How did the Germans do it?

zombiewarrior07 · Post by **zombiewarrior07** » Mon Feb 15, 2016 11:01 pm

The other side of the coin is: "Why the allies won" ?
There's a very good book of the same name by historian Richard Overy, which I recommend.

Poopyhead · Post by **Poopyhead** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:54 am

ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen

ORIGINAL: Poopyhead

My reference would be the 100+ books I've read on WW II, but here is a link to an E8 Sherman:

http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Tank:M4A3E8_Sherman
Let's see...
It also has an upgraded 76mm gun
Nothing about 76,2mm nor nothing about british

Does anyone in here know about Sherman E6?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_17-pounder

You say tomato...[:D]

Ostwindflak · Post by **Ostwindflak** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 1:13 pm

I have had the pleasure of seeing and touching an "Easy Eight" Sherman. There is a fantastic one in the WWII museum in the next town over from me. They also have the last known surviving Pershing that crossed the bridge at Ramagen before the bridge collapsed.

Kuokkanen · Post by **Kuokkanen** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 1:47 pm

ORIGINAL: Poopyhead

ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen

ORIGINAL: Poopyhead

My reference would be the 100+ books I've read on WW II, but here is a link to an E8 Sherman:

http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Tank:M4A3E8_Sherman
Let's see...
It also has an upgraded 76mm gun
Nothing about 76,2mm nor nothing about british

Does anyone in here know about Sherman E6?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_17-pounder

You say tomato...[:D]

No I don't. You say it was equipped by Americans in Easy-8, and I say that is BS. Only Brits equipped Sherman with that gun, Americans could have tried it and said it's too damn big. And that Wikipedia page doesn't say otherwise. Stop making frak up.

Poopyhead · Post by **Poopyhead** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 2:17 pm

"Some were finally upgraded to the E8 with the British 76.2 mm gun and some extra armor"

I didn't say who. Chill out.

Alchenar · Post by **Alchenar** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 5:54 pm

The 76mm M1 gun on the US up-gunned Sherman is not the same gun as the 76.2mm British 17pdr that was used for the British Firefly.

They're different guns using different ammo and with different turret modifications to accompany them.

Toby42 · Post by **Toby42** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 6:00 pm

ORIGINAL: Alchenar

The 76mm M1 gun on the US up-gunned Sherman is not the same gun as the 76.2mm British 17pdr that was used for the British Firefly.

They're different guns using different ammo and with different turret modifications to accompany them.

Which was the most effective? I'm thinking that it was the 17 Pdr!

Mobeer · Post by **Mobeer** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 7:43 pm

ORIGINAL: Treale
ORIGINAL: Alchenar
The 76mm M1 gun on the US up-gunned Sherman is not the same gun as the 76.2mm British 17pdr that was used for the British Firefly.

They're different guns using different ammo and with different turret modifications to accompany them.
Which was the most effective? I'm thinking that it was the 17 Pdr!

First post here is interesting:
http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php ... rmor-pt-1/

sullafelix · Post by **sullafelix** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 7:44 pm

You would be correct.

The western allies had excellent anti-tank guns by 1944.

Rising-Sun · Post by **Rising-Sun** » Wed Feb 17, 2016 5:55 am

Just like zak said, usually all. They were well trained troops at least most of them and the enemies were poor equipped and not prepare what is coming to them. So fighting toward France and other places before heading to Russia, they mostly became veterans and elites.

Russia lost the most because they were poor and scatter all over the country side.

Poopyhead · Post by **Poopyhead** » Wed Feb 17, 2016 10:13 am

The M4E6 was a prototype with the M1 76mm. Obviously, if the E6 had been chosen for actual combat, then there would have been no need to make several thousand E8's. The World of Tanks may be an excellent MMO, but my comments about the Sherman were from the World of Reality.

Kuokkanen · Post by **Kuokkanen** » Wed Feb 17, 2016 12:03 pm

ORIGINAL: Treale

ORIGINAL: Alchenar

The 76mm M1 gun on the US up-gunned Sherman is not the same gun as the 76.2mm British 17pdr that was used for the British Firefly.

They're different guns using different ammo and with different turret modifications to accompany them.

Which was the most effective? I'm thinking that it was the 17 Pdr!

This guy here says USA brought 17 Pounders for testing and comparison. Result: 17 Pounder isn't much better than 76 mm with HVAP ammo. If I understood him correctly, 17 Pounder has some special ammo available to it, but its accurate range stops at 400 meters/yards: "It doesn't hit broadside of the barn from the inside!" Also that big SOB doesn't leave enough room for the crew to operate weapon in effective manner.

[edit]
Also my apologies to Poopyhead for snapping out without double-checking post. Didn't understand Sherman Firefly is based on E8.

