Rank the Tank! - Page 18




 
--
 
July 25th, 2005  
Doppleganger
 
 
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...........
I have to disagree with this opinion. The Sherman's shortcomings were, IMO, made up for by the Western Allies air superiority over the battlefield and the lack of fuel available to the German panzer formations.
July 25th, 2005  
pyromedic89
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
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...........
I have to disagree with this opinion. The Sherman's shortcomings were, IMO, made up for by the Western Allies air superiority over the battlefield and the lack of fuel available to the German panzer formations.

First you say the sherman wasn't a good tank, which I said in a previous post, I point this out to you, and now you disagree with the second part as well ?

The entire allied war effort was made up by your points, there were several instances where allied airpower was grounded due to weather, initial ardennes offensive and instances when fuel was available for panzer formations. A lack of shermans due to insufficient production was never a problem.
July 25th, 2005  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyromedic89
First you say the sherman wasn't a good tank, which I said in a previous post, I point this out to you, and now you disagree with the second part as well ?
If we both agree on this point, what is your point in responding in the way you have?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pyromedic89
The entire allied war effort was made up by your points, there were several instances where allied airpower was grounded due to weather, initial ardennes offensive and instances when fuel was available for panzer formations. A lack of shermans due to insufficient production was never a problem.
The opinion I disagreed on was your opinion that numbers of the Shermans made up for their shortcomings against better German tanks. They did, but only in the end because of the factors I mentioned. The German Army in the West was hampered by a lack of mobility in general, the most serious problem being lack of fuel. This is one of the main reasons why the Ardennes Offensive failed. There were times when bad weather put paid to Allied air strikes against German troop formations but when the weather was good this advantage was utterly decisive, no matter that the Panther and the Tiger were much better tanks than the Shermans or Grants the Allies had.

Take away the Allied air superiority and give the Wehrmacht all the fuel its panzers needed and IMO the sheer numbers of Shermans are not enough. Remember too that aside from Patton, all the German Panzer commanders are more tactically aware and have much more experience in the use of exploiting armour.
--
July 26th, 2005  
Kozzy Mozzy
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyromedic89
Well what most people forget is that the Sherman was a Infantry Support Tank.


Agreed.
Yes

American doctrine said that tanks would support the infantry while tank destroyers engaged tanks

The Sherman was actually a decent tank for America. An American tank for WWII needed to be shipped across the atlantic ocean in massive numbers. It needed to be fast to attack. It was all of these things.

If the Americans had a tank like the Tiger, they would not have put enough mass against the enemy to win. It's really that simple.
July 26th, 2005  
pyromedic89
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyromedic89
First you say the sherman wasn't a good tank, which I said in a previous post, I point this out to you, and now you disagree with the second part as well ?
If we both agree on this point, what is your point in responding in the way you have?

I ask you the same, you are the one who accused me of beating around the bush when I plainly stated the sherman wasn't a great or good tank.


Quote:
Originally Posted by pyromedic89
The entire allied war effort was made up by your points, there were several instances where allied airpower was grounded due to weather, initial ardennes offensive and instances when fuel was available for panzer formations. A lack of shermans due to insufficient production was never a problem.
The opinion I disagreed on was your opinion that numbers of the Shermans made up for their shortcomings against better German tanks. They did, but only in the end because of the factors I mentioned. The German Army in the West was hampered by a lack of mobility in general, the most serious problem being lack of fuel. This is one of the main reasons why the Ardennes Offensive failed. There were times when bad weather put paid to Allied air strikes against German troop formations but when the weather was good this advantage was utterly decisive, no matter that the Panther and the Tiger were much better tanks than the Shermans or Grants the Allies had.

Take away the Allied air superiority and give the Wehrmacht all the fuel its panzers needed and IMO the sheer numbers of Shermans are not enough. Remember too that aside from Patton, all the German Panzer commanders are more tactically aware and have much more experience in the use of exploiting armour.

Take away the numerical advantage and you have the same situation, airpower does not win wars alone.
July 26th, 2005  
Snauhi
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyromedic89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyromedic89
First you say the sherman wasn't a good tank, which I said in a previous post, I point this out to you, and now you disagree with the second part as well ?
If we both agree on this point, what is your point in responding in the way you have?

