Is the Sherman a tank?

[jhtrickey]

Originally posted by Speedbump:

In an attempt to deflect some of the vitriol, may I ask the experts to comment on the design mentality behind the Sherman and the Panther? Ie. Was the Sherman designed with offensive, read exploitation, in mind and the Panther as more of a defensive tank vis-a-vis the new Russian units?

Speedbump

The Panther design was in response for the German armies need to have a tank versus tank weapon system. In its design, the Pather was to have a 75mm long barreled gun. The armor was designed to that a similar 75mm gun could not defeat its frontal or side armor at a specific range (I'm at work, so I can not look these up but 800 or 500 meters come to mind). So it was designed to be fast, mount a tank defeating armament, and survive a like armament at a given range. At the time, the German army was still in an offensive minded trend, so I would not say that it was a "defensive" tank.

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

[CavScout]

Originally posted by jshandorf:

Hmmm, interesting. So then basically America designed and built a tank specifically deficent in the one task that any tank should be good at, killing tanks.

Yeah, just like the Germans did with the MkIV tank. You don't think that was meant to kill tanks do you?

I guess one has to wonder why the Americans had a Tank Destroyer service branch when the Armor branch was, by you, made to kill tanks.

[jshandorf]

I am not wrong Cav. Just look at the Sherman in 1941 and compare it to what the Germans had in 1941 at the same time. They are almost equal.

The American's were at least trying to achieve parity with the Germans MkIV. Regardless of their doctrine they were making a tank that would match up with the MkIV.

Jeff

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

First of all, David, you stupid sot, if names were meant to be descriptive, everyone would have the, culturally appropriate, name of, "Ugly little purple person that cries and wets itself." -Meeks.

[Slapdragon]

Let me give an example of two weapons in the same general category with completely different reasons for creation, tactical employment, and limitations.

The Nashorn is a tank destroyer. So is a Hellcat. The Nashorn is essentially a long 88 with some treads under it. The Hellcat is a fast weapon for hit and run. The Nashorn hides, shoots and scoots. The Hellcat uses its speed to hit and run.

The major categories of AFVs: Assault Gun, Assault Tank, Tank, Tand Destroyer (also called Tank Hunter), Self Propelled Howitzer, Self Propelled Gun, Light Tank, Armored Car, sometimes have subcategories caused by the different combat doctrines employed during the war. The Pzkw IV ausf D was tank that attacked infantry. The Pzkw ausf F had evolved into a general purpose tank. This was because of a doctrine change. The Pzkw II was a weapon of exploitation. The Lynx was a weapon to screen a defensive force and a recon AFV. Different roles demanded by different thinking.

[jshandorf]

Originally posted by CavScout:

Yeah, just like the Germans did with the MkIV tank. You don't think that was meant to kill tanks do you?

I guess one has to wonder why the Americans had a Tank Destroyer service branch when the Armor branch was, by you, made to kill tanks.

Hmm.. When did I say that the Sherman's only role was to kill tanks? I said that it was one of many roles a tank performs.

In 1941 it is a fact that a Sherman M4 could take on a MkIV and do a good job of it. I have no doubts, regardless of doctrine, that when they designed this they had this in mind.

Jeff

[jhtrickey]

Originally posted by Lacky:

Did Popular Mechanics explain why they're using a 105mm? I imagine the US army has several warehouses brimming with ex-M60A1/A3 and early M1A1 barrels plus the shells to go with them. It's not a bad weapon, very accurate at long range.

Sort of reminds me of the M113 armed with 6 recoiless 105's during Vietnam.

Maybe I should just buy the Magazine

M60A1/A3 had rifled 105's, while the M1A1 had the 120's. The original M1 had 105's, when it went to the A series, you moved to the upped gun.

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

[Guest Mikey D]

The 75mm gun Sherman is pretty easy to trash I admit, but let's not forget the 76mm gun tanks could hole a Panther at under 500 yards. The gun was more effective than the Russian 85mm gun and the Russians just LOVED their lend-lease 76mm gun Shermans. Called their M4s by the effectionate feminine nickname 'emcha' I believe. By war's end, did I read somewhere that half the available U.S. Shermans were 76mm?

[Slapdragon]

Except you are assuming a technology pull of strategy, instead of a strategy pull of technology. US armour doctrine was set out in 1940 during the Louisiana manuevers. It was planned all through 1941, and put into place with the 1942 reorganization of the 90 division Army based on the Army Graound Forces controlling the Armored Forces and the Tank Destroyer Command, each with distinct reslponsibilities, based on the writings of Patton at others.

