Jump to content

Charlie Marlow

Members
  • Posts

    168
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Charlie Marlow

  1. Magpie Oz, I have to concur. There are just too many variables to the whole issue to allow it to be boiled down to simply the "best." The question of "Best at what?" can be dealt with much of the time, but if one considers the "when, where and how" aspect of it, especially as compared to another tank, things get very complex.

    Generally I would agree, but in the specific quote that someone took exception to, the time frame was rather specific. 1942 through mid 43. No T34/85 or Panther yet (and the T34/85 was still inferior to the M4(76)).

    At the time selected the primary tanks in contention for "best" would be the M4, the PzkwIVG, and the T34(76). I excluded the Tiger because of low numbers, expense, and poor mechanical reliability meant that it really wasn't very available. If you include the Tiger, the analysis below probably falls apart, and we are back to best being situation dependent.

    I'll admit I wasn't thinking about the Churchill. Perhaps in some situations its armor and obstacle clearing ability might overcome its lack of speed and HE in the time frame in question. I also seem to recall that the armor thickness on the Churchill wasn't particularly better than the Sherman in the earlier versions. Not sure what the thickness of the 42/43 Churchills was.

    That aside, I'll deal with the three most important contenders.

    Armor - Sherman 1, PzIV 2, T34 3

    Gun (AT) - PzIV 1, Sherman 2, T34 3

    Gun (HE) - Sherman is better than the PzIV. Not sure about the T34

    MGs - Sherman has 3, including .50 cal. PzIV 2 or 3, T34 2

    Reliability - Sherman 1, PzIV 2, T34 3

    Speed/Mobility - This one is tricky. T34 has the best ground pressure and on paper, the best speed. Sherman and PzIV about the same ground pressure, but with the Sherman maybe a bit faster (added armor slows down later PzIVs). But, reports are that the T34's ride was so bad, that it couldn't make speed over anything but roads. I'll say a draw overall.

    Turret - Sherman 3 man fast turret, gyro. PzIV. Slower 3 man turret (later versions manual). T34, 2 man turret, unreliable motor.

    Radio - Sherman, PzIV yes. T34 no.

    Crew comfort. Sherman and PzIV good. T34 bad. This is a more important factor that it seems. A crew needed to be comfortable to keep fatigue away. A real killer in combat.

    Given the various factors, I would take the PzIVG only in the desert or open steppes where enemy armor was the primary threat. In just about any other conceivable role, the Sherman was a better tank for the job. The T34 was not as good as either of the others.

  2. End of 43, almost certainly the Panther. That is why I said 42 to early 43. I would still take the position that the best overall tank prior to the Panther was the Sherman. I haven't seen anything here that really counters the points I have made to make me think otherwise. Panther probably holds the crown until the M26 comes along. Some of the Soviet heavies might qualify by the end of the war as well.

  3. The Presidentuial system is the worst possible system as the Presidential candidates, at least in the US, do not get honed by a party system where a track record and working with others of your party is unnecessary to be put forward as a Presidential candidate. Witness Reagan or Palin. As long as they could be sold to the public it was not necessary for anything else to be considered.

    As per the forum rules (which seem to be observed more in the breach), I won't get into politics, but I have to comment on this one. Obviously a shot at Reagan, but a really stupid one. Whether or not he was a good president, and lots of opinions both ways on that, to say that he did not work within the party system or have a track record displays remarkable ignorance of American politics and history.

    The man was ONLY the chief executive of the most populous state in the United States for 8 years before running for President.

    Sheesh.

    EDIT to note that most American presidents have significant political if not executive experience. This list doesn't even include legislative or judicial experience that many of them had. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_previous_executive_experience

    Don't look now, but your thesis is broken.

  4. PzIV G had pluses and minuses that made it roughly equivalent AT platforms (more so the PzIV G. T34 had enough shortcomings that it is hard to argue equivalence). Neither was the anti-infantry platform that the Sherman was.

    Churchill is an interesting comparison. Not sure how to compare something that slow, but with better armor to a Sherman. The lack of good HE for the 6lbr is a significant disadvantage though.

  5. now i maybe have to collect all your "facts" which you posted in several other posts and face them to the reallity from that time.

    to sad that my grandpa and his brother are dead for many years now. he was pilot and his brother tank commander in ww2 and i remember much of what they said to me regarding air- and tankwar in ww2.

    excuse my language.

    andi

    Nope. Not helping your case.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

  6. It still seems to me that the evidence suggests the Sherman was certainly inferior to both German and Russian tanks.

    The Russian workhorse was the T34. The Sherman was a better tank in most respects.

    T34(76) v. M4. Protection was about the same. M4 has a better gun in AP, HE, and accuracy (better optics). M4 has 3 man turret. M4 is much more reliable. M4 has radio. Better secondary armament. The only things the T34 has going are flotation and size.

