The Sherman Tank what an amazing vehicle!!

[BulgarianSoldier]

I like the shape of the tank and hes fast tank.Its not big and its easy to drive it into the citys but this tank can't beat even a panther i mean the front armor of the panther.So the US tank army used a simple strategy.One sherman trik the panther and when the panther is aiming the sherman M10 tank destroyer go fast and hit the rear armor of the panther.

Ah i almost forget M10 is open and the crew can be easy killed...
And the tank dont have 30 cal. so its easy to be captured and destroyed.

[Owen]

The M10 at Moerbrugge, the Memorial to SAR's, is modern er.....art.
The M10 was not meant to be fought as a tank but as VP says an armoured, mobile platform for a AT gun. More mobile and better protected than a towed AT gun. It is not a "tank" as such.

[Za Rodinu]

Originally Posted by lancesergeant

... but at Prokorovka, the T34's got in among the German tanks so that they couldn't use their main armament effectively.

Hmm, this belongs in another thread but then certainly that explains the loss rate of 300 Sov tanks / 25 Pzs at Prokhorovka, otherwise it would be 300 Sovs / nil

LS, are you sure you have the most accurate and up to date sources?




This kind of hand to hand combat did not occur in Prokhorovka! More bovine excrement here!

http://www.isidore-of-seville.com/vi...t650luxfiat660

[Za Rodinu]

Originally Posted by BulgarianSoldier

Sherman isnt good tank 50mm armor dont forget that the Tiger have 100mm this outdone even the time now T-55 is 100mm armor and 120mm and T-72 120 mm you see Tiger can compere to the tanks now.Sherman M51 is far more beter tank.Germans had the best tanks in the whole war there were biger,beter and more perfect.

Bulgy, you have to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges, not walnuts to avocados.

A Tiger weighs 57 tons and a Sherman some 32 tons so it can't be a surprise to anyone that the Tiger's armour is thicker, or can it? If you want anything in the same weight class of the Tiger you can pick the M-26 for instance, and even then the Americans were doing a damn great heavy tank that was 15 tons lighter than the Tiger, more on the Panther weight class.

So what is the practical consequence of this? Again as I recently said elsewhere in this Forum, Goebbels was the most competent guy in the III Reich, his illusions still at work today. How many Tigers could you have available for the entire 3 fronts on a certain day? Total Tiger production was on the 1350 region, take or add a few depending on sources. Tigers were in the main organized in independent heavy tank battalions, of which there were thirteen in toto, used as fire brigades. Not wishing to go into detail on average strength per battallion, we can safely state that on a given day you would have only a few hundred Tigers over the three fronts. We can therefore conclude that Tigers were rather thin on the ground, the likelyhood of meeting a Tiger was rather weak really.

What mattered were the numbers of Pz IVs, StuGs, Hetzers, Panthers on a good day, etc. These are the ones you have to compare the Sherman to, not the Tiger bugaboo.

And please don't come up with that phantasy of comparing the Tiger with tanks today. Even against your T-55 the Tiger would be in severe trouble as the T-55 armour is much thicker than the Tiger - remember it is heavily inclined whereas the Tiger is a barndoor - and the 100mm gun was a heck of a piece for it's time, and all this at 37 tons, a bit over a Pz IV H. For tanks later than that, please don't even mention it.

But of course the T-55 was proudly made in the USSR using all the lessons from the Great Patriotic War, whereas the Tiger was something done 10 years earlier, the main requirements being a thick armour box with an 88mm FlaK on top to defeat the trouser sh1tting scare the T-34s and KVs caused.

Za Rodinu!

[Za Rodinu]

Originally Posted by BulgarianSoldier

I like the shape of the tank and hes fast tank.Its not big and its easy to drive it into the citys but this tank can't beat even a panther i mean the front armor of the panther.So the US tank army used a simple strategy.One sherman trik the panther and when the panther is aiming the sherman M10 tank destroyer go fast and hit the rear armor of the panther.

Holy cow, it seems I'm picking on you, doesn't it?