Patton believed that strength should fight weakness. TDs fight tanks, tanks exploit and avoid fighting tanks. Exploitation is the art of striking at weakness, not attacking strength. This was taken directly from German doctrine, and copied the German Mk IV and Mk III concept. The M10 was designed to defeat the MkIV. At the time, the only reason the Sherman and M3 got a 75mm gun was because the British had shown the US that a 75mm was the smallest practical HE round, otherwise they would have given the M3/4 a 57mm gun, like the RAM got, and like the M18 and M10 started out with on the design table.

This is so basic, and written in so many places that I can only encourage you to read a book on early tank design on the US. Ellis, Chamberlin, Hogg, and others offer full accounts.

The British Firefly and the US E8 showed that the Allies were aware of their error, but their was so much friction between the people who wrote the doctrines, the guys who fought in the tanks, and the people who designed them that even the 76mm was long in coming.

Finally, the Pershing was indeed designed on the principals you say were responsible for the Sherman. It was the first true multipurpose US AFV, as the Comet and later Centurion was for the British.

[Guest wwb_99]

In 1940/41, the 75mm in the Sherman was quite adequate for anti-tank use. I have rarely had a problem with Pz IVs & such in CM when using Serman 75s. Note that the early marks of the T-34 had a gun with similar characteristics (75L35 IIRC).

WWB

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

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[Jeff Heidman]

CavScout and Slapdragon are correct about the role of the Sherman, both in 1941 and 1944.

The problem with the Sherman was no that it could not do the role it was designed for, the problem is that the role it was designed for was not practical.

The example of the Mk IV and Mk V panzers is spot on. The Germans (like everyone else) thought that the way to go early in the war was purpose built vehicles. This meant a 75mm armed Pz IV for infantry support, and a 37mm/50mm armed Pz III for AT work.

The US went with the 75mm armed Sherman for infantry support, and the 76mm armed TDs for AT work.

The difference by 1944 was that the Germans and Soviets had figured out that the system really did not work at all. It was NOT the case that you could generally expect your AT tanks to engage the enemies tanks, and your support tanks to avoid your enemies AT tanks.

And so was born the idea of the Main Battle Tank. A medium (note that the term "medium" does not refer to weight, but to task) tank that could be used to support the infantry and exploit, but also had the firepower and protection to slug it out with the enemies armor of any kind. What is important to note is that even in the case of the Panther, the general role was still the same: the disruption of an enemies rear areas in order to defeat the enemy without the necessity of attriting their forces directly; exploitation.

With the Panther the Germans decided that the best way to do that was to have a vehicle that could hold its own against whatever the enemy threw at them. It was optimized to defeat tanks simply because that was the enemy force most likely capable of denying its actual goal.

Unfortunately, idiots like McNair did not have the small amount of vision necessary to recognize this even after the Germans and Soviets demonstrated it quite conclusively.

The original point is somewhat moot. Yes, a Sherman is a tank, and so is a Panther. To the extent that in a QB they are both purchased with the exact same points they are comparable. To the extent that their roles (in a general sense) are the same, they are comparable. However, the manner in which they tried to achieve those goals is very, very different, and their designs reflect that.

Note: almost all armor after WW2 adopted the MBT design philosophy, to the extent that the M1 Abrams does not even carry HE rounds for its main gun.

Jeff Heidman

[This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 01-24-2001).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Now that the bickering has stopped (and should REMAIN that way) this thread will remain open.

Jshandorf:

Hmmm, interesting. So then basically America designed and built a tank specifically deficent in the one task that any tank should be good at, killing tanks.

Incorrect. The US built a turreted vehicle that was not designed to take on other tanks, and instead created an entirely seperate form of vehicle to take on the role of destoying other tanks. Namely, tank destroyers like the M10, M18, and M36. This is very well documented and is very much supported by the vehicle design evidence.

But remember, upon the Sherman's design, production, and eventual deployment it COULD take on any tank that the Germans had.

By that logic a Puma was a "tank" as is an Elephant. So incorrect again, at least in so far as the that the intended role and vehicle classifications are a black and white issue.

The Sherman was not designed to be a sitting duck vs. a tank. On the contrary, it was designed with the capability of engaging enemy armor if need be. The M7 Priest was the opposite, i.e. not designed to take on enemy armor. The critical difference is the US' intentions...

Sherman - Mostly supporting infantry and exploiting breakthroughs. Fighting tanks only when circumstances forced it to do so.

