Matrix Games Forums

Space Program Manager unveils its multiplayer modes Another update for Commander: The Great War!Distant Worlds: Universe gets a new updateDeal of the Week: Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich Advanced Tactics Gold is coming to SteamMatrix Games now speaks German!A little bit of history with To End All WarsBattle Academy 2 gets a release date!Reinforcements on the Frontline!New shipping cost for European territories!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: What is your favorite WWII tank?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/28/2007 11:16:41 PM   
.50Kerry


Posts: 325
Joined: 3/30/2004
From: a long dark river winding through the jungles....
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen
The T34 was routinely holed by any of the upgraded german guns from 1942 forwards and is no different than the Sherman in this regard.


Onyl the 75mm german PAK 40 (?) was really effective vs the T34. Not the smaller calibers. But in Africa the PzIIIJ with 50mmL60 was capable dealing with M4s armour.

quote:

Yeah, but who here is actually proposing such things?


I no way I want to start a flame war I can send you PM about it.





Right, but magically, somehow when he "Super 34/85" faced the Sherman in Korea and on the Israeli frontier *somehow* the Sherman spanked the "Super 34" with the 76.

You can argue the physics 'til the cows come home and lose, I have posted detailed non-biased and consistent stats on it at the MCSH CoW forum and will be most pelased to reiterate here upon request. Rune is correct from a strategic point of view, if both sides can penetrate each other's armour then armour becomes a lesser concern than killing power in the "mobility/lethality/durability" triad. Germanfan when worshipping the mittens never quite gets around to explaining how a 40 widget tank even if it is 5 times as good as the 5 widget tank is a bargain if there is trainable manpower to man all the 5 widget tanks.

I am *certain* YOU will explain it to me and brief me in on how Wittman won the war with his hotrod though.

_____________________________

Anchors aweigh!




(in reply to Ursa MAior)
Post #: 181
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/28/2007 11:32:23 PM   
Ursa MAior

 

Posts: 1410
Joined: 4/20/2005
From: Hungary, EU
Status: offline
50Kerry

Hombre take off the blinkers. Which version of the m4 was in Korea? And which version are we talking about in 44? Stop this hatred speech. Do you want this thread locked too?

Rune
See? This one THOSE guys.

< Message edited by Ursa MAior -- 1/28/2007 11:45:04 PM >


_____________________________


Art by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to .50Kerry)
Post #: 182
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/28/2007 11:52:10 PM   
Rune Iversen


Posts: 3630
Joined: 7/20/2001
From: Copenhagen. Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAiorOnyl the 75mm german PAK 40 (?) was really effective vs the T34.



The 50mm PAK 38 worked okay below 500, if firing APCR.

quote:

Not the smaller calibers. But in Africa the PzIIIJ with 50mmL60 was capable dealing with M4s armour.


If firing plain AP, then only from the side. If firing APCR, then yes, like with the T34, you will get penetration from the front.

quote:


I no way I want to start a flame war I can send you PM about it.




Well, I have no secrets. If you fancy, you can post it here.

_____________________________

Ignoring the wulfir
Fighting the EUnuchs from within

(in reply to Ursa MAior)
Post #: 183
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/28/2007 11:55:26 PM   
Rune Iversen


Posts: 3630
Joined: 7/20/2001
From: Copenhagen. Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

Which version of the m4 was in Korea?


Mostly M4a3E8 w. 76mm.

quote:

And which version are we talking about in 44? Stop this hatred speech. Do you want this thread locked too?


Ma3 mostly. Some 76mm, some not. Some M4a3E8 towards the end lf the year.

quote:

Rune
See? This one THOSE guys.


You are right!

If only Nevs could have been here. He would have out that guy straight

< Message edited by Rune Iversen -- 1/29/2007 12:06:49 AM >


_____________________________

Ignoring the wulfir
Fighting the EUnuchs from within

(in reply to Ursa MAior)
Post #: 184
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/29/2007 12:21:36 AM   
.50Kerry


Posts: 325
Joined: 3/30/2004
From: a long dark river winding through the jungles....
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

50Kerry

Hombre take off the blinkers. Which version of the m4 was in Korea? And which version are we talking about in 44? Stop this hatred speech. Do you want this thread locked too?

Rune
See? This one THOSE guys.



ah so wait, there was a Magic Sherman in '50-'51 that somehow leapfrogged the immaculate 34 in tech in a 5 year drawdown era? You are of course aware that the Army was in the position of having to borrow tanks from trophy monuments here in CONUS for the war? Ah well as usual I digress.

Perhaps you can fill me in the massive post WW2 alterations to the Sherman Easy-8 that altered it from a 1944 joke into a T-34 thumping machine? I mean I admit I have done a little bit of reading on the matter and I still cannot seem to wrap my head around the Allies being so stupid as to not copy the Kittens wholesale as we allegedly did the German jet fleet, rocket fleet, and infantry armament stock. I guess in armor alone national pride is SO overweening that the powers that be refuse to adopt superior ideas and technology wholesale.

It takes genius on the level of Fwance to utilize captured enemy armour tech, and worse still get attacked by pride a mere 5 years later to the point they'd rather utilize the US M-47 in its place.

I don't recall ever seeing my FRIEND, ALLY, and research partner Rune Iversen ever get an answer to his query on why Fwance would not utilize the world beating Mitten designs in its colonial conflicts.

Did I miss that answer?

Your "hate speech" dig is funny all things considered.

