Click here to access the Tanksim website
SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

BUYING GAMES, BOOKS, ELECTRONICS, and STUFF
THROUGH THIS LINK SUPPORTS SUBSIM, THANKS!

The Web's #1 BBS for all submarine and naval simulations!

Go Back   SUBSIM Radio Room Forums > General > Tanksim.com

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-10-06, 11:42 PM   #31
Torplexed
Let's Sink Sumptin' !
 
Torplexed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 5,823
Downloads: 43
Uploads: 0


Default

One attribute of the Sherman that gets overlooked in all the gun/armour comparsions are it's reasonable dimensions, suitable for shipping overseas in bulk. For a nation isolated by vast oceans fighting an sometimes amphibious war in the Pacific as well as in Europe, plus supplying them to all it's major allies a very important consideration.

That being said I'm glad we didn't tangle with the Soviets shortly after the war as Patton advocated. I don't think the average WW2 Sherman with the 75mm gun was ready to take on the JS-1, JS-2 and the T-34/85. Unlike the Germans the Soviets had numbers.
__________________

--Mobilis in Mobili--
Torplexed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-06, 12:19 AM   #32
Neutrino 123
A-ganger
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UCLA, Los Angeles
Posts: 73
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default

I think the shipping comparisons were two M-26 tanks for every three Shermans. I'd much rather have the M-26s...

Against the Soviets, the Allied tanks would have some advantages. The 75mm Shermans could deal with the T-34s only at close range, but the 76.2mm T-34s could not deal with the Shermans front at all (most were the 85mm version, though, I think). However, half the American tanks were armored with the 76.2mm gun by the end of the war. The British also had the Firefly, with superb penetration capabilities. In the Russian force, the heavy tanks still were not in great numbers, and better W-Allied tanks were beginning to roll off the productions lines. Also, the W-Allies had better tactical skills in general compared to the Soviets. This is not to say that the Western Allies would have had an easy time. They probably would have gotten pushed back to the Rhine, and the USSR would be nuked before mroe ground fighting took place.

On the other hand, even with an assured decisive Western Allied victory, I would still prefer no WWIII at that time. The Cold War was very good for technological advancement. If communism was destroyed in the 1940s, we could not be having a conversation now since the itnernet would be science fiction. Nevertheless, this message is mostly an entirely different topic...
__________________
Neutrino 123
Neutrino 123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-06, 04:28 AM   #33
Abraham
Eternal Patrol
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,572
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default Busting Tank Myths: T-34, M4, and MkIV Compared

Some good points made by Torplexed and Neutrino 123

The vertical side walls of the Sherman fitted with the tactical doctrine that tanks would be used to break a frontal barrier and then would go after the (relatively) soft target. Hence a strong frontal armour plate, a low velocity gun in a fast moving turret. Enemy tanks would be dealt with by fast moving lightly armoured and heavy armed tank destroyers from ambushes. This design fitted perfectly with shipping requirements: 12 Shermans would fit in one hold of a Liberty ship.

The reality of tank versus tank battles early on in WW II forced the Americans to design a completly new tank, heavy powered with very good off-road capabilities and a heavy 90 mm. gun, the M-26. Seven would fit in a hold that could hold 12 Shermans. The tank was ready for full scale production in January 1944, but then SHAEF decided to notify the Ordonance Board in Washington to deemphasize the production of M-26 and keep concentrating onthe M-4. This decision was forced upon SHAEF by Patton, who stuck to the letter of the Aurmoured Corps doctrine and maintained that tanks should not fight tanks...
So, instead of arriving in England in February '44 the first M-26's arrived in Europe in February '45. The story how the Sermans fared in the meantime is well known.
__________________
RIP Abraham
Abraham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-06, 12:22 PM   #34
Type941
Ace of the Deep
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: U-52
Posts: 1,270
Downloads: 2
Uploads: 0
Default

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.
__________________

Sink the Bismarck SH3 Movie
Type941 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-06, 02:34 PM   #35
joea
Silent Hunter
 
joea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: At periscope depth in Lake Geneva
Posts: 3,512
Downloads: 25
Uploads: 0
Default

