[Shawn 507]

Originally Posted by Aircrafty

I'm not changing the subject, I'm merely replying to several other posts at once, you're not the only member here Shawn. Ok

If a country has sufficient motivation they can design and produce a necessary tank PDQ, not in days or weeks of course, but certainly faster than what the US did. The Germans built the Tiger in response to the KV1 and the Panther to match the T-34. The Tiger was more successful than the Panther because the Germans had the luxury of taking their time with it. The Panther had teething problems in the beginning and throughout its carrer.. So there is an example of rushing a unfinished product to war. The fact that the US did not take up the challenge earlier was mainly due to their useless and entirely mistaken tank doctrine of heavy tanks being BAD and enemy tanks to be destroyed by SP anti-tank guns in open topped turrets. A 90-mm gun being "undesirable in a tank, since it would encourage tank units to stalk enemy tanks" I'll agree the doctrine was faulty, but we all know the Army is slow to learn. Had they spent more on Tank Destroyers and less on towed AT systems things may have been better. Still the Sherman did perform well in its intended role as a exploitation tank.

Despite this doctrine the US did play around with several heavy tank designs but it wasn't until the Battle of the Bulge where the US tanks came up against German heavy tanks that the need for a heavy tank FINALLY become a priority - we want those M-26 Pershings ASAP. None of the Heavy Tank designs were worth a hoot save the T-20 series, which finally bore out the T26E3. We could have had it by D-Day sure, but then we would have run into the same problems the Germans had with the Panther. Constant breakdowns etc... The King Tigers presence during the Bulge was alarming sure, but they didn't effect the outcome any did they. In fact even Piper didn't want them and placed them in the rear of his formation. Of course the British knew the Sherman was under gunned and lacked armour from D-Day onwards when they came up against the Panzer Divisions at Caen etc but apparently the Americans didn't worry TO MUCH until THEIR tanks guys were getting killed - go figure. The British were loosing more tanks on their end than the Americans. And as everyone knows, Panzer Divisions (unlike German Infantry Divisions) were fully mobile and could be moved to where-ever the main threat was, so it didn't matter where they were beforehand Apparently it did matter. The Germans would have lost more tanks, had they tried swinging the 1st, 12th, 9th or 10h SS over the US sector. Allied Airpower was very effective in shutting down road travel during daylight hours. Don't underestimate the German Army panzer units that fought against the US. They may not have been SS, but they were just as good.

The British recognised the value of a heavier tank but were under direct attack and had limited natural resources, yet they still managed to produce the Churchill which was a superior infantry tank to the M4 (considering the overfondness of some Americans for the M4 it's ironic that the Sherman was built to meet an early British request.) Even those backward Aussies were able to produce a tank from paper to production in 22 months: http://www.mheaust.com.au/Aust/Resea...sentinelmk.htm
What is this direct attack that the British were under?? Lack of natural resources didn't prevent them from making/testing a whole host of tanks before the Cromwell and much later Centurian showed up. And so what if the Sherman had British imput on its design. All that does is add them to your list of idiots who designed the tank you dislike so much. BTW, the Churchill was a pre-war design that called for excessive armor to support the Infantry in the breech, not to exploit the rear as the Sherman was designed. And sure it had many improvements, but it was still the same basic tank. But even British tank doctrine was flawed with both, infantry support and cruiser tanks.
The Sentinel is an interesting story, that proves it isn't easy to produce an tank that is worthwhile. None saw combat, so what else can be said about it? Also, much has been made of the Panzer IV. I forgot to mention it had issues with ground preasure and narrow tracks. Even that one needed track extensions when used on the soft ground and snow on the eastern front.

But back to the list of ten worst tanks. The M4/Sherman was one of the better tanks in 1942 and no-where near a worst list situation, but by the end of the war it certainly was, and that's all I have to say on this matter as people will tend to believe what they want despite what logic others may produce.

Right back at you!

[Shawn 507]

Originally Posted by jim

If Lorraine had been there with her Battison No4 the German armour would not have had a chance.
In fact when Lorraine gets angry its best for all combatants to run for the hills.

I have just finished a book called Amoured Guardsmen. A good read that includes the battles against the SS Panzers.
An interesting point is made about the 17 pounders, there were so few of them that they were shared out one to a troop of six standard Shermans.

I'll check, but I think the Fireflies were issued one out of four in a troop. Maybe the Guards had a different task organization than others. The Mk 4 Battison is a mother though.

[jim]

Originally Posted by Shawn 507

I'll check, but I think the Fireflies were issued one out of four in a troop. Maybe the Guards had a different task organization than others. The Mk 4 Battison is a mother though.

You may well be correct Shawn, I think you would enjoy the book I mentioned although perhaps its not easy to get in the US.
My local Library gets me most books I want, they are a good team.

