login   |    register
Armor/AFV: Allied - WWII
Armor and ground forces of the Allied forces during World War II.
Hosted by Darren Baker
Why W.Allies used whole war obsolete tanks ?
Shermania
Visit this Community
California, United States
Member Since: January 30, 2013
entire network: 529 Posts
KitMaker Network: 5 Posts
Posted: Friday, March 06, 2020 - 03:29 AM UTC

Quoted Text

So, i think a Sherman was dangeours for it´s own crew. When was hit by German High Velocity gun - 75mm or 88mm - it was in flames. It is very famous duel, when on Operation Barbarossa one damaged KV-1 stops german advence near Vilno. And be knock out a 88 a day later. But allies ignored Heavy tanks, with heavy balistic protection... I don´t understand, why Allies used a tanks, with minimal balistic protection against "88". Acht Acht was used from first day of WW2, it was a ultimate weapon on battlefield, with high velocity armor piercing ammunition..... and can kill Sherman on range of 3Km ! With one shot. Allied tank crews have low chance to survive battle with most advanced Panzers. On sky have Allied superiority over German JagdWaffe. Spitfire was still developed and was better and better. T-Bolt have devastating fire power (shootgun) and was very durable. P-38 was ace maker in Pacific. Mosquito was uncatchable figher bomber. Tempest can knock out last version of piston engined and first jets. And Mustang demoralized and destroy japanese and german air force... But in whole time, when USAAF and RAF have nevest fighters - G.I. used Shermans. IS-2m or ISU-152 can destroy Tiger on long range - with one hit. In famous war tape - a battle in Cologne was duel Panther with Sherman - Panther fire one shot - and Sherman was in flames. So, on battlefield incoming a Pershing - and - voilá - one shot on Panther - and german beast was penetrated, second - and was in flames. And Pershing can survive direct hit from Tiger with minor damaged... Pershing is the same cathegory as IS-2m. Fast, heavy armored with devastating fire power. And low silhouette. But Sherman was medium tank- Panther is medium tank. Caliber of it´s cannons is similar - but Sherman in duel 1:1 can´t deadly competitor for Panther. Naturally, not Firefly or Achilles with great 17 pounds gun. But it isn´t only in gun. The basic tank is still sherman or wolverine TD. When allied must sacrifice three or five Sherman on one Panther or Tiger it was casaulties on HUMAN power - not at AFV only. Every duel was 10-12 dead tankers.... on Allied Side. And this i don´t understand. Allied tank crews must fight on tanks with "paper armor". Panther,Tiger, long barreled Panzer IV, Hetzer can penetrate Sherman on any angle, on any side on long range with one shot. Pershing can penetrate all Panzers and Panzerjagers. On Sherman was low percentage of survability of tank crew. When we must go against enemy, and their cannons can we destroy on long range, and we must he hit tree times... and their front armor we can´t penetrate on 1m... This must make a frustration and depress ! It was a strategy - Many dogs were sure dead for Tiger. But still was here a human aspect. This is as i think....



A lot of german soldiers lost their lives at the hands of sherman tanks crews, I wonder if they might disagree with your theories.

The incident of fires on shermans was resolved with wet stowage and teaching sherman crews not to stuff rounds in every available space inside tank. All Ww2 tanks caught fire if their ammunition lit up. American WW2 tankers had one of the highest survival rates of US personnel in WW2. Much higher than pilots, much much high than infantry.

You can’t fight in a tank that breaks down, Germany only had 1,500 tigers and 5,000 panthers against 100,000 shermans and T-34s

