Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Yarbles on January 20, 2009, 08:21:30 AM
-
How would it get on in the MA?
Not well I think but then I have killed tanks with an M8, and damaged them with an osti and wirrble.
I would like to see how it would do against the firefly and the basic T34. I assume the M4 came up agianst the T34 in Korea. Does anyone know how that went?
-
The M4 would be unperked, and see less use than the Panzer IV. Against a Tiger it might be almost helpless because of its poor firepower.
Still, there is a need for this tank in the AvA and scenarios, even if its anemic firepower isn't suited for your typical main arena spawn-camp, errr, tank battle. ;)
-
It could be used for psychological value. A 30 M4 mission comes into a field, you might not get a chance to find out if its the Sherman or Firefly. Not sure what role it would fill. Tiger there if you wanna be somewhere for awhile, kill in 1 shot, and want to avoid getting bombed by a plane. T34 for a fast, well armored tank; and if you want to have a big gun you take the -85. The panzer is in between T-34 and M4 in speed, has a better gun, and descent armor. Then theres the M4. Its only .5 Km/H faster than a Tiger, thin armor, and a gun that, at least in the war, required very close engagement ranges. Camping a spawn it might get you a few kills. I'll agree a non-perked American tank would be nice. I remember the FSO in December where with 30 min to go Fireflys and Tigers were disabled, leaving the U.S. Side with M8s only versus Panzers. The M3 and M5 were the only other American Tanks I know of, and would fair even worse in here, leaving U.S. Tank Destroyers like the M10, M18, or M36. If one day every tank will be in the game, I'd say wait for the "plain" M4 and get a T.D. like the M18 or M36.
-
I like the idea of the tank destroyer but would be as easy to kill as an m3 from the air unless it was a very late model with a roof.
-
I guess it would be very easy to model, so why not?
BTW, rather than a tank destroyer, how about mobilized arty? I feel sure that it would be used.
-
I like the idea of the tank destroyer but would be as easy to kill as an m3 from the air unless it was a very late model with a roof.
Then again a high eny TD might see a lot of use simply due to its ability to get you perk points in a hurry. Most of us already have an ocean of GV perks already but still its an idea. Best of all the TDs were very fast and manueverable. The M-18 went like 60 mph.
-
I guess it would be very easy to model, so why not?
BTW, rather than a tank destroyer, how about mobilized arty? I feel sure that it would be used.
Isnt that sort of covered by the LVT4?
-
It could be used for psychological value. A 30 M4 mission comes into a field, you might not get a chance to find out if its the Sherman or Firefly. Not sure what role it would fill. Tiger there if you wanna be somewhere for awhile, kill in 1 shot, and want to avoid getting bombed by a plane. T34 for a fast, well armored tank; and if you want to have a big gun you take the -85. The panzer is in between T-34 and M4 in speed, has a better gun, and descent armor. Then theres the M4. Its only .5 Km/H faster than a Tiger, thin armor, and a gun that, at least in the war, required very close engagement ranges. Camping a spawn it might get you a few kills. I'll agree a non-perked American tank would be nice. I remember the FSO in December where with 30 min to go Fireflys and Tigers were disabled, leaving the U.S. Side with M8s only versus Panzers. The M3 and M5 were the only other American Tanks I know of, and would fair even worse in here, leaving U.S. Tank Destroyers like the M10, M18, or M36. If one day every tank will be in the game, I'd say wait for the "plain" M4 and get a T.D. like the M18 or M36.
Red,
Remember that a number of teething problems--like the gun and armor--were worked out of the Sherman in later models like the Easy-8. It's completely possible for HTC to add a "standard" Sherman that will remain competitive with the Panzer, so don't write off the M4 as useless based on the early models.
Also, if an earlier Panzer were added as well an early-model Sherman would STILL be competitive in the EW arenas.
-
Granted I'm a little biased cause I like my T-34 and usually don't even bother with the perked rides other than the -85 on occasion. But I cant see a reason to take an M4 over a T-34 or Panzer. Now the M4A3E2 Sherman Jumbo wouldn't be bad, but it would end up perked.
-
The Sherman in it's various variants should be the next vehicle added, it is desperately needed for Special Events. A tank destroyer adds nothing to the game that a tank does not do. If you are in fact not worried about Special Events, there is no reason to add any other vehicle. Everything is already here for a multisided non-historical battle.
-
they would have to add the m4a3 for the reason of that the early one was almost worthless against every german tank
-
The Sherman in it's various variants should be the next vehicle added, it is desperately needed for Special Events. A tank destroyer adds nothing to the game that a tank does not do. If you are in fact not worried about Special Events, there is no reason to add any other vehicle. Everything is already here for a multisided non-historical battle.
I thought late war shermans had access to highly effective HVAP round though this was rare. Our panzer MK4 Is very late war so why not have the best Sherman with the best Ammo. It wont have the gun of the Firefly but it might match the Panzer in effective firepower.
-
The HVAP was there but as a demonstration of the thought process of the day where if possible, pockets of German tanks were bypassed by M4's and left for tank destroyers.
"Hypervelocity Armor Piercing HVAP ammunition, standardized as M93, was developed for the 76 mm gun in July 1944. This new projectile could penetrate the front turret of the Panther at longer ranges than standard ammunition. Its distribution was, however, prioritized to US Tank Destroyer units"
Could always get the M36. It was a TD built upon thje M4 platform with a 90mm MG
-
The basic M4 Sherman wasn't designed to fight other tanks. It was designed to exploit weak areas of the enemy line and get into the rear areas to destroy supplies and communications. trouble is this strategy needs alot of space to achieve success. It worked well enough in Africa. Not so in the mountains of Italy and the hedgerows of Normandy. Once the US armor got in the open it was then that the Sherman was in its element and did well.
The basic M4, if added to the game, would need to try and avoid the enemy to be successful, reach the town or base and tear things up. In AH we have the Firefly. It can do the same job that the basic M4 was designed to do with the added ability to fight other tanks. The T34/76 was designed the same way. Exploitation in the advance. The basic M4 while nice to have for scenarios (and a vehicle I'd like to see in game) would be redundant as we already have a T34 and Firefly.
-
I would say the design and philosophy behind the Sherman was deeply flawed, as evidenced by it being the first and last tank designed behind this philosophy. I know the use of armor was in its infancy, or close to it, at the time. But If other major powers got it right, that tanks should be designed to kill other tanks, then why didn't we? Since then we have never looked back. We are just lucky we got the other elements of combined arms right and that we had some brilliant generals. We still should have gone to war with a better tank.
The Sherman wasn't a complete failure. It actually was a pretty decent tank. But it was not a good tank on tank, tank. We simply mobbed the German armored divisions. Mobbed them with combined arms, complete control of the air, and an almost limitless supply.
The game I think doesn't really reflect the realities of the actual war that made the Sherman worthwhile. In the game we are pretty much killing other tanks with tanks. Even the Panzer lV and its high vel gun would far outclass the Sherman. Fireflys and T-34s would chew them up and spit them out. Especially since they cost so few perks to up, perks easily made up for with wirbels.
I dont blame the purists in the game for wanting the tank. I too am one. I love historically correct elements being in the game and historically correct operations. But I think a more worthwhile addition would be a very fast TD, or even a light/scout tank. After all we already have an M-4 tank. I dont see how getting a second one, with a far less effective gun, would help anything.
My thoughts anyway. :salute
-
I would say the design and philosophy behind the Sherman was deeply flawed, as evidenced by it being the first and last tank designed behind this philosophy. I know the use of armor was in its infancy, or close to it, at the time. But If other major powers got it right, that tanks should be designed to kill other tanks, then why didn't we? Since then we have never looked back. We are just lucky we got the other elements of combined arms right and that we had some brilliant generals. We still should have gone to war with a better tank.
The Sherman wasn't a complete failure. It actually was a pretty decent tank. But it was not a good tank on tank, tank. We simply mobbed the German armored divisions. Mobbed them with combined arms, complete control of the air, and an almost limitless supply.
The game I think doesn't really reflect the realities of the actual war that made the Sherman worthwhile. In the game we are pretty much killing other tanks with tanks. Even the Panzer lV and its high vel gun would far outclass the Sherman. Fireflys and T-34s would chew them up and spit them out. Especially since they cost so few perks to up, perks easily made up for with wirbels.
I dont blame the purists in the game for wanting the tank. I too am one. I love historically correct elements being in the game and historically correct operations. But I think a more worthwhile addition would be a very fast TD, or even a light/scout tank. After all we already have an M-4 tank. I dont see how getting a second one, with a far less effective gun, would help anything.
My thoughts anyway. :salute
I agree with all that you say here yet i still want one too :D
mabee the big gun tanks (tiger T34/85 firefly) should be perked coler to the same making them less likely to be upped as often.
right now as i have seen it the tiger seems to be rare just cuz it dosent take any hits from the firefly like it used to frome the panzer and t34, not because of its perk value. or because of its perk cost?... kind of like why up an 30perk tank when the 3 point one does better or at a min.. the same anyhow...
-
I would say the design and philosophy behind the Sherman was deeply flawed, as evidenced by it being the first and last tank designed behind this philosophy. I know the use of armor was in its infancy, or close to it, at the time. But If other major powers got it right, that tanks should be designed to kill other tanks, then why didn't we? Since then we have never looked back. We are just lucky we got the other elements of combined arms right and that we had some brilliant generals. We still should have gone to war with a better tank.
Incorrect. The Germans used the same philosophy with the 37mm armed PzkwIIIs being for anti-tank role (37mm being the standard German AT gun of 1939) and the PzkwIV armed with a low velocity 75mm howitzer for infantry support. US armored doctrine was roughly based, or rather reinforced, by the German successes of '39 and '40.
Furthermore, the IVs were only upgraded to use true AT guns after encountering the much heavier armored Russian tanks after Barbarossa. During the initial invasion they were still intended to be infantry support, not tank killers (although, as the Americans would also learn, it is hard to expect reality to conform to your ideal).
The British tanks also had something comparable. Most early war Brit tanks had two versions -- one with the 2 pounder (40mm) AT gun, and a "CS" version with either a 3 inch or 95mm howitzer for infantry support.
Finally, the 75mm gun was most certainly a dual-purpose gun, unlike the howitzers mounted on the early IVs and Brit tanks. It's armor penetration was inferior to the US 76mm guns, to be sure, but it performed roughly on par with the Russian 76.2mm gun, which I rarely hear anyone say was substandard or inferior by 1941-42 standards.
And I have asked this several times, but never received a satisfactory answer -- what better 30 ton tank would you want? The Sherman was competitive -- at worst it lagged its contemporaries by months rather than generations. Contemporaries being the T-34 and PzkwIVs, not the Panthers or Tigers which outweighed them by 50%+, but to which the Sherman is often erroneously compared.
Logistics and a doctrine of mobility had much to do with fielding a medium tank vs. a heavy. To call the tank itself a failure of some sort or a "bad tank" is erroneous, because it fit the doctrine well.
The game I think doesn't really reflect the realities of the actual war that made the Sherman worthwhile. In the game we are pretty much killing other tanks with tanks. Even the Panzer lV and its high vel gun would far outclass the Sherman. Fireflys and T-34s would chew them up and spit them out. Especially since they cost so few perks to up, perks easily made up for with wirbels.
A "standard Sherman" with a 76mm gun would be roughly equal to the T34/85. A "standard Sherman" with the snub 75 would be roughly equal to the T34/76. If modeled with a gyrostabilizer, it would have an offset to the T-34's advantage of speed. The .50cal pintle gun would certainly be welcome! So, no, I disagree that a Sherman wouldn't match up well in the game or that they would be chewed up and spit out.
I would also argue that if you put in some earlier PzkwIVs with the lower velocity 75s or the PzkwIIIs to get a good representative of the MW tanks (something sorely lacking, not to mention EW), and the '42 snub 75mm Sherman is most certainly competitive if not superior. ('42 Tiger still pwns, of course.)
(mild hijack) You do bring up a good point about the WW's ENY value -- it should probably be a 10 or 15 vs. the 25 it currently posesses. They are practically perk farmers. (end mild hijack)
-
An M4 would be like a basic T34 without the speed, fast-moving turret, or the armor
-
(mild hijack) You do bring up a good point about the WW's ENY value -- it should probably be a 10 or 15 vs. the 25 it currently posesses. They are practically perk farmers. (end mild hijack)
WW should BE perked.
-
Finally, the 75mm gun was most certainly a dual-purpose gun, unlike the howitzers mounted on the early IVs and Brit tanks. It's armor penetration was inferior to the US 76mm guns, to be sure, but it performed roughly on par with the Russian 76.2mm gun, which I rarely hear anyone say was substandard or inferior by 1941-42 standards.
And I have asked this several times, but never received a satisfactory answer -- what better 30 ton tank would you want? The Sherman was competitive -- at worst it lagged its contemporaries by months rather than generations. Contemporaries being the T-34 and PzkwIVs, not the Panthers or Tigers which outweighed them by 50%+, but to which the Sherman is often erroneously compared.
Logistics and a doctrine of mobility had much to do with fielding a medium tank vs. a heavy. To call the tank itself a failure of some sort or a "bad tank" is erroneous, because it fit the doctrine well.
A "standard Sherman" with a 76mm gun would be roughly equal to the T34/85. A "standard Sherman" with the snub 75 would be roughly equal to the T34/76. If modeled with a gyrostabilizer, it would have an offset to the T-34's advantage of speed. The .50cal pintle gun would certainly be welcome! So, no, I disagree that a Sherman wouldn't match up well in the game or that they would be chewed up and spit out.
I would also argue that if you put in some earlier PzkwIVs with the lower velocity 75s or the PzkwIIIs to get a good representative of the MW tanks (something sorely lacking, not to mention EW), and the '42 snub 75mm Sherman is most certainly competitive if not superior.
Hear, Hear! I am tired of ppl belittling the 75mm M3 gun while reaming silent on the 76mm L-10, L-11, F-32 & F-34(ZiS5) performance. The Soviet guns had penetration ranging from 60mm-69mm at 500m while the M3 gun had penetration of 76mm @ 500m; and that is 0degree impact for the Soviet gun, while the US gun is at 30degree impact! :rock M3 performance would be between T-34/76 & PzIV gun performance; coupled with "no bounce on the move" modeled to refelect the gyro-stabilizer & a firing rate equal to the PzIV, I think we would see as much use in the LW MAs as the PzIV (more M4s on the attack, more PzIV on defence).
I will remain silent on the 76mm & 105mm armed Shermans, except to say "how hard could those be to add?" :pray
-
yeah i was wondering about the gyrostabilizer, saw something about that on tv a few months back
was the sherman the only tank to have that?
and , why doesnt the firefly in the game have it? (maybe I'm wrong but I could have sworn it doesn't)
-
Hear, Hear! I am tired of ppl belittling the 75mm M3 gun while reaming silent on the 76mm L-10, L-11, F-32 & F-34(ZiS5) performance.
Who is being silent? Many of us pointed that out when the T-34/76 was announced and said the T-34/85 would have been much more useful in AH. Pyro said he thought we'd be surprised at how capable it would be, but subsequently I think we were shown to be correct.
-
yeah i was wondering about the gyrostabilizer, saw something about that on tv a few months back
was the sherman the only tank to have that?
and , why doesnt the firefly in the game have it? (maybe I'm wrong but I could have sworn it doesn't)
I could be wrong but I don't believe the gyro was or could have been used with the 17 pounder - it was hard enough just fitting that gun in the turret!
A lot of the problem is that the M4's strengths are things that can't be modeled in the game (like reliability, ease of maintenance, standardization of parts - an absolute nightmare for the Wehrmacht! - and cheapness of manufacture), and many of its rivals' weaknesses theoretically could be modeled but aren't. If we really wanted to be realistic, the Tiger should get hopelessly bogged down or have an engine breakdown every other trip out and the T-34/76 should disable the player's radio (vox and text) as well as make the player's seat wretchedly uncomfortable and his joystick so unresponsive that it requires a smart blow with a mallet to move it.
In fact the biggest handicap of the T-34/76 was its two-man turret, but that isn't modeled either. (And I think it should be: in other tanks a player in the pintle position should be able to traverse the turret and aim and fire the main gun as well as steer - that's why they had a tank commander in addition to the gunner.)
A high ENY would also make the straight M4 attractive.
But I would rather see a TD, or better yet two, to add new capabilities: a very fast, very lightly armored one like the M-18 - in game terms, roughly a tracked M8 with the Panzer's main gun - and a hulk like the Jagdpanther with even better armor and armament than the Tiger I but no turret.
-
In fact the biggest handicap of the T-34/76 was its two-man turret, but that isn't modeled either. (And I think it should be: in other tanks a player in the pintle position should be able to traverse the turret and aim and fire the main gun as well as steer - that's why they had a tank commander in addition to the gunner.)
Actually, it is kinda modeled in the horribly crappy reload times.
-
WW should BE perked.
No just turret speed fixed and lower the eny.
-
I'm not just talking 1939. The war lasted 6 years and with the Soviets and Germans saw a constant evolution of armor, guns, and ammo. Meanwhile in 1994 France it was going against guns like the KwK 40 L/48 on the lV, and of course the Panthers and Tigers. It wasnt even close. Im not a tank guy and I know some improvements were made in the war with the Shermans gun and ammo but still.
Even if it is comparable with the lV, and it probably would be, the Panzer we have in the game.....well...maybe. There are the MWAs and EWAs. I guess it wouldnt be to hard to touch up the modeling since we already have it in the game. I guess Ill stand mute. It probably would be a good addition tho I'd rather see a TD or scout. I guess any new armor would be welcome. Even tho Im not a tank guy I do like them a lot in the game.
-
I like the idea of the tank destroyer but would be as easy to kill as an m3 from the air unless it was a very late model with a roof.
German assault guns and most TD's were covered tops. They lacked the speed but i think they would fair the best in AH arenas since ive been attacked countless times in tigers and t34s by 50cal armed planes. If we get any american TDs IMO i think the only good use would be far away from airfields...other then that a stuka could probably "smoke" your turret. Not sure if it was factory installed those roofs later in the war not that i wouldnt want a fast as stink TD to flank a V base.
As for the M4... I would take it, sure it dosent offer anything more then what we already have, but it would give us an american tank other then the m8 armoured car. that and imagine how much damage it would take since the firefly is a rolling spongebob ;)
-
I like the idea of the tank destroyer but would be as easy to kill as an m3 from the air unless it was a very late model with a roof.
Easiest way to increase survivability for ALL GVs is to remove the targetting indicator that planes get against a GV, just like the GVs don't get them against each other.
There is no "hiding" in AH2 for GVs. Once a plane is XX away from you it doesn't matter where you are, whether you are sitting still or moving, your camo, etc; you are spotted.
-
Easiest way to increase survivability for ALL GVs is to remove the targetting indicator that planes get against a GV, just like the GVs don't get them against each other.
There is no "hiding" in AH2 for GVs. Once a plane is XX away from you it doesn't matter where you are, whether you are sitting still or moving, your camo, etc; you are spotted.
At least the plane must be within 1.5 K of you.
There is no "hiding" for planes in the sky at all.
Someone must explain to me again why if our eagle-eyed 20 year old pilot can spot and identify a 109 or La7 3 nautical miles away, he can't spot a multi-ton tank less than a mile away?
The problem with GVing relative airplanes in AHII has nothing to do with the ability to hide or lack thereof. The fact is, AHII is unlike the real world in that aircraft vastly outnumber ground forces, and there are plenty of excess aircraft with nothing better to do than bomb GV fights (among other things.)
-
Hear, Hear! I am tired of ppl belittling the 75mm M3 gun while reaming silent on the 76mm L-10, L-11, F-32 & F-34(ZiS5) performance. The Soviet guns had penetration ranging from 60mm-69mm at 500m while the M3 gun had penetration of 76mm @ 500m; and that is 0degree impact for the Soviet gun, while the US gun is at 30degree impact! :rock M3 performance would be between T-34/76 & PzIV gun performance; coupled with "no bounce on the move" modeled to refelect the gyro-stabilizer & a firing rate equal to the PzIV, I think we would see as much use in the LW MAs as the PzIV (more M4s on the attack, more PzIV on defence).
I will remain silent on the 76mm & 105mm armed Shermans, except to say "how hard could those be to add?" :pray
von krimm speaks the truth. :salute
I'd drive an early M4... and not just in special events. It would be a fun tank.
-
<snip>
Someone must explain to me again why if our eagle-eyed 20 year old pilot can spot and identify a 109 or La7 3 nautical miles away, he can't spot a multi-ton tank less than a mile away?
<snip>
Because they don't put it in f4 mode.
Easiest way to increase survivability for ALL GVs is to remove the targetting indicator that planes get against a GV, just like the GVs don't get them against each other.
There is no "hiding" in AH2 for GVs. Once a plane is XX away from you it doesn't matter where you are, whether you are sitting still or moving, your camo, etc; you are spotted.
I don't need a silly red icon to find GVs as I see them fine from +1.5 to 3.0ish. The only ones that I find the red icon useful is when they hide in the undamaged bars; but if they want to do anything except hide, they must eventually leave the barn. So I can take or leave the red icon.
-
I'm not just talking 1939. The war lasted 6 years and with the Soviets and Germans saw a constant evolution of armor, guns, and ammo. Meanwhile in 1994 France it was going against guns like the KwK 40 L/48 on the lV, and of course the Panthers and Tigers. It wasnt even close. Im not a tank guy and I know some improvements were made in the war with the Shermans gun and ammo but still.
No, E25280 is right. The Sherman was constantly upgraded throughout the war as well as the Panzer IV. The Panzer received an upgraded gun, but so did the Sherman, with the '76. The Panzer had thicker armor, but it's failure to use sloped armor in many places (like the front of the turret) rendered it's protection about equal to that of the Sherman, which had steeper angles on it's armor in more places. The defining characteristic of the Sherman was it's very fast turret and superior off-road capability (on tarmac both tanks were about as fast as the other.) The gyrostabilizer never performed as wonderfully as promised, but it was unique in the world at the time and gave the tank the ability to fire with some semblance of accuracy while moving, which no other machine could do. Combined with the high off-road speed and fast turret, this made the Sherman quite good at flanking enemy vehicles and nailing them before they could bring their turret to bear.
Given the choice, I'd rather have the M4. The Firefly had a nice big gun, but that slowed it's turret down something fierce and it's overkill against most enemy ground vehicles. And if you blow a track off a Tiger, then circle round back to nail her in the rear armor faster then her turret can track, well, that's style, my friends.
-
The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of adding in the ol' M4A1 and/or M4A3.
If modelled on par with the rest of HCT's tanks, it would be as average as the Pzr IV and rule the T34/76.
-
How would it get on in the MA?
Not well I think but then I have killed tanks with an M8, and damaged them with an osti and wirrble.
I would like to see how it would do against the firefly and the basic T34. I assume the M4 came up agianst the T34 in Korea. Does anyone know how that went?
The Shermans in Korea were basicly what they called "easy eights" up gunned and uparmored . The WW2 Sherman would not really fill any gaps other then historical gaps. In EW the T-34 would eat it up and the panzer would have an edge and especially at range. I would think that M8's would also fair well against it.
-
The Sherman and T-34 are actually very equal in terms of protection and mobility (edge to the T-34). However, the Sherman entered service two years later than the T-34, and that is the main reason everyone praises the T-34 and laments the Sherman. Add to that the Sherman didn't get a proper gun (76 mm) until mid-1944.
When the Germans met the T-34 in 1941 it was revolutionary, and outclassed the PzKw III and PzKw IV in service at the time. When the Sherman entered service in 1942 the Germans had already begun up-armoring their tanks (in response to the T-34) and they had just fielded the new PzKw VI Tiger I. Only in the latter half of 1944 did the Sherman become a real contender to German and Russian armor.
In short:
T-34 - In time to save the day for Russia.
M4 - Too little too late.
-
The Sherman and T-34 are actually very equal in terms of protection and mobility (edge to the T-34). However, the Sherman entered service two years later than the T-34, and that is the main reason everyone praises the T-34 and laments the Sherman. Add to that the Sherman didn't get a proper gun (76 mm) until mid-1944.
