|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,554
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,554 |
The Sherman is getting a bad rap. While it was bested in many cases, it also killed one helluva lot of German armor. When the Brits up gunned it with a 17 pounder 76.2mm gun, it was more than able to take on the Panther and Tiger.
Along with the better gun, came 'wet storage' for the tank ammo, which really cut down on fires after being hit.
The Sherman was upgraded in 1944 with heavier armor. This version, with the 76mm gun and extra 10,000 pounds of steel was the equal of a Panther.
Biggest advantage the Sherman had was numbers. We produced over 45,000 of them , or about twice as many Shermans as all of the tanks the Germans produced.
American military doctrine at the time was to employ "tank destroyers" to kill enemy armor. The Sherman was not initially intended to directly combat enemy tanks. Plus the govt. believed that the Panther was going to be another heavy like the Tiger and not be produced in large numbers. I don't know if I would have wanted to be in a tank destroyer or not; big high velocity guns that were effective, but thin hull armor and open topped turrets. I watched a show here a while back on the tank destroyers. I think it was the M-18 that had the engine air intake and cooling air intake for the engine in the back of the crew compartment. Anytime they were in cold weather, the guys froze their butts off from all the outside air being pulled through. BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 16,032
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 16,032 |
Coupled with the fact that they seemed to have no idea what armor tactics were take a look at the cracker barrel Japanese tanks of WWII.
The one massed armor charge they tried on Sipan was wrecked by 37 MM guns maned by dug in gunners.
Quando Omni Moritati
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 814
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 814 |
Clueless US leaders who let Stalin take over most of the Europe.
The brain is a wonderful organ. It starts the moment you get up and doesn't stop untill you get into the office.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 8,573
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 8,573 |
Yes, the U.S. Navy had a serious problem with torpedoes at first. Worst regular issue pistol had to have been most any of the Japanese. Without question the worst manufactured pistol had to have been to U.S. Liberator, but it was a special purpose weapon not designed to be issued to regular troops. The worst rifle prize should go to the Italian Carcano. Second place worst to the Japanese. Having said that, I am told that the action of the Jap Arisaka rifle is very strong, but the rest of the rifle to me apears to be junk. Some of the worst fighter aircraft were probably the U.S. Brewster Buffaloes and the P-39 Airacobras. However, the Russians did find that the Airacobras were good ground attack planes. The U.S. Reising submachinegun was very unreliable in combat conditions.
Something that I have never been quite able to understand is the U.S. Sherman tank. It was obviously inferior to most any German tank or anti-tank gun in Europe. Certainly good against fortifications, light armored vehicles, trucks, etc., and as direct infantry support, but from what I hear for most of the war, the main gun of a Sherman was ineffective on about all German tanks. U.S. shells regularly just bounced off of German tanks, but almost any shot from German tanks or anti-tank guns easily penetrated the Shermans and set them ablaze, hence the German nickname "Ronson" ("lights first time, everytime"). That being the case, if it is true, how could a Sherman go into combat against a German tank and do anything but lose? Maybe disable the German's tracs and bypass it? I really would like for someone to explain this as I have always been baffled by how they did it. Read Death Traps by Belton Cooper for a good review on the Sherman.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,289
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,289 |
Here's a question for the experts.
Was the full on ramped up production of Sherman tanks influenced by it's performance in North Africa?