_____________________________

Anchors aweigh!




(in reply to Ursa MAior)
Post #: 185
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/29/2007 12:22:38 AM   
.50Kerry


Posts: 325
Joined: 3/30/2004
From: a long dark river winding through the jungles....
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen


You are right!

If only Nevs could have been here. He would have out that guy straight



or HillaryFan, the neat thing is Rune that somebody thinks your postal addy means you'll imbibe the kool-aid.

_____________________________

Anchors aweigh!




(in reply to Rune Iversen)
Post #: 186
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/29/2007 12:23:49 AM   
IronDuke

 

Posts: 1572
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: .50Kerry


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen
The T34 was routinely holed by any of the upgraded german guns from 1942 forwards and is no different than the Sherman in this regard.


Onyl the 75mm german PAK 40 (?) was really effective vs the T34. Not the smaller calibers. But in Africa the PzIIIJ with 50mmL60 was capable dealing with M4s armour.

quote:

Yeah, but who here is actually proposing such things?


I no way I want to start a flame war I can send you PM about it.





Right, but magically, somehow when he "Super 34/85" faced the Sherman in Korea and on the Israeli frontier *somehow* the Sherman spanked the "Super 34" with the 76.


I have an inkling it had something in common with why MK IIs with pea shooters defeated the best Tanks in the world fielded by the French in 1940.

quote:

You can argue the physics 'til the cows come home and lose, I have posted detailed non-biased and consistent stats on it at the MCSH CoW forum and will be most pelased to reiterate here upon request. Rune is correct from a strategic point of view, if both sides can penetrate each other's armour then armour becomes a lesser concern than killing power in the "mobility/lethality/durability" triad. Germanfan when worshipping the mittens never quite gets around to explaining how a 40 widget tank even if it is 5 times as good as the 5 widget tank is a bargain if there is trainable manpower to man all the 5 widget tanks.

I am *certain* YOU will explain it to me and brief me in on how Wittman won the war with his hotrod though.


I think essentially, this is because Alliedfan tends to go google eyed at numbers, but not explore the context they are deployed in. You see, the fact that Germanfans 40 widget weapon is more expensive is only a disadvantage if Alliedfan can prove that Germanfan could have matched Alliedfans production run on 5 widget weapons.

Fact is, had the Germans binned the Tiger and the Panther, they would still not have produced nearly enough PZIVs to cope with the Tank force they faced on any frontier, never mind two or three frontiers at once.

That essentially made the 40 widget Panther the right strategic option for three reasons.

Firstly, the Germans were bled white on the eastern front. Their focus (given the laughable armament on the Sherm 75) was therefore on what Ivan was producing. His weapons got better and better and finished with the JS III which was as impressive a piece of kit as anyone produced in time to field. Therefore, to compete where it counted, they needed something more than 5000 MK III with the long barrelled 50. Had they gone the 5 widget route, it would be the accounts of German vets that would contain the stories of shells bouncing off, and the argument round here would be why the Germans never produced a Widget wonder.

Secondly, I just don't see that fielding more Panzer IVs was an option given you were essentially fielding a weapon that made more of the opposing Tank force useful. Even if they upped PZ IV production instead of producing the Panther, they weren't going to win the numbers game. However, by fielding more PZIVs, they were increasing the number of Tanks they deployed that didn't give Sherman crews nightmares.

In other words, you can field your 5000 Oliver McCalls (PZIVs), but my 8000 Lennox Lewises (Sherman) would be more worried if you were fielding 3000 Muhammed Alis (Panther). Quality is one way to narrow a number gap, otherwise, why move to the Abrams when you can crank out vast numbers of M60s if you put your mind to it.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, if you only have the fuel and logistics to field 1000 weapons, they might as well be 40 widget wonders than 5 widget death traps. This idea that the Germans should have binned the Panther and fielded twice the number of MKIVs extra fails hopelessly in the face of the German logistical situation. The number of weapons (regardless of how many Widgets they were) that were found abandoned clearly shows the Germans couldn't keep what they had supplied in the field. How fielding a lot more would have improved their overall situation is never explained. The only result of binning the Panther and cranking out extra PZ IVs would have been more motionless Tanks, occasionally burnt from the inside, waiting for curious Allied infantry to come across. Fuel and ammo only goes so far, field twice as many tanks and it goes even less.

By the end of the war, the tactical situation had returned to favour the defence in most situations, unless you could amass annihilating firepower as the Soviets tended to in the east. To be sure, I don't think the Germans for all their operational prowess realised this any better than anyone else, but in those operationally and strategically defensive circumstances, the Panther and Tiger made sense because at range, they were difficult to best when you cobined their armour, with the HV weaponry, with German sights.

Regards,
IronDuke





(in reply to .50Kerry)
Post #: 187
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/29/2007 12:24:07 AM   
.50Kerry


Posts: 325
Joined: 3/30/2004
From: a long dark river winding through the jungles....
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

Ma3 mostly. Some 76mm, some not. Some M4a3E8 towards the end lf the year.




Be cautious on running out the production numbers and timeline on the upgraded Shermans....

certain types of poster get depressed when our production rates and schedules get highlighted.


_____________________________

Anchors aweigh!




(in reply to Rune Iversen)
Post #: 188
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/29/2007 12:32:58 AM   
.50Kerry


Posts: 325
Joined: 3/30/2004
From: a long dark river winding through the jungles....
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke


Fuel and ammo only goes so far, field twice as many tanks and it goes even less.