Type 941 you are contradicting yourself, you say wars are won on the ground not by mechanised armies then go on to say the Germans won becuase of good air support (3-4 times more sorties etc.) and by combining arms well that's the point isn't it? Isn't the point of Blitzkrieg that the Germans coordinated and used their tanks as units not "penny packet" like the French, whose tanks were better I agree. In fact, to support what you said about the German officer corps this was nothing more than the stormtrooper tactics of 1918 at a faster pace. The bulk of the German army was on foot but the spearheads were mechanised and that's what counted.
joea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-06, 04:31 PM   #36
Abraham
Eternal Patrol
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,572
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default Busting Tank Myths: T-34, M4, and MkIV Compared

I support Joea on this.
Read Liddle Hart: History of the Second World War on how a handfull of Panzer Divisions, some Light Divisions and a couple of Mobile Divisions, never more than 20 at all, made the difference in the German army during the Blitzkrieg in Poland (Sept. '39) and Holland, Belgium, France (May '40). Type941 is right about their close cooperation with the Luftwaffe, which they used as flying heavy artillery. However, later during the war the Allied close ait support was even far better, that of the RAF 2nd Tactical Air Force in '44-'45 being the ultimate example.
__________________
RIP Abraham
Abraham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-06, 07:27 PM   #37
bradclark1
Ocean Warrior
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Connecticut, USA.
Posts: 2,794
Downloads: 25
Uploads: 0
Default

Quote:
There really was a fast sweeping German blitzkrieg machine. Poland, France, and Barbarossa are clear examples of this.
The fast sweeping German blitzkrieg machine was 70% propaganda.
You can only move as fast as your supply chain and the bulk of Germany's supply chain and artillery was horse drawn. Most infantry was straight legwork. Figure out the fuel capacity vs. miles per gallon and thats as fast as they can move without resupply. They did have the balls to push it to the limit though. What worked for them is that those countries above were unprepared for total war.
bradclark1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-06, 08:28 PM   #38
Onkel Neal
Born to Run Silent
 
Onkel Neal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: Cougar Trap, Texas
Posts: 21,276
Downloads: 534
Uploads: 224


Default

This is a great topic, would there be any objections to moving it to the Tanksim forum? There will still be a pointer here.
Onkel Neal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-06, 08:36 PM   #39
JSLTIGER
The Old Man
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Parkland, FL, USA
Posts: 1,437
Downloads: 5
Uploads: 0
Default

Go for it Neal!
__________________
Thor:
Intel Core i7 4770K|ASUS Z87Pro|32GB DDR3 RAM|11GB EVGA GeForce RTX 2080Ti Black|256GB Crucial M4 SSD+2TB WD HDD|4X LG BD-RE|32" Acer Predator Z321QU 165Hz G-Sync (2540x1440)|Logitech Z-323 2.1 Sound|Win 10 Pro

Explorer (MSI GL63 8RE-629 Laptop):
Intel Core i7 8750H|16GB DDR4 RAM|6GB GeForce GTX 1060|128GB SSD+1TB HDD|15.6" Widescreen (1920x1080)|Logitech R-20 2.1 Sound|Win 10 Home
JSLTIGER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-06, 02:41 AM   #40
Neutrino 123
A-ganger
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UCLA, Los Angeles
Posts: 73
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default

Quote:
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!
It worked often. However, just the effects of the gyrostabilizer were only small. Shooting on the move is complicated, and the gyrostabilizer only helped a little. Modern tanks have much more then a gyrostabilizer to help them fire on the move (and even the best ar still somewhat better when firing at rest).

Quote:
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’.
I haven't found any technical data on the site that is wrong (though if I combed it, I might find some minor points). If you searched a bit with google, you would find other sites with the same technical data. I have seen the same data in multiple books and the game, Combat Mission.

Quote:
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.
Is English your first language? I can almost always understand you, but I am not sure if you can always completely understand what I say. In this paragraph, I am not sure what you are saying...

The T-34 entered units in 1941 or maybe late 1940. This was well after the war started, though of course, at the time the USSR got involved, the T-34 was already part of thier force (first encountered in the Battle of Smolensk? I'm not exactly sure...).

If you asked most people with a passing knowledge of militaqry history, they would say that the Sherman was inferior to the T-34. However, as the specifications I showed on the first page indicate, that is not the case. The Sherman and T-34 were about the same. Each had some advantages and disadvantages over the other, but these roughly balanced out. If you have technical data that differs from my original posting, or a different interpretation of the tactical abilities of these tanks, by all means, show it.


