Unstoppable Juggernauts (OT but Historical)

[Snake Eyes]

Sorry guys, just a little sarcasm.

------------------

It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

[Chupacabra]

I'm not sure I'm following this whole "Shermans were more reliable than Tigers, therefore better" argument. Perhaps someone who's more up on modern arms can tell us this: how much time does an Abrams spend in maintenance compared to time in the field?

I'm not prepared to stake the farm on the answer, but I'd be extremely surprised if the Abrams is a good deal less "reliable" than the Sherman - that is, I'm betting that the Abrams spends more time being maintained WRT to the Sherman. Does that mean that the Sherman's a better tank than the Abrams?

More advanced designs tend to be flukier and more difficult to maintain than simpler designs. And while simplicity has its virtues, I don't think I'd point to it as making one piece of equipment better than another.

I believe that the German tanks' "unreliability" has quite a bit more to do with the fact that Germany was pretty well wiped out by D-Day and could muster neither the resources nor the personnel to adequately maintain its equipment, and not to any design flaws.

------------------

Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh.

[Skott Karlsson]

What's interesting to note that in 1940 Germany didnt have the finest tanks. The French had some model tanks that were superior but in limited numbers.

Then in 1941/42? Germany discovered their tanks were no match for the Russian KV-1 or the T-34. It wasnt untill around 1943 the the Germans had tanks with guns that could punch through Russian armor with greater ease.

In 1944 The Americans didnt have a tank that could match the Tigers and Panthers but they could do something the Germans couldnt. Put 5 tanks against one. And thats what the western Allies did. Throw 5 tanks against one German tank. The Sherman was cheap and quick to make whereas the Tigers and Panthers weren't. Basically the Russians used overwhelming attacks also to beat back the Germans.

I remember reading one article that if in 1943 Hitler would have increased tank and plane production like his minister wanted to they may not have lost the war in the east. Of course its easy to sit back years later and say they should have done this and they should have done that. So many mistakes and bluinders were made on all sides.

~Skott~

[Snake Eyes]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skott Karlsson:

I remember reading one article that if in 1943 Hitler would have increased tank and plane production like his minister wanted to they may not have lost the war in the east. Of course its easy to sit back years later and say they should have done this and they should have done that. So many mistakes and bluinders were made on all sides.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, it is true that 20/20 hindsight is perfect, but it's just as well that Hitler made the blunders that he did. As an example, the Me262 could have been available in late 1943 or early 1944 had Hitler not insisted that it be a bomber. What a shock that would have been to the Allies as they prepared for D-Day!

Also, Hitler's fixation with uber weapons such as the King Tiger helped in the overall defeat of Germany. A more practical solution to Germany's late war woes would have been more Hetzers and no KT's. Not as elegant a design, but more practical in the long run.

------------------

It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

[Marlow]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra:

I'm not sure I'm following this whole "Shermans were more reliable than Tigers, therefore better" argument. Perhaps someone who's more up on modern arms can tell us this: how much time does an Abrams spend in maintenance compared to time in the field?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Contrary to fears raised by early critics, the Abrams has proven surprisingly reliable for a modern AFV (less maintenance time than an M-60 IIRC). This despite, and in some cases because of (e.g. on board diagnostics) its high tech systems.

Almost forgot, the Sherman had one real advantage, the Abrams is a fuel hog. The Army had to mount a major logistics deep in Iraqi territory during Desert Storm in no small part because of the Abrams fuel demand.

[This message has been edited by Marlow (edited 12-13-2000).]

[Terence]

sounds like there are two arguments going on here (at least), and Im learning a lot from both. Some great posts indeed.

One pov seems to consider the sherman "organically" within the context of the US military machine and the logisitical systems behind it, mentioning the repair issues, track life, speed, air support etc.

The other considers each tank in isolation, citing turret speed etc and individual battlefield performance.

[Slapdragon]

Reliability is always an issue in war, and it was one of the things McNair was looking at. First, the more reliable a tank is, the more time it is available to do what you want it to do. Which would you rather have in CM: the M4 that shows up or the King Tiger which bogged down 12 km back and never shows up. We do not fight a lot of these battle in CM but the US M4s spent most of their time shooting at infantry -- while American infantry rarely faced German tanks without a closeby tank unit. AAR reports have German units loosing a quarter of their tanks to break downs in road marches (Russians were worse, they would actually throw away a tank or halftrack rather than fix it).

Imagine if the game had a reliability mechanism -- each tank you buy has a certain chance not to show up based on its clunky factor. A Lynx is probably going to be there, as is the MkIV, but the larger German tanks were dogs with regard to reliability. You just spent 200 pts on a KT for a battle and surprise! Its not there! You would quickly buy more stugs.

Also, look at what the US had to start. The Honey was loved by the British during the desert war. Good armor, fast, lots of ammo, rock solid reliable, good gas mileage. The Honey was an even match for a mkIV. Then comes the M3. Not so good but the 75mm is really liked for its HE. Then comes the US M4, which was a great desert tank.. still is since some M50s still rumble around those regions all built on HVSS hulls that have seen some hard driving. The M50 fought the T55 and 62 decades after the M4 design was first rolled out..

Do I think the M4 is as good as a Panther? Of course not, but it is a very slighted tank which won a war and went on to fight in Korea and every mideast war since.

[Croda]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

...Which would you rather have in CM: the M4 that shows up or the King Tiger which bogged down 12 km back and never shows up...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that's a key component to this debate. One on one, a Sherman wouldnt last against many German tanks. And when when you're in the field, would you rather have 1 Sherman now, or 1 Pershing in a month? I'd take the Sherman.

Sheer weight of numbers is a powerful thing. The ability to replace destroyed Shermans is huge when your opponent cannot do the same. Assuming the 5:1 Sherman:Panther ratio mentioned, maybe you lose 2 or 3 Shermans to kill the Panther. If you can have those 2 or 3 Shermans back in 2 weeks, and the enemy doesn't get the Panther back at all, that's sure one way, though costly, to win a war.

It's also got to be crushing on enemy morale to see that no matter how many tanks they destroy, replacements show up to take their place, while your numbers only dwindle. At some point that's got to crush the spirit.

I suppose the bottom line is that perhaps the U.S. could have put Pershings on the field sooner, but they had a known commodity in the Sherman, crews that were trained to use them, and a technique that was taking it's toll on the enemy.

------------------

WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! -

THIS SIG FILE BELONGS TO A COMPLETE FOO.

MR T WOULDN'T BE SO KIND AS TO WRINKLE AN EYEBROW AT THIS UNFORTUNATE BEING. PLEASE OFFER HIS PARENTS AND COHABITANTS ALL SYMPATHY POSSIBLE. MAY BE CONTAGIOUS. CONTAINS ARTIFICIAL SWEETNER, INTELLIGENCE AND WIT. STAND WELL CLEAR AND LIGHT WICK. BY ORDER PETERNZ

Damn Croda. That is one funny sig!!!

must suck to be you - Hiram Sedai

[Marlow]

More on the Abrams and why more complicated and more capable is not always less reliable: "During the Gulf War only 18 Abrams tanks were taken out of service due to battle damage: nine were permanent losses, and another nine suffered repairable damage, mostly from mines. Not a single Abrams crewman was lost in the conflict. There were few reports of mechanical failure. US armor commanders maintained an unprecedented 90% operational readiness for their Abrams Main Battle Tanks." from http://www.fas.org

[tss]

Snake Eyes wrote:

As an example, the Me262 could have been available in late 1943 or early 1944 had Hitler not insisted that it be a bomber.

By what I've read from various sources, the bomber thing didn't really affect Me262 development that much. The main problem was engine reliability and that would affect both bomber and fighter variants equally. The true delay for the bomber-fiasco was a couple of weeks.

Slapdragon wrote:

(Russians were worse, they would actually throw away a tank or halftrack rather than fix it).

That would happen only to old tanks, not new. There were still a lot of old T-34-76 models in service in 1944 and not surprisingly the tankers didn't like them. So, when one broke down they would sometimes it with the hope that they get a newer one in exchange. However, they would definitely repair all IS-II tanks that they could.

- Tommi

[Snake Eyes]

Major modern wars, beginning with the American Civil War, are really economic battles. The side that can out-produce and out-last the other will win. The Soviet Union took a terrible beating, but yet recovered enough to produce 58,000+ T34's. Their methods and tactics were not elegant, but they worked.

The American M4 was outclassed by the German heavies and one German heavy may have been equivalent to five Shermans. Nonetheless, as an unnamed German commander is reputed to have said, "There were always six."

In our little CM world we can get very myopic and only see the immediate threat. But as Slapdragon has made very clear and I alluded to earlier, you have to take a step back and look at the entire picture. WWII was fought over thousands of CM sized maps.

------------------

It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

[Snake Eyes]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tss:

Snake Eyes wrote:

As an example, the Me262 could have been available in late 1943 or early 1944 had Hitler not insisted that it be a bomber.

By what I've read from various sources, the bomber thing didn't really affect Me262 development that much. The main problem was engine reliability and that would affect both bomber and fighter variants equally. The true delay for the bomber-fiasco was a couple of weeks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the info, I stand corrected. Do you have a reference? I would like to look into this more.

------------------

It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Croda:

I think that's a key component to this debate. One on one, a Sherman wouldnt last against many German tanks. And when when you're in the field, would you rather have 1 Sherman now, or 1 Pershing in a month? I'd take the Sherman.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First you have to show that that was a decision that would have had to have been made. You are jsut assuming that a limitation occurs that does not.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Sheer weight of numbers is a powerful thing. The ability to replace destroyed Shermans is huge when your opponent cannot do the same. Assuming the 5:1 Sherman:Panther ratio mentioned, maybe you lose 2 or 3 Shermans to kill the Panther. If you can have those 2 or 3 Shermans back in 2 weeks, and the enemy doesn't get the Panther back at all, that's sure one way, though costly, to win a war.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And a better way, would be to kill the Panther and only lose one tank instead of 3 that then does not need to be replaced, and, more importantly, does not need to have the crew replaced.

Which would you rather have, 3 Pershings with experienced crews right now, or 4 replacement Shermans with converted inafntrymen in a month?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

It's also got to be crushing on enemy morale to see that no matter how many tanks they destroy, replacements show up to take their place, while your numbers only dwindle. At some point that's got to crush the spirit.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm. I am not sure I can go with the argument that an effective way of harming enemy morale is to let them destroy huge numbers of your vehicles.

A more effective method would be to not have them destroy your vehicles, and just get more and more since new production can go to new units instead of replacing the losses in existing units.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

I suppose the bottom line is that perhaps the U.S. could have put Pershings on the field sooner, but they had a known commodity in the Sherman, crews that were trained to use them, and a technique that was taking it's toll on the enemy.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This "numbers" argument keeps getting revived, but the proponents are never willing to state the numbers to support the argument.

If the arguemnt is that quantity in this case trumps quality, then how much quantity do you need to trump how much quality?

I claimed that an M26 Pershing (or something close to it) could have been deployed by D-Day, and that it would have been about 30% (at most) more resource expensive than a Sherman while providing the US Army with the ability to go up against the Panther or Tiger at 2-1 odds, rather than the 5-1 commonly stated. That is an obvious win.

Here is my claim: Given a modicum of foresight and willingness to learn from what the other combatants were doing, the US Army could have traded 100 M4(75) Shermans on June 6, 1944 for 20 M4(75)'s, 30 M4(76)'s, and 30 M26 Pershings.

The only credible stumbling block to having the M26 in production was the availabilty of high horsepower engines. The Army Air Force had priority on those, and that would have been an issue that would have had to been resolved, but like I said before, the nation that figured out (in 5 years) how to wipe out a city with a single bomb could have figured out how to increase high-output engine production if it was a priority.

Jeff Heidman

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snake Eyes:

The American M4 was outclassed by the German heavies and one German heavy may have been equivalent to five Shermans. Nonetheless, as an unnamed German commander is reputed to have said, "There were always six."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it would be much more preferable to say that the American M26 was equal to anything the Germans had, and it took 2 M26s to guarantee that Panther got killed, but we always had 4, and most importantly, we have no intention of losing 3 Pershings for every Panther we kill.

If the canonical "average" is that 5 Shermans kill one Panther and lose 2.5 Shermans in the process, I think it is safe to say that 2 Pershings could kill 1 Panther and lose .5 Pershings in the process. And we could build Pershings at a 4:5 ratio of Pershings to Shermans.

Everyone compares the number of Sherman we built to the number of Panther/Tigers that the Germans built. This is an error. The relevant comparison is how many Shermans we built to how many Panthers/Pershings we could have built had McNair not been such an idiot.

I sure am glad the US Army Air Force did not refuse to build P-51s because P-39s were "good enough".

Jeff Heidman

[Terence]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

The only credible stumbling block to having the M26 in production was the availabilty of high horsepower engines. The Army Air Force had priority on those, and that would have been an issue that would have had to been resolved, but like I said before, the nation that figured out (in 5 years) how to wipe out a city with a single bomb could have figured out how to increase high-output engine production if it was a priority.

Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess that could be true, but I have no way of knowing.

I do know that it was touch and go for a while that the US would have enough landing craft. They kept getting shuttled about from theater to theater, and in fact, delayed the launch of whatever that operation was that invaded southern france.

And Im pretty sure that landing craft were at least as important as tanks. Eisenhower credited the guy in New Orleans who owned the company that them as being critical to the victory.

So, while the production machinery was mighty, Im not sure you could just order up tanks just because you really wanted them.

On the other hand, I'm drawing a parallel between tanks and landing craft so what the hell do I know?

Terence

[Guest machineman]

Another thing to keep in mind is that the Germans and the Americans were producing tanks under vastly different conditions. The US could have produced a reliable Panther as they simply had the raw materials and the undisturbed industrial base that the Germans were short of.

Whereas a Sherman produced by the Germans would have been just as short of alloys and rubber as well as skilled workers and unbroken machine tools to build it. Those nice rubber tracks? Ha! First to go.

FWIW the trouble with the ME262 engines was similar, caused by lack of alloys to make turbine wheels that would hold up under the great stress and heat of being in a jet engine. With these alloys (which ended up in U-Boat program), the 262 engines would have lasted much longer than they did.

[Guest Germanboy]

Jeff - I agree with you on the basic point. I think however that I as a German CO would be deeply demoralised if a day after I destroy half the tank strength of two divisions (GOODWOOD, IIRC) they just get reequipped with shiny new tanks, while every one of my tanks that is not repairable by my fitters is gone for good and there are absolutely no replacements coming through.

As for the landing ships - I forget the figures (will dig them out later tonight), but according to Wilmot there was not an issue with numbers, but with Admiral King holding on to them and refusing to release them for use in the ETO. He says that around the time of NEPTUNE, an assault on some island (Tarawa? Saipan?) was supported by a larger number of LSTs than were available to Eisenhower. The desaster off Devon, where three LSTs were sunk by German E-Boats almost delayed the invasion going in because these were irreplaceable to Eisenhower.

I have no idea whether that assertion is true, so if somebody here could enlighten me I would be grateful.

------------------

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 12-13-2000).]

[Croda]

Quotes originally posted by Jeff Heidman

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>First you have to show that that was a decision that would have had to have been made. You are jsut assuming that a limitation occurs that does not.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not arguing what could have been had, just what was available.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And a better way, would be to kill the Panther and only lose one tank instead of 3 that then does not need to be replaced, and, more importantly, does not need to have the crew replaced.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no argument with that, but they didn't have Pershings, they had Shermans.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hmmm. I am not sure I can go with the argument that an effective way of harming enemy morale is to let them destroy huge numbers of your vehicles.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for taking that out of context.

The point was that due to the large number of Shermans available, replacements were never all that far away (replacement tanks, not veteran crews). A by product of this, certainly not the intent, is that the enemy will see the tanks they destroyed yesterday replaced tomorrow, while their own supplies are not replaced, or not nearly as fast. It is logical to think that this would be daunting for the German troops.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I claimed that an M26 Pershing (or something close to it) could have been deployed by D-Day, and that it would have been about 30% (at most) more resource expensive than a Sherman while providing the US Army with the ability to go up against the Panther or Tiger at 2-1 odds, rather than the 5-1 commonly stated. That is an obvious win.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup, would have been nice. Not sure what more you want anyone to say regarding this.

I haven't had any qualms with your argument. Pershings earlier would have been a great boost and would have saved a lot of lives. I can't tell you why they weren't there. Possbily there's a good reason for it, possibly not. As for numbers of Shermans...I thought I read somewhere, perhaps earlier in this thread, that somewhere in the area of 52,000 Shermans were produced. If so, that's a lot of tanks.

------------------

WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! -

THIS SIG FILE BELONGS TO A COMPLETE FOO.

MR T WOULDN'T BE SO KIND AS TO WRINKLE AN EYEBROW AT THIS UNFORTUNATE BEING. PLEASE OFFER HIS PARENTS AND COHABITANTS ALL SYMPATHY POSSIBLE. MAY BE CONTAGIOUS. CONTAINS ARTIFICIAL SWEETNER, INTELLIGENCE AND WIT. STAND WELL CLEAR AND LIGHT WICK. BY ORDER PETERNZ

Damn Croda. That is one funny sig!!!

must suck to be you - Hiram Sedai

[This message has been edited by Croda (edited 12-13-2000).]

[Iron Duke]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>More on the Abrams and why more complicated and more capable is not always less reliable: "During the Gulf War only 18 Abrams tanks were taken out of service due to battle damage: nine were permanent losses, and another nine suffered repairable damage, mostly from mines. Not a single Abrams crewman was lost in the conflict. There were few reports of mechanical failure. US armor commanders maintained an unprecedented 90% operational readiness for their Abrams Main Battle Tanks."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice post Marlow. Right on the money, as a matter of fact, my unit, the 3rd Armored Division was the only Division in any Army, EVER to have all 300 of its tanks fight throughout the whole ground war without ANY mechanical failures. You must understand, the US has learned a whole lot since WWII. The M1 Abrams series tanks are excellent machines that put emphasis on crew survivability, ease of maintenance, and combat survivability. It is true that the M1 uses a lot of fuel BUT when you take into account that the typical combat weight for the M1 is 68 to 70 tons, and can travel over 35mph in sand, that is saying a lot! 505 gallons of fuel fit into the four auto-sealing fuel pods and with the Lycoming turbine engine, you get the most "bang for the buck" out of your fuel. Turbines are a whole lot more efficient than internal combustion engines. While the internal combustion engine strives to shed itself from excess heat (most of the energy produced is in the form of heat), the turbine uses heat to make power, so you squeeze every drop of fuel for what it is worth.

Cupacabra posted:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Perhaps someone who's more up on modern arms can tell us this: how much time does an Abrams spend in maintenance compared to time in the field?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its a funny thing, when the tanks are parked in the motor pool, THAT is when they break down! When you are out on maneuvers, hard charging, running them non-stop for days on end, they run as smooth as a baby's bottom. Like the Kalashnikov, they where engineered to run better with hard use. And even in the motor pool, as long as the crew does its PMCS on the major systems (turret, gun, track, engine, etc...) the M1 will be ready when you are. I would pit the M1 against ANY tank in the world and come out on top. (And don't even go "the Israelis...", the M1 would chew it up and spit it out.)

------------------

One shot...One Kill

[This message has been edited by Iron Duke (edited 12-13-2000).]

[Jeff Heidman]

Croda, what I am claiming is not just that it would have been nice to have Pershings (that is obvious), but that the reason the US Army did not have Pershings (or even just the 76mm armed Sherman earlier) had nothing to do with anything more than a bad decision made by the Army procurement board.

The Sherman was, at best, an extrmely mediocre tank by 1944. It did *not* make up for in numbers what it lost in quality, simply because the ability existed to have a tank that was more than twice as capable at only a 20-30% increase in actual cost.

Perhaps our positions are not actually in conflict. The position I am in conflict with is the commonly held belief that the decision to go with large numbers of Shermans was a good idea. It was not. It was an extremely bad idea that prolonged the war and cost lives.

Jeff Heidman

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

Jeff - I agree with you on the basic point. I think however that I as a German CO would be deeply demoralised if a day after I destroy half the tank strength of two divisions (GOODWOOD, IIRC) they just get reequipped with shiny new tanks, while every one of my tanks that is not repairable by my fitters is gone for good and there are absolutely no replacements coming through.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, I can see that as being very demoralizing. You lost most of your tanks wiping out twice as many enemy tanks, but in two weeks you see all those brand new replacements for the "bad" guys, and all you get is an old French Char-1bis with a German gun mounted on it.

Even more demoralizing would be to lose all of your tanks, but your enemy lost less than you did! Not only is that more demoralizing, you get to be depressed about it in a POW camp because your forward CP got overrun because the "bad" guys didn't have to wait for replacement tanks and crews to continue their offensive!

Jeff Heidman

[Croda]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Croda, what I am claiming is not just that it would have been nice to have Pershings (that is obvious), but that the reason the US Army did not have Pershings (or even just the 76mm armed Sherman earlier) had nothing to do with anything more than a bad decision made by the Army procurement board.

The Sherman was, at best, an extrmely mediocre tank by 1944. It did *not* make up for in numbers what it lost in quality, simply because the ability existed to have a tank that was more than twice as capable at only a 20-30% increase in actual cost.

Perhaps our positions are not actually in conflict. The position I am in conflict with is the commonly held belief that the decision to go with large numbers of Shermans was a good idea. It was not. It was an extremely bad idea that prolonged the war and cost lives.

Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ya, no argument from me on that one. I was simply trying to point out the advantages of the decision. I agree that the Pershing was the way to go, but even so, there were some benefits of the Shermans and I guess that was the angle I was taking.

Plus, the Pershing in CM has that sleek silver look to it!

------------------

WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! -

THIS SIG FILE BELONGS TO A COMPLETE FOO.

MR T WOULDN'T BE SO KIND AS TO WRINKLE AN EYEBROW AT THIS UNFORTUNATE BEING. PLEASE OFFER HIS PARENTS AND COHABITANTS ALL SYMPATHY POSSIBLE. MAY BE CONTAGIOUS. CONTAINS ARTIFICIAL SWEETNER, INTELLIGENCE AND WIT. STAND WELL CLEAR AND LIGHT WICK. BY ORDER PETERNZ

Damn Croda. That is one funny sig!!!

must suck to be you - Hiram Sedai

[Marlow]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

The Sherman was, at best, an extrmely mediocre tank by 1944.

Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends what was on top of the chassis.

Sherman + extra armor = excellent assault tank

Sherman + 90 mm gun = effective anti-armor tank, M36B1 (some even had retrofitted top armor IIRC)

Sherman + 105 mm gun = top notch infantry support tank

Sherman + 17lb = Firefly

------------------

We are fierce historical inaccuracers

- PawBroon

[Hiram Sedai]

What I'm understanding thus far with this thread seems to be this: We had more when we should have had better. Shermans and Pershings are the keywords. Somebody beat me down if I'm wrong but...didn't the Pershing mostly see service in the Korean War and then it was a disapointment after all the long waiting? Wasn't the Sherman constantly upgunned and modified for whatever theater it was currently in? It seems that as a serviceman, I would gladly have 5 Shermans following me than 1 American Ubertank (if you will) simply because you have more stuff. The having more stuff increases morale greatly when you are out there.

I'm a simple man but I know this: You can't effectively flank with just one tank.

You may verbally castigate me now. hehe

------------------

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. - Blaise Pascal

[Marlow]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hiram Sedai:

Somebody beat me down if I'm wrong but...didn't the Pershing mostly see service in the Korean War and then it was a disapointment after all the long waiting?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

M26 developed into M46, M47, M48, and ultimatly the M60. Consider yourself beaten.

------------------

We are fierce historical inaccuracers

- PawBroon