but even then with such low numbers of tanks, how many actually saw combat? So many had to be destroyed by their own people. So the numbers were already low enough and then germans had to destroy their own tanks because they didn’t work. Allied tanks worked, they were dependable and could be fixed quickly when they broke down. So allies had more tanks but also their units had high performance index instead of being in the mechanic shop. That means that shermans and the T-34s mostly fought against people and rarely had to fight other tanks.
Scarred
Visit this Community
Washington, United States
Member Since: March 11, 2016
entire network: 1,577 Posts
KitMaker Network: 419 Posts
Posted: Friday, March 06, 2020 - 05:03 AM UTC
Another thing the OP is doing is he is using the myth of 5 to 1 kill ratio Sherman vs Panther, Tiger or the bogeyman. That myth has be debunked for years yet it keep cropping up as more people read Belton Cooper's book. He is quoted on tv documentaries but again he was wrong. Look again at Lafayette Pool, whose nick name was War Daddy and was the basis (supposedly) of Pitt's character in Fury. 3 Shermans destroyed yet only 1 wounded (himself) and 1 KIA. By the OP's math there should be 8 or 9 KIA's but Poole kept the same crew until the third tank where his original gunner was sent stateside. Unless they were killed outright by the round entering the tank or shrapnel, a crew can get out as long as they do it before the ammo cooks off.

Case in point: The famous duel between a M26 Pershing and a Panther at Cologne. The Pershing nails the Panther and sets it smoking but the crew gets out. It fires a second round and it starts to burn while some of the crew is exiting the turret. It nails it a third time to make sure the job was done. But the crew survived getting ravaged by a 90mm gun that shot right thru it like an 88mm would do to a Sherman.

Just because a tank is destroyed DOES NOT mean the crew is killed. And not every Sherman destroy was killed by tank fire. They were also destroyed by mines, artillery, panzerfausts, antitank guns and friendly fire.

So to the OP, stop getting your info from gaming sites, fanboy sites, movies or poorly written memoirs. Do some research. There are book out there with actual numbers taken from the original Army reports. Steven Zaloga is a good place to start.

Panther Pershing duel at Cologne:
https://imgur.com/gallery/mqsgx
MontanaHunter
Visit this Community
United States
Member Since: May 30, 2019
entire network: 9 Posts
KitMaker Network: 3 Posts
Posted: Friday, March 06, 2020 - 05:12 AM UTC
One thing touched on briefly above and that deserves to be explored a bit more is how each army approached armor and the use of tanks and that drove their respective development in WW2. The US Army entered the war with the view of that tanks were in the end mobile pill box's to a degree and were there to support infantry. In that respect the Sherman performed more than admirably. Its foolish to try and compare German and US armor as their utilization was diametrically opposite in theory for the majority of the war.

Several have mentioned the US need for uniformity and simplicity because of the two front war we fought. Various models of the M4's were used in the Pacific and they certainly performed more of a role as a mobile pill box and infantry support versus tank vs tank. Aside from the logistics of getting them in an island hopping mode, the Japanese were not fighting an armor centric campaign and the Sherman showed its utility very well in that respect. No country was equipped in the 40's to develop weapons for one particular theater, some fit better than others.

One has to remember the US mindset and approach on the entry of WW2, we went from essentially a peace time,understaffed and under equipped peace time army to a multi front industrial machine. I'd recommend Stephen Ambrose's "Citizen Soldier" for a better understanding of what the US faced going into WW2 and to illustrate what it accomplished in essentially 4 years. Overlay that with the slow evolution in tactics and thinking and it explains the debate easily and shows the folly of the initial post and many of the replies.

Too many armies, not just the US, was stuck in a WW1 mindset, merely look at France and the Maginot line debacle. The German approach to Blitzkreig wasnt set in stone, it too evolved as their early successes certainly caught the German's off guard and you can see the evolution and mistakes they continued to have over the next few years.