To the best of my knowledge they did OK there.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,739
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,739 |
Clueless US leaders who let Stalin take over most of the Europe. Welllll, it could also be argued that, while we of The British Commonwealth, were the largest force in the "D-Day" affair, providing more troops, much of the air cover and most of the ships were Royal Navy; the FACT is that I doubt that we could ever have successfully invaded the Euro. mainland without the enormous contribution of the USA. While, I find the exaggerated "we won WWII" attitude of all too many of our American cousins a bit too much, the FACT, again, is that the USA WAS "the arsenal of democracy" and thank God they finally got into the fight. We would have won, we would have lost at least twice as many of our finest young men (and women) and we WOULD have been devastated at the end of what would have been at least 3-5 years more of horrific total war. So, while Marshall, et al, did not choose to attack Russia, the FACT is that the American people DID NOT want to have more of their boys die to save European nations/peoples that always seem to be embroiled in wars with each other. Wrong? Well, whatever, the will of the people, it's called "democracy" and, I might add, we of the "Anglosphere" really did NOT have to fignt the Nazis and we lost hundreds of thousands of our people in doing so. So, maybe, a European, might be grateful and pay respect to our human and imperfect leaders or, maybe the Russkies were "better" allies, after all? One allied point here: In WWI, we "British"lost over 1 million soldiers, a high percentage of them in Belgium, these were combat deaths. Ypres, in particular, is literally soaked with our blood, given to save France and Belgium from "Le Boche". Yet, at the outset of WWII, the British asked the Belgians if the Brit. forces could cross Belgian territory to make a superior defence against the "Blitzkreig" of "Hurricane Heintz" Guderian's Panzers. The reply to we who had given them so much some two decades before, was "NO"....that to me says it all about fighting for Euros.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,653 Likes: 11
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,653 Likes: 11 |
Here's a question for the experts.
Was the full on ramped up production of Sherman tanks influenced by it's performance in North Africa?
To the best of my knowledge they did OK there. They did, but they were up against older German armor, specifically the Panzer III with a 50mm gun and the PKWIV that originally had just a short 75mm Howitzer (later retrofitted with the high velocity 75). Also, they had huge numbers over the Germans as well. As to the upgraded Sherman being the "equal" of the Panther, I'll disagree. Then Panther was way ahead of it's time, some experts called it the best tank design up to th early 50s. Also, the French tanks BTW, were acutally better than what the Germans fielded in 1940, they just had no clue as to how to use them.
Last edited by jorgeI; 04/15/13.
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 814
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 814 |
Clueless US leaders who let Stalin take over most of the Europe. Welllll, it could also be argued that, while we of The British Commonwealth, were the largest force in the "D-Day" affair, providing more troops, much of the air cover and most of the ships were Royal Navy; the FACT is that I doubt that we could ever have successfully invaded the Euro. mainland without the enormous contribution of the USA. While, I find the exaggerated "we won WWII" attitude of all too many of our American cousins a bit too much, the FACT, again, is that the USA WAS "the arsenal of democracy" and thank God they finally got into the fight. We would have won, we would have lost at least twice as many of our finest young men (and women) and we WOULD have been devastated at the end of what would have been at least 3-5 years more of horrific total war. So, while Marshall, et al, did not choose to attack Russia, the FACT is that the American people DID NOT want to have more of their boys die to save European nations/peoples that always seem to be embroiled in wars with each other. Wrong? Well, whatever, the will of the people, it's called "democracy" and, I might add, we of the "Anglosphere" really did NOT have to fignt the Nazis and we lost hundreds of thousands of our people in doing so. So, maybe, a European, might be grateful and pay respect to our human and imperfect leaders or, maybe the Russkies were "better" allies, after all? One allied point here: In WWI, we "British"lost over 1 million soldiers, a high percentage of them in Belgium, these were combat deaths. Ypres, in particular, is literally soaked with our blood, given to save France and Belgium from "Le Boche". Yet, at the outset of WWII, the British asked the Belgians if the Brit. forces could cross Belgian territory to make a superior defence against the "Blitzkreig" of "Hurricane Heintz" Guderian's Panzers. The reply to we who had given them so much some two decades before, was "NO"....that to me says it all about fighting for Euros. The problem with russians is that they replaced germans with an even worse regime - not freedom or democracy like western forces.
Last edited by Czech_Made; 04/15/13.
