History Ch.

Lou · Post by **Lou** » Mon Dec 18, 2000 8:32 pm

One quick point: I said the Sherman was "good enough". There is a difference.

Tank vs. tank? Advantage Panther. Advantage T-34 (did the T-34 have a cool name or was it just the number designation?). While the veiw from the turret for the Sherman is well documented, it's unfortunate we rarely get a such a veiw on German armor. Oh sure, there are reams of information of just how technically superior the Panthers and Tigers were, but how many of these ubertanks were there compared to Mk IV or Stug? I wonder how many Mk IV commanders looked at the Tigers, King Tigers, and Jagdtigers, and thought, "man, there's enough steel there for two of my tanks"? Would the average German division commander rather have lots and lots of upgraded Mk IVs or just a few cats plus the bastardized stop-gap tank destroyers?

So, where would I rather be? Like you, I'd rather be home with Rosie (just make sure she gets plenty of rest so she can do her job well. Lot's of guys are depending on her). Would I rather be in a thin skinned, under-gunned Sherman with clouds of aircraft above me and mountains of artillary in the rear? Or, would I rather be in a technically superior Panther or Tiger with a spotty supply line, dwindling numbers and clouds of Allied aircraft above me? It's a bit of a toss up.

Finally, I guess I'll have to read the book "Death Traps". It looks like the History Channel based Suicide Missions episode on it. It's a pity that a storm knocked out my cable halfway through the show. But, the show and the book it's based on seemed to be written in the new lurid "Investigative Reports" style of t.v. journalism. Rather than report the events factually, these shows are couched in terms of conspiracy and criminality. Still, it had great footage.

Lou

AmmoSgt · Post by **AmmoSgt** » Mon Dec 18, 2000 9:44 pm

I saw the Suicide Mission show on the history channel ...i think they did a fair and good job .... they pointed out that alot of Shermans were lost to bad tactics inexperienced crews, lack of using infantry support ..and that as the learning curve was climbed that losses dropped.

Turns out that the guy who wrote the book that the show was based on was the #rd AD Maintenace Chief responsible for getting the Shermans fixed back up after they got knocked out ... so you have to admit he knew his subject...but he was also obviious deeply affected by having to remove the honored dead from the tanks ....
I am sure ... and this takes nothing away from anybody ... that in every army and for every weapons system their is some poor guy who has seen more horror keepin stuff running than 90% of the grunts at the front.

What bothers me about this whole thing more than anything else is the perception that U S Material and Systems was somehow compleatly inferior and this preception gets in the way of learning to exploit the advantages that any given piece of equipment has in some situations and it diminishs the importance of Tactics ..
On the other hand i am heartened that folks are beginning to appreciate this via exposure to the France 1940 situations
You cannot use a M3 Stuart like a Panther ... folks ain't trashing the M3 Stuart, and it is definately outclassed by a M4 Sherman ... if armor and gun are the measure.
Please before you write off playing as the Americans in this game ... look around at how many weapons American made from the WW2 era are still standard issue in so many armies around the world From Shermans to 50 cal HMG's even the M1911A1 .. You can win playing as Americans in this game..you just have to get past Hollywood tactics and game tricks and get into real tactics ..
There are serious differences between nations in regards to equipment and tactics... saying that it is somehow unfair for U S Forces to have scads of artilery is kinda like saying it is unfair for the Allies to have 4 engine bombers because the germans didn't.. learn what each nation had and how they used and misused it ... yes if you play against the Americans they will be able to pound you into the ground with artilery.... get use to it... I am often distressed to see folks make general statements about how much artilery is allowed by doctrine to a Batalion Commander..it varies by nation and by Year ... and only the US had the comunication network and doctrine to allow massed artilery fires from every battery in range and the amunitions supplies to do Divisional even Corp shoots to save a battalion on a regular basis ..
The U S Marine Corp had a doctrinal dictum of "never send a Marine where you can send a bullet"
I have heard it said by Old Vets that the Main weapon on a Sherman was the Radio

Huffy · Post by **Huffy** » Mon Dec 18, 2000 11:16 pm

I watched the suicide missions also last night, twice really. I thought it was very good...I really felt bad hearing the mass numbers we lost...but your right about comparing tanks...sherman isn't a panther ...or a stuart. I also watched the show after that about the secret planes and jets the germans had in store.
I love that channel.
Take care
Huffy

Daniel Oskar · Post by **Daniel Oskar** » Tue Dec 19, 2000 12:13 am

The old M4a3e8 was still around in that scuffle in Korea, and it handled the T-34 pretty roughly. Many US crews preferred the Sherman to newer tanks for the reasons mentioned in previous posts, but most important; reliability. Musashi hit it right on, its not just the tank. Besides, had the roles been reversed and the big cats had to dig the US grunts and tanks out of defensive positions it would have been the germans complaining about bazookas and 76mm tank guns.

