[Shawn 507]

Originally Posted by Aircrafty

I agree that the Sherman was a good tank in 1942, but it's design was soon overtaken by later designs and the US had NO excuse for not producing a more suitable tank by D-Day. I've read all the usuall guff on tank doctrine, ease of manufacture, transportability etc etc. However the simple fact is that the Sherman was a death trap in later war years and those that allowed its use to continue against heavier tanks such as Tigers etc should be horse whipped.

The Sherman fully deserves do be listed in the 10 worse tanks, should be No 1 imo.

Can you name one tank in design ( US or British in 1942) at the time that would have been better than the Sherman? You talk as if designing and testing tanks was something done in days and weeks. Even the much talked about T34 had its issues, and were getting knocked out in Korea by Shermans. If you want to spank someone, kick tail on the guy who disapproved of mounting Pershing turrets on the Sherman hull. The 90mm main gun on a proven hull would have done wonders. And oh, it would have been there in time for D-Day plus a few months.
I'd also bet more tanks were lost to AT guns, mines, hand held weapons, and even artillery than tank on tank engagements. There are other threats to the tank besides another tank. And if German armor was so darn great, what killed them? Left them smoking on the battlefield? Poorly maintained engines and transmissions? Yep! Lack of gas? OK, but not always. Airpower? Yea maybe if the skys were clear. Something was killing them and it wasn't boredum from shooting fish in a barrel.
- Shawn

[TopHat]

Originally Posted by Aircrafty

I agree that the Sherman was a good tank in 1942, but it's design was soon overtaken by later designs .....

The Sherman fully deserves do be listed in the 10 worse tanks, should be No 1 imo.

Something that you've classified as a "good tank in 1942" deserves to be #1 of the 10 worst because it was overtaken by later designs? Not sure I follow the logic on that one.

[TopHat]

Originally Posted by Shawn 507

And if German armor was so darn great, what killed them?

Badda bing....


...and why aren't we all speaking Deutsch?

[Shawn 507]

Forgot I had this!!

[wnsolomon]

Remember from about the time of the Normandy breakout it became common Sherman tactics to ambush the German heavy armour at a ratio of about 5:1. This ratio usually allowed the Shermans to keep moving and avoid being singled out by the slower moving German heavies and allow the Shermans to knock off a tread. The brillance of the Sherman is not it's battle design but the tooling it took to produce it. We could roll out the Shermans by the dozens per each heavy German tank produced (this in consideration that German armour and aircraft production actually increased each month until March 1945).

[Aircrafty]

Originally Posted by TopHat

Badda bing....


...and why aren't we all speaking Deutsch?

I reckon we'd need a baseball bat to knock some logic into some of you guys

The main reason we're not speaking German is the fact that the Russians did most of the work in defeating Germany.

D-Day and the Western Front being a late run to prevent the Russians occupying to much territory. The Germans had far more Divisions matched against the Russian advance, their next largest threat were the British/Commonwealth forces moving along the coast from Caen. The weaker German Divisions were matched against the US forces which allowed Patton etc to slip around them.

And don't forget that the Russians occupied the Ploesti oil fields in Rumania that supplied much of the fuel for the German tanks. No matter how good their tanks were, they weren't much good without fuel and were abandoned in their hundreds when they ran dry. Btw, the infrastructure on the Ploseti Oil fields was widespread and the numerous allied bombing raids had little effect on production.

As for the 5-1 number advantage to the Sherman, that was about the ratio of kills as well, about five allied tanks being destroyed for every German tank. And don't forget there were men in those tanks.

The Sherman was a medium tank, yet taller than the German heavies, and the Sherman had a greater ground pressure because of its narrow tracks.

Its true that the Brit tanks weren't much better, but then they were getting the crap bombed out of them most days.

Here's one of the many links on this subject, please do some research guys rather than believe the accumulated bs of past years:
http://www.angelfire.com/trek/mytrav...edtkwknss.html

[TopHat]

Aircrafty, out of fairness I went and checked out your cited webpage. Nothing startling there....since I noticed right away that the scope of the article was limited to the later years of the war, and we've all recognized that the Sherman was not an even match for the Panthers and Tigers in a toe-to-toe slugfest. I seem to remember that the topic was top 10 worst tanks, not a comparative study of which tank is better...X or Y.

Nothing in the article suggests the Sherman is #1 on the top 10 worst of all time.

[Shawn 507]

The main reason we're not speaking German is the fact that the Russians did most of the work in defeating Germany.

Yeah them, so its the western Allies fault that Hitler was more concerned about the Reds that the West? That and the west were so inept that we couldn't invade NWE until 1944.

D-Day and the Western Front being a late run to prevent the Russians occupying to much territory. The Germans had far more Divisions matched against the Russian advance, their next largest threat were the British/Commonwealth forces moving along the coast from Caen. The weaker German Divisions were matched against the US forces which allowed Patton etc to slip around them.

