Erwin Posted September 26, 2013 Share Posted September 26, 2013 I was always intrigued that Patton "personally selected the Sherman" for Europe. So, what were the other choices? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altipueri Posted September 26, 2013 Share Posted September 26, 2013 He was certainly a fan of it and blocked or tried to block work on bigger better armed tanks if I recall Belton Cooper in Death Traps. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted September 26, 2013 Share Posted September 26, 2013 Death Traps is a terrible book. No, wait. That's not fair. Death Traps is like the Curate's egg; good in parts. When Coopers sticks to talking about stuff that he actually did as an ordnance officer - his personal experiences, and descriptions of the job he did - it's a pretty good book. All the more so because there just aren't that many memoirs from non-teeth arms junior officers. But unfortunately that only makes up about 1/4th - /3rd of the book. Cooper is much less than good when he starts babbling on about things which he has no direct experience - those bits are Kettlerian flights of fantasy, second hand stories, and rumours filled with made up or badly out of context numbers - which makes up the other 2/3rds of the book. Patton's thoughts, or lack there of, on armoured warfare as related by Cooper very definitely fit into the second category. (FWIW, Jason doesn't like that book either) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted September 26, 2013 Share Posted September 26, 2013 MikeyD, There's a great deal more to the T-34 engine story than you might imagine. Groggy details here. Major point: The entire tank development process, starting with the BT-7, that led to the T-34 was explicitly built around a diesel engine, not a gasoline one. http://www.kampfpanzer.de/items/detail/v-2 Christie tank specs http://www.oocities.org/firefly1002000/christanks.html Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arpella72 Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 It's a common mistake to take only in consideration the technical aspects when talking about weaponry and to ignore the rest of circumstances that take part in the making up of a desicion.At first,there was nothing wrong with the Sherman.It was a very good tank and one of the best in the IIWW along with the T-34. It was designed as a middle-sized and middle-weight tank that could be produced in large quantities,not only to supply the US Army but its allies(brits,french,russians,etc).What's more,it had to be shipped far away,and had to take part in landings.It was intended to be an infantry support tank(not a tank destroyer) but it could be upgraded(the upgrading potential make the difference between a good tank and a bad one) and served very well as far as the Six Day War in 1967 with the Israelis who went contented with them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Arpella, while I agree with the general sentiment in your post, the Sherman was not designed as an infantry support tank. It was always expected to act like a true medium and deal with enemy tanks if and when it came upon them, US TD doctrine not withstanding. And it was easily capable of doing so when it first arrived in theatre. You don't give a tank fancy optics and an even fancier stabilizer if you expect its main role to be blowing landser out of foxholes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Arpella, while I agree with the general sentiment in your post, the Sherman was not designed as an infantry support tank. It was always expected to act like a true medium and deal with enemy tanks if and when it came upon them, US TD doctrine not withstanding. And it was easily capable of doing so when it first arrived in theatre. You don't give a tank fancy optics and an even fancier stabilizer if you expect its main role to be blowing landser out of foxholes. Right. It was intended as a general purpose tank. It was roughly equivalent to the Pz. Mark IV throughout its career and was actually even a better AT tank in the A3E8 model whenever the crew could get its hands on some HVAP ammo. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.