Rank the Tank!

Snauhi said:
cokeisthebest said:
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.
 
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....
 
Snauhi said:
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.
 
pyromedic89 said:
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.
 
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.
 
pyromedic89 said:
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.
 
Doppleganger said:
pyromedic89 said:
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...........
 
pyromedic89 said:
Doppleganger said:
pyromedic89 said:
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.
 
Snauhi said:
pyromedic89 said:
Doppleganger said:
pyromedic89 said:
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 ?
 
pyromedic89 said:
Doppleganger said:
pyromedic89 said:
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.
 
Doppleganger said:
pyromedic89 said:
Doppleganger said:
pyromedic89 said:
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.
 
pyromedic89 said:
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?

pyromedic89 said:
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.
 
pyromedic89 said:
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.
 
Doppleganger said:
pyromedic89 said:
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.


pyromedic89 said:
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.
 
pyromedic89 said:
Doppleganger said:
pyromedic89 said:
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.


pyromedic89 said:
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?
 
pyromedic89 said:
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.
 
Snauhi said:
pyromedic89 said:
Doppleganger said:
pyromedic89 said:
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.


pyromedic89 said:
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 ?
 
Doppleganger said:
pyromedic89 said:
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.
 
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...
 
Back
Top