Not necessarily true, the giant tanks ate fuel quicker for a diminishing "gain". Germany had to have known what strategic resource situation she'd face. Instead of making a go at securing raw resources and exploiting them she decided to play freeze tag in North Africa. For all the fawning over German tactical and operational prowess she sure could never see the big picture eh?

All of the Axis were convinced Allied will would snap like twigs, it did not with one notable Gallic exception.

I would much rather be at the big board with the Sherman as my standard bearer along with my other combined arms advantages than have the "niftiest hotrod". That "nifty hotrod" could be and was aced by Sherman bodied gun bearing tanks. The "Ronson" won the war.

We are now back to "every Mitten killed 134 T-35s and Ronsons and was left abandoned out of fuel and undamaged" as a baseline here for some as regards the V and VI. It is as unrealistic as stating that there were not limited tactical advantages to the Mittens. I give Fritz his due he made a nice rig that was overengineered, overfinished, and overthirsty.

I prefer the rig that was designed by folks in the war winning business, not the "go gloriously" or "be goodwill ambassadors to the Slavs and Jews" business.

YMMV,
sven


< Message edited by .50Kerry -- 1/29/2007 12:45:00 AM >


_____________________________

Anchors aweigh!




(in reply to IronDuke)
Post #: 189
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/29/2007 12:37:13 AM   
Rune Iversen


Posts: 3630
Joined: 7/20/2001
From: Copenhagen. Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, if you only have the fuel and logistics to field 1000 weapons, they might as well be 40 widget wonders than 5 widget death traps






But they didnīt do this! They kept every imaginable hull in production in several different varieties . Only 1-2 of which were Panther and Tiger type hulls at any given period in time. They produced a few 40 widgets. Some 30 widgets. a lot more 20 widgets, and all the 1-2-3-4-5 widget designs you could possibly imagine


_____________________________

Ignoring the wulfir
Fighting the EUnuchs from within

(in reply to IronDuke)
Post #: 190
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/29/2007 12:40:22 AM   
.50Kerry


Posts: 325
Joined: 3/30/2004
From: a long dark river winding through the jungles....
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen


quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, if you only have the fuel and logistics to field 1000 weapons, they might as well be 40 widget wonders than 5 widget death traps






But they didnīt do this! They kept every imaginable hull in production in several different varieties . Only 1-2 of which were Panther and Tiger type hulls at any given period in time. They produced a few 40 widgets. Some 30 widgets. a lot more 20 widgets, and all the 1-2-3-4-5 widget designs you could possibly imagine




Indeed, and for all the laughing and harping at Jacques the Fwench's bungling of the armor situation I fail to see how the German's allocations were any more reasonable at the end game.

The real kicker is this notion that somehow the 76.2mm Sherman gun either bounced off the T-34/85 or Kim the NorKo got real scared and like Fritz Wittman abandoned perfectly good tanks that were not even out of fuel undamaged.....

armored combat is NOT jousting and if you are relying on the magic glacis and frontal to protect you in real life you are ripe for a rude awakening....

< Message edited by .50Kerry -- 1/29/2007 12:52:26 AM >


_____________________________

Anchors aweigh!




(in reply to Rune Iversen)
Post #: 191
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/29/2007 12:45:43 AM   
IronDuke

 

Posts: 1572
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

you speak about the Firefly, you are right that the gun was able to defeat both cats, but its armor was still MUCH weaker than any of threm.


quote:

So what? If both sides are able to kill witha hit, armour as a design consideration goes down the drain.


Not completely. The Germans were taught to fight Panthers at long range if possible. At long distances, with shot reaching the end of its life, armour can have an impact. Also, the 17pdr wasn't all that accurate after about 1000 metres, the 76mm is overrated hereabouts and I didn't think Sherman optics were all that well suited to long range duelling (not surprising) so whilst agreeing that the primary concern is armament, armour can not be completely discarded as a consideration.





< Message edited by IronDuke -- 1/29/2007 1:06:21 AM >

(in reply to Rune Iversen)
Post #: 192
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/29/2007 12:48:14 AM   
Doggie


Posts: 3244
Joined: 9/19/2001
From: Under the porch
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

50Kerry

Hombre take off the blinkers. Which version of the m4 was in Korea? And which version are we talking about in 44? Stop this hatred speech. Do you want this thread locked too?

Rune
See? This one THOSE guys.


It seems having the thread locked is the only way to save you from making a fool of yourself again and that's why you insist on trying to do it.

Perhaps if you were to offer something besides childish insults and tantrums, you might eventually lose the reputation you are making for yourself as the forum fool.


_____________________________

Visit the New, Improved Mad Dog's Drive Thru

(in reply to Ursa MAior)
Post #: 193
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/29/2007 12:54:31 AM   
IronDuke

 

Posts: 1572
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen


quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, if you only have the fuel and logistics to field 1000 weapons, they might as well be 40 widget wonders than 5 widget death traps






But they didnīt do this! They kept every imaginable hull in production in several different varieties . Only 1-2 of which were Panther and Tiger type hulls at any given period in time. They produced a few 40 widgets. Some 30 widgets. a lot more 20 widgets, and all the 1-2-3-4-5 widget designs you could possibly imagine



But they couldn't produce 1000 40 widget wonders in these terms. By 1943, the situation you describe was improving as Guderian became Inspector of Armoured troops and began sorting the situation out aided by Speer who also saw the nonsense of this. Fact is, by mid 1944, they had standardised on a Lg MKIV battalion and a Panther Battalion in each Panzer division. What tigers they had were Corp or Army assets grouped into Heavy Battalions (save for a few in the Lehr if memory serves). They weren't producing much else, and what else they fielded was usually captured.