Its hollow and ignorant to try and draw the conclusions the OP did with taking into scope resources, industrial capacity, existing and changing doctrines. And this didnt just affect the US Army, look at the adjustments the Navy did post Pearl Harbor. Arguing in a vacuum just ignores the history on both side of the the premise.
Zildjian1819
Visit this Community
United States
Member Since: March 06, 2020
entire network: 41 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Friday, March 06, 2020 - 05:25 AM UTC
Yes we could produce more Sherman’s but what about the men in them? Sherman’s in a lot of cases only had a 3 man crew because German anti- tank were killing them.Paper thin armor here. I sure as hell would rather be in a Panther or Tiger. In a documentary I watched former Ww2 Sherman crews that were asked which they preferred , Sherman or Panther and Tiger and they ALL said Panther or Tiger.
Pongo_Arm
Visit this Community
British Columbia, Canada
Member Since: January 27, 2017
entire network: 133 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Friday, March 06, 2020 - 05:46 AM UTC
The allies saved more lives with their superior logistics then they lost with the weak front Armour of the Sherman. It is likely not even close.
The US Army was not seriously engaged with German armour until at least late summer 1944. So they did not have to incentives to move from a successful vehicle. They did not and currently do not accept the evidence of the Sherman's short comings at Caen.
The US would not accept the unreliability of a tank like the Panther or Tiger into production. Period. Full Stop. The engine that they needed to have the protection mobility but the reasonable profile of a tank like the T32 that would meet your needs was not ready. Their 800HP class engine and power train where certainly better then the production Panther power train, but the US army would not accept that level of reliability. It is not at all clear that they were wrong.
As to how the US could field the best aircraft in the world but not the best tanks. Their air force was directly and fiercely engaged with the best aircraft and fighter units of the German air force from mid 1942. That is just not the case for tanks.
People have to understand, the heavy german tanks of the Panther and Tiger lines were never reliable enough to have won the war. They just could not be used for even mid duration offensive operations and last time I checked you have to attack to win.
Scarred
Visit this Community
Washington, United States
Member Since: March 11, 2016
entire network: 1,577 Posts
KitMaker Network: 419 Posts
Posted: Friday, March 06, 2020 - 06:39 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Yes we could produce more Sherman’s but what about the men in them? Sherman’s in a lot of cases only had a 3 man crew because German anti- tank were killing them.Paper thin armor here. I sure as hell would rather be in a Panther or Tiger. In a documentary I watched former Ww2 Sherman crews that were asked which they preferred , Sherman or Panther and Tiger and they ALL said Panther or Tiger.



Can you or anyone post links in reference 3 man crews? And of course someone is going to want to be behind more armor, so yeah they'd choose a panther or tiger. That's like asking my platoon if we liked being in our unarmored Humvees or would rather be in a tank? It wouldn't matter if it was a T-72 I'd rather be in a tank.

I don't believe in the 3 man crew garbage. You couldn't fight the tank properly. The army would consolidate crews if man power was an issue.
ReluctantRenegade
Visit this Community
Wien, Austria
Member Since: March 09, 2016
entire network: 2,309 Posts
KitMaker Network: 3 Posts
Posted: Friday, March 06, 2020 - 06:51 AM UTC

Quoted Text

In a documentary I watched former Ww2 Sherman crews that were asked which they preferred , Sherman or Panther and Tiger and they ALL said Panther or Tiger.



This Sherman vs Panther and/or Tiger comparison is rather pointless. The backbone of German armor formations during the later stages of WW2 was the Panzer IV. The likelihood of encountering them and their derivatives was much higher than facing the big cats - and the Sherman was more than capable of killing them.

The Panther and Tiger won battles - the Sherman won wars.
TopSmith
Visit this Community
Washington, United States
Member Since: August 09, 2002
entire network: 1,625 Posts
KitMaker Network: 49 Posts
Posted: Friday, March 06, 2020 - 07:49 AM UTC
Everyone fought the war with basically what they started with. The Russians used the T34/76-85 until Berlin. The Americans used the Lee/ Sherman until the fall of Berlin and the germans used predominantly the Panzer 3-4 until the fall of Berlin. These tanks were upgraded as the war progressed. There were attempts to supplement these tanks with heavier tanks. Some appeared sooner like the KV line and the Tiger/ Panther. Some appeared later like the ISU 122 and the M26. All had some successes and some drawbacks. However the heavier tanks were in no way a deciding factor. One point that needs to discussed is how well the tank was designed to be operated.The T 34 was a great simple design but was probably the worst to crew in combat. No radios, poor sights terrible crew communications etc... The Sherman was far more effective for crew use. The German tanks were good when they were working. From all accounts I have read the German crews said the Mark 4 was reliable from their point of view.
Bravo1102
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Member Since: December 08, 2003
entire network: 2,826 Posts
KitMaker Network: 166 Posts
Posted: Friday, March 06, 2020 - 07:49 AM UTC
There's some accounts of four man crews, dispensing with the bow gunner in US Shermans and three man crews in Fireflies to make the turret more comfortable.