    T34(85) v. Easy 8 76mm. Sherman is better protected, has better AP. Not sure about HE. Is more accurate. Again better secondary armament. Mobility is probably about the same.

    Sherman also has all the intangibles. Easier to drive, faster turret, more crew comfort (i.e. less fatigue).

    Don't believe everything you see on the History Channel or in Russian wartime propaganda.

  7. Damn it! I need to spill some hamster blood and I need to spill it soon. I had to fire my arty blind against Marlow just so I could see some explosions. I know you turds have nothing better to do on a Friday night. Can promise many turns this evening (or RT), for anyone interested (and similarly dedicated to mayhem).

    And very nice explosions they were too. Especially when they weren't within 500 yards of any of my men. I think the body count was three chickens and a duck. The French Mademoiselle in the farm house is a little pissed. No yum-yums for you GI.

  8. I guess I sort of was commenting on the deathtrap aspect. Any tank in heavy offensive operations against a determined enemy with effective AT weapons is going to be a deathtrap. That the M4 was so designated was because it was there.

    As far as a mistake to use the M4 instead of a heavier tank. I don't thing so given the situation. The mistake was in not upgunning the M4. The Brits suggested rather early that the US do just that, but the US Army brass declined.

  9. Here is the quote from "Death Traps" about the combat losses. I do not know what the Germans losses were like. I was out by a few hundred percent sorry. But the point still stands. That being that the US in one division lost a lot of tanks. They were certainly not likely to survive for long even when the US army had huge superiority in equipment, numbers and logistics. You could indeed say they were death traps as it is likely that every tanker that originally went in got his ride shot from under him.

    How many of those losses were to German tanks? Even a T26 doesn't stand up to Panzerfaust and PanzerSchreck fire very well. Most late war German AT guns could penetrate the T26's armor at least from the sides, and the 88s from the front sometimes. And there would have been less T26s to take the losses.

  10. Would the Wehrmacht have had much more spine dealing with Hitler if losing on land and in the air to technically superior machines? I think the psychology of the M26 could have been fairly major.

    Since I usually play the allies if given a choice, having M26s earlier and in larger numbers would have helped my psychology.

    The one big mistake that the US did make was to not upgun the Sherman earlier and with either the 17 pound gun or something equivalent. The Firefly is approximately equivalent to a Panther in most respects, and is more reliable. Could even have been done with a 90mm gun. I recall seeing pictures of a Pershing like turret on an M4 hull. Also, the M36B2 was basically a 90mm gun turret on a Sherman hull. Put a little top armor on that, and you have a tank that can go up against a Panther pretty well.

  11. Use of M4 over the M26 probably did cost some tankers their lives, but also most likely saved any number of infantry soldiers. The size and number of M4s produced resulted in a lot more available than if the US switched to the M26. Thus, more tanks and armor units to support the infantry.

    Also, when facing German infantry (which was the usual. German tanks becoming increasingly rare), the Sherman was extremely effective. Its medium velocity 75 and 3 machineguns were very good for anti-personnel use.

  12. My liege, I knew that old foul Joe I'd ask for a setup to thrash you in celebration, but I've got "The next big Patch" and can't be arsed to keep an older version of CM:N handy.

    Shouldn't your Zoomie Arse be off testing a flight simulator or overcharging the Gov't for B-52 toilet seat covers or somefink?

    I question Battlefront's sanity and business plan in giving you a copy of the patch.

  13. I may need another PBEM opponent but applicants are cautioned that while I'll be in town next week I'll be gone for much of the three weeks following.

    Joe

    That is weak. Really weak. You, of all people throw that limp wristed "pretty please, somebody love me and play with me" out to the MBT

    For shame, Joe, for shame.

    What next? Twittering pictures of you privates to try to get attention?

  14. Rune, you annoying poseur of the gallant MBT. You prancing Kannnnigget wannabe ...

    Watch what you say, about His Evilness, Rune. Well, maybe "Semi-Evilness" .... Hmmm. No not quite right. His "Minor Annoyingness"? Closer, but no caps I think. let's try it again.

    Watch what you say about his minor annoyingness, Rune. He may be a wrinkly, smelly, washed-up has-been, but he is OUR wrinkly, smelly, washed-up has-been. We of the House of Ruin shall defend his honor to the death! ... Except that he has no honor. And I really can't be bothered to fight to the death for him. Another redo is in order.

    Once more from the top.

    Watch what you say about his minor annoyingness, Rune. He may be a wrinkly, smelly, washed-up has-been, but he is OUR wrinkly, smelly, washed-up has-been. We of the House of Ruin shall defend his worthless carcass until it becomes too much work!

×
×
  • Create New...