Tank Destroyer - Designed to take out enemy armor and only aiding infantry when circumstances forced it to do so.

This is very well documented, and is not speculation.

So in essence I think they were atleast "trying" to make an all purpose tank. They just failed.

No, they were trying to get the best balance for the intended role. Say... 70% aiding infantry and exploitation 30% engaging armor vs. a TD's 90% engaging armor and 10% exploitation and exploitation.

The Germans had a totally different philosophy, and that created vehicles that fit that philosophy like the Panther. King Tigers were basically souped up tanks while Jagdpanthers were souped up tank destroyers.

The real failure of the US armored program, early on, was to make rather weak tank destroyers. So not only was the Sherman toast when it came up against a Tiger, but for a while the US TDs couldn't do squat either. [additional note: the Germans made the same mistake, but by 1943 had corrected it with the Panther concept and better TDs]

As the war progressed the US moved closer to the German model. US Shermans became MUCH better at taking on enemy armor, even though the 75mm armed tanks were still the norm (on purpose, I might add). And as can be seen in CM, they suffered some drawbacks that reduced the effectiveness of their original intended role (infantry support and exploitation).

The Pershing was the first US tank fielded that was designed using the German main battle tank concept. The US never fielded TDs like the Germans, but the turret concept was the big limitation to doing so. And because a turret has a lot of advantages, it can be argued that the US simply chose what they thought was the better of two designs. Interesting to note that after WWII the US dropped the TD concept in favor of an all in one AFV but the Germans kept their two classes of vehicles.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 01-24-2001).]

[Jarmo]

It is my understanding that before WWII the US authorities assumed the best way to deal

with tanks was by AT guns and heavy arty. But the tanks were nevertheless given a good

AT capability. For this reason M3 had the AT turret in addition to the main gun. For the same

reason M4 was given a good enough AT gun to kill any tank it comes accross.

Tank destroyers were later addition to the doctrine. Only when Tigers and the like started

arriving into the scene the developement got well underway.

M10 was in fact a stopgap design out of necessity, if the tank destroyer developement had

begon simultaneously with Sherman developement, there wouldn't have been M10

before the M18.

Quite possible that there are mistakes in the text above, I'm not an expert.

BTW, IMO the Abrams is a pure tank destroyer born again.

[PzKpfw 1]

The Shermans armor was developed to be able to survive the current German AT gun which was the PAK 37. Also their was a division in thinking concerning tanks & their roles in the US with 2 philosophys 1) tanks were offensive breakthru weapons & not meant to engage tanks, 2). TD's were to engage enemy armor. Mcnair who was god as far as armor was concerned at the time was a vehement TD doctrine supporter, his influence dominated all aspects of tank development & he always opposed uparming the Sherman.

The Sherman was a match for the German tanks it met in the desert Ie, the PzKpfw III L/42, & PzKpfw IV D &, F1 with the L/24 guns. Problems occured when it encountered the PzKpfw F2 with its lang L/43 gun though.

By the time of Normandy it was apperent the Sherman needed a better gun, which led to the 76mm gun which was not a popular choice because 1), it admitted that Mcnair's TD doctrine was not working correctly & it meant the TD branch wasn't doin its job or was percieved that way. Also Allied commanders were not happy in the loss of HE effectivness that the 76m gun represented.

Now much ado has been made about the Shermans inferiority but one must also condider that the Sherman was only vehemently publicly maligned on 2 occasions 1). Normandy, & 2) the Ardennes, its important to realise in both cases Shermans fought in restricted terrain that was ideal for defence & vs massed German armor & paid the price of the attacker which led to public outrage over losses etc.

It's interesting that after the end of both these operations complaints about the 'inferiority' Sherman virtualy dissapear because it was operating in the explotation role & here it excelled.

Regards, John Waters

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

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[CavScout]

Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

CavScout and Slapdragon are correct about the role of the Sherman, both in 1941 and 1944.

The problem with the Sherman was no that it could not do the role it was designed for, the problem is that the role it was designed for was not practical.

The example of the Mk IV and Mk V panzers is spot on. The Germans (like everyone else) thought that the way to go early in the war was purpose built vehicles. This meant a 75mm armed Pz IV for infantry support, and a 37mm/50mm armed Pz III for AT work.

The US went with the 75mm armed Sherman for infantry support, and the 76mm armed TDs for AT work.

The difference by 1944 was that the Germans and Soviets had figured out that the system really did not work at all. It was NOT the case that you could generally expect your AT tanks to engage the enemies tanks, and your support tanks to avoid your enemies AT tanks.

Excellent points.

[CavScout]

Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

The Shermans armor was developed to be able to survive the current German AT gun which was the PAK 37. Also their was a division in thinking concerning tanks & their roles in the US with 2 philosophys 1) tanks were offensive breakthru weapons & not meant to engage tanks, 2). TD's were to engage enemy armor. Mcnair who was god as far as armor was concerned at the time was a vehement TD doctrine supporter, his influence dominated all aspects of tank development & he always opposed uparming the Sherman.

The Sherman was a match for the German tanks it met in the desert Ie, the PzKpfw III L/42, & PzKpfw IV D &, F1 with the L/24 guns. Problems occured when it encountered the PzKpfw F2 with its lang L/43 gun though.

By the time of Normandy it was apperent the Sherman needed a better gun, which led to the 76mm gun which was not a popular choice because 1), it admitted that Mcnair's TD doctrine was not working correctly & it meant the TD branch wasn't doin its job or was percieved that way. Also Allied commanders were not happy in the loss of HE effectivness that the 76m gun represented.

Now much ado has been made about the Shermans inferiority but one must also condider that the Sherman was only vehemently publicly maligned on 2 occasions 1). Normandy, & 2) the Ardennes, its important to realise in both cases Shermans fought in restricted terrain that was ideal for defence & vs massed German armor & paid the price of the attacker which led to public outrage over losses etc.

It's interesting that after the end of both these operations complaints about the 'inferiority' Sherman virtualy dissapear because it was operating in the explotation role & here it excelled.

More great insight.

[Polar]

Originally posted by jshandorf:

Hey all,

Just thought I would get everyone's thoughts on this point.

Someone before has mentioned that it isn't fair to compare the Sherman and Panther since they are too different in design and employment, but I countered that tanks are tanks. They can be compared just like apples and apples regardless of how different they are in design or operational use.

For instance, it was claimed that the Sherman was only a break out and exploitation tank and that comparing it to the Panther was not fair. I disagreed.

The Sherman was design in 1940 and deployed in the early months of 1941 in N. Africa. At that time its design and ability matched it to any German tank on the battlefield. For all intensive purposes the Sherman was a main line tank that was meant to go head to head with other tanks. It could be referred to as the "Panther" of it's time, regardless of how brief that time was.

Now we all know what happened in 1944 when the Allied invaded Western Europe, the Sherman was by then an inferior tank and lacked any real chance going head to head with the German Panther. But because of this, does this mean that the Sherman isn't a tank anymore?

Does the inability of the Sherman to carry out it's main design goal change what it is? And does the Sherman's new intended use of an exploitation unit, as some would claim, change what it is, that being a tank?

I would argue it doesn't. Because of all the above the Sherman may be a crappy and inferior tank but it is a tank none the less.

Tanks are designed with a number of purposes and intentions for their use such as: 1) A mobile heavy weapons platform 2) Infantry support, and 3) Anti-Tank platform.

Regardless of how each and any tank performs these roles or doesn't will not change the fact that it was designed to perform all these roles. Some tanks may do one thing better then another, but at no point does it stop being a tank because it lacks ability in any one area or in many, as in the case of the Sherman.

Jeff

This may have alredy been answered (haven't read all the posts yet) but I'll chime in anyways....

Tank are not Tanks... except that they are tanks.

You will find that every tank has a different role, and the role is usually incoporated in the name... ie. Close Support tank, Tank Destroyer etc.

The Sherman is most definitely a tank, but it is a "close support tank"... which means that it is at home moving with and engaging infantry, and taking on tanks at close range... Which the Sherman can do given it's fast turret, at close range it is fair good with most German armor (save the rare stuff).

But you will find that with most if not all Tanks, they have some strengths and probably more weaknesses. To settle on only one (or German) configuration of a Tankas a "tank", then you are just redefining the term.

Joe

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

"I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz

[Lacky]

Originally posted by jhtrickey:

M60A1/A3 had rifled 105's, while the M1A1 had the 120's. The original M1 had 105's, when it went to the A series, you moved to the upped gun.

Jhtrickey, I'm a little stumped on whether you're agreeing with me, not agreeing, or somewhere in-between! Most military armies don't throw out expensive weapons, rather they store them. I'm guessing the US Army reserve and National Guard units still fields M-60A3's. If the LAV is to be equipped with a rifled 105, then the US army will already have the barrels and ammo for the load out. This will make the overall cost of the LAV lower than fielding a newer barrel or using the Abram's 120mm. The rifle 105mm has an excellent long range shot capability. Equipping the LAV with a shorter range 120mm will bring it into kill distance of most anything it's going to fight.