But it was rare.

There are accounts of three man crews in Shermans being sent back because of an incomplete crew and usually because the tank had wounded with the short crew being the result of combat.

With the publication of Spearhead and the Liberation Trilogy and so many great accounts I would have hoped this mythology was gone.
Tankerman
Visit this Community
California, United States
Member Since: June 14, 2006
entire network: 54 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Friday, March 06, 2020 - 07:49 AM UTC
The duel in "FURY" was not realistic on several points . Due to the need for getting as many tanks as possible in the frame they were operating much closer to one another than in a real engagement. Once the first round came from the hidden Tiger, massive return fire including smoke rounds would have been directed at the treeline to distract the German and blind him. At the ranges shown on film the standard 76mm AP round was capable of punching through the frontal 100mm armor. At the time the film is set the later HVAP round for the 76mm gun was available and was even better. Once Fury crossed past the frontal arc of the Tiger either round would have penetrated the 80mm side armor. The first Tiger killed by a U.S. M4 in Italy succumbed to a side shot from the old 75mm main gun.
Scarred
Visit this Community
Washington, United States
Member Since: March 11, 2016
entire network: 1,577 Posts
KitMaker Network: 419 Posts
Posted: Friday, March 06, 2020 - 08:07 AM UTC

Quoted Text

There's some accounts of four man crews, dispensing with the bow gunner in US Shermans and three man crews in Fireflies to make the turret more comfortable.

But it was rare.

There are accounts of three man crews in Shermans being sent back because of an incomplete crew and usually because the tank had wounded with the short crew being the result of combat.

With the publication of Spearhead and the Liberation Trilogy and so many great accounts I would have hoped this mythology was gone.



I could see 4 man crews as it was how many crewmen there were in Fireflies. But 3? Maybe in the heat of battle and you've taken casualties but your combat effectiveness is gone out the window. And for every good and accurate book or piece of reference material that is printed there will always be 10 that are garbage and just keep promulgating the same lies and false info over and over.
Dinocamo
Visit this Community
Quebec, Canada
Member Since: August 26, 2017
entire network: 82 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2 Posts
Posted: Friday, March 06, 2020 - 08:46 AM UTC

Quoted Text

The duel in "FURY" was not realistic on several points . Due to the need for getting as many tanks as possible in the frame they were operating much closer to one another than in a real engagement. Once the first round came from the hidden Tiger, massive return fire including smoke rounds would have been directed at the treeline to distract the German and blind him. At the ranges shown on film the standard 76mm AP round was capable of punching through the frontal 100mm armor. At the time the film is set the later HVAP round for the 76mm gun was available and was even better. Once Fury crossed past the frontal arc of the Tiger either round would have penetrated the 80mm side armor. The first Tiger killed by a U.S. M4 in Italy succumbed to a side shot from the old 75mm main gun.



Well, in that movie, during the town* attack scene, when the main character Sherman turned around the corner and got shoot by the German 50mm AT cannon and it was bounced... Like, the German gunner had a good moment to aim at the side of the Sherman, he was in an ambush position and it was less than 50m of engagement, and yet German crew was aiming with scope and went for the front plate...
vanize
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Member Since: January 30, 2006
entire network: 1,954 Posts
KitMaker Network: 121 Posts
Posted: Friday, March 06, 2020 - 09:09 AM UTC
A tank is worthless if you can't bring it to bear on the battlefield. Germany's 'amazing' tanks looked great on paper and if you managed to actually get one into the field to face off one-on-one against a sherman, but really that didn't happen all that often as panthers and tigers were very fond of breaking down and were hard to repair when they did. shermans, on the other hand, had fabulous automotive reliability and were relatively trivial to repair when they did break down. also shermans could cross bridges panthers and tigers couldn't. the sherman's 75 mm gun was meant more for support of infantry than fighting other armor and in reality shermans only used their guns against german armor only rarely in comparison to how often the gun was used for support fire.