When the Germans met the T-34 in 1941 it was revolutionary, and outclassed the PzKw III and PzKw IV in service at the time. When the Sherman entered service in 1942 the Germans had already begun up-armoring their tanks (in response to the T-34) and they had just fielded the new PzKw VI Tiger I. Only in the latter half of 1944 did the Sherman become a real contender to German and Russian armor.
In short:
T-34 - In time to save the day for Russia.
M4 - Too little too late.
The Sherman finally did get a decent gun but it never was able to compete with late war German armor or for that matter late war Russian armor. The M4 Sherman never was able to penetrate the frontal armor of most lw German tanks even at close ranges and was easily taken out by all lw German tanks from very far ranges while virtually being untouchable. Upon introduction of the longer barrel higher velocity guns that the Germans started equipping all of their tanks with the T-34 was no longer a contender, even the T-34/85 wasn't the answer. It turned out that numerical advantages was the answer. Not until the Americans introduced the Pershing did the Americans have anything that could slug it out toe to toe with most German lw tanks. However the T-24's 76mm main gun was better than the Sherman low velocity 75mm gun which MOST of the Shermans of WW2 were. So that is why I say that the T-34 could handle the 75mm Sherman with no problem, penetration charts on the American's 75mm gun proves this.
-
Well in this game it seems that all people want to do is drive or fly the big gunned, fast, and sleek rides. For those who like to stay in the historical realm a ride like the basic M4 would be a good fit. However, due to the M4's firepower I dont think it would be used as much as the tanks we already have. But having said that it could be used to effect like the Army used it in WWII. Quantity won many a battles!! Like an earlier post, imagine 20-30 M4's hitting a base??? The 75mm gun would be affective against hangars and such but agaisnt other tanks it would be moderate against the panzer dependign on range, angle and other factors. But against the T-34 I see problems due to the sloped armor of the T-34. Agaisnt the Tiger forget about it unless you have numbers and get in close or in the rear. I would have to research it but I do not know if the M4 had HVAP or HEAT rounds. Now if we ever got the "Easy 8" version of the M4 with the 76mm gun that would be a good tank to take out. But I would take the basic M4 out just to see what you can do with it. However, with the way people in this game use the bugs, spawn camps, and other things we find to use to our advantage we will never have a true tank engagement. But the M4 would be fun and I think if used within the tactical range it is capable of it would be respected.
-
yeah but early war it was in existince and the tigers and t34s werent exactly in existance
-
However the T-24's 76mm main gun was better than the Sherman low velocity 75mm gun which MOST of the Shermans of WW2 were. So that is why I say that the T-34 could handle the 75mm Sherman with no problem, penetration charts on the American's 75mm gun proves this.
Untrue. The T-34's 76.2mm F-34 gun was fairly underpowered given the size of the gun (as were many Soviet guns), and performed on a roughly equal basis to the 75mm M3 on the Sherman. The charts I have seen even show the M3 out performs the F-34 with all similar ammo except HVAP/APCR, which apparently the US did not produce for the M3.
-
yeah but early war it was in existince and the tigers and t34s werent exactly in existance
The Sherman entered service two years after the T-34 and a couple of months after the Tiger I. The T-34 was fighting before America even entered the war.
-
The basic M4A3 Sherman with a standard 75/L40 gun of 1942-43 is very close in speed, armor protection, and gun power to a T-34/76 of the same period. The Sherman had a better radio, better ergonomics for the crew, the T-34 could operate on crappier fuel (like most Russian vehicles), and had a lower target sillouette, but there was not a huge difference in the two AFVs in terms of over all effectiveness. The T-34/85 came out in early 1944, and was a more effective AFV to an early Sherman, but again, the M4A3(76) was a close rival in terms of gun power. Btw, there were dozens of Sherman varients, with at least 4 major gun types (75mm, 76mm, 17Pndr, 105mm), different armor, and different engines, and other differences, so be carefull about over generalising the type.
Without nitpicking the differences to death, neither was that much better than the other. The gun and armor values were fairly close from 1942-45 for those two, and both were superceded by improved types, M26, JS-2, ect. Both were built in the tens of thousands.
I would say the biggest advantage one would have over the other was the fact the Shermans all had decent radios, and crews that were better educated, and trained, compared to the average Soviet crew. One of those things that might not show up on straight "stats" comparisons, but that was of some significance.
Btw, the Shermans first major combat action was at El Alemain, in October 1942, with the British 8th Army.
-
As far as the Standard M4s effectiveness, there is something
that you guys are ALL forgetting.. Tsk, Tsk....
For such smart, and very well informed guys...
Shamefull. LOL!!! (just joshin ya's) ;)
ANY american tank commander had access to the proverbial
anvil to drop on the sneaky coyotes head, day or night, and
in ANY weather.. ARTILLERY!!!
The US ARMY was the WORLD VIRTUOSO of ARTILLERY...
ALL officers, and 99% of NCOs were trained to call and
direct Arty fire in detail... Even lowly PFCs were trained
for it.. Part of a soldiers basic skills!!!
All he had to do was switch radio freq's, break onto the net,
and he had access to, batteries, battalions, regiments,
and even divisions or corps, of HEAVY GUNS...
The dangerous time for american tanks, was the first meeting
engagement... As soon as the germans gave away their
positions, THEY KNEW, that the sky was gonna fall on them..
This was the heavy punch of american armored doctrine..
Leading with tanks, is as stupid as a glass jaw boxer leading
with his chin, LOL!!! Honestly, at bastogne do you think that
the 101 stopped all those german tanks from overunning the
town with MGs, bazookas, M1s and green shirts... ROFL!!!
HELL NO, it was ARTILLERY!!! and american MASTERY of the art..
German arty, was good, but they knew to fire short barrages,
and get the hell outta dodge.. Because american counterbattery
fire was almost instant, and DEVASTATING in its effects...
This is the major casualty producing arm of the war...
And the 800lb gorilla, that is missing from the game...
:salute sorry for joshin yas, no insult intended..
RC
-
If you look at the numbers you'll find that the Soviets were by far the masters of artillery during WWII. The US artillery did enjoy some nifty innovations improving accuracy and communications, but it's not really much compared to the huge mass of Soviet artillery and developments in self-propelled guns and rocket artillery. Soviet artillery killed more Germans than any other weapon during WWII.
-
LOL, I knew somebody would say that.. LOL!!!
Russian would line up their guns hub to hub...
And fire it into an area target... LOL!!!
Their idea of skill was a WWI rollin barrage...
Skill, HAH!!!
Like a caveman, swingin a club..
RC
-
Without nitpicking the differences to death, neither was that much better than the other. The gun and armor values were fairly close from 1942-45 for those two, and both were superceded by improved types, M26, JS-2, ect. Both were built in the tens of thousands.
I would say the biggest advantage one would have over the other was the fact the Shermans all had decent radios, and crews that were better educated, and trained, compared to the average Soviet crew. One of those things that might not show up on straight "stats" comparisons, but that was of some significance.
Btw, the Shermans first major combat action was at El Alemain, in October 1942, with the British 8th Army.
The IS series did not supersede the T-34. The IS was a heavy tank series. The tank that superseded the T-34 was the T-44 which entered service with the Red Army in November 1944, and which was the basis for the later T-54/55. The T-44 was a vastly superior tank having more frontal armor than a Tiger I, but still weighing only 32 tons.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/T-44-85.JPG)
The T-34's first major combat action was in the summer of 1941. It was a shock to the Germans and directly influenced German tank designs (most notably the Panther). In contrast when the M4 showed up in October 1942 in British service the Germans nicknamed it the "Tommy cooker".
-
Anyone else smell norsemen?
-
LOL, I knew somebody would say that.. LOL!!!
Russian would line up their guns hub to hub...
And fire it into an area target... LOL!!!
Their idea of skill was a WWI rollin barrage...
Skill, HAH!!!
Like a caveman, swingin a club..
RC
Skill is of no consequence in war ... killing the enemy is all that matters. The Soviets would amass more artillery for a single battle on the Eastern Front than was in service with the entire combined western allied armies. The Soviets produced more self-propelled guns than all other nations combined.
-
Anyone else smell norsemen?
Did you mean horsemen? What are you talking about? :huh
-
Skill is of no consequence in war ... killing the enemy is all that matters. The Soviets would amass more artillery for a single battle on the Eastern Front than was in service with the entire combined western allied armies. The Soviets produced more self-propelled guns than all other nations combined.
How'd that zerg stuff work against the Finns.... hmmm?
-
No one can win against the Finns. They're just too awesome.
(http://aboutcoolness.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/finland.jpg)
-
Skill is of no consequence in war ... killing the enemy is all that matters. The Soviets would amass more artillery for a single battle on the Eastern Front than was in service with the entire combined western allied armies. The Soviets produced more self-propelled guns than all other nations combined.
Yeah, and they'd line em all up, in the open, hub to hub,
ranks upon ranks of them... Monumentally STUPID....
ala, caveman and club...
American arty was scattered all over the place, but could
coordinate fire almost instantly onto a single target from
miles away, and all directions..
ala, surgeon and scalpel...
In a hypothetical arty duel, the ruskys would only get to
use those guns once LOL!!! Then their concentrated guns
would recieve a HAIL of proxi fused shells... BOOM!!!
Total Devastation!!!
Not even mentioning the orgasmic joy of allied Jabo drivers..
Looking down at massed arty, concentrated, and in the OPEN!!!
LOL, Holy Smokes...
Skill in battle DOES MATTER!!! Unless your troops are nothing
more than cannon fodder... Or meat for the grinder!!!!
Russians, masters of the red horde yes... Artillery NO!!!
RC
-
The T-34's first major combat action was in the summer of 1941. It was a shock to the Germans and directly influenced German tank designs (most notably the Panther). In contrast when the M4 showed up in October 1942 in British service the Germans nicknamed it the "Tommy cooker".
So are you saying, when comparing tanks, we should rely on reputation and hearsay instead of facts and statistics?
-
So are you saying, when comparing tanks, we should rely on reputation and hearsay instead of facts and statistics?
No. The fact is that the M4 and T-34 are fairly equal in performance (I believe I said that in my first post), but the T-34 entered the war in a critical stage and at a time where it was superior to the German tanks. The M4 arrived much later and was no match to the German tanks being fielded at the time.
The Spitfire I and 109E were fairly equal designs, but if the Spit I had entered service in late 1942 everyone would have considered it inferior. The T-34 was a pre-war design, that the M4 matched its performance two years into the war is not a badge of merit.
-
No. The fact is that the M4 and T-34 are fairly equal in performance (I believe I said that in my first post), but the T-34 entered the war in a critical stage and at a time where it was superior to the German tanks. The M4 arrived much later and was no match to the German tanks being fielded at the time.
The Spitfire I and 109E were fairly equal designs, but if the Spit I had entered service in late 1942 everyone would have considered it inferior. The T-34 was a pre-war design, that the M4 matched its performance two years into the war is not a badge of merit.
The US had been in the war officially for less than a year when the Shermans saw their first combat, not two. The T-34 was developed before the USSR was at war with Germany, but after Germany was at war with its neighbors. So if you are going to call it a pre-war design, the same designation must be given to the Sherman, which was also on the drawing board before war broke out between the US and Germany.
The US did not "benefit" from lessons from such encounters as Khalkhin Gol or the Winter War to aid in directing armor development. The US started from next to nothing in terms of tank design compared to the USSR's constant striving to upgrade its military. As such, that the US was able to independently design a tank on par with the T-34 is, IMO, a pretty good feat. They still had some problems to work out (ammo stowage was one of the primary ones), but did.
And the Sherman certainly was a match for the mostly PzkwIIIs it faced in the desert. It could not, however, stand up to the 88s and open terrain -- which no other vehicle of the time could, either, so moot point.
So, I still don't understand the condemnation of the Sherman. It certainly wasn't an uberweapon, but was far from a "bad tank."
-
I still don't understand the condemnation of the Sherman.
History chanelzez. :D
-
The US had been in the war officially for less than a year when the Shermans saw their first combat, not two. The T-34 was developed before the USSR was at war with Germany, but after Germany was at war with its neighbors. So if you are going to call it a pre-war design, the same designation must be given to the Sherman, which was also on the drawing board before war broke out between the US and Germany.
The US did not "benefit" from lessons from such encounters as Khalkhin Gol or the Winter War to aid in directing armor development. The US started from next to nothing in terms of tank design compared to the USSR's constant striving to upgrade its military. As such, that the US was able to independently design a tank on par with the T-34 is, IMO, a pretty good feat. They still had some problems to work out (ammo stowage was one of the primary ones), but did.
That's a rather good write-up on why the M4 was inferior, except for a few mistakes: WWII started in September 1939, no matter how late America entered the war. The T-34 started development in 1937, two years before the war. The M4 Sherman did benefit greatly from lessons from the British experience with the M3 Lee/Grant. The M4 Sherman had a new turret with the M3's main gun with a modified M3 hull and chassis. The M4 was far from a "new" tank design.
And the Sherman certainly was a match for the mostly PzkwIIIs it faced in the desert. It could not, however, stand up to the 88s and open terrain -- which no other vehicle of the time could, either, so moot point.
Actually it wasn't. The PzKpfw III's in service when the Sherman entered service in the desert were the upgraded L and M models, both entered service in the summer of 1942 (and earlier version were upgraded in the field shops) and both had the excellent 50mm KwK39 L/60 gun with better armor penetration than the US 75mm. Both also had spaced frontal armor of 70mm on both the hull and turret. While the armor was sloped only 69 degrees it was spaced 20mm + 50mm giving it greatly added protection against all but dead-on 90 degree hits. So in the anti-tank role the brand new M4 was actually inferior (albeit not by a lot) to the PzKpfw III's in service at the time.
(http://www.missing-lynx.com/gallery/german/pz3m_mfloerke1.jpg)
By comparison, when the T-34 met the PzKpfw III in battle in 1941 the PzKpfw III had only 30-37mm of frontal armor and a 37mm gun.
So, I still don't understand the condemnation of the Sherman. It certainly wasn't an uberweapon, but was far from a "bad tank."
I don't see any "condemnation" of the M4, and you're right it wasn't a bad tank, just not as good as the opposition at the time of its introduction. Unlike the T-34 which was revolutionary when it faced the Germans for the first time.
-
The M4 was on the drawing board in 1940, the standards set by April 1941, and the first prototype completed in September 1941. The M3 Lee/Grant (which was always recognized as a stop-gap vehicle) did not see combat until Gazala in May of 1942. You can not say that any lessons learned in combat influenced the Sherman's design in the same way that the Soviets' had combat experience with their BT-5s, BT-7s and T-26s. "Development" for the T-34 may have begun in 1937, but the first true T-34 prototype was not completed until 1940. The Sherman's development was lightening fast by comparison (admittedly out of necessity).
Your assertion that the 50mm had better armor penetration to the 75mm M3 is simply wrong. About half of the IIIs at El Alemein were L/42s and half L/60s. The penetration tables I am looking at (most I have found are very similar) show L/42 penetration was 55mm at 100m, 47mm at 500m, 37mm at 1000m, and 28mm at 1500m. The L/60 shows 69mm, 59mm, 47mm, and 37mm at the same ranges.
The 75mm L/40 M3 gun firing AP rounds has penetration of 88mm, 73mm, 59mm, and 47mm according to the same source.
You made me look up the extra 20mm spaced armor (love it when that happens), as I thought that was calculated into the 50mm frontal armor -- and I was mistaken. This provided extra protection to the mantlet and drivers plate. However, lower hull was still 50mm, and as you can see from your own picture, a lot of flat surfaces for that 90 degree hit. The Sherman had 51mm frontal armor at a 34 degree angle on the hull, 76mm on the turret front, and 89mm on the mantlet.
The extra 20mm armor gave me pause, but it still appears the Sherman is a match for them.
-
The lower hull almost never presents a target except at the closest of ranges due to terrain and the angle of incoming fire. And your data on the KwK 39 is only correct for the PzGranPatr 39. Also note that the Germans tested their rounds at a 30 degree angle to the armor plate, and used German armor plate rather than cast steel.
From German field tests:
5cm Panzerwagenkanone 39 L/60
Fire rate: 15 per minute
Muzzle velocity:
5cm Panzergranate 39 685 m/s
5cm Panzergranate 40 1180 m/s
5cm Panzergranate 40/1 1130 m/s
5cm Sprenggranate 39 550 m/s
Penetration at 30°:
PzGranPatr 40 / PzGranPatr 40/1 / PzGranPatr 39
100m: 130mm / 116mm / 69mm
500m: 72mm / 76mm / 59mm
1,000m: --- / --- / 47mm
1,500m: --- / --- / 37mm
(http://www.aijaa.com/img/b/00020/1431464.jpg)
-
The lower hull almost never presents a target except at the closest of ranges due to terrain and the angle of incoming fire. And your data on the KwK 39 is only correct for the PzGranPatr 39. Also note that the Germans tested their rounds at a 30 degree angle to the armor plate, and used German armor plate rather than cast steel.
From German field tests:
5cm Panzerwagenkanone 39 L/60
Fire rate: 15 per minute
Muzzle velocity:
5cm Panzergranate 39 685 m/s
5cm Panzergranate 40 1180 m/s
5cm Panzergranate 40/1 1130 m/s
5cm Sprenggranate 39 550 m/s
Penetration at 30°:
PzGranPatr 40 / PzGranPatr 40/1 / PzGranPatr 39
100m: 130mm / 116mm / 69mm
500m: 72mm / 76mm / 59mm
1,000m: --- / --- / 47mm
1,500m: --- / --- / 37mm
(http://www.aijaa.com/img/b/00020/1431464.jpg)
Wow...... it's good to see some intelligent debates regarding tanks. I can't tell you how many of these threads have little substance. <S> to both of you and keep up with the reference material. I have to lean towards diehards opinion but slightly just based on the fact that the German's did test there gun penetration on their own armor and not allied armor. From all that I have read German rolled armor was stronger then cast steel.
-
The lower hull almost never presents a target except at the closest of ranges due to terrain and the angle of incoming fire. And your data on the KwK 39 is only correct for the PzGranPatr 39. Also note that the Germans tested their rounds at a 30 degree angle to the armor plate, and used German armor plate rather than cast steel.
From German field tests:
5cm Panzerwagenkanone 39 L/60
Fire rate: 15 per minute
Muzzle velocity:
5cm Panzergranate 39 685 m/s
5cm Panzergranate 40 1180 m/s
5cm Panzergranate 40/1 1130 m/s
5cm Sprenggranate 39 550 m/s
Penetration at 30°:
PzGranPatr 40 / PzGranPatr 40/1 / PzGranPatr 39
100m: 130mm / 116mm / 69mm
500m: 72mm / 76mm / 59mm
1,000m: --- / --- / 47mm
1,500m: --- / --- / 37mm
(http://www.aijaa.com/img/b/00020/1431464.jpg)
All the penetration data I listed, even for the US 75mm M3, was against 30 degree RHA plate. The numbers are comparable.
I did not use the PzGr.40 because it is an APCR round. I personally never compare the specialty ammunition, especially on German tanks, because raw material shortages limited their use. Generally, if available at all, they had only a few rounds per tank, unlike the more standard steel shot-type rounds.
For example, this site (http://www.sturmvogel.orbat.com/GermWeapProd.html) shows the raw production values of the ammunition, and that the PzGr.40 was only 14% of all 50mm AT rounds produced in 1942 (and that was the peak). However, it does not give information as to when and where that ammunition was deployed. I would imagine most of that specialty ammunition would have gone to the East Front where the Germans were encountering more and heavier armor, but I am "imagining" and can't find any information either way. If you have a source that gives any insight, I would be interested in reading it.
But using the 14% figure, and assuming a 50/50 load out of AP to HE, the IIIs in the desert would have at best 6 or 7 rounds per tank. If you want to base your gun comparisons on first round only, assuming that round will hit, etc. etc., that is your prerogative, but I prefer to use a common round approach. (Suppose I could have used solid shot for the Kwk 39 as well, since it was more common thatn the PzGr.39, which would have decreased the penetration by a couple mm's, but I was feeling generous.) If you want me to say the German gun was better 14% of the time, but the US gun was better 86% of the time -- well there, I've said it. :D
So, no, you still haven't convinced me the Sherman was inferior to the IIIs it faced.
Slightly off topic, it is interesting, though, that the "crummy" design of early German armor lent itself to being upgraded so readily, and therefore remained relevant and useful well past when you would otherwise expect.
-
It could be used for psychological value. A 30 M4 mission comes into a field, you might not get a chance to find out if its the Sherman or Firefly. Not sure what role it would fill. Tiger there if you wanna be somewhere for awhile, kill in 1 shot, and want to avoid getting bombed by a plane. T34 for a fast, well armored tank; and if you want to have a big gun you take the -85. The panzer is in between T-34 and M4 in speed, has a better gun, and descent armor. Then theres the M4. Its only .5 Km/H faster than a Tiger, thin armor, and a gun that, at least in the war, required very close engagement ranges. Camping a spawn it might get you a few kills. I'll agree a non-perked American tank would be nice. I remember the FSO in December where with 30 min to go Fireflys and Tigers were disabled, leaving the U.S. Side with M8s only versus Panzers. The M3 and M5 were the only other American Tanks I know of, and would fair even worse in here, leaving U.S. Tank Destroyers like the M10, M18, or M36. If one day every tank will be in the game, I'd say wait for the "plain" M4 and get a T.D. like the M18 or M36.
:rofl. This is from a post on Shermans back in August. You tell us, which is more detrimental to your "psyche."
My grandfather (USMC PTO - 43-46) worked with a fellow who was in 3rd AD. In France he recalled of a story that puts one in the driver's seat, per se. He often stated: "The Sherman was a joke."
Here's one of his encounters while in a Sherman:
"One day we're East of Paris and we get a call over the radio that two Tigers have stalled the line. I move forward and had time to count 76 burned out Shermans. I order the driver to proceed cautiously and we immediately get hit. We jumped out and watched our Sherman go up with a second round fired at it. I hop into another tank and we try and get it reversed in enough time to try and flank their position. Nope, by the time the Sherman rolled backwards, another hit. We jump out and I commandeer another Sherman to try again. Nope. Yet another round hit the track of this Sherman destroying the Main Drive Sprocket on top of it. We again hop out and now move rearward on our line and I order the remainder of my unit to flank the two Tigers' positions. We were surprised when the crews exited as they had exhausted their ammo. He was able to talk to one of the crews while waiting for someone to escort them rearward as POW's." He said "They displayed more class and honor than we were expecting, from the amount of carnage they caused. The gunner in the Tiger on the South position had graduated from Harvard."
He said he personally lost two more Shermans that day alone. All of that carnage caused by a mere two Tigers hunkered in depressions.
-
Of course, the US was ALSO using a Medium Tank as if it were a heavy tank. That's sort of the result you'd expect.
It's almost exactly like the British sending battlecruisers up against full-fledged battleships, and Hood shows how effective THAT was.
-
Of course, the US was ALSO using a Medium Tank as if it were a heavy tank. That's sort of the result you'd expect.
It's almost exactly like the British sending battlecruisers up against full-fledged battleships, and Hood shows how effective THAT was.
Exactly the stance I usually take. He mentioned Tigers, I replied with a true account based on someone's actual experience in an M4, versus the Tiger.
-
U.S. Tank doctrine called for tanks to break through a front and wreck havoc behind the enemy lines while the infantry capitalized on the breakthrough with an advance.
U.S. tanks weren't designed to fight other tanks. They were designed to be fast and mobile in order to exploit their breakthroughs.
wrongway
-
I did not use the PzGr.40 because it is an APCR round. I personally never compare the specialty ammunition, especially on German tanks, because raw material shortages limited their use. Generally, if available at all, they had only a few rounds per tank, unlike the more standard steel shot-type rounds.
That assumption is wrong. The Germans started producing hartkern (tungsten core APCR) shots very early and used them more extensively than any other nation... Even to the point of arming their anti-tank aircraft with hartkern firing cannons (Ju 87G, Ju 88 and Hs 129 primary).
