Sherman Tank

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by Panzerkampfwagen, Aug 23, 2012.

  1. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And please give us this hard Intel that FDR had. And please, do not bring up the Sorge Reports. This is all old news, and did not really give any information at all. The Sorge reports basically said nothing but "The Empire of Japan intends to go to war against the US and UK forces by the end of the year". And that was it.

    And it was not like nothing was done. Once FDR learned about this, our bases in the Pacific were quietly upgraded for several months. All Philippino Forces were activated and put on alert. Four Star General Douglas MacArthur was recalled from retirement, and placed in command of all Pacific Forces. And large numbers of troups and supplies were rushed to the Philippines. Shore Defense and Air Defense Battalions were rushed in, as well as 3 tank battalions, a mechanized battalion, 2 battallions of engineers, and 2 divisions of Infantry. Plus the 4th Marine Regiment was pulled out of China and sent directly to the Philippines, rather then being recalled home. And on 8 December there were an additional 4 regiments of artillery enroute when the war started.

    The Philippines come 8 December had over four times the forces and equipment then it had in 1 July 1941. Ordinance depots were 4 times larger, and there was an entire new petrol depot, with over 1,000,000 gallons of fuel. And there was over 1 million tons of equipment waiting on the docks for transportation when the war started.

    And the air forces on the island were no joke either. 3 B-10s, 35 B-17s, 18 B-18s, 91 P-40s, 26 P-35s, 12 P-26s, 8 A-27s, and 11 O-52s. Add to this the various cargo and training aircraft, and that is a sizeable air presence. Plus the 60 aircraft of the Philippine Air Corps, and more was enroute, including flights of an additional 34 B-17s and 91 P-40s.

    But do not make the mistake of thinking that the warnings were ignored. Once word arrived of the warning, the Philippines jumped from around 22,000 forces in total, to a force of around 130,000.

    And the naval build-up was no joke either. Going from essentially a Coast Guard, by the time of the invasion the Naval forces numbered a heavy cruiser, a light cruiser, and 13 destroyers. In addition, there were 23 submarinesm 6 PT boats, 5 gunboats, and a schooner. The majority of them arriving during or after August 1941.

    Sorry, but that is a gigantic build-up of forces. So please, give us this intelligence that was not reacted to.
     
  2. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,682
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The only reason the Sherman was good enough was because of combined arms- and in airpower in particular.

    Look- the Sherman was 'good enough'- at the beginning in North Africa- but there really is no excuse why the Brits could upgrade their Shermans to a 76 mm Firefly while we in the U.S. stayed with the underpowered 75. There is no excuse why no Pershing or Pershing equivelent wasn't available by the time of the Normandy invasions.

    We managed to move from P40's and Wildcats to P51's and Hellcats and Corsairs in the air, while still using the same tank we started with.
     
  3. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    True, but also consider the costs and numbers involved.

    P-40, 14,000, $45k
    P-51, 15,000, $51k (and development for this started in 1940)

    Sherman Tank, 50,000, $48k

    So yea, the costs were pretty similar, but the numbers were far different. And there were far more tanks on the battelfield then there were aircraft. And these aircraft normally had a crew of 1, +2-3 groundcrew. 1 officer, 2-3 enlisted. The tank however had a crew of 5 to actually run the thing in the first place (commander, gunner, loader, 2 drivers). Revamping a pilot training program is a lot easier then an entire tank crew program. And if you look at Germany, that ended up being one of their largest problems during the war.

    Every year almost they had new tanks hitting the battlefield. And it takes a while for the crews to become proficient in their use. New tanks, new weapons, new strategies, if you are constantly making your crews new learn equipment instead of becoming masters of a single one, efficiency suffers.

    And remember, the Sherman was a medium tank. It was not a heavy tank, nor was it a tank destroyer. It's main role was to support the infantry, not to go rushing off to destroy other tanks. It could do that, but it was much more valuable in it's intended role, to support the Infantry as a kind of rolling pillbox and artillery unit.
     
  4. bobgnote

    bobgnote New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2012
    Messages:
    739
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    FDR moved the Pacific Fleet to Pearl, to bait the Japanese. He arranged, with WestPac Gen.Geo.Marshall, to suppress ALL intel, including British messages, from Asia and London, but also, former Naval officer Robert Stinnett did a FOIA on the Navy, which coughed up all the material, for Stinnett's book, DAY OF DECEIT.

    FDR was so effective, all decoded Navy messages were suppressed, when the IJN was on the way. The Ward shot a mini-sub, and radar contact, phoned in was suppressed.

    2400 dead, lots of wounded, and no old dreadnaughts, for the Battle of Iron Bottom Sound.

    Next! FDR didn't even have polio. His legs withered, from alcoholism.
     