The sherman tank was used until at least 1989 and perhaps as late at 1999. almost 50 years of use is not a hallmark of a bad tank design.

babaoriley
Visit this Community
California, United States
Member Since: June 23, 2017
entire network: 194 Posts
KitMaker Network: 4 Posts
Posted: Friday, March 06, 2020 - 09:24 AM UTC
U.S. tank designers had a philosophy in WWII, the best is the enemy of good enough. They were aware that in some respects their designs were deficient, for example they always knew the Sherman was going to need a more powerful gun even though it was adequate when that vehicle was introduced. But they also knew the U.S. was going to build far more tanks than Germany, and combined with tank destroyers and air support and logistical superiority, the Sherman would be good enough to get the job done.

Also keep in mind there were Shermans that fought in North Africa in 1942 that were still in service in Germany in 1945. Reliability and ease of repair are significant factors, and the heavier German tanks not only had reliability issues, they could be difficult and time-consuming to repair. Which is better, a tank with thick armor and a powerful gun that breaks down on the way to battle and has to be destroyed by its own crew, or a less powerful tank that is where it is needed when it is needed?

Tanks did not operate in isolation, for example Allied air superiority often meant that German armor which was superior on paper (in some cases) never made it to the battlefield, or the fuel and ammunition those vehicles needed never arrived as the transport vehicles were destroyed.

In the case of Britain I don't think they came up with an all-around good tank until the Comet, soon followed by the Centurion. But their backs were against the wall, they were desperate for any tanks they could get and thus some poor designs went into production until the flood of Sherman tanks arrived.

The Soviets were in a somewhat similar situation, the T-34 had many problems including poor reliability, but they built 60,000 of them during the war so they could substitute quantity for quality.

Some German armor had much better guns than Allied armor, and better armor protection. But the relatively small numbers built often at higher cost, the poor reliability in some models, logistical problems, the decline of the Luftwaffe--these things meant that the "superior" German tanks and tank destroyers could only slow the advance of the Allies armies, not stop it. In some cases it would have made more sense to make more PzKpfw IV tanks rather than wasting resources on armored monsters like the Jagdtiger, yet German leadership continued to allow those resources to be wasted.

As others have pointed out, Germany also didn't have to ship tanks thousands of miles to fight far from maintenance facilities (North Africa excepted), so keeping their tanks to a reasonable size and weight and making them highly reliable was not quite as important as it was to America and Britain. Again, a tank that makes it to where it is needed is far more valuable than one that never gets to the battle.

German tanks do look superior on paper, or perhaps in a video game. But once all the factors like quantity and reliability and transportability and logistics are included, it's obvious why those technically superior vehicles were overwhelmed by Shermans and T-34s.
Shermania
Visit this Community
California, United States
Member Since: January 30, 2013
entire network: 529 Posts
KitMaker Network: 5 Posts
Posted: Friday, March 06, 2020 - 10:36 AM UTC
When I started out as a young kid I too loved the German tanks, they’re so impressive looking and they were photographed so well by Nazi photographers. I too bought into the mythology of german tanks and almost all the plastic models I built were german tanks, especially the tigers and the panthers, BUT, then I started to learn more...

AND once I began to learn history I began to gain more and more appreciation for Allied tanks like the T-34 and the Sherman. The one German tank I still respect is the panzer IV, because I believe it was the best all round tank german tankers had during WW2. It was not a logistical nightmare like the panthers and tigers, it was a practical weapons system, that could be transported easily, it could transport itself, it could cross bridges, it was versatile, and it was reliable.

Honestly, the late big german tanks performed so poorly compared to the massive expense and effort that went into producing them, that in retrospect they have to be considered a monumental blunder, a complete waste of resources, time, and manufacturing.