For example, this site (http://www.sturmvogel.orbat.com/GermWeapProd.html) shows the raw production values of the ammunition, and that the PzGr.40 was only 14% of all 50mm AT rounds produced in 1942 (and that was the peak). However, it does not give information as to when and where that ammunition was deployed. I would imagine most of that specialty ammunition would have gone to the East Front where the Germans were encountering more and heavier armor, but I am "imagining" and can't find any information either way. If you have a source that gives any insight, I would be interested in reading it.
Your math is way off. Using the numbers from the site you used the Germans produced 1,938.3 thousand Pzgr. 39 shells and 721.8 thousand Pzgr. 40 shells in 1942. Even if we assume that the Pzgr. 40/1 is included in that number the portion of hartkern rounds is 100 / ( 1938.3 + 721.8 ) * 721.8 = 27.1 %
The Sprgr. is a HE shell, not an AT round.
For every four 50mm AT shells produced in 1942 one was a hartkern APCR round.
But using the 14% figure, and assuming a 50/50 load out of AP to HE, the IIIs in the desert would have at best 6 or 7 rounds per tank. If you want to base your gun comparisons on first round only, assuming that round will hit, etc. etc., that is your prerogative, but I prefer to use a common round approach. (Suppose I could have used solid shot for the Kwk 39 as well, since it was more common thatn the PzGr.39, which would have decreased the penetration by a couple mm's, but I was feeling generous.) If you want me to say the German gun was better 14% of the time, but the US gun was better 86% of the time -- well there, I've said it. :D
If we overlook your erroneous mathematics you are still wrong. You see, the tanks got priority for the hartkern ammunition. Especially since the PaK 38 AT gun had some incompatibilities with the round.
2,452 PzKpfw III Ausf. J/L/M were produced. That's 294 hartkern rounds produced per tank in 1942.
So, no, you still haven't convinced me the Sherman was inferior to the IIIs it faced.
I get the feeling your mind was made up a long time ago. Trying to convince you otherwise is probably a futile gesture, but hey... I got nothing better to do right now. ;)
-
U.S. Tank doctrine called for tanks to break through a front and wreck havoc behind the enemy lines while the infantry capitalized on the breakthrough with an advance.
U.S. tanks weren't designed to fight other tanks. They were designed to be fast and mobile in order to exploit their breakthroughs.
wrongway
You can't break through the enemy lines and not expect to run into enemy tanks. That's exactly what the Germans used their heavy tank units for: Plugging holes in their lines.
-
U.S. Tank doctrine called for tanks to break through a front and wreck havoc behind the enemy lines while the infantry capitalized on the breakthrough with an advance.
U.S. tanks weren't designed to fight other tanks. They were designed to be fast and mobile in order to exploit their breakthroughs.
wrongway
Both the US and the Brits tank warefare was out of date when entering WW2 . Also their use of infantry with armor was a disaster. The Brits got their heads handed to them during the tank battles that followed the Normandy landings which almost cost Monty his command. The Russians didn't fair much better and rather than relying on coordinated armor assaults they used the massive wave of attack philosophy resulting in HUGE loses in both man and machine. The two things that witled down German armor especially during and after the invasion was airpower and artillery. Allied armor was useless in achieving any real results against late war German armor.
-
Well, there was the Sherman "Firefly" which had an excellent gun on par with the Panther's KwK 42.
-
Well, there was the Sherman "Firefly" which had an excellent gun on par with the Panther's KwK 42.
True but there never was enough of these to make an impact as well as the American 76mm which was also a good gun
-
U.S. Tank doctrine called for tanks to break through a front and wreck havoc behind the enemy lines while the infantry capitalized on the breakthrough with an advance.
U.S. tanks weren't designed to fight other tanks. They were designed to be fast and mobile in order to exploit their breakthroughs.
wrongway
I suggest you read "Army at Dawn", it best explains how fragile and close to defeat the Allies were in North Africa. Sure the Allies won, but it blows your post out of the water.
-
I suggest you read "Army at Dawn", it best explains how fragile and close to defeat the Allies were in North Africa. Sure the Allies won, but it blows your post out of the water.
I didn't say the doctrine worked as planned. It explains why they chose a lighter, faster tank over a heavy, slow tank like the Tiger.
wrongway
-
I didn't say the doctrine worked as planned. It explains why they chose a lighter, faster tank over a heavy, slow tank like the Tiger.
wrongway
The Tiger I wasn't exactly slow by the standards of the day: 24 mph compared to the M4's 25 mph.
-
I get the feeling your mind was made up a long time ago. Trying to convince you otherwise is probably a futile gesture, but hey... I got nothing better to do right now. ;)
Nothing is futile. :D
I know what I know, and I know it until someone proves to me I don't really know what I know, after which what I know becomes what I thought before I knew what I know. Or something like that. ;)
For instance, the 20mm spaced armor on the front of the III.
Another for instance:
Your math is way off. Using the numbers from the site you used the Germans produced 1,938.3 thousand Pzgr. 39 shells and 721.8 thousand Pzgr. 40 shells in 1942. Even if we assume that the Pzgr. 40/1 is included in that number the portion of hartkern rounds is 100 / ( 1938.3 + 721.8 ) * 721.8 = 27.1 %
The Sprgr. is a HE shell, not an AT round.
I obviously did not read the chart carefully enough. :o The title was "AT Gun Ammunition", which I read as "AT Ammunition", and as a result I thought they were referring to a solid shot AP round (as opposed to the capped or APCR rounds), and not the HE round.
I was wrong -- my bad.
You see, the tanks got priority for the hartkern ammunition.
Do you have a firm source that says how much APCR was typically loaded into a III in the Desert (getting back to our original disagreement)? 27% of AP as the lazy, production-based approach would suggest? 50% of AP? Surely not 100%?
If you don't know, I'll keep looking . . . but not tonight. My head hurts.
That assumption is wrong. The Germans started producing hartkern (tungsten core APCR) shots very early and used them more extensively than any other nation... Even to the point of arming their anti-tank aircraft with hartkern firing cannons (Ju 87G, Ju 88 and Hs 129 primary).
I am uncertain why you think raw materials shortages did not limit their use? Look at the tables again. 1942 is most certainly the peak production of APCR rounds, after which, both numbers and proportions drop off precipitously. By 1944 I don't see any Pz.Gr.40 rounds being produced at all, for any gun. (I am sure you will correct me if I am mis-reading something else.) If raw materials were not an issue, and the APCR is so much more effective than the Pz.Gr.39 rounds, why do they disappear?
By the way:
No. The fact is that the M4 and T-34 are fairly equal in performance (I believe I said that in my first post), but the T-34 entered the war in a critical stage and at a time where it was superior to the German tanks. The M4 arrived much later and was no match to the German tanks being fielded at the time.
The Spitfire I and 109E were fairly equal designs, but if the Spit I had entered service in late 1942 everyone would have considered it inferior. The T-34 was a pre-war design, that the M4 matched its performance two years into the war is not a badge of merit.
So I assume, for the sake of consistency, you would also say that by 1942 the IIIs also surpassed the T-34 as the better tank on the East Front?
-
The Osprey soft back book series on tanks are a decent source of facts that can be used to get at the facts of the subject matter without spending hours in larger books . many have decent penetration charts as well.
-
yeah but the standard m4 would prove effective against lighter armor \panzer/m8
also effective on base assault
-
There would perhaps be one use for the old shermie. This one:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/DD-Tank.jpg)
The Amphibious Sherman, fit for the calm seas of AHII, much more deadly than an LVT :devil
-
DD would be nice :aok
-
There would perhaps be one use for the old shermie. This one:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/DD-Tank.jpg)
The Amphibious Sherman, fit for the calm seas of AHII, much more deadly than an LVT :devil
Great, sinkable by .30 fire. :aok
-
Hehe, yes.
Unless it is allowed to spawn on land :devil
-
how could it be sinkable by .30s besides the basic sherman would be effective either way amphibious or ground based
Great, sinkable by .30 fire. :aok
-
Because it only takes little bullets to plonk holes into the canvas. This tank does not float like an LVT you know.
As for ground based, this would be a weaker tank than the panzer or the older T34. That is,,,,the weakest tank
-
Hi again. Been away on business for a while…
Do you have a firm source that says how much APCR was typically loaded into a III in the Desert (getting back to our original disagreement)? 27% of AP as the lazy, production-based approach would suggest? 50% of AP? Surely not 100%?
No, unfortunately I do not. Choosing the ammo loadout was really the prerogative of individual tank commanders, and would vary from mission to mission depending on what opposition they were expecting.
I am uncertain why you think raw materials shortages did not limit their use? Look at the tables again. 1942 is most certainly the peak production of APCR rounds, after which, both numbers and proportions drop off precipitously. By 1944 I don't see any Pz.Gr.40 rounds being produced at all, for any gun. (I am sure you will correct me if I am mis-reading something else.) If raw materials were not an issue, and the APCR is so much more effective than the Pz.Gr.39 rounds, why do they disappear?
They “disappear” because the Germans stopped producing PzGr 40/41 shells in 1943 having switched to the PzGr 42 and 43, which are not listed on that site. However the PzGr 42/43 was not made for the 50 mm PaK 38/KwK 39 since these guns had been mostly replaced by newer 75 mm guns in the anti-tank role. The principle difference between the PzGr 40 and the 43 was that the 43’s core had half the diameter of the sleeve, while it was two thirds the diameter in the older 40. The smaller core offered higher muzzle velocity and better penetration at short range with the added production benefit of using less strategic materials. When the Germans ran out of tungsten in 1944 they used hardened steel and mild iron as core material. Not as effective as tungsten, but still better than a solid shot.
By the way:So I assume, for the sake of consistency, you would also say that by 1942 the IIIs also surpassed the T-34 as the better tank on the East Front?
That is a difficult question, but I think I’ll have to answer no, simply due to the tactical differences of the two theatres. On the Eastern Front the PzKpfw III and IV’s narrow tracks were a major disadvantage in the mud and snow. The T-34’s superior off-road capabilities and low ground pressure makes it the better tank on the Russian front. By the same token I would consider the M4 a better tank on the Russian front simply because of the mobility factor.
As I said earlier the late mark PzKpfw III has somewhat better armor (and lower silhouette) and arguably a better gun (and optics) for tank combat (if using the best ammo available), but the M4 and T-34 have better mobility and are not far behind in terms of armor and firepower. In the desert there really would be little to choose between the three tanks. The tactical situation, crew quality and luck would be far greater factors in deciding the outcome of a fight between the three than any technical differences.
-
The sherman was originally designed with a high velocity gun tube. At the time the artillery officers ruled the roost and it was scrapped for a lower velocity gun with a higher life expectancy between replacements. The same type of thinking took the P-39 from a 400+ mph interceptor with a dual stage blower to a lesser plane limited to lower level engagements...
-
we out to get red of the Av.A no flies in it
-
The sherman was originally designed with a high velocity gun tube. At the time the artillery officers ruled the roost and it was scrapped for a lower velocity gun with a higher life expectancy between replacements. The same type of thinking took the P-39 from a 400+ mph interceptor with a dual stage blower to a lesser plane limited to lower level engagements...
Not sure if the Alison even with a 2 stage blower was capable of getting anything to 400 mph. I will have to do some research to make sure. As far as high velocity guns are concerned (American) even when there were Shermans with high velocity 76mm in Europe high velocity ammo was scarce.
-
I always thought that the P39 suffered mostly from being loaded too much, - i.e. extra requirements.
That kind of thinking would have put thicker armour and perhaps a diesel engine into the Sherman, not a smaller gun....
-
I always thought that the P39 suffered mostly from being loaded too much, - i.e. extra requirements.
That kind of thinking would have put thicker armour and perhaps a diesel engine into the Sherman, not a smaller gun....
Don't think of it as a smaller gun. Think of it as a more "efficient" gun. As Snaphook said. The artillery and ordnance branch of the army had the say at the time. More rounds through the gun before it needed replacement was more important than a heavier gun that would wear out faster. Besides, the Sherman was never designed to go head to head against enemy tanks.
wrongway
-
...which is a design flaw, since it's after all.....a tank.
-
No it is not, the sherman's were used with troop movement and support.
M-18's and other "tank destroyers" would knock out german tanks.
What people also do not understand is most american forces could call air support AND artillary WAY better than any other nation.(Ground infantry wise)
8 times outta 10, if a american G.I. spoted you,and had the ability to get to a radio, your arse was toast within minutes.
THAT is why 9/10th of officer G.I's all knew how to operate and read maps for fire support.
We didn't need tanks that could take out other tanks, we needed tanks that could push in,rapidly push german troops OUT,and hold the ground. Like aces high shows, most ground wars where the enemy push's in makes for high death rates and lost tanks, however once the "enemy" is displaced, the ground war is virtualy won.
Look how the battle of the bulge went for germans even tho they had more tanks and A/C in that battle than they started the war with.
If it came to attacking a german tank, i would have called in fire support long before risking any single sherman in a toe to toe gun battle with any kinda german tank/gun inplacements. Corse on the other hand, most germans knew that if someone (marked) them with smoke grenades or smoke rockets, it was dooms day all over again.
Yeah yeah yeah, debateable arm chair generals, i know..i know.
-
Most of the German tanks on the western front were destroyed by their own crews after running out of fuel. BaDkaRmA158Th, you seem very enthusiastic, but there is a very good reason why all modern tanks are not built for infantry support like the Sherman. It didn't work. The M1 Abrams is designed for one purpose: To fight other tanks (specifically Russian tanks). The M1 is even half-German in design, sharing many design features and parts with the Leopard 2 including its main armament.
-
BaDkaRmA never said it was a successful strategy but it was the doctrine behind the design of the Sherman.
wrongway
-
(Trying not to come off as rude or arrogant, tanks are not a heavy known subject for me, as most info i have read here, and most is incorrect from my lips cause my brain sucks at remembering so badly.)
Mhmm..diehard, but we still see tanks used for cover these days as well, how many times have we seen soldiers move through iraq with a few abrams & strikers around for support?
Altho our tanks NOW can take the fight to the enemy.(and survive multiple direct hits on all sides)
Imagine if we had a m-18 or other tank destroyers back in the day from the get go, and all future designs sprang from that.
Kinda amazes me how sloped armor,and a lower profile can help So much in any tank design (and a good/great gun) The shermans were mostly flat, high mounted and top heavy.
I shutter to think how many shermans went belly up while turning too tight on a sloped road or hillside...ACK!
And by size and weight, wasn't the sherman a light to medium tank design? (Of this i am not even sure)
-
BaDkaRmA never said it was a successful strategy but it was the doctrine behind the design of the Sherman.
wrongway
I beg to differ.
"8 times outta 10, if a american G.I. spoted you,and had the ability to get to a radio, your arse was toast within minutes."
"We didn't need tanks that could take out other tanks [snip]"
Like I said, he seems very enthusiastic. Nothing wrong with that, but it does shall we say, color his opinions somewhat. He's also naive with regard to his "If it came to attacking a german tank" tactics. An advancing army does not have the advantage of spotting the enemy first, the defending army does. Usually the fist warning the allied tanks got was when the Germans opened up on them.
Sherman vs. Tiger recreation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igp3k7z-YcQ
The final fight is a bit silly, but fun nonetheless! :)
-
Mhmm..diehard, but we still see tanks used for cover these days as well, how many times have we seen soldiers move through iraq with a few abrams & strikers around for support?
Sure, but that only shows that a good tank is versatile. A Panther or Tiger was just as good at supporting infantry as an M4, but could also successfully fight other tanks. The Germans invented the modern combined arms doctrine, combining armor, troops, artillery and tactical air power. It was the essence of "Blitzkrieg".
-
"Usually the fist warning the allied tanks got was when the Germans opened up on them."
Well in that respect it does not matter what tank the allies sent into the fry. Could a panzer take on another panzer round? could a tiger survive a panzer assaulting its inplacement and vice versa? (Remember this is a question)
I SAY AGAIN I AM NO TANK GURU.
I wonder during 91' & current iraq how many m1a1's got a chance to hit any kind of armor, or if a few apache's were enough to devistate entire tank formations. And how many a1a1's were lost/damaged due to enemy tank activity?
my only main point was that the sherman was never design from the ground up to kill other tanks, ever.
The fact it did manage to get any kills considering the surcumstances, i would say its a lil' dandy tank, but not something you would want to fry to death in.
And for christ sake, look at just the size diffrence of these tanks vs. each other!.
-
Yes, a Tiger would be able to survive a direct hit from another Tiger with some luck. And the other Tigers would be much better able to retaliate against a defending Tiger than the M4. Just look at Masherbrum's quote: 82 Shermans destroyed by two defending Tigers.
-
"82 Shermans destroyed by two defending Tigers."
Thats hogwash, someone was really clueless that day or they REALLY wanted to waste all those shermans for newer replacement tanks. (much like pilots ditching 39's in the PTO)
How the %#^ do you send tank after tank after tank after tank after tank after tank into a FIELD of already burning tanks, to the point where the german tankers surrender because they run outta ammo.
Some allied commander should have been executed on the spot.
Oh cool, found the battle he spoke of, very interesting.
-
Most of those M4's were probably destroyed crossing an open field as a unit. The Germans would wait until many tanks were in their field of fire before opening up and revealing their position, thus trapping many Shermans in the open with little or no risk to themselves. German tank ace Michael Wittman used this tactic in the opening phase of the battle of Villers-Bocage when he ambushed and attacked a British tank column and completely destroyed it in 15 minutes using two or three Tigers. The British lost more than 50 vehicles with about half of them being Cromwell and Sherman Firefly tanks.
-
Thank you die hard. :salute
Any one have any numbers of m1a1's knocking out tanks or being knocked out* during 91' and current iraq?
This i have always questioned, granted the apache and A-10's were know for devistateing tanks from miles away, oh and m1a1's hated sand.
Sorry for the jumbled spelling, i am still kinda up from yesterday.
Thanks again for the info.
-
You're welcome :)
Look up the battle of 73 Easting in 1991. Probably the most decisive tank battle in modern history. You could also look up the tank battles of the Yom Kippur war. The Israelis fought some impressive battles.
-
No it is not, the sherman's were used with troop movement and support.
M-18's and other "tank destroyers" would knock out german tanks.
What people also do not understand is most american forces could call air support AND artillary WAY better than any other nation.(Ground infantry wise)
8 times outta 10, if a american G.I. spoted you,and had the ability to get to a radio, your arse was toast within minutes.
THAT is why 9/10th of officer G.I's all knew how to operate and read maps for fire support.
We didn't need tanks that could take out other tanks, we needed tanks that could push in,rapidly push german troops OUT,and hold the ground. Like aces high shows, most ground wars where the enemy push's in makes for high death rates and lost tanks, however once the "enemy" is displaced, the ground war is virtualy won.
Look how the battle of the bulge went for germans even tho they had more tanks and A/C in that battle than they started the war with.
If it came to attacking a german tank, i would have called in fire support long before risking any single sherman in a toe to toe gun battle with any kinda german tank/gun inplacements. Corse on the other hand, most germans knew that if someone (marked) them with smoke grenades or smoke rockets, it was dooms day all over again.
Yeah yeah yeah, debateable arm chair generals, i know..i know.
Not even close to the truth. I suggest you read "An Army at Dawn" by Rick Atkinson. Your "opinion" on the "efficiency" of "coordinated attacks" will be cast in a more truthful manner.
What "you" would've done is irrelevant in any case dealing with WWII.
-
Sure, but that only shows that a good tank is versatile. A Panther or Tiger was just as good at supporting infantry as an M4, but could also successfully fight other tanks. The Germans invented the modern combined arms doctrine, combining armor, troops, artillery and tactical air power. It was the essence of "Blitzkrieg".
The Panther and Tiger, particularly the latter, were worse tanks than the Sherman. Why? Because they were ill-matched to the resources of the country that fielded them. A Panther or Tiger was just as good at supporting infantry as a Sherman, but a Panther or Tiger was not as good at supporting infantry as ten Shermans. The Panther probably could have been a great tank if its designers had made a few compromises with reality, but the Tiger could never have been anything but a squandering of precious industrial resources.
The Sherman was marginal for the Allies because, while they could build enough to swarm the battlefield, tank crews required a good bit of training, the Allies didn't have unlimited manpower, and there were political costs (not to mention ethical concerns) to high casualty rates. The Germans had serious manpower trouble as well but their industrial capacity was not up to fielding tanks as difficult and expensive to manufacture as the Tiger. Today, we (the West generally but particularly the U.S.) build the equivalent of a Panther/Tiger hybrid because advances in detection, targeting, and information technology have made it even easier for one superior tank to kill many inferior ones at little risk to itself, and because we are much more willing to expend dollars than lives on the battlefield. The context has changed, so the ideal weapon has changed as well.
You can't analyze the effectiveness of any piece of military hardware out of context. The V2 was a horrible weapon because it was ridiculously expensive for the return. The Ki-84 was a bad-to-mediocre plane because its design didn't take the limitations of Japan's aircraft industry into account. The T-34 was a superb weapon because it was both effective on the battlefield and capable of being manufactured in the necessary numbers.
-
We could argue the flaws and merits of German engineering and production all night, however that is not the point. Simply by tossing out that crappy 75mm and replacing it with the 17 pounder the British made the Sherman into a proper tank. A tank that could take on the Germans even if it was still a bit under-armored. The tank that killed Michael Wittman and his Tiger.
The cost of German tanks have been somewhat overplayed in the popular media. German production inefficiency was a far greater factor in the low output of late-war German AFVs. The production cost of an M4 Sherman including armament and all equipment was $46,000 in 1940's US Dollar. The equivalent US Dollar cost of a Panther was $60,000, and the Tiger cost a whopping $120,000. However the combat value of a Panther was far more than one and a half M4, and the Tiger was the equal of at least 10 M4's or more. The T-34/76 went for about $30,000.
The Panther and Tiger were expensive, but compared to the M4 they were much, much better value for the money.
-
We could argue the flaws and merits of German engineering and production all night, however that is not the point. Simply by tossing out that crappy 75mm and replacing it with the 17 pounder the British made the Sherman into a proper tank. A tank that could take on the Germans even if it was still a bit under-armored. The tank that killed Michael Wittman and his Tiger.
Right, the Sherman was versatile and adaptable, that was one of its good qualities. The Marks III and IV were too, although the designers didn't give enough thought to the supply problems they created with so many incompatible parts.
The cost of German tanks have been somewhat overplayed in the popular media.
Dollar value isn't a very good measure of cost in wartime. What you need to know are the critical shortages (which would have a high dollar value in peacetime, but not necessarily in a state-controlled wartime economy - for example, the monetary price of gasoline and tires in the U.S. was much lower than supply and demand would normally dictate beause of the strict rationing).
If your tank requires a widget with a nominal value of $100, but for whatever reason your industry is only capable of turning out 100 of those widgets a month and that capacity can't be expanded quickly or easily, and lots of other things in your armory need similar widgets, it's a very expensive tank. My understanding is that that opportunity cost for the Tiger was out of proportion to its dollar cost (as with the V2).
-
What exactly would this "widget" on the Tiger be? It was made from steel, it used basically the same gun as the FlaK 88 having been produced in its thousands, it used the same optics as other German tanks, it used an enlarged Maybach engine that was mechanically similar to the Maybachs powering the PzKpfw III and IV. There was nothing special about the Tiger I, it was just very big and heavy. Technologically and design wise it wasn't very advanced at all and was actually a pre-war design. It cost about four times as much as a PzKpfw IV and took about twice as long to build.
The real and often overlooked problem was that while the PzKpfw III and IV production lines were set up and operational before the war, Tiger and Panther production
had to be set up during war time when resources and skilled labor was already scarce. If they had extended the PzKPFw IV production line instead they would only have gotten 2-4 times more tanks. The Tiger and Panther were far more valuable on the battlefield than 2-4 times their number in PzKpfw IV's.
-
LOL --
So it sounds like we are back to the arguement that the Sherman was "bad" because it was a medium tank instead of a heavy. Got it.