Quote:
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.
This s completely wrong. Later models of the Sherman DID have improved suspension and tracks that gave them better cross-country mobility. It wasn't as good as the T-34, but it was still quite good. Almost any article on the Sherman will mention the improved suspension in the later models. Just do a simple Google search.

Before the improved suspension Shermans came along, the Sherman still had better off-road ability then the MkIV. It's not that the Sherman was horrible in this regard, it's just that the T-34 was very good.

Quote:
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.
Well, the MkI could be considered a tankette, but the MkII was technically a tank, though it certainly had very poor armerment. These things got decent fuel efficientcy for their weight, which was very low, of course.

Quote:
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)
The German Army was obviously mostly infantry divisions, but its attack spearheads were the panzer divisions. These divisions were powerful and highly mobile, capable of creating and exploiting breakthroughs. The Luftwaffe helped, of course, but its effect was largely morale-based (with a few notable exceptions). Even the late-war Allied air forces with attack aircraft had little efficientcy in killing tanks.

Quote:
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.
I did learn how much when I was less then 10, and I was VERY surprised. The Poles put up a great fight for such poorly equipped forces (~600-700 German tank losses?). If I recall correctly, they inflicted proportionally more casulties then the well-equipped French in 1940.

I believe the cavalry myth originated when the Poles launched a successful cavalry attack (small-unit scale) against a German infantry unit. German tanks arrived, and the Poles retreated. Since tanks and cavalry were in the area at the same times, the Germans started the cavalry-charging-tanks myth.

Quote:
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.
The French won a tactical armored engagement due to their superior tanks, but they were taken care of by 88s (the British also attacked and did well with Matildas). Britain didn't really abandon France. The whole Belgian group (including the French and Belgians present) needed to retreat to the channel ports, or else they would be surrounded by the panzer spearheads.

Quote:
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.
It doesn't matter that Barbarossa failed. For several months, the Germans conducted warfare at a very fast pace, and they made huge territorial gains. Their casulties were indeed large, but Soviet casulties were far greater. The Russians lost over 20,000 tanks in 1941! Their mechanized forces did NOT conduct a fast retreat. They were thrown into poorly conducted counterattacks and destroyed. The Russians had to reorganize their new tanks into brigades due to casulties, and only later regained the tank corps (division sized) (and later, of course, tank armies).

Quote:
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.
Just because the Allies were incompetant does not mean the Germans couldn't conduct fast warfare. In fact, the Germans conducted the French attack in just such a way as to maximize the effects of the Allies incompetance.

Your are right about the inefficientcy of the French Air Force. However, the fighter of the Luftwaffe (Bf109) was superior to the British Hurricane (there were no Spitfires in France) and also the French planes (though certainly not vastly superior, and the Hurricanes and French planes had better turning abilities, so they could do well with proper tactics).

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

Quote:
. 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.
The Panzer Divisions came with two mechanized/motorized infantry regiments, and coordianted well with the infantry (unlike the Allies). Also, there were motorized infantry divisions following the panzer divisions, and regular infantry after that. All were important, but it was the mechanized units that gave the ability to properly exploit breakthroughs.

Quote:
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?
?

Quote:
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!
This is true. However, just because the tank destroeyers were bad compared to the equivalent German units does not mean they should be dismissed. They did well against German armor.

Quote:
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.
Whatever myths the Allies created, it is well-known among military historians that their incompetance in the early war was a huge factor for their lack of success.
The USSR learned some thigns from Finland, but they didn't learn enough to prevent decisive defeat during Barbarossa. Also, some Soviet generals like Zhukov (of course) already knew how to fight well. Have you read about Khalin Gol (spelling?) against Japan?
Many things could stop an offensive, but offensives with flexible armored spearheads were clearly more successful then those without.



Quote:
This is a great topic, would there be any objections to moving it to the Tanksim forum? There will still be a pointer here.
I didn't even know this forum existed...
__________________
Neutrino 123
Neutrino 123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-06, 07:51 PM   #41
JonZac
Swabbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14
Downloads: 47
Uploads: 0
Default Operational Doctrine

Remember that the US doctrine at the time was an infantry breakthru, followed by the Sherman punching through the rear...it was NEVER designed to fight tanks. The US formed Tank Destroyer Battalions for that armed with the M10 and the 3in gun. That doctrine was mostly invalidated after actual war experience, but it was also the reasoning Patton used in delaying the M26..

