The Sherman Tank what an amazing vehicle!!

[jagdtiger]

The sherman was a good tank, It could be mass produced and had good sloping armour. It was easier to get two medium shermans to battle than one heavy Pershing.And its hull was good for variations nicknamed 'funnies'. But it only became a dangerous tank once the Firefly variation was introduced with the 17pdr gun. When hit by enemy fire, they would 'brew up'. Simply put, they would burst into flames killing the occupants as the ammunition racks were too high in the tank. This was dealt with by water jackets which severly reduced the amount of brewings by at least 50%. Because they were always at a disadvantage when it came to facing the enemy with a thicker hide the american crews started strapping armour to their tanks. these tended to fall off after one hit but it had served it's purpose by then. Attempts to create a heavier version of the sherman resulted in something called a jumbo. It had double tracks and was well armoured but i think only about 100 were biult. Although when it boils down to it, the sherman was a good tank in what it needed to do and that was to outnumber the enemy.

[kfz]

Originally Posted by Kyt

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

dont quite understand thme figures not sure their right. I have most of them in 72nd scale and the churchy is quite low. I think the british and Russian practice of rear engine rear drive means ther is no prop shaft under the turret basket so the loaders seat and breach can be low down, unlike German and US practice of rear engine front sprocket drive with the gearbox under the glacis plate

[von Poop]

Originally Posted by kfz

dont quite understand thme figures not sure their right. I have most of them in 72nd scale and the churchy is quite low. I think the british and Russian practice of rear engine rear drive means ther is no prop shaft under the turret basket so the loaders seat and breach can be low down, unlike German and US practice of rear engine front sprocket drive with the gearbox under the glacis plate

I think most are measured to the top of the cupola, I thought the Churchill height seemed dodgy too. (hence the question mark!)
(don't trust small-scale kits for comparisons though, famously scaled from 1/62-1/84, normally I couldn't give a toss but it could make a big difference on relative comparisons)

Done a quick check from a 1:35 HMSO drawing, 70mm*1/35.... 2450mm; That sounds much more like it... wonder if they counted the aerial.

[Desert Dog]

I didn't add my two pennies worth into this as I was trying to find an article I read sometime ago for a reference. As I failed to do that I decided to say it anyway. Please take my word that I am not making this up.

First, the Sherman didn't get replaced because most of the peripheral and invasion equipment was designed around a sherman and a bigger tank would have caused all sorts of logistical problems.

Secondly, other than the begining of Torch I think that the US Army recognized the folly of tank vs. tank conflict.

After that the philosophy was for enemy tanks to be dealt with when ever possible by antitank guns or better yet tank buster planes. The tanks were used more as infantry support to take out hard emplacements as well as frighten the enemy.

Even Rommel used this philosophy in North Africa were most of the British Tanks were taken out by the 88 screen that he had around his tanks. The Britihs tanks would come in to fight the German ones but would mostly be knocked out by their A/T guns.

The one thing that can be attributed to Monty is that he actually did the same thing by taking out the German tanks with his artillery.

[Patton]

Originally Posted by kfz

From an engineering and technical point its hard to argue with. Give thanks to the war winner that is the M4.

Easily built in many different factories using mass production automotive techniques by unskilled. Available in war winning huge numbers. Reliable simple low maintaince, easily maintained in the field. Operational readiness the envy of other armies.

Huge parts interchangability able to take many different engines, which is a huge advantage. The main of mass production is supplier problems, soon as one engine dried up you used another. From an engieering design point of view this is so hard to do. To make such a versitle design its impressive.

Fought in every theater from the -40'c steppe to +40'c desert, Normandy mud, Italy and everything in between. Amazing that a single design can do this, 60 years on we would stuggle to make a machine that performs as well in any conditions with so little alteration. I dont think any other AFV has a record like this one.

Forsight of design to be able to be upgunned. Big problem with other Allied designs is lack of development. So much easier to develop a working model than to go back to the drawing board. Ability to maintain pace with other new designs shows something special.

Its easy to get caught up in the books going on about the techiniucal ability of the panther, the Ability of the T34, the more glamerous and the more hyped up. But theres one tank that did the work every day, day in day out, without doubt a War winner.


Kev (thinking aloud!!)

The sherman is good and all but the King Tiger is alot better

[kfz]

Originally Posted by Patton

The sherman is good and all but the King Tiger is alot better

eh?


Its a discussion forum you need to back up your views with a balanced and informed viewpoint. but all is better what does that mean, its stupid thing to say. I think you missed the point anyway. I think the only tank that comes close the M4 in the its service record is the Panzer4.

[MikB]

Originally Posted by kfz

eh?


Its a discussion forum you need to back up your views with a balanced and informed viewpoint. but all is better what does that mean, its stupid thing to say. I think you missed the point anyway. I think the only tank that comes close the M4 in the its service record is the Panzer4.

Good comment. But Pz.4 had a longer WW2 service life than Sherman - all the way through. But I've said before: it was a spent design by the end, with no more upgradability left in it. And they'd nothing else on the stocks but more vast, resource-guzzling monsters. Whereas Sherman remained serviceable and reliable for decades longer.

Regards,
MikB

[Desert Dog]

The Panzer IV just like the Sherman were Medium Tanks as opposed to the resource-guzzling monster (I like that term) Tigers and Panters.

From Wikipedia Panzer IV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Panzer IV was originally intended principally to deal with infantry and fortifications, while the Panzer III dealt with enemy armoured units. To this end it was equipped with the 75 mm KwK 37 L/24 gun, which was effective against soft targets but lacked much armour penetration. It had poor accuracy, because the barrel was short (1.8 m), giving a low muzzle velocity. Firing a panzergranate 39 round the muzzle velocity was 430 m/s, penetrating 40 mm of 30° steel plate at a range of 700 m. For comparison the L/48 gun has a barrel 3.6 m long. (The length of any barrel of a gun described in the L/x form can be found. The number x following L/ is the length of the barrel relative to the caliber of the gun. Multiply the x by the calibre to find the length in mm.)

[kfz]

Originally Posted by MikB

Good comment. But Pz.4 had a longer WW2 service life than Sherman - all the way through. But I've said before: it was a spent design by the end, with no more upgradability left in it. And they'd nothing else on the stocks but more vast, resource-guzzling monsters. Whereas Sherman remained serviceable and reliable for decades longer.

Regards,
MikB

Yep I wouldnt disagree with much of that Mik, Cant help thinking that the Israeli fascination with the M$ is cos they where so cheap and pletifull from their US friends. MAybe if it was the other way round and the P4 was still available after the war it may have been different.

the P4 was a pretty amazing vehicle too, You think of the advances made during WW2 and the P4 was still up there at the end.

Maybe we need another thread. KFZ's amazing vehicles 2 the P4!!

Kev

[BulgarianSoldier]

The best tank is Tiger.Nothing more you could say.
YouTube - Tiger tank