-
What exactly would this "widget" on the Tiger be? It was made from steel, it used basically the same gun as the FlaK 88 having been produced in its thousands, it used the same optics as other German tanks, it used an enlarged Maybach engine that was mechanically similar to the Maybachs powering the PzKpfw III and IV. There was nothing special about the Tiger I, it was just very big and heavy. Technologically and design wise it wasn't very advanced at all and was actually a pre-war design. It cost about four times as much as a PzKpfw IV and took about twice as long to build.
Offhand, I can think of three: the much thicker armor required considerably more skill and time to be welded, the hull required extensive machining (and thus more skill, time, and scarce machine tools) in comparison to the T-34, and the transmission was extremely complex with low tolerances which, again, required more skill, time, and scarce tools to make than other tanks, especially the Sherman. The Panther had the same problems to a lesser extent.
None of those factors is going to appear in the dollar (RM) expense because normal market conditions didn't apply. A master welder might make 2 or 3 times what a novice does, but if you can easily train a million novices but have no way to train many more masters within the necessary time frame, the labor of the master has a value and scarcity far out of proportion to his pay. That applies to time as well - it's not how much time it takes, it's how much of the time of the most scarce laborers it takes.
And the question isn't how many Mark IVs could have been built for the same monetary price, it's how many of the equivalent of a T-34 or Sherman Germany could have produced under wartime conditions.
Technologically and design wise it wasn't very advanced at all and was actually a pre-war design.
Technology and difficulty of manufacture don't always coincide, in fact they often vary inversely. The MG-42, MP-44, MP-40, and P-38 (the pistol) were all easier and cheaper to build and also more up-to-date and effective weapons than the previous generation of small arms.
-
LOL --
So it sounds like we are back to the arguement that the Sherman was "bad" because it was a medium tank instead of a heavy. Got it.
Were do you get that impression? I certainly haven't made that argument.
-
Were do you get that impression? I certainly haven't made that argument.
Wasn't necessarily directed at you, but then you did say . . .
Yes, a Tiger would be able to survive a direct hit from another Tiger with some luck. And the other Tigers would be much better able to retaliate against a defending Tiger than the M4.
There is also the continuing hogwash about the 75mm not being able to kill tanks. We covered this earlier in the thread. The 75mm was certainly not the most powerful AT gun on the battlefield, but make no mistake, it was considered a dual-purpose gun and was fully capable of killing other medium tanks.
Put another way, every time a "shortcoming" of the Sherman comes up, the comparison seems to default to the German Panther or Tiger, which were both heavy tanks. The same "shortcomings" of the Sherman are equally true of the T-34/76 in most cases, but that particular tank always gets a pass. I guess it was OK that the 76.2mm was incapable of killing a Tiger, because no one expected much of the Russians to begin with. :rolleyes: But the 75mm on the Sherman is considered practically criminal.
It is the inconsistent comparisons and double-standards that drive me crazy.
-
Offhand, I can think of three: the much thicker armor required considerably more skill and time to be welded, the hull required extensive machining (and thus more skill, time, and scarce machine tools) in comparison to the T-34, and the transmission was extremely complex with low tolerances which, again, required more skill, time, and scarce tools to make than other tanks, especially the Sherman. The Panther had the same problems to a lesser extent.
None of those factors is going to appear in the dollar (RM) expense because normal market conditions didn't apply.
That is your main argument, and it is based on the completely wrong assertion that normal market conditions didn't apply. They did. Unlike Soviet factories the German production companies like Porsche and Henschel weren't commandeered by the state, but actually worked for a profit. Germany wasn't completely on a war-production footing until 1944, and was producing luxury items as late as 1943. Even in 1944 companies like Junkers (I have detailed financial documents on Junkers) were making a profit on the aircraft and engines they were producing. The workers were paid (except for slave laborers of course) standard prewar wages and the production companies had to pay for the resources they needed. If anything German monetary production costs more reflect the actual cost than the allied counterpart's.
And the question isn't how many Mark IVs could have been built for the same monetary price, it's how many of the equivalent of a T-34 or Sherman Germany could have produced under wartime conditions.
The PzKpfw IV cost approximately the same as an M4 Sherman, had equal or better armor and a better gun, so your argument is pointless. America out-produced Germany, but it had nothing to do with German tank designs and everything to do with Americas superior production capacity, and Germany's ineffective use of theirs.
-
Wasn't necessarily directed at you, but then you did say . . .
... in direct response to a question.
There is also the continuing hogwash about the 75mm not being able to kill tanks. We covered this earlier in the thread. The 75mm was certainly not the most powerful AT gun on the battlefield, but make no mistake, it was considered a dual-purpose gun and was fully capable of killing other medium tanks.
I've never said the 75mm wasn't able to kill tanks, however it sucked at it compared to what the opposition fielded. The Sherman should have been up-gunned in 1943 at the latest, but due to political/production reasons it wasn't. And no, the 75mm was not a capable weapon against German medium tanks in 1943-1944. The PzKpfw IV Ausf. G and H, even when being 4-7 tons lighter than the M4, had the same frontal armor thickness as the Panther at 80mm. The US 75mm could not penetrate that at any but the shortest of ranges.
Put another way, every time a "shortcoming" of the Sherman comes up, the comparison seems to default to the German Panther or Tiger, which were both heavy tanks. The same "shortcomings" of the Sherman are equally true of the T-34/76 in most cases, but that particular tank always gets a pass. I guess it was OK that the 76.2mm was incapable of killing a Tiger, because no one expected much of the Russians to begin with. :rolleyes: But the 75mm on the Sherman is considered practically criminal.
We have been over this already. The T-34/76 entered the war more than a year earlier than the M4 at a time where it was vastly superior to the German tanks. By the time the Sherman entered the war the Germans had up-armored and up-gunned their tanks and the Sherman was at best equal with the opposition. However, the M4's early ammo storage problem gave it a bad reputation on both sides of the front line, and nothing sticks to a war machine like a bad rep however unjust. As the war dragged on the Germans continued to improve their tanks, but the M4 basically stayed the same in terms of combat power until mid-1944. Whether this was criminal is not for me to decide, but in my opinion it was a great disservice to the men who were forced to fight in them. The technology and weapons were available, but for some reason the allied tankers had to fight a 1944 enemy in a 1942 tank. I wonder how the war would have ended if the RAF and USAAF had been forced to fight in Spit V's and P-40's in 1944. Not well I suspect.
It is the inconsistent comparisons and double-standards that drive me crazy.
I'm afraid those are only a figment of your imagination, or bias, or both.
-
Oh and while the Panther is 10 tons heavier than the Sherman it is still commonly classified as a medium tank.
-
The Sherman should have been up-gunned in 1943 at the latest, but due to political/production reasons it wasn't.
Funny -- neither was the T-34. (e.g. double-standard)
The PzKpfw IV Ausf. G and H, even when being 4-7 tons lighter than the M4, had the same frontal armor thickness as the Panther at 80mm.
At nearly zero slope. Saying the IV and the V were equally armored seems a silly statement.
The T-34/76 entered the war more than a year earlier than the M4 at a time where it was vastly superior to the German tanks. By the time the Sherman entered the war the Germans had up-armored and up-gunned their tanks and the Sherman was at best equal with the opposition. However, the M4's early ammo storage problem gave it a bad reputation on both sides of the front line, and nothing sticks to a war machine like a bad rep however unjust.
Agree on reputations. But if the reputation is unjust, why simply accept the reputation?
As the war dragged on the Germans continued to improve their tanks, but the M4 basically stayed the same in terms of combat power until mid-1944. Whether this was criminal is not for me to decide, but in my opinion it was a great disservice to the men who were forced to fight in them. The technology and weapons were available, but for some reason the allied tankers had to fight a 1944 enemy in a 1942 tank.
Same with the T-34. Introduced a year earlier, yet was upgunned only months earlier. Hmm . . . Seems the kind of double-standard I was talking about yet again.
Oh and while the Panther is 10 tons heavier than the Sherman it is still commonly classified as a medium tank.
Commonly classified as a Medium tank, yet at 45 tons it even outweighed the 42 ton Pershing that is always called a heavy tank, and was nearly as heavy as the 46 ton IS-2 and KV-series heavy tanks of the Soviet Union. The Panther certainly is more comparable to these heavy tanks than to a 32 ton Sherman, 30 ton T-34 or 28 ton PzIV, wouldn't you agree? If you don't, then please, by all means, name another WWII 45 ton "medium" tank.
It is the inconsistent comparisons and double-standards that drive me crazy.
So, no, I wouldn't consider this a figment of my imagination.
-
Funny -- neither was the T-34. (e.g. double-standard)
I've never claimed the T-34 was a good tank in 1943. I've actually not mentioned the T-34 very often at all except when I compare it as equal to the M4. The double standard is only in your head.
At nearly zero slope. Saying the IV and the V were equally armored seems a silly statement.
You really need to stop putting words in my mouth. I've never claimed the IV and V were equally armored. I've claimed their frontal armor was of equal thickness. As for slope, the PzKpfw IV had spaced frontal armor (50mm+30mm) which is almost as effective as sloped armor.
Agree on reputations. But if the reputation is unjust, why simply accept the reputation?
Are you saying I simply accept the reputation? How many times do I have to say that the M4 wasn't a bad tank (when it was introduced) before it sinks in?
Same with the T-34. Introduced a year earlier, yet was upgunned only months earlier. Hmm . . . Seems the kind of double-standard I was talking about yet again.
You seem to be banging on about the T-34 for some reason. How many times do I have to state that I consider the T-34 and M4 equal in terms of combat effectiveness? You know, it is the very first thing I said in this thread ... The first sentence even. Again the double standard is only in your head.
Commonly classified as a Medium tank, yet at 45 tons it even outweighed the 42 ton Pershing that is always called a heavy tank, and was nearly as heavy as the 46 ton IS-2 and KV-series heavy tanks of the Soviet Union. The Panther certainly is more comparable to these heavy tanks than to a 32 ton Sherman, 30 ton T-34 or 28 ton PzIV, wouldn't you agree?
Yeah I agree with you on that. However I think the reason behind the different classification is because the Germans were a generation ahead of the allies in not only tank technology, but also tank classification. Today 45-50 ton tanks like the T-72 and T-80 are considered "medium". In 1944 the Germans were producing "heavy" tanks that weighed the same as the M1 Abrams at almost 70 tons.
-
Well, the generation gap was closed when the Brits built the Challenger. Ready in 1945 but not engaging in the war. Probably the finest one built in that year...
-
I hope you are kidding, the Challenger was a POS. I'd say the gap was closed when the Centurion Mark II entered service in November 1945.
-
That is your main argument, and it is based on the completely wrong assertion that normal market conditions didn't apply. They did. Unlike Soviet factories the German production companies like Porsche and Henschel weren't commandeered by the state, but actually worked for a profit.
That isn't necessarily incompatible with what I said - see below.
The workers were paid (except for slave laborers of course) standard prewar wages and the production companies had to pay for the resources they needed.
Exactly - they paid prewar wages, or something like them. Those wages didn't reflect the very different economic environment of 1943. Highly trained experts were much more scarce, and therefore valuable, because you could bring in slaves to do the scut work but not, in sufficient numbers anyway, expert craftsmanship, and people to do the latter couldn't just be trained en masse the way you could train people to sit in front of a machine and put a piece of sheet metal in and press a lever over and over.
Wages for highly skilled laborers went up, but not ten- or twentyfold as a free market would have dictated.
Likewise with resources and machine tools. The Nazis - specifically the Ministry for Armaments and War Production - didn't take over ownership or operational management of manufacturers, but it did tell them specifically what to build and allocate scarce resources. I don't have a figure for the price of tungsten in the Germany of 1944, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't 1,000 times its prewar price, which is what a free market would have dictated.
I don't have specific figures for this discussion, so I'm willing to concede that the actual cost may have been closer to what you say than to what I'm suggesting - but the general point that for most of the war the German leadership didn't properly take into account critical bottlenecks in their economy still holds. The V-2 is probably the most egregious example of this.
-
Exactly - they paid prewar wages, or something like them. Those wages didn't reflect the very different economic environment of 1943. Highly trained experts were much more scarce, and therefore valuable, because you could bring in slaves to do the scut work but not, in sufficient numbers anyway, expert craftsmanship, and people to do the latter couldn't just be trained en masse the way you could train people to sit in front of a machine and put a piece of sheet metal in and press a lever over and over.
Wages for highly skilled laborers went up, but not ten- or twentyfold as a free market would have dictated.
Likewise with resources and machine tools. The Nazis - specifically the Ministry for Armaments and War Production - didn't take over ownership or operational management of manufacturers, but it did tell them specifically what to build and allocate scarce resources. I don't have a figure for the price of tungsten in the Germany of 1944, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't 1,000 times its prewar price, which is what a free market would have dictated.
Good point, I hadn't thought of that.
I don't have specific figures for this discussion, so I'm willing to concede that the actual cost may have been closer to what you say than to what I'm suggesting - but the general point that for most of the war the German leadership didn't properly take into account critical bottlenecks in their economy still holds. The V-2 is probably the most egregious example of this.
Absolutely. Like I said earlier about German production inefficiencies. Partly because of unrealistic, sometimes downright stupid, leadership decisions by the Nazis and partly because of general inefficiencies in the industry itself. Even as late as 1943 most German factories worked one shift. Evening and night the factories were shut down... Imagine that. That's also part of why German industry could take so much damage from the RAF/USAAF bombing campaign and still increase its production output from 1943 to 1944. There was so much slack that the damage could be compensated for by simply streamlining the remaining production capacity.
-
I hope you are kidding, the Challenger was a POS. I'd say the gap was closed when the Centurion Mark II entered service in November 1945.
Arfff, me bad, I mixed up the names. Centurion of course.
Not the fasted, but well armed, lethal and highly reliable. Has some of the longest use and finest record of any tank basically (since it was frequently facing something close to equal).
And...full production started in nov 1945, - it was a wee delayed, for this one was built to withstand the 88mm!
-
the panther was a cross i think of a heavy tank and a medium tank it had the same caliber gun as a medium but the armor of a heavy tank
-
Cool to see an old tank commander reunited with his big cat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5rzkJAgHH4
-
And...full production started in nov 1945, - it was a wee delayed, for this one was built to withstand the 88mm!
The original design, the Mark I, was not designed to take on the 88. It had only 76mm of front armor if I recall correctly. The Mark II had more than 100mm sloped front armor and would stand a good chance of surviving a hit from the 88mm FlaK or KwK 36. However the long 88mm KwK 43 on the King Tiger and Jagdpanther would still penetrate it at 2,000 yards or more. And the King Tiger was still the armor "king" with its 150mm sloped front armor. Impressive for a January 1944 machine, but it was flawed and rushed into production of course. It took the destruction of Germany and two years of development to close the gap. Maybe the Russians were a bit faster to close the gap with their IS-3 in early 1945.
-
Here:
"Prototypes of the original 40 ton design, the Centurion Mark I, had 76 mm of armour in the front glacis, thinner than the then current infantry tank designs like the Churchill which had 101 mm, but the glacis plate was highly sloped and so the effective thickness of the armour was very high - a design feature shared by other effective designs such as the German Panther tank and Soviet T-34. The turret was extremely well armoured at 152 mm."
It was the upgrade who was in full production in 1945.
But of course, the full power centurion is the Mk III from 1948, and THAT was one deadly tank. Heavily armoured, good in cross country, superbly maintainable and with a mean and accurate fire system :D
Base design from WW2, entering service after the war and would eat the post war russian tanks for lunch :devil
-
I've never claimed the T-34 was a good tank in 1943. I've actually not mentioned the T-34 very often at all except when I compare it as equal to the M4. The double standard is only in your head.
There is also something going on in your head only, which is that anything I say must be confined to a direct response to something you said.
Let us review: My re-entry into this thread was to laugh at the direction the conversation had taken that seemed to indicate the Sherman's main problem was that it wasn't a heavy tank. You thought it was directed at you, and it wasn't, except obliquely through your participation in the conversation.
My next post merely points out that you were participating in what I was laughing about. I followed by reminding that the 75mm wasn't as completely useless as the "crappy" moniker you used to describe it.
*then there is a break*
and I summarize my main point (of my laughing in the first post) thusly:
Put another way, every time a "shortcoming" of the Sherman comes up, the comparison seems to default to the German Panther or Tiger, which were both heavy tanks. The same "shortcomings" of the Sherman are equally true of the T-34/76 in most cases, but that particular tank always gets a pass. I guess it was OK that the 76.2mm was incapable of killing a Tiger, because no one expected much of the Russians to begin with. :rolleyes: But the 75mm on the Sherman is considered practically criminal.
It is the inconsistent comparisons and double-standards that drive me crazy.
Having just made my point about the 75mm not being useless, it seemed the apt comparison to use when referring to the generic double-standard. In retrospect I should have used armor protection as my example instead to make it more clear than the break that the last paragraph was not directed at anything you had just said.
You still felt compelled to respond, to which I responded consistent with my point about double-standards, especially since you did more to confirm that the double-standards are out there rather than the opposite.
You say it's "all in my head", yet the inconsistencies I refer to seem to come up in just about every thread about WWII tanks. The one that you participated in without even realizing it is a prime example of how they just sneak in. Comparisons of the Sherman to the Panther since the latter is a "medium" tank, when it is clearly a heavy by any WWII standard, is one of my pet peeves.
The double-standards permiate most casual references of WWII to the point they have become "popular myth." One only has to look at the "best tanks" shows by THC to see the types of double-standards I am talking about. "T-34 PWNED!! Sherman was teh suxxor!!" And yet, they are indeed very comparable tanks.
But, that's right, its "all in my head." :rolleyes:
I also don't buy the argument that you have used several times that the T-34 was OK because it saw combat earlier. Either the tanks are comparable, or they are not. I find them very comparable. Any of the "yes, buts" that go on from there is simply an excuse to be able to elevate one and put down the other.
You really need to stop putting words in my mouth. I've never claimed the IV and V were equally armored. I've claimed their frontal armor was of equal thickness. As for slope, the PzKpfw IV had spaced frontal armor (50mm+30mm) which is almost as effective as sloped armor.
I didn't put words in your mouth. Here they are.
The PzKpfw IV Ausf. G and H, even when being 4-7 tons lighter than the M4, had the same frontal armor thickness as the Panther at 80mm.
So if you were NOT trying to compare the PzkwIV's frontal armor to the Panther, why did you even bring up the Panther? And you didn't say it, yet you actually just said it again, didn't you? Oh, that's right, "all in my head." :P
Yeah I agree with you on that. However I think the reason behind the different classification is because the Germans were a generation ahead of the allies in not only tank technology, but also tank classification. Today 45-50 ton tanks like the T-72 and T-80 are considered "medium". In 1944 the Germans were producing "heavy" tanks that weighed the same as the M1 Abrams at almost 70 tons.
Generation ahead or not, by any consistent WWII standard, the Panther is firmly in the "Heavy" category. I sometimes wonder if calling the Panther a "Medium" was simply to allow historians to avoid having to choose the Panther or the Tiger as the best Heavy tank of the war. :cool:
Look, I think you and I are actually more in agreement about matters than the intardnet purse-fight would indicate, since it seems we are talking past each other more than at or to each other. Then again, perhaps that is another "figment of my imagination", I haven't decided. If at any point I've been unfair or off base, I apologize for that.
Oh, but this statement still stands . . .
It is the inconsistent comparisons and double-standards that drive me crazy.
You can continue to think it is directed at you if you like, but that would be all in your head. :P
-
Shermy's weakness: armour and anti-armour capacities of the main gun.
Shermy's strongness: many factors. Versatility, reliability, range, maintenance....etc.
What was done: Shermy got some units with the 17 pounder so suddenly it could punch holes into tigers. And then the classic frontal armour enhancement, such as using the spare tracks and a load of sandbags....
It was just a wee behind what it had to face in terms of firepower and armour, that's all. A standard Sherman could still kill a Panzer, maybe even a tiger, but the odds were in the favour of the latter.
-
The latter is true because the latter's could mostly be found sitting on they're fat tulips slinging shells into open fields of medium tanks that have no clue where the incoming is coming from. all while tigers & panzers are being heavly covered and consealed with camo netting tank pits, even structures that look like houses and barns, stacks of hay..and such.
Battle of the bulge proved how the tiger and panzer were, look for the burning husks of 70 ton tanks, to the left and right you would see still intact shermans and m-18's pushing the germans back.(After the first assault failed)
Also real world conditions have a big roll to play, how cold or hot weather can effect armor plate's how low resources would lead to poor quality steel, couple all these thing together,and the reality is most later war tigers and panzers could survive a hit, but nothing says the armor would be shattered, or rendered next to paper for the next incoming round.
In aces high all out gv's act like invulnerable object's till that sweet spot is breached, no tank ever got hit anywhere and shruged those hits off, each and every impact around a local spot would weaken the armor for the next rounds, the question is, depending..is how many licks does it take to get to the center of a panzer or tiger. ;)
Could also imagine how being hit by 5+ shells would ruin the day of the guys inside, or how a 500lb bomb would shatter ear drums, making it impossible to stand, let alone wage war, aim, balance and such.
Another thing aces high leaves completely out of the picture, imagine being hit by a t-34's main gun, the impact bouncing off, but you start hearing a loud rining sound, or having a slight concussion as to make it harder to view (tank/person would shake like a A/c over speeding" and im willing to bet your next round will not be on mark.
It is my hope that in the future HTC focuses on puting more realism in tanks, gunners and drivers being killed, drive lines being knocked out, tracks locking up after being hit, smoke entering the cockpit when a round breaches but does no major damage. driver/gunner/commander having a concussion effect after a large bomb drops near a a/c, or a small bomb is dropped on top.
Things like that.
-
E25280, that you consider this an "internet purse fight" rather than an informed discussion just proves my earlier assertion:
I get the feeling your mind was made up a long time ago. Trying to convince you otherwise is probably a futile gesture, but hey... I got nothing better to do right now. ;)
And please excuse me for believing you were directing your comments towards me... It's just that with a very few exceptions I'm the person you have quoted in your posts. In fact I believe I'm the only one you've quoted since page four or thereabouts, and you've quoted me a lot. My posts were certainly in response/directed at you.
Now that you've made this a "purse fight" and with the stupidity of BaDkaRmA158Th latest post, it is time for me to leave you ladies to fight amongst yourselves. I have no time for purse fights.
Good day.
-
Die hard & E25280, no one here has a purse. (I hope)
Enjoy yourself's. :aok
And im glad you can peg me for the fall guy, whatever helps you sleep better at night i guess.
Regardless, it is in our best human natures to agree, or dissagree, or agree to disagree. :P
This place has alot of worth while information, and you two each have your own valid points. Whos right or wrong at this point really doesnt matter, because any view can be countered, and every counter can be hit with another view, or thought on the same subject, right wrong or indifferent.
-
E25280, that you consider this an "internet purse fight" rather than an informed discussion just proves my earlier assertion:
Let me guess -- it was "all in my head" and a "figment of my imagination."
That's fine. I'm getting used to that. :P
Yes, it all was certainly a good "informed discussion" until you started telling me I was delusional and the double-standards I was referring to didn't exist. If I over-reacted by thinking it was a swinging purse, then I apologize again.
And please excuse me for believing you were directing your comments towards me... It's just that with a very few exceptions I'm the person you have quoted in your posts. In fact I believe I'm the only one you've quoted since page four or thereabouts, and you've quoted me a lot. My posts were certainly in response/directed at you.
I think I covered all this in my previous post. My latest posts have all been because you thought some of my comments that were intended to be generic in nature were directed at you specifically. In the back-and-forth since then we appear to be talking past one another.
Now that you've made this a "purse fight" and with the stupidity of BaDkaRmA158Th latest post, it is time for me to leave you ladies to fight amongst yourselves. I have no time for purse fights.
Good day.
Too bad -- I just bought a pair of matching pumps since my purse was getting such a work out . . . :D
Excepting the present misunderstanding, I've enjoyed your contributions to this thread, and have several new items to read up on when I am able. So whether you choose to participate in it anymore or not, I thank you all the same.
-
Badkarma: while you do indeed have a point about the fat tanks staying in ambush and racking up kills like that, that is simply a very clever start. It can also break up into a fight. And what is the best property of the ambushed tank? IMHO, armour and speed, the gun comes later.