  5. bobgnote

    bobgnote New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2012
    Messages:
    739
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's main job was to get whacked, by any ordinance the Germans could field, so the air cover could see something burning, get down, and whack any kraut-dogs still lingering.

    Panzerfaust, panzerschreck, panzers, whatever shot the nuts off high-profile, under-armored, under-gunned Shermans.

    If Hitler wasn't trying to lose the war, by ignoring Palestine, to let Rommel get pincered, but rather, Hitler ordered an invasion of the Soviet Union, the Americans could have been even more shot up.

    A lot of Brits and Canadians died, in Shermans, hence "Tommy-cookers."

    Junk is junk is junk. SS, DD.
     
  6. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Proof? You talk about decoded messages, where are they? Please provide a reference. Because I know form my own research that the Japanese refused to allow absolutely any discussion of "Operation Z" in anything other then written notes passed directly by hand. Absolutely no transmission of any kind by radio or telegraph. This is how sensitive it was.

    And the only intercept I know of that talked about it was the PURPLE intercept of the 14 part Declaration of War to be presented to the Secretary of State just prior to the attack. This was intercepted early the morning of 7 December, and was not decoded until 4 hours prior to the attack beginning.

    So please, give us some proof of earlier intercepts. Because as far as I am aware, the only 3 radio transmissions ever sent regarding this event was the 14 part Declaration of War, the single phrase radioed to start the attack ("Climb Mount Niitaka"), and finally the the squadron commander's message that surprise had been achieved ("Tora, Tora, Tora!"). So please, give us some references for these radio intercepts.

    Yes, and Bazookas, Boys Rifles and the PIAT did a number on German tanks as well.

    In many ways, WWII showed that the idea of "Light Tanks" and "Medium Tanks" was no longer effective. But this is not a failing or advantage of any one of the countries involved. German tanks suffered similar losses to Allied handheld tank weapons (but less of them because Germany had less tanks). And during the 1950's and 1960's this helped evolve armored combat into the modern concept of heavy tanks that specialize in multiple roles.

    Remember, this was the first modern "Tank War". And everybody learned hard lessons during it.

    [video=youtube;INa1rgqcxYY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INa1rgqcxYY[/video]
     
  7. SpaceCricket79

    SpaceCricket79 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2012
    Messages:
    12,934
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    0
    edit - wrong topic
     
  8. Herkdriver

    Herkdriver New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    21,346
    Likes Received:
    297
    Trophy Points:
    0
    After action reports were studied and the U.S. Army issued a report in 1954 about tank battles in the Ardennes. The Shermans fared fairly well in battle against the German Panther tanks. It was rarely a route against them (Shermans).

    As an infantryman, what you prefer supporting you?

    2 battalions of Shermans or 1 company of Pershings?

    I'd rather have more Shermans, an inferior tank to the Pershing, but there are simply more of them available.
     
  9. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And this is exactly why they were do decisive in WWII. The Sherman was known to be an inferior tank in many ways (especially the issue of gasoline instead od diesel engines). However, it was produced in such overwhelming numbers that this more then made up for it's shortfalls.

    As the old saying goes, quantity has a quality all it's own. And speaking as a grunt, I would much prefer more of a lesser item then a fraction of a better item. This seems like just common sense. "Would you rather have several hundred pennies, or a couple of dimes?"
     
  10. Panzerkampfwagen

    Panzerkampfwagen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    11,570
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The T-34 was muh more decisive and it'd kick a Sherman's arse.
     
  11. bobgnote

    bobgnote New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2012
    Messages:
    739
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And the T-34/85 DID kick Shermans, which consistently needed artillery and air support, to achieve tactical success, including as the Easy-8, in Korea.

    Then along comes a guy, who ignores issues, to propose which would you rather have, 2 battalions of Shermans, or 1 company of Pershings, who ignored all previous posts, including somebody, who pointed out the M-26 was delayed, so the Sherman producers could flood the market.

    I'd rather have a load of T-34s, if clowns are running assembly lines, rather than winning a war, against Germans, who also had Hitler screwing them over, while the US suffered all kinds of idiots, who let Hitler succeed, when he was predictable and actually trying to scuttle the Wehrmacht.

    Meanwhile, re Peal Harbor and FDR's seditious blocking of intel, into Pearl, Mushroom ignored how I referred him, to Robert Stinnett's DAY OF DECEIT, written from his FOIA. This stands for "FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT," shroom.

    Can you also grok "Google," and "Search," or do I have to do all that, for you, and post it?

    While you sort out your PC and "buttons," FDR and Gen.Marshall watched Adm.Kimmel and Gen.Short get court-martialed, to end their careers, even though they had some sort of relief, TLTL. Are we to believe, somebody thinks FDR isn't a completely seditious, false-flagging dirtbag?