Mobeer · Post by **Mobeer** » Wed Feb 17, 2016 1:07 pm

ORIGINAL: Poopyhead
...The World of Tanks may be an excellent MMO, but my comments about the Sherman were from the World of Reality.

No-one is using World of Tanks as a source.

If you followed by link to the World of Tanks forum you will find information from the US Army test shoots conducted during WW2. I think that qualifies as the "World of Reality" - try reading first.

Rising-Sun · Post by **Rising-Sun** » Wed Feb 17, 2016 1:24 pm

Poopyhead · Post by **Poopyhead** » Wed Feb 17, 2016 1:32 pm

"Chieftain", who is also "that guy here", is Nicholas Moran. He is the "military specialist" at WoT. He was a whole Captain in the Nevada NG. He's not a professor of military science or a bona fide expert on anything related to WW II. The actual plan for a platoon of Shermans fighting a Tiger was for the Tiger to busy itself destroying 4 of them while one got around behind the Tiger and fired at point blank range to hopefully destroy it. Be careful which history you read.

Kuokkanen · Post by **Kuokkanen** » Wed Feb 17, 2016 1:38 pm

ORIGINAL: Poopyhead

"Chieftain", who is also "that guy here", is Nicholas Moran. He is the "military specialist" at WoT. He was a whole Captain in the Nevada NG. He's not a professor of military science or a bona fide expert on anything related to WW II. The actual plan for a platoon of Shermans fighting a Tiger was for the Tiger to busy itself destroying 4 of them while one got around behind the Tiger and fired at point blank range to hopefully destroy it. Be careful which history you read.

At least he has documents and reports to back up his words. And he's been inside number of tanks, so I expect him to know something about them, like how easily and fast main gun can be loaded and aimed.

Poopyhead · Post by **Poopyhead** » Wed Feb 17, 2016 2:08 pm

I did a search for "How did a Sherman engage a Tiger tank". This was the top link.

http://knowledgeglue.com/dispelling-myt ... 4-sherman/

Note that we have a scanned page from an AAR with absolutely no way of ever checking this document's authenticity. The piece is by "Brandon". Brandon's hypertext name is not a link to who he is. I have yet to find any credentials qualifying Brandon to make any informed statements about Sherman tanks...or anything else for that matter. Yet he has the internet's top hit for my question.

Historiography is the study of how to present history that is factual and noteworthy by people who are documented professionals.

About 49k Shermans were built. About 5k were the E8s. We sent about 2k to the USSR. They thought that the Shermans were inferior to the T34, which was about the same weight. We could have used better Shermans sooner than the last few months of the war or better tanks like the Pershing, but we didn't. About 300 Pershings were used in 1945 after it was obvious that none of the Shermans were able to cut it.

Kuokkanen · Post by **Kuokkanen** » Wed Feb 17, 2016 2:20 pm

What do you think about mr. Noran's opinions about Pershing? Does his words about its weight (too heavy for engineers' bridges) and reliability (or lack thereof) hold water?

Poopyhead · Post by **Poopyhead** » Wed Feb 17, 2016 2:27 pm

The Pershing was too little too late. It probably had less effect on the outcome of the war than the Me 262. By the time that the commanders figured out tanks were not mobile pillboxes and should actually be able to kill enemy tanks it was all over.

P.S. From what I've read in real history books, the U.S. port facilities at the time loaded all cargo by crane onto ships for transport. The max capacity of 95% of the cranes in use was less than 40 tons. The Sherman was an ideal weight for transport in great numbers to similar port facilities in the U.K. The heavier Pershing could not be sealifted as easily. So the Pershing was actually discontinued until the Battle of the Bulge painfully revealed once and for all that the Sherman was in trouble as a Main Battle Tank (MBT). Of course, we designed and purpose built over 2700 Liberty cargo ships. None of these ships used Roll On Roll Off (ROLO) capability, where a vehicle of any weight can just be driven onto the ship over a ramp at a port in the U.S. and driven off in Europe. Then we could have had thousands of Pershings ready for D-Day. I guess that all the geniuses were working on the atom bomb.

The Pershing is an MBT with firepower, armor protection and mobility that keeps the crew alive. Maybe that's worth having engineers build better bridges and the maintenance shop work some overtime.

How did the Germans do it?

RE: How did the Germans do it?

RE: How did the Germans do it?

RE: How did the Germans do it?

RE: How did the Germans do it?

RE: How did the Germans do it?

RE: How did the Germans do it?

RE: How did the Germans do it?

RE: How did the Germans do it?

RE: How did the Germans do it?

RE: How did the Germans do it?

RE: How did the Germans do it?

RE: How did the Germans do it?

RE: How did the Germans do it?

RE: How did the Germans do it?

RE: How did the Germans do it?

RE: How did the Germans do it?

RE: How did the Germans do it?

RE: How did the Germans do it?

RE: How did the Germans do it?