Look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Wittmann
There is stuff on youtube as well. Anyway, this guy ended up in quite a scruffle with shermans, which he killed one after the other. And Ironically he was killed by a Firefly....who ambushed him.
-
... in direct response to a question.
I've never said the 75mm wasn't able to kill tanks, however it sucked at it compared to what the opposition fielded. The Sherman should have been up-gunned in 1943 at the latest, but due to political/production reasons it wasn't. And no, the 75mm was not a capable weapon against German medium tanks in 1943-1944. The PzKpfw IV Ausf. G and H, even when being 4-7 tons lighter than the M4, had the same frontal armor thickness as the Panther at 80mm. The US 75mm could not penetrate that at any but the shortest of ranges.
We have been over this already. The T-34/76 entered the war more than a year earlier than the M4 at a time where it was vastly superior to the German tanks. By the time the Sherman entered the war the Germans had up-armored and up-gunned their tanks and the Sherman was at best equal with the opposition. However, the M4's early ammo storage problem gave it a bad reputation on both sides of the front line, and nothing sticks to a war machine like a bad rep however unjust. As the war dragged on the Germans continued to improve their tanks, but the M4 basically stayed the same in terms of combat power until mid-1944. Whether this was criminal is not for me to decide, but in my opinion it was a great disservice to the men who were forced to fight in them. The technology and weapons were available, but for some reason the allied tankers had to fight a 1944 enemy in a 1942 tank. I wonder how the war would have ended if the RAF and USAAF had been forced to fight in Spit V's and P-40's in 1944. Not well I suspect.
I'm afraid those are only a figment of your imagination, or bias, or both.
I have to say I agree with just about everything you have posted based on everything I have read.
-
It was fair enough in 1942 though, - the gun I mean. Shermie entered in the desert war of 1942, and there you could say it was the first equal of the German tanks. But as pointed out, being the same 2 years later...that was a bit optimistic.
And had the desert war carried on as long, - the more the reason. Shots exchanged at long range on barren ground....
-
Could always get the M36. It was a TD built upon thje M4 platform with a 90mm MG
Yeah, because if there's one thing this game is missing right now, it's a vehicle based on the M4 that has a gun that hits like a Mack truck. ;)
-
i still go for basic sherman its still a good tank look at panzer its 75 is effective so the shermans 75 will be too
-
i still go for basic sherman its still a good tank look at panzer its 75 is effective so the shermans 75 will be too
Millimeters are not the only indicator of a gun's performance by any means. The 75 L42 on the Panzer IV H is far better than the 75mm on earlier Shermans.
-
And the Panzer has a thicker armour.
But in 1942 you had many lighter variants in service. The main battletank in N-Africa on the axis behalf would not have been the 75mm Panzer or?
-
Oh, getting to the fine Centurion again, did you know this:
"Mk 3 Centurion Type K ,British Army number 06 BA 16, later devolved under Contract Demand 2843 to the Australian Army, who gave it registration number 169041, was involved in a nuclear blast test at Emu Plains in Australia in 1953.
It was placed about 500 meters from the device being detonated and left with the engine running. Upon return to the tank for subsequent examination it was found to have been pushed away from the blast point by about 2 meters and that its engine had only stopped working because it had run out of fuel. Antennas were missing, lights and periscopes were heavily sand blasted and the cloth mantlet cover was heavily carbonised but the tank was able to be driven away from the site. Had the tank been manned, it is unlikely that the crew would have survived due to the shock wave created by an atomic blast.
169041, subsequently nicknamed The Atomic Tank, was later used in the Vietnam War and is now located at Robertson Barracks in Palmerston, Northern Territory. Although other tanks were subjected to nuclear tests, 169041 is the only tank known to have withstood atomic tests and subsequently gone on for another 23 years of service, including 15 months on operational deployment in a war zone"
That's what I call armour. Top that with a Panzer :devil
-
169041 is the only tank known to have withstood atomic tests and subsequently gone on for another 23 years of service, including 15 months on operational deployment in a war zone"
Wow... :rock
-
Oh, getting to the fine Centurion again, did you know this:
"Mk 3 Centurion Type K ,British Army number 06 BA 16, later devolved under Contract Demand 2843 to the Australian Army, who gave it registration number 169041, was involved in a nuclear blast test at Emu Plains in Australia in 1953.
It was placed about 500 meters from the device being detonated and left with the engine running. Upon return to the tank for subsequent examination it was found to have been pushed away from the blast point by about 2 meters and that its engine had only stopped working because it had run out of fuel. Antennas were missing, lights and periscopes were heavily sand blasted and the cloth mantlet cover was heavily carbonised but the tank was able to be driven away from the site. Had the tank been manned, it is unlikely that the crew would have survived due to the shock wave created by an atomic blast.
169041, subsequently nicknamed The Atomic Tank, was later used in the Vietnam War and is now located at Robertson Barracks in Palmerston, Northern Territory. Although other tanks were subjected to nuclear tests, 169041 is the only tank known to have withstood atomic tests and subsequently gone on for another 23 years of service, including 15 months on operational deployment in a war zone"
That's what I call armour. Top that with a Panzer :devil
The Centurion was a post war tank, so comparing it to a panzer is rather pointless considering that the panzer was designed before the war. My question is why would they test a tank that wasn't going to be scrap and then reuse it. I would imagine that the thing was very radio active after the test. Makes no sense to me.
-
My point on the Centurion was to counter the claim that the Germans were generations ahead in tank design late in the war. The Centurion is a 1944 design and starts leaving the line in 1945. Compare it with what the Gerries were making at the time, - there is no generation gap, if anything the British design is ahead. It was to stay on and keep the banner as the finest tank in the world for some good 15 years or so. And the Centurion III that survived so fine is rolling on in...1948? Improved Centurion, nothing radical. Less difference perhaps than between the start and end of a Spitfire or a 109....
Now, that 1948 armour also made what is probably the finest combat record of any tank in the Israeli war of 1973. Put the Russkies to shame....
-
My point on the Centurion was to counter the claim that the Germans were generations ahead in tank design late in the war. The Centurion is a 1944 design and starts leaving the line in 1945. Compare it with what the Gerries were making at the time, - there is no generation gap, if anything the British design is ahead. It was to stay on and keep the banner as the finest tank in the world for some good 15 years or so. And the Centurion III that survived so fine is rolling on in...1948? Improved Centurion, nothing radical. Less difference perhaps than between the start and end of a Spitfire or a 109....
Now, that 1948 armour also made what is probably the finest combat record of any tank in the Israeli war of 1973. Put the Russkies to shame....
By that token the King Tiger was a 1943 design, with production starting in January 1944, almost two years before the Centurion. The German 1944/1945 deigns were never produced due to the destruction of Germany. Had Germany not folded in 1945 we might have seen the true German contemporaries to the Centurion: The E-series of tanks. Preproduction prototypes of some E vehicles saw action in the last days of the Third Reich.
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/entwicklung-series-standard-series.htm
I wonder how the Centurion would have staked up with the E-75 Tiger IIC, or even the E-50 Panther II. Both would have entered production in 1945.
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/melbsyd/E50_to_E75_by_Splinter54.jpg?t=1238031643)
(http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/881/bffelpanther2anzt7.jpg)
Prototype E50 Panther II with the old turret. (Notice the new running gear and hull)
(http://www.battletanks.com/images/Panther_II.jpg)
What the production model would have looked like with the new turret and 88mm.
(http://www.scaleworkshop.com/gallery/images/pantheriiaj_5.jpg)
-
y dont we just add it then well atleast have it i like basic sherman and many others do so why not
-
Nice Gerry tanks.
The Panther was a pain for battlefield maintenance though, while the Centurion was completely the opposite.
Armour, speed, firepower similar I guess.
But from RL, surviving a Nuke 500 m away as well as 2 tanks destroying a whole division of T-65's and stopping an advance with a strength of even more, I'd put my bucks on the Centurion :D
-
That's not a Panther. It doesn't have the Panther's engine, gear box, wheels or tracks. The E50 Panther II would have better armor, a much better gun (same 88mm as the King Tiger), a 200kW IR night vision searchlight and sight, optical range finder and gun stabilization. Front armor was 125mm, turret front was 150mm, while sides and rear were 60mm and top was 30mm. All this and it still weighed five tons less than the Centurion Mk. II. The heavier E75 would completely outmatch the Centurion.
The 46 ton Soviet IS-3, which was in service in spring 1945 was also markedly superior to the Centurion and even the E50 in terms of armor. Gun mantlet was 200mm and front armor was 120-160mm. It also carried a very powerful 122mm main gun. The Centurion Mk. II was good, but it wasn't stellar in any way. The Centurion was very upgradable however and stayed competitive for a long time.
-
Nice Gerry tanks.
The Panther was a pain for battlefield maintenance though, while the Centurion was completely the opposite.
Armour, speed, firepower similar I guess.
But from RL, surviving a Nuke 500 m away as well as 2 tanks destroying a whole division of T-65's and stopping an advance with a strength of even more, I'd put my bucks on the Centurion :D
Well the Centurion was a great tank however designs like the King Tiger still would have been able to kill it without any trouble and as diehard states there were designs that would have made life very hard for the centurion to shine if in fact they had a chance to fight one another. As far as combat records go I wouldn't put much stock in Korea or Vietnam. I doubt that any of these foes had any competent tank training to combat the forces against it. If you watch the History Channel's 10 greatest tanks the centurion wasn't the top tank.
-
If you watch the History Channel's 10 greatest tanks the centurion wasn't the top tank.
Yeah, it was the T-34!
:rolleyes:
<<=== crawls back into hole.
-
Yeah, it was the T-34!
:rolleyes:
<<=== crawls back into hole.
I loved the reason they gave why the Abrams wasn't: It had never been in a fight against something that was its equal, so they couldn't give it the title of "best".
:rofl
-
I loved the reason they gave why the Abrams wasn't: It had never been in a fight against something that was its equal, so they couldn't give it the title of "best".
:rofl
by the way the Leapord is what I understand to be the worlds best tank besting the Abrahms
-
The Leo 2 is very good indeed, but choosing between the heavy western tanks is really subjective. In my opinion there is little to choose between the Leo 2, Abrams, Challenger II and Leclerc as far as combat effectiveness is concerned. Though the Abrams is clearly the most combat tested of the lot.
-
The Leo 2 is very good indeed, but choosing between the heavy western tanks is really subjective. In my opinion there is little to choose between the Leo 2, Abrams, Challenger II and Leclerc as far as combat effectiveness is concerned. Though the Abrams is clearly the most combat tested of the lot.
well I watched a show that compared the 3, correct to say that there is most likely little difference between the 3. That being said the Abrams main gun is German made. Just knowing first hand how anal the Germans are about everything lends me to believe the narrator of the show.
-
lets just get it added
-
E25280 is on the right track, its to bad the German fan bois can't see the truth.
The tiger was an ok tank, so was the panther, the King tiger was a turd.
How tanks with interleaved road wheels got into combat only dead germans can explain, but it was a maintance nightmare and a stupid way to set up the suspension. All three of Germay’s "great" tanks had this horrid flaw. Add to that reliability and toughness issues with the maybach engine and you have tanks that cost the german army to much in resources and time spent keeping them working.
The Panther was WAY too big, compare it to the heavier Tiger one and it is BIGGER, this is why its side armor is so weak. This is also why it’s so unreliable. The Maybach engine was an aircraft engine made to be light, it was not a good tank motor. Yet they used versions of this motor in the Tiger 1 and 2 and Panther. Why didn’t the fantastic amazing super Germans come up with a motor half as good as the Ford V8 used in the M4A3(also an aircraft engine I believe, or was designed for it but hey it was reliable so it’s not as good as german stuff right?)
By the end of the war the Sherman with the HVSS suspension and 76MM gun was more than a match for the panzer 4, and had a good chance of beating anything else the germans put out. Much of Germanys fantastic armor broke down before it got to the fight... Fan bois forget that. Fan bois forget the german war machine was fueled with slave labor.
Had the war gone on the super designs would have not saved germany. The US and the UK had designs in the works every bit as good as all that german fantasy crap that got posted.
We had a heavy tank that would have been a match for the Tiger2(I am sure ours would have been reliable and had a motor that could actually move the thing). The M26 was a easy match for the Tiger1 and Panther. There were over 400 M26s in Europe when the germans and their wonder weapons gave up the fight.
The Sherman was a fine tank, and I personally think it was a better tank then either the Tiger or Panther in its later variants, the Tiger 2 should never seen production.
I used to love German armor above all else as well, but then I started reading a bit more on the subject and as cool as they look and their guns are, they are just not the best tanks of the war. The more I read about the germans, the more it was clear they were losers from Start to finish.
That’s prolly
1: T-34 76
2: M4 Sherman
3: T-34 85
4: M4 (76)
5: Panzer 4
-
Those are interesting opinions GtoRA2. Unfortunately I don't have time to address all your mistakes right now, but I do find it interesting that someone who obviously doesn't like "fan bois" much would write such a "fan boi" post like that. I'll get back to you later.
-
Those are interesting opinions GtoRA2. Unfortunately I don't have time to address all your mistakes right now, but I do find it interesting that someone who obviously doesn't like "fan bois" much would write such a "fan boi" post like that. I'll get back to you later.
Die hard,
I can clearly see the flaws in both countries designs thats why I am not a fan boi. ( I am not sure thats the case on your part, but I look forward to your reply to see.)
Are your opinions somehow more valid then mine? Or are you just pointing out what should be clear to everyone on a forum?
I used to be a German armor fanboi myself as well, then I read up a bit on the Germans.
They really know how to make gear that is pleasing to the eye, the Panther is a very pretty tank, it was just a crappy design saved only by its gun and optics.
The D was a mess. The germans couldn't decide in time if it was going to be a T-34 rip off or a "german" tank so it had the crappy hull machine gun mount, and that crappy direct vision flap, both weak spots in the armor. Plus an overly complicated hull design they later revamped. Not to mention all the other things that changed.
They figured these flaws out and tons of others and fixed them in the A and G. The A still had a shot trap, crappy drivers hatches and a big hole in the front armor in front of the driver.
Even the final design the G was just ok and look how much it had to change to get to be a decent tank.
If the germans were so great at making tanks why did the panther take 3 models, (plus all the ones in the works to fix the design flaws a minor redesign couldn't like the turret and armor thickness on the hull side, road wheel system etc)
Why no replacement for the crappy maybach? You can not make the claim with a strait face that the king tiger was not under powered. So was the Panther and tiger.
The Sherman was an ok tank,(it was as good as the german tanks in NA) that got pretty good by the end of the war(with some parts like june of 44 it being not very good for the job but it was still the basic design used in NA and italy), the M4A3 76 HVSS tank was a very good medium tank, better in every way then the Panzer 4. Able to take on Panthers without to much trouble but not one on one(they rarely needed to), that doesn't mean it wasn't a better tank over all. It was simple, reliable, and easy to maintain and it was easy for car makers to build. You can't say any of that about any of the german heavies.
The M26 was a better tank then the Panther from the day it rolled off the factory floor in just about every way. Only place it wasn't as good was the gun, but the US 90MM was a very good gun and could handle tiger 1 and Panther tanks without any problem.
We produced enough tanks for our Army, the UK and our Marine corps, and still had enough to send versions to the soviets.
Those tanks, and the excellent tanks made by the USSR were the best tanks of the war, because they helped the Allies to win the war.
The place the Germans really knew their stuff was tank guns. If the guns had not been as great as they were history would judge german armor differently. It also seems the Germans are good at designing them but it was the Russians with he 76 on the T-34 who came up with putting a bigger gun in the turret. At the start of the war the german tanks for the most part had 37MM canons. It wasnt until 42 they got a decent gun on the Panzer 4.
The war was over and lost for the Germans by the time the first panther hit combat. It just helped slow down the end at best.
-
Gtora, while I tend to agree with this:
"The US and the UK had designs in the works every bit as good as all that german fantasy crap that got posted. "
(Noteably the Centurion)
This gets me a bit stuck:
"By the end of the war the Sherman with the HVSS suspension and 76MM gun was more than a match for the panzer 4, and had a good chance of beating anything else the germans put out."
This is the up-gunned Sherman, because before the gun was inadequate. And the armour still is. It cannot take hits from the Germans.
And BTW, the first Pershing-Tiger shootout went bad....for the Pershing....
-
And BTW, the first Pershing-Tiger shootout went bad....for the Pershing....
Was there ever a Pershing-Tiger shootout?
I've seen pictures of a Pershing-Panther shootout in Cologne. There just were not that many M-26s around.
edit:
Just found one: Elsdorf. February, 1945. Pershings knocked out two Tigers and one Mark IV from their flank.
edit again: Found refence to several Pershings being lost to Mark VI's
wrongway
-
E25280 is on the right track, its to bad the German fan bois can't see the truth.
The tiger was an ok tank, so was the panther, the King tiger was a turd.
How tanks with interleaved road wheels got into combat only dead germans can explain, but it was a maintance nightmare and a stupid way to set up the suspension. All three of Germay’s "great" tanks had this horrid flaw. Add to that reliability and toughness issues with the maybach engine and you have tanks that cost the german army to much in resources and time spent keeping them working.
The Panther was WAY too big, compare it to the heavier Tiger one and it is BIGGER, this is why its side armor is so weak. This is also why it’s so unreliable. The Maybach engine was an aircraft engine made to be light, it was not a good tank motor. Yet they used versions of this motor in the Tiger 1 and 2 and Panther. Why didn’t the fantastic amazing super Germans come up with a motor half as good as the Ford V8 used in the M4A3(also an aircraft engine I believe, or was designed for it but hey it was reliable so it’s not as good as german stuff right?)
By the end of the war the Sherman with the HVSS suspension and 76MM gun was more than a match for the panzer 4, and had a good chance of beating anything else the germans put out. Much of Germanys fantastic armor broke down before it got to the fight... Fan bois forget that. Fan bois forget the german war machine was fueled with slave labor.
Had the war gone on the super designs would have not saved germany. The US and the UK had designs in the works every bit as good as all that german fantasy crap that got posted.
We had a heavy tank that would have been a match for the Tiger2(I am sure ours would have been reliable and had a motor that could actually move the thing). The M26 was a easy match for the Tiger1 and Panther. There were over 400 M26s in Europe when the germans and their wonder weapons gave up the fight.
The Sherman was a fine tank, and I personally think it was a better tank then either the Tiger or Panther in its later variants, the Tiger 2 should never seen production.
I used to love German armor above all else as well, but then I started reading a bit more on the subject and as cool as they look and their guns are, they are just not the best tanks of the war. The more I read about the germans, the more it was clear they were losers from Start to finish.
That’s prolly
1: T-34 76
2: M4 Sherman
3: T-34 85
4: M4 (76)
5: Panzer 4
You forgot to add that your observation is all your own opinion. I'm sure Otto Carrius would agree with everything you just said. NOT! But of course he just commanded a Tiger and killed over 200 tanks so what does he know.Or Ernst Barkmann that single handed destroyed some 50 Shermans and a ton of other vehicles in France in a short period of time, all the while Allied fighter-bombers circling overhead. I have a library of books on all armor and the remarks you made do not coincide with anything I have read.The Panzer mk IV was a better tank than the 75mm Sherman in almost every way . Also the Tiger in which you refer to as being an ok tank was a real threat for all Allied tanks up to the very last battles of WW2. You mention complicated and hard to maintain. The Damlier-Benz engines were extremely complicated pieces of machinery in fact the mechanics present at Duxford that maintain the 109 G6 have said the crankshaft tolerances are so minute that the tolerances would be difficult if not impossible to achieve in mass production with today's machinery . The Naper Sabre engine that the Typhoon had was a very complicated and demanding engine as far as repairs went so Germany didn't have the complicated aspect to themselves. If you watch the tank rebuild series on cable you will come to realize the appreciation that the rebuilders have for German armor and if I recall the Comet that was rebuilt was a pain in the but for them because of the backwards way they were built and their British. Everyone of those tanks you listed were handled by both Panther and Tiger with relative ease. The T-34/85 was designed to battle the Tiger and Panther and really failed to compete. The only flaw that the King Tiger really had was it was under powered but it was very well suited for the defensive role in which it fought. There was nothing in the way of Allied armor that really threatened it. I have never heard any author, German tank commander nor foe that would refer to the Panther or the King Tiger as turds. The American 76mm was a good gun but fewer than 100 Shermans that landed in Normandy had it, plus it wasn't the answer. Also the type of AP that was needed to defeat Panthers and Tigers were always in shortage. I find your post to be full of opinion and not much fact. Please read some more on the subject before making statements that are not fact/
-
Gtora, while I tend to agree with this:
"The US and the UK had designs in the works every bit as good as all that german fantasy crap that got posted. "
(Noteably the Centurion)
This gets me a bit stuck:
"By the end of the war the Sherman with the HVSS suspension and 76MM gun was more than a match for the panzer 4, and had a good chance of beating anything else the germans put out."
This is the up-gunned Sherman, because before the gun was inadequate. And the armour still is. It cannot take hits from the Germans.
And BTW, the first Pershing-Tiger shootout went bad....for the Pershing....
Angus,
the centurion was a great tank, but the M26 was not far behind. They also got a single M26 super Pershing with a long 90MM that was about as good as the 88MM KWK 71 gun into combat(for like 3 days). It used separate propellant ammo though so it was slow to load. It also had goofy external springs to counter balance the gun. This was not a production vehicle and if they had produced it it would have had all normal one piece ammo and no external springs.
Had the war gone on with the Germans this tank would have seen production and been a match gun wise with anything the Germans had.
Once we got some M26's to Korea they had no trouble handling any of the Russian armor there. Neither did the Centurion. M26 was also the bases for the M46, and even the M60 MBT traces its roots to this tank.
We also had heavy tanks in the works like the T-29 that would have been a match for the King tiger.
On the first encounter going bad for the M26, any tank can be killed by just about any other tank under the right conditions. At close range the guns on the M26, panther and tiger are going to kill each other, at any angle. The centurion wouldn’t fare any better at these ranges. At these ranges the 76 with high velocity ( cant remember the designation) ammo could penetrate the frontal armor of a panther. I think it was about 200 yards, they could penetrate the front.
I have read accounts of M24 light tanks killing king tigers.
On the Sherman being able to take on Panthers, the HVSS suspension really helped the Sherman’s floatation helping its off road mobility, an area the Tiger and panther Had the older Sherman’s beat when the ground was wet. The new suspension on the Sherman was about twice as wide. Many of these M4A3E8 tanks had armor cut from other tanks including some German tanks and welded to the fronts of the hull and turret sides. Patton had lots of these modifications done from what I have read. This almost doubled the frontal armor. These tanks saw combat at the Battle of the bulge, and did well. One panther could not take on more then 2 or 3 at the rangers fought late in the war. Not to mention German crew qaulity was getting bad. As the war went on the High velocity ammo and 76MM Shermans both got much more common, by the end I am pretty sure almost half the shermans in Europe were 76s if not more.
You also have to compare how easy the Sherman was for us to make, (I was wrong about car makers, it was train car and locomotive makers for the most part)maintain and ship and compare that to the panther and tiger.
The panther was overly complicated.
It was designed in a way that made it hard to maintain.(suspension, to get to the torsion bars, many wheels need to come off, to change a back wheel many wheels need to come off. To fix mine damage etc etc)
It had tranny and final drive issues, and to change a tranny you had to take out the whole drivers compartment and pull the armored hatch plate. This was a commonly needed repair.
The germans didnt figure out the power pack being in the back makes for a lower tank So it has a drive shaft going through the fighting compartment making the panther taller then it needs to be and adds to the complication of maintenance. The Russians got this with the T-34, and all their later tanks, we figured this out by the M26. The Germans didn’t figure it out until the leopard one in the 70s LOL.
Look at all the welds in the hull, think of the time that takes to do, then look at all the welds in the turret.
Look at the goofy road wheels just from a production stand point.
The maybach engine was underpowered easy to damage junk.
Built with slave labor…
Towards the end of its production the Armor quality on Germans tanks was poor and it would shatter from hits that didn’t penetrate.