    GW Bush beat him out, by stepping on the CIA and FBI, August 2001, in order to just eat 3400 dead and then go into BOTH Afghanistan and Iraq, while ignoring Hans Blix, Scott the UN inspector, and the CIA, which all said Saddam had no WMDs or yellowcake, but GW lied and lied and LIED, so he and Cheney and Halliburton and BP and whoever could privatize Iraq's oil.

    The Bushwacks learned, from FDR. Run a search, shroom. If, after you haven't found something, on your own, I will go ahead and scrounge up something, for us to read.
     
  12. Herkdriver

    Herkdriver New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    21,346
    Likes Received:
    297
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In 1944, the Soviets lost 23,700 fully tracked armored fighting vehicles. Of these losses over 50% were T-34s. The crews were often inexperienced and the tanks lacked radios.

    No nation in history has ever lost as many armored fighting vehicles in a single year than the Soviets did in 1944.

    Therefore the legend of the T-34s prowess in combat is more mythos than fact. It was technically one of the best all-round tanks fielded in WW2, but in practice is another matter. Soviet tank crews often times had no situational awareness on the battlefield.
     
  13. IgnoranceisBliss

    IgnoranceisBliss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,201
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Again, only amaueters compare tanks in 1 on 1 scenarios. Tanks don't meet up on the battlefield and duel, they're part of a much bigger machine. That said, the T-34 was the best tank of the war, hands down. It combined the relative ease of manufacturing/supplying while still being able to go toe to toe with the best that Germany had.
     
  14. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is why I asked you to provide verifyable sources. I know of Robert Stinnett, and his books are utter coprolite. He talks about radio intercepts where there were no functioning radios, messages sent by Admiral Yamamoto that were never sent, and it is no different then 10,000 other conspiracy books about a great many things.

    Please, give us references, not juts tell me to read a single book that has pretty much been universally rejected because it is a conspiracy theory mess. If that is your only reference, it is the same as saying you have none.

    http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/parameters/Articles/01spring/spr-rev.htm

    And here is an even better article, that tears major holes in the book and it's "evidence":

    http://www.usncva.org/books/book-10.html

    This book was pretty roundly rejected because it is a jumbled mess of conspiracy theories all thrown together, and nothing more. Do you have any real evidence?
     
  15. bobgnote

    bobgnote New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2012
    Messages:
    739
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    OK, dude. You don't believe Stinnett did an FOIA lawsuit, and the Navy admitted, to de-coded messages.

    Mick Jagger sings, "Stalin and Roosevelt . . . both took their chances." Ever hear that song?

    The Brits loaded up intel from Asia, and the Americans heard it, from both directions, London and Asia. The Brits told Stalin, when Hitler was building up, while planning to invade the Soviet Union. The Brits told GW et al, when Al Queda was going to attack, on 9/11/01.

    So did Mossad and Pakistanis. But if you would rather believe fresh dog, you go ahead.
     
  16. bobgnote

    bobgnote New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2012
    Messages:
    739
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    OK, shroom. You don't believe Stinnett did an FOIA lawsuit, and the Navy admitted, to de-coded messages. If YOU think FOIA results aren't valid, you don't think they are valid.

    Mick Jagger sings, "Stalin and Roosevelt . . . both took their chances." Ever hear that song?

    The Brits loaded up intel from Asia, and the Americans heard it, from both directions, London and Asia. The Brits told Stalin, when Hitler was building up, while planning to invade the Soviet Union. The Brits told GW et al, when Al Queda was going to attack, on 9/11/01.

    So did Mossad and Pakistanis. But if you would rather believe fresh dog, you go ahead.

    As for the T-34, the Russians couldn't possibly suffer Stalin's purges, Stalin's suppression, of Hitler's planned attack, Stalin's meddling, with defense, when Hitler attacked, and retreat, to make tanks, and still make a lot of vacuum tubes, so as to put radios, in T-34s.

    But Americans had ironclad ships, in the Civil War, with the basic sloped armor tech. Is there any reason, why Americans couldn't do a better job, of configuring a tank, than the US did, with the Grant and Sherman, without some disastrous corruption, which prevented timely appearance, of the M-26?

    My own experience must remain somewhat classified, but hey, I'm disgusted. America has real problems, with the kind of people, going around. Some are competent. But many are completely DDD and shoving. This turns up, in procurement misadventures.
     
  17. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Where are the other sources that verify those conclusions? Every review I have read (and I posted 2 of them for you) both commented on the shoddy research, the conflicting conclusions, and the outright fabrications in his book. So if his information is so correct, where are the other people that verify the information? It must be out there, right? Let's see it.

    And come on now, a pop song is now your reference?

    Killed the Czar and his ministers, Anastasia screamed in vain.

    Yea, that is my reference for the Russian Revolution.
     