The writer of this book does complain that too much time was spent by the troop trying to protect the Firefly.
but he then goes on to say that they were awesome and dealt with the Tigers without a problem provided they could get into a good position. Very interesting info in there.
The author was eventually badly injured after his tank was hit and burst into flames. By a miracle he survived though badly burnt.

[bernie]

just joined this forum because I heard of this discussion and have found it very inlightening.Various people have posted info on the Tiger developement that it was developed because of the Russian KV-1.Wrong,according to Jentz& Doyle "Germany"s Tiger Tanks DW to Tiger I, developement began before the Germans invaded Russia and the Germans knew nothing about the KV1 at the time .First proto was shown April 42.As for the Panther the first M.A.N drawing is dated 2 May 1942,first completed proto was in Sept 42,first use in combat was July 43.Less than a year and how many of the panthers were destroyed at Kursk.The Panther could be destroyed from the side rather easily,only 40 mm armor and from the rear 40mm and the sides and rear of the turret 45 and 40 mm respectavly.The 75 omn the sherman could knock it out.The late model PZIV H/J had the same 75 as the G's and was no better than the Sherman.Both could knock each other out at normal combat ranges.
Everyone seems to comment on the height of the Sherman, the Panther was ,again according to Jentz 3.10meters height the M4/M4a1 was 2.74 high and M4A1 w 76 was 2.97meters high.Oh! the Tiger was 3 meters high so it seems the Sherman was actually smaller.
The 5 to 1 kill ratio would and did work in ambush and over the flat ground around Caen where the 75mm L-70 and the 88 could kill the Sherman before the sherman could hit it.But in the bocage parts that long barrel was a hinderance as they did not always have that much room.So their advantage would have been less and because of the close range fighting the disadvntage of the shermans gun would also heve been less ie;who do you think killed all those Panthers and PZIV's in tyhe US sector.Not aircraft ,Shermans and GI's.
The Sherman burned but So did the Panther and Tiger and the T-34 and KV-1 etc.
The Russians did do the majority ofthe fighting but without lend lease and the invasions of North Africa,Italy and Normandy probaly couldn't have done it(my opinion) as then all the german trops who had to fight in those other places would have been available to fight in Russia.
Fireflys were issued 4 to a troop .
The germans used PZ LEHR,2nd SS Panzer Div.17 SS PZ.Gen.Div against the US and also used the 1st SS 12 SS and I beleive (th or 10th SS at the Mortain vbattle.
It was Montgomery's plan for the british to tie down the tanks.That is why the british had to fight the 1st,9th,10th and 12ss,they were either in the area,12SS was forming up and the 1st SS was refitting in belgium.
People should really read more.What Shawn is saying is sitting in all the books to read.Its just that it goses against all the myths about the german tanks and the brits around Caen.
Hpope this makes some sense 1st time I ever posted anything.Don't mean to offend anyone.

Bernie

[MoMo]

No, Bernie, bring it on! Welcome to the Forum.

Sometimes the debate gets heated. When members introduce evidence, they are supporting the point which they have made. I'm sure that many of the members who would consider themselves to be Military Historians welcome the views of others who have read material which they have missed. The more, the merrier.

You are perfectly correct to draw our attention to the, sometimes, " mythical " status of German armour. The fact that we collect diecast and plastic models of the AFVs and planes we are fascinated by is the reason why we are interested in the background to them. If, by discussing the merits and demerits of the various Mks of vehicles, we can reach a better understanding of them, so much the better.

The initial impetus to discussion " the worst 10 tanks of all time ", does not matter a damn really if we have views to consider and references to track down...................it all makes for an interesting, and continuing, debate.

MoMo

[SKUNKY]

Originally Posted by bernie

Don't mean to offend anyone.

It's perfectly okay to be offensive, Bernie (in fact I relish it), as long as you don't offend me......

[mkenny]

Originally Posted by 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. )

Originally Posted by Aircrafty

.

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.

There is a small problem here. There never was a 5:1 exchange rate of Allied tanks to German tanks in Normandy.
Total tank losses averaged out at less that 2:1 in the Germans favour. As the Germans lost some 2000 tanks then it is obvious that the 5:1 ratio is bunkum.
There are those who will now try and fiddle the figures to exclude some types of German loss to get back to the original myth. Please remember the Allies had large numbers of tanks destroyed by mines and causes other than gunfire.
The 5:1 kill ratio is pure invention.

[hworth18]

I think we can debate this all day and never come to one conclusion....

[Shawn 507]

So is the often quoted German POW who said " One German tank is as good as ten American tanks. But, you always have eleven." Such things become law after being told a hundred times over.

[Shawn 507]

Originally Posted by hworth18

I think we can debate this all day and never come to one conclusion....

Probably not, but if it helps to debunk some myths than all is not lost.