Author Topic: How about a Sherman Tank? (Read 4582 times)

Hobodog · « **Reply #30 on:** December 22, 2001, 10:05:00 PM »

No no i want something fast like a Hellcat. But it wouold be more sensible to get an M4 105mm. Twould add more to gameplay.

Buzzbait · « **Reply #31 on:** December 22, 2001, 11:49:00 PM »

S!

Actually if we are talking gameplay, then an indirect fire weapon is the way to go.

A M7 105mm Priest. Would enable GV's to take fields under fire from 5 miles away with spotting.

XNachoX · « **Reply #32 on:** December 23, 2001, 01:15:00 AM »

Eddiek, that was 3 rounds a piece, and then they were sent out to battle. The only reason they killed a panther was to get 3 or 4 on them....it'd kill 2 or 3 then the 4th would finally take it out.....it's pretty sad when you think about it.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #33 on:** December 23, 2001, 01:33:00 AM »

eddiek

Actually it was mostly due to the inferiority of the Sherman, when even the 76mm couldnt reliably penerate a Tiger I front from within as close as 100 meters nothing the Sherman did mattered much. And the side armor of Tiger I isnt much thinner than front. And we wont even discuss sherman armor here at all. American tankers were by and large well trained and brave men who knew their eaquipment and weapons. Their tanks and Army beaurocrats let them down.

The fact is it was a tragedy that the USA didnt have technically better tanks in service than the sherman by June 1944, thousands of americans died needleslly. It was a good tank in late 1942, just as the Bf109G was good plane in late 1942 but by 1944 things were much different.

Arlo · « **Reply #34 on:** December 23, 2001, 09:16:00 AM »

Experienced Sherman tankers (survivors) started making a habit of sandbagging their armor. I'm not sure exactly how effective it was. The Sherman is still an equal match for the Panzer IV and that was the German tank that had the greatest numbers. One last point in it's favor is the fact that it would be the logical choice for the western theater. It was used by the U.S., Great Britian and it's colonial forces and the Free French.

The T-34 would still be the choice for the eastern theater.

Hobodog · « **Reply #35 on:** December 23, 2001, 09:35:00 PM »

But M4 105 could do fight other GVs at the same time.

bolillo_loco · « **Reply #36 on:** December 24, 2001, 08:36:00 AM »

I do not know how many of you have this link, but it has many specs on not just american tanks, but mostly all the tanks of each country during the war. http://onwar.com/tanks/usa/index.htm

Arlo · « **Reply #37 on:** December 24, 2001, 12:53:00 PM »

The 105mm variant was an infantry support weapon, not intended for tank to tank combat.

*ShruG*

Nor was it a common variant.

The standard M-4 would be an even match-up for the Panzer IV. What's wrong with even?

Lizard3 · « **Reply #38 on:** December 25, 2001, 11:54:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Arlo:
Experienced Sherman tankers (survivors) started making a habit of sandbagging their armor. I'm not sure exactly how effective it was. The Sherman is still an equal match for the Panzer IV and that was the German tank that had the greatest numbers. One last point in it's favor is the fact that it would be the logical choice for the western theater. It was used by the U.S., Great Britian and it's colonial forces and the Free French.

The T-34 would still be the choice for the eastern theater.

Arlo, you should read Death Traps by Belton Y. Cooper, Presidio Press. He was a Lt. in charge of liason with the 3rd armored division maintenance dept. Cooper compiled combat loss reports at the front, traveled to the rear, acquired replacements and took them back to the front. This book follows the 3rd armored from D-Day through the end of the war and gives a good clear account of mechanized warfare in western Europe. It also gives a good account of the "Tragic Inferiority of the M4 Sherman Tank" in most all tank catagories to the German armor. From gun size, muzzle velocity, armor type (I believe M4 had rolled v.s. Panzer cast), weld of armor, ground bearing pressure of the tracks, suspension type to engine horse power. In all catagories the M4 was inferior to all main battle tanks the Germans had on line. The book also describes how during a demonstration sometime in Jan. 44' at Tidworth Downs of the M26 which was being geared up for production in the states was put on the back burner due to one fellow named Patton. He had a command moment and insisted that all production be geared to the Sherman for various eronious reasons, namely that the Sherman was lighter than the Pershing, despite the fact that the Pershing had a lower ground bearing pressure(wider tracks) and a stronger engine.

