Jump to content


M4 Sherman "The Right Tank for the Wrong War"

M4 Sherman

  • Please log in to reply
92 replies to this topic

orangeandblue #1 Posted Sep 09 2017 - 06:14

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 23906 battles
  • 683
  • Member since:
    05-10-2013



PrimarchRogalDorn #2 Posted Sep 09 2017 - 06:24

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 25 battles
  • 793
  • Member since:
    01-03-2017
That video is pretty bad

Horribad_At_Tanks #3 Posted Sep 09 2017 - 06:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 2268 battles
  • 5,457
  • Member since:
    11-07-2012

View PostPrimarchRogalDorn, on Sep 09 2017 - 00:24, said:

That video is pretty bad

 

It's like every meme about the sherman was used to make this vid. Welp it is the history channel after all.

KaiserWilhelmShatner #4 Posted Sep 09 2017 - 06:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 13791 battles
  • 3,841
  • [GUNS1] GUNS1
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012
Can someone tell me how this putz Cooper managed to get fame off of his totally inaccurate book?

155mm_Royalty #5 Posted Sep 09 2017 - 06:52

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 29012 battles
  • 956
  • Member since:
    05-27-2012

History channel  smh.



PrimarchRogalDorn #6 Posted Sep 09 2017 - 06:54

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 25 battles
  • 793
  • Member since:
    01-03-2017

View PostKaiserWilhelmShatner, on Sep 09 2017 - 00:42, said:

Can someone tell me how this putz Cooper managed to get fame off of his totally inaccurate book?

 

Sensationalism brings in the big bucks

FrozenKemp #7 Posted Sep 09 2017 - 20:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 42644 battles
  • 4,671
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011
I suggest watching The Chieftain's video discussing myths about American armour.

Soiled_Tank #8 Posted Sep 09 2017 - 21:10

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 3637 battles
  • 55
  • [FMAO] FMAO
  • Member since:
    11-08-2015

View PostFrozenKemp, on Sep 09 2017 - 20:21, said:

I suggest watching The Chieftain's video discussing myths about American armour.

That was a great video, far better than the History channel's "documentaries." Every time I hear: "Germans built a special tanks called the Panzer" or see "footage" of Panthers during the invasion of France even though the actual footage is from Kursk, I want to punch myself for hearing or seeing that BS.



The_Chieftain #9 Posted Sep 11 2017 - 18:53

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 10145 battles
  • 9,593
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011
So what is the right war for an M4?

Ikanator #10 Posted Sep 11 2017 - 20:40

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 7645 battles
  • 429
  • Member since:
    06-23-2016

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Sep 11 2017 - 09:53, said:

So what is the right war for an M4?

 

Well, it couldn't have been WWI. Advances in tank design and construction after WWII limited its later use. And regardless of whatever you might think of its tactical limitations there was an extent to which the logistics factors that effectively put limits on its weight and size overrode other considerations. As the Germans found out to their dismay what were arguably the best tanks in the world at that time were pretty much useless if you couldn't get enough of them to where the battles were being fought.

 

Also, if I understand things correctly, there was a problem with our doctrine. Tanks were not seen initially as primary anti-tank platforms. That role was to be filled by anti-tank guns and dedicated tank destroyer formations using specialty vehicles. Tanks were to be used for infantry support, and more importantly making and exploiting breakthroughs in weak sections of an enemy line. The Germans did not have such doctrinal hang ups and did not have to worry about making their tanks small and light enough to be easily shipped on freighters and railroad cars to get where they were going. So it is not too surprising that they could get tanks that were better one on one in an anti-tank role than an M4 was.

 

When all is said and done at the end of the day it comes down to the saying that I have heard attributed variously to either Lenin or Stalin. "Quantity has a quality all its own". The problem is that if you're relying on the quantity side of that divide then you have to be willing and able to take some serious lumps if necessary. We did so. We produced overwhelming numbers of M4s compared to what the Germans could produce of their designs and we were able to get them where we needed them and keep them supplied. The Germans' quality advantage was not sufficient to overcome that and so while they were able to "win" various tank vs tank engagements, they also lost more tanks than they could afford to and thus the war as a whole.