The size, if you build models, you can put a Tiger 1 and Panther side by side, the Panther is a bigger tank, this means it has thinner armor on the sides because its has so much area to cover in armor. Sure it has great frontal armor, even with a flat face turret it is very a very tough tank from the front.
A Shermans 75MM gun on a basic M4 can kill a Panther from like 1000 yards from the side. The Tiger that was not the case, a Sherman needed to be like 400 or 500 yards.. ( I think, I will have to check some books tonight)
A tank more the size of the Panzer 4 with sloped armor and a better gun would have served germany far better.
So what stands out as good on the panther?
Mobility (when it runs, or when its tranny works, or when it final drivers are not broken, or any other of the other things that could go wrong in its automotive system)
Looks (come on it looks great!)
That great gun and site (maybe the best gun of the war?)
Armor protection from the front
That’s about.
Lets talk about the M4 models
Disadvantages.
Easy for German heavy tanks to kill.
Suspension system not all that good. (even the HVSS wasn’t great, but was ok for the job)
Engine in the back, tranny and final drives in the front, (just like the panther) this was an outdated way to do an engine and tranny, Since the Sherman is really an update of the M3 and was stuck with many of its design flaws, this major one stayed with the Sherman, the drive shaft going through the fighting compartment is why the Sherman is so tall.
The Aircraft Radial was a pain in the bellybutton for the crew and needed plugs and more maintance then a tank should need, but I am sure it was still more reliable then the Panthers Engine. Still you didn’t have to take a Sherman half way apart to work on the final drives or the tranny since the cover for these just ubolts
Poor gun for anti tank work in the 75MM if it has to fight heavy tanks. This gun was a better gun for infantry support since its HE shell was more powerfull then the 76MM guns. (fixed with the 76MM) This gun was also fine for taking out Panzer 4s
There was a run of early shermans with poorly heat treated armor, making it weak. (fixed as soon as it was found)
The early Sherman turret had a thin spot on the left front that later had more armor welded on and then cast on, on later production models.
The early hatches were hard to get in and out of for the driver and co driver. (fixed in later version)
Ammo storage in early models was found to be prone to cause burning and exploding tanks… it was this not the gas motor that gave the Sherman its Zippo nickname. This was fixed by adding wet storage the ammo is surrounded by liquid so if a penetration gets into the ammo it doesn’t go off and destroy the tank totally)
Early main gun site was a parascope they later put in a telescopic site as well.
Advantages.
Easy to make
Easy to ship
Easy to train crews on
Easy to work on
Reliable.
Good crew optics (when they didn’t fog up, later fixed by solid plastic parascopes)
Easy to product in large numbers.
Good infantry support gun 75MM
Decent anti tank gun 76MM (ok when introduced and got better and better as the war went on)
Decent protection from other medium tanks
Good to great engine packages. (a aircraft radial M4, m4a1 M4composite hull, a 500HP V8 M4A3, a twin diesel M4A2, the A57multibank 5 car motors in a star setup M4A4)
The Sherman was a huge design compromise to get something better then the M3 into combat. It filled the gap pretty well and really should be compared to the Panzer 4 not the panther or tiger.
Lets now compare the M26.
Disadvantages
How long it took the army to get into production.
A few shot traps on the turret, like the turret crane mounts (easy fix was to cut them off, and this was a minor shot trap)
Ventilator to small (later fixed)
Ford GAA (GAF?) V8 a bit underpowered for the size of the tank but still reliable.
Travel rest location causes exhaust manifold cracks… later fixed by moving travel lock
Advantages
Low wide design
Powerpack in the back, making for easy engine changes. This is the same design all modern MBT still use.
Torsion bar suspension with paired boggies. (the germans got it half right, I still cant fathom why they did the interleaved road wheels unless it was looks, they did have snazzy crew uniforms as well, I gues you cant go into combat looking like a slob if your german…hehehe)
Good armor over all.
Good gun.
Good crew view options (rotatimg parascopes all over)
Fairly reliable even the first models.
Good mobility
The design didn’t change much in its M26A1 model, it had an improved gun with bore evacuator, to hull parascope mounts removed, the Hull ventilator housing was redesigned and it got a new Muzzle brake. Compare that to the all the changes made in the Panther models. Granted the Pershing is a newer design, but not that much newer, the basic M26 was in development a long time because the army didn’t see a need.
The M46 was the same basic tank with slightly thicker armor and a new powerpack.
German heavy armor being so great is a myth, it was good, but had a lot of disadvantages and is only remembered well because of the looks and Fantastic guns. The Germans would have been better served to produce ton more Panzer 4s then any of the heavies.
-
. The Damlier-Benz engines were extremely complicated pieces of machinery in fact the mechanics present at Duxford that maintain the 109 G6 have said the crankshaft tolerances are so minute that the tolerances would be difficult if not impossible to achieve in mass production with today's machinery . The Naper Sabre engine that the Typhoon had was a very complicated and demanding engine as far as repairs went so Germany didn't have the complicated aspect to themselves. If you watch the tank rebuild series on cable you will come to realize the appreciation that the rebuilders have for German armor and if I recall the Comet that was rebuilt was a pain in the but for them because of the backwards way they were built and their British. Everyone of those tanks you listed were handled by both Panther and Tiger with relative ease. The T-34/85 was designed to battle the Tiger and Panther and really failed to compete. The only flaw that the King Tiger really had was it was under powered but it was very well suited for the defensive role in which it fought. There was nothing in the way of Allied armor that really threatened it. I have never heard any author, German tank commander nor foe that would refer to the Panther or the King Tiger as turds. The American 76mm was a good gun but fewer than 100 Shermans that landed in Normandy had it, plus it wasn't the answer. Also the type of AP that was needed to defeat Panthers and Tigers were always in shortage. I find your post to be full of opinion and not much fact. Please read some more on the subject before making statements that are not fact/
I am not sure why your bringing up how complicated the Damlier Benz motor since I was talking about TANK motors. Specifically the Maybach HL210 to 230 that was used in the Panther and both tigers. I think your fanboi glands have kicked in and turned off your logic ability. Since pointing out how close the tolerances are in the motor your talking about just proves how overly precise and time wasteful the germans were. These are combat vehicles not works of art, they should be built fast not to last 60 years and impress modern german armor fanbois. That precision cost german lives because they produced their stuff slower because of it.
Use your head, and at least get the engine right so we can talk about tank motors. It was a failed overly complicated weak design, and happened to be the only engine that had to use. The king tiger had only one flaw? Its underpowered motor? That’s an understatement. It;s biggest flaw was it never should have seen production.
You also completely missed the point about production numbers, I am not going to repeat it for you. Maybe instead of just paroting back a bunch of Nazi BS from self promoting Nazi SS crew and books that glorify the Nazi war machine without linking it to their crimes and use your head before you claim your opinion is some how better then mine. I have prolly read the same books. Hell I almost put Ottos book down after his cry baby foreward about how germany was robbed of her oh so special SS heroes cause the german people are wimps.
Real stand up guy.
P.S. this is a forum that people post opinions on, the same as you. This is clear to almost everyone here but you.
-
I am not sure why your bringing up how complicated the Damlier Benz motor since I was talking about TANK motors. Specifically the Maybach HL210 to 230 that was used in the Panther and both tigers. I think your fanboi glands have kicked in and turned off your logic ability. Since pointing out how close the tolerances are in the motor your talking about just proves how overly precise and time wasteful the germans were. These are combat vehicles not works of art, they should be built fast not to last 60 years and impress modern german armor fanbois. That precision cost german lives because they produced their stuff slower because of it.
Use your head, and at least get the engine right so we can talk about tank motors. It was a failed overly complicated weak design, and happened to be the only engine that had to use. The king tiger had only one flaw? Its underpowered motor? That’s an understatement. It;s biggest flaw was it never should have seen production.
You also completely missed the point about production numbers, I am not going to repeat it for you. Maybe instead of just paroting back a bunch of Nazi BS from self promoting Nazi SS crew and books that glorify the Nazi war machine without linking it to their crimes and use your head before you claim your opinion is some how better then mine. I have prolly read the same books. Hell I almost put Ottos book down after his cry baby foreward about how germany was robbed of her oh so special SS heroes cause the german people are wimps.
Real stand up guy.
P.S. this is a forum that people post opinions on, the same as you. This is clear to almost everyone here but you.
Jeez you just proved to me you know less than I thought you did . These selfpromoting Nazi books as you put it were written by everybody other than Germans. The fact is that the Germans attempted to put the best possible product on the battlefield and that goes for everything down to small arms. I believe the present day US forces also choose to focus on better than more otherwise we would have taken the Russian doctrain of more is better. Also if quaintly is better than quality why was the M-26 even built, the US just should have flooded the battlefield with Shermans. As for calling any soldier a cry baby is a rather childish statement but expected coming from a person with an obviously tainted opinion.
I am in the WW2 history business and have been for the last 15 years, so I have been exposed to many vetrans from all sides. I have heard many first hand accounts (which I take as the truth) to what really happened. I also have my nose buried in a book that pertains to this content and many others. I don't claim to be the most educated on any subject but I do have more knowledge then the average AH player and from what I read you as well. To me there are a couple of guys that know their armor, DieHard, Cthulhu, E25280. You however are a little confused on your statements and I'm sure one of them will chime in soon. I am not confused either, my statement about the 109's engine was to indicate that complicated machinery wasn't necessarily the Achilles heal of the machine. Our country's war machine probally takes more sophisticate mechanics and maintenance procedures then any other countries.
P.S. also learn to spell or use the spell check feature.
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4 (do that again and you are off the board)
-
Well, this thread is going somewhere quickly :huh
How about the topic at hand, should the M4 be included or not?
-
See Rule #4
-
Well, this thread is going somewhere quickly :huh
How about the topic at hand, should the M4 be included or not?
Yes, it was arguably the most important tank of the war. It should be in the game.
-
I say bring it on so we can see those that claim it will be competitive die ugly deaths. Then it can turn into another hanger Queen while a true competitive option be once again passed by only to turn into another post in the Wish List section.
-
I say bring it on so we can see those that claim it will be competitive die ugly deaths. Then it can turn into another hanger Queen while a true competitive option be once again passed by only to turn into another post in the Wish List section.
There is more to this game than the main arenas. AHEvents.org
-
I say bring it on so we can see those that claim it will be competitive die ugly deaths. Then it can turn into another hanger Queen while a true competitive option be once again passed by only to turn into another post in the Wish List section.
You mean a hanger queen like the T34/76 that still managed to get about 6,000 kills and 10,000 deaths in the LWAs in February? Or a hanger queen like the M-8 with 4,000 kills and 6,600 deaths?
Both are clearly outmatched by the competition, and might have crappy K/D ratios, but both get decent use.
Why? There are advantages to exploit with both (primarily speed) that at least partially compensate for the poor armament. That is the primary gripe here, it seems, about the 75mm Sherman, yes?
What advantages to the Sherman? Quick firing gun with better rate of fire than the T-34/76 or PzIV. Better optics/FOV than the T-34/76. Turret traverse better than the IV. .50cal pintle gun vs. peashooter on IV and none on T-34. The gyrostabilized gun could be modeled with less bounce and recoil effect vs. the other tanks, leading to better fire-on-the-move capability. Not to mention that lovely green HTC is currently using as a default skin.
And unlike any of the Firefly, T34/85 or Tiger, it would be unperked.
Add a LWA-only 1944 version with a 76mm gun, and any complaints about it being "poorly armed" goes away.
I don't think it would necessarily be the hanger queen you think it will.
-
Let me just preface this post with an apology: I apologize for this wall-of-text I’ve written and are about to subject you to. I’m also sorry for not proofreading this post as I’m already quite tired of looking at it.
How tanks with interleaved road wheels got into combat only dead germans can explain, but it was a maintance nightmare and a stupid way to set up the suspension. All three of Germay’s "great" tanks had this horrid flaw.
The Germans never even considered repairing a wheel or maintaining the suspension on the battle field. What you seem to lack is a general understanding of the difference between German and Allied/Soviet doctrine. The Soviets, Britons and Americans designed their tanks so that a farm boy could fix them in the field, often compromising quality and weight in the process. The Germans designed their tanks to be as good as they could make them, obviously negating the “farm boy” factor, but made them so they could easily be repaired and maintained at a field shop.
The Tigers and Panthers were all built with maintenance access hatches; mind you, they were not meant to be used to fix the machinery while it was still in the tank like you see on Discovey or THC where they criticize the poor access with comments like “you have to work blind and upside-down, and if you dropped your tools they were lost”. No. The access hatches on German tanks were designed so the German field shop mechanics could pull the whole engine or transmission unit out and replace them with working/refurbishes ones.
The Germans invariably designed their machines with Motoranlage or Triebwerksanlage commonly called Kraftei or “power egg”. The engine and transmission were designed as easily replaced units that took 30 minutes to an hour to replace at the shops.
Here are some guys restoring a Panther trying to get the complete front transmission back into the hull:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2LP5V-QGII
I’m sure the German mechanics were a bit more efficient though. ;)
However I digress, let’s get back to the suspension. The interlocking road wheels did not only give the Panther/Tiger a superior smooth ride, but was also a part of the tank’s armor defense. The wheels themselves were made from armor grade steel and covered the tank’s lower hull, acting like shields allowing the engineers to reduce the armor on the lower hull to only 40mm thus saving weight. The Panther's ride cross-country was second to none.
By comparison the T-34, while its suspension was highly terrain capable the ride was poor compared to the Panther. The springs did not offer the degree of supple compliance of the Panther’s twin torsion bars and the damping was effectively nonexistent; shock absorbers not being fitted. This gave sort of a roller coaster ride over bumpy ground. In other words, moving rapidly over terrain the Soviet crew would get bounced and shaken around quite a lot more. After a while, in prolonged action this would tend to exhaust and debilitate the Soviet crew more, while the German crew would remain relatively unstressed under similar conditions. For the drivers, the T-34 was more tiring to operate anyway and this difference would be aggravated further when maneuvering over terrain for prolonged periods.
From a maintenance point of view the interlocking wheels are often criticized for being to time consuming in that you might have to remove up to five wheels to get to the one that needs replacing. This is an argument only used by people who don’t really think about why the wheel needs replacing in the first place. Battle damage in the form of a mine or a hit from an AT gun would not only damage the inner wheel, but the outer wheels as well. In most cases there would be no more than two extra wheels that had to be removed to get to the damaged ones. Another often quoted criticism is that mud would often jam the wheels. This was a problem with the Tigers on the Russian front, however on the Panther the wheels had sufficient clearance.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-244-2321-34%2C_Ostfront-S%C3%BCd%2C_Panzer_V_%28Panther%29.jpg)
Let’s take a closer look at the M4 Sherman’s volute spring suspension:
(http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/pics/m4shermanbogie.jpg)
While the M4’s suspension looks simple enough to work on it simply was not the case with battle damage. If one of the wheels were hit by an AT gun or mine you would in most cases have to replace the entire suspension bogie and spring. Not a job even the hardiest of farm boys could do in the field.
I’m always amazed that people are so willing to believe some of these outlandish criticisms and actually believe that the German army would not have demanded a redesign of the suspension if it was that problematic. To think that the ever so perfection-minded Germans would have accepted a deficient suspension system on some of their most important weapons of war from 1942 to the end of the war is simply silly. This myth is as silly as the “one third of the 109’s were lost in landing accidents” myth.
The Panther was WAY too big, compare it to the heavier Tiger one and it is BIGGER, this is why its side armor is so weak.
No it just wasn’t. While the Panther’s hull is an inch or two longer (because of the sloping front armor plate), it is not as wide or tall as the Tiger. Some of the early reliability problems that the Tiger suffered from were due to the cramped engineering spaces; so if anything the Panther wasn’t too big, but the Tiger too small.
This is also why it’s so unreliable. The Maybach engine was an aircraft engine made to be light, it was not a good tank motor. Yet they used versions of this motor in the Tiger 1 and 2 and Panther. Why didn’t the fantastic amazing super Germans come up with a motor half as good as the Ford V8 used in the M4A3(also an aircraft engine I believe, or was designed for it but hey it was reliable so it’s not as good as german stuff right?)
Why no replacement for the crappy maybach?
The Maybach HL 210/230 engine was not an aircraft engine or based on one, nor was it “crappy”. Maybach-Motorenbau GmbH was in fact a tank and heavy vehicle manufacturer that during the interwar years made cars, and hadn’t made an aero engine since WWI some 20 years earlier. The Maybach 210/230 was a purpose built tank engine that while being advanced in terms of design and production quality was rather mechanically simple; it was a naturally aspirated, carbureted large displacement engine.
(http://www.waffenhq.de/panzer/hl230_02.jpg)
After the underpowered HL 210 was redesigned into the HL 230 and the bugs worked out the Maybach became one of the most reliable tank engines of the war. The often lauded reliability of the T-34 was more a case of it being easy to repair, not that it didn’t break down. The Maybach “power egg” was never designed to be repaired in the field, but in a field shop.
Here’s a restored Maybach HL 230 P30 started up for the first time since the war:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VZQVLQAk94
Early in the war the Germans used half-tracked prime movers to tow immobilized tanks off the battlefield back to the field shops. Later in the war they adapted Tigers and Pathers to do the job.
It is interesting that while the Russians continued with their tradition of making their tanks simple and repairable in the field, the western allies chose to adopt the German doctrine. Postwar American and British tanks grew more and more complex, right up to the hi-tech monsters of today. The American Abrams and the British Challenger I/II both share the German philosophy of quality over quantity, and also share the same design characteristics with regard to maintenance. The Leo 2 is a prime example of this “modular” approach.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxdEtyxa7Ao
These days even the Russians have abandoned the “simple and producible” philosophy of old.
-
By the end of the war the Sherman with the HVSS suspension and 76MM gun was more than a match for the panzer 4, and had a good chance of beating anything else the germans put out. Much of Germanys fantastic armor broke down before it got to the fight... Fan bois forget that. Fan bois forget the german war machine was fueled with slave labor.
The Sherman was an ok tank,(it was as good as the german tanks in NA) that got pretty good by the end of the war(with some parts like june of 44 it being not very good for the job but it was still the basic design used in NA and italy), the M4A3 76 HVSS tank was a very good medium tank, better in every way then the Panzer 4. Able to take on Panthers without to much trouble but not one on one(they rarely needed to), that doesn't mean it wasn't a better tank over all. It was simple, reliable, and easy to maintain and it was easy for car makers to build. You can't say any of that about any of the german heavies.
No, even the 76mm Sherman simply wasn’t a match for late-war PzKpfw IV’s. The IV had superior front armor and a gun that could kill a Sherman front-quarter at more than 2000 yards. In return the Sherman would have to close to 500-1000 yards to kill a IV with a front-quarter shot.
Had the war gone on the super designs would have not saved germany. The US and the UK had designs in the works every bit as good as all that german fantasy crap that got posted.
Yes, the allies had good designs in the works, but in 1944 the Germans were a generation ahead. Like I said earlier (if you had bothered to actually read the thread I might not have to repeat myself) the allies had closed the technology gap with the Centurion Mk. II in 1945.
Also the E-series was not “fantasy crap”, but the 1945 generation of German armor had the war lasted the year. A few preproduction vehicles actually saw action in the closing days of the war in Europe.
We had a heavy tank that would have been a match for the Tiger2(I am sure ours would have been reliable and had a motor that could actually move the thing). The M26 was a easy match for the Tiger1 and Panther. There were over 400 M26s in Europe when the germans and their wonder weapons gave up the fight.
It is interesting that you consider the 1945 M26 an easy match for 1942 Tigers and 1943 Panthers. The M26 wasn’t really ready for combat in WWII and its armor wasn’t up to the task of defending it from the Tigers and Panthers. The 90mm M3 gun was good however, and a lot better at killing Panthers and Tigers than what the Sherman could bring to the fight. The M26 still had a range deficiency against Tigers and Panthers, and really had to use HVAP rounds at ranges over 1000 yards to stay competitive, but the battle would be much more even than with the Sherman.
The M26 used one of the first hydro-kinetic torque converter transmissions in an AFV. This system originally started development in 1943 at the GM Transmission Products Study Group by GM engineers O. K. Kelly and G. Hause. It was a very sophisticated transmission for its time and in the M26 it was dubbed the “cross-drive” Transmission. Post war it was developed into the Allison CD 850 series and remained in basic form the standard transmission of US tanks through the M60 series. The Cross-Drive transmission combines the gear box with the final drive into one unit. The engine output is directed to a torque converter that delivers equal power to both tracks. A PTO internally drives the steering clutches and steering output at the tracks. This system allows the tank not only to pivot in place but to literally spin in place driving tracks in opposite directions.
The M26 was underpowered having barely better power to weight ratio than the King Tiger, and mechanical unreliability was a major problem. The M26’s many bugs weren’t really fixed until it was redesigned in 1948. The transmission was not reliable; it made the tank easier to drive when it worked, but it broke regularly and proved difficult to maintain. The Ford GAF V-8 was reliable but produced no more power than the Sherman’s GAA and the M26 weighed 10 tons more than the M4. In 1948 both engine and transmission were replaced and upgraded models were re-designated the M46 Patton.
The Sherman was a fine tank, and I personally think it was a better tank then either the Tiger or Panther in its later variants...
You are entitled to your opinion of course, but it wasn’t. It really wasn’t.
...the Tiger 2 should never seen production.
I agree. The King Tiger was not a bad tank, it was very good in fact after most of its teething problems were worked out, but it was the wrong tank for Germany in 1944. Germany needed cheap producible AFV’s like the Hetzer and Jagdpanzer IV to complement the Panther rather than a gas-guzzling monster tank. Had Germany still been on the offensive and with its production capabilities intact, the King Tiger would have made sense. None of this would have altered the outcome of the war of course; Germany lost the war long before the King Tiger or Panther saw service. Some would say even before the Sherman saw action.
I used to love German armor above all else as well, but then I started reading a bit more on the subject ...
May I respectfully suggest you read some more? Preferably from authors that actually know what they’re writing about. ;)
-
They really know how to make gear that is pleasing to the eye, the Panther is a very pretty tank, it was just a crappy design saved only by its gun and optics.
The D was a mess. The germans couldn't decide in time if it was going to be a T-34 rip off or a "german" tank so it had the crappy hull machine gun mount, and that crappy direct vision flap, both weak spots in the armor. Plus an overly complicated hull design they later revamped. Not to mention all the other things that changed.
They figured these flaws out and tons of others and fixed them in the A and G. The A still had a shot trap, crappy drivers hatches and a big hole in the front armor in front of the driver.
Even the final design the G was just ok and look how much it had to change to get to be a decent tank.
All tanks have teething problems that only become apparent when the tank is tested in combat, and the Panther was no different. However, generally speaking most WWII tank designs had their worst bugs fixed after about six months. Combat vehicles also tend to get bad reputations if they have particularly bad teething problems. The early M4’s suffered from engine reliability issues and that nasty ammo storage problem that more often than not killed the crew if the tank was hit. As a result the Sherman got a bad rep on both sides of the front; the Germans nicknamed it the “Tommy coocker” (Tommy being their nickname for the British), and the British called it the "Ronson" (cigarette lighter). This was based on the Ronson Company's famous slogan, "lights first time, every time." After the ammunition storage had been redesigned the bad reputation was no longer deserved, but even to this day British (and many American) WWII tankers will attest to having little or no confidence in the Sherman.
A not well known fact is that the T-34 suffered serious teething problems with its transmission and engine. Tracks would also wear out very fast and many crews carried spare tracks over the hull to provide fast repairs (but also because Soviet logistics was unable to ship them in time). In addition, many of the vital parts of the T-34 proved to be ill-manufactured: The air filters were too poor and let dust inside the engine, rapidly wearing it down. The transmission was prone to breaking down and clutches were weak. Maximum theoretical speed was rarely achievable under normal conditions, and the T-34 required a major engine overhaul after less than 100 hours of use. Things became better when a new transmission was introduced in 1943, but as I noted earlier the T-34 was easy to repair … but it needed to be. However, because the T-34 literally saved the Soviet Union from defeat in December 1941 and outclassed all German tanks in this period of the war, the T-34’s success outshines its early problems and it got a good reputation from the start.
