katthedemon wrote:you need to listen a little more closely srsly..." the first shot had gone through the transmission"
no word how where or wether or not it went straight trough could have just hit the transmission and then got deflected towards the tank interior
"Through" means through, not "deflected".
next he mentions it got trough the driveshaft all in all we know the shell pierced the front armor hit the transmission and damaged the driveshaft thats completely within the range of possibility knowing that several shermans got penetrated all the way front to back
No Sherman has ever been penetrated front to back. That is a complete impossibility for the time period.
also not knowing the exact scenario and shell fired means you have not enough infos to say much about it
And you think Belton Cooper does? According to him, the U.S. faced nothing but Panthers and Tiger 1s.
if we try to be realistic we can assume it was a 75mm L70 or the 88mm L56 gun ,both cut trough 100mm of american armor steel like butter and a transmission is NOT made from armor steel neither is is a solid piece of metal
It would be one thing if the transmission was some piddly 50mm of steel, but no, it's 127mm of steel. That, plus 100mm of armor-grade steel will stop anything. Also, the L56 had a lot of trouble penetrating the 100mm plate covering the Sherman's transmission, so it being hit by a Tiger 1 is completely out of the question. A Panther could, but the shell would not be moving fast enough to go through a transmission afterwards.
you claim it a myth yet have no evidence for the contrary here. i dont know how many shermans you needed and think its highly situational but the number lies somewhere between 1 and 50 depending on the german tank and his crew my best bet is the 5 tanks is a pure statistical figure
For evidence, expecting me to go through and post every single battle between Tiger 1s and Shermans to prove that it never happened is asinine. The proof that it ever happened is on you, and to put it nicely, you're not going to find a thing.
there are however reports of 4 m4 and 1 firelfy being designated as anti tiger squads to specifically target tigers other formations were 7 tanks 5 m4 and 2 fireflys most likely those numbers come from those more or less theoretical tactics rather than real life applications
They were not using it as a simple global statistical figure. They used it as "YOU NEED 5 SHERMANS TO DESTROY A TIGER 1 IN A FIGHT".
actually thats wrong they state that they could penetrate from the side but tried to get into the back for a reliable penetration from longer ranges
and yeah im pretty sure americans shot german tanks in the back that really happened !
Nowhere in the video did they acknowledge that the Sherman could penetrate the side of the Tiger 1.
I never said American tankers didn't destroy German tank via rear.
also you balantly ignoring that they mostly speak about the first versions of the sherman that is featuring the short 75mm cannon and didnt have acess to to the rare and expensive apcr ammo that was later introduced exactly for the purpose of penetrating the heavyly armored german tanks from longer ranges
I mentioned the 75 several times.
also you migth be aware that the early ap ammo had trouble with th egerman armor and proved to penetrate even less than in their previous armor studys due to shattering and other issues against the dense german armor steel
The test you're thinking of didn't involve the 75. Germany's armor density didn't really affect U.S. tank guns until really late war (Or unless they faced an early series of the Tiger 1), and at that point the spalling caused by penetrating hits was killing the crews.
this is the wiki quote for the guns penetration value at FLAT angle they barely penetrate 76mm at 500m
90° is utopic in a real combat situation so yes the first sheman models had to get riddicculously close to tigers to penetrate them from the sides !
75mm M3 - M61 - APC - 66mm at 500 yards with 30 degree slope
75mm M3 - M72 - AP - 76mm at 500 yards with 30 degree slope
- M26/M46 Pershing Tank 1943-53
by Steven Zaloga. Page 10
75mm M3 and M6:
M61 APC vs homogenous @30 - 66mm at 500 yards
M72 AP vs homogenous @30 - 76mm at 500 yards
- Sherman, A History of the American Medium Tank
by R. P. Hunnicutt. Page 565.