First of all, an M-10 is not a tank, it's a tank destroyer. And if you want to see a rally fast tank destroyer you look at the M-18.

As for the antics you mention, perhaps it would be better if you tried to read something proper, I'd recommend Seek, Strike, and Destroy: U.S. Army Tank Destroyer Doctrine in World War II

[BulgarianSoldier]

За родину due to all my unbalivable respect to you i may say only a few things.I know that M-10 is tank destroyer you could check my posts.I know that M-26 Pershing is good and big but count how much of those were on the frontline.T-55 is nice tank but is really easy to be destroyed its big and its not really fast i know enough of this tank because i drive it.I see that i made TERIBLE (for you) mistake that i compere tiger with the sherman.And where i say that i want to see really fast tankdestroyer?

PS:Please read my next words.As i read your posts i really start to think that you though that the tanks aren't controled by no one.The crew is MORE importand then the armor of the tank and the information you see in the internet.Ah and one more think yes i respect you i really respect people who ...how to say maybe like the soviet union (hope you understand it) but this doesn't give you the rights to tell me what i should like even my girlfriend cant control me.Maybe most of the people here already undrestand that im a little bit crazy character.

Dany

[Za Rodinu]

Bulgy, please do not take offense at my words, I mean no disrespect for you, I was only pointing the many loose ends in your recent posts. I think it is benefical having somebody pointing out your mistakes, it's all part of the learning process.

This is off-topic, but the T-55 at its time was a very very good tank that sent shivers down the spine of NATO planners and commanders. Of course 50 years later it does not look so good.

As for the human factor, we can measure say tank front armour thickness and note its angle, or we can measure muzzle velocity, whatever. Measuring out crew proficiency, experience, esprit de corps, etc. is a different matter, it's something much more difficult, shrouded for ever in a mist of speculation.

[BulgarianSoldier]

Originally Posted by Za Rodinu

Bulgy, please do not take offense at my words, I mean no disrespect for you, I was only pointing the many loose ends in your recent posts. I think it is benefical having somebody pointing out your mistakes, it's all part of the learning process.

This is off-topic, but the T-55 at its time was a very very good tank that sent shivers down the spine of NATO planners and commanders. Of course 50 years later it does not look so good.

As for the human factor, we can measure say tank front armour thickness and note its angle, or we can measure muzzle velocity, whatever. Measuring out crew proficiency, experience, esprit de corps, etc. is a different matter, it's something much more difficult, shrouded for ever in a mist of speculation.

You didnt offend me.I say it befor its not the tank its the crew that metter.As you say befor 50 years T-55 was unbalivable but now.... let the photos speak better then me: In fact im a bit sad when i see those

[von Poop]

Just as an aside,
A post on another forum got me thinking about the oft-cited excessive height of the Sherman.. Is it really excessively high?
A quick trawl of the web (tried to use the better sites but forgive me for errors) gave me these rough figures for AFV height:

M4 sherman - 274cm
Pz. IV - 268cm
Tiger - 300cm
Pz.III - 233cm
Panther - 299cm
Pershing - 277cm
Cromwell - 249cm
Comet - 267cm
Churchill - 350cm (?) *edit* 250CM.. now that I could be arsed to check.

Excessive? seems not. Top heavy? not that I've read of.
Cheers,
Adam.
Further Edit: 'Spin off thread from Kyt Here.

[Kyt]

Originally Posted by Von Poop

Just as an aside,
A post on another forum got me thinking about the oft-cited excessive height of the Sherman.. Is it really excessively high?
A quick trawl of the web (tried to use the better sites but forgive me for errors) gave me these rough figures for AFV height:

M4 sherman - 274cm
Pz. IV - 268cm
Tiger - 300cm
Pz.III - 233cm
Panther - 299cm
Pershing - 277cm
Cromwell - 249cm
Comet - 267cm
Churchill - 350cm (?)

Excessive? seems not. Top heavy? not that I've read of.
Cheers,
Adam.

The Churchill certainly is head shoulders above the rest (sorry for the cheesy graph, but I had to visualise VP's numbers)