Jump to content


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


  • Please log in to reply
407 replies to this topic

strYker555 #61 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 04:48

    Captain

  • Players
  • 36902 battles
  • 1,930
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View Postcharley2222, on Jun 08 2016 - 17:20, said:

have a nice day and enjoy to think m4 are a great tank  :)   for sure in ww2 in the battle field  i will feel more save sit inside the tiger compare the m4 because usa have any real heavy and the m4 have no choice to fulfilled every role possible that mean too meet the tiger lolol and remenber  the m4 motor are plane motor so you will blow up quick lol have a nice day peace i`m out :)

 

If General Patton think it was a good tank, it was a good tank end of story. The Soviets suffered even more terribly with their 'better tanks' on the East front. Most of US tank losses were from the large selection of German AT guns land mines personal AT weapons and TDs, more than the big cat panzers that wehraboos like you think knocked out scores of British and American tanks.

dodgedthecoathanger #62 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 05:39

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 14902 battles
  • 164
  • [AR-15] AR-15
  • Member since:
    09-11-2014

These discussions are always so silly when comparing German to American armor.  They always compare the Sherman with the M3 L40 75mm to the Panther, Tiger, or Tiger 2.  Two of those tanks were late war tanks and one was a tank that was produced in so few numbers and was rarely deployable due to logistical/maitence issues.

 

Starting off, the Sherman w/ the L40 75mm was facing panzer 3 variant tanks armed with a 37 mm kwk36, 50mm kwk38, 50mm kwk39, and the 75mm kwk 37.  The Sherman's gun had plenty of penetration when it came to the panzer 3's 50mm of armor.  

 

The Panzer 4 A-D models had the 75 mm L24 which was an inferior gun to the L40 75mm on the Sherman for AT.  The panzer 4's L48 was a better gun than what was on the the Sherman but the Sherman's numerical superiority and the lack of L48 armed panzer 4 tanks relative to the other tanks in the German army at the time made for no real power gap in American armor.  

 

The only tank that significantly out classed the Sherman was the Tiger 1 but only in two areas, armor and armament.  What few Tiger ones actually made it to a battlefield, were artilleried, bypassed, or knocked out with TD's.  Most of the time they just ran out of gas/broke down. 

 

The M1 76 mm put the Sherman on par with the Panzer 4.  Yes it was inadequate against the Panther and Tiger 2.  Neither tank was deployed to the Western front in significant numbers.  If you are going to compare those to tanks to American armor it needs to be compared to the Pershing.



BadCaseOfDerpes #63 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 06:53

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 28301 battles
  • 748
  • [WARRP] WARRP
  • Member since:
    08-17-2013

Their "expert" knew the Sherman was a bad tank when he saw one that had taken two hits to the front.

Wow.

If they were up against an 88mm gun, or any high velocity tank gun, this is nothing unusual. I'm sure any number of T-34s died exactly the same way.

He seems to think since a tank has armor, it shouldn't ever be penned. The guy needs to learn about tank warfare before he spouts off.

The Sherman wasn't a great tank, but it was decent when you had 10 of them for every Panther or Tiger.

That guy needs to play some WOT. Learn a thing or two.

Some other myths covered here: http://ftr.wot-news....ths-about-wwii/

 


Edited by BadCaseOfDerpes, Jun 09 2016 - 07:02.


HazardDrake #64 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 13:14

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 9291 battles
  • 2,083
  • Member since:
    09-18-2014
The Titanic sank in 1912. Some survivors said the ship sank intact, some said it broke in two and then sank. You would think that the survivors would get a detail like that right.

Eyewitnesses are good at getting the big details, the Titanic sank, but much less reliable at the smaller details, did it sink intact or break in two.

Heck, the witnesses of the HMS Hood sinking couldn't even agree on all the details.

Bogart1943 #65 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 14:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 32570 battles
  • 2,071
  • [DHO6] DHO6
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013
This topic cracks me up.  History is a ever changing process and gets rewritten on a regular basis.  It boggles my mind at how Sheeple can be led around by their collective noses.  Buy a history book that was written in the last five years and compare it to a history book written in 1950.  You might surprise yourself.

charley2222 #66 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 14:42

    Captain

  • Players
  • 29538 battles
  • 1,136
  • Member since:
    09-27-2013
i`m sorry fan  boy to hurt your feeling enjoy peace

ledhed14 #67 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 14:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 14487 battles
  • 6,525
  • [_SOA_] _SOA_
  • Member since:
    07-30-2011

Wow The Allies must have really lost WWII badly . Thanks for the info , all this time I could swear Shermans were improved and still being upgraded and used into the 1980's ...I must be dreaming about those Easy Eights they used to Stop North Korean T34-85's from pushing UN forces into the Ocean ...But hey all 50 or so Tigers in the west could no doubt beat the 40k Shermans and other types as Germany had some magic stuff or something . All those 75 mm short barrel kills by US tankers of Panthers and Tigers by using something called " tactics " are just total made up horsesheep and Patton did NOT beat the crap out of the Nazi Tankers , We made that all up and he Pissed in the Snake River not the Rhine . 

Yep the Battle of the Bulge never happened and Bastogne was a mirage . Cause Sherman's just were not up to it ....

 ALL Shermans were not the same and tactics as well as improved ammo storage and Engines and armour and GUNS let the USA equip ALL allied armies around the world with a " decent " mass produced and very reliable medium Tank .

 Compare ALL lost Tankers to casualties of the EIGHT AIR FORCE and tell us again how bad those poor Shermans were . 

 

 I blame it on the public schools .



CavScout19D #68 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 14:50

    Major

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

For the Sherman to have been a "death trap", where are the numbers that compare the crew losses in Shermans versus other tanks?

 

Since when did a REMF become an expert on the combat capabilities of a tank? Of course he saw messed up Shermans... that's what his job was. Not like he was going to be working on the Shermans that were doing just fine.



blackfalconjc #69 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 14:52

    Captain

  • Players
  • 7515 battles
  • 1,996
  • [WW2AR] WW2AR
  • Member since:
    06-14-2014

A long time ago, in a book far, far away, I read it once in a book (or saw it on TV) so it must be true!

 

Passing time always has the effect of skewing perception of what happened, and the bulk of information clearly shows that the M4 was, overall, a very successful medium tank design. US Tank doctrine of WW2 was not focused around armored units mixing it up in AFV vs AFV. What we see in this game is so skewed in that manner, and while it did happen (glares at Kursk and North Africa), it wasn't the norm.

 

Combined arms was the favored tactic of then, and now, for dealing with enemy forces. Perhaps more dangerous to tankers of the day then enemy AFV's was enemy AT guns, Bazookas, Artillery, Naval gun fire, magnetic mines, AT land mines, fire, WP rounds, terrain, etc, etc, etc... Imagine how awesome this game would be if we were driving around and suddenly a little head pops out of a foxhole and hits us with a Panzerfaust? Or if we were just driving along and hit an AT mine, which permanently tracks us until our crew can crawl out and try to repair it (under fire!)? Imagine driving along and a plane flies out of nowhere and pumps your tank full of 37mm AT fire into the top armor? Also imagine waiting for the enemy onslaught to come, and suddenly a barrage of 155mm+ artilllery fire (or naval fire) comes rolling in... Fun, eh?!?

 

Tank doctrine of the day called for tanks to help support infantry in assaulting other infantry lines, trenches, pillboxs, close support in villages and towns, and even indirect firing on the enemy. AFV vs AFV like Kursk and in Africa (sometimes in Normandy) was in actuality a pretty rare thing... Sure it happened, and the times that it did was scarred into the collective minds of tankers who survived it, but declaring an entire tank design a "death trap" seems (IMHO) to falls more under sensational journalism, than actual fact... :)



CavScout19D #70 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 14:56

    Major

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

View Postblackfalconjc, on Jun 09 2016 - 05:52, said:

A long time ago, in a book far, far away, I read it once in a book (or saw it on TV) so it must be true!

 

Passing time always has the effect of skewing perception of what happened, and the bulk of information clearly shows that the M4 was, overall, a very successful medium tank design. US Tank doctrine of WW2 was not focused around armored units mixing it up in AFV vs AFV. What we see in this game is so skewed in that manner, and while it did happen (glares at Kursk and North Africa), it wasn't the norm.

But when they did, the Shermans did well for themselves even against "superior" German tanks.



HazardDrake #71 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 15:01

    Major

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

View PostBogart1943, on Jun 09 2016 - 14:18, said:

This topic cracks me up.  History is a ever changing process and gets rewritten on a regular basis.  It boggles my mind at how Sheeple can be led around by their collective noses.  Buy a history book that was written in the last five years and compare it to a history book written in 1950.  You might surprise yourself.

Drop the superiority complex dude along with the word "sheeple". You arn't helping.



charley2222 #72 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 15:20

    Captain

  • Players
  • 29538 battles
  • 1,136
  • Member since:
    09-27-2013

1 question for the fan boy why most  of the m4  crew put  a lot of garbage  on the m4 ? maybe because they feel lacking of protection lol

 

Posted Image

Posted Image

 

idk but for me this show how m4 crew dont have any fate on the armor lol this tank look like a BAG OF POTATO :playing:

i`m going to laugh if some fan boy  tool me this is the m4 track carrier lol

Posted Image


Edited by charley2222, Jun 09 2016 - 15:27.


CavScout19D #73 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 15:32

    Major

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

View Postcharley2222, on Jun 09 2016 - 06:20, said:

1 question for the fan boy why most  of the m4  crew put  a lot of garbage  on the m4 ? maybe because they feel lacking of protection lol

I guess the Panther was crap too... crew wrapping tracks and stuff on their turrets.



HazardDrake #74 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 15:33

    Major

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

View Postcharley2222, on Jun 09 2016 - 15:20, said:

1 question for the fan boy why most  of the m4  crew put  a lot of garbage  on the m4 ? maybe because they feel lacking of protection lol

Same reason why people buy natural "cures" for cancer off the internet today, because they always want something better and if they think that an improvised solution will work then they will use it. Even when it either doesn't work or makes the problem worse.

