FORUM

Master your own destiny! Command a nation!




The Sherman Tank of WW2 - An Engineering Disaster

Talk about historical WW2 events and equipment.

The Sherman Tank of WW2 - An Engineering Disaster

01 Mar 2013, 11:04

After the war, the U.S. army was sued by soldiers as they deserts of the Sherman Tank was too weak against German tanks! The US tank weapon had from all weapon genres the highest death rate in WW2 some interistin info from the us armor soldiers
"The ringing in your ears is the sound of your own destruction."
Thundercracker

"Strike when the enemy isn't looking."
Skywarp

"Among the winners, there is no room for the weak."
Grimlock
User avatar

SemperFi

Oberfeldwebel
Oberfeldwebel
 
User avatar

SemperFi

Oberfeldwebel
Oberfeldwebel

Re: The Sherman Tank of WW2 - An Engineering Disaster

02 Mar 2013, 16:51

It sure doesnt show in this game.....

[ Post made via iPad ] Image

Pikoman

Private
Private
 

Pikoman

Private
Private

Re: The Sherman Tank of WW2 - An Engineering Disaster

02 Mar 2013, 16:59

Pikoman wrote:It sure doesnt show in this game.....


This miracle machine even has the audacity to perform pivot turns to turn just enough to catch up with my Panzer 1 doing circles around it. I have been killed five times during the past few days in encounters like this. Get close, open fire, run around in circles. Pivot turn + turret rotation is just enough to traverse those few extra radians / second and boom goes the Pz1.
R.D.N.C
"we will close the servers so players won"

rmed002

Sergeant
Sergeant
 

rmed002

Sergeant
Sergeant

Re: The Sherman Tank of WW2 - An Engineering Disaster

22 May 2013, 06:54

While nearly all the points mentioned in the video I agree with to be true, it is a bit misleading as it does not tell the whole story.

I do not want to discount the bravery of Sherman crews, who must have felt quite exposed driving a tank that could easily be knocked out by top tier German tanks, or the famous German .88 flak gun they used so effectively throughout the war. But was it...a disaster? I wouldn't really say so.

The problem that has always seemed the most glaring to me is the engine and fuel mentioned in the video. Shermans had a reputation for getting knocked out, the fuel igniting, and then within seconds lighting the entire tank on fire killing everyone inside. This is why the Germans called them "Tommy Cookers." But the true triumph of the Sherman, is oddly not the Sherman itself but the process in which they were made. The United States created an incredible amount of Sherman tanks in a relatively short period of time, sending them across the Pacific and Atlantic.

I've heard it argued that the Tiger and Panther were bigger engineering disasters than the Sherman for a glaringly obvious reason. They could not be mass produced at anywhere near an effective level. Something like 1,350 Tiger I tanks were built during the whole war. The Soviets produced more T-34s than that A MONTH.

You look at certain parts of the war, such as Operation Uranus (in which the Soviets encircled Stalingrad) where large groups of German (and German allied infantry) had very little anti-tank weapons, and T-34 led columns of troops (which were inferior to tigers and panthers in 1v1 combat) just rolled up the lines of infantry with ease. Even the best of Germany's tanks had many problems operating in Russia's terrain, a problem the T-34 did not have.

But back to the western front, I would like to point out that the HUGE advantage in American/British fighter-bombers and artillery spelled doom for lots of German tankers. Even with superior tanks, the Germans lost in north Africa because the British desert airforce tore Rommels's tanks to ribbons in the open.

PolanStronk

Private
Private
 

PolanStronk

Private
Private

Re: The Sherman Tank of WW2 - An Engineering Disaster

22 May 2013, 08:33

PolanStronk wrote:While nearly all the points mentioned in the video I agree with to be true, it is a bit misleading as it does not tell the whole story.


If you agree with much of anything the video mentions, you're agreeing to mostly false information.

The burning Shermans are a great example. The fires were not being started by the fuel. Not only was Germany using gasoline as well, but Soviet studies showed that their gasoline powered lead-lease tanks had fuel fires as often as their own diesel powered tanks. The fires were really ammunition fires, which occurred due to British crews putting an unsafe amount of ammunition into the storage racks, hence why the nicknames revolved around Britain.
User avatar

Unorthadox

2nd Lieutenant
2nd Lieutenant
 
User avatar

Unorthadox

2nd Lieutenant
2nd Lieutenant

Re: The Sherman Tank of WW2 - An Engineering Disaster

25 May 2013, 08:11

Unorthadox wrote:
PolanStronk wrote:While nearly all the points mentioned in the video I agree with to be true, it is a bit misleading as it does not tell the whole story.


If you agree with much of anything the video mentions, you're agreeing to mostly false information.

The burning Shermans are a great example. The fires were not being started by the fuel. Not only was Germany using gasoline as well, but Soviet studies showed that their gasoline powered lead-lease tanks had fuel fires as often as their own diesel powered tanks. The fires were really ammunition fires, which occurred due to British crews putting an unsafe amount of ammunition into the storage racks, hence why the nicknames revolved around Britain.


Yeah, quite stupid of me to phrase it like that.

PolanStronk

Private
Private
 

PolanStronk

Private
Private

Re: The Sherman Tank of WW2 - An Engineering Disaster

25 May 2013, 08:29

Unorthadox wrote:[
If you agree with much of anything the video mentions, you're agreeing to mostly false information.


source? examples?

The burning Shermans are a great example. The fires were not being started by the fuel.

the ammo fires are a second issue and saying high octane fuel isnt more flammalbe than diesel or regular gasoline is nothign short of foolish

which occurred due to British crews putting an unsafe amount of ammunition into the storage racks, hence why the nicknames revolved around Britain.


saying there is an unsafe number must mean there is a safe number
so what whoudl that safe number be ? 1 ? 2 ? 3ß?

infact if you do a lil research you find that the ammunition storage was the problem combined with the fuses that often ignited on hit
the introduction of wet ammo storane racks severely reduced the number of ammo fires the number of shells had little to do with this
Kern wrote:You know tanks are balanced when one side has to ditch their tank and go infantry to increase their combat effectiveness against an equally priced tank while the other tank can one-shot kill their "equal" opponent from over 1km away.
User avatar

katthedemon

Colonel
Colonel
 
User avatar

katthedemon

Colonel
Colonel

Re: The Sherman Tank of WW2 - An Engineering Disaster

25 May 2013, 09:42

Oh history channel again...it must be true. Lets see what Guido Knopp is saying.
ImageImage

Posted with Telefunken ENIGMA LXVI Funkfernsprech- und berührungsempfindlicher Bildapplikationseinheit M14
User avatar

Fontan

Leutnant
Leutnant
 
User avatar

Fontan

Leutnant
Leutnant

Re: The Sherman Tank of WW2 - An Engineering Disaster

25 May 2013, 16:52

Fontan wrote:Oh history channel again...it must be true. Lets see what Guido Knopp is saying.


:lol:

As for "engineering disaster", one of the stronger points of the Sherman was that it easier to serve and maintain. The German plethora of vehicles was a nightmare to keep in fighting order. And even if German armor could beat off local attacks, it couldn't be everywhere. Lack of fuel, crucial supplies and reinforcments not reaching the front due to Allied air superiority, and other factors crippled the Germans. Call it a supply bug... H&G gives a rather skewed picture of what the Germans were capable of in 1944, at least in the RTS part.
Image
User avatar

vonBaer

Lt. Colonel
Lt. Colonel
 
User avatar

vonBaer

Lt. Colonel
Lt. Colonel

Re: The Sherman Tank of WW2 - An Engineering Disaster

25 May 2013, 23:27

katthedemon wrote:source? examples?


Belton Cooper for one. Literally everyone in the tank historian world disagrees with him - Zaloga, Hunnicutt, you name it.

Example - Belton Cooper claims to have seen a German tank shell penetrate the 4 inch (101mm) plate on the front-lower hull of a Sherman, then says it went straight through a 5 inch (127mm) transmission. I'm fairly certain even you can see the problem with this statement.

Two, the video uses the ye olde 5 for 1 myth and tries to make it appear that it has actually happened, while stating that the 75 could only penetrate the rear of a Tiger 1 at some ridiculous close range. On the pure logical side, how could a 75 penetrate the 80mm sloped rear of a Tiger 1, but not the flat 80mm sides? On the reality side, the Soviets did tests with their lead-lense Sherman 75s against a Tiger 1. The Soviet tests showed that the Sherman 75 could penetrate the sides of a Tiger 1 out to 650 meters (Note - U.S. Army post-war studies showed that the typical engagement range between American tanks and German tanks was around 500 yards).

the ammo fires are a second issue and saying high octane fuel isnt more flammalbe than diesel or regular gasoline is nothign short of foolish


Talk about being foolish. First and foremost, do you even know what the difference between high-octane and low-octane is? High-octane is LESS likely to catch fire due to having a higher flashpoint, hence HIGH-octane. What it does do though, is burn very hot.

Take a wild guess what type of gasoline Germany used? Hint - They didn't use diesel or high-octane gas.

Second, 60-70% of Britain's Sherman losses involving an ammunition fire kinda shows that it wasn't secondary for them.

saying there is an unsafe number must mean there is a safe number
so what whoudl that safe number be ? 1 ? 2 ? 3ß?


Without checking field manuals, around 65 shells.

infact if you do a lil research you find that the ammunition storage was the problem combined with the fuses that often ignited on hit
the introduction of wet ammo storane racks severely reduced the number of ammo fires the number of shells had little to do with this


If you did a little bit of research you'd have noticed that Britain was the only nation that's Shermans brewed up in large numbers (60-70%). Neither the U.S. nor Soviets had problems with the ammunition.

By the way, Britain didn't have Shermans with wet racks, yet ammo fires mysteriously dropped at Normandy. Hmm, I wonder why.
User avatar

Unorthadox

2nd Lieutenant
2nd Lieutenant
 
User avatar

Unorthadox

2nd Lieutenant
2nd Lieutenant

Re: The Sherman Tank of WW2 - An Engineering Disaster

26 May 2013, 00:18

Unorthadox wrote:Example - Belton Cooper claims to have seen a German tank shell penetrate the 4 inch (101mm) plate on the front-lower hull of a Sherman, then says it went straight through a 5 inch (127mm) transmission.


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

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

also not knowing the exact scenario and shell fired means you have not enough infos to say much about it

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


Two, the video uses the ye olde 5 for 1 myth

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

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

and tries to make it appear that it has actually happened, while stating that the 75 could only penetrate the rear of a Tiger 1


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 !

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

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

Armour penetration (M72 AP shell, 457 m, at 90 degrees): 76 mm


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 !




at some ridiculous close range. On the pure logical side, how could a 75 penetrate the 80mm sloped rear of a Tiger 1, but not the flat 80mm sides?

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

On the reality side, the Soviets did tests with their lead-lense Sherman 75s against a Tiger 1. The Soviet tests showed that the Sherman 75 could penetrate the sides of a Tiger 1 out to 650 meters


then again soviet tests also showed that soviet tanks and guns were superior to german and american equipment in every aspect

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

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



Talk about being foolish. First and foremost, do you even know what the difference between high-octane and low-octane is? High-octane is LESS likely to catch fire due to having a higher flashpoint, hence HIGH-octane. What it does do though, is burn very hot.


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
Take a wild guess what type of gasoline Germany used? Hint - They didn't use diesel or high-octane gas.

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

Second, 60-70% of Britain's Sherman losses involving an ammunition fire kinda shows that it wasn't secondary for them.

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 ^^

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

Without checking field manuals, around 65 shells.


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

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

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
Last edited by katthedemon on 26 May 2013, 02:04, edited 2 times in total.
Kern wrote:You know tanks are balanced when one side has to ditch their tank and go infantry to increase their combat effectiveness against an equally priced tank while the other tank can one-shot kill their "equal" opponent from over 1km away.
User avatar

katthedemon

Colonel
Colonel
 
User avatar

katthedemon

Colonel
Colonel

Re: The Sherman Tank of WW2 - An Engineering Disaster

26 May 2013, 07:18

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 need?".

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.
User avatar

Unorthadox

2nd Lieutenant
2nd Lieutenant
 
User avatar

Unorthadox

2nd Lieutenant
2nd Lieutenant

Re: The Sherman Tank of WW2 - An Engineering Disaster

03 Jun 2013, 03:22

Actually the Sherman was a well designed tank, it was so simply designed that is was easy to do field repairs. German tanks were so complicated there was no way to fix a busted wheel for the track, or tinker with the engine. Not to mention due to so many axis vehicles on the field of battle a minor busted up tank had to be pulled off the line while waiting for a replacement part. So it's simple design is a huge bonus, you want your armor rolling as fast a possible and not stuck waiting for damn hose that's made in Romania lol. It's second huge advantage was it's speed, Sherman's were able to drive circles around axis armor, which they often did. Oooo before I forget the firefly Sherman with beefed up gun could punch through tiger armor. I don't find it a fair comparison when you line up a medium armor/armored