Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: timtom

Another reason American tankers were saddled with the Sherman was US armoured doctrine. According to this, US tanks weren't supposed to fight enemy tanks. Hence there was no need to design and built a tank that could take on the mid/late-war generation of German tanks, or at least there was considerable systemic resistance to this.

In American thinking, the tank served two purposes: Exploitation and infantry support, and the Sherman sufficed in both roles. Engaging enemy armour was the role of the TD's. The armoured division was essensially viewed as the modern cavalry division, it's role to exploit breakthroughs punched by the Infantry. McNair, fx, cited El Alamein as the model operation with regards to the use of armour. This is also the reason the US armoured division was somewhat short on combat power compared with that of the Germans - on paper anyway.

That's almost exactly what I was going to say. The U.S. designed the Sherman as an infantry component, and planned to use TDs (Tank Destroyers) to take on enemy armor. I don't know how often the ground pounders were actually able to implement that plan (probably not too often I would guess), but that's what the plan was.

[Edit: My apologies for helping continue the hijack...]

ORIGINAL: DeepSix

ORIGINAL: timtom

Another reason American tankers were saddled with the Sherman was US armoured doctrine. According to this, US tanks weren't supposed to fight enemy tanks. Hence there was no need to design and built a tank that could take on the mid/late-war generation of German tanks, or at least there was considerable systemic resistance to this.

In American thinking, the tank served two purposes: Exploitation and infantry support, and the Sherman sufficed in both roles. Engaging enemy armour was the role of the TD's. The armoured division was essensially viewed as the modern cavalry division, it's role to exploit breakthroughs punched by the Infantry. McNair, fx, cited El Alamein as the model operation with regards to the use of armour. This is also the reason the US armoured division was somewhat short on combat power compared with that of the Germans - on paper anyway.

That's almost exactly what I was going to say. The U.S. designed the Sherman as an infantry component, and planned to use TDs (Tank Destroyers) to take on enemy armor. I don't know how often the ground pounders were actually able to implement that plan (probably not too often I would guess), but that's what the plan was.

[Edit: My apologies for helping continue the hijack...]

I think I'll head over to the Battles in Normandy forum, maybe they have a thread running there about aircraft carriers....

I think I'll head over to the Battles in Normandy forum, maybe they have a thread running there about aircraft carriers....

LOL

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

I think I'll head over to the Battles in Normandy forum, maybe they have a thread running there about aircraft carriers....

Hey! This thread was officially hijacked. As an announced hijacker, the hijacker may take the thread wherever he or she wants to.

While it is true that Japan spent much of their time experimenting with different designs (and, in many cases, skirting the treaty restrictions), there was some method to the madness. Case in point was the "port side" islands on Akagi and Hiryu, as discussed in the old set of "Evolution of Aircraft Carriers" articles by Scot MacDonald in Naval Aviation News:

"...the startling innovation was the introduction of small islands on the port side of the carriers Akagi and Hiryu. The remaining carriers had islands on the starboard (standard) side -- of those that had them at all. Strategists planned to use these carriers in a formation that was unique. The lead carriers in the basic formation were to be the port-sided Hiryu and Akagi, followed by the Soryu and Kaga. This would supposedly allow for a more compact formation with non-conflicting aircraft traffic patterns. This formation was used in the Battle of Midway."