The extra hulls were generally being used to produce TDs, weren't they, which because they needed no turret, could be produced more easily than Tanks anyway and were arguably a better bet given the defensive nature of the campaigns they were fighting.



(in reply to Rune Iversen)
Post #: 194
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/29/2007 12:56:07 AM   
Rune Iversen


Posts: 3630
Joined: 7/20/2001
From: Copenhagen. Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke



Not completely. The Germans were taught to fight Panthers at long range if possible. At long distances, with shot reaching the end of its life, armour can have an impact. Also, the 17pdr wasn't all that accurate after about 1000 metres, the 76mm is overrated hereabouts and I didn't think Sherman optics were all that well suited to long range duelling (not surprising) so whilst agreeing that the primary concern is armament, armour can not be completely discarded as a consideration.






Psshh...

If most of the tactical Tank vs. Tank combat takes place below 1000 meters anyway (which it arguably did most of the times the germans had meaningful amounts of armour to play with in the West, with 1-2 exceptions), whatīs the beef?


_____________________________

Ignoring the wulfir
Fighting the EUnuchs from within

(in reply to IronDuke)
Post #: 195
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/29/2007 12:59:03 AM   
.50Kerry


Posts: 325
Joined: 3/30/2004
From: a long dark river winding through the jungles....
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke



The extra hulls were generally being used to produce TDs, weren't they, which because they needed no turret, could be produced more easily than Tanks anyway and were arguably a better bet given the defensive nature of the campaigns they were fighting.






Correct after a fashion. That said the development and deployment of the Mittens diverted resources that could have been used on industrially cheaper instruments of offenseive manuever and guns from better defensive hulls. I have yet to see the Panther that has better protection hull up than a Marder hull down.

The Mittens were a luxury Fritz could hardly afford IMHO and the resources would have been better spent on TDs and IVs. German pride prevented her from taking a brutal self-assesment of where she was in mid '43.

_____________________________

Anchors aweigh!




(in reply to IronDuke)
Post #: 196
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/29/2007 1:00:27 AM   
Rune Iversen


Posts: 3630
Joined: 7/20/2001
From: Copenhagen. Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke



But they couldn't produce 1000 40 widget wonders in these terms. By 1943, the situation you describe was improving as Guderian became Inspector of Armoured troops and began sorting the situation out aided by Speer who also saw the nonsense of this. Fact is, by mid 1944, they had standardised on a Lg MKIV battalion and a Panther Battalion in each Panzer division.


Just how many german units actually had this make-up by the time of say, The Ardennes offensive?

quote:

What tigers they had were Corp or Army assets grouped into Heavy Battalions (save for a few in the Lehr if memory serves). They weren't producing much else, and what else they fielded was usually captured.


StuGs my dear ID. StuGs. And coming out of the wazoo as well. 1944 was a good year for StuGs. Lord knows they had little else to use the MK III Hull production on.

quote:

The extra hulls were generally being used to produce TDs, weren't they, which because they needed no turret, could be produced more easily than Tanks anyway and were arguably a better bet given the defensive nature of the campaigns they were fighting.


In theory, yes. But most of the older vintages (PZ I-II and the various french chassis) had already gone the way of the SPAT/SPA or Assault gun already. What they did keep up was production of the MK III Hull for StuGs and the Czech 38t hull for Hetzers, Marders and SPA.

But they were also using "40 widget" hull types for the production of redundant Hvy Jagdpanzer types (Ferdinand, Jagdpanther/Tiger) and such total boondoggles as the Sturmtiger.....



< Message edited by Rune Iversen -- 1/29/2007 1:14:47 AM >


_____________________________

Ignoring the wulfir
Fighting the EUnuchs from within

(in reply to IronDuke)
Post #: 197
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/29/2007 1:08:22 AM   
.50Kerry


Posts: 325
Joined: 3/30/2004
From: a long dark river winding through the jungles....
Status: offline
;)

my favorite German tank is the JagTiger that used to live in my back yard....

seemed to have had a 90mm bite or three.....including one in the mantlet.





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by .50Kerry -- 1/29/2007 1:20:13 AM >


_____________________________

Anchors aweigh!




(in reply to Rune Iversen)
Post #: 198
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/29/2007 1:11:35 AM   
IronDuke

 

Posts: 1572
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: .50Kerry

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke


Fuel and ammo only goes so far, field twice as many tanks and it goes even less.








Not necessarily true, the giant tanks ate fuel quicker for a diminishing "gain". Germany had to have known what strategic resource situation she'd face. Instead of making a go at securing raw resources and exploiting them she decided to play freeze tag in North Africa. For all the fawning over German tactical and operational prowess she sure could never see the big picture eh?

All of the Axis were convinced Allied will would snap like twigs, it did not with one notable Gallic exception.

I would much rather be at the big board with the Sherman as my standard bearer along with my other combined arms advantages than have the "niftiest hotrod". That "nifty hotrod" could be and was aced by Sherman bodied gun bearing tanks. The "Ronson" won the war.

We are now back to "every Mitten killed 134 T-35s and Ronsons and was left abandoned out of fuel and undamaged" as a baseline here for some as regards the V and VI. It is as unrealistic as stating that there were not limited tactical advantages to the Mittens. I give Fritz his due he made a nice rig that was overengineered, overfinished, and overthirsty.

