Rank the Tank! - Page 9




 
--
 
April 12th, 2005  
beardo
 
Thats not the battle I was on about...the film is Zulu Dawn
April 12th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
Quote:
In 90% of the cases movies arn't correct, theres always something thats untrue in them even if they are based on a real event.
The movie, "Zulu" went out of it's way for authenticity and was declared a true account of the events and if anything would've been dramatised I seriously doubt they would have re-written the end of the battle.

Quote:
Thats not the battle I was on about...the film is Zulu Dawn
"Zulu Dawn" depicts the bloody Battle of Isandhlwana, in which 30,000 Zulu warriors wiped out nearly 1,500 British troops stationed in Natal. The British didn't win anything there. At least at Rourke's Drift they won respect if not the battle.

We're waayyy off topic here and should probably either end this discussion now or have a mod move it to a new topic.

April 13th, 2005  
beardo
 
If you read what I first put about it, you'll see what im on about (production rate)
--
April 13th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
Yep, backs up my arguement nicely. Thank you. 30,000 spears wiped out 1500 rifles. Production results at work.

Nobody said the said the Sherman was a better tank than the Tiger in any other aspect than production - just as the spear was not a better weapon than the rifle in any other aspect.

The point is that if you make alot of an inferior weapon and your opponent makes very little of a superior weapon you can win by production alone. The ability to mass produce and the design that allowed this to happen are what made the Sherman a great tank - not its armor, not its firepower. It did however have the advantage over the Tiger in mobility. It was faster and lighter and it's turret turned much faster. These elements allowed it to kill the Tiger though even then only by shooting it from the rear. As I stated, this took about four Sherman's to accomplish. Production assured that there were four Shermans so it did happen.
April 13th, 2005  
Doppleganger
 
 
Charge, I realise this argument is going nowhere but by God I just can't help myself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge 7
The point is that if you make alot of an inferior weapon and your opponent makes very little of a superior weapon you can win by production alone. The ability to mass produce and the design that allowed this to happen are what made the Sherman a great tank - not its armor, not its firepower.
How can the application of mass production turn one mediocre product into a great one? Whether the product is manufactured once or a million times its basic nature remains unchanged. The US logistical and production capability is what *should* be praised here, not the Sherman tank itself. The ability to produce thousands of these tanks did not suddenly make it less liable for its ammunition to blow up when hit, or more able to take a German tank out at long range.

The East Germans made thousands of Trabant cars, a cheap, smelly, unreliable 2-stroke engine car made from amongst other things cardboard - did the fact that thousands upon thousands were made change its nature? Of course not. So why do you insist with this pointless argument regarding the Sherman?

You seem to be lauding the Sherman tank as one of the winners of WW2 - it was nothing like as such. To begin with the outcome of the European War was largely decided by Summer 1943, nevermind by the time D-Day came along. Secondly, Allied air power, German strategic mistakes, lack of fuel for German tanks, Germany fighting on 3 fronts, German troops assigned to the Western Front being very uneven in quality, woeful German intelligence, great Allied intelligence, very careful Allied planning were all far more decisive than the Sherman tank.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge 7
It did however have the advantage over the Tiger in mobility. It was faster and lighter and it's turret turned much faster. These elements allowed it to kill the Tiger though even then only by shooting it from the rear. As I stated, this took about four Sherman's to accomplish. Production assured that there were four Shermans so it did happen.
First of all the Sherman did not have a big mobility advantage over the Panther and its mobility advantage over the Tiger was nowhere near as large as to play any significant factor. The reason why 4-5 Shermans were able to kill a lone Panther or Tiger was nothing to do with mobility and everything to do with outflanking said lone Panther or Tiger whilst 1 or 2 of the Shermans get knocked out trying to keep it 'busy' and killing it from the rear. Rather like an infantry squad will 'fix' a machine gun nest and then attempt to outflank it.
April 13th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
Quote:
Charge, I realise this argument is going nowhere but by God I just can't help myself.
Well, I can. I've said all I care to about the importance of production and the design that allows mass production. If you just don't find that true well, that's your opinion.
April 13th, 2005  
rOk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger

How can the application of mass production turn one mediocre product into a great one?
_they never ran out_ ....that's how, nobody's saying that the Sherman was a marvel of technology _however_ it did it's job...either that be 4:1 or 1:1...doesn't really matter does it?
April 13th, 2005  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rOk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger

How can the application of mass production turn one mediocre product into a great one?
_they never ran out_ ....that's how, nobody's saying that the Sherman was a marvel of technology _however_ it did it's job...either that be 4:1 or 1:1...doesn't really matter does it?
Right, did its job - does that make it the 10th best tank of all time and a better tank than say the Panther? According to that list it does.

Charge, I agree with you on the importance of production and that designs that are able to mass produced easily are important in war. The T-34 had that virtue and it was a great tank, but because it satisfied the 3 classic tank ratings of armour, firepower and mobility. The difference is that the Sherman didn't.

Anyway, thanks for the interesting debate Charge.
April 13th, 2005  
rOk
 
 
Guess it's my fault for not reading this entire thread just this last page...
the point I was trying to make is that the Sherman was better for the war effort than the Panther...if only because of mass production...so be it...
April 13th, 2005  
beardo
 
yes but it wasnt a better tank