The US fielded the M113's with (six!) 105mm recoilless rifle barrels, because they had an abundant supply of 105mm recoilless rifles in storage. I'm making a leap of faith into believe (for myself) the US Army is using a similar philosophy with their new LAV design.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Jeff Heidman wrote:

The difference by 1944 was that the Germans and Soviets had figured out that the system really did not work at all. It was NOT the case that you could generally expect your AT tanks to engage the enemies tanks, and your support tanks to avoid your enemies AT tanks.

Exactly. Not only that, but the dog eat dog nature of the Eastern Front led to rapid upgunning and uparmoring in competition to be the top dog. When one side came to the party with something bigger, the other side rushed to produce something to top it. On the African, Italian, and Western Front, this didn't happen. The Germans introduced something bigger and badder, the Allies ran around with their heads cut off (OK that isn't exactly true ).

Simple point of fact... the Germans were fighting the Soviets from June 1941, but were fighting the British since (practically speaking) June of 1940. So even though the Western Allies (first Britain and then the US) had a whole year more of combat with the Germans, but by 1945 they were JUST BARELY able to hold their own against German designs from 1943. The Soviets, meanwhile, at least matched the best the Germans had to offer time and again from 1941, with obvious periods of adjustment inbetween. So it must come down to design philosophy since the Western Allies were certainly very capable designers.

Steve

[jgdpzr]

Excellent points. As someone else mentioned, perhaps the greatest asset of the Sherman was its reliability and maintenance requirements. I remember hearing an interview with a German tanker who stated that German tanks simply could not do some of the things the allies could do with the Sherman, namely run hundreds of kilometers without the serious downtime the German tanks required. Patton knew that heavier, more complicated designs would require much more maintenance and would almost certainly slow the breakneck pace he wanted. Thus, in this role of breakthrough and exploitation the Sherman really was in its element. I also remember an account by an American tanker saying that he and his crew absolutely loved their Sherman 99% of the time. It was only that one percent of the time, when they actually had to face a German tank, that they wished they were in something heavier. In wargames however, all we see is that 1%.

[CavScout]

Originally posted by Lacky:

Jhtrickey, I'm a little stumped on whether you're agreeing with me, not agreeing, or somewhere in-between! Most military armies don't throw out expensive weapons, rather they store them. I'm guessing the US Army reserve and National Guard units still fields M-60A3's.

My tank battalion, National Guard, has M1s with 105s. The new LAVs are mounting "a 105mm rifled cannon mounted in a low-profile turret. This is the same firepower originally installed on the first generation of Abrams M1 battle tanks." (PM Feb 2001)

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by Lacky:

Jhtrickey, I'm a little stumped on whether you're agreeing with me, not agreeing, or somewhere in-between! Most military armies don't throw out expensive weapons, rather they store them. I'm guessing the US Army reserve and National Guard units still fields M-60A3's. If the LAV is to be equipped with a rifled 105, then the US army will already have the barrels and ammo for the load out. This will make the overall cost of the LAV lower than fielding a newer barrel or using the Abram's 120mm. The rifle 105mm has an excellent long range shot capability. Equipping the LAV with a shorter range 120mm will bring it into kill distance of most anything it's going to fight.

The US fielded the M113's with (six!) 105mm recoilless rifle barrels, because they had an abundant supply of 105mm recoilless rifles in storage. I'm making a leap of faith into believe (for myself) the US Army is using a similar philosophy with their new LAV design.

The question is not barrels, they wont be able to be reused, but ammo stocks. Yes, lots of L7 ammo is around for the 105 LAV, except that the gun can only fire two basic loads of the heavier ammo before it needs to be retubbed.

The French have a 105 armed AC that they have used for projection forces for a while. In combat, it needs to be teamed with an AC armed with an autocannon, but its main armament is good against an MBT.

[Annalist]

Originally posted by Mikey D:

The US Army just announced they were going to purchase the new wheeled LAV 'Mobile Gun System' with an overhead 105mm rifled gun.

...inadequate armor, outdated gun, stressing infantry support over tankfighting. Ohmygod, they've reinvented the Sherman!

Actually, the new intermediate armored vehicle that you're talking about is part of the Army's new approach to warfighting. They plan to have a light force (like the current Airborne/Airmobile units), heavy forces (like todays 24th Mech or 2d Armored) and a new intermediate or medium weight force. Supposedly the new LAV would only be deployed in theaters and for operations where it could fulfill its intended role...I stress the word supposedly. It looks really cool though, this month's Popular Mechanics or Popular Science, one of the two,has it on the cover.

[This message has been edited by Annalist (edited 01-24-2001).]

[Jeff Heidman]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Jeff Heidman wrote:

Exactly. Not only that, but the dog eat dog nature of the Eastern Front led to rapid upgunning and uparmoring in competition to be the top dog. When one side came to the party with something bigger, the other side rushed to produce something to top it. On the African, Italian, and Western Front, this didn't happen. The Germans introduced something bigger and badder, the Allies ran around with their heads cut off (OK that isn't exactly true ).

Simple point of fact... the Germans were fighting the Soviets from June 1941, but were fighting the British since (practically speaking) June of 1940. So even though the Western Allies (first Britain and then the US) had a whole year more of combat with the Germans, but by 1945 they were JUST BARELY able to hold their own against German designs from 1943. The Soviets, meanwhile, at least matched the best the Germans had to offer time and again from 1941, with obvious periods of adjustment inbetween. So it must come down to design philosophy since the Western Allies were certainly very capable designers.

Steve

This is why I do not buy the arguments that we could not have had a 76mm armed M4 or even something like the Pershing by Normandy.

Sure, you can do a detailed look at US Army tank procurement during the war and come up with a slew of reasons why it just could not be done.

The difference is that the focus was on reasons why they could not do this or that, or reasons why you couldn't mount the 76/90 in the Sherman turret, or why the engine wasn't big enough, etc., etc. The Soviets and Germans were in a position where they said "Screw the reasons why we CAN'T do something, just freaking do it!!"

That resulted in some gaffes and flaws, but it also resulted in a process of getting things done instead of coming up with reasons to not change the status quo.

I have read all the books about what factories could cast the armor, or how the engines were not available, or shipping issues, but in the end I have way too much respect for what the US was capable of to ever conclude that the German or Soviet industrial system was just plain so superior to the American one that they could figure it out, but we could not.

The Soviets could move from the the T-34/M40 to the T-34/85 and T-44 between 1941 and 1945, the Germans form the PzIVd to the Panther, and the best the US could do was go from the M4(75) to the M4A3(76)E8? Nope, I don't buy it. We were capable of much more.

If the will, foresight (and not much of that), and intelligence existed in Army procurement to do so, we could have gone into Normandy with armor equal to or better than anything the Germans could have fielded, and in greater numbers to boot. That we did not do so in one of the great tragedies in US Army history, IMNSHO.

Jeff Heidman

[Annalist]

Originally the tank was entirely and anti-infantry tool to allow advances in the face of machine gun fire. Then guns were added to knock out bunkers and to added general firepower. Then other tanks started shooting the enemy tanks instead of the infantry and, in addition, tank killers were developed. Tank killers were too limited in role though and have mostly disappeared. Mostly, tanks were originally intended, I think, to serve as infantry support. Armored formations still had infantry organic too them. Patton and Rommel pretty much developed the tactic of rampaging through the enemy rear using armor after a breakthrough. So, IMHO, most tanks in the beginning of WWII were meant as infantry support vehicles and mutated into anti-tank vehicles. But, in the end, a tank is a tank.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Jeff Heidman wrote:

This is why I do not buy the arguments that we could not have had a 76mm armed M4 or even something like the Pershing by Normandy.

Sure, you can do a detailed look at US Army tank procurement during the war and come up with a slew of reasons why it just could not be done.

I think *most* people agree. The US industry is well known for its "can do" attitude, when it is instructed to "do". The M29C Weasel I own was designed and put into production in something like 2 months (initial T-16 model, then M28, then M29, then M29C). The Army said "we need a vehicle capable of operating in Norway in the Winter" and they not only got what they asked for, but one of the best snow vehicles the Army has ever fielded. The same COULD have been done for tanks if the higher officials wanted it to be done.

All the problematic reasons for not going with a Pershing type design were certainly side reasons why the designs went along the lines that they did. The main reason is that the higher-ups wanted to tweak their docrtine, not abandon it and adopt the enemy's.

Having said all that... I still think that the Allied concept of more vs. better was strategically successfull. The problem is that a lot of soldiers were burned alive in pursuit of this strategy that possibly didn't have to be. But of course, this is all Monday Morning Quarterback stuff

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 01-24-2001).]