The Panther Ausf. D really wasn’t ready for service in July 1943 when it was thrown into the cauldron of the Battle of Kursk. Engine and transmission were prone to breaking down and there were numerous other problems. This gave the Panther a bad reputation of mechanical unreliability that would stick to the vehicle for some time. Problems were experienced with blown head gaskets. As advised by Dr Ferdinand Porsche, this was corrected by installing copper rings pressed into grooves to seal the heads of Maybach HL 230 P30 motors starting with serial number 8321466 in September 1943. Other modifications were introduced at the same time including improved coolant circulation inside the motor and a reinforced membrane spring installed in the fuel pump. In November 1943, starting with Maybach HL230 P30 motor number 8322575, the governor was already set at the factory for a maximum rpm of 2500 rpm under full load and the motors were outfitted with a hand operated temperature control on the oil cooler. Overheating was overcome by fitting a second cooling pump and modifying the cooling distribution. Later Panthers proved very much more reliable than the vehicles involved in the Kursk debacle.
Before the fixes were implemented the Panther Ausf. D had an appalling 35% operational readiness. However with the introduction of the Ausf. A two months later the op. readiness rose to 65% and by early spring 1944 it had risen to more than 80%. After the D-Day landings the Panter’s readiness level would again drop to below 50%, but that was a result of the increasingly desperate supply situation. Something as simple as a worn out air filter would ground a Panther because the spare parts simply didn’t reach the front.
Production of the Ausf. D merged into that of the Ausf. A, with many of the changes associated the Ausf. A actually introduced on late production Ausf. Ds, while others were not immediately introduced. The new cupola can be found on late Ausf Ds, while the machine gun ball mount was not present on all Ausf As until later in 1943.
The Panther may have had a rougher debut than most other tanks of its time, but with the correction of the production-related mechanical difficulties, the Panther became highly popular with German tankers and a fearsome weapon on the battlefield. While the Panther was initially intended to only equip one tank battalion per Panzer division, by June 1944 it accounted for nearly half of German tank strength on both the eastern and western fronts.
If the germans were so great at making tanks why did the panther take 3 models, (plus all the ones in the works to fix the design flaws a minor redesign couldn't like the turret and armor thickness on the hull side, road wheel system etc)
The Germans used new model designations far more than the Allies, even for minor design changes. The crucial factor is time: From the introduction of the Panther Ausf. D at Kursk and to the first Ausf. G rolled off the production line is less than a year. The much improved Ausf. A entered service only two months after Kursk. This is hardly an unreasonable development time.
You can not make the claim with a strait face that the king tiger was not under powered. So was the Panther and tiger.
The King Tiger was underpowered, and suffered mechanical reliability issues for most of 1944. However, it wasn’t as underpowered as most people seem to think, and is comparable to the M26 Pershing in that regard. A V-8 powered M4A3 Sherman had a power to weight ratio of 15 hp per ton; the King Tiger had 10 hp per ton. The M4A3 managed a top speed of 26 mph; the King Tiger managed 21 mph. Considering the King Tiger is more than twice the weight of the M4A3 its performance is not unreasonable and certainly in league with other heavy tanks of its time like the IS-2/3 and M26. The Panther on the other hand had the same power to weight ratio as the M4A3 at 15 hp per ton and due to the better suspension was faster with a top speed of more than 30 mph. The Tiger I (HL 230 P45 motor) managed 23 mph, so I wouldn’t say that the Panther and Tiger were underpowered.
The war was over and lost for the Germans by the time the first panther hit combat. It just helped slow down the end at best.
Quite correct, but also quite irrelevant to this discussion.
I’d like to end this monstrosity of a post by imploring all people involved in this thread to play nice and not submit to name calling and offensive wording. I’m especially thinking of you GtoRA2; Nazi remarks and other insults are both unnecessary and unacceptable. If you feel so strongly about these issues that you can’t be nice I suggest you’d more enjoy spending your time doing something else. In any case I certainly will spend my time doing something more pleasant than responding to your posts if you continue with such an insulting demeanor.
-
Pretty good post diehard, a little whiney, but at least you posted some info instead of just spazzing out and claiming you were right and I was a sister kisser and trailer trash like bigplay. But yeah, I am the big meany in the thread lol.
I will read your post more in depth later, looks like interesting stuff.
One fact I think you should consider. I mentioned the nazis for a reason. Every tiger built was issued to the SS (I am pretty sure), the SS was Hitlers personal army of murderers. People like to act as if the waffen SS were some how not connected to the SS camp murderers but they all answered to the same men and took the same oaths and everyone of them was murdering scum.
They may deserve respect for the prowess of their fighting ability, but none are heroes or even good men. Their machines should always be viewed as the tools of a horrid criminal government. Millions of the people they killed deserve better then to have these men worshiped for being good in a tank.
Think about that the next time you attack someone for calling a REAL Nazi (named Otto) scum.
The regular german army is another story, but the SS were evil.
-
A machine cannot by definition be evil, or good. Do not turn this into a political or moral debate; all war machines are built for the same purpose regardless of the motivation of their crews.
And you're wrong about the Tiger. It severed with Wehrmacht units on all fronts. Altogether, eleven schwere Panzer-Abteilungen were created for the Heer (initially numbered 501 through 510 and the III.Abteilung/Panzer-Regiment Großdeutschland), and three for the SS (numbered 101 through 103 in October 1943).
If you feel so strongly about the Nazis and the SS perhaps you should avoid these discussions. I don't know what personal stakes you have in this topic, but saying that all SS soldiers were evil is extreme.
-
A machine cannot by definition be evil, or good. Do not turn this into a political or moral debate; all war machines are built for the same purpose regardless of the motivation of their crews.
I felt that way until I was about 14, then I started to think about the men who used those machines and how they were used in a more mature way. You can admire the machine, they were good tanks, just not as great as people make them out to be. But to admire them and not keep in mind whom they were used to kill and why is a bit diisgusting to me.
If you can somehow justify it in your mind more power to you.
And a machine may not be good or evil but they serve good or evil, forgetting that fact may make you feel good about your admiration, but it doesn't change the fact your beloved tool served evil men, and helped the wrong side in an awful war. Admiring med like Otto Carius, is disgusting no mater how he spun serving in the SS, he was scum and his book was self serving. Call me anything you want in his defense but the man was in fact a Nazi.
Maybe you didn't bring him up and maybe you don't admire him, but its clear others here do. It's sad a self serving Nazi like Carius wrote a book so all the fan boys can admire him and think he and his machine were great, and true heroes Like S/Sgt Lafayette Pool (http://www.3ad.com/history/wwll/pool.lafayette.htm) go unnoticed by all but a few people who dig deeper into armor then pretty german tanks that had no effect on the war other then to maybe make it longer at best and shorter at worst by wasting so much material.
-
Please do not turn this into a political or moral debate. The moral fortitude (or lack thereof) of the Nazis, Soviets, Vikings, Genghis Khan or Alexander the Great has no place here.
-
Please do not turn this into a political or moral debate. The moral fortitude (or lack thereof) of the Nazis, Soviets, Vikings, Genghis Khan or Alexander the Great has no place here.
Hey if you can be blind to the mission of the gear, like I said, you have to look yourself in the mirror not me. (Are you one of those "they saved us from the commies guys?")
Stop responding to it if you don't want to talk about it, its not politics, the Nazi ideals are dead to all but a few morons. It's history. Personally I think you cant talk about one without the other, lest people forget what the machines were used for.
I know I am coming off a bit rude, but glossing over the evil behind the machine seems it bit more sinister to me then talking about it.
I really will read through your post carefully, it seems interesting and well thought out, and I might even learn something. ;)
-
Impressive footage of a Pershing killing a Panther + interview with the gunner: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt5bJQOkI1g The Sherman wasn't that fortunate though.
-
"Postwar American and British tanks grew more and more complex, right up to the hi-tech monsters of today."
This is where you must exclude the Centurion :D
Anyway, looking purely at the machine, the "evil factor" behind it has nothing to do with it....
-
Not really Angus. The Centurion of the late 1960s and early 1970s were advanced machines with the turbo diesel and transmission from the American M60, and packed with advanced weapons and systems. Little remained of the original Centurion except the hull, and even that had undergone numerous modifications over the years.
-
Listen to the experts ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8SU5sPoP6w
And
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STSJdT2Ih_o
;)
-
"No, even the 76mm Sherman simply wasn’t a match for late-war PzKpfw IV’s. The IV had superior front armor and a gun that could kill a Sherman front-quarter at more than 2000 yards. In return the Sherman would have to close to 500-1000 yards to kill a IV with a front-quarter shot."
The Panthers 75/L70 could do 89mm at 2000 yards at 30 degrees with APCBC. Thats just in range to engage a Sherman with any real hope of kill with a front quarter shot. The M4A3(76) would need HVAP at less than 900 yards to expect any results, but thats vs a Panther, not a Mark IV.
M4A3(76) Sherman
76/L55 with APCBC ammo: 93mm at 0 degrees at 2000 yards, and 73mm at 30 degrees at 2000 yards.
Armor:
Turret- 89mm at 0 degrees.
Upper Hull- 51mm at 47 degrees slope.
Lower Hull- 102mm at 15 degrees slope.
Panzer IVH (late model)
75/L48 with APCBC ammo: 84mm at 0 degrees at 2000 yards, and 67mm at 30 degrees at 2000 yards.
Armor:
Turret -50mm at 10 degrees slope.
Upper Hull- 80mm at 10 degrees slope.
Lower Hull- 80mm at 14 degrees slope.
Neither tank would have a prayer or killing the other at 2000 yards with normal AP ammo. The specialty (and rare) APCR tungsten shot of both guns would be able to engage each other (just) at ranges of less than 2000 yards. 98mm at 30 degrees at 1800 yards for the Shermans "HVAP" vs 77mm at 1500 yards at 30 degrees for the Mark IVs APCR "Pzgr 40". However neither tank would possess many of those rounds, and in all likelyhood, especially for the Germans in 1944-45, none.
...and there is no evidence the Panzer IVHs armor and/or gun is any better than the M4A3(76). They are in fact quite close. The T-34/85s armor is comparable, but the shell from its 85mm is not as high standard as the Western shells, and so falls a bit short on AP power. If you are comparing vs an M4A3 with the 75L/40 then yes, there is a clear advantage in gun power, as there is vs a T-34/76 M1942.
-
Bear in mind that most of the engagements were not at those long ranges. I mean, western front, not on the steppes of Russia. So in short, thick skin and a good gun yes, but it could go the "other way".
Who got the lucky shot, and did the first hit work? All that. But if an old Shermie with just the 75mm poked the gun up the exhaust pipe of a tiger, the kittie was indeed in trouble...
-
"No, even the 76mm Sherman simply wasn’t a match for late-war PzKpfw IV’s. The IV had superior front armor and a gun that could kill a Sherman front-quarter at more than 2000 yards. In return the Sherman would have to close to 500-1000 yards to kill a IV with a front-quarter shot."
The Panthers 75/L70 could do 89mm at 2000 yards at 30 degrees with APCBC. Thats just in range to engage a Sherman with any real hope of kill with a front quarter shot. The M4A3(76) would need HVAP at less than 900 yards to expect any results, but thats vs a Panther, not a Mark IV.
M4A3(76) Sherman
76/L55 with APCBC ammo: 93mm at 0 degrees at 2000 yards, and 73mm at 30 degrees at 2000 yards.
Armor:
Turret- 89mm at 0 degrees.
Upper Hull- 51mm at 47 degrees slope.
Lower Hull- 102mm at 15 degrees slope.
Panzer IVH (late model)
75/L48 with APCBC ammo: 84mm at 0 degrees at 2000 yards, and 67mm at 30 degrees at 2000 yards.
Armor:
Turret -50mm at 10 degrees slope.
Upper Hull- 80mm at 10 degrees slope.
Lower Hull- 80mm at 14 degrees slope.
Neither tank would have a prayer or killing the other at 2000 yards with normal AP ammo. The specialty (and rare) APCR tungsten shot of both guns would be able to engage each other (just) at ranges of less than 2000 yards. 98mm at 30 degrees at 1800 yards for the Shermans "HVAP" vs 77mm at 1500 yards at 30 degrees for the Mark IVs APCR "Pzgr 40". However neither tank would possess many of those rounds, and in all likelyhood, especially for the Germans in 1944-45, none.
...and there is no evidence the Panzer IVHs armor and/or gun is any better than the M4A3(76). They are in fact quite close. The T-34/85s armor is comparable, but the shell from its 85mm is not as high standard as the Western shells, and so falls a bit short on AP power. If you are comparing vs an M4A3 with the 75L/40 then yes, there is a clear advantage in gun power, as there is vs a T-34/76 M1942.
Ok, I can see that I have to get detailed on this one. Your analyses of the matchup is rather simplistic; there are many important factors beyond that what you have considered.
The premise:
1944 PzKpfw IV Ausf. H vs. M4A3(76)W Sherman facing off at 2,000 yards in open terrain.
The tanks:
M4A3(76)W Sherman
(http://www.armyvehicles.dk/images/m4a3.jpg)
Armor:
Lower hull: 108mm @ 34-90°
Upper hull (glacis plate): 50-63mm @ 43°
Turret: 63mm @ 45-50°
Gun mantlet: 89mm @ 90°
Notes on armor: The M4A3(76)W had upgraded armor compared to the earlier versions; front glacis plate thickness was increased from 51mm to 63mm. The gun mantlet doubles as a shield increasing the effective front turret armor to 152mm; a hit outside the mantlet would likely only result in a glancing hit or ineffectual penetration.
Gun:
76mm M1 with APCBC ammo: 93mm penetration at 0 degrees at 2,000 yards, and 73mm at 30 degrees at 2,000 yards.
Gun sight:
M38 telescope with 1.44 X magnification and 9 degree field of view.
PzKpfw IV Ausf. H
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3027/2790201463_5b611bf864.jpg)
Armor:
Lower hull: 80mm @ 76°
Upper hull (glacis plate): 80mm @ 80°
Turret: 50mm @ 80°
Gun mantlet: 50mm @ 60-90°
Notes on armor: The gun mantlet doubles as a shield increasing the effective front turret armor to 100mm; a hit outside the mantlet would likely only result in a glancing hit or ineffectual penetration. Turret rear, sides and front corners protected by additional armor stand-off shield designed to disrupt incoming shells before they reach the turret armor.
Gun:
75mm KwK 40 L/48 with APCBC ammo: 84mm penetration at 0 degrees at 2,000 yards, and 67mm at 30 degrees at 2,000 yards.
Gun sight:
Turmzielfernrohr TZF 5f with 2.5 X magnification and 25 degree field of view.
Tactical considerations:
At 2,000 yards the high trajectory of incoming shells combined with terrain obstacles, even in open terrain, makes a hit on the lower hull almost impossible. The Sherman’s tall silhouette is dominated by its huge front glacis plate making hull hits more likely than turret hits. The PzKpfw IV Ausf. H’s turret front and upper hull are about the same size, and combined with the superior gun sight, the overall lower silhouette gives the IV an edge in a long-range duel with the M4.
Now… Before we begin with the more complicated stuff we can already see that the only chance either tank has at killing the opposition is a front upper hull hit; the turrets are too heavily armored, and the lower hull is near-impossible to hit. With a theoretical penetration of 93mm at 2,000 yards, the Sherman’s 76mm M1 looks like it might actually penetrate the Panzer’s near-vertical 80mm hull armor, with some luck. On the other hand the Sherman’s 63mm front glacis plate has an effective thickness of 92mm at 43 degrees from horizontal; the KwK 40’s theoretical penetration of 84mm at 2,000 yards looks inadequate to defeat the Sherman’s armor.
But that’s before we begin with the complicated stuff. ;)
-
Complicated stuff:
75mm KwK vs. Sherman 63mm glacis plate at 2,000 yards:
At 2,000 yards the incoming shell will have a trajectory of 15-20 degrees off horizontal. This reduces the effective slope of the Sherman’s glacis plate to 58-63 degrees. While the effective armor with an at best 58 degree slope included is still good at 74mm, it is now within the penetrating capabilities of the KwK 40. The 63mm plate is also relatively thin. This means that overmatched rounds will often crush the armor regardless of its theoretical sloped thickness. Theoretically, the higher the muzzle velocity, the more penetration any kind of AP round would have, all other variables remaining constant. In real WWII tank combat, however, other important variables intervened, such as the thickness to diameter (T/d) coefficient, which means that the higher the diameter of any given round relative to the thickness of the armor it is going to strike, the better the probability of achieving penetration. Furthermore, if the diameter of the shell overmatches the thickness of the armor plate, the protection given by the slope of the armor plate diminishes proportionally to the increase in the overmatch of the armor piercing round diameter or, in other words, to the increase in this T/d overmatch. So, when a KwK 40 shell hit the Sherman’s glacis plate, the 75 mm diameter of the shell overmatched the 63mm glacis plate by so much that it made little difference that the Sherman’s glacis was sloped at an angle of 58 degrees from vertical.
"Armor obliquity effects decrease as the shot diameter overmatches plate thickness in part because there is a smaller cylindrical surface area of the displaced slug of armor which can cling to the surrounding plate. If the volume which the shot displaces has lots of area to cling to the parent plate, it resists penetration better than if that same volume is spread out into a disc with relatively small area where it joins the undisturbed armor. Plate greatly overmatching shot involves the projectile digging its own tunnel, as it were, through the thick interior of the plate. It was found experimentally that the regions in the center of the plate produced the bulk of the resistance to penetration, while the outer regions, near front and rear surfaces, presented minimal resistance because they are unsupported. Thus, an overmatched plate will be forced to rely on tensile stresses within the displaced disc, and will tend to break out in front of the attacking projectile, regardless of whether the edges cling to the parent material or not. Plate obliquity works in defeating projectiles partly because it turns and deflects the projectile before it begins digging in. If there is insufficient material where the side of the nose contacts the plate, stresses will travel all the way through the plate and break out the unsupported back surface. The plate will fail instantaneously rather than gradually".
So the PzKpfw IV Ausf. H’s KwK 40 L/48 had a good chance of destroying an M4A3(76)W Sherman at ranges beyond 2,000 yards.
Now, let’s see if the reverse is true as well; will the Sherman be able to kill the Panzer at 2,000 yards?
The answer is: Very, vey unlikely, and the reason is twofold.
First, while the 76mm M1 was a very good gun, its ammunition was deficient. The theoretical penetration of 93mm at 90 degrees at 2,000 yards was only theoretical against German face-hardened armor. The noses of US AP ammunition turned out to be excessively soft. When these projectiles impacted armor which matched or exceeded the projectile diameter, the projectile would shatter and fail. At 80mm the Panzer’s armor overmatched the Sherman’s poor ammunition.
Secondly, the Panzer’s armor was of superior quality to the Sherman’s. As a general rule, BHN (Brinell Hardness Index) effects, shot shatter, and slope effects are related to the ratio between shot diameter and plate thickness. The relationship is complex, but a larger shell hitting relatively thinner plate will usually have the advantage, but the reverse is also true; a thicker plate will usually have the advantage over a smaller shell, regardless of the theoretical penetration. There is an optimum BHN level for every shot vs. plate confrontation, usually in the 260-300 BHN range for WWII situations. Below that, the armor is too soft and resists poorly, above that, the armor is too hard and therefore too brittle.
However the Germans took a lesson from the Japanese sword smiths of old and created rolled face-hardened armor plates using heat treatment techniques reminiscent of those used making Samurai swords. Hard tempered steel increases the armor’s ability to shatter incoming shells, but it is also brittle and may itself shatter. The Germans used heat tempering to gradually increase the hardness of the face of the plate while the core and back face of the plate remained soft and able to support the brittle hard face to prevent it from shattering. Rolled armor is also ballistically superior to cast armor due to the compaction and consolidation of grain structure which occurs during rolling. Today similar techniques are used to make “bullet resistant” glass.
The ideal armor is extremely tough and fairly hard at its outer surface, with two goals:
1. Reflecting enough energy back into the incoming shell to cause it to shatter or deform, thereby diffusing its kinetic energy (if square-on to the outer face) or deflect and carry off most of its energy (if at an angle to the outer face).
2. Maintaining as close to a perfectly stiff outer surface on the armor as possible during the extremely dynamic energy flow following impact, so that the incoming energy is spread over as large an area of the outer face of the armor as possible, to maximize the volume of metal behind the impact area into which the energy shock wave is transmitted.
Ideal armor is quite ductile for a significant depth from its inner face, so that a shock wave arriving from the outer face is dissipated to the greatest possible extent in deformation, so as to avoid spalling or fragmentation. Even if the inner face reaches its melting point during deformation, a minimum amount of molten metal will be ejected inward, and hopefully at low velocity. If the melting point is reached during spalling, on the other hand, relatively massive pieces of molten metal can be projected at high velocity, which is very undesirable. Even for minor impacts that do not cause inner-face melting, spalling is very likely to cause damage. If complete fragmentation occurs, catastrophic damage can be caused by the fragments and by passage of some or all of the incoming shell through the armor.
The reason that simple penetration figures are meaningless is that the best plate armor, can deliver a much greater degree of this kind of ideal performance. Simple, crude WWII castings on the other hand, were homogeneous all the way through at best, and were uncontrolled and variable in counterproductive ways in other cases. Very good plate armor may deliver three or four times the performance, inch for inch, of the best possible homogeneous casting.
The use of rolled armor is also the reason why German tanks look so angular and boxy compared to the mostly cast-steel allied tanks.
So in conclusion I stand by my previous statement:
"No, even the 76mm Sherman simply wasn’t a match for late-war PzKpfw IV’s. The IV had superior front armor and a gun that could kill a Sherman front-quarter at more than 2000 yards. In return the Sherman would have to close to 500-1000 yards to kill a IV with a front-quarter shot."
A combination of higher quality armor, the physics of overmatching that were not really understood at the time, better ammunition, better optics and a smaller silhouette made the PzKpfw IV Ausf. H a distinctly superior tank. There were more than one reason why allied tankers invariably reported every German tank as being a Tiger. It wasn’t just the looks.
I also want to address this claim:
“The specialty (and rare) APCR tungsten shot of both guns would be able to engage each other (just) at ranges of less than 2000 yards. 98mm at 30 degrees at 1800 yards for the Shermans "HVAP" vs 77mm at 1500 yards at 30 degrees for the Mark IVs APCR "Pzgr 40". However neither tank would possess many of those rounds, and in all likelyhood, especially for the Germans in 1944-45, none.”
While the western allies didn’t introduce HVAP rounds until mid 1944 the Germans had been using Hartkern (tungsten APCR) rounds since 1940, and about 25% of Germany’s production of AP tank/anti-tank shells were APCR. Germany used APCR rounds more extensively than any other nation, to the point of arming their anti-tank aircraft with hartkern firing cannons (Ju 87G, Ju 88 and Hs 129 primary). When the Germans ran out of tungsten in 1944 they used hardened steel and mild iron as core material. Not as effective as tungsten, but still better than a solid shot.
-
Listen to the experts ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8SU5sPoP6w
And
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STSJdT2Ih_o
;)
I'd advice you to stay as far away as possible from Discovery Channel or THC "experts". ;)
-
But if an old Shermie with just the 75mm poked the gun up the exhaust pipe of a tiger, the kittie was indeed in trouble...
This is a common misconception, and possibly a result of other German tanks being misidentified as Tigers. The Tiger I had in fact the same 80mm armor thickness at the rear as it did at the sides. So against a Tiger (a real one) a 75mm Sherman would be impotent no matter the direction of the attack. The reason the Tiger had such insanely thick rear armor was because it was designed as a breakthrough tank; when your job is to drive through the enemy lines you need good armor on all sides, like a bunker.
-
I'd advice you to stay as far away as possible from Discovery Channel or THC "experts". ;)
Well, if you have a tank in service for more than 50 years and with that record, as well as interviews with the people involved, I do not care who brings me the data. If it is on the History channel, I do not autamatically discard it.
