  According to the history Channel, the Sherman was obsolete by the time it reached American forces in 1943 (the British actually got the Sherman first).

Here's my 2 cents:

I would not put much faith in what the History Channel presents as fact. Especially when you realize that the vast majority of the shows they present were not written by historians, nor were they produced by production companies with strict ethics towards accuracy. Indeed, there is little to be found on the History Channel that is not riddled with error and mis-statement. Unfortunately, the rank and file viewers assume that what they see and hear is correct. I can't begin to tell you how many e-mails I receive by people trying to verify what they heard on the History Channel. Do you recall the Ken Burns Civil War documentary that aired on PBS in the early 1990s? Historians found over 300 errors of fact, and an impressive amount of opinion in this 11 hour monster. Yet, many reviewers with a limited knowledge of the Civil War praised it for its accurate protrayal of history. The upside was that it did generate an enormous amount of interest in the war among ordinary folk, who otherwise would never have discovered this important part of American history. Likewise, the History Channel generates a lot of interest, but often times proves inaccurate. So, if the viewer never moves beyond the TV, they may forever be misinformed.

The best source for history is still your public library or local bookstore.

My regards,

Widewing

[fdiron]

I understand what your saying about the History Channel not being 100% right.  But it was interviewing tank crewman and it gave some statistics on the first encounters that the British and U.S. had with Shermans.  The first time the U.S. used the M4 in combat, it suffered 100% losses.  I understand that this could have been due to bad tactics or attacking an overwhelmingly strong opponent, but given the M4s track record, I chose to blame it on the Sherman.  The M4, when compared to enemy tanks and anti-tank weapons at the time, was a bad tank.  It couldn't withstand even a Panzerfaust hit.  The German tanks of the time however, could withstand frontal (and for some tanks, only the rear was vulnerable) Bazooka hits.  The Sherman, while an improvement over the M3, was not a competitive design.  I would like to sum up my thoughts by a quote from a German officer being held captive at the end of the war "My 88mm gun battery was set up on a hill overlooking a road.  Each time a Sherman would travel down the road my crew would destroy it.  My crew finally ran out of ammunition, but you did not run out of Shermans".  (Quote is from "About Face" by Col. David Hackworth)

[pdog_109]

Originally posted by Widewing:
The best source for history is still your public library or local bookstore.

True, but alot of those also have errors but not as much as TV. Case in point, about the Eastern Front. What ever was printed during the cold war was realy propaganda crap. But tis another story.

[brady]

M4A2 (76mm l/54), it is


   Photo preportatadely taken in Viena in 1945.

  I generaly watch the history chanel for the prety pictures , as has already been stated it is full of historical errors,and more often than not the shows tend to be biased in some way or another.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by fdiron:
I understand what your saying about the History Channel not being 100% right.  But it was interviewing tank crewman and it gave some statistics on the first encounters that the British and U.S. had with Shermans.  The first time the U.S. used the M4 in combat, it suffered 100% losses.  I understand that this could have been due to bad tactics or attacking an overwhelmingly strong opponent, but given the M4s track record, I chose to blame it on the Sherman.  The M4, when compared to enemy tanks and anti-tank weapons at the time, was a bad tank.  It couldn't withstand even a Panzerfaust hit.  The German tanks of the time however, could withstand frontal (and for some tanks, only the rear was vulnerable) Bazooka hits.  The Sherman, while an improvement over the M3, was not a competitive design.  I would like to sum up my thoughts by a quote from a German officer being held captive at the end of the war "My 88mm gun battery was set up on a hill overlooking a road.  Each time a Sherman would travel down the road my crew would destroy it.  My crew finally ran out of ammunition, but you did not run out of Shermans".  (Quote is from "About Face" by Col. David Hackworth)

I must disagree with the notion that the Sherman was a "bad tank". It was very good at what it was designed to do. It was never intended to fight other tanks. That was the role of the Tank Destroyer. Now, with the aid of hindsight, we are able to see that Army tank doctrine was seriously flawed. Even so, the Sherman was all there was, and it was going to have to do the job, which it did.

That story of the 88 battery sounds a bit fishy. Why? Because, I have serious doubts that any combat unit would continue to expose itself time and time again, when it was perfectly clear that this battery had to be knocked out prior to venturing out on that road. Any commander worth a fart on a windy day would have called for artillery. Hell, a 60mm mortar could have chased the guns crews into their holes. In virtually every instance that I've seen, a masked anti-tank gun would be smothered by artillery as soon as it was discovered.