The brain is a wonderful organ. It starts the moment you get up and doesn't stop untill you get into the office.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 42,931 Likes: 14
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 42,931 Likes: 14 |
The M4 Sherman Tank in Europe. No match against any German anti-tank weapons from the Panzerfaust to the 88mm gun. to quote a German General tho... ( I forget which one tho, sorry ).. "a German Tiger was equal to 10 Sherman Tanks... sadly for us, there was always an 11th..."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 42,931 Likes: 14
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 42,931 Likes: 14 |
The M4 Sherman Tank in Europe. No match against any German anti-tank weapons from the Panzerfaust to the 88mm gun. to quote a German General tho... ( I forget which one tho, sorry ).. "a German Tiger was equal to 10 Sherman Tanks... sadly for us, there was always an 11th..." While they were loved at first in North Africa, used by the British ( who just needed equipment) the American M3 and M5 tanks... another little known fact, is that Rommel utilized captured British equipment to support his army... the allies were shooting down or sinking a large percentage of equipment being shipped to North Africa.. so Rommel had to rely on something and his army was capturing a lot of American made stuff given to the British... once Rommel's driver got lost during a battle with the British advancing and German forces retreating... his driver found a large group of armor 'advancing' by all the dust that they would have been kicking up... he assumed it must be German Armor... turned out to be British... Rommel and his driver realized it only when they were in the middle of the advancing enemy armor... where they moved abreast and staggered, instead of in a column... Rommel and his driver quickly took off their uniform coats, but kept advancing with the British column, as it was moving toward German lines, where they needed to end up... as they advanced past the forward moving tanks, Tank Commanders would salute the Officers passing by in the staff car.. and Rommel would return the salute... how did all the British Tankers not realize it was Rommel.. a man they wanted to capture so badly? The staff car he was traveling in was a captured Chevrolet, and of course still had all the British staff markings on it.. even when the Germans retreated from North Africa to Italy.. they took a large number of the American trucks and support vehicles with them to Italy...that they had captured off the British.. and pretty much left the markings on it, that they had been captured with... they were still using this equipment in Italy right up to the end of the war...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 23,374 Likes: 2
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 23,374 Likes: 2 |
Maybe the 3 worst U.S. aircraft of WW2 in the Pacific?
F2A Brewster Buffalo
Douglas TDB Devastator
Bell P39 Airicobra
Soviets loved the P39 and built a pot-load of them. Beauty is in the eye....
"The Democrat Party looks like Titanic survivors. Partying and celebrating one moment, and huddled in lifeboats freezing the next". Hatari 2017
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid." Han Solo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,675 Likes: 1
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,675 Likes: 1 |
The early war USN Mark 14 torpedo and its Mark VI exploder.
The problems were eventually resolved making the Mark 14 a very competent weapon but the early war versions sucked very badly. Oh yes, the magnetic exploder; what a POS, and the Navy was hopelessly wedded to it. Everyone knew it didn't work, but the Navy would come down hard on anyone converting the magnetic to a contact. By mid 1943 they gave up on the magnetic exploder and just went with the contact exploder, and that lead to the "happy" days of US Sub warfare. I think Mush Morton fired something like 11 torps at a Japanese freighter before one finally went off.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,737
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,737 |
I believe that the Sherman tank and the B-17 were examples of industrial warfare at it's best. The depots kept turning out crews and the factories kept turning out planes and tanks.
The Germans and Japanese kept turning out planes but not crews for the planes. The German tanks were so finely made that it was impossible to produce any meaningful quantity and they kept producing upgrades and new models which made maintenance and repair difficult.
The American generals in Europe used the same battlefield tactics that the Union used at the battle of Cold Harbor,Va. Just keep throwing men and material at the enemy until the enemy ran out of ammo and troops.
Jim
"Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force." --Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 28,429 Likes: 6
Campfire Ranger
|
|
OP
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 28,429 Likes: 6 |
... Also, the French tanks BTW, were acutally better than what the Germans fielded in 1940, they just had no clue as to how to use them. �Sacre bleu, Jacques, how do you start ze en-jeen in zees tawnk?� �Mon dieu, Pierre, I �ave no clue how to turn on ze en-jeen.� �Well, we bettair fin� out tout suite, here come le Boche!� Sorry, your comment just made me think of this...
Gunnery, gunnery, gunnery.
Hit the target, all else is twaddle!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,605
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,605 |
on the Japanese rifle being crap, must have only looked at late war examples, early examples are as fine as most military rifles...late war Mausers were pieces of chit aswell so hard to hold that against the Japanese...
on our armor not standing up to the 88mm.....i dont think a Tiger could take a hit from an 88 either, that was just one killing SOB and it took the lessons learned in WWII to come up with a solution to it....
actually if it wasnt for its gun the Tiger is a pretty piss poor tank.....to heavy, to wide, to complicated, to hard to work on, to sensitive to fuel quality.....werent for the fact it had that 88mm we would be laughing at it as a flop today instead of holding it in awe....
A serious student of the "Armchair Safari" always looking for Africa/Asia hunting books
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 8,573
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 8,573 |
Maybe the 3 worst U.S. aircraft of WW2 in the Pacific?
F2A Brewster Buffalo
Douglas TDB Devastator
Bell P39 Airicobra
Soviets loved the P39 and built a pot-load of them. Beauty is in the eye.... RE:P-39 WE built a pot load of them(12,000)and gave them to the Soviets. And yes they loved them. RE: Brewster Buffalo The Finns used them to great advantage against the Soviets. Tactics made the difference for both.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 38,938 Likes: 11
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 38,938 Likes: 11 |
... Also, the French tanks BTW, were acutally better than what the Germans fielded in 1940, they just had no clue as to how to use them. �Sacre bleu, Jacques, how do you start ze en-jeen in zees tawnk?� �Mon dieu, Pierre, I �ave no clue how to turn on ze en-jeen.� �Well, we bettair fin� out tout suite, here come le Boche!� Sorry, your comment just made me think of this... Which made me think of why they plant trees along the roads in France.
Not a real member - just an ordinary guy who appreciates being able to hang around and say something once in awhile.
Happily Trapped In the Past (Thanks, Joe)
Not only a less than minimally educated person, but stupid and out of touch as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 42,931 Likes: 14
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 42,931 Likes: 14 |
ya know Kutes... the history books still are written the way, that certain powers that be, want them to read...
examples being on how few people know that Poland was attacked by Russian on their eastern border, a week to 10 days, after the Germans had attacked their western border...
in defense of Germany, their main goal was to recover parts of Germany that had been taken away after WW 1 by the allies, and especially the French.. and that is pretty much what they occupied...
Russia on the flip side, just wanted more territory, and to eliminate the Poles period...The Russians occupied 2/3s of Poland...and considered it Russian...
history books in most Allied Countries leave this part of history out... because the Russians later became our allies, against Germany, after Germany invaded Russia.... but before that, they were no friends of ours at all...
As far as Americans claiming we alone won the war... I counter, is it really Americans bragging on the USA or is it a case out of lack of real historical knowledge, the contributions of Britain and her commonwealth nations...
my perspective is different than a lot of my countrymen... as I have lived in Britain in my youth, and lived off base... I've seen the remnants of WW 2 first hand...and have known and listened to many British people who experienced the war first hand...
perhaps that is why I view Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand as peoples of my own country...I view then just the way I view different states in the USA, yeah we are different entities but we make up the USA...
I still maintain "Commonwealth" Loyalties.. hell even tho I am 17 th generation in this country, my home 'state' is Virginia.. but it is not known as the State of Virginia.. it is known as the Commonwealth of Virginia...
the USA really only has 46 "states".. the other 4 are Commonwealths.... Virginia, Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Massachusetts...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 28,429 Likes: 6
Campfire Ranger
|
|
OP
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 28,429 Likes: 6 |
... Also, the French tanks BTW, were acutally better than what the Germans fielded in 1940, they just had no clue as to how to use them. �Sacre bleu, Jacques, how do you start ze en-jeen in zees tawnk?� �Mon dieu, Pierre, I �ave no clue how to turn on ze en-jeen.� �Well, we bettair fin� out tout suite, here come le Boche!� Sorry, your comment just made me think of this... Which made me think of why they plant trees along the roads in France. So the Germans can march in the shade... 
Gunnery, gunnery, gunnery.
Hit the target, all else is twaddle!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 67,815 Likes: 11
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 67,815 Likes: 11 |
The armor on the Tiger and Panther were no match for the 90MM US anti tank gun in the M36 tank destroyer. While the 76 mm gun of the M10/M18 could kill a Panther or Tiger, they were not effective past 500 yards. The 90 mm M3 gun solved that problem.
Sam......
|
|
|
|
|
209 members (257 mag, 270wsmnutt, 160user, 12344mag, 300jimmy, 24HourCampFireGuy50, 15 invisible),
1,651
guests, and
1,115
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,194,449
Posts18,528,867
Members74,033
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