I ask you the same, you are the one who accused me of beating around the bush when I plainly stated the sherman wasn't a great or good tank.


Quote:
Originally Posted by pyromedic89
The entire allied war effort was made up by your points, there were several instances where allied airpower was grounded due to weather, initial ardennes offensive and instances when fuel was available for panzer formations. A lack of shermans due to insufficient production was never a problem.
The opinion I disagreed on was your opinion that numbers of the Shermans made up for their shortcomings against better German tanks. They did, but only in the end because of the factors I mentioned. The German Army in the West was hampered by a lack of mobility in general, the most serious problem being lack of fuel. This is one of the main reasons why the Ardennes Offensive failed. There were times when bad weather put paid to Allied air strikes against German troop formations but when the weather was good this advantage was utterly decisive, no matter that the Panther and the Tiger were much better tanks than the Shermans or Grants the Allies had.

Take away the Allied air superiority and give the Wehrmacht all the fuel its panzers needed and IMO the sheer numbers of Shermans are not enough. Remember too that aside from Patton, all the German Panzer commanders are more tactically aware and have much more experience in the use of exploiting armour.

Take away the numerical advantage and you have the same situation, airpower does not win wars alone.
Iraq? Six Day War?
July 26th, 2005  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyromedic89
I ask you the same, you are the one who accused me of beating around the bush when I plainly stated the sherman wasn't a great or good tank.

Take away the numerical advantage and you have the same situation, airpower does not win wars alone.
The 'beating about the bush' comment was not directed at you, or anyone actually. I don't know why you've decided to take it personally.

Airpower does not win wars alone but it can be utterly decisive. There are plenty of examples of this in modern warfare. Air superiority was a decisive factor on the Western Front in WW2. This is not just my opinion but a widely held 'de-facto' opinion held by military historians and experts.
July 26th, 2005  
pyromedic89
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snauhi
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyromedic89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyromedic89
First you say the sherman wasn't a good tank, which I said in a previous post, I point this out to you, and now you disagree with the second part as well ?
If we both agree on this point, what is your point in responding in the way you have?

I ask you the same, you are the one who accused me of beating around the bush when I plainly stated the sherman wasn't a great or good tank.


Quote:
Originally Posted by pyromedic89
The entire allied war effort was made up by your points, there were several instances where allied airpower was grounded due to weather, initial ardennes offensive and instances when fuel was available for panzer formations. A lack of shermans due to insufficient production was never a problem.
The opinion I disagreed on was your opinion that numbers of the Shermans made up for their shortcomings against better German tanks. They did, but only in the end because of the factors I mentioned. The German Army in the West was hampered by a lack of mobility in general, the most serious problem being lack of fuel. This is one of the main reasons why the Ardennes Offensive failed. There were times when bad weather put paid to Allied air strikes against German troop formations but when the weather was good this advantage was utterly decisive, no matter that the Panther and the Tiger were much better tanks than the Shermans or Grants the Allies had.

Take away the Allied air superiority and give the Wehrmacht all the fuel its panzers needed and IMO the sheer numbers of Shermans are not enough. Remember too that aside from Patton, all the German Panzer commanders are more tactically aware and have much more experience in the use of exploiting armour.

Take away the numerical advantage and you have the same situation, airpower does not win wars alone.
Iraq? Six Day War?
Did airpower alone with this conflict ?

Airpower did not account for every tank kill during the war now did it ?
July 26th, 2005  
pyromedic89
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyromedic89
I ask you the same, you are the one who accused me of beating around the bush when I plainly stated the sherman wasn't a great or good tank.

Take away the numerical advantage and you have the same situation, airpower does not win wars alone.
The 'beating about the bush' comment was not directed at you, or anyone actually. I don't know why you've decided to take it personally.

Airpower does not win wars alone but it can be utterly decisive. There are plenty of examples of this in modern warfare. Air superiority was a decisive factor on the Western Front in WW2. This is not just my opinion but a widely held 'de-facto' opinion held by military historians and experts.

The same can be said about numerical superiority as well.
July 29th, 2005  
Aguy201
 
Can some one please tell me why the T-90 has not been properly acknolleged? This bugs me... le cler above the T-90... omg hell has risen to earth... i it due to lack of combat experience??? Good Lord... And no i didnt read the million pages of insane incompetance writen on this subject...