most likely ambushing a tiger from behind means you can actually aim and get a good angle at the tank and get close
trying the same from the sides results in getting spotted and killed faster than you can fire tigers were very slow in turning so the backside gave you the most time before the tigers 88 could hit you after getting spotted
Your example implies that only 1 Tiger 1 is being ambushed, and to be blunt shows that you don't quite understand what happens in a tank ambush.
then again soviet tests also showed that soviet tanks and guns were superior to german and american equipment in every aspect
Did it ever occur to you that they were right at times? The Soviet 85 was better than the American 76 and German 75 L/48. The 100 beat the 75 L/70 and the British 76. The 122 did better than the 88 L/56. Not counting non-fielded Soviet guns, the only thing Germany beat them in was the 88 L/71.
The Soviets just looked towards future threats better than everyone else did, and were by far the kings of "What do we really
also you might be aware that soviets used burned out tiger wrecks and otherwise damaged models and shot several dozend shells at it before actually measuring so sorry those tests are hardly scientifically relevant all they show is that a damaged tiger armor can be penetrated after firing several shots or weakening the armor with fire and other stuff
It was the first test they did against the side armor of Tiger 1s. Frankly I doubt it would have mattered if they used their own steel (Which was even harder than Germany's until Germany went suicidal with their armor later in the war) since due to this comment -
i played wot i had my fair share of russian tests even with historical documentation ^^
those are highly questionable especcially in times of ww2 and the cold war era
- you wouldn't believe them anyway simply because they're Soviets.
yes talk about not having a clue here mate you see the difference is americans uses AIRCRAFT engines that uses AVIATION GASOLINE a high octane fuel that BURNS FASTER than normal low octane gasoline ;P your right for high and low octane gasoline but if you take the special fuel the sherman needed your wrong
There is literally no difference between plane gasoline and tank gasoline other than plane fuel being more pure. If your car is capable of handling high-octane gasoline, you can take the fuel from a prop-plane and put it in your car (Your car may even run better). Burning faster does not equal more likely to catch fire.
normal gasoline or diesel that was less flammable than aviation gasoline also that has nothign to do with this discussion about shermans stay on topic
It has everything to do with the topic. Germany used a fuel with a low flashpoint, yet no one talks about German tank fuel fires.
i bet 90% of losses from ammo fires involved getting hit by a frikkin cannon and shirt exploding all over the place so yes after that its pretty much secondary ^^
I don't think you understand what an ammunition fire is. Something hits a shell. The shell's powder lights on fire. The shell either goes off, or a jet of flame comes out of the penetration hole, or both. Jet of flame heats up another shell. Shell goes off. Chain reaction. Tank brews up. Perhaps it'd be better if I used "ammunition explosion".
Wet racks stops this series of events by filling the compartment with water, drowning out the flames and dampening any penetrated shell's powder.
for a better understandign with secondary i meant it is another issue and doesnt relate to the flammable fuel problem you simply assume this and imagine way too much on your own stick to what they actually say not what you read somewhere else
In English, when you say "a secondary problem" it means that the primary problem, in this case fuel fires, overshadows the "secondary" problem, in this case, ammunition explosion.
They said the fuel was highly flammable. I said it was wrong and gave the reason why they were wrong.
you could be right about the ammo could you provide me with a book or source i would like to read some more about this specific issues with british tanks
There is no book that goes into a ton of a detail on it, but Steven Zaloga touches on the ammunition explosions in Sherman Medium Tank 1942-45.
still nowhere in the video do they state that shermans burned a lot or trough fuel fires all they ever stated was that shermans used a highly flammable fuel compared to gasoline or diesel that in itself is a disadvantage
It's called implying. They implied that Shermans had an issue with a non-existent problem.
so my question still stands where is all this "false information" you claim to have seen here. i see you know a lot about the myths and wrong assumptions but there arent much of them in this specific video more or less all they did was put in some vague information or somethign that could be interpreted wrong if you really want to nothign that is claimed to be a fact and is undoubtedly wrong
When the History Channel says it, they intend for it to be interpreted as fact.