In reality the US didn't want to fight tanks. We would come up against them, withdraw and drop arty and planes on the target. Tank v. Tank will rack up a causality list, when you can hit them from the air, or just hit their transportation network and starve them of fuel.
JonZac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-06, 02:29 AM   #42
nikimcbee
Fleet Admiral
 
nikimcbee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Patroling the Slot.
Posts: 17,922
Downloads: 90
Uploads: 0


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TLAM Strike
IIRC the good old Sherman (the up gunned ones) did fairly well against the T-34/85s (Korea) and Pattons (Israel and India-Pakistan) in the 50s and 60s. That definitely says something about the Sherman.
I bet a lot of that had to do with the crew training. I think the PRC and North Korean's "tanker experience" was rather limited. If it's anything like their airforce training... Were there a lot of tank vs tank action in the Korean War?
__________________
nikimcbee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-06, 06:55 AM   #43
kaptkirkU4467
Navy Dude
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ft.White Florida
Posts: 178
Downloads: 18
Uploads: 0
Default

When it made its WWII debuted on June 22,1941 the T 34/76 was better then any tank in field at "that time"..Its long barrel F-34 76mm could penetrate all German Armour...head on.

The Sherman..well it was a "nice" tank.Crew friendly and known for its ease of being maintained in the field...Its 75mm T-8/M-3 gun was next to worthless when it first saw combat.Even Sherman's later equipped with a 76mm were considered obsolete after May 1943.

If you go by when it first hit the streets,the T 34/76 is clearly the better tank.
__________________

G/K Worldwide: Making your life miserable since 2002 !
K.R.A.P.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=240
kaptkirkU4467 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-06, 02:30 PM   #44
nikimcbee
Fleet Admiral
 
nikimcbee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Patroling the Slot.
Posts: 17,922
Downloads: 90
Uploads: 0


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaptkirkU4467
When it made its WWII debuted on June 22,1941 the T 34/76 was better then any tank in field at "that time"..Its long barrel F-34 76mm could penetrate all German Armour...head on.

The Sherman..well it was a "nice" tank.Crew friendly and known for its ease of being maintained in the field...Its 75mm T-8/M-3 gun was next to worthless when it first saw combat.Even Sherman's later equipped with a 76mm were considered obsolete after May 1943.

If you go by when it first hit the streets,the T 34/76 is clearly the better tank.
Ditto

Plus, what was the Russian's nick name for the Sherman (clue)
__________________
nikimcbee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-06, 03:58 AM   #45
Neutrino 123
A-ganger
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UCLA, Los Angeles
Posts: 73
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default

Indeed, I mentioned in the first post that the T-34 was designed and produced well before the Sherman. When it first came out, the T-34 was revolutionary, while the Sherman was merely decent. However, the actual abilities of these tanks are quite similar.

The Sherman 76.2mm gun armed tanks did not come out until 1944 (maybe late 1943). The 76.2mm was perfectly good for taking on the MkIV and StuG III, but could only deal with Panthers and Tigers at close range or from the flank. Since Panthers and Tigers did not have signifigant numbers until 1944, the 76.2mm would have been adequate before then (and indeed, the 75mm gun was decent against the earlier German tanks). The Sherman did not experiance major problems before 1944 when it met Panthers and Tigers in notable numbers.

As for the burning Sherman reputation, I am not sure if it is wholly deserved. True, the early Shermans brewed up alot more then the late ones, but did they really brew up more then the T-34 or early German tanks? I'm not too sure about this...

The North Korean tankers had good training, but neither the North Koreans nor Chinese had very many tanks throughout the war. There were a few tank vs. tank incidents near the beginning where U.S. M24 Chaffes did poorly against T-34/85s, but the M4A3E8s and M26/M46s did much better.
Edit: I found some more information about this at http://www.korean-war.com/Archives/2.../msg00280.html
__________________
Neutrino 123

Last edited by Neutrino 123; 07-26-06 at 04:40 AM.
Neutrino 123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2024 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.