For the record, a Panzerfaust had a more powerful warhead than the 2.75" Bazooka rocket, and could penetrate virtually any Allied tank in the flank, if not frontally.
The fact that they could destroy an M4 is no surprise, American G.I.s used captured Panzerfausts to kill Panthers in the Ardennes (several kills were made by the 101st AB at Bastogne).

In conclusion, that the M4 was inadequate for the evolving battlefield was unquestionable. That is why the M26 was being deployed. The other night, I saw some great film of an M26 dueling with a Panther. The German tank lost the fight, the M26's 90mm M3 exploding its ammo stores. It must have been very discouraging for German tankers to discover an American tank that was better armored and better armed than their own.

My regards,

Widewing

[fdiron]

I saw the same bit of footage widewing.  Did you note the Sherman in the beginning of clip?  For those of you who didnt see the clip, it showed smoke (and possibly fire) shooting out of the turret hatch of a Sherman tank.  Then it showed a crewmember climb out with his lower leg blown off.

[GRUNHERZ]

The Pershing wasnt better armored or armed than Panther, its only armor advantage was on the sides. The 75mm and 90mm were nearly identical in performance. Plus the Panters ammo weighs a lot less so rate of fire is significantly higher. The only advantage the 90mm has is in power at extreme ranges due to its heaver shell. You cant say its better armed or armored, you can say they are about equal.

For a good overview of how the Pershing rates vs Panther look at the end of Hunnicuts Pershing book. He does a piece by piece analysis of Pershing, TigerI and Panther. In the end he rates them in order, Panther, Pershing, TigerI. In the Hunnicut book even the US Army said Panther was better. The Hunnicut book is by far the best Pershing reference available.


Are you guys talking about the Cologne Cathedral Panther? IIRC that boy caused a lot of trouble until he was outflanked by some Pershings.

The Panzerfaust could destroy any tank regardless of where it hit, some later models (the really fat headed ones) penetrated about 8 inches RHA.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
The Pershing wasnt better armored or armed than Panther, its only armor advantage was on the sides. The 75mm and 90mm were nearly identical in performance. Plus the Panters ammo weighs a lot less so rate of fire is significantly higher. The only advantage the 90mm has is in power at extreme ranges due to its heaver shell. You cant say its better armed or armored, you can say they are about equal.

For a good overview of how the Pershing rates vs Panther look at the end of Hunnicuts Pershing book. He does a piece by piece analysis of Pershing, TigerI and Panther. In the end he rates them in order, Panther, Pershing, TigerI. In the Hunnicut book even the US Army said Panther was better. The Hunnicut book is by far the best Pershing reference available.

I simply don't see where the Panther is as well protected as the M26. Virtually everywhere, the Pershing has significantly more armor (except on top and underneath where they are just about the same). On the turret, upper and lower hull front, sides and rear, all greater on the M26. Likewise, I must disagree about the main gun too. I don't see anything close to equal in terms of penetration. If anything, the 90mm HVAP round fits nicely in between the 88mm L/71 and the 75mm L/70, being closer to the 88 than the 75.

Based upon commonly found penetration tables, the following can be determined:

Typically, the 90mm M3 firing HVAP at 1,000 yards can penetrate 200mm of RHA inclined at 30 degrees.

The 88mm L/71 can get through about 215mm at the same distance and angle.

Then, we have the 75mm L/70, which penetrates about 170mm at 30 degrees, at 1,000 yards.

At 2,000 yards, the 88mm L/71 and 90mm M3 are about equal, with the 75mm roughly 50% less effective than the other two.

For comparison, the 17 pounder is generally right up there with the 90mm when firing APDS. However, the accuracy of APDS is rather poor out beyond 1,000 yards and its penetrating ability falls off rather rapidly at long range. A closer match to the 75mm L/70 was the 77mm (a shorter version of the 17 pounder) that was mounted in the Comet.

If Hunnicutt feels the Panther was the better tank, he must be considering factors beyond armor and gun, because I don't see where the Panther equals, much less exceeds the M26 in those two catagories.

My regards,

Widewing

[ 01-09-2002: Message edited by: Widewing ]