 

Could we have produced a heavier tank? We had the Pershing, we just did not have it in large numbers. The Pershing based on what I have heard was able to fill the tank vs tank role pretty well. Then the question becomes, if we had attempted to seriously mass produce the Pershing instead of the M4, could we have gotten enough of them where we needed them to actually get the job done that needed to be done? That's the question that I can't answer. I don't know the extent to which logistical considerations would have limited the Pershing's ability to be shipped in large enough numbers to have been the primary tank that we used. But I would be willing to bet a cold beer that given what I have heard about problems with shipping controlling the design of the M4 we might not have been able to get enough Pershings into the European theater fast enough to have made the Normandy breakout if not even the landings themselves possible.



moon111 #11 Posted Sep 12 2017 - 05:38

    Captain

  • Players
  • 27681 battles
  • 1,909
  • [IXGD] IXGD
  • Member since:
    06-29-2013
Canada could of used American tanks, British tanks, or built their own.  The M4 is their decision, probably for a reason.  Medium tanks don't tend to trade well with heavy tanks though.

gpc_4 #12 Posted Sep 12 2017 - 05:48

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 33820 battles
  • 3,505
  • [DHO4] DHO4
  • Member since:
    07-06-2014

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Sep 11 2017 - 18:53, said:

So what is the right war for an M4?

 

Emu War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu_War



The_Chieftain #13 Posted Sep 12 2017 - 06:53

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 10145 battles
  • 9,593
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostIkanator, on Sep 11 2017 - 19:40, said:

 

Well, it couldn't have been WWI. Advances in tank design and construction after WWII limited its later use. And regardless of whatever you might think of its tactical limitations there was an extent to which the logistics factors that effectively put limits on its weight and size overrode other considerations. As the Germans found out to their dismay what were arguably the best tanks in the world at that time were pretty much useless if you couldn't get enough of them to where the battles were being fought.

 

Also, if I understand things correctly, there was a problem with our doctrine. Tanks were not seen initially as primary anti-tank platforms. That role was to be filled by anti-tank guns and dedicated tank destroyer formations using specialty vehicles. Tanks were to be used for infantry support, and more importantly making and exploiting breakthroughs in weak sections of an enemy line. The Germans did not have such doctrinal hang ups and did not have to worry about making their tanks small and light enough to be easily shipped on freighters and railroad cars to get where they were going. So it is not too surprising that they could get tanks that were better one on one in an anti-tank role than an M4 was.

 

When all is said and done at the end of the day it comes down to the saying that I have heard attributed variously to either Lenin or Stalin. "Quantity has a quality all its own". The problem is that if you're relying on the quantity side of that divide then you have to be willing and able to take some serious lumps if necessary. We did so. We produced overwhelming numbers of M4s compared to what the Germans could produce of their designs and we were able to get them where we needed them and keep them supplied. The Germans' quality advantage was not sufficient to overcome that and so while they were able to "win" various tank vs tank engagements, they also lost more tanks than they could afford to and thus the war as a whole.

 

Could we have produced a heavier tank? We had the Pershing, we just did not have it in large numbers. The Pershing based on what I have heard was able to fill the tank vs tank role pretty well. Then the question becomes, if we had attempted to seriously mass produce the Pershing instead of the M4, could we have gotten enough of them where we needed them to actually get the job done that needed to be done? That's the question that I can't answer. I don't know the extent to which logistical considerations would have limited the Pershing's ability to be shipped in large enough numbers to have been the primary tank that we used. But I would be willing to bet a cold beer that given what I have heard about problems with shipping controlling the design of the M4 we might not have been able to get enough Pershings into the European theater fast enough to have made the Normandy breakout if not even the landings themselves possible.

 

You don't need to risk your cold beer. I have written fairly extensively on the subject (as well as spoken), and there is no way that Pershing could have shown in numbers which would have been relevant to the war.



AbramsSmakr #14 Posted Sep 12 2017 - 07:41

    Major

  • Players
  • 5784 battles
  • 2,274
  • Member since:
    08-15-2013

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Sep 11 2017 - 12:53, said:

So what is the right war for an M4?

 

There is a reason America started out with the M3 Lee..... Because IT was the right tank for the war, and they knew it! Everyone knows that main gun turrets amount to nothing more than needless luxury, and that the more cannons you have on the front of your hull the better! The Russians were way ahead of their time in tank design. Not because of the T-34 and sloped armor, but because they KNEW that putting lots of cannons on a tank makes them better! Unfortunately, we allowed ourselves to get 'sidetracked' with other designs like the M4 Sherman and M26 Pershing later on.  If we would have just stuck with the M3 Lee's winning design all along, the war could have been over before the Germans ever fielded the Tiger and Panther(not that the M3 Lee couldnt have handled them, obviously it could have).  You live and learn I guess..... But it worries me that NATO countries have allowed themselves to fall back into the same old, bad habits, like adding turrets to tanks. What NATO needs, is a modern M3 Lee, with a 120mm lower hull cannon with 8 degrees of traverse, and a 50mm cannon in a small, useful turret, way up, about 12' high on the roof. You need that extra height to get a good view of your surroundings..... Maybe we can start a petition to force them to design the new Lee. It will be called, "The M3.5 Longstreet".