  18. SkullKrusher

    SkullKrusher Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    Messages:
    5,032
    Likes Received:
    2,137
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It is funny to me that the T-34 design is almost like the British Crusader, at least in part the suspension and roadwheel design. I always wondered why the Brits did not just redesign the Crusader, with sloped armor, and upgunned turret and that might have become a pretty good tank. It was certainly fast enough.

    My choice is the JagPanther. Fast, with best 88mm gun available, sloped armor that gave it the equivalent front armor of a Tiger II. Only a little over 300 built, but just about every one of them had 10 to 1 kills.

    The Sherman made a pretty good support tank for infantry, and just about every American infantry company could find at least a couple of Shermans to attach, so it gave US infantry a clear advantage over most regular German infantry companies in 1944, since most of them were undersupplied. The M7 Priest, in particular, as well as M10 Tank Destoyer, both using the same hull, and track design, proves the Sherman was a reliable armor vehicle design, that could be fixed in the field by crew, and parts were easier to replace.

    The equivalent for the Germans was probably the Stug III Ausf.G based on the Pzkw-III chassis. Good overall vehicle, with enough front armor to defeat most medium tank guns, and good horsepower to weight ratio.
     
  19. Panzerkampfwagen

    Panzerkampfwagen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    11,570
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And only those lacking the whole picture think the Sherman was decisive when the US took on way less than 1/3 of the Wehrmacht. Everyone who wasn't Soviet shared that 1/3. This meant that decisive was Soviet and that was the T-34.
     
  20. IgnoranceisBliss

    IgnoranceisBliss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,201
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Who said the Sherman was decisive? Tanks aren't decisive, they're one little piece of the puzzle. Stop trying to push the topic to the old Soviets vs Allies debate too. If that's the point you want to make then start a new thread. This topic is dedicated to the Sherman.
     
  21. Panzerkampfwagen

    Panzerkampfwagen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    11,570
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually, it's the Sherman and its shortcomings, which are compared to other tanks.

    And tanks were decisive since they're what punch holes during attacks.
     
  22. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    56,560
    Likes Received:
    16,652
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Did you know that virtually every tank in the Russian arsenal up to the T-80 was simply an upscaled version of a 1926 US design by Walter Christie.

    The vehicles that won WWII were the the US 2.5 ton truck, the Liberty ship and the Higgins boats or LSI's

    By the way if you include the various tank destroyer variants, SP artillery variants the total number of vehicles using the Sherman hull excceded 90,000 total vehicles. The Sherman fought in every theater of WWII including in some Soviet units Until quite late in the war it equiped both the Brits and the Canadians.
     
  23. Panzerkampfwagen

    Panzerkampfwagen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    11,570
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's a myth. They used his suspension system and that's it.

    The weapons that won WW2, since you want to go down this road, were the Mosin Nagant, the T-34 and Soviet blood.
     
  24. Bluespade

    Bluespade Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Messages:
    15,669
    Likes Received:
    196
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not even close.

    Having the material to produce more tanks than your enemy, is decisive.

    Being able to afford the loses of personal, who man those tanks, more than your enemy, is decisive.

    Having more fuel for your tanks, than your enemy, is decisive.

    Your fundamental grasp of warfare is amature at best.
     
  25. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    More then anything else, I think one of the major turning points of the entire war was not the tanks as much of the SOviets, but their Army as a whole.

    Yes, the Soviets had a fine tank. But even more important, they sent in almost 6.5 million soldiers. This was such an overwhelming number that the Germans were sending the majority of their equipment to the East in order to try to hold them off in any way. But even with 2/3 of their Army in the East, they were still outnumbered by 2 or 3 to 1.

    So while I do not question the quality of the T-34 (it was among the finest tanks ever made), I think the Infantry made far more of a difference then that tank did in the outcome of the war.

    And this is very true, and sometimes overlooked.

    This is why I often say that the biggest mistake Hitler made in WWII was declaring war against the United States in the first place. Germany might have been able to pull off a stalemate in Europe if only facing the UK and USSR, with what support they got from Lend-Lease. But once they pulled the US into Europe, the handwriting was on the wall.

    For example, the population of Germany in 1941 was around 80 million, while that of the US in 1941 was just over 133 million. That all by itself gives the US a large advantage. Then add in things like the raw materials of the US, the safety from direct attacks, and the safe rear areas to make war material shows that once they enter the war, it was effectively over for Germany no matter what.

    And the Soviets were in much the same position. Once they were able to move the majority of their industry to the East, it was over for Germany as well. They were free to build and train, safe from German attempts to reduce their capacity.

    The US and USSR both had steel, coal, oil, and the population to mass a lot of equipment and soldiers, with a lot of people who were not able to actually fight themselves (cripples, women, elderly, the young) to do the manufacturing and gather raw materials. Germany did not have that luxury.

    Germany may have had the equivelent of even an M-60 or M-1 tank. But they would have totally lacked the ability to build them in enough numbers to make a difference.
     

Share This Page