 

Edit: Or the people who buy the "fuel economy enhancement" gadgets. Or the ones that put acetone in their fuel tank. Etc.


Edited by HazardDrake, Jun 09 2016 - 15:36.


DV_Currie_VC #75 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 15:37

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 59213 battles
  • 2,248
  • [RS] RS
  • Member since:
    08-04-2010

View PostFlarvin, on Jun 08 2016 - 18:45, said:

I never claimed to base your opinion on only vets reports. So I don't why you quoted my comment. 

I just used your comment to point out what was confirmed later, that many people on the forum believe that eyewitness accounts of people who were there are the ultimate source of accurate information about combat.

 

You rightly pointed out that historians often have very different opinions based on the research that they do. I pointed out where some of that bias comes from.



DiePanzerGeist #76 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 15:44

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 7211 battles
  • 5,495
  • [DHO6] DHO6
  • Member since:
    04-28-2014

Rounne, on Jun 08 2View Post016 - 15:28, said:


*video*

 

 

Being a former Tanker in the U.S. Army and having a fairly extensive background in the subject of this thread from military training and as an amateur armor historian myself I will say this...

 

The Sherman was a damn good tank, not the "best" tank but still a damn good tank. The myth of the Sherman "Ronson, lights every time" Tank is just that pure myth as is the myth of German armor invincibility through them being formidable is unquestioned. Saying one was "better" than the other is pure nonsense, the US and the Germans took different paths in what they considered the best approach in developing armor...the US went for speed, reliability,  and fast production where the Germans went for Armor, firepower, and shock value. Neither is right or wrong, but history tells us undeniably that the US took the more relevant and sound approach in their armor doctrine with the Sherman.

 

...AND, anyone that claims the History Channel as the best source of their information has absolutely no idea what the Hell they are talking about.

 

...didn't you quit?


Edited by DiePanzerGeist, Jun 09 2016 - 15:57.


charley2222 #77 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 16:11

    Captain

  • Players
  • 29538 battles
  • 1,136
  • Member since:
    09-27-2013

View PostCavScout19D, on Jun 09 2016 - 09:32, said:

I guess the Panther was crap too... crew wrapping tracks and stuff on their turrets.

 

i guess german have other heavy tank not usa only the m4 lol

Arsenal_destroyer #78 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 16:23

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 2998 battles
  • 695
  • Member since:
    05-14-2015
Charley2222 - your signature quote "live very stupid and very happy" is quite apropos. You're seemingly very happy and consistently (I'll be nice) missing the point to say the least.

CavScout19D #79 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 16:24

    Major

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

View Postcharley2222, on Jun 09 2016 - 07:11, said:

 

i guess german have other heavy tank not usa only the m4 lol

 

Huh? You claim was that strapping extra junk on a tank proved it lacking protection... Germans did the same with supposed "superior" tanks. Your rebuttal was the above. Was your point supposed to be that the M4 is usually compared for some reason against much heavier tanks?

charley2222 #80 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 16:27

    Captain

  • Players
  • 29538 battles
  • 1,136
  • Member since:
    09-27-2013

View PostDiePanzerGeist, on Jun 09 2016 - 09:44, said:

 

 

Being a former Tanker in the U.S. Army and having a fairly extensive background in the subject of this thread from military training and as an amateur armor historian myself I will say this...

 

The Sherman was a damn good tank, not the "best" tank but still a damn good tank. The myth of the Sherman "Ronson, lights every time" Tank is just that pure myth as is the myth of German armor invincibility through them being formidable is unquestioned. Saying one was "better" than the other is pure nonsense, the US and the Germans took different paths in what they considered the best approach in developing armor...the US went for speed, reliability,  and fast production where the Germans went for Armor, firepower, and shock value. Neither is right or wrong, but history tells us undeniably that the US took the more relevant and sound approach in their armor doctrine with the Sherman.

 

...AND, anyone that claims the History Channel as the best source of their information has absolutely no idea what the Hell they are talking about.

 

...didn't you quit?

 

sorry dude dont try to give your  false credibility because you pride and ego take a hit , because you never make ww2 and never be on the battlefield in ww2 . my dad is born in 1916 and make the ww2 war  at the age of  26 , and today is will have 100 year  so for sure you never be there and dont see crap from your own eye lol  . funny how american  have huge ego and always think they are the best , is easy and logical to understand whjy the m4 is a piece of crap

1- very fast engineering because the war no development time for a good motor causing the tank to blow up 

2- need mass production and transportation issue tank need to dont be to heavy but pay the price of lower armor

3- everyone know the tank dont have proper and also the proper gun

 

so this result no armor= tank get pen= and after the tank have crew die or the tank blow up because the gas this tank use . also the tank have no match gun  vs the tiger   anyway ww2 for me is german vs russia     usa and uk are a bit the pogo there hitler never see the big menace there , but hitler are a lot more upset vs russia


Edited by charley2222, Jun 09 2016 - 16:45.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users