User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 12:24:15 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Just imagine they had taken all the resources pumped into the V weapons and super tanks, and used it on improving tactical rocket artillery. Would have been nice to have weapons that could break up massed soviet attacks while using less vehicles and troops to man them. Fast, flexible and powerful. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I’m game! https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-216-0417-09%2C_Russland%2C_schwerer_Wurfrahmen_an_Sch%C3%BCtzenpanzer.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/2f/d4/b3/2fd4b3ecfade08ff7941ad72a5837e99.png https://www.warhistoryonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/panzerwerfer42-_rear-fx.jpg Just imagine they had taken all the resources pumped into the V weapons and super tanks, and used it on improving tactical rocket artillery. Would have been nice to have weapons that could break up massed soviet attacks while using less vehicles and troops to man them. Fast, flexible and powerful. Actually... imagine that the German citizens didn’t listen to Hitler. And didn’t accept National Socialism. And squashed the Nazi party before it got going. Definitely would be a different technological world we live in? No moon landings? No M1 Abrams? No M16 Rifle? Or would all of Western Europe be speaking Russian right now?!  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 12:26:31 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:  The US literally had the best of almost every piece of machinery for war. We didn't win just on logistics. We had the best of almost everything. Best Infantry rifle Best Supply truck Best Aircraft Carrier (The Essex Class) Best Battleship (The Iowa Class) Best Bombers Best Radar I'd argue the best overall tank too. No German tank could do what the Sherman was asked to do. Don't short change the US military simply by saying it was logistics alone. We had damn fine equipment too. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: We're talking about best tank, not best manufacturing ability, logistics, or command. The US literally had the best of almost every piece of machinery for war. We didn't win just on logistics. We had the best of almost everything. Best Infantry rifle Best Supply truck Best Aircraft Carrier (The Essex Class) Best Battleship (The Iowa Class) Best Bombers Best Radar I'd argue the best overall tank too. No German tank could do what the Sherman was asked to do. Don't short change the US military simply by saying it was logistics alone. We had damn fine equipment too. Also had the best fighters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 12:35:25 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: By the end of the War the Society were operationally just as effective as any of the major powers. To say their only power was to keep sending waves of conscripts died in 1943, they were an extremely effective mechanized army. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: And yet... the Soviets ended up winning. Quantity having a quality all its own, as the saying goes. By the end of the War the Society were operationally just as effective as any of the major powers. To say their only power was to keep sending waves of conscripts died in 1943, they were an extremely effective mechanized army. Bagration was a masterpiece in maneuver warfare. The failure at Kursk was immediately followed up with a massive Soviet counter-attack that destroyed Army Group Center. As far as offensives go it is probably the single most impressive one of the war in terms of size and outcome. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 12:37:48 AM EDT
[#4]
Reliable, fast, easy to maintain, and extremely adaptable with numerous variants.
Plus the fact there were 50,000 of them made during the war has a quality all its own. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 12:41:38 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: all the tanks of the war sucked in their own way. id hate to work on some shermans engines  https://oldmachinepress.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/chrysler-a57-multibank-front.jpg Considering you might have had to do that inside the tank, while the battle was going on, I can see your point.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 12:44:06 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Also had the best fighters. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: We're talking about best tank, not best manufacturing ability, logistics, or command. The US literally had the best of almost every piece of machinery for war. We didn't win just on logistics. We had the best of almost everything. Best Infantry rifle Best Supply truck Best Aircraft Carrier (The Essex Class) Best Battleship (The Iowa Class) Best Bombers Best Radar I'd argue the best overall tank too. No German tank could do what the Sherman was asked to do. Don't short change the US military simply by saying it was logistics alone. We had damn fine equipment too. Also had the best fighters. Best battlefield radios Best artillery as an overall system |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 12:47:41 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Best battlefield radios Best artillery as an overall system Better optics than what the Soviets had. Wet stowage helped. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 12:51:33 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Also had the best fighters. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: We're talking about best tank, not best manufacturing ability, logistics, or command. The US literally had the best of almost every piece of machinery for war. We didn't win just on logistics. We had the best of almost everything. Best Infantry rifle Best Supply truck Best Aircraft Carrier (The Essex Class) Best Battleship (The Iowa Class) Best Bombers Best Radar I'd argue the best overall tank too. No German tank could do what the Sherman was asked to do. Don't short change the US military simply by saying it was logistics alone. We had damn fine equipment too. Also had the best fighters. Best nukes. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 12:54:08 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Better optics than what the Soviets had. Wet stowage helped. Watching the great videos from Manic it has struck me that the German gunners really only had their primary sight at a high magnification. It must have been absolute hell to get talked onto a target. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 12:57:48 AM EDT
[#10]
Sherman was right tank at the right time. Best tank? Not by a long shot. Right answer, Yep 100%.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 12:58:53 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Better optics than what the Soviets had. Wet stowage helped. Funny thing about the ammo storage arrangements. Several books I've read over the years present it as if the dry storage arrangement in the earlier M4s was a particularly poor design by the standards of the day and wet stowage was a belated fix for sloppy design. In fact the dry stowage setup was typical for the era, as was the burn rate that went with it. Wet stowage was an important safety innovation, perhaps the first serious and effective attempt to mitigate the risk of ammunition fires in a tank. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 1:08:49 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My Uncle drove one under Patton. Shipped and landed in France just in time to race north to the Battle of the Bulge. He drove that tank into Germany, never got hit once, but saw plenty of them hit with 88s. He hated 88s, he said the crack was very distinctive and you knew you were in trouble when you heard it. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/105442/Tony3_jpg-1439321.JPG https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/105442/Tony4_jpg-1439322.JPG https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/105442/Tony5_jpg-1439323.JPG That's bad ass. Enjoy those photos. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 1:11:36 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sherman was right tank at the right time. Best tank? Not by a long shot. Right answer, Yep 100%. Identifying a single best tank of the war is problematic because each army had its own set of operational requirements, logistical challenges, and available resources. As much as people argue against consideration of manufacturing and logistics, tanks didn't exist in a vacuum. They had to fit into an overall system, and they had to be present and serviceable in meaningful numbers when the battle was joined. An important measure of the Sherman's success is that a typical US infantry division in Europe had a battalion of tanks at its disposal, and that tank battalion would most likely be at or near authorized strength when a major operation kicked off. The Germans were often not so fortunate. How many more American infantrymen would have died attacking dug in German infantry without armor support if the US Army had fielded a heavier tank earlier? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 1:29:37 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This thread is like saying the AK47 is the best military rifle because is was mostly reliable and more produced...lol....nope. The Panther was the AR15 of WWII....maybe slightly less reliable (if properly maintained was not an issue), better made and more accurate. Built under the same conditions (post war) there is no comparison. Sherman was 1/2 assed decent up till about 1942 (it was good against Jap 1930's tanks and panzer II's from the 1930's). The Sherman was built under ideal conditions and was nicknamed "the Ronson" after the cigarette lighter from then because it always lighted on the first strike. Weak armor and weak gun (75mm was an infantry support gun), but yeah it ran good mostly being built in ideal conditions. Just like the T34 which gets undo credibility. There were reports of Tigers taking out 50 T34's on one outing many times, only running out of ammo stopped them from destroying more...but when faced 100-1 then all of a sudden the T34 "shines" like the sherman...lol. The M4 Sherman had incredible armor and firepower. M4 Sherman production began in February 1942. Do you know what the best German tank in production in February 1942 was? The Panzer III Ausf J. That's a 50mm gun and 2" of frontal armor when the M4 had a 75mm gun and 3.6" of effective frontal armor. The Panzer IV Ausf F "special" with the long 75mm didn't enter production until a month later and still only had 2" of armor. The Germans did not get a better armored medium tank than than the M4 until Panther arrived a full year later in January 1943. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 1:30:22 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Identifying a single best tank of the war is problematic because each army had its own set of operational requirements, logistical challenges, and available resources. As much as people argue against consideration of manufacturing and logistics, tanks didn't exist in a vacuum. They had to fit into an overall system, and they had to be present and serviceable in meaningful numbers when the battle was joined. An important measure of the Sherman's success is that a typical US infantry division in Europe had a battalion of tanks at its disposal, and that tank battalion would most likely be at or near authorized strength when a major operation kicked off. The Germans were often not so fortunate. How many more American infantrymen would have died attacking dug in German infantry without armor support if the US Army had fielded a heavier tank earlier? Not many more. I think we are are on the same sheet of music here but not sure. Nobody here is under any illusion as the Sherman's limitations. I submit that even if the M-26 was fielded 2 or even 3 years earlier would have resulted in the same overall results with limited benefit in the same scenario. Much less benefit actually. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 2:00:38 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I predict a whole lot of ignorance (as defined as "lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about a particular thing") in this thread. Everything I know about WWII tanks I learned from the Haunted Tank Comics back in the 60's and 70's.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 2:10:24 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not many more. I think we are are on the same sheet of music here but not sure. Nobody here is under any illusion as the Sherman's limitations. I submit that even if the M-26 was fielded 2 or even 3 years earlier would have resulted in the same overall results with limited benefit in the same scenario. Much less benefit actually. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Identifying a single best tank of the war is problematic because each army had its own set of operational requirements, logistical challenges, and available resources. As much as people argue against consideration of manufacturing and logistics, tanks didn't exist in a vacuum. They had to fit into an overall system, and they had to be present and serviceable in meaningful numbers when the battle was joined. An important measure of the Sherman's success is that a typical US infantry division in Europe had a battalion of tanks at its disposal, and that tank battalion would most likely be at or near authorized strength when a major operation kicked off. The Germans were often not so fortunate. How many more American infantrymen would have died attacking dug in German infantry without armor support if the US Army had fielded a heavier tank earlier? Not many more. I think we are are on the same sheet of music here but not sure. Nobody here is under any illusion as the Sherman's limitations. I submit that even if the M-26 was fielded 2 or even 3 years earlier would have resulted in the same overall results with limited benefit in the same scenario. Much less benefit actually. I think we agree. What I am saying is that the realistic alternative to Sherman support for many infantry formations would have been no armor support at all. Replacing the Sherman with a smaller number of individually better tanks would have been a step backward for the infantry units that had to go into action with no armor support. And, for all the post-war discussion of tank vs. tank stats our tanks did far more infantry support against non-tank targets than tank fighting. Even the tank destroyer battalions, whose sole doctrinal purpose was fighting tanks, expended something on the order of 7 HE rounds for every round of AP. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 2:49:41 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wrong! This is the correct answer: https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/466492/82DCB719-CA54-4E5C-9DE9-CC7EDE515DF5_jpe-1439276.JPG The T-34 was a piece of shit. Its only saving grace was the ability to crank them out quickly. I also laugh when people talk about how advantageous its sloped armor was like it was a unique feature that only the T-34 had. The Sherman had a sloped glacis plate as well and nevermind the German tanks that had them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 3:48:39 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We're talking about best tank, not best manufacturing ability, logistics, or command. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That fucking tank went EVERYWHERE on the globe and could fight and be sustained. Seriously, there is no way we could have fought a 2 front war over 10,000 miles apart.... over vast oceans.... without it. I get a bit perplexed that people like to fellate the German military in WW2 for being so bad ass. We had to have this massive logistics train that was 10 times harder to support than the German offensive into Russia. The USA had the biggest battlefield in all human history, measuring over 6,000 miles in the Pacific. And despite all those tough odds, we kicked ASS. Seriously don't know why people don't know about the gargantuan achievements the USA did in WW2. But Germany.... who lost..... gets all this love? I would argue that those traits are what make the Sherman the tank that it is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 8:22:01 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I would argue that those traits are what make the Sherman the tank that it is. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: That fucking tank went EVERYWHERE on the globe and could fight and be sustained. Seriously, there is no way we could have fought a 2 front war over 10,000 miles apart.... over vast oceans.... without it. I get a bit perplexed that people like to fellate the German military in WW2 for being so bad ass. We had to have this massive logistics train that was 10 times harder to support than the German offensive into Russia. The USA had the biggest battlefield in all human history, measuring over 6,000 miles in the Pacific. And despite all those tough odds, we kicked ASS. Seriously don't know why people don't know about the gargantuan achievements the USA did in WW2. But Germany.... who lost..... gets all this love? I would argue that those traits are what make the Sherman the tank that it is. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 10:36:54 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Soviet 85 mm was mentioned. I read an account by a platoon commander of four SU-85s. On command, they fired a volley at a Panther. All four shells struck the glacis at 800 meters. None penetrated but the crew abandoned it; all of them were holding their ears. They must have been deaf from those impacts. Anyway, one of the SU-85s raced forward and someone dismounted and drove the Panther back to Soviet lines. German's had major shortages in alloys. Lots of German steel was very brittle. I'd imagine the spalling was pretty bad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 10:52:24 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The M4 Sherman had incredible armor and firepower. M4 Sherman production began in February 1942. Do you know what the best German tank in production in February 1942 was? The Panzer III Ausf J. That's a 50mm gun and 2" of frontal armor when the M4 had a 75mm gun and 3.6" of effective frontal armor. The Panzer IV Ausf F "special" with the long 75mm didn't enter production until a month later and still only had 2" of armor. The Germans did not get a better armored medium tank than than the M4 until Panther arrived a full year later in January 1943. The Sherman performed so well at El Alamein that it convinced the US Army a newer tank wasn't needed, until they got a rude awakening a few months later in Tunisia. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 10:56:23 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The US literally had the best of almost every piece of machinery for war. We didn't win just on logistics. We had the best of almost everything. Best Infantry rifle Best Supply truck Best Aircraft Carrier (The Essex Class) Best Battleship (The Iowa Class) Best Bombers Best Radar I'd argue the best overall tank too. No German tank could do what the Sherman was asked to do. Don't short change the US military simply by saying it was logistics alone. We had damn fine equipment too. Umm, no. Every one of those points is arguable except aircraft carrier, battleship, rifle, truck, bomber and radar all all arguable. The question is better what? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 11:00:03 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Also had the best fighters. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: We're talking about best tank, not best manufacturing ability, logistics, or command. The US literally had the best of almost every piece of machinery for war. We didn't win just on logistics. We had the best of almost everything. Best Infantry rifle Best Supply truck Best Aircraft Carrier (The Essex Class) Best Battleship (The Iowa Class) Best Bombers Best Radar I'd argue the best overall tank too. No German tank could do what the Sherman was asked to do. Don't short change the US military simply by saying it was logistics alone. We had damn fine equipment too. Also had the best fighters. Nope, again arguable. Best at what? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 11:06:25 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lol. They were called Ronsons by both sides for a reason. They light up on the first strike every time. They weren't actually called that. Post war myth. (Ronson didn't come up with their "lights first time" catchphrase until well after WW2) |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 11:06:41 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Umm, no. Every one of those points is arguable except aircraft carrier, battleship, rifle, truck, bomber and radar all all arguable. Tell me which battleship design was better than the Iowa class, and your answer had better not be "Yamato class". There are only five other contenders for the "Best Large Battleship in WWII" category: British KGV class. Iowa has heavier armament, better armor. German Bismarck class. Close, but 9 16-inch radar-controlled guns beat 8 15-inch radar-controlled guns. At the very best, you can claim it is a push. French Richelieu class. Good, but not good enough. Italian Littorio class. Lol, no. Japanese Yamato class. Iowa had better armor, fire control, damage control, AA battery, the list goes on and on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 11:11:47 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Sherman performed so well at El Alamein that it convinced the US Army a newer tank wasn't needed, until they got a rude awakening a few months later in Tunisia. The rude awakening in Tunisia was due to training and tactics. Commanders in the field remained generally satisfied with the 75mm Sherman and resisted any major changes that threatened to interrupt the supply of new tanks until they encountered Panthers in significant numbers in France. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 11:16:35 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Tell me which battleship design was better than the Iowa class, and your answer had better not be "Yamato class". There are only five other contenders for the "Best Large Battleship in WWII" category: British KGV class. Iowa has heavier armament, better armor. German Bismarck class. Close, but 9 16-inch radar-controlled guns beat 8 15-inch radar-controlled guns. At the very best, you can claim it is a push. French Richelieu class. Good, but not good enough. Italian Littorio class. Lol, no. Japanese Yamato class. Iowa had better armor, fire control, damage control, AA battery, the list goes on and on. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Umm, no. Every one of those points is arguable except aircraft carrier, battleship, rifle, truck, bomber and radar all all arguable. Tell me which battleship design was better than the Iowa class, and your answer had better not be "Yamato class". There are only five other contenders for the "Best Large Battleship in WWII" category: British KGV class. Iowa has heavier armament, better armor. German Bismarck class. Close, but 9 16-inch radar-controlled guns beat 8 15-inch radar-controlled guns. At the very best, you can claim it is a push. French Richelieu class. Good, but not good enough. Italian Littorio class. Lol, no. Japanese Yamato class. Iowa had better armor, fire control, damage control, AA battery, the list goes on and on. I said arguably, and no I was thinking the Tirpitz and Bismarck, but we will never know, honestly for sure. I would still say a Yamamoto, Iowa class battle would have been interesting. To say we had the best everything simply isn’t true, I counter with best at what? To say best is very broad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 11:17:33 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The rude awakening in Tunisia was due to training and tactics. Commanders in the field remained generally satisfied with the 75mm Sherman and resisted any major changes that threatened to interrupt the supply of new tanks until they encountered Panthers in significant numbers in France. They encountered Mark IV F2s and Tiger I's in Tunisa, and were rightly concerned about the performance of the German guns on the Sherman's armor. But you are correct: concerns about supply chains and production delays made them decide it was better to go with Shermans and M-10s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 11:20:06 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I said arguably, and no I was thinking the Tirpitz and Bismarck, but we will never know, honestly for sure. I would still say a Yamamoto, Iowa class battle would have been interesting. Yes, Halsey's decision to take his battleships with him instead of leaving them at the entrance to San Bernardino Strait deprived us of seeing an epic battleship fight. One that the US would have won handily, IMHO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 11:22:06 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Tell me which battleship design was better than the Iowa class, and your answer had better not be "Yamato class". There are only five other contenders for the "Best Large Battleship in WWII" category: British KGV class. Iowa has heavier armament, better armor. German Bismarck class. Close, but 9 16-inch radar-controlled guns beat 8 15-inch radar-controlled guns. At the very best, you can claim it is a push. French Richelieu class. Good, but not good enough. Italian Littorio class. Lol, no. Japanese Yamato class. Iowa had better armor, fire control, damage control, AA battery, the list goes on and on. You are giving the Bismarck class too much credit. Lots of tonnage wasted on outdated features like incremental armor, mixed secondary battery, and an inefficient main battery arrangement. Clearly inferior AA armament. Also deficient in speed and range compared to Iowa. ETA: I looked into armor and penetration for a battleship thread a few months ago. Bismarck was roughly equal to the North Carolina class in terms of ability to penetrate each other's belt armor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 11:24:09 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: German's had major shortages in alloys. Lots of German steel was very brittle. I'd imagine the spalling was pretty bad. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The Soviet 85 mm was mentioned. I read an account by a platoon commander of four SU-85s. On command, they fired a volley at a Panther. All four shells struck the glacis at 800 meters. None penetrated but the crew abandoned it; all of them were holding their ears. They must have been deaf from those impacts. Anyway, one of the SU-85s raced forward and someone dismounted and drove the Panther back to Soviet lines. German's had major shortages in alloys. Lots of German steel was very brittle. I'd imagine the spalling was pretty bad. Read some of the penetration tests done on captured German tanks. The Panther armor tended to crack when hit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 11:30:21 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: To say we had the best everything simply isn't true, I counter with best at what? To say best is very broad. I agree, the term "Best" takes in a lot of factors. The Yamato, for example, was built to take a pounding and prevail in an old-school battleship-line encounter and you could argue that based on THAT criterion alone it was the best. But as experience showed it was quite vulnerable to air attack because of its inadequate AA battery. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 11:38:20 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Everything I know about WWII tanks I learned from the Haunted Tank Comics back in the 60's and 70's. The Haunted Tank was amazing. It had a 20mm for a bow gun! It was built on a T-34 chassis with only 4 road wheels! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 11:59:35 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I agree, the term "Best" takes in a lot of factors. The Yamato, for example, was built to take a pounding and prevail in an old-school battleship-line encounter and you could argue that based on THAT criterion alone it was the best. But as experience showed it was quite vulnerable to air attack because of its inadequate AA battery. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: To say we had the best everything simply isn't true, I counter with best at what? To say best is very broad. I agree, the term "Best" takes in a lot of factors. The Yamato, for example, was built to take a pounding and prevail in an old-school battleship-line encounter and you could argue that based on THAT criterion alone it was the best. But as experience showed it was quite vulnerable to air attack because of its inadequate AA battery. Also, I think the Iowas were the fastest so they could keep up with the aircraft carriers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 12:02:35 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I agree, the term "Best" takes in a lot of factors. The Yamato, for example, was built to take a pounding and prevail in an old-school battleship-line encounter and you could argue that based on THAT criterion alone it was the best. But as experience showed it was quite vulnerable to air attack because of its inadequate AA battery. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: To say we had the best everything simply isn't true, I counter with best at what? To say best is very broad. I agree, the term "Best" takes in a lot of factors. The Yamato, for example, was built to take a pounding and prevail in an old-school battleship-line encounter and you could argue that based on THAT criterion alone it was the best. But as experience showed it was quite vulnerable to air attack because of its inadequate AA battery. Exactly my point, best at what? I wasn’t arguing against the Ohio class, I’m arguing against the broad statement “best” at what, then you better expect a argument and be prepared to back it up. To simply say we had/have the best need to back up their statement, because it simply is not true as stated, is a blanket statement made by someone who doesn’t know what their even posting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 12:04:01 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Also, I think the Iowas were the fastest so they could keep up with the aircraft carriers. Yet the proposed Montana class were a newer design, yet slower, but would they have been much more deadlier. So would they have been the best, while heavily armed, with more firepower yet slower, would the have still been the best? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 12:06:58 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Watching the great videos from Manic it has struck me that the German gunners really only had their primary sight at a high magnification. It must have been absolute hell to get talked onto a target. Good read is Panzer Gunner by Canadian Bruno Friesen. His father sends him to Germany to visit relatives and he got drafted into the Wehrmacht. He serves as a tank gunner and goes extensively into the milran sights and how he used them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 12:08:28 PM EDT
[#39]
It was the Ford Taurus of tanks
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 12:10:53 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The T-34 was a piece of shit. Its only saving grace was the ability to crank them out quickly. I also laugh when people talk about how advantageous its sloped armor was like it was a unique feature that only the T-34 had. The Sherman had a sloped glacis plate as well and nevermind the German tanks that had them. Best tank in 1941. No one had a tank with comparable speed, armor or firepower. It was hampered by poor crew training, overworked commander/gunner, poor tactics and lack of radio. Remember, even Guderian suggested copying it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 12:12:47 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nope, again arguable. Best at what? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: We're talking about best tank, not best manufacturing ability, logistics, or command. The US literally had the best of almost every piece of machinery for war. We didn't win just on logistics. We had the best of almost everything. Best Infantry rifle Best Supply truck Best Aircraft Carrier (The Essex Class) Best Battleship (The Iowa Class) Best Bombers Best Radar I'd argue the best overall tank too. No German tank could do what the Sherman was asked to do. Don't short change the US military simply by saying it was logistics alone. We had damn fine equipment too. Also had the best fighters. Nope, again arguable. Best at what? Looting. We had the lootwaffe (GI term). Remember, the Brits fought for God, King and Country. The Soviets for Mother Russia. The Germans for the Fatherland and the Americans for souveniers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 12:14:13 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It was the Ford Taurus of tanks Thanks   Very nice way to put it
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 12:19:46 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The firefly variant was the best one. Best what? Tank destroyer perhaps, but it was inferior to the basic M4 as an all-around "medium tank." There was little room in the turret, reload was a painful process due to the lack of room coupled with a very large round, the assistant driver/bow gunner position was sacrificed for main gun ammunition storage, and the gunner's sight and controls were horrible (this was due to the 17 pounder being designed for a mount not remotely designed to be used with the turret into which it was stuffed, not an inherent problem with either the tank or gun separately). The 17-pounder was never intended to be used as a "general purpose" tank, and was fielded as heavy anti-tank firepower in a platoon of 75mm Shermans, rather than as the basis for the tank platoon. Mike |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 12:43:55 PM EDT
[#44]
As has been stated numerous times, it's hard to pin down best at what...and when...