Guderian wanted a copy of the T-34, but the Daimler Benz panther was seen as an embarrassment to the Nazi party, basically an admission that they were borrowing technology from an inferior race. So Nazi pride carried the day and thank god it did because if not for the panther and tiger the allies might’ve had to deal with 15-20k more panzer IVs had germany focused production on their best tank. I think the Allies would still prevail but the cost would’ve been even higher.
Zildjian1819
Visit this Community
United States
Member Since: March 06, 2020
entire network: 41 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Friday, March 06, 2020 - 02:30 PM UTC
Which tank would YOU rather be in? Imagine if all those Sherman’s were comparable to Panther and Tiger. The U.S. would’ve wreaked havoc.They may have saved lives else where, but the tankers were getting massacred.So what you’re saying is sacrifice Sherman crew’s so other’s may live?I don’t know man, but if I were a tanker back then, I would prefer Panther or Tiger.Safer than a Sherman.When 1 shell from them can kill a Sherman ...
ericadeane
Visit this Community
Michigan, United States
Member Since: October 28, 2002
entire network: 4,007 Posts
KitMaker Network: 83 Posts
Posted: Friday, March 06, 2020 - 04:13 PM UTC
People need to drop that straw man comparison:

"What tank would you rather be in? Tiger, Panther or Sherman"

It's as legitimate as asking "Would you rather be in a JS2, Churchill or a Panzer II"

Neither are apples to apples comparisons. No rational person argues that the 26 ton Sherman is the one-to-one equal of a Panther or Tiger. So let's just move off of that, okay? This isn't a drop down menu for a video game.

Zildjian1819
Visit this Community
United States
Member Since: March 06, 2020
entire network: 41 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Friday, March 06, 2020 - 05:58 PM UTC
Beldon Coopers book “Death Traps” He was a Lt. in tank maintenance company.If you have’nt read ,you should. I think he said during the European conflict his division lost like 300 or 500 percent of their tanks. A lot of cases down to 3 man crews.Shermans could’nt keep a full crew.He said he was “shocked at the power of the German anti-tank and tank guns”.Whole book a true story.He also said Patton’s decision not to produce the M-26 in time for D-day was the biggest mistake of the war in his opinion. And that the war might’ve been over before the Battle of The Bulge if the Pershing was in service.
Zildjian1819
Visit this Community
United States
Member Since: March 06, 2020
entire network: 41 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Friday, March 06, 2020 - 06:03 PM UTC
What I’m saying is that If I wanted to survive longer.I would choose Panther or Tiger. Imagine if the Germans had Panthers and Tigers in the quantities of Sherman’s?If you were in a Sherman and came face to face with these tanks,which would you rather be in?
Zildjian1819
Visit this Community
United States
Member Since: March 06, 2020
entire network: 41 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Friday, March 06, 2020 - 06:11 PM UTC
I don’t do video games, but I read true history books.And I’m talking tank vs tank in a duel. Not air or artillery support. I mean which tank is going to deflect on coming AP shot. Not reliability, track or engine life,etc. I’m talking penetration and protection.
PzDave
Visit this Community
United States
Member Since: November 28, 2012
entire network: 319 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1 Posts
Posted: Friday, March 06, 2020 - 06:18 PM UTC
Are we still debating this? There are plenty of documentaries, books, first person accounts, magazine articles, You Tube videos such as in the Chieftans Hatch etc. There may never be an answer. The Russians I bet are also having their same debates at this time too. They built 50,000 T-34's, they won, case closed. We built 35,000 or so Shermans, we won...case closed.
Ask the veterans from both sides.
Zildjian1819
Visit this Community
United States
Member Since: March 06, 2020
entire network: 41 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Friday, March 06, 2020 - 06:42 PM UTC
Which would you rather be in in a head on duel, is all I’m saying. You Sherman,me Panther. 1Shot...you’re dead. I worked with a WW2 Sherman tank driver for a short time and he confirms they could never keep a full crew.
Bravo1102
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Member Since: December 08, 2003
entire network: 2,826 Posts
KitMaker Network: 166 Posts
Posted: Friday, March 06, 2020 - 10:05 PM UTC
US tank crews used to train for short crews. But modern tanks have commander override control handle and additional sights. IIRC the Sherman didn't have a trigger to fire the gun from the commander's position.

So you're really into degraded operation territory. The commander would have to load and that's really cutting back on how well you can fight the tank.

But bow gunners? Easy enough to operate without one. So short one guy in a Sherman means you can pile extra ammunition in that position. And they did.

