OT: Between the Sherman and the Mk 14 torpedo

[geofflambert]

IMO Patton's conception was for armoured cavalry and for manoeuver over frontal assault. Use infantry for that. The M-4 was perfect for that and having lots of tank destroyers helped. The breakout from Normandy would have been much more difficult to sustain using HBTs. Another consideration surely was how well they performed in amphibious landings. For the Pacific theatre they were better than perfect. Their flexibility that was developed for things like ad hoc bull dozers, hedgerow chompers, flame thrower tanks and etc. was a large plus.

[HistoryGuy]

Wow! This wandered as far from the original subject as it has proven interesting.

East versus West discussion is pretty interesting.

Crew quality and experience. As the War in the East demonstrated time and again, technologically better tanks are often beaten by more experienced but technologically inferior opponents. I think the AFV crew experience edge would have to go to the US/UK who suffered far less in terms of casualties than the Russians in the last months of the war.

Russians were not used to facing large numbers of enemy armor since 1943. British and Americans used to fighting better tanks since D-Day invasion, but certainly not enmasse. That said, IMHO, both the British and American armies cannot be lumped into one overall category in terms of anti-armor capabilites, nor even in terms of Sherman types, since the British possessed Fireflys, which the U.S. had not procured. Brits were fielding Comets in larger numbers than U.S. fielded Pershings, but that is not saying much. Brits have towed 17-pounders, SP 17-pounders of several varieties (Archer and Achilles), 6-pounders with APDS. Americans have more 90-mm TDs and better ammunition (HVAP and some APDS etc.), though not in significant quantities.

Artillery - both sides would experience significant culture shock. Russians can mass far more than the Germans could and the US/British the same with the added benefit of having much better counterbattery and reaction times for calling fire as well as lift/shift. Germans who fought on both fronts commented on Allied artillery being much deadlier because it could be adjusted much faster. Russians hadnt experienced proximity fuzes either. Americans and Brits hit often by Rocket Artillery, but never in numbers that the Russians could mass. That said, one reason the Germans did not mass artillery is the next subject...........

Airpower - same as above. Obviously the Russians had a lot more planes than the Germans did. Maybe all the superfluous US/UK AAA units could have been put to better use. That said, I think the appearance of Allied airpower would have had a much worse effect on the Soviet Army as they had not experienced battlefield interdiction used AGAINST them since probably late 1941. Doesnt matter how many IS-2 tanks are in a particular area if they get treated to a replay of the opening minutes of Operation Cobra........ That said, an Air Force isnt much good if the bad guys tanks are sitting on the airfield. But I think Bomber Command and VIII Air Force would have operated with impunity against Soviet ground targets.

Logistics - no more Lend Lease probably. Do not see the Soviet Navy lasting long against the USN/RN in any capacity.

Germans back in the war on Allied side?

A-bombs? Probably would have been as symbolic in nature as the actual bombings. Dont see them as literal war winners in late 1945.

On a general note, I marvel at how many sharp people post on this forum. In a collective sense, you guys are awesome.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

The Soviet red Army was very very formidable force at the end of 1945 despite the fact that they were fighting for 4 years and suffered horrendous casualties!

Their tank force was simply enormous and western powers were not match for it (for example let us not forget brand new T-44 which was essentially Soviet equivalent of German Tiger armor/firepower in smaller package - in spring of 1945 there were around 1500 of them and they were total secret)!

Their ground force was also enormous and, also, the western powers were not match for it!

The air force was big but western air force was more potent and this is where western advantage lied (plus A-Bomb)!


All in all it would be extremely interesting "What If"...


Leo "Apollo11"

[tigercub]

if the war broke out in May 45...japan still at war no A-bomb yet! I pretty sure the western allies would have there hands full big time!

Tigercub

[Hiltibrant]

About that Belton Cooper book - pretty much all tank historians (Honnicutt, Forty, Zaloga) have refuted the claim that it was Patton's personal intervention or even wish that the US Army retain the Sherman; Most of the evidence points to McNair or Ordnance Department which caused the long delay in the Pershing's deployment. Nice panel discussion on this topic can be seen here (with most of the aforementioned historians):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oLY4FOrnjc

Most of them agree that Patton in fact favored the Pershing.

Most of the resistance against the Pershing stemmed from wishes to simplify logistics - there were a lot of calls for a redesigned Pershing with a 76mm gun, for example.

[Gunner98]

Would be interesting to speculate where the first two A-Bombs would have been dropped?

1. Historical, to knock Japan out of the war - but that was not a sure thing in May 45; or

2. Stick to Europe first, so - Russia? Where? Did the B-29 have range to reach Moscow? Leningrad for sure but it was a wasteland after the 900 days of being surrounded. Stalingrad - same. The rest of the industry and population was still further East. Winning air superiority would have taken quite some time and with only 2 bombs you would want to make sure it got to the target?

It would have been a long, long war. Allied air superiority would only go so far to defeat the Red Army. A headcount doesn't work well when comparing the Red Army to the western forces but just the forces in the battle of Berlin outnumbered the entire Western allies force in Europe by a significant factor: 1.5 million men, 3800 tanks, 45,000 guns and 6,700 aircraft (Le Tissier, The battle of Berlin 1945). I don't have stats on the Western Allies at hand but I think there were fewer than 1.1 million in Europe and ~ 100 combat Divisions. Throughout the NW Europe campaign the west was never fighting more than 1/3 of the German Army. This fight would not have been pretty and would have lasted years.

B

[wdolson]

Just FYI, some distances:

Saipan to Tokyo ~1500 miles
Berlin to Moscow ~1000 miles
London to Moscow ~1500 miles

Europe is a pretty small continent, as the crow flies, when you start looking at the distances.

Bill

[sventhebold]

The video of the Pershing tank was a stroke of luck for the combat cameraman to get. BUT the whole film shows a tank patrol led by a Sherman tank which is knocked out by the Panther. The next frame shows the Sherman crew bailing out. One of the crewman is missing the lower half of his leg blood streaming out and he dies later on. The Pershing tank was either fired upon first by the Panther and panicked because he did not die so the Panther tried to run and the Pershing caught up with him and holed him. Some of the Panther crew did get out but did not survive.

Training. Training. Training! You have to think about the German Army in the beginning was the best trained and fairly well equipped with an excellent logistics network behind it. Okay so the tanks weren't the greatest but they had trained with them to use them for their inherent shock value and MOBILITY! If you get there first you win the objective! The usually had infantry on APV's or trucks to hold the position once they took it and they moved on or had to wait for their own supplies to catch up with them.