 

^^LOL! Just kidding...


Edited by AbramsSmakr, Sep 12 2017 - 07:47.


FrozenKemp #15 Posted Sep 12 2017 - 12:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 42644 battles
  • 4,671
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

View Postmoon111, on Sep 11 2017 - 23:38, said:

Canada could of used American tanks, British tanks, or built their own.  The M4 is their decision, probably for a reason.  Medium tanks don't tend to trade well with heavy tanks though.

 

Although we did make the decision "this M3 is bad,  let's put a turret on that" and that was how the Ram was born.

 

We used M4s out of British stocks if I'm not mistaken. It simplified things.  Earlier in Britain Canadian units used Matildas (very briefly) and Churchills.  We would have used locally produced Grizzlies which were basically M4s.  This really just made sense.   The Valentines made in Canada used an American-produced engine and other components too.  But this would have complicated the supply chain.

 

And let's not forget that when it first arrived on the battlefield in North Africa the Sherman was the most powerful tank around.  (Prior to the Tigers that were shipped to defend Tunisia.)

 

Also Britain didn't have anything better on offer in Normandy. Stocks of Cromwells were low because of competition between the air force and army over demand for engines. (Lack of engines limited Cromwell production.)



FrozenKemp #16 Posted Sep 12 2017 - 13:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 42644 battles
  • 4,671
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011
It seems to me that the only practical thing the US Army *might* have done differently is accepted 76mm Shermans earlier and landed with them on D-Day. 

Edited by FrozenKemp, Sep 12 2017 - 13:10.


mattwong #17 Posted Sep 12 2017 - 15:54

    Major

  • Players
  • 30341 battles
  • 17,166
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012

View PostKaiserWilhelmShatner, on Sep 09 2017 - 00:42, said:

Can someone tell me how this putz Cooper managed to get fame off of his totally inaccurate book?

 

The same way Joel Osteen became America's most successful preacher: tell people things that confirm what they are already inclined to believe.  Nobody cares about academic quality of work.  That's what happens in a society where "academic" and "intellectual" are used as insults in some circles.

mattwong #18 Posted Sep 12 2017 - 15:56

    Major

  • Players
  • 30341 battles
  • 17,166
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012

View PostIkanator, on Sep 11 2017 - 14:40, said:

When all is said and done at the end of the day it comes down to the saying that I have heard attributed variously to either Lenin or Stalin. "Quantity has a quality all its own". The problem is that if you're relying on the quantity side of that divide then you have to be willing and able to take some serious lumps if necessary. We did so. We produced overwhelming numbers of M4s compared to what the Germans could produce of their designs and we were able to get them where we needed them and keep them supplied. The Germans' quality advantage was not sufficient to overcome that and so while they were able to "win" various tank vs tank engagements, they also lost more tanks than they could afford to and thus the war as a whole.

 

There was no German quality advantage.  If we were talking about a pickup truck, and the choice was between a smaller one that was highly reliable and a bigger one that breaks down so often that it literally spends 8 months out of the year in the shop, there is no way on Earth you would call the bigger one "quality".



Horribad_At_Tanks #19 Posted Sep 12 2017 - 16:53

    Major

  • Players
  • 2268 battles
  • 5,457
  • Member since:
    11-07-2012

View Postmattwong, on Sep 12 2017 - 09:54, said:

Nobody cares about academic quality of work.  That's what happens in a society where "academic" and "intellectual" are used as insults in some circles.

 

Its a global disease. This new culture of 'ur feels' taking precedence over logic and facts seems to have invaded not only into academia across the globe but also the media and many world leaders and governments. It's like everyone tossed out their brains and replaced them with an unstable teenager going through a moody angst filled puberty.



firekitty #20 Posted Sep 12 2017 - 17:24

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 34490 battles
  • 734
  • [IMWAR] IMWAR
  • Member since:
    10-26-2012

Hi,

  In "real life", the M4 Sherm had its pros and cons, but in game, well it CAN be a beast. Here is a video of me, in a M4 sherm, with a very low skilled crew, giving one of the best performances ever found on youtube in an M4. Not he highest damage, kills, or xp, but when combine all that, and the medals earned, it is one of the best vids.

https://www.youtube....h?v=zkWKauvmHjg

 


Edited by firekitty, Sep 12 2017 - 17:32.






Also tagged with M4 Sherman

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users