But with those paper thin flanks and rear and iffy maintenance you can keep the Panther. Just remember if a Tiger crewman you're constantly on the move to plug every hole in the line and you always fight outnumbered and you only have full crews because half the tanks are being repaired.

What would you rather have? Enough crew because half the tanks are broken down, or short crews because you have plenty of tanks?

German Panther and Tiger crews spent a lot of time walking and fighting as infantry.
ReluctantRenegade
Visit this Community
Wien, Austria
Member Since: March 09, 2016
entire network: 2,309 Posts
KitMaker Network: 3 Posts
Posted: Friday, March 06, 2020 - 10:20 PM UTC

Quoted Text

I don’t do video games



Yet you comment like one who does.


Quoted Text

but I read true history books.



Then I suggest you read how on 6-7 August 1944 the US 30th Division (a completely average infantry unit) beat the s$%& out of the 1st SS Panzer division (one of Hitler's elite units).


Quoted Text

And I’m talking tank vs tank in a duel.



Armored warfare ain't a western duel.


Quoted Text

Not air or artillery support. I mean which tank is going to deflect on coming AP shot. Not reliability, track or engine life,etc. I’m talking penetration and protection.



What is exactly your point? That the Panther and Tiger were superior to allied tanks in terms of firepower and protection? Yes, they were. Did that matter at the end? No. There are other, no less important factors than penetration and protection: training, motivation, tactics, logistic support, communication, mobility, reliability, ease of shipping, ease of production, production costs...just to name a few. If you read history books, you should know that.

Do you think Patton's 3rd Army could've swept through France with the speed it did if it was equipped with those superior Panthers and Tigers?

Scarred
Visit this Community
Washington, United States
Member Since: March 11, 2016
entire network: 1,577 Posts
KitMaker Network: 419 Posts
Posted: Friday, March 06, 2020 - 10:37 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Beldon Coopers book “Death Traps” He was a Lt. in tank maintenance company.If you have’nt read ,you should. I think he said during the European conflict his division lost like 300 or 500 percent of their tanks. A lot of cases down to 3 man crews.Shermans could’nt keep a full crew.He said he was “shocked at the power of the German anti-tank and tank guns”.Whole book a true story.He also said Patton’s decision not to produce the M-26 in time for D-day was the biggest mistake of the war in his opinion. And that the war might’ve been over before the Battle of The Bulge if the Pershing was in service.



The M26? Patton had nothing to do with the decision to build it or not to. That was a claim in Belton's book and he was nowhere, nobody and in no position to know. It took years to build up the material for the invasion of Europe and the Pershing started production in November 44. What were we to do? Stop the invasion, switch the tooling of every factory making Shermans over to Pershings then sit on our asses until we built up thousands of them, worked the bugs out of them and retrained the crews? That would have taken what? 3 years? While Hilter continued to kill people in the death camp and developing WMDs? Could he have developed nukes? Possibly and since he was tossing V2s at everyone he would have had no hesitation throwing a few nukes around. Should we have waited until we had nukes and nuke Berlin? It was bad enough we nuked Japan we didn't need to do it to Europe. And Russia was rampaging westward. Would they have stopped at Germany? No, they would have taken all of Europe while we waited for your wunderwaffe the M26.

Anyone who uses Death Traps as a basis for their opinions has no respect from me or pretty much anyone else. Cooper was a REMF and portrays that he was an expert on policy decisions. All his claims about policy were dis-proven long ago. It was a book written by a ghost writer from the ramblings of old man 50+ years after the fact. No disrespect for Cooper but disrespect for those who use the book as their bible. I have problems remembering a lot of what I did 30 years ago when I was in as do most Vets so you should take Death Traps with a major grain of salt and start doing some true historical and technical research.

Here is a review of the book from Robert Forczyk, a retired LTC and armor officer with a doctorate. A man who has written many books on the subject of WWII who has researched his material and is considered an expert.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R30CDHXKY2SS5H/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0891418148

I read Death Traps. I took it as a memoir and not a factual account because, as I stated, it's source was the memories of an old man who claimed to know stuff a soldier in his position would never be witness to.