The British were no threat to the Germans other than Caen being a stategic point of interest. Still they couldn't even make their D-Day Objective. And was it a case of weaker divisions facing the Americans on purpose or because those facing the British all managed to congregate near Caen. And those facing the Americans came from other points? I'd have to look to see where the 1st and 12th SS were prior to the 6th of June. The 9th and 10th came down from Holland if I'm not mistaken, so yeah they'd go up against Monty.

And don't forget that the Russians occupied the Ploesti oil fields in Rumania that supplied much of the fuel for the German tanks. No matter how good their tanks were, they weren't much good without fuel and were abandoned in their hundreds when they ran dry. Btw, the infrastructure on the Ploseti Oil fields was widespread and the numerous allied bombing raids had little effect on production.

Even without the gas, the still suffered many more break downs from improper maintianence and shoddy workmanship than did Allied AFVs.

As for the 5-1 number advantage to the Sherman, that was about the ratio of kills as well, about five allied tanks being destroyed for every German tank. And don't forget there were men in those tanks.

Is this a suprise when facing an enemy in the defense? No its not. Do you have the tally after the breakout and pursuit across France? Yes there were men in those tanks, and planes dropping bombs, and those on ships being sunk by U-Boats etc...etc... Noone dies easy, and few die alone in war. No matter what side your on.

The Sherman was a medium tank, yet taller than the German heavies, and the Sherman had a greater ground pressure because of its narrow tracks.

See the pics below of my models, all three are 1/35th scale and made by the same company Tamiya. You'll see the Sherman was no taller than the Tiger or King Tiger. If you like I'll take pics of a M4 next to a Panther and Panzer IV, the Panzer IV will sit lower. Also, the M4 has a slimmer profile than the mobile pillboxes the Germans had. So which is easier to aquire in the sights?? Yes the Germans had better optics than the Allies.
The ground preasure was relieved some by the extended end connectors and later by the HVSS suspension which was about the same as German armor. No mention of that in your article.

Its true that the Brit tanks weren't much better, but then they were getting the crap bombed out of them most days.

British historians date the battle from 10 July to 31 October 1940, which represented the most intense period of daylight bombing. German historians usually place the beginning of the battle in mid-August 1940 and end it in May 1941, on the withdrawal of the bomber units in preparation for the attack on the USSR.
Now what is the excuse for thier dodgy tanks? The Churchill was great, but then that was an Infantry support tank. The Cromwell was no great success either.

Here's one of the many links on this subject, please do some research guys rather than believe the accumulated bs of past years:
http://www.angelfire.com/trek/mytrav...edtkwknss.html

I can post a website dealing with all the faults of German armor too. Will that change your opinion? The accumulated BS of past years is that the M4 series was a total waste. Read something other than the negative aspects of the M4 and you might need that bat for yourself.
Also, lets flip it around alittle. Could German armor have been successfully used overseas ( you pick US or the UK ). Would their size, weight, bridging, shipping requirements and a whole host of other criteria been met by the Panther, Tiger, King Tiger, JadgPanther / Tiger. Don't forget their poor maintenance record either.
Those tanks would be sitting in the invasion states rusty away waiting for spare parts, On the positive note, the collection at Aberdeen would be awesome.
And you never answered the question of what tank in design during 1942 would have saved the day for the Allies.

[MoMo]

Lots of interesting exchanges here.

This is a broad church discussion, and I would like to see some contributions from members who have any knowledge about R&D in the UK and US in the mid-war years.

Remember, for good or ill, the Panther was designed, built and went into production within a very short time-frame.

The philosophy of German tank design was seen by the Germans as having become bankrupt when it was proved that the Russians had developed and produced tanks of a revolutionary capability and performance. Shocked to the core, the Germans had to admit that they had been wrong to assume that the war against Communism would be fought with existing designs and turned on their heels and pride to produce the Panther, a direct tip of the hat to the T34.

I still can't appreciate the lack of foresight and paucity of imagination in Allied quarters on this subject. I am amazed that such a rigid regime as Nazi Germany could swallow its pride and admit that they would have to crank up their game, and produce armour capable of meeting the threats from a brand new family of Russian armour, as well as an endless supply of Allied armour.

The German answer to all this was the wrong one, but a fascinating topic for any student of Industrial Design to delve into! We all know that you can over-engineer a vehicle to meet the perceived threat. We are all aware that the German designs were impressive, but did not address the realities of Russian and American production rates!

I'll have to examine the available and surviving ideas on this matter.

The early Shermans still stay in the top 10 ( worst! )

[TopHat]

Originally Posted by MoMo

I'll have to examine the available and surviving ideas on this matter.

Why don't you get back to us on that.....