Those were two different episodes, but the bottom line was clear. The Centurion is very rugged, built for the crew to be able to keep it going, and has an excellent record. This is a 1945 tank, stays as probably the best heavy tank in the world for a good while. My point was (again) that in 1945 there was no generation gap in tank production, - the allies had caught up. IMHO the design of the Centurion is rather ahead if anything, since it's built for the field.
(Today, us farmers do have that problem with tractors.)
And for the exhaust pipe - my point was that combat frequently occured (western front that is) at much closer range than the effective range of i.e. the 88mm gun. What does a Shermie with the old 75mm do to a Tiger at 5 yards?
(However, on the flat areas on the eastern front, as well as in the desert, this is another thing).
-
"Postwar American and British tanks grew more and more complex, right up to the hi-tech monsters of today."
This is where you must exclude the Centurion :D
Well, if you have a tank in service for more than 50 years and with that record, as well as interviews with the people involved, I do not care who brings me the data. If it is on the History channel, I do not autamatically discard it.
Those were two different episodes, but the bottom line was clear. The Centurion is very rugged, built for the crew to be able to keep it going, and has an excellent record.
That is true, but it does not change the fact that the Centurion grew more and more advanced and complex for every upgrade program it went through to stay compettitive over the years. In its late-1960s early 1970s form the Centurion was just as complex as the American M60, sharing the same L7 gun, same engine and same transmission. It was no longer a tank that a farm boy could fix in the field. And that is why I wouldn't, and still won't, exclude the Centurion in my statement:
"Postwar American and British tanks grew more and more complex, right up to the hi-tech monsters of today."
These two tanks are very different, even if they share the same name:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a1/Centurion_cfb_borden_1.JPG/800px-Centurion_cfb_borden_1.JPG)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/Centurion-Shot-Kal-Alef-latrun-2.jpg/800px-Centurion-Shot-Kal-Alef-latrun-2.jpg)
This is a 1945 tank, stays as probably the best heavy tank in the world for a good while.
Hardly. The Soviet IS-3 was far superior, and from 1951 the US M48 Patton was just as good, if not better.
My point was (again) that in 1945 there was no generation gap in tank production, - the allies had caught up.
How many times do I have to agree with that before you accept it?
IMHO the design of the Centurion is rather ahead if anything, since it's built for the field.
The Soviet IS-3 was far better and entered service in time to see combat in WWII, unlike the Centurion.
And for the exhaust pipe - my point was that combat frequently occured (western front that is) at much closer range than the effective range of i.e. the 88mm gun. What does a Shermie with the old 75mm do to a Tiger at 5 yards?
(However, on the flat areas on the eastern front, as well as in the desert, this is another thing).
At five yards? At point blank range all 1944 tanks would be able to destroy just about any other tank. However getting to point blank range was a costly affair in machines and lives. The net result of all of the deficiencies of allied armor was that advancing was much slower and more expensive in terms of tanks and infantry than it otherwise would have been. Five hundred burning British tanks at the end of the failed operation Goodwood made dramatic testimony to the disadvantages that inferior tanks brought on to the allies. Total allied armour causalities in Normandy were running at three times the German total. The tankers kept fighting but costs were extremely high and the men were losing confidence in their tanks, despite usually having superior numbers, artillery and air support.
"As we go now each man has resigned himself to dying sooner or later because we don’t have a chance against the German tanks. All of this stuff that we read about German tanks being knocked out makes us sick because we know what prices we have to pay in men and equipment to accomplish this."
Eventually the allies blasted their way out of Normandy with the aid of 3,300 planes dropping a total of 14,000 tons of bombs in three hours, literally obliterating anything in the path of the advance with a tonnage of bombs only exceeded by Hiroshima. Advantages in numbers, a willingness to take losses, and massive advantages in artillery, air support, fuel and supplies made it possible for the allies to advance in Western Europe and eventually win. However the inability to produce a tank that could take on the panzers on even terms and the terrible causalities that this caused in men and machines is something that should not be forgotten.
-
It is interesting that while the Russians continued with their tradition of making their tanks simple and repairable in the field, the western allies chose to adopt the German doctrine. Postwar American and British tanks grew more and more complex, right up to the hi-tech monsters of today. The American Abrams and the British Challenger I/II both share the German philosophy of quality over quantity, and also share the same design characteristics with regard to maintenance.
That's largely due to political concerns not present in WW2 Germany. For one, we simply aren't prepared to take casualties anywhere close to what might be sustainable in economic or military terms - the Sherman was already something of a scandal in WW2; its equivalent today would be an impeachable offense. To nearly the same degree it also reflects the critical manpower shortage with the post-Vietnam all-volunteer army where you have to compete with private enterprise to attract recruits. Not that anyone in the ETO had unlimited manpower, of course, but these factors make it that much more critical today.
(It seems like every decade or so some self-important kid in Congress or a new administration "figures out" that we could have a much more efficient military in economic terms if we replaced our huge, complex, and expensive tanks, planes, and ships with twice as many units costing one-third as much each - not thinking about the fact that that would be fine, as long as we were willing to take 50% casualties whenever we commit them to battle. It's easier to mission-kill one supercarrier than 2 or 3 minicarriers, but it's easier to sink one of the latter than the supercarrier.)
I imagine the Soviet "any farmboy can fix it" approach has a lot to do with the expectation that when fighting on their home soil they might have had to tow an immobilized tank a hundred miles to get it to the nearest field depot, and in a hypothetical blitzkrieg of West Germany the field depots would never have been able to keep pace with the advancing front. I also imagine those concerns proved troublesome for the Germans on the Eastern Front.
-
Pretty good post diehard, a little whiney, but at least you posted some info instead of just spazzing out and claiming you were right and I was a sister kisser and trailer trash like bigplay. But yeah, I am the big meany in the thread lol.
I will read your post more in depth later, looks like interesting stuff.
One fact I think you should consider. I mentioned the nazis for a reason. Every tiger built was issued to the SS (I am pretty sure), the SS was Hitlers personal army of murderers. People like to act as if the waffen SS were some how not connected to the SS camp murderers but they all answered to the same men and took the same oaths and everyone of them was murdering scum.
They may deserve respect for the prowess of their fighting ability, but none are heroes or even good men. Their machines should always be viewed as the tools of a horrid criminal government. Millions of the people they killed deserve better then to have these men worshiped for being good in a tank.
Think about that the next time you attack someone for calling a REAL Nazi (named Otto) scum.
The regular german army is another story, but the SS were evil.
I don't have the time to make the posts that diehard did and I knew he would come in with the type of info that was correct and to the point. What he just did here was prove all of your points inaccurate as I did , except I didn't take the kind of time he did. Like I said .... if you read a few more book, good books on the subject you wouldn't have made all those stupid statements that you did. Again, your making statements that are opinion and not fact. Fact 1, every Tiger didn't go to the SS pnzr div. I don't have the time to look it up but I am almost positive that more went to regular Heer pnzr div. designated (Schwer) for heavy then did the SS 2. The waffen SS wasn't connected to any death camps, many of them never seen Germany much after 43. The Waffen SS however you want to view them was a professional army and was a group That gave nor expected quarter from their foes . Evil...... I doubt that evil had anything to do with the average Waffen SS soldier but you seem to have a hang up about them. When Hitler came into power nobody realized just how evil he was. The average German just wanted their lives and country to be restored. Hitler made the promisses and backed it up early. That is what got the average German to follow Hitler. I have Jewish blood and I have Jewish friends and I seem to think you do as well from your zealous nature towards the SS. I however do not make blanket statements about people that I never met . That is what Hitler did about the Jews. Not every Waffen SS person hated the Jews and making a statement that they did is another opinion based on no fact. One more thing ..... Otto Carrius was not SS. He was in the 503 Schwer pnzr div. a Heer unit.
-
Indeed BigPlay; that's certainly the gist of it.
-
Indeed BigPlay; that's certainly the gist of it.
I have no ill will toward this guy but he doesn't look at things objectively. The average German soldier was a patriot to his country and like our soldiers today they have sworn an allegiance to the country. Agreed that the Waffen SS was not the poster child of a compassionate soldier but they did their job brutally well. Their mindset was completely different than most western armies. Just look how they handled Parisian groups. They did it rather brutally and I'm sure if the US handled the taliban and it's allies like the Germans did the conflict would be over. I'm not suggesting that in fact the US take these steps but from a pure military standpoint the German military force was a force to be reckoned with. However anyone perceives the Germans conduct during WW2 I think to in fact be able to make accusations about anyone ones morals they really need to read about the subject matter. From all that I have read you would think that the Russians of all the foes that the Germans faced would have a hatred toward them more than most but I have heard the opposite. The Russians soldier had healthy respect for the German military. I have also read that when the Russian's found out they were fighting the Waffen SS that they would avoid them if they could. I also heard the many Waffen SS panzer divisions have had reunions that included tours of Russian battlefields where they were met and had drinks with their Russian foes.
-
A quick one here Diehard:
"Hardly. The Soviet IS-3 was far superior, and from 1951 the US M48 Patton was just as good, if not better."
Now, the Centurion was engaging soviet tanks much later, and the results are staggering. So either the Russian tank is just so good on paper, the forces using it so poor, or tank development went down after WW2. Got to read a bit up though. Tanks are really not my field, but slowly become more interesting ;)
As for this:
"That is true, but it does not change the fact that the Centurion grew more and more advanced and complex for every upgrade program it went through to stay compettitive over the years. In its late-1960s early 1970s form the Centurion was just as complex as the American M60, sharing the same L7 gun, same engine and same transmission. It was no longer a tank that a farm boy could fix in the field. And that is why I wouldn't, and still won't, exclude the Centurion in my statement"
It has add-ons, but the primary design is made for the in-field business. Bear in mind that a big thing here is the tracks and suspension, since a tank off-track is not much more than an armoured gun. Today you have tanks like the Leopard, which are made for component-swapping. Today's tractors actually may need a laptop for the transmission to work, in case there is an electrical problem! Two sizes of spanners will not help you. But that was the thought when the Centurion was built.
The two tanks on the picture sort of prove the quality. After all, the beast has been in use since 1945 and still is, what do you expect? Built for the future.....
Ant the finest hour of the Centurion? 1973, when the chassis is almost a 30 year old thing. I think no tank will ever top the performance of 2 vs 150, killing an entire division, and those were mostly T-65's, - something that replaced the IS-3. BTW, if I recall right, the IS-3 was very vulnerable from the top, or was it the back??
-
You keep rambling on about tractors and T-65's, whatever that is, I'm going to assume you mean the T-62. No amount of rambling from you is going to change the fact that when the Centurion entered service in 1945 is was inferior to the IS-3. That Israeli uparmored, upgunned and generally upgraded Centurions later were victorious against T-54/55's and T-62's is completely irrelevant. The T-62 is lighter than the IS-3, has less armor and a smaller gun. After WWII the Soviets abandoned heavy tanks and instead concentrated on fast "mass attack" medium tanks like the T-54/55 and T-62. The T-62 is 11 tons lighter than the original Centurion, and 7 tons lighter than the IS-3.
-
You mean a hanger queen like the T34/76 that still managed to get about 6,000 kills and 10,000 deaths in the LWAs in February? Or a hanger queen like the M-8 with 4,000 kills and 6,600 deaths?
Both are clearly outmatched by the competition, and might have crappy K/D ratios, but both get decent use.
Why? There are advantages to exploit with both (primarily speed) that at least partially compensate for the poor armament. That is the primary gripe here, it seems, about the 75mm Sherman, yes?
What advantages to the Sherman? Quick firing gun with better rate of fire than the T-34/76 or PzIV. Better optics/FOV than the T-34/76. Turret traverse better than the IV. .50cal pintle gun vs. peashooter on IV and none on T-34. The gyrostabilized gun could be modeled with less bounce and recoil effect vs. the other tanks, leading to better fire-on-the-move capability. Not to mention that lovely green HTC is currently using as a default skin.
And unlike any of the Firefly, T34/85 or Tiger, it would be unperked.
Add a LWA-only 1944 version with a 76mm gun, and any complaints about it being "poorly armed" goes away.
I don't think it would necessarily be the hanger queen you think it will.
Again bring it on. Youll be the first guy I said I told you so to.
-
The average German soldier was a patriot to his country and like our soldiers today they have sworn an allegiance to the country.
I agree that the merits of the SS have little to do with the merits of various panzers as weapons of war, but since you insist on defending the SS...
We're not talking about average German soldiers, we're talking about the SS, who were volunteers. Totally different. Waffen SS just changed what their job was, not who they were. They were still brutal racist b***ards every one. If they weren't, they wouldn't have joined the SS. And plenty of people moved back and forth from fighting units to extermination camp guards, etc., during the course of the war.
The SS was branded a criminal organization for good reason: from top to bottom it was as much like the Mafia as an army. Recruits were inducted in a secret mystical death-cult ceremony just like "made men." Look at how Sepp Dietrich had to "make his bones" just like any wiseguy - officers in the Heer weren't required to engage in political assassination in order to be promoted, but in the SS that was just par for the course.
Agreed that the Waffen SS was not the poster child of a compassionate soldier but they did their job brutally well.
No one's disputed that they were skilled in battle. As for not being "poster children," no, I suppose not, but if all you can say about atrocities of a scale and barbarity unprecedented in modern history is that their perpetrators "weren't poster children" I think you need to reboot your sense of outrage. Leaving genocide and ethnic cleansing out of it - which is itself going too far, because the Waffen SS had their hands up to the elbows in it - look at, for example, the reprisals in the wake of Heydrich's assassination, or their behavior during the Warsaw Uprising that was so appallingly sadistic that Genghis Khan and Pol Pot would have blanched at the sight of it.
(No, I'm not exaggerating. And yes, since then the commies have at times been just about as awful, but that changes nothing.)
Just look how they handled Parisian groups. They did it rather brutally and I'm sure if the US handled the taliban and it's allies like the Germans did the conflict would be over.
I doubt it. The Russians tried that approach in Afghanistan and it didn't work out so well. Sometimes terror can be an effective, if immoral, tool, but you have to make sure your measures are appropriate for the situation and the nature of the victim population. Germany might conceivably have won the war with the USSR if its policy toward civilians in the conquered territories hadn't been so atrocious; by 1941 many Ukrainians would probably have joined in gladly with anything that would get them out from under Stalin if the new regime hadn't looked every bit as bad.
-
Crash Orange, your post smells a little of hypocrisy. The Waffen-SS weren't the only racist "b***ards" on the battlefield in the 1940s. And when it comes to brutality; who killed more civilians, the Waffen-SS or the USAAF/RAF? I don't actually know the answer to that question myself, and that alone is saying something. Being burned to death in a barn by the SS, or being burned to death in your home by the RAF; which is more brutal?
I think the important fact here is that WWII was a brutal war, and no party to it was completely innocent.
-
I agree that the merits of the SS have little to do with the merits of various panzers as weapons of war, but since you insist on defending the SS...
We're not talking about average German soldiers, we're talking about the SS, who were volunteers. Totally different. Waffen SS just changed what their job was, not who they were. They were still brutal racist b***ards every one. If they weren't, they wouldn't have joined the SS. And plenty of people moved back and forth from fighting units to extermination camp guards, etc., during the course of the war.
The SS was branded a criminal organization for good reason: from top to bottom it was as much like the Mafia as an army. Recruits were inducted in a secret mystical death-cult ceremony just like "made men." Look at how Sepp Dietrich had to "make his bones" just like any wiseguy - officers in the Heer weren't required to engage in political assassination in order to be promoted, but in the SS that was just par for the course.
No one's disputed that they were skilled in battle. As for not being "poster children," no, I suppose not, but if all you can say about atrocities of a scale and barbarity unprecedented in modern history is that their perpetrators "weren't poster children" I think you need to reboot your sense of outrage. Leaving genocide and ethnic cleansing out of it - which is itself going too far, because the Waffen SS had their hands up to the elbows in it - look at, for example, the reprisals in the wake of Heydrich's assassination, or their behavior during the Warsaw Uprising that was so appallingly sadistic that Genghis Khan and Pol Pot would have blanched at the sight of it.
(No, I'm not exaggerating. And yes, since then the commies have at times been just about as awful, but that changes nothing.)
I doubt it. The Russians tried that approach in Afghanistan and it didn't work out so well. Sometimes terror can be an effective, if immoral, tool, but you have to make sure your measures are appropriate for the situation and the nature of the victim population. Germany might conceivably have won the war with the USSR if its policy toward civilians in the conquered territories hadn't been so atrocious; by 1941 many Ukrainians would probably have joined in gladly with anything that would get them out from under Stalin if the new regime hadn't looked every bit as bad.
The Marines are also a volunteer organization as the Navy Seals and the Green Beret .The SS was an elite fighting unit that many wanted to be a part of not because they had racists ideas. Was the SS racist....maybe to some extent, I guess you can also label the American soldier during the Viet Nam conflict as raciest as well because I know many veterans that did not think the Viet Nam people of any worth ,also against the Japanese because the Americans hated the Japanese with the same passion . There were members of the SS that came from various countries as well including Great Britian . If they were all guilty of war crimes then I guess Joachim Piper would still be in jail or hung. Just because the head of the SS was a total fool and as evil as they get doesn't mean the lot was like minded. SS guards and the Waffen SS did not rotate from concentration camp guard back into the Waffen SS, another thing you need to read up on.
I also never said they were poster children, I said they weren't. Also the atrocities being the worst in history is also something you need to read up on. Stalin alone had over 30 million people put to death, the Japanese were on most scales even more barbaric that the SS as far as the Chinese are concerned. They made chemical experiments on complete towns.
But of course the atrocities the Germans did were much worse because I am assuming that you have some personal areas of interests than the Russians or Chinese point of view. I also guess you think that the Israeli Mossad has every right to assassinate whom ever they want for whatever reason as long as it's for Israel's best interest. but I do agree that if the Germans weren't so brutal against the Russian civilians they may have had their support. I agree that the heads of the SS were a rather distorted and unrealistic bunch but to lump the common soldier into that bunch is not accurate . Comparting the Russo/Afghan campain has no bearing to the German anti partisan conflict. First we supported the Afghans with arms of all kinds and many like the stinger missile played a huge part in defeating the Russian helicopters. The partisan's had no such help.The problem with that conflict is the Russians tried using a sledgehammer to kill a Nat. The topic was on the M4 Shermans and people commenting on how the Panther should be added ratherthen the Sherman and then the Nazi thing got brought into the equation. My point is that people should read some objective material and stop going off their emotions and or lack of knowledge before making statements that bring up pointless arguments like this. I don't really care what you think about the Waffen SS because I base my information on books that I have read rather then emotion.
-
WOW, I must have missed something, we went from the M4 Basic Sherman to the SS??? :eek: But to elaborate on BigPlay's perspective.
The SS was made of of the polictical arm and the Waffen SS. The polictical arm was basically Hitler's body guard and the enforcers of the Nazi party and were mainly the arm repsonsible for the Holocaust. The Waffen SS was the figthing force of the SS and was the best the germans had. True the Waffen SS did commit war crimes as it was following orders from Himmler/Hitler. As BigPlay said they were not poster boys but they were an elite fighting force that the allies hated to face due to the tactical doctrine they used combined with the fact that the Waffen SS was better equipment and armed than most german army units. In addition, they were well trained and led. Now due to the indoctronation of SS troopers they did tend to have the old "win or die mentality" and that is what the allies feared most. However, this attitude did cost many a germans their lives when it come to combat operations. No one tank or weapons system made the SS war gods. It was a combination of training, weapons and tactics. After WWII many Waffen SS troopers and officers joined the French Foreign Legion and faught the VC in French-IndoChina and put it on "Charlie". But then again each nation has its elite fighting forces and each is unique in what it brings to the battlefield.
Out
Bigkev
-
WOW, I must have missed something, we went from the M4 Basic Sherman to the SS??? :eek:
That's how things go here sometimes. It's unfortunate.
-
WOW, I must have missed something, we went from the M4 Basic Sherman to the SS??? :eek:
You should read back BigKev. Diehard posted some very comprehensive material that obviously comes from reading many books on the subject. He spent a larger amount of time trying to explain to some why their information is tainted (IMO) and his.
-
Diehard:
"My point was (again) that in 1945 there was no generation gap in tank production, - the allies had caught up.
How many times do I have to agree with that before you accept it?"
Exactly :)
And:
"You keep rambling on about tractors and T-65's, whatever that is, I'm going to assume you mean the T-62. No amount of rambling from you is going to change the fact that when the Centurion entered service in 1945 is was inferior to the IS-3. That Israeli uparmored, upgunned and generally upgraded Centurions later were victorious against T-54/55's and T-62's is completely irrelevant. The T-62 is lighter than the IS-3, has less armor and a smaller gun. After WWII the Soviets abandoned heavy tanks and instead concentrated on fast "mass attack" medium tanks like the T-54/55 and T-62. The T-62 is 11 tons lighter than the original Centurion, and 7 tons lighter than the IS-3."
My point about the centurion was the benefit of something that could at least be touched in the field. Simple and rugged. The biggest issue is probably the tracks and suspension. This is where the German Panther was a nightmare.
As for the combat performance, that 1945/1948 tank was still a tank of that age, facing the Russian tanks that started rolling off the line in 1961. The T-62 replaced the JS (BTW, the JS was used in the six day war). It is a few tonnes lighter, and it ONLY has a 115mm smoothbore gun, that is correct. But when 150 tanks get stopped by 2, it still is hard to overlook :devil
-
My point about the centurion was the benefit of something that could at least be touched in the field. Simple and rugged.
My point was that the Centurion didn't stay "simple", but grew more and more complex over the years. You didn't accept that.
The biggest issue is probably the tracks and suspension. This is where the German Panther was a nightmare.
Why do you say that? Have you learned nothing from this thread?
-
Crash Orange, your post smells a little of hypocrisy. The Waffen-SS weren't the only racist "b***ards" on the battlefield in the 1940s. And when it comes to brutality; who killed more civilians, the Waffen-SS or the USAAF/RAF? I don't actually know the answer to that question myself, and that alone is saying something. Being burned to death in a barn by the SS, or being burned to death in your home by the RAF; which is more brutal?
I think the important fact here is that WWII was a brutal war, and no party to it was completely innocent.
Yup those bastards in the allied air forces could drop bombs on either the jewish germans.... ones with a more gypsy lineage or aryan lineage. That norden bombsight was hellishly accurate.
I'm betting if skuzzy checks the quoted posters IP it is of Norwegian origin. You know the ... the country that didn't surrender in WWII? :rofl
-
See Rule #4
-
Either get it back on topic, or stop adding to the thread.
The personal attack nonsense stops now.
-
Either get it back on topic, or stop adding to the thread.
I agree, skuzzy. The basic M4 would be very easy for HTC to add to the game, and would've been great to have for our current scenario. :D
-
Yup those bastards in the allied air forces could drop bombs on either the jewish germans.... ones with a more gypsy lineage or aryan lineage. That norden bombsight was hellishly accurate.
I was more thinking of these guys and their plight for equality, which lasted well into the 1960s.
(http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWafro.jpg)
Germany wasn't the only white supremacist nation during WWII.
But all these emotionally laden irrelevancies are disruptive to the thread; lets get back to discussing the tanks.
-
The base one would be very simple. Just the gun (looks) and the damage modelling.
I cannot resist thinking about the floating Sherman though :D
As for other tanks, well, I guess other threads then ;)
-
As for other tanks, well, I guess other threads then ;)
Then you have misunderstood the first poster. This thread isn't just about the Sherman, but how it compares to other tanks; specifically in the MA.
-
Once again the Sherman is brought up as the very next tank needed in here. I and many others have posted why it wouldn't. But for the sake of ending the constant call from people that do not understand just how inept the 75mm Sherman and for that matter a 76mm armed Sherman would be. I say just bring it in. It becomes tiresome to try and post objective reasons why it should not be added before other more usable tanks get implamented.
-
See Rule #4
-
Calm down Crash Orange. Like I said earlier: If you feel so strongly about this perhaps you should find something better to do with your time. In any case, I've said my piece on that matter, and I'm not going to compound this thread hijack by adding to it. PM me if you'd like more.
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #2