PLM Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 http://www.iremember.ru/tankers/loza/loza1.html Apparently 2 Thompson SMGs came with a Sherman? And the Soviets liked the cumfy seats. Also I didnt know Soviet Tankers got paid for kills??? :eek: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzman Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 That is an interesting read, thanks for posting the link. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PLM Posted July 15, 2005 Author Share Posted July 15, 2005 Actually I stole it from another forum 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ExplodingMonkey Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 Nice. I like how he points out both the weaknesses and the strengths of the Sherman. Now I want to buy his book. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpitfireXI Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 It is a great book but very expenisve for such a small book. However it does accompany Beltons book on the Sherman well, as it shows that the Sherman was actually a decent tank with lots of advantages over Russian and German tanks at the time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthias Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 really good read that 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 From the article. "Did you know that one of the designers of the Sherman was a Russian engineer named Timoshenko? He was some shirt tail relative of Marshal S. K. Timoshenko." Huh! Never heard that one before! Not a piece of info the Pentagon would want to spread around during the Cold War years, I guess. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
annihilate_this_week Posted July 22, 2005 Share Posted July 22, 2005 He has a few books. I currently have "Fighting for the Soviet Motherland" I would recommend it to everyone here. It is a good, easy read. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigduke6 Posted July 22, 2005 Share Posted July 22, 2005 Point of ethnic nitpicking: Timoshenko is a classic Ukrainian name. Not Russian at all. Russian names typically end in "in" (as in Buganin, Kalinin and, uh, Lenin); or "ov/ev" (as in Zhukov, Katiukov, Konev etc.) Ukrainian surnames typically end in "enko" or "ko". Timoshenko is a fine example. Schevchenko (the Ukrainian national poet or football star, take your pick) is another good example. Peculiarly, the Prime Minister of Ukraine today is a woman by the name of Julia Timoshenko. She says she's a very distant relative of the Marshal. Anyway, there were a gazillion ethnicities in the old Red Army, and most would get mad if you called them Russians, so probably it's safer just to refer to them as Soviets and be done with it. Ethnic nitpicking service signing off. MickyD's mods are the best! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 The Sherman is usually under-rated. Everyone remembers that the T34 was a war winner in 1941 (or at least tough!! ) but not that it was a heap of junk by 1944, and had pelenty of shortcomings before then. The Sherman had a similar career - being very good in 1942, and slowly declining in effectiveness as the enemy got heavier. The T34/85 is considered adequate for 44/45, but most still consider the 76mm Shermans as being just as bad as the earlier versions, despite it being very comparable to the 34/85 in many respects. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stryker Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 Originally posted by Bigduke6: Point of ethnic nitpicking: Timoshenko is a classic Ukrainian name. Not Russian at all. Russian names typically end in "in" (as in Buganin, Kalinin and, uh, Lenin); or "ov/ev" (as in Zhukov, Katiukov, Konev etc.) Interesting info. Not nitpicking, especially by people horribly impacted by communism. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 Originally posted by Mike: The Sherman is usually under-rated. Everyone remembers that the T34 was a war winner in 1941 (or at least tough!! ) but not that it was a heap of junk by 1944, and had pelenty of shortcomings before then. The Sherman had a similar career - being very good in 1942, and slowly declining in effectiveness as the enemy got heavier. The T34/85 is considered adequate for 44/45, but most still consider the 76mm Shermans as being just as bad as the earlier versions, despite it being very comparable to the 34/85 in many respects. And don't forget the Firefly. Being able to fit it with the 17pdr turned what should have been a completely outclassed tank into something that can kill kitties at all ranges. You can kill a kitty, a kitty can kill you - what does the armour matter then? I'd trade that for extra reliability any day. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.