Rhone · Post by **Rhone** » Tue Dec 19, 2000 12:15 am

Everything was built around the tank, still is.

Out of curiosity,

When was the last time a tank fired on another tank out of hostility?

AmmoSgt · Post by **AmmoSgt** » Tue Dec 19, 2000 12:22 am

Rhone i am going to guess Spain since both sides clearly had Tanks .... but i read someplace and i can't remeber where that The Grand Chaco War in South America was the first use of Armor on Armor by my guess is that it was armored cars not Tanks proper

Rhone · Post by **Rhone** » Tue Dec 19, 2000 11:23 am

Well, I didn't know that either, but I am curious as to when the last time a Tank fired on another Tank. Was it Desert Storm? Did both sides possess tanks in Chechnea (forgive my spelling) or other recent conflicts?

When you speak of Spain, and both sides had them, I don't know what you are talking about....(I'm certainly not the Tank expert, huh!)

Thanks.

AmmoSgt · Post by **AmmoSgt** » Tue Dec 19, 2000 11:43 am

Oops Sorry i read that as first time ..the last time probably yesterday somewhere in Africa Sudan maybe couple of countries in Africa are having civil wars maybe India/Pakistan .. they were takeing potshots at each other last year Chechians might have some armor Afganhians are always at each others throats the Kaliban ain't exactly popular with everybody there. Libians have been shooting at the Chads this last year hard to say.. but you can probably bet it was within the last week

My Reference to Spain was the Spanish Civil war 1936 thereabouts Grand Chaco War was 1932 i am pretty sure

[This message has been edited by AmmoSgt (edited December 19, 2000).]

frank1970 · Post by **frank1970** » Tue Dec 19, 2000 4:36 pm

I suppose it was in Ethiopian-Eritrean conflict. Saw the pictures on TV, there were a lot of burnt out tanks.

Huffy · Post by **Huffy** » Tue Dec 19, 2000 5:07 pm

In case any of you might have missed it , the "suicide missions-Tank crews" is on again Fri -Dec.22, 3-4 am...history ch.
Take care all....
Huffy

Kluckenbill · Post by **Kluckenbill** » Tue Dec 19, 2000 9:23 pm

This subject has been ranted about often on this board. I think the Sherman was an excellent tank in 1942, a pretty good tank in 1943, an obsolescent tank in the spring of '44 and obsolete by late '44. Certainly it would have helped greatly to have upgunned all the Shermans to 76 or even 90 mm, but the real answer was to build the Pershings in late '43. The saddest aspect of this whole sad story is that we had an excellent tank available in the M26, but refused to build it due to sheer stupidity on the part of senior officers.

The only thing stupider than the Sherman story is reequipping a large portion of our curent mechanized forces with LAV3's instead of real tanks and Infantry Fightning Vehicles. The one thing the US Army is never short of is stupid generals.

------------------
Target, Cease Fire !

AmmoSgt · Post by **AmmoSgt** » Tue Dec 19, 2000 9:36 pm

Kluck ya just got no respect for Tradition thats the problem here ...
We didn't get repeating Rifles because Tradition said you should never add new calibers of ammo when ya alredy got about 300 in the supply chain...
Tradition said no MG's because troopies would use to much ammo
We Gots Traditons ya Know

bravo.john · Post by **bravo.john** » Wed Dec 20, 2000 2:44 am

The guys I really feel sorry for were the guys who got picked one morning to drive 17 new Shermans up a road that afternoon. Some of them had never even seen a tank up close before. Five hours of driving around and each tank got to fire a whopping three rounds from the main gun.

15 out of the 17 tanks were out of action before night fell. Ouch.

Bailing out seems to have been bad, but not always instant death. Several of the persons interviewed had bailed out of at least three tanks during the war, one poor bastard had to bail out five times!

It is a given that crews with so little training aren't going to do well against any trained enemy, much less enemies with excellent equipment. We quickly adapted however, Americans are very good at adapting to new situations. Blind em with arty, sneak up on em, shoot them in the back, quickly adopted as SOP.

[This message has been edited by bravo.john (edited December 19, 2000).]