I prefer the rig that was designed by folks in the war winning business, not the "go gloriously" or "be goodwill ambassadors to the Slavs and Jews" business.

YMMV,
sven



As I've said before, they did this by trading. The Sherman won by attrition. You are making a virtue out of necessity. In the air, the Americans produced weapons like the P51, P47 and Corsair which were as good as anything their opponents possessed and better than most. They mass produced them.

At sea, they had the best carriers, and mass produced them. There was little wrong with their destroyers etc either. They had hundreds of them.

Only in the field of tanks did the US live with mass producing something average was good, and this to me is a failure given how many they could have cranked out of any better design they came up with.

The USAF did not trade 1-1 in fighters, Navy aviation in the pacific traded at something ridiculously in their favour. They had weapons of the highest order and good training.

AGF suffered and stuck with the attritional approach, not because they enjoyed losing more Tanks or having to sneak around looking for flank shots but because they possessed average equipment which did not match the best of German equipment, either Tanks or AT guns. To turn it into a virtue here in this thread is to hide the real failures that contributed to this situation. Not everything was because of failure, I contend that greater german combat experience in the east worked against the western Allies in one way, because the Germans went through the action/reaction phases of Tank design more quickly than the Allies did with their more limited campaigning. The russians front meant we had far fewer Germans to contend with, but better armed ones.

This whole "Sherman was fine" thing baffles me because it flies in the face of everything you read from those that were there. From Belton Cooper to Omar Bradley, they univerally condemn the situation they were in. Now, I don't accept uncritically the words of vets, the wider picure isn't easy to see in the confusion of combat, but its such a widely held perception that there must be something in it. The British were no better but did come up with the better stopgap in the Firefly.

In the hands of the Israelis facing enemies poor on the operational plane, the Sherman may have been fine. In NW Europe facing the Germans it wasn't, its as simple as that.

Regards,
IronDuke

(in reply to .50Kerry)
Post #: 199
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/29/2007 1:23:15 AM   
IronDuke

 

Posts: 1572
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke


quote:

ORIGINAL: .50Kerry

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke


Fuel and ammo only goes so far, field twice as many tanks and it goes even less.








Not necessarily true, the giant tanks ate fuel quicker for a diminishing "gain". Germany had to have known what strategic resource situation she'd face. Instead of making a go at securing raw resources and exploiting them she decided to play freeze tag in North Africa. For all the fawning over German tactical and operational prowess she sure could never see the big picture eh?

All of the Axis were convinced Allied will would snap like twigs, it did not with one notable Gallic exception.

I would much rather be at the big board with the Sherman as my standard bearer along with my other combined arms advantages than have the "niftiest hotrod". That "nifty hotrod" could be and was aced by Sherman bodied gun bearing tanks. The "Ronson" won the war.

We are now back to "every Mitten killed 134 T-35s and Ronsons and was left abandoned out of fuel and undamaged" as a baseline here for some as regards the V and VI. It is as unrealistic as stating that there were not limited tactical advantages to the Mittens. I give Fritz his due he made a nice rig that was overengineered, overfinished, and overthirsty.

I prefer the rig that was designed by folks in the war winning business, not the "go gloriously" or "be goodwill ambassadors to the Slavs and Jews" business.

YMMV,
sven



As I've said before, they did this by trading. The Sherman won by attrition. You are making a virtue out of necessity. In the air, the Americans produced weapons like the P51, P47 and Corsair which were as good as anything their opponents possessed and better than most. They mass produced them.

At sea, they had the best carriers, and mass produced them. There was little wrong with their destroyers etc either. They had hundreds of them.

Only in the field of tanks did the US live with mass producing something average was good, and this to me is a failure given how many they could have cranked out of any better design they came up with.

The USAF did not trade 1-1 in fighters, Navy aviation in the pacific traded at something ridiculously in their favour. They had weapons of the highest order and good training.

AGF suffered and stuck with the attritional approach, not because they enjoyed losing more Tanks or having to sneak around looking for flank shots but because they possessed average equipment which did not match the best of German equipment, either Tanks or AT guns. To turn it into a virtue here in this thread is to hide the real failures that contributed to this situation. Not everything was because of failure, I contend that greater german combat experience in the east worked against the western Allies in one way, because the Germans went through the action/reaction phases of Tank design more quickly than the Allies did with their more limited campaigning. The russians front meant we had far fewer Germans to contend with, but better armed ones.

This whole "Sherman was fine" thing baffles me because it flies in the face of everything you read from those that were there. From Belton Cooper to Omar Bradley, they univerally condemn the situation they were in. Now, I don't accept uncritically the words of vets, the wider picure isn't easy to see in the confusion of combat, but its such a widely held perception that there must be something in it. The British were no better but did come up with the better stopgap in the Firefly.

In the hands of the Israelis facing enemies poor on the operational plane, the Sherman may have been fine. In NW Europe facing the Germans it wasn't, its as simple as that.

Regards,
IronDuke


One extra thing I might add. The added disadvantage of an attritional approach is having to refill your ranks with people with no combat experience every couple of weeks. The effects of that on morale and combat effectiveness are difficult to quantify, but I would bet they were all negative.

The Sherman did win the war, despite the fact it had issues, but that doesn't mean we set out to win the war in such a manner, or indeed should have done so. Why did America crank out the F6 when it could mass produce F4Fs? Given the state of Japanese training by...well just about any time....the F4F would have done the job fine.

