Now we know: the top ten greatest ever tanks of all time - Page 7




 
--
 
December 28th, 2005  
godofthunder9010
 
 
"The Sherman was one of the Greatest Tanks in History" has become a self-perpetuating myth that won't die. I know some of my countrymen might take it personally, as though saying
"The Sherman Tank pretty much sucked." = "Down with you American Capitalist pigs."

I'm willing to be convinced that the Sherman was a wonderful design, and I'll prolly be waiting a long time. Doesn't speak anything against the USA. Japan had worse tanks.
December 29th, 2005  
FO Seaman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
"The Sherman was one of the Greatest Tanks in History" has become a self-perpetuating myth that won't die. I know some of my countrymen might take it personally, as though saying
"The Sherman Tank pretty much sucked." = "Down with you American Capitalist pigs."

I'm willing to be convinced that the Sherman was a wonderful design, and I'll prolly be waiting a long time. Doesn't speak anything against the USA. Japan had worse tanks.

Ok compared to other medium tanks of the era, it was a good design.
December 29th, 2005  
Damien435
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
It wasn't an 'ability' of the Sherman to be produced in such massive numbers. What you really should be saying is that it was an 'ability' of Allied industrial capability that so many Shermans could be built. Can't you see the difference?

Ok, you're right, instead of sticking with the Sherman the US should have poored resources into designing an all new tank, retooled our entire industry to produce the new tanks, and then produced this new tank in massive numbers.

Germany had the most advanced tanks in the world but the tanks were so advanced that they could not be produced in sufficent numbers. The fact that the Sherman was so easy to produce was its greatest advantage.
--
December 29th, 2005  
FO Seaman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien435
Ok, you're right, instead of sticking with the Sherman the US should have poored resources into designing an all new tank, retooled our entire industry to produce the new tanks, and then produced this new tank in massive numbers.

Germany had the most advanced tanks in the world but the tanks were so advanced that they could not be produced in sufficent numbers. The fact that the Sherman was so easy to produce was its greatest advantage.

Or maybe just stuck with the M5 Suart.
December 29th, 2005  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien435
Ok, you're right, instead of sticking with the Sherman the US should have poored resources into designing an all new tank, retooled our entire industry to produce the new tanks, and then produced this new tank in massive numbers.

Germany had the most advanced tanks in the world but the tanks were so advanced that they could not be produced in sufficent numbers. The fact that the Sherman was so easy to produce was its greatest advantage.
The US should have come up with a better design in the first place. There are quite a few things they could have done to the Sherman to improve it. It took long enough to correct the most glaring fault, that the ammo would often blow up if the tank was struck anywhere on the turret.

It was easy to produce, but then so was the T-34 and Panzer IV, both better designs. Even the Panther and Tiger would have been easier to produce if the Germans were not so insistent on making each one as if it were a gold-plated swiss watch.

What the US should have done was focus more on the M-26 "Pershing" and get more of those tanks into action. It's all very well saying that the Sherman was produced by its millions but try telling that to the sorry GIs who had to crew the things and many who lost their lives needlessly as a result of the Sherman's poor design.

Reading the following link and the book it references; "Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II", is quite an eye-opener.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...ev/cooper.html
December 29th, 2005  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadet Seaman
Ok compared to other medium tanks of the era, it was a good design.
No, compared to other medium tanks of the era, it was pretty crappy. Examples of other Mediums that were vastly superior:
Panther G
Panzer IV
T-34

I'll have to agree with Dopp, dropping production of the Sherman and focussing on the Pershing would have been the smart thing to do. Its all understandable though. Pre-WW2, we had pretty much 0 tanks available for production, so we had to throw something together in a hurry.
December 29th, 2005  
G Connor
 

Topic: M4 Longevity


The Sherman became known as the Ronson or Zippo for good reason but there is no doubt that it's sheer numbers made it an effective weapon system. Victory through attrition isn't a pretty philosophy but victory is the ultimate goal.
What I found amazing was the number of Shermans that continue in service throughout the world until the 70'. Granted, from an aviator's perspective, tanks fall into the broad catagory labelled "Targets" but a system that continues to provide service 35 years after design and manufacture has to be considered sufficiently special to make the list.
December 29th, 2005  
FO Seaman
 
 
True, but the Pershing didn't even hit the battlefield until 45'. I'm not saying it's the best desgin, I'm saying compared to what was around and what we had before it was a good design.

Compare it to the M5 which we had quite a few of. The Sherman did an OK job.

After reading a bit on Wikipedia, I must go with the statement that the Sherman was better fitted in the cavalry role.

I also after reading some commentson Wikipedia. In the book The Forgotten War" by Clay Blair it states that on Korea the M26 was seen as a failure, and the M4A3E8 was prefered over the M26 by tankers because of it's effectiveness against the T-34.
December 29th, 2005  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadet Seaman
True, but the Pershing didn't even hit the battlefield until 45'. I'm not saying it's the best desgin, I'm saying compared to what was around and what we had before it was a good design.

Compare it to the M5 which we had quite a few of. The Sherman did an OK job.

After reading a bit on Wikipedia, I must go with the statement that the Sherman was better fitted in the cavalry role.

I also after reading some commentson Wikipedia. In the book The Forgotten War" by Clay Blair it states that on Korea the M26 was seen as a failure, and the M4A3E8 was prefered over the M26 by tankers because of it's effectiveness against the T-34.
Cadet Seaman, if you haven't done so already read the link I posted to in my last post. Pershings could have reached the front in 1944 had the US Army agreed to it. A lot of the US war effort smacks of cost cutting with regard to the Sherman.

It was a not a good design, period.

I don't think the M26 was a great design either but it was much better than the M4.
December 29th, 2005  
FO Seaman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
Cadet Seaman, if you haven't done so already read the link I posted to in my last post. Pershings could have reached the front in 1944 had the US Army agreed to it. A lot of the US war effort smacks of cost cutting with regard to the Sherman.

It was a not a good design, period.

I don't think the M26 was a great design either but it was much better than the M4.
Actually if I'm not mistaken, it was Patton that delayed the M26's deployment.

Ok, it wasn't a good design, but it did the job and thanks to that it helped win the war.


I think that the U.S. Army had a bad designing flaw in it's tanks from the M4 to the M47.