He states near the end of the book that he compiled the loss reports for the division after it was over and came up with "of 158 M5 light tanks, we lost more than 100%. Of a total of 232 medium tanks (including 10 M26 pershings), 648 were totally destroyed in combat and 1,100 needed repairs. Of these 1,100, approximately 700 had been knocked out in battle. This meant that we lost 1,350 medium tanks in combat, or a total loss of 580%."

fdiron · « **Reply #39 on:** December 26, 2001, 12:42:00 PM »

Just read your post Lizard. Thats absolutely shocking. I knew the Sherman was a 'bad' tank, but never realised so many were destroyed in combat. I assume that many or most were repaired (minus the crew) after being hit.

Jack55 · « **Reply #40 on:** December 26, 2001, 01:15:00 PM »

I've got Cooper's book too. It's a very good read. He goes into detail on how they repaired M4s and returned them to battle after cleaning out the gore. If they didn't burn, he said they could usually be repaired. Fire ruined the temper of the armor plate amoungst other things. The Third Armored division (i think that's the one he was in) was so short of tankers, they were being given infantry replacements. The maintenance battalion would give them minimal training and send them off to fight. These poor guys usually didn't last more than a few days. He was very critcal of US leadership for fielding the M4 that was used in Normandy. Apparently, he was a first hand witness to Patton's rejection of the M26, which occured well before the invasion. He also mentions that the low velocity 75mm cannon was specified by the artillary corp for extended barrel live. Since M4s were not ment to fight other tanks, armor penetration was of secondary importance. The M4 did reportedly have a very good HE round for its size.

Lizard3 · « **Reply #41 on:** December 27, 2001, 12:30:00 AM »

Yep,
He also wrote of a mechanic that had a novel way to fix penetrations. If the mech could find the AP round that did the penetration, usually still inside the tank, He would cut off the tip, weld it in the hole, grind it off smooth and repaint it.

He also said the Germans would if they could shoot repeatedly shoot stopped tanks till they started burning so as to put them out for good. The book also has a picture of a Tiger that a Pershing caught from the side. They fired 3 shots into it point blank till it fired up. It burned for 3 days. Looks like a 8 foot blow torch coming out of the hatches.

As to the Super pershing, it sported a 90mm T15E1. They test fired it on a knocked out(from the side) but not burned jagdpather.
He states, "When it hit the target, sparks flew 60ft in the air...The 90mm projectile penetrated four inches of armor, went through a five inch final drive diferential shaft, the fighting compartment, the rear partition of the fighting compartment, pentrated a four and a half inch crank shaft of the engine and the one inch rear armor plate, and dug itself in the ground so deep we could not locate it."

WOW!

fdiron · « **Reply #42 on:** December 27, 2001, 02:07:00 AM »

Does the book mention the fate of the crews whos tank had been hit? Always been curious as to whether or not tank crews had a chance to escape.

715 · « **Reply #43 on:** December 27, 2001, 11:58:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by fdiron:
Does the book mention the fate of the crews whos tank had been hit? Always been curious as to whether or not tank crews had a chance to escape.

Unfortunately, the title of the book probably gives you the answer.

Arlo · « **Reply #44 on:** December 28, 2001, 03:04:00 AM »

Actually, the early model of the M4s were cast .... but still, I defer to the book (even without having read it yet). Rechecking my online sources (online sources? Bah! I need more books!) the phrase I misinterpreted as "equal" was "same class".

Still, I think the Sherman would be a good ... and logical ... addition. Beats anything currently in the Allied GV set so far, and it's place in WWII history, bloody as it is, is significant.

Add the T-34 as well =0)

And if the game ever reaches towards the REALLY early sets, there's even more German, Soviet and U.S./Allied (face it, alot of U.S. armor was sold all over) I'd like to see modeled. Stuarts and Lees (Grants), T-26s and Panzer I and IIs.

No, I'm not really trying to promote "Armor High".

Ok ... ok .... *ShruG*

Quote

Originally posted by Lizard3:

From gun size, muzzle velocity, armor type (I believe M4 had rolled v.s. Panzer cast), weld of armor, ground bearing pressure of the tracks, suspension type to engine horse power. In all catagories the M4 was inferior to all main battle tanks the Germans had on line.