Tank Warfare

Jeff Heidman · September 1, 2000

The US Army in Europe NEVER experienced a shortage of armored vehicles. They did experience a shortage of experienced crews however, since the turnover in crews was very high, due to the Sherman being a mediocre (at best) design.

I criticized not just the Sherman, but the very fundamental decisions made by the US Army in regards to what they thought was necessary from a medium tank. The very idea that the Sherman would not fight other tanks was obviously wrong (or should have been obviously wrong) long before late 1944. The Sherman did not suck because we could not do better, the Sherman sucked because some idiot decided that we did not NEED better.

If you think the idea was right, then pray tell what exactly changed that made almsot every single designer of armored fighting vehicles after WW2 give up on the idea of the "Infantry Support Tank" a go to the accepted concept of the main battle tank that the Panther represented?

The argument that the Sherman was limited by weight due to the need to ship it is equally fallacious. Do you apply that same standard today and demand that the US Army ditch the incredibly heavy M1 Abrams in favor of something lighter, like say, the T-72? No? Why not?

The simple fact is that the powers that be in the US Army screwed up. They made some assumptions that were incorrect, and then made it worse by not being willing to be flexible and change when it became obvious that their assumptions were incorrect. The writing was on the wall in early 1943 that the Sherman 75 was not going to come close to cutting it by 1944. The American bomber that dropped the short bomb that killed General McNair did the US Army a huge favor. The Pershing could have been in Normandy in 1944, and at least 1/2 of all Shermans in the Normandy campaign could have been armed with the 76mm gun if it was not for the stupid idea that tanks would not fight other tanks. lets not even discuss the possibilites of arming the Sherman with the excellent brit 17lber, whose only flaw was its "not made in the USA" origins.

Jeff Heidman

P.S. I did not mention German problems because the topic was not about the Germans problems. They made some rather serious errors themselves when it comes to tank procurement, but on a very differnt level. Contrary to popular opinion, the problems with the Panther had nothing to do with its abilities, and everything to do with the overall inefficiencies in the system that Germany used for armamanets procurement.

Jeff Heidman · September 1, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by CavScout:

Can you provid any statistics for Allied [West] tank crew causulties versus the German [West] ones? I am willing to bet the Americans, espicially, had lower rates then the Germans. We lost far fewer than most in the war.

Cav<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How would that even remotely be relevant to whether or not it was a good idea to arm your primary battle tank with a weapon you know is inferior?

Jeff Heidman

CavScout · September 1, 2000

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

The US Army in Europe NEVER experienced a shortage of armored vehicles. They did experience a shortage of experienced crews however, since the turnover in crews was very high, due to the Sherman being a mediocre (at best) design.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Germans experianced the same shortage of trained crews. To you this on a poor design choice? Again, do you know of a statistics that show the comparisons?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

I criticized not just the Sherman, but the very fundamental decisions made by the US Army in regards to what they thought was necessary from a medium tank. The very idea that the Sherman would not fight other tanks was obviously wrong (or should have been obviously wrong) long before late 1944. The Sherman did not suck because we could not do better, the Sherman sucked because some idiot decided that we did not NEED better.

Those same 'idiots' insured that U.S. production would out-strip the enemy. Yes, they could have designed something new at every obsticle but then they would have been in the same position as the Germans. Great designs and little way to mass-produce them.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

If you think the idea was right, then pray tell what exactly changed that made almsot every single designer of armored fighting vehicles after WW2 give up on the idea of the "Infantry Support Tank" a go to the accepted concept of the main battle tank that the Panther represented?

The "infantry support tank" concept changed as weapons changed. Even the Germans were 'late' on the scene with the Panther. You think those short barrel IVs were made to fight tanks?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

The argument that the Sherman was limited by weight due to the need to ship it is equally fallacious. Do you apply that same standard today and demand that the US Army ditch the incredibly heavy M1 Abrams in favor of something lighter, like say, the T-72? No? Why not?

You'll notice that the method of transportation has changed in the mid-term as well. New transport naval vessels have been designed and pre-placement of armor was implemented. The Cold War was NOT fought like WWII. You'll notice it took MONTHS for a sizeable U.S. force of armor to build up in the Gulf. You're comparing apples and oranges.

You also might want to take a look around. Armies are going towards the lighter, more mobile tanks.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

The simple fact is that the powers that be in the US Army screwed up.

Did they? They were able to produce an effective and reliable tanks in mass numbers.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

They made some assumptions that were incorrect, and then made it worse by not being willing to be flexible and change when it became obvious that their assumptions were incorrect.

U.S. production was far more flexiable than anything the Germans had. It is not simply a matter of one day this tank and the next day that tank.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

The writing was on the wall in early 1943 that the Sherman 75 was not going to come close to cutting it by 1944. The American bomber that dropped the short bomb that killed General McNair did the US Army a huge favor. The Pershing could have been in Normandy in 1944, and at least 1/2 of all Shermans in the Normandy campaign could have been armed with the 76mm gun if it was not for the stupid idea that tanks would not fight other tanks. lets not even discuss the possibilites of arming the Sherman with the excellent brit 17lber, whose only flaw was its "not made in the USA" origins.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The US was willing to use foreign designs, not sure where you get this from. We used their dsigns in aircraft engines and such.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

P.S. I did not mention German problems because the topic was not about the Germans problems. They made some rather serious errors themselves when it comes to tank procurement, but on a very differnt level. Contrary to popular opinion, the problems with the Panther had nothing to do with its abilities, and everything to do with the overall inefficiencies in the system that Germany used for armamanets procurement.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would argue that the Panther was overly-complex. It was no where near as reliable as the Sherman.

Cav

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

"War does not determine who is right - only who is left."

--Bertrand Russell

"God is always with the strongest battalions."

--Frederick the Great

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

--Benjamin Franklin, 1759

"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business."

--D. W. Brogan, The American Character

CavScout · September 1, 2000

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

How would that even remotely be relevant to whether or not it was a good idea to arm your primary battle tank with a weapon you know is inferior?

Hmm.. could it be that you continue to insist that the American tank crew suffered more than the German. Seems it would pretty damm relevent. You said, "The US Army in Europe NEVER experienced a shortage of armored vehicles. They did experience a shortage of experienced crews however, since the turnover in crews was very high, due to the Sherman being a mediocre (at best) design."

The turnover of crews due to combat is VERY relevent.

Cav

Jeff Heidman · September 1, 2000

Cav, almsot every single response to my post was a strawman.

I *never* said that American tank crews had high casualties compared to the Germans. That would be stupid, since there are too many other variables to make such a comparison meaningful.

You brought that up, so excuse me if I refrain from defending an argument I did not make. I did say that in comparison to the available tanks, the crews were usually the limiting factor. You can read about Shermans sitting in depots in Britain because there are no crews for them, or Shermans being crewed by hastily trained replacements who did poorly once they got into a fight. Clearly a more survivable vehicle would address some of those issues.

Those same 'idiots' insured that U.S. production would out-strip the enemy. Yes, they could have designed something new at every obsticle but then they would have been in the same position as the Germans. Great designs and little way to mass-produce them.

Again, a strawman. First of all, those same idiots did NOT ensure that the US would outproduce the enemy. We were going to outproduce the enemy no matter what, simply because we had a vastly greater infrastructure. WHAT we chose to produce is not relevant to the point. A 50% more effective vehicle at 30% greater cost would have still resulted in the US vastly outstripping the Germans in production.

And were did I say the US should adopt a German method of procurement? Why do you keep bringing the Germans into it? Are you conviced that the only way to biuld a decent tank is to use the German system? Do you really think that the US was incapable of producing a vehicle as capable as the Panther without also adopting the germans inefficeincies? If so, why?

I think the US could have designed and biult a vehicle similar to the Panther without the Panthers problems. The Panthers problems were very much a result of the inefficient German procurement system. I guess I just have more faith in American know-how than you do.

The "infantry support tank" concept changed as weapons changed. Even the Germans were 'late' on the scene with the Panther. You think those short barrel IVs were made to fight tanks?

Well, duh. That is the point. The differnce being that the Germans and Soviets figured that out in 1942, and the US figured it out in 1944. THAT IS MY POINT!!! Everyone else (even the bloody Brits) had realised that this idea that you ahd infantry tanks and anti-tank tanks was not going to work , simply because your opponent is rarely so accomadating as to only attack where you expect him to.

You'll notice that the method of transportation has changed in the mid-term as well. ... You'll notice it took MONTHS for a sizeable U.S. force of armor to build up in the Gulf. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Actually, you are doing a great job of proving my point.

It might have taken months to build up the Gulf forces, and maybe some of that ahad to do with the weight of the M1. I am not convinced that ti si true, but lets assume it for arguments sake.

Are you going to argue that the US and its Allies would have been better off with a lighter tank that they could have gotten there quicker? I do not think so.

In case you did not notice, the US and the UK spent a lot more than mere months building up the forces for the Normandy invasion.

As far as method of transport goes, you are incorrect. There has been very little change in how things are shipped across the ocean. What has changed are combat vehicle weights. A Panther ran about 45 tons. An M1 runs about twice that. A Sherman ran about 35 tons. You often hear that it took 5 Shermans to kill a Panther. I think that is an exaggeration, so lets call it 3 instead. If the US had a 45 ton medium tank instead of the Sherman, by weight they could have shipped over 2.3 Super-Shermans for every 3 regular Shermans, and the SuperSherman could take on the Panther 1-1 instead of 3-1. Hmmmm, seems like a good idea to me.

When it comes to shipping, i is all about weight.

Next strawman please...

U.S. production was far more flexiable than anything the Germans had. It is not simply a matter of one day this tank and the next day that tank.

Never said anything of the kind. There you go thinking that if we do not build the crappy M4 we have to change our entire production system to a German one.

You are right though, the US production system was extremely efficeint. So efficient that we produced some of the highest quality weapons in the greatest numbers of any combatant of the war.

Except for when it comes to the medium tank. Then we built a sub-par death trap in vast numbers.

Next...

The writing was on the wall in early 1943 that the Sherman 75 was not going to come close to cutting it by 1944. The American bomber that dropped the short bomb that killed General McNair did the US Army a huge favor. The Pershing could have been in Normandy in 1944, and at least 1/2 of all Shermans in the Normandy campaign could have been armed with the 76mm gun if it was not for the stupid idea that tanks would not fight other tanks. lets not even discuss the possibilites of arming the Sherman with the excellent brit 17lber, whose only flaw was its "not made in the USA" origins.The US was willing to use foreign designs, not sure where you get this from. We used their dsigns in aircraft engines and such.

Great, I make a definite point about what we could have accomplished with a modicum of foresight, and you respond to the last, most inconsequential line in the paragraph. Sheesh.

I would argue that the Panther was overly-complex. It was no where near as reliable as the Sherman.

Something we can agree on.

So, why do you insist that the US was incapable of producing a tank that was just about 12 tons heavier than the M4 in sufficient numbers to make a difference prior to D-Day?

Jeff Heidman

demoss · September 1, 2000

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

How would that even remotely be relevant to whether or not it was a good idea to arm your primary battle tank with a weapon you know is inferior?

Jeff Heidman

Calling the 75 "inferior" without qualification is really oversimplifying things. For the conditions the US Army faced up until the end of '44, I'll grant it - but in '45, with relatively few German vehicles still in operation, I'd honestly rather have the 75 than the 76. Why? Better HE performance and, to a lesser extent, rate of fire.

If you ever play Patton's Best (an old Avalon Hill solitaire board game), you'll see what I mean. Even with a 75, you can - with persistence and luck - outmaneuver and kill even a King Tiger. With a 76, though, there's darn little you can do against an enemy AT gun. In 1945, you'll see a heck of a lot more AT guns than tanks. I'm not saying Patton's Best is a great simulation - it has some pretty big flaws - but the HE performance and rate of fire differences are accounted for (unlike in, say, ASL), and it's truly amazing what a difference they make. Tank-vs-tank combat is important, yes, but it's far from the only thing tanks are good for.

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

-Doug

CavScout · September 1, 2000

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

Cav, almsot every single response to my post was a strawman.

Hardly... because you can not or will not back-up something does not make my point a "strawman".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

I *never* said that American tank crews had high casualties compared to the Germans. That would be stupid, since there are too many other variables to make such a comparison meaningful.

Really? Then what were you comparing them to? You simply imply the Sherman is a bad tank because of its crew casualties. When asked how those rates compared to other tanks you say it doesn't matter. Funny, the rates in the Sherman are important in respects to its effectivness but aren't in regards to other tanks... you were talking about a "strawman"?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

You brought that up, so excuse me if I refrain from defending an argument I did not make. I did say that in comparison to the available tanks, the crews were usually the limiting factor. You can read about Shermans sitting in depots in Britain because there are no crews for them, or Shermans being crewed by hastily trained replacements who did poorly once they got into a fight. Clearly a more survivable vehicle would address some of those issues.

You have shown there were more tanks than crews, hardly a test of the tanks worthiness. At most you show the tank was over-produced.

Cav

CavScout · September 2, 2000

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

I think the US could have designed and biult a vehicle similar to the Panther without the Panthers problems. The Panthers problems were very much a result of the inefficient German procurement system. I guess I just have more faith in American know-how than you do. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes so much faith in "American know-how" that you sit here second guessing them. Odd way to measure faith.

Cav

CavScout · September 2, 2000

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

"The "infantry support tank" concept changed as weapons changed. Even the Germans were 'late' on the scene with the Panther. You think those short barrel IVs were made to fight tanks?"

Well, duh. That is the point. The differnce being that the Germans and Soviets figured that out in 1942, and the US figured it out in 1944. THAT IS MY POINT!!! Everyone else (even the bloody Brits) had realised that this idea that you ahd infantry tanks and anti-tank tanks was not going to work , simply because your opponent is rarely so accomadating as to only attack where you expect him to.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The above all continued to make infantry support tanks with primary HE loads.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> You'll notice that the method of transportation has changed in the mid-term as well. ... You'll notice it took MONTHS for a sizeable U.S. force of armor to build up in the Gulf. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Actually, you are doing a great job of proving my point.

It might have taken months to build up the Gulf forces, and maybe some of that ahad to do with the weight of the M1. I am not convinced that ti si true, but lets assume it for arguments sake.

What do you think it had to do with? The transport available and the material to move was uneven. Do you think they just wanted to do it slow?

Lindan · September 2, 2000

read "Deathtraps"

by Belton Cooper,

an officer responsible for the replacement and maintenance of the 3rd Armd Div. tanks.

There you can find a lot of infos what he and other tankers thought about the Sherman and US tank policies of the time. (and sending riflemen with 2hours training as tankers to the front in their Shermans.

Very enlightening and highly recommended.

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

visit lindan.panzershark.com

member of the Combat Mission webring

Jeff Heidman · September 2, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by CavScout:

Yes so much faith in "American know-how" that you sit here second guessing them. Odd way to measure faith.

Cav<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I am second guessing the decisions made by a relatively small number of American generals who insisted that the heavier vehicles that were already designed were not needed. You should do a little study on this issue, instead of blindly insisting that everything the US did in WW2 was the numero-uno, number one, not to be questioned best idea.

Jeff Heidman

CavScout · September 2, 2000

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

No, I am second guessing the decisions made by a relatively small number of American generals who insisted that the heavier vehicles that were already designed were not needed. You should do a little study on this issue, instead of blindly insisting that everything the US did in WW2 was the numero-uno, number one, not to be questioned best idea.

And I would ask the same of you. You simply deny the success of the Sherman. That the tank was able to enter service in 1942 and last throughout the war shows that it had success.

BTW, your atatck that the US refused to use the British 17 pounder is unfounded. "The US Army tried to acquire the 17 pounder, but British ordance factories were working to capacity and unable to supply." [Forty. World War Two Tanks. Page 139.] Who needs to study?

Cav

DrD · September 2, 2000

Another reason for the relative dearth of large armored formations toward the end of WW2 is simply that the allies adapted their tactics. In the early war the Germans were masters of the armored thrust. The big weakness of such a thrust of course is that it is very vulnerable to counter-attack at the "shaft" of the spearhead. In the early war the allies did not have the tactical know-how to exploit this and Blitzkreig was king. However, once suitable counter-tactics had been developed the armored thrust was no longer the end-all of warfare.

It is no coincidence that the largest tank battles took place relatively early in the war.

CavScout · September 2, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by DrD:

It is no coincidence that the largest tank battles took place relatively early in the war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No doubt. As someone pointed out the increase in infanty anti-armor weapons knocked the tank from its earlier perch.

Cav

Tank Warfare

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites