Jump to content


M4 Sherman Tank - Historically, A Total Death Trap - VIDEO


  • Please log in to reply
407 replies to this topic

CavScout19D #361 Posted Jun 14 2016 - 19:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 24434 battles
  • 4,773
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

View PostFlarvin, on Jun 14 2016 - 10:47, said:

 

Maybe because the loses he had were more to do with quantity of forces available than any tactical deficiencies on his part.  

 

Or maybe, he just didn't use his forces the way he should have. I am still flabbergasted by the persistent notion that Germans winning something is about how awesome they are and their losing something is about something outside of their control. I bet Allied generals are jealous. They have to own their losses. 

coldicutt #362 Posted Jun 14 2016 - 19:53

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 22907 battles
  • 857
  • Member since:
    03-05-2012

View PostFlarvin, on Jun 14 2016 - 19:42, said:

 

The Germans did not have inferior tanks in North Africa.

 

Both the mark 3s and especially the mark 3 specials were superior to anything the British had at the time. The 50mm guns on both those tanks could engage the British at greater ranges than the 2 pounders the British tanks and AT guns used could,

 

The British did not get a tank that was at least equal to the German until they got the Grants. Which at the battle of Gazala, surprised the Germans. That and the 6 pounder AT guns the British started to receive.

 

you seem to forget Matilda. it was the best armoured tank for its era. better then mark 3 for a fair margin. yes, 88mm made it vulnerable, but, that is anti-tank guns...

Wyvern2 #363 Posted Jun 14 2016 - 19:58

    Major

  • Players
  • 35835 battles
  • 3,124
  • [_D_] _D_
  • Member since:
    06-08-2011

View PostFlarvin, on Jun 14 2016 - 19:42, said:

 

The Germans did not have inferior tanks in North Africa. 

 

Both the mark 3s and especially the mark 3 specials were superior to anything the British had at the time. The 50mm guns on both those tanks could engage the British at greater ranges than the 2 pounders the British tanks and AT guns used could, 

 

The British did not get a tank that was at least equal to the German until they got the Grants. Which at the battle of Gazala, surprised the Germans. That and the 6 pounder AT guns the British started to receive. 

This is not really true with the exception of a few very narrow time windows. The stubby 50mm penetrated less than the 2pdr, and combined with the PzIII it was mounted on it didn't offer much if any advantage over the crusader I-II when engaged in a tank v tank battle. It was only the advent of the long 50mm and then the L43 75mm that gave the Germans some tangible advantages, though the Grant+6pdr and later Crusader III, Sherman and Churchill all served to offset such advantages throughout 1942 all the way up to El Alamein, at which point the quantity+quality decisively shifted in favor of the Brits. In fact, in the few legitimate tank on tank engagements of notable size, the British usually emerged as either victorious or at least even with their enemies. The reason the British tanks did terrible is because their deployment was god awful and they were usually thrown at dug in anti tank guns, which the 2pdr didn't have the range(or HE) to engage against(88's and more importantly the pak 38, which could engage and destroy most/all british tanks pretty reliably at decent range). It should be noted that in tank v tank fighting the british apparently got good use out of the stocks used to control the 2pdrs elevation, since it gave them greater stability on the move.

 

On the topic of Rommel+supplies, people constantly hate on him for outstripping his logistics, but lets face it, had he sat and waited, he was doomed to lose and probably more spectacularly than he did. Simply put he was not getting the supplies or equipment to mount a successful defense and standing still would play straight into the British hands, since they could accept an attritional set-piece battle to win. It should also be noted that most of the back and forth pursuits in NA ran both armies into the ground logistically. Given Rommels position, he was essentially doomed to lose from the start unless Malta was taken out and he received far more supplies than he did. He also captured large quantities of supplies at Tobruk for example, which arguably helped keep him afloat. It's easy to criticize in hindsight, but given his choices at the time, neither of which were good, there wasn't much that could have been done.


Edited by Wyvern2, Jun 14 2016 - 20:05.


coldicutt #364 Posted Jun 14 2016 - 20:01

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 22907 battles
  • 857
  • Member since:
    03-05-2012

View PostWulfeHound, on Jun 14 2016 - 19:44, said:

 

You don't understand. Rommel was ordered to hold positions in Tunisia. He attacked anyway, because lol logistics are for lesser men.

 

again, you have to understand the politics at the time,Hitler loves winners, German propaganda loves winners. in 1942, the 6th army was to meet up with Afrika Corp once they break out of Caucasus.

This maybe too optimistic from the Germans, but, they were planning just such. so, the attack on Cairo was definitely sanctioned by the German HQ.



CavScout19D #365 Posted Jun 14 2016 - 20:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 24434 battles
  • 4,773
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

View Postcoldicutt, on Jun 14 2016 - 11:01, said:

 

again, you have to understand the politics at the time,Hitler loves winners, German propaganda loves winners. in 1942, the 6th army was to meet up with Afrika Corp once they break out of Caucasus.

This maybe too optimistic from the Germans, but, they were planning just such. so, the attack on Cairo was definitely sanctioned by the German HQ.

 

Everybody loves winners. That's not something unique to Nazi Germany. Besides, Rommel wasn't following orders, he was flouting them. How you dismiss that is simply breathtaking. 

 

PS: Germany (and Hitler) weren't above making "winners". There is a reason they let Rommel bail on his troops in Africa when the noose tightened. 



Flarvin #366 Posted Jun 14 2016 - 20:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 53840 battles
  • 15,219
  • Member since:
    03-29-2013

View Postcoldicutt, on Jun 14 2016 - 13:53, said:

 

you seem to forget Matilda. it was the best armoured tank for its era. better then mark 3 for a fair margin. yes, 88mm made it vulnerable, but, that is anti-tank guns...

 

The Matilda was to slow and already being replace by the Valentine. It only had the 2 pounder, which was unable to effectively engage the German armor by North Africa. And it did not have a HE round, that was effective. 

 

The Matilda in the desert, owned the battlefield against the Italians. Because they had nothing really that could consistently pen it. And the 2 pounder was more than a match for their armor. 

 

But the German had upgrade the gun in their mark 3 to used the 50L42 or 50L60, instead of the 37mm used in France. Also effective gun range was very important in the desert, due to the lack of obstacles. Being able to engage the enemy before they could you, was a major advantage. The Matilda did not have the gun nor the speed to compete. 



coldicutt #367 Posted Jun 14 2016 - 20:08

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 22907 battles
  • 857
  • Member since:
    03-05-2012

View PostCavScout19D, on Jun 14 2016 - 19:51, said:

 

Or maybe, he just didn't use his forces the way he should have. I am still flabbergasted by the persistent notion that Germans winning something is about how awesome they are and their losing something is about something outside of their control. I bet Allied generals are jealous. They have to own their losses.

 

not true at all, again, stop generalizing.

some German commanders were very good, given what they had to work with, some were very bad.

Stalingrad comes to mind, that battle was a gone show from a German's POV. it was poor leadership by the German generals.

However, the 1943 spring after that, the Khorkoff counter offensive by Mainstein was and is to this day a classic - American armour school still studies that battle.

There are numerous bad leadership examples for Germans in the Russian front.



CavScout19D #368 Posted Jun 14 2016 - 20:12

    Major

  • Players
  • 24434 battles
  • 4,773
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

View Postcoldicutt, on Jun 14 2016 - 11:08, said:

 

not true at all, again, stop generalizing.

some German commanders were very good, given what they had to work with, some were very bad.

Stalingrad comes to mind, that battle was a gone show from a German's POV. it was poor leadership by the German generals.

However, the 1943 spring after that, the Khorkoff counter offensive by Mainstein was and is to this day a classic - American armour school still studies that battle.

There are numerous bad leadership examples for Germans in the Russian front.

 I am talking about Rommel; the guy who lost every campaign he was in after 1940. 



coldicutt #369 Posted Jun 14 2016 - 20:14

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 22907 battles
  • 857
  • Member since:
    03-05-2012

View PostCavScout19D, on Jun 14 2016 - 20:07, said:

 

Everybody loves winners. That's not something unique to Nazi Germany. Besides, Rommel wasn't following orders, he was flouting them. How you dismiss that is simply breathtaking.

 

PS: Germany (and Hitler) weren't above making "winners". There is a reason they let Rommel bail on his troops in Africa when the noose tightened.

 

sigh, more so in Nazi Germany, it was controlled by a lunatic, all generals had to succeed or be forgotten. The pressure is not the same with a democratic country.

Funny how no one talks about Patton who is very similar to Rommel in the same way.

The bottom line is that if Rommel had the resources Montgomary or Patton did, it would be a very different story.



coldicutt #370 Posted Jun 14 2016 - 20:15

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 22907 battles
  • 857
  • Member since:
    03-05-2012

View PostCavScout19D, on Jun 14 2016 - 20:12, said:

 I am talking about Rommel; the guy who lost every campaign he was in after 1940.

 

he did not win the 1940 campaign... he was a minor part of it.

CavScout19D #371 Posted Jun 14 2016 - 20:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 24434 battles
  • 4,773
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

View Postcoldicutt, on Jun 14 2016 - 11:14, said:

 

sigh, more so in Nazi Germany, it was controlled by a lunatic, all generals had to succeed or be forgotten. The pressure is not the same with a democratic country.

Funny how no one talks about Patton who is very similar to Rommel in the same way.

The bottom line is that if Rommel had the resources Montgomary or Patton did, it would be a very different story.

 

Patton didn't lose campaigns.

 

I'd say MacArthur is more akin to Rommel, over-hyped and bailed on his men. 


Edited by CavScout19D, Jun 14 2016 - 20:17.


CavScout19D #372 Posted Jun 14 2016 - 20:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 24434 battles
  • 4,773
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

View Postcoldicutt, on Jun 14 2016 - 11:15, said:

 

he did not win the 1940 campaign... he was a minor part of it.

 

So he won nothing in the war...

Flarvin #373 Posted Jun 14 2016 - 20:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 53840 battles
  • 15,219
  • Member since:
    03-29-2013

View PostWyvern2, on Jun 14 2016 - 13:58, said:

This is not really true with the exception of a few very narrow time windows. The stubby 50mm penetrated less than the 2pdr, and combined with the PzIII it was mounted on it didn't offer much if any advantage over the crusader I-II when engaged in a tank v tank battle. It was only the advent of the long 50mm and then the L43 75mm that gave the Germans some tangible advantages, though the Grant+6pdr and later Crusader III, Sherman and Churchill all served to offset such advantages throughout 1942 all the way up to El Alamein, at which point the quantity+quality decisively shifted in favor of the Brits. In fact, in the few legitimate tank on tank engagements of notable size, the British usually emerged as either victorious or at least even with their enemies. The reason the British tanks did terrible is because their deployment was god awful and they were usually thrown at dug in anti tank guns, which the 2pdr didn't have the range(or HE) to engage against(88's and more importantly the pak 38, which could engage and destroy most/all british tanks pretty reliably at decent range). It should be noted that in tank v tank fighting the british apparently got good use out of the stocks used to control the 2pdrs elevation, since it gave them greater stability on the move.

 

Hard to say about pure tank vs tank, because the Germans did not attack with just tanks. That was a British tactic. They used combine arms. And were very effective with using AT guns to support tanks on the attack. 

 

But for the type of fighting that time place, the German tanks where more effective until the British started getting USA tanks with the 75mm. 

 

The 2 pounder on the British tanks and AT guns was not up to the task. It lacked range and a HE shell, to effectively engage the Germans at the ranges they could engage at. The USA 75mm changed that. Alone with the 6 pounder. 



Zergling #374 Posted Jun 15 2016 - 00:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 16721 battles
  • 8,393
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    02-09-2011

View PostlightwaveTT, on Jun 14 2016 - 17:13, said:

lol fyi.

 

The German tankers on numerous documentaries, complained actually.

That there anti tank rounds tended to go right thru the Shermans. In one side and out the other.

 

The M4 Sherman had 38mm side armor (with many having an additional 25mm over ammo racks, for 63mm total), versus the 30mm of the Panzer IV, and 40mm of the Panther.

 

The same guns that could 'go in one side and out the other' of the M4 Sherman would do the same for the Panzer IV and Panther.

 

 

View PostlightwaveTT, on Jun 14 2016 - 17:13, said:

For that reason the germans would fire explosive rounds at the m4 lol.

Now does it make sense why they had a reputation for catching on fire.

 

The 'Tankers in Tunesia' document describes Sherman tankers using 75mm HE to great effect against Panzer III and IVs.

 

 

View PostlightwaveTT, on Jun 14 2016 - 17:13, said:

SS divisions got the best of everything and there were plenty in the west.

 

That is actually a myth; the Waffen-SS was no better equipped or trained than the regular Wehrmacht, frequently much worse.

 

 

View PostlightwaveTT, on Jun 14 2016 - 17:13, said:

At the start of barbarosa they had NO tanks with a gun that could penetrate a KV1 or the T34s they started running into.

 

They had this:

Spoiler

 

And this:

Spoiler

 

 

View PostlightwaveTT, on Jun 14 2016 - 17:13, said:

The Sherman was a cheap efficient tank it was good in that regard logistically it could go far.

The problem was, logistics was not a problem for the usa.

 

The USA's supply lines literally crossed an entire ocean; logistics was a huge problem, and the primary reason the US Army never deployed a heavy tank before the T26 Pershing in 1945.

 

 

 

View PostWulfeHound, on Jun 15 2016 - 04:26, said:

And the fuel used by the engine had nothing to do with the burn rate of a tank. It was ammunition. German tanks used petrol as well yet for some reason they avoid the reputation of being quick to burn.

 

In the combat report for 75mm Shermans I posted on page 12 of this thread, 4 out of the 6 German tanks knocked out are described as 'brewing up'.

 

67% is a fairly high rate of fire, consistent with other reports that put the Panther at around 63% probability of catching fire, and Tigers/Panzer IVs over 80%.

 

In comparison, dry ammo rack Shermans caught fire about 80% of the time (in other words, no worse than Tigers and Panzer IVs), while wet ammo rack Shermans caught fire only 10-15% of the time.

 

 

View PostWulfeHound, on Jun 15 2016 - 04:26, said:

And as already mentioned earlier in this thread, the M4 (75) and Pz IV with the longer 75mm were effectively equal for being able to knock each other out at distance (both were around 1200-1400m).

 

And for later models of the M4 with good quality RHA armor, the M4 with 75mm gun could actually knock out the Panzer IV from longer range than the Panzer IV could knock out the M4 in return.

 

 

 

View Postcoldicutt, on Jun 15 2016 - 04:53, said:

you seem to forget Matilda. it was the best armoured tank for its era. better then mark 3 for a fair margin. yes, 88mm made it vulnerable, but, that is anti-tank guns...

 

The Matilda only had 75mm frontal armor, making it vulnerable to the 50mm PaK 38 AT gun, and the 50mm KwK 39 on many Panzer IIIs produced from 1941 onwards.

And in 1941 the Panzer III Ausf. J with 70mm FHA front hull and turret had entered service; the Matilda was only well armored by 1940 standards.

 



HazardDrake #375 Posted Jun 15 2016 - 01:39

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 9291 battles
  • 2,083
  • Member since:
    09-18-2014

View PostWulfeHound, on Jun 14 2016 - 16:09, said:

 

The Germans were very nearly halted outside of Moscow prior to the first shipments of Lend-Lease arriving in Arkangelsk. Lend-Lease was crucial in the later offensives, but the main reason why Germany failed to take Moscow was a combination of their terrible logistics and a strong defense by the Soviets.

Ummmmm. British tanks made up nearly 40 percent of Soviet tank forces during the Battle of Moscow. Fighter aircraft were about 15 percent British. They were critical in stopping the German advance.

 

You also forget that the forces tied up defending the west would be available to be sent east were Britain to make peace with Germany. Forces from Norway could also possibly be spared.

 

Soviet victory was far from certain.



Wyvern2 #376 Posted Jun 15 2016 - 01:41

    Major

  • Players
  • 35835 battles
  • 3,124
  • [_D_] _D_
  • Member since:
    06-08-2011

View PostFlarvin, on Jun 14 2016 - 20:33, said:

 

Hard to say about pure tank vs tank, because the Germans did not attack with just tanks. That was a British tactic. They used combine arms. And were very effective with using AT guns to support tanks on the attack. 

 

But for the type of fighting that time place, the German tanks where more effective until the British started getting USA tanks with the 75mm. 

 

The 2 pounder on the British tanks and AT guns was not up to the task. It lacked range and a HE shell, to effectively engage the Germans at the ranges they could engage at. The USA 75mm changed that. Alone with the 6 pounder. 

In the few tank on tank engagements the british were involved in, their tanks performed fine. You said the germans had superior armor in North Africa, which is simply not true. Their deployment and combined arms was superior, no doubt about it, but from a pure technical perspective, the edge simply wasn't there with the exception of a few time periods, and promptly ended for the remainder of the NA conflict after El Alamein. TBH German tanks didn't perform particularly great vs Allied AT guns either, as was evidenced by several attempted and failed attacks at the Australians in Tobruk.

View PostZergling, on Jun 15 2016 - 00:07, said:

The Matilda only had 75mm frontal armor, making it vulnerable to the 50mm PaK 38 AT gun, and the 50mm KwK 39 on many Panzer IIIs produced from 1941 onwards.

And in 1941 the Panzer III Ausf. J with 70mm FHA front hull and turret had entered service; the Matilda was only well armored by 1940 standards.

 

I'd say this is relative. The 50mm L60 could certainly penetrate a Matilda and KV-1 on paper, but in practice it struggled to deal with both at anything but close range. Also, while the PzIIIJ was developed in 1941, it didn't really see much if any action until 1942. The Matildas best feature armor wise was probably how even the armor was all around, especially early on, the PzIII never broke ~30mm's on the side(weak enough that I've read reports of 6pdr's through and throughing 1 PzIII to penetrate a second), the Matilda had 70 iirc.



fsjd #377 Posted Jun 15 2016 - 01:54

    Major

  • Players
  • 10353 battles
  • 5,248
  • [TT] TT
  • Member since:
    02-26-2011

I would consider the M4 (particularly later variants that worked out some of the early flaws, most notably the ammo storage) to be the best overall tank produced during the war, with the T-34 very close behind. 
 

adequate firepower and armor, but the M4's excellent reliability, relative ease of maintenance and mobility placed it well above anything Germany fielded, and that's before we introduce the logistics behind those tanks and the men serving in them. 
 


 



Cruxdei #378 Posted Jun 15 2016 - 02:01

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 14639 battles
  • 1,974
  • Member since:
    08-04-2014

holy crap,half of the thread was just the epic rap battle of  charley2222.

i'm sure Wulfehound regret his decision of trying to argue with a broken english german boot licker


#344

 


WulfeHound #379 Posted Jun 15 2016 - 02:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 12916 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

View PostHazardDrake, on Jun 14 2016 - 19:39, said:

Ummmmm. British tanks made up nearly 40 percent of Soviet tank forces during the Battle of Moscow. Fighter aircraft were about 15 percent British. They were critical in stopping the German advance.

 

You also forget that the forces tied up defending the west would be available to be sent east were Britain to make peace with Germany. Forces from Norway could also possibly be spared.

 

Soviet victory was far from certain.

 

Even if those extra forces were used in the Eastern Front, that would mean the already strained logistical arm would be broken 50+km from Moscow. It would have resulted in a greater struggle and more lives would have been lost, but the Soviets would have won through (and as much as I hate saying this) sheer attrition

 

Read Glantz's book When Titans Clashed. You'll see just how bad the situation was for Germany as they advanced farther and farther into Soviet territory


Edited by WulfeHound, Jun 15 2016 - 02:07.


Wyvern2 #380 Posted Jun 15 2016 - 02:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 35835 battles
  • 3,124
  • [_D_] _D_
  • Member since:
    06-08-2011

View PostWulfeHound, on Jun 15 2016 - 02:05, said:

 

Even if those extra forces were used in the Eastern Front, that would mean the already strained logistical arm would be broken 50+km from Moscow. It would have resulted in a greater struggle and more lives would have been lost, but the Soviets would have won through (and as much as I hate saying this) sheer attrition

 

Read Glantz's book When Titans Clashed. You'll see just how bad the situation was for Germany as they advanced farther and farther into Soviet territory

Personally, I'm not sure the Soviets alone would have been able to "win" in the sense that they could drive to Berlin and perform their massive, complex breakthrough operations from 1943 onwards. I agree they wouldn't have lost, since the Germans had just about no chance of taking Moscow, but much of the Soviets later strategic mobility was thanks to Allied support. Without those supplies/logistics, operations like Bagration would have been impossible, and even earlier ops like Uranus would have struggled far more. The best they could have probably hoped for is a bloody stalemate.


Edited by Wyvern2, Jun 15 2016 - 02:21.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users