The Basic M4 (Sherman)

[AWwrgwy]

BaDkaRmA never said it was a successful strategy but it was the doctrine behind the design of the Sherman. 




wrongway

[BaDkaRmA158Th]

(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)

[Die Hard]

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!

[Die Hard]

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".

[BaDkaRmA158Th]

"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!.

[Die Hard]

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.

[BaDkaRmA158Th]

"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.

[Die Hard]

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.

[BaDkaRmA158Th]

Thank you die hard. 

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.

[Die Hard]

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.

[Masherbrum]

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.   

[Crash Orange]

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.

[Die Hard]

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.

[Crash Orange]

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).

[Die Hard]

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.