We did it because it was a better weapon, and we lost fewer as a result of upgrading. It was still mass produced.

One further upside of better equipment is increased survivability and less loss of combat experience as a result. A Panther moving around sporting dozens of scratchmarks was a Panther with combat experience. The Germans learnt the price of fielding bad crews in Lorraine. They couldn't avoid it given the sheer weight of casualties on two fronts over 6 years, but the Allies should have done better.

Regards,
IronDuke

(in reply to IronDuke)
Post #: 200
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/29/2007 1:25:38 AM   
Rune Iversen


Posts: 3630
Joined: 7/20/2001
From: Copenhagen. Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke
AGF suffered and stuck with the attritional approach, not because they enjoyed losing more Tanks or having to sneak around looking for flank shots but because they possessed average equipment which did not match the best of German equipment, either Tanks or AT guns. To turn it into a virtue here in this thread is to hide the real failures that contributed to this situation.


And just whose fault was that again ID?

quote:

Not everything was because of failure, I contend that greater german combat experience in the east worked against the western Allies in one way, because the Germans went through the action/reaction phases of Tank design more quickly than the Allies did with their more limited campaigning. The russians front meant we had far fewer Germans to contend with, but better armed ones.


How come that the soviet "answers" looked remarkably similar to the allied ones then?

quote:

This whole "Sherman was fine" thing baffles me because it flies in the face of everything you read from those that were there. From Belton Cooper


Maintanence sergent with a bug up his backside. Limited perspective. getīs plenty of things outright wrong.

quote:

to Omar Bradley, they univerally condemn the situation they were in.


Heh, well given the press "scandal" at home, he pretty much had to, didnīt he.

quote:

Now, I don't accept uncritically the words of vets, the wider picure isn't easy to see in the confusion of combat, but its such a widely held perception that there must be something in it. The British were no better but did come up with the better stopgap in the Firefly.


Yet the solutions worked so remarkably well that all of the supposedly "war winning" operational armoured counterattacks the germans managed got beaten. The allies traded off though, but only the germans in Russia anno 1941 really managed not to.

quote:

In the hands of the Israelis facing enemies poor on the operational plane, the Sherman may have been fine. In NW Europe facing the Germans it wasn't, its as simple as that.

Regards,
IronDuke


I have one word for you ID: Scoreboard. Just what is the ratio of tanks lost for each side in those operations where german armour was present in strenght (Goodwood excepted,).

< Message edited by Rune Iversen -- 1/29/2007 1:37:37 AM >


_____________________________

Ignoring the wulfir
Fighting the EUnuchs from within

(in reply to IronDuke)
Post #: 201
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/29/2007 1:28:54 AM   
IronDuke

 

Posts: 1572
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline


Battlestar Galactica starts shortly , if this thread doesn't get locked up, I'll be back tomorrow. If it's locked, we can move to the COW if that is acceptable? Much the same discussion is going on there.

Regards and thanks,
Ironduke

(in reply to IronDuke)
Post #: 202
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/29/2007 1:30:17 AM   
Rune Iversen


Posts: 3630
Joined: 7/20/2001
From: Copenhagen. Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke


One extra thing I might add. The added disadvantage of an attritional approach is having to refill your ranks with people with no combat experience every couple of weeks. The effects of that on morale and combat effectiveness are difficult to quantify, but I would bet they were all negative.


Perhaps except for the heaviest actions in the Ardennes, this simply didnīt happen. It is flat out wrong. Casulaties in armoured units was remarkably lower than in the infantry. On average 1 man was killed for each tank hit.


quote:

The Sherman did win the war, despite the fact it had issues, but that doesn't mean we set out to win the war in such a manner, or indeed should have done so. Why did America crank out the F6 when it could mass produce F4Fs? Given the state of Japanese training by...well just about any time....the F4F would have done the job fine. We did it because it was a better weapon, and we lost fewer as a result of upgrading. It was still mass produced.


Well, as you might have noticed at Vinnys, I have given my stab at how this situation came about.


quote:

One further upside of better equipment is increased survivability and less loss of combat experience as a result. A Panther moving around sporting dozens of scratchmarks was a Panther with combat experience.


Heh. It was a Panther on itīs way to the knackers.....

quote:

The Germans learnt the price of fielding bad crews in Lorraine. They couldn't avoid it given the sheer weight of casualties on two fronts over 6 years, but the Allies should have done better.

Regards,
IronDuke


True. I agree very much.


_____________________________

Ignoring the wulfir
Fighting the EUnuchs from within

(in reply to IronDuke)
Post #: 203
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/29/2007 1:45:47 AM   
.50Kerry


Posts: 325
Joined: 3/30/2004
From: a long dark river winding through the jungles....
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

As I've said before, they did this by trading. The Sherman won by attrition. You are making a virtue out of necessity. In the air, the Americans produced weapons like the P51, P47 and Corsair which were as good as anything their opponents possessed and better than most. They mass produced them.


The Sherman was the best design in 1942 that could fit within the confines of the massive US Log window and the port facilities that she would have to capitalize on. The design was constantly and consistently tinkered with to deal with its OPFOR while maintaining for better/and/or worse its original design themes. The US "solution" for a "heavy" until 1943 was the M6, and while there is a part of me that dearly wishes we could have seen her chew on the Afrika Korpse in all reality the correct decision was made as the M6 had NO application in our other Hempispheric war we were waging simultaneously.

