Rank the Tank! - Page 17




 
--
 
July 19th, 2005  
FO Seaman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snauhi
Quote:
Originally Posted by cokeisthebest
I think Cadet Seaman means that the tactics of Shermans and T-34s and their impacts are pretty much the same:

1. both used numbers to beat the quality-superior german tanks
2. both were the critical factors for the final victory of ww2.
3. both are simpily designed and mass produced.
yeah everything is right expect the first point, T-34 was better then almost any german tank expect Tiger series.
I agree the Panther Mk.4 was the best tank of WWII.

And I ment the Sherman and T-34 where the same as what cokeisthebest said and that both had superb speed, fast turret speed, and I must remind you the US supplied Russia with a number of Shermans and 100,000 Studibeger (sp?) Duece n' Half's. And the T-34/76's had terriblly weak frontal armor, bad comms gear, and I don't know who bright idea it was to put external fuel tanks on it. The Sherman had 19 varients.
July 19th, 2005  
pyromedic89
 
It can be argued quite easily the USA is directly responsible for the large amount of T34's produced along with any/all Russian war equipment, courtesy of the lend lease act of 1941.

400,000+ trucks
32,000 tanks/armored fighting vehicles
13,000 locomotives and railway cars
400,000+ metal cutting/industrial tools
300,000 tons of high explosive
over 18,000 aircraft


Not only did the USA supply tools, it also helped provide the means to move all that war material as well which directly affected T34 production.

The sherman wasn't a great or even good tank, but the amount that the Amercians could put up against the germans more than made up for their shortcomings....
July 20th, 2005  
Kozzy Mozzy
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snauhi
the outcome wouldent be the same, Shermans cant handle the russian winter and muddy roads.
I wouldn't say that

The superiority of the T-34 is not as big as everyone says. Some Russian units preferred the Sherman over the T-34.
--
July 20th, 2005  
FO Seaman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyromedic89
It can be argued quite easily the USA is directly responsible for the large amount of T34's produced along with any/all Russian war equipment, courtesy of the lend lease act of 1941.

400,000+ trucks
32,000 tanks/armored fighting vehicles
13,000 locomotives and railway cars
400,000+ metal cutting/industrial tools
300,000 tons of high explosive
over 18,000 aircraft


Not only did the USA supply tools, it also helped provide the means to move all that war material as well which directly affected T34 production.

The sherman wasn't a great or even good tank, but the amount that the Amercians could put up against the germans more than made up for their shortcomings....
Well what most people forget is that the Sherman was a Infantry Support Tank.
July 21st, 2005  
pyromedic89
 
Well what most people forget is that the Sherman was a Infantry Support Tank.


Agreed.
July 23rd, 2005  
LeEnfield
 
 
The Sherman was only only a medium tank, it was easy to build and easy to maintain, and was built in huge numbers. Now the thing to ask your self would you have been happy to go to war in this tank and fight the Germans in it. Now the Germans had nickname for this tank and it was the Tommy Cooker, or the Ronson. The Ronson was a cigarette lighter which was sold in those days under the slogan, lights first time every time, as with even a minor hit, it was prone to burst into flames cooking every one inside. It was discovered that the cause of this was that the shells were not stored in steel bins, so if the tank was hit by any form of shell missile with any force the kinetic energy could knock of a bit of the of tank on inside. now this fragment would be red hot and would often pierce the brass shell casing setting off the shells propellant which set of the the other shells. It was well known that you had just a few seconds to bale out before you got cooked. now this was known about for years but they did not want to slow the production lines to modify the tanks. Another thing with these tanks in Europe was again they become under gunned so Britain had started to modify some of their Sherman's by installing a 17 pounder gun which would take out a Tiger tank, but America would not adopt the this idea as the gun was not of American origin. I wonder just how many men died due to this form of thinking.
July 24th, 2005  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyromedic89
Well what most people forget is that the Sherman was a Infantry Support Tank.


Agreed.
Only because the role of the tank had not been fully realised in American military thinking when the tank was designed. It was actually used as a MBT in 1944.

Let's not beat about the bush here. The Sherman may have been easy to maintain and available in huge numbers but it was a poor design when compared to what the Germans and Soviets had. It only really satisfied one of the 3 classic tenets for tank design, that being of mobility.
July 25th, 2005  
pyromedic89
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyromedic89
Well what most people forget is that the Sherman was a Infantry Support Tank.


Agreed.
Only because the role of the tank had not been fully realised in American military thinking when the tank was designed. It was actually used as a MBT in 1944.

Let's not beat about the bush here. The Sherman may have been easy to maintain and available in huge numbers but it was a poor design when compared to what the Germans and Soviets had. It only really satisfied one of the 3 classic tenets for tank design, that being of mobility.

Beat around the bush here ?

The sherman wasn't a great or even good tank, but the amount that the Amercians could put up against the germans more than made up for their shortcomings....

From my earlier post...........
July 25th, 2005  
Snauhi
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyromedic89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyromedic89
Well what most people forget is that the Sherman was a Infantry Support Tank.


Agreed.
Only because the role of the tank had not been fully realised in American military thinking when the tank was designed. It was actually used as a MBT in 1944.

Let's not beat about the bush here. The Sherman may have been easy to maintain and available in huge numbers but it was a poor design when compared to what the Germans and Soviets had. It only really satisfied one of the 3 classic tenets for tank design, that being of mobility.

Beat around the bush here ?

The sherman wasn't a great or even good tank, but the amount that the Amercians could put up against the germans more than made up for their shortcomings....

From my earlier post...........
yes, its true but it wasent a good tank itself.
July 25th, 2005  
pyromedic89
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snauhi
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyromedic89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyromedic89
Well what most people forget is that the Sherman was a Infantry Support Tank.


Agreed.
Only because the role of the tank had not been fully realised in American military thinking when the tank was designed. It was actually used as a MBT in 1944.

Let's not beat about the bush here. The Sherman may have been easy to maintain and available in huge numbers but it was a poor design when compared to what the Germans and Soviets had. It only really satisfied one of the 3 classic tenets for tank design, that being of mobility.

Beat around the bush here ?

The sherman wasn't a great or even good tank, but the amount that the Amercians could put up against the germans more than made up for their shortcomings....

From my earlier post...........
yes, its true but it wasent a good tank itself.
The sherman wasn't a great or even good tank = it wasent a good tank itself.


That's twice now, which part of the sherman wasn't a great or even good tank do you not understand ?