Sherman tank: General Inspection (1 Viewer)

As to why the Ynaks didn't adopt the Brit. 17-pounder was the doctrine problem mentioned earlier. plus the limited contact between US and German armor left the US satisfied with the 75mm (Kasserine was more inexperience and poor tactics rather than bad guns). By the time the US Army accepted that they had a big problem, the British sources couldn't convert and support a US Firefly contingent. Besides the 17-pounder had a mediocre HE round.

It has been my personal opinion that the M4-series needed the better gun more than the increased armor. Look at the Israeli experience - they didn't change the protection to any great extent, but they put in very capable guns. The French 75mm added to the early Super Shermans was developed from the German 75mm L70 (Panther). The tankers were willing to take casualties, but what was most galling is that they couldn't strike back on an equal footing. The 75mm could penetrate the Panther from the sides and rear, but not from the front. At least a 17-pounder could hit from the frontal arc and have a chance! If the US had swallowed pride and doctrine and adopted the 17-pounder like we did the 6-pounder (US 57mm AT gun M1), then we could have had the guns and ammo made in the US and fitted in US depots, giving us a significant supply of good AT weapons before DDay. The US might have even had a chance to address the poor HE round - giving it a multi-purpose role. 90mm Shermans might have been available in the fall-early winter (T25/26 turrets on M4A3 hulls), even if the Pershings still took until spring of 1945.

Funny enough, by the time there were enough extra medium tanks in the ETO to spare some for depot conversion to Fireflies, the war was almost over.
The US ordered 108 Firefly tanks on late M4 and M4A3 chassis, but apparently the war ended with them getting in the hands of a combat unit.

Gary
 
If you value the lives, training and experience of your own troops you should place tank requirements in the following order of priority.

1) Defence - adequate armour, machine guns etc
2) Offence - adequate main weapon
3) Mobility - speed, range etc

Perhaps it is ironic that the Germans were one of the few to adopt this doctrine. These priorities are still as relevant today. I have said on another thread, just because you occupy large tracts of land doesn't mean you control the country and its people. They will fight back in due course, and if your troops don't have adequate protection they will loose.
 
Brad

Stalin killed more Soviet citizens over his reign of terror than the Germans including many repatriated prisoners (those poor souls who were not killed by the Nazis).

The clear out of senior army officers just before the war also contributed to many unnecessary deaths as did doctrines about not feeding civilians and shooting many occupied civilians later on liberation as collaborators. Also the Crimean Tartars and other national groups were deported to Siberia.

But you are right about how foul the Nazi regime was and what a good job they were defeated. What is it about dictatorship that brings these elements out in otherwise civilised people like the Germans and Russians.....:confused:

Kevin
 
binder001 said:
As to why the Ynaks didn't adopt the Brit. 17-pounder was the doctrine problem mentioned earlier. plus the limited contact between US and German armor left the US satisfied with the 75mm (Kasserine was more inexperience and poor tactics rather than bad guns). By the time the US Army accepted that they had a big problem, the British sources couldn't convert and support a US Firefly contingent. Besides the 17-pounder had a mediocre HE round.

It has been my personal opinion that the M4-series needed the better gun more than the increased armor. Look at the Israeli experience - they didn't change the protection to any great extent, but they put in very capable guns. The French 75mm added to the early Super Shermans was developed from the German 75mm L70 (Panther). The tankers were willing to take casualties, but what was most galling is that they couldn't strike back on an equal footing. The 75mm could penetrate the Panther from the sides and rear, but not from the front. At least a 17-pounder could hit from the frontal arc and have a chance! If the US had swallowed pride and doctrine and adopted the 17-pounder like we did the 6-pounder (US 57mm AT gun M1), then we could have had the guns and ammo made in the US and fitted in US depots, giving us a significant supply of good AT weapons before DDay. The US might have even had a chance to address the poor HE round - giving it a multi-purpose role. 90mm Shermans might have been available in the fall-early winter (T25/26 turrets on M4A3 hulls), even if the Pershings still took until spring of 1945.

Funny enough, by the time there were enough extra medium tanks in the ETO to spare some for depot conversion to Fireflies, the war was almost over.
The US ordered 108 Firefly tanks on late M4 and M4A3 chassis, but apparently the war ended with them getting in the hands of a combat unit.

Gary
Click to expand...

Dear Gary

Thanks for your really interesting postings and insight into this. I hadn't realised the US 57mm was related to the six pdr - did it also fire apds ammo? Even that could take out a panther at short range. (The Germans couldn't spare the tungsten of course).

As for the 17pdr HE capability, the US had the sherman 105mm support tank and the Brits the 94mm Centaur etc Just needed to think outside the box on teamwork or am I missing something?

Kevin
 
panda1gen said:
Thanks for your really interesting postings and insight into this. I hadn't realised the US 57mm was related to the six pdr - did it also fire apds ammo? Even that could take out a panther at short range.
Click to expand...

** I think it could, but I don't think the US had much 57mm APDS ammo available.

As for the 17pdr HE capability, the US had the sherman 105mm support tank and the Brits the 94mm Centaur etc Just needed to think outside the box on teamwork or am I missing something?