The M-26 wound up being a feasible logistical solution to the M4's long in the tooth woes that was also a darn good potential Kitty Killer. Pity McNair and Friends succeeded in saying they didn't need or want it. This leads me to conclude that if you are sincere in saying the Sherman was a damn near suicide machine that:

a) the allies would have a lower % of surviving Tank crews than Fritz,

and

B) US Armor, TD, and Inf branches colluded at near treasonous activities and AGF was in fact a borderline Red Orchestra level capaign against US forces.....
quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke
At sea, they had the best carriers, and mass produced them. There was little wrong with their destroyers etc either. They had hundreds of them.


and they were being built by the methodology developed by an automaker...

;)

Big Differences between Air, Sea, and Land Log are that a ship or plane is its own legs and can be "whatever size is needed", and the Sherman making a poor submarine. We *had* to be able to unload the damned things rapidly and by available amphib methods....

Life is like that the Army OFTEN has to "just make do" and the USMC if anything has it worse. Funny how the USN and USAF pretty much always get their hotrods though.
quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke
Only in the field of tanks did the US live with mass producing something average was good, and this to me is a failure given how many they could have cranked out of any better design they came up with.



I agree to a point, you'll note that *I* am the one who pointed out that on D-Day the US could either have had the Upgunned M-4 OR the M-26. That they did not get it was due largely to McNair trying to make sure a bunch of brass got to have their own golf courses back on the block post war. Didn't work out but at least he tried.
quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke
The USAF did not trade 1-1 in fighters, Navy aviation in the pacific traded at something ridiculously in their favour. They had weapons of the highest order and good training.



What can I say for a bunch of dumb hick farmers and cowboys we sure did do things "almost well" in a lot of things. Nothing like the Ubermen who "really won the war". I am not in the business of underselling or overselling the sacrifices and skill of the players involved.

The Germans and Japanese made pretty much as good a go as you can try on pure balls and tactical skill. It is amazing what running a readiness campaign for years prior to a conflict can do for a force when it initally faces the undertrained and blooded opfor. Of course as the opfor gets bloodied, wise, and angry it is pretty amazing what havinga good LOG net and nice doctrine can do on the rebound.

That is "ww2 in a nutshell" btw.
quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke
AGF suffered and stuck with the attritional approach, not because they enjoyed losing more Tanks or having to sneak around looking for flank shots but because they possessed average equipment which did not match the best of German equipment, either Tanks or AT guns. To turn it into a virtue here in this thread is to hide the real failures that contributed to this situation. Not everything was because of failure, I contend that greater german combat experience in the east worked against the western Allies in one way, because the Germans went through the action/reaction phases of Tank design more quickly than the Allies did with their more limited campaigning. The russians front meant we had far fewer Germans to contend with, but better armed ones.


Yeah the Maus, the JagdTiger, and JagdPanther were all winning designs. I cannot tell you how horrified I was when I saw the Wehrmacht tossing the US and USSR's battle streamers there at the Berlin parade ground at the end of the war. Still gives me almost as many nightmares as that bawling Fwench guy under the Arc'd'Triomph or whatever.

Fact is if there is anyone who goes on about how assinine AGF's judgement on armor was it is me. As I recall YOU were the one stating they made the conscious decision to go with what they had as "it worked". Due to some creative anachrocistic cognitive dissonance you felt as though when Devers said "no heavies" he was discussing the M-26 and not the M-6.

My understanding of timelines says that that may well not be the case, add in several Armor commanders wanting an upgunned Sherm for TvT in '43 and we are at an impasse where branch loyalty trumped good sense.

Parochialism is never a pretty thing. About the only response I have to it is THANK GOD Fritz had it worse and in spades. Good enough often is, and frankly the Sherman WAS an acceptable design into the '50s, something the Kittens never pulled off.
quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke
This whole "Sherman was fine" thing baffles me because it flies in the face of everything you read from those that were there. From Belton Cooper to Omar Bradley, they univerally condemn the situation they were in. Now, I don't accept uncritically the words of vets, the wider picure isn't easy to see in the confusion of combat, but its such a widely held perception that there must be something in it. The British were no better but did come up with the better stopgap in the Firefly.



No in a perverse way the postwar publishing machine added fuel to the fire by overhyping US' fears about the German WunderKit. Chuck Yeager summarized it best with his pithy one liner. We stowed their streamers not the other way around on land, air, and sea.

Kind of funny that we now have in this thread Omar Bradley decrying the US armor situation when evidentally Patton and Devers were(in theory) yelling the Sherman 75 was more than adequate? Fact is that GIs are almost ALWAYS envious of opfor tech for good or ill.

There ARE cases where an argument can be made that yes Virginia OPTech is better. I just do not see it in the case of the Sherm v Kittens in a strategic sense. I must be the only guy in North America, and indeed Western Civ who thinks that this bizzare surreal situation where we have Grognards of a certain bent declaiming that "the real elites all have something in common they surrendered in groups of 100,000 and more".

Sorry I don't buy it.
quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke
In the hands of the Israelis facing enemies poor on the operational plane, the Sherman may have been fine. In NW Europe facing the Germans it wasn't, its as simple as that.

