The Sherman Compared

[db_zero]

Just for fun let's see how the WW2 stuff compares to some modern stuff.

[db_zero]

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Die cast T-34/76? I've found one that is around $100, but the ones that are painted in Soviet colors is sold out. There are only captured T-34 with a German cross left the last time I checked and no die cast SU/85/122/152 that I could find in 1/32-1/35

Didn't realize you meant die-cast, just assumed you were talking model kits.

[Doug Williams]

Doug: War is about the nation's economy. If the enemy can out-produce you, you tend to lose. IIRC Stalin was quoted: " Quantity has a quality of its own".

I understand that Erwin. My question was merely tongue-in-cheek, as you should know. ;-)

DB......Wow...just wow. Amazing models.

[db_zero]

Didn't realize you meant die-cast, just assumed you were talking model kits.

I kinda figure you meant plastic models. It been 40 or so years since I built one. I know Tamiya makes some good kits. I used to love building them back in the day before the internet and computers were available to the masses.

Regarding the Sherman vs Tiger. I watched a you tube video where they compared the 2 and while the Tiger was rated far superior in protection and firepower the Sherman was far better in mobility, reliability and ability to be massed produced so it was declared the overall better tank.

Yet when all of the British and German tankers who fought Western Europe were asked which tank they would have wanted to fight in they all said the Tiger.

[Pelican Pal]

Yet when all of the British and German tankers who fought Western Europe were asked which tank they would have wanted to fight in they all said the Tiger.

This is the basis for a lot of the pro German armor and equipment opinions that you see.

At a strategic level you want your tanks to be reliable and you want there to be some when you need them. So the Sherman is a pretty solid tank.

At a tactical level there isn't really a reason to not want a Tiger. If you could get that thing into battle it would wreck ****. As a guy at the pointy end of the spear you definitely want to be in a Tiger and you definitely don't want to be in a Sherman.

[db_zero]

This is the basis for a lot of the pro German armor and equipment opinions that you see.

At a strategic level you want your tanks to be reliable and you want there to be some when you need them. So the Sherman is a pretty solid tank.

At a tactical level there isn't really a reason to not want a Tiger. If you could get that thing into battle it would wreck ****. As a guy at the pointy end of the spear you definitely want to be in a Tiger and you definitely don't want to be in a Sherman.

agreed. another factor is the Shermans had to be shipped from the US to the ETO. Is one thing to transport a Sherman on liberty ships or LST and a completely different proposition to ship a 52 ton Tiger across the Atlantic. I'm not even sure if the beaches on Normandy would accommodate a Tiger.

The one thing that could have been done was to outfit more with 17 pounders, but the Not Invented in America (NIH-not invented here) mentality took hold, which was too bad because that really could have been a game changer. After WW2 the Israelis used upgraded Shermans to very good effect.

[hobo]

I have a new name for my little fellow, Sherman:}

[A co]

For those interested in the pro's and con's of the Sherman and its role in the war, I think Steve Zaloga's book 'Armored Thunderbolt' is the most in-depth look.

Some positive aspects of the Sherman, as far as I know-

Easily mass produced.

Fit on US rail cars (to be shipped to ports).

Reliable.

Good mobility.

Good HE shell, three MG's on board. (Tanks spent a lot more time dealing with enemy infantry rather than enemy tanks.)

These are all basically 'big picture' advantages, not tank vs. tank dueling advantages, and the war was a big picture.

[c3k]

And the Tank Destroyer branch had the anti-tank role. Sherman was able to be upgunned to meet changing doctrine and threats. From short 75 to 76 to 17 pounder to Israeli 105. Great design with great longevity based on a sound chassis.

[IronCat60]

As a WW2 buff and a 11M40J (Mechanized Infantry Platoon Sergeant and Bradley Master Gunner) I always noticed the similarities between the the two vehicles. As far as overall silhouette, height, tonnage and armor.

And like the Shermans, when we went to war in Desert Storm we "up-armored" the front by the driver. We voted that we didn't want the reactive armor due to the extra weight, more horsepower in the sand without it. So we took the long bolts for the reactive armor and ran it through the openings of the spare track blocks where the drive sprocket teeth engage the track when in place, and fit them to the bolt holes on the front slope in front of the drivers position. Extra steel is nice to have

In addition to that I suggested taking the cans of O.D. Green paint from our Conex shipping container and mixing it with sand and a fine limestone aggregate from a near by hill and filling sand bags for the front slope. Letting the paint ooze out of the burlap and get on the bags around it. Plus we shoveled sand on top of the bags exterior. When the stack of bags dried it was like the whole mass was glued in place and had a real good natural camouflage texture sealed on top! :eek:

Plus small arms fire could tear the bag and just chip away at the contents with out it spilling out all over because it was a crude form of cement. We tried three sample bags and a 7.62mm coax on them and this was the result. This would work fine because trying to find trees for logs on the front was a bitch!

Fun in the "Sand Box"

Mech.Gato

[db_zero]

As a WW2 buff and a 11M40J (Mechanized Infantry Platoon Sergeant and Bradley Master Gunner) I always noticed the similarities between the the two vehicles. As far as overall silhouette, height, tonnage and armor.

And like the Shermans, when we went to war in Desert Storm we "up-armored" the front by the driver. We voted that we didn't want the reactive armor due to the extra weight, more horsepower in the sand without it. So we took the long bolts for the reactive armor and ran it through the openings of the spare track blocks where the drive sprocket teeth engage the track when in place, and fit them to the bolt holes on the front slope in front of the drivers position. Extra steel is nice to have

In addition to that I suggested taking the cans of O.D. Green paint from our Conex shipping container and mixing it with sand and a fine limestone aggregate from a near by hill and filling sand bags for the front slope. Letting the paint ooze out of the burlap and get on the bags around it. Plus we shoveled sand on top of the bags exterior. When the stack of bags dried it was like the whole mass was glued in place and had a real good natural camouflage texture sealed on top! :eek:

Plus small arms fire could tear the bag and just chip away at the contents with out it spilling out all over because it was a crude form of cement. We tried three sample bags and a 7.62mm coax on them and this was the result. This would work fine because trying to find trees for logs on the front was a bitch!

Fun in the "Sand Box"

Mech.Gato

Interesting story. I know before the 1991 Gulf War the Bradley got a lot of bad press, as did the Abrams. Of course after the 1991 Gulf War that all changed.

The WW2 GI had a reputation for innovation...sounds like your crew carried on the tradition. Sherman crews would add improvised armor on their tanks. Don't know how effective it really was. I don't know or have seen the same practice done by the British or CW forces.

In any case it sure must have sucked in WW2 fighting with a tank that was widely viewed as inferior.

[Erwin]

Interesting question is why didn't the manufacturer have additional armor on the default vehicle. Presumably added weight would have created problems to the performance?

So, if troops added the weight themselves then did that degrade performance and are we saying that the degradation didn't matter?

[db_zero]

Interesting question is why didn't the manufacturer have additional armor on the default vehicle. Presumably added weight would have created problems to the performance?

So, if troops added the weight themselves then did that degrade performance and are we saying that the degradation didn't matter?

I think later models like the Easy 8 had additional armor and other protective features as well as an improved suspension to deal with the added weight.

The crews did whatever they could regardless of degradation. Who cares if the life of the tank is lessened if you feel its already short in the face of a superior enemy. I'm sure the tankers also knew there were plenty of spare tanks if they lost one or 2 or 3.

I think the practice was frowned upon, but often overlooked. I once saw a picture of Patton lecturing a tank crew to remove the added sandbags and logs as it was not good for the tank. The crew said yes sir and then drove off ignoring the order.

[Other Means]

Here are some comparison pics of the M-18 Hellcat. Fast like a sports car and armed with a high velocity 76mm with some silver bullets. Not much armor to speak of and probably not pleasant for some of the crew if airburst shells went off overhead.

I think most were assigned to tank destroyer units, which most considered a flawed concept.

I don't think it was a flawed concept, just that most of the armour they were meant to fight had been abandoned on the Steppe. They performed admirably when called upon.

[Michael Emrys]

I don't think it was a flawed concept, just that most of the armour they were meant to fight had been abandoned on the Steppe. They performed admirably when called upon.

Yeah, the whole TD organization was intended as a response to the German armored doctrine of 1939-41. But by the time that the TDs actually hit the field, the likelihood of massed German armor breakthroughs had all but vanished. A lot of the time, the TD battalions were a solution looking for a problem. Much of the time they got used as not-terribly-good tanks. Once the war was over, the Army got rid of them pretty quickly. But as you say, when they had armor to shoot at, especially from ambush, they did very well, particularly the M18 Hellcat and M36 Jackson.

Michael

[ChappyCanuck]

Wow, great models db_zero!  I remember modelling as a teenager in the 1970's. Almost always WW2 tanks/APCs.  I wanted to make the next step to dioramas, but I never got around to it. Maybe this is something I should get back into, but I have so many more other hobbies on the go now!

[Bradley]

Cost and value has become my preferred tank of choice. And a lot of fun had to boot.

[Bulletpoint]

The "tank" that won the war in the west:

 

[JonS]

As a WW2 buff and a 11M40J (Mechanized Infantry Platoon Sergeant and Bradley Master Gunner) I always noticed the similarities between the the two vehicles. As far as overall silhouette, height, tonnage and armor.

And like the Shermans, when we went to war in Desert Storm we "up-armored" the front by the driver. We voted that we didn't want the reactive armor due to the extra weight, more horsepower in the sand without it. So we took the long bolts for the reactive armor and ran it through the openings of the spare track blocks where the drive sprocket teeth engage the track when in place, and fit them to the bolt holes on the front slope in front of the drivers position. Extra steel is nice to have

In addition to that I suggested taking the cans of O.D. Green paint from our Conex shipping container and mixing it with sand and a fine limestone aggregate from a near by hill and filling sand bags for the front slope. Letting the paint ooze out of the burlap and get on the bags around it. Plus we shoveled sand on top of the bags exterior. When the stack of bags dried it was like the whole mass was glued in place and had a real good natural camouflage texture sealed on top! :eek:

Plus small arms fire could tear the bag and just chip away at the contents with out it spilling out all over because it was a crude form of cement. We tried three sample bags and a 7.62mm coax on them and this was the result. This would work fine because trying to find trees for logs on the front was a bitch!

Fun in the "Sand Box"

Mech.Gato

 

Fun story but ... I trust you realise that what you did actually reduced the effective armour on your wagon? "Innovation" != effective

Edited January 15, 2015 by JonS

[JonS]

Interesting question is why didn't the manufacturer have additional armor on the default vehicle. Presumably added weight would have created problems to the performance?

 

The OR Team attached to 21st AG in NWE had a close look at exactly this question. After looking at a bunch of wrecked tanks in June and July 1944, and based on the amount of additional armour required over the arc of incoming angles, they determined that it simply wasn't practical to up-armour the Sherman enough to make the effort worthwhile*. Instead, what they recommended as something that was actually practical was to increase the hitting power of Allied tanks by giving them bigger and better guns.

 

In other words, instead of making the Sherman  less vulnerable, they should make the German tanks more vulnerable.

 

Which is what they did - as the campaign progressed the proportion of Fireflies rose from 1:4 to 2:4, and the Americans introduced the 76mm in increasing numbers.

 

Also, bear in mind that, while it wasn't much fun to be an Allied tanker, it utterly sucked to be an Allied infantryman. And yet both of those roles were head and shoulders more preferable than being a German tanker or rifleman.

 

Jon

 

* except perhaps in a placebo kind of way.

Edited January 15, 2015 by JonS

[Other Means]

An interesting question is: if the Germans had stuck with the PzIV and produced masses of them, would they have had a better showing? Not having all those shiny toys would engender a different mind-set in the Generals.

 

We all (I think all) know that the only way the Germans could've got anything out of the war would be to go on the defensive post-Stalingrad and stabilise their lines. Hold out for 2 - 3 years in a stalemate (so being able to resist the Western Allies in the ETO), shoot Hitler and maybe Yalta would never have happened.

 

The Tiger - the tank that cost them the war.

[Melchior]

A lot of people will say the Tiger hurt Germany but I don't know if it cost them the war. It was certainly more worth the trouble than the nearly-as-troublesome Panther tank which wasn't as well protected. Remember that the Tiger was a vehicle borne of the mid-war mindset. It was a breakthrough vehicle. If you imagined it being used to punch holes in the initial "crust" of the enemy line which the regular Panzers would then pour into it actually makes quite a bit of sense. Important vehicle really since through the entire war Germany would always use them to punch deep salients into enemy lines, then they'd plug those salients with 50+ kilometers of dug in infantry and anti-tank guns. This was probably why the Germans just knocked out so many damn tanks during the war. The Tiger was pivotal to that in my opinion. IE: The greatest benefits of the vehicle were indirect. 

 

Course' the fact was the Tiger was also designed for a mission that the Germany Army could no longer carry out, deep offensive thrusts into enemy territory. Originally the Panzers would simply overrun weak sections of the enemy line and just sprint as far as their fuel would take them. It was important that the enemy line being weak enough in places to simply smash apart while strong points could be bypassed. By 1942 basically the whole line would be strong, and the Germans could expect a tough fight almost anywhere they attacked. This was the logic behind the Tiger. 

 

Mass producing the Panzer IV would have drawn the war out another few months or so at worst, a year at most. The Germans were lucky to find out that Panzer IV's chassis had been underutilized when it was designed. Mind you, by 1944 the Panzer IV chassis was still approaching its limit. Those IVH models with all their extra plate, bigger guns, and shurzen plates actually had a cross country speed of only around 10mph. The Tiger was actually faster! Still, it was much cheaper vehicle than the Panther, and basically just as effective. A modest tank that is present is better than an uber-tank that is never around. That's how the Allies were winning the war. 

 

 

 

We all (I think all) know that the only way the Germans could've got anything out of the war would be to go on the defensive post-Stalingrad and stabilise their lines. Hold out for 2 - 3 years in a stalemate (so being able to resist the Western Allies in the ETO), shoot Hitler and maybe Yalta would never have happened.

 

The only way the Germans could have gotten anything out of the war would've been not to have the war in the first place. The decisions above might have extended the war up to a year at best, but Germany was doomed by its decision to make war.  

Edited January 16, 2015 by CaptHawkeye

[lcm1977]

Extremely interesting and yes these photo's really show you the size difference in tanks.  What I found interesting in my readings is how many types of vehicles Germany had compared to everybody else.  No wonder they produced

so fewer per month or year.  

[womble]

Extremely interesting and yes these photo's really show you the size difference in tanks.  What I found interesting in my readings is how many types of vehicles Germany had compared to everybody else.  No wonder they produced

so fewer per month or year.

I don't think you can draw a causal relationship between the number of different models and variations fielded and the total number of pairs of tracks on the battlefield. Many of the multitude were conceived in order to maximise the use of existing resources, both existing material and manufacturing: they had more 75L/48 tubes than they could produce PzIV platforms, for example so they found other ways of getting them to the fight. And then there are the versions that were explicitly designed to reduce the manufacturing overhead, which were sometimes inferior to the models they replaced, but which replaced the older models in the construction queue on a greater than one-for-one basis.