** The TO&E only had six 105mm tanks to 54 regular mediums (and the 17 light tanks of "D" Company) and the US preferred to have multi-purpose guns - one of the big selling points of the US 90mm.

Gary
 
Is it me, or would it have been simpler to eliminate the concept of the tank destroyer and instead arm tanks to fight tanks, serving along side self propelled artillery armed to fire HE rounds, together in a combined arms division.

I think we could take the WWII German Jet program (which Hitler insisted develop planes which were simultaneously fighters and bombers) or the 1970's U.S. Bradley Fighting Vehicle program as examples of what happens when higher-ups try to make a weapon perform many tasks at once rather than one special task: the "blended" weapon is often unable to be produced in a timely fashion or incapable of performing any specific function well.
 
Hi Louis

Don't know the answer. Teamworking seems to be the best thing as infantry/artillery/tanks and something to kill tanks - whatever that is - were always the enlightened doctrine.

Be reassured though, as late as 73 the Israelis were finding this out the hard way again, in their battles against wire guided missiles at Suez.

Anyone have a view on the current position? I admire our soldiers currently fighting - recently the MOD was criticised by a Coroner for not providing adequate body armour - plus ca change!:mad: I would rather pay taxes for proper equipment for our gallant military personnel than some of the other rubbish governements spend on.....

Though what we are currently doing in some places can anyone explain? :confused:
 
panda1gen said:
Hi Louis
I would rather pay taxes for proper equipment for our gallant military personnel than some of the other rubbish governements spend on.....

Though what we are currently doing in some places can anyone explain? :confused:
Click to expand...

I'm with you 100% on both points.
 
The recent posts seem to bring us back to the original thread title. One particular US General didn't like his soldiers adding extras to increase the armour of 'his' tanks because it reduced speed, increased weight and wore them out.

One of his men summed him up with one phrase: "his guts, and our blood" :mad:

So for those that have asked about the relevance of personalities of certain Generals. Sometimes personalities do count - in mens lives. Narcissistic personalities are bad at the best of times, in war they are deadly.
 
Oz,

Your point is well taken. Both Patton & Monty were classic examples of narsicisstic generals, but maybe not the worst.

MacArthur disobeyed a direct order from President Truman, his commander in chief, and bombed across a river into China, bringing millions of Chinese into the Korean War and costing thousands of American lives. There are still Americans who believe it was unfair that he was sacked. Personally, I believe he should have been court martialled and shot. If some unknown Captain had disobeyed a direct order in a combat situation, costing even 100 American lives, you can bet he would have faced a firing squad.
 
As to the the idea that it would have been simpler to eliminate the Tank Destroyers - exactly what history proved! Tanks need to be capable of fighting tanks - the TD was an evolutionary dead end. The idea of an SP AT gun isn't bad, but the doctrine of placing them under a seperate command structure with a mission that was unrealistic was proven wrong. The US stayed out of the war and missed two years of hard-won lessons and came late to the gun/armor race.
 
Louis Badolato said:
Oz,

Your point is well taken. Both Patton & Monty were classic examples of narsicisstic generals, but maybe not the worst.

MacArthur disobeyed a direct order from President Truman, his commander in chief, and bombed across a river into China, bringing millions of Chinese into the Korean War and costing thousands of American lives. There are still Americans who believe it was unfair that he was sacked. Personally, I believe he should have been court martialled and shot. If some unknown Captain had disobeyed a direct order in a combat situation, costing even 100 American lives, you can bet he would have faced a firing squad.
Click to expand...

True Louis, it's good to have aggressive Generals, but best to leave the stupid ones at home imo :)
 
binder001 said:
As to the the idea that it would have been simpler to eliminate the Tank Destroyers - exactly what history proved! Tanks need to be capable of fighting tanks - the TD was an evolutionary dead end. The idea of an SP AT gun isn't bad, but the doctrine of placing them under a seperate command structure with a mission that was unrealistic was proven wrong. The US stayed out of the war and missed two years of hard-won lessons and came late to the gun/armor race.
Click to expand...

Gary

Agreed, but in the extingency of a long attritional war, they may return as cheaper to build?:rolleyes:
 
OzDigger said:
True Louis, it's good to have aggressive Generals, but best to leave the stupid ones at home imo :)
Click to expand...

Oz, Louis

I have often wondered, do you need to be a psychopath to succeed in the Army to reach General - and the same equivalent in business? :confused:

Or is it luck, talent and the rest...........Monty, Patton, MacArthur all seemed to be 'egotistical', but many others did not appear the same.;) Monty did value his troops lives by all accounts, not sure we could say the same about Patton, don't know about Mac - :(

Brad are we libelling yet as if we are I am merely reporting other peoples' generally held beliefs in good faith, however factually incorrect in the interests of free speech and right to look a **** on the forum :eek:
 
Sorry Kevin but I don't see the libel. Anyway truth is an absolute defense to defamation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2024 XenForo Ltd.
Back
Top