Blitzenberg · Post by **Blitzenberg** » Wed Dec 20, 2000 4:32 am

I think it is important to remember that the U.S. never saw the tank as an essential component of it's grand strategy. Air power and Artillery were far more important to the Americans than tanks, and in those areas the U.S. was far ahead of Germany. It is also important to remember that, as a Democracy whose existance was not really threatened directly by the war, high casualties might have caused the U.S. public to return to it's isolationist roots. FDR and the U.S. Military Commanders understood that it was essential to keep casualties as low as possible. That is why the U.S. concentrated on weapons and tactics designed to inflict heavy casualties on the enemy without taking a lot of losses in return. Air Power and Artillery were the obvious ways to achieve this goal. Even today the U.S. Marines have the motto "never send a Marine where you can send a bullet instead".

The Germans and Soviets, on the other hand, had different priorities. Tactical air-power is of little use when you are fighting on a front over 1,000 miles long! There simply were not enough aircraft to go around, so Infantry and Tanks played a much larger role, and recieved the majority of resources on the Eastern Front. In other words, Tanks were essential to the German and Soviet war efforts, so it is no surprise that they led all nations in tank development during WWII.

However, there is still no excuse for sending U.S. soldiers into battle with a sub-par tank against an enemy that was the master of Armored and Anti-Tank warfare. The Sherman did just fine against Japan, however, who had even less of a need for tanks than the U.S. did...

Ever wonder what one M1A2 Abrams could do on a WWII battlefield?

Huffy · Post by **Huffy** » Wed Dec 20, 2000 4:45 am

Yes Blitz....now wouldn't that be interesting?HeHeHe
Huffy

frank1970 · Post by **frank1970** » Wed Dec 20, 2000 5:19 pm

The US were leading in airsupport and artillery?????
Would you like to compare the abilities in 1939 to 1942?
The US learned a lot from the Luftwaffe and the Wehrmacht. Who used groundsupport aircraft in a great scale first? Surely not the US. Who introduced the system of forward observers? Surely not the US.
The US weren´t leading in artillery, just look at he Soviets, they could show you what artillery is. In groundsupport by air the british are not really bad, are they?
Germany had great ground support planes in 1944, they had a great system to use it. The problem was there were not enough planes.
The US was maybe leading in numbers (compare to Soviets???) but they did not have the best material.

Lou · Post by **Lou** » Wed Dec 20, 2000 9:16 pm

Originally posted by Frank:
The US were leading in airsupport and artillery?????

I don't know about the artillery...except maybe the U.S. had better radios, but... In terms of air power, the mid to late war USAAF was second to none. Granted, the Germans paved the way with tactical air support, but the U.S. took those lessons to a whole other level, plus they led the way in the strategic air war. Granted, the B-17 crews suffered horribly, but that all started to change with the addition of drop tanks to the P-47 and P-38 (although, the Lightning didn't perform as well in Europe as it did in other theaters). The final nail in the Luftwaffe coffin was hammered home by the P-51.

So, in the long run, Germany had really great tanks and the US tanks sucked (according to prevailing opinion). But, having really great tanks doesn't really matter if your enemy is bombing the snot of the refineries needed to fuel said tanks.

In an earlier post, the implied question was, "Where would you rather be...in the turret of a Sherman or in one of a Panther?" I think I'll take door number three and sit myself down in the cockpit of a Mustang.

Zoooooom

Lou

Blitzenberg · Post by **Blitzenberg** » Thu Dec 21, 2000 2:05 am

Thanks for answering the air power question for me, Lou. However the U.S. did make superior use of it's artillery during WWII as well. Just as the Germans perfected the art of armored warfare, the U.S. perfected the use of artillery. The U.S. was the first to coordinate it's artillery so that it could bring massed fire on a single target using a large number of scattered artillery batteries. This massed fire could also be rapidly shifted to new targets, giving U.S. artillery a distinct advantage by the closing years of the war. U.S. artillery pieces were not necessarily superior to their German counterparts, but were used much more effectively.

If you don't believe me, read about it for yourself. I didn't realize it was such a controversial topic!

AmmoSgt · Post by **AmmoSgt** » Thu Dec 21, 2000 2:11 am

Blitzen a dear sweet friend of mine was working hard to get a Masters in History..unfortunately he chose a certain meeting Between Churchill, Stalin, Rosevelt, and Degaule ...Having the Diaries of all four at his disposal he thought this would be an easy paper...the problem is that in their Diaries the four Principles at the meeting each said only 2 of the other three leaders were present and none of the Diaries agreed on which of the 3 were actually there ....My Friend decided on a carreer in real estate

dox44 · Post by **dox44** » Thu Dec 21, 2000 2:26 am

If you ever want to be knocked out of your socks, read Death Traps.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Great book, I got it for Christmas last year.

casebier