Regards,
IronDuke



So the US was as Good as the IDF in 1951 vis a vis the NorKos but a blind barely mobile child in '44 in NW EUrope? The kicker is of course that the Germans in the IV and even yes the V and VI versus "superior until it was inferior but in the end timeless" T-34 ran into guys that grognardia tells us started off worse than the Norkos but somehow magically became world beaters....


this sure does get confusing....

Germany folded for the same reason Fwance folded a strategy that was flawed at its heart and the implosion of will it led to.

The Sherman was a design that was "good enough" to soldier on into the mid '50s in OUR kit, and until the late '60s in world kit and keep going.....

and I'll be damned if it fails at everything but winning in the end wars.



_____________________________

Anchors aweigh!




(in reply to IronDuke)
Post #: 204
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/29/2007 1:56:31 AM   
.50Kerry


Posts: 325
Joined: 3/30/2004
From: a long dark river winding through the jungles....
Status: offline
by the way ID just to be clear, despite the seeming acidity of my prose I respect your PoV enough and do not mean to sound venomous with "creative cognitive dissonance".  I am simply stating that if you take our latest jousting on this elsewhere to its logical conclusion you'll see the "circle" I am mentioning.

Hope you enjoy BSG.

_____________________________

Anchors aweigh!




(in reply to .50Kerry)
Post #: 205
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/29/2007 2:02:55 AM   
Rune Iversen


Posts: 3630
Joined: 7/20/2001
From: Copenhagen. Denmark
Status: offline
Yeah, me too. Besides, I donīt doubt that the decision to stay with the Sherman (and not continually upgun it) was not necessarily the "best". The allies could definetely have done better in this regard, but for various reason (which we have been over) chose not to. At the end of the day, the Sherman proved to be adequate enough to drive the germans out of France in one summer. Kats or not.

< Message edited by Rune Iversen -- 1/29/2007 2:22:43 AM >


_____________________________

Ignoring the wulfir
Fighting the EUnuchs from within

(in reply to .50Kerry)
Post #: 206
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/29/2007 9:39:55 AM   
Ursa MAior

 

Posts: 1410
Joined: 4/20/2005
From: Hungary, EU
Status: offline
Rune
AFAIK APCR was made of tungsten which was scarce after 42 so very few APCR shots were made. SO this approach is MOSTLY theoritical.

.50Kerry
The M47 was a better tank than the Panther no question. Better suspension, better engine AND entered service some 8 years after the Panther did.

As of T34/85 vs M4A3. Well the easy eight and after was on par with the t34. But in most 44 ther were not enogh of them. I recall a book where it as stated that in most part of 44 Shermans and Fireflies were 5:1. The other 76,2 armed M4s were even fewer in numbers.
So in 44 the t-34/85 WAS better than the M4a3.

Doggie
Thanks to the creative programmer of the forum engine I can only see that you have posted something. The venom what you spit is only visble for those who are interested in your Steak house style rampage. Hasta la vista!

_____________________________


Art by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Rune Iversen)
Post #: 207
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/29/2007 10:11:26 AM   
Twotribes


Posts: 4830
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: online
Iron Duke you have never responded to the simple fact that in 42 nad 43 the Sherman as is was more than adequete for the job assigned, it handled everything thrown at it.

The powers that be didnt decide to keep it because it was better than what they could make, they decided to keep it because it could do the job they thought was ahead.

Once again, NONE of the powerful Armor Generals WANTED to replace it. Earliest they might have had doubts being 1944 July, exactly what was gonna happen in less than a year that could change what they had?

As to ships and Aircraft, Intially and continueing through the war the designs they had were inadequete for the job. New designs improved because it was NECCASSARY and shown to be so by combat. Such is NOT the case with the Sherman.

As I recall, for all the p-51's the aircorps was still using p-39's at the end of the war. Why? Because the p-39 was a very good aircraft for close support. The p-51 was good too but was designed for escorting the bombers and air to air.

The Navy in the Pacific also built and fielded aircraft in several versions and frames, for DIFFERENT missions. Why build 2 different carrier capable ( and in some cases 3) fighters? My understanding is that they each served different purposes.

(in reply to Ursa MAior)
Post #: 208
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/29/2007 5:33:42 PM   
UndercoverNotChickenSalad


Posts: 3990
Joined: 2/19/2002
From: Denial Aisle
Status: offline
Rune is an uneducated moron !   Good call Ursa u must be a genius



_____________________________


(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 209
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 1/29/2007 5:46:53 PM   
Rune Iversen


Posts: 3630
Joined: 7/20/2001
From: Copenhagen. Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

Rune
AFAIK APCR was made of tungsten which was scarce after 42 so very few APCR shots were made. SO this approach is MOSTLY theoritical.


Dunno. The germans manged to produce some 4750 (aprox) MK IIIs with 50mm guns and also produced 9600 towed Pak. They produced aprox 1.3 million APCR shells for these. Which means that on average (and taken across the entire production run) each of these guns had 90 APCR shells available. Probably the earlier guns had more (in 1941 and 42 where it mattered, since german AT Gun defence was pretty much pants otherwise) and the later guns (44-45) had less. Any way you slice it, it is hardly "theorhetical".

quote:

The other 76,2 armed M4s were even fewer in numbers.


Look at the numbers. In 1944-45 the US produced close to 7000 76mm armed Shermans. Not counting the Easy 8īs among them.



< Message edited by Rune Iversen -- 1/29/2007 6:00:00 PM >


_____________________________

Ignoring the wulfir
Fighting the EUnuchs from within

(in reply to Ursa MAior)
Post #: 210
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.128