Matrix Games Forums

???

A very brave pedestrian strolling through the Shermans.

Fire sale at the M4A1 dealership?

Shermans at a place that is definetely not suited for tank warfare.

Shermans in New Guinea

My guess would be Shermans in the Philippines.

Shermans at a place that is definetely not suited for tank warfare.

If there are enough infantry almost every place is suitable for Tanks. Vietnam was a case were tanks were great when used in support of infantry.

Good terrain for tanks is open terrain with room to move and without AT weapons and opposing tanks.

Late M4A1 75mm production version.
One-piece transmission housing.
No applique armor.
M34A1 mantlet.
Open spoke roadwheels and idlers.
Solid drive sprockets.
3-bar cleat track.

The Sherman was primarily designed as an infantry support vehicle. The U.S. army doctrine at the time called for Tank Destroyers to engage enemy armor, and tanks to support infantry. I know, seems stupid now, but that was the thinking at the time.

Regards,
Feltan

Tank doctrine evolved a lot during WW II.  The British tank industry never did quite work it out completely until after the war.  The Russians and Germans were the ones who figured it out and it led to modern armor tactics.

The US had the industry to develop something on par with the T-34 and Panther, but the political will wasn't there.  (The Pershing was as close as the US got.)  The Sherman was usually good enough to get the job done when used in conjunction with all the other Allied advantages.

Bill

We did seem to come to the same conclusion as the Russians about quantity having a quality all its own. Different paths to the same summit of course.

If the Germans had the resources, they would have done it too.  The US and Russia both had all the raw materials they needed within their territory as well as a large population base to draw workers from.  Another key bonus was both the US and USSR could position their factories out of range of enemy aircraft (the US by natural geography and the USSR by herculian effort).

Germany had limited access to oil, and they had to import the high quality iron ore to make the best armor from.  Sweden has an abundance of this ore, but they still had to pay hard currency to get it.  Germany is a much smaller country with more limited human resources.  They had large pools of slave labor, but people working for their own country are far better motivated.

Germany tried to get by on the whizz bang factor, but it's difficult to fight a 3 on 1 war with two enemies who can each field more tanks, troops, artillery, and planes than your entire army can.

The US military has gone a bit down the whizz bang route.  During the cold war, the US figured it would be outnumbered, so built a military that could get more bang for every buck.  If playing defense against a Russian invasion of Western Europe, they probably would have held their own, but nothing makes up for boots on the ground when it comes to taking and holding hostile territory.

Bill

I heard that the US doctrine was that they would liberate territories and the (grateful and motivated) citizens (armies) of those territories would take care of the holding part.
Not sure if it would work though.

Oh dear, what could you be referring to?[8|]

ORIGINAL: kaleun

I heard that the US doctrine was that they would liberate territories and the (grateful and motivated) citizens (armies) of those territories would take care of the holding part.
Not sure if it would work though.

Alexander promoted the idea of his soldiers mating with the locals on his drive to India, so on the return trip, there would be a fresh stock of new soldiers waiting.
He had plans of longevity.

ORIGINAL: Feltan

The Sherman was primarily designed as an infantry support vehicle. The U.S. army doctrine at the time called for Tank Destroyers to engage enemy armor, and tanks to support infantry. I know, seems stupid now, but that was the thinking at the time.

Regards,
Feltan

From what I've heard, US Armor units had a standing rule if they encountered German Armor. "Last man out called in the air strike."

There is also a saying a german panzer commanders used: "One our Panther can knock out 10 Shermans. Unluckily, they always have at least 11 of them around."

The Germans actually developed their tank doctrines from a British officer (forgot his name) who published a book on the subject.

Nobody had a more horrible way to use tanks than the French.  They had superior armor and got swept away by concentrated thrusts.

M4A1, it is[:)]
 
 
.............
 
Cape Glouchester, 1943