[Type941]

Whoops, I forgot to mention the Sherman's high profile, making it an easier target. It also had a gyrostabilizer, which let is fire …..was only useful sometimes.

More like almost never. It didn’t work. It had it but they couldn’t use it in combat. Technology was not good enough. It works in modern tanks, of course, but back than, it’s a myth that it was working (made by Americans as one of things they believed supremely was that they were technically much more advanced than the rest). The idea was there, but it didn’t work. Misleading us you are! :P

The onwar site I linked to has details

Where are the sources for that site? I’m quite curious, as I hesitate something written on the internet at face value. All too often these online sites turned out to be bogged with allied propaganda ‘facts’.


When the T-34 was designed, it was by far the best (it entered service well after the war began). When the Sherman was designed, it was adequate. However, the Sherman was designed later in the war. The actual abilities of the tanks are quite similar.



You are wrong on all points. T34 was best yes, but it entered the war as it started, not ‘well after’! It fought with less powerful gun early, but it was there all the time. That’s why the Germans got a shock first time they encountered it, and that wasn’t Kursk… To say Sheraman and T34 on actual abilities is similar sounds all too much as a powerful US made myth.


but the Sherman had decent off road mobility. The late model Shermans had improved HVSS suspension, and excellent off-road ability on par with the late T-34s (which were actually worse off-road then the mid T-34s due to added weight from the new turret and gun).



Shermans with it’s narrow tracks were poor off road, sorry, that’s another misleading statement. T34 had by far the best suspension design, one adopted later by all main battle tanks. And it wasn’t because they liked ‘all russian’ I think.


You are thinking of the later German tanks. The early ones were less reliable then the Sherman and T-34, but were not overweight, underpowered (though they did have poor off-road ability due to small tracks), or fuel hungry.

Well, the early things germans had were not really tanks, but tankettes. Mk1s and Mk2s were a joke, and Mk3 was hardly any good either. All their guns were bad, they were unreliable and thirsty.

There really was a fast sweeping German blitzkrieg machine. Poland, France, and Barbarossa are clear examples of this.]


Now you floored me with this. You are so wrong about this! Those were won by infantry, and Luftwaffe supporting the tanks. Sure they were fast, it achieved victories because (and going in your order)
1. Because Allies didn’t protect it. Poland held on for more than a month, or you think it did fall in 2 weeks? No 1 month. Poland. You know the joke about cavalry attacking tanks? Know where it came from? That cavalry wreaked damage to german supplies. And I wish I had the sources with me, but let me assure you, germans lost A LOT of tanks in that 1 month. You’d be surprised how much.
2. French in first major tank fought off german attack very well. They defeated them. It was later the brits that abandoned the French (and doomed a 600000 belgium army to surrender) that lead to victory (much like Allies abandoning Finland to fight USSR because it thought it was pointless (like in case with France and Poland!). Had the French actually fought germans all the way – the war might have just finished there. Unfortunately the French doctrine always believed they were not powerful enough to defeat germany on their own – hence they relied on Britain. When Britain decided to cut losses and retreat, French collapsed. But the Maginot line still stood and they had to send emissars to tell them France surrendedred. Germans could not take it.
3. Barbarossa… well, barbarossa failed, if that’s any news. They went to Moscow and that was it. Mechanized Russians were able to retreat very fast and fight another day. The casualties were huge, but this is hardly an example of german super power. You are wrong completely about blitzkrieg.

There was no blitzkrieg. What there was in fact was bunch of incompetence at the top of Allies that lost wars in Poland, France and needed a reason to justify it. Germans were all too happy to go along with it. However the wars were won on the ground, by infantry. Not by mechanized armies, thundering (and in sarcasm mode now) down highways, with kilometres of trucks and horses behind. Germans used aviation with it, and were good at that, but once they lost superiority in air, it was that. Poland was perfect example. They destroyed polish airforces piece by piece and dominated battle field. They bombed their own – and in succession learned to better coordinate, which enabled them to be so good in france. See my posts in D-day about how efficient the germans were in in flying 3-4 times more sorties than Allies and thus making them think they were against a much bigger airforce (while they lost 3/4s of their transport airforce in parachuting operation in Netherlands in 1940!!!). Not to mention their airforce was inferior in equipment to british and even French.





The early German tanks had good road-movement ability, a useful component in a blitzkrieg (off-road comes in mainly in tactical situations). Remember, though, that the operational speed of mechanized units is corrolated with tank speed, but there are other factors. The panzer and motorized divisions were able to move fast enough to cause confusion behind enemy lines, and to surround units

. Only with support of infantry and airforce. When allies tried it, they failed miserably. If Blitzkrieg worked, massive tank offensives would work. They didn’t. They didn’t at Kursk, didn’t at Caen, didn’t at Ardennes, and didn’t in many other places. You forget – tank grinded to a f*cking hault as soon as it came to a minefield. French found out the hard way in 1940. So much for the super mobility.



Also note that the operational speed of a 'fast' large unit would be considered quite slow compared to its individual vehicles.


And what’s the point of an individual vehicle?


This is true, and is one of the few mistakes that Patton made (he supported this concept). However, the U.S. forces were well-supplied with tank destroyers with 76.2mm guns (medium velocity), which could deal with the Tiger and Panther at shorter ranges. The tank destroyers were actually quite effective against enemy armor, but idiot commanders would often use them as tanks, resulting in additional losses (they had thin armor and open roof turrets - making them vulnerable to artillery and the lighter German AT weapons like the 50mm gun).

The tank destroyer of Allies was a wuss compared to jagdpanzers the germans made, who had them heavily armed and as you mention, actually had a roof. Germans could tie down all allied advancements with cleverly Anti Tank guns. When it came to using a tank, germans were much better than Americans or british. The ace stories are not so bogus!

I only try to be impartial here. I am Russian and have every reason to hate SS and Nazi germany till my eys turn red, but I am only looking at military composition. And it’s clear – allies created a myth of invincible german blitz machine to compensate for their failures in beginning of war, and germans later believed in that myth, and Hitler (luckily) believed in it best. They also followed Fuller’s ideas to the letter on tank warfare. But Stalin after finland somehow learned from mistakes, while allied and germans continued to belive in it faithfully. Time and time again, huge mechaniezed armies got bogged down due to poor terrarin, poor air support, and poor logistics. But theories didn’t teach to deal with it. They implied tank would always get through. You see, tanks didn’t. The war was often won the old fashioned way. There were others theories, sure, but its THIS one and one about Bomber that tied the doctrines of Allies and Germans and Russians together. It was a false theory. And that millions of men died trying to prove it is a testament to that.