Best tank in '39 probably a French tank '40-41 probably the T34 '42-'44 probably Tiger I and or Panther '45 probably Sherman E8 or another US design. I think the T34 was most influential in WWII since it saved the Soviets, although a primitive, sub-par design compared to the Sherman. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 12:48:00 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Best what? Tank destroyer perhaps, but it was inferior to the basic M4 as an all-around "medium tank." There was little room in the turret, reload was a painful process due to the lack of room coupled with a very large round, the assistant driver/bow gunner position was sacrificed for main gun ammunition storage, and the gunner's sight and controls were horrible (this was due to the 17 pounder being designed for a mount not remotely designed to be used with the turret into which it was stuffed, not an inherent problem with either the tank or gun separately). The 17-pounder was never intended to be used as a "general purpose" tank, and was fielded as heavy anti-tank firepower in a platoon of 75mm Shermans, rather than as the basis for the tank platoon. Mike Both the gunner and the CO had close their eyes before the 17 pdr was fired. Gunner often had blood coming out of his eardrum afterward too (his head was rested against part of the 17 pdr. Still, at least the 17 pdr gave the Sherman the firepower in a tank v tank engagement. One squadron armed with 75 mm Sherman was instructed by the Squadron leader to use only HE against Tigers. Since the AP couldn't penetrate, he reasoned that rapid fire HE could damage the Tiger's optics. Guess who in the squadron got a chance to test that theory too? The Squadron commander himself. He captured a Tiger when the crew abandoned it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 12:50:11 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: As has been stated numerous times, it's hard to pin down best at what...and when... Best tank in '39 probably a French tank '40-41 probably the T34 '42-'44 probably Tiger I and or Panther '45 probably Sherman E8 or another US design. I think the T34 was most influential in WWII since it saved the Soviets, although a primitive, sub-par design compared to the Sherman. Yet the soviets would've been pretty fucked without lend lease M3s and M4s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 12:52:41 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You are giving the Bismarck class too much credit. Lots of tonnage wasted on outdated features like incremental armor, mixed secondary battery, and an inefficient main battery arrangement. Clearly inferior AA armament. Also deficient in speed and range compared to Iowa. ETA: I looked into armor and penetration for a battleship thread a few months ago. Bismarck was roughly equal to the North Carolina class in terms of ability to penetrate each other's belt armor. Bismarcks and Iowas were very close in the speed department. The incremental armor was a positive for what they were designed to do... Duke it out at close range in the North Sea. They did have some glaring design flaws though... Three shaft propulsion plants (centerline shafts are bad and compromise other things), and a very weak stern (a byproduct of the three shaft design). They were very stable though. The Iowas were designed to be a do it all battleship, since we knew we would be fighting them all over the world. Yamato vs Iowa could have gone either way, but I suspect the Iowas would have come out on top merely because of USN damage control practices. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 12:55:11 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You are giving the Bismarck class too much credit. Lots of tonnage wasted on outdated features like incremental armor, mixed secondary battery, and an inefficient main battery arrangement. Clearly inferior AA armament. Also deficient in speed and range compared to Iowa. ETA: I looked into armor and penetration for a battleship thread a few months ago. Bismarck was roughly equal to the North Carolina class in terms of ability to penetrate each other's belt armor. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Tell me which battleship design was better than the Iowa class, and your answer had better not be "Yamato class". There are only five other contenders for the "Best Large Battleship in WWII" category: British KGV class. Iowa has heavier armament, better armor. German Bismarck class. Close, but 9 16-inch radar-controlled guns beat 8 15-inch radar-controlled guns. At the very best, you can claim it is a push. French Richelieu class. Good, but not good enough. Italian Littorio class. Lol, no. Japanese Yamato class. Iowa had better armor, fire control, damage control, AA battery, the list goes on and on. You are giving the Bismarck class too much credit. Lots of tonnage wasted on outdated features like incremental armor, mixed secondary battery, and an inefficient main battery arrangement. Clearly inferior AA armament. Also deficient in speed and range compared to Iowa. ETA: I looked into armor and penetration for a battleship thread a few months ago. Bismarck was roughly equal to the North Carolina class in terms of ability to penetrate each other's belt armor. South Dakota's were better than the Bismarck. And while the Yamamoto was massive and well-armored, it's radar and damage control were crap. It's likely an Iowa would've won because of its higher ability to take and deliver hate. All you could want to know on battleship v battleship |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 1:02:33 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: South Dakota's were better than the Bismarck. And while the Yamamoto was massive and well-armored, it's radar and damage control were crap. It's likely an Iowa would've won because of its higher ability to take and deliver hate. All you could want to know on battleship v battleship Neat website.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 1:03:56 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted: Panzer who? Really no need for a thread. The Sherman was the best WWII tank because it was still able to match its opponents in Korea, the two Indo-Pak and first three Arab-Israeli wars. The armor was always shit and so was the chance for it to catch fire. But it was always possible to mount it with a gun that could kill any tank it could encounter. With unlimited HVAP available for the 76mm it had no trouble with T34s in Korea and Suez. With the French Long 75 it killed Pattons on the West Bank and the Kashmir. With the short French 105 it was able to beat off T62's. It would have been interesting if we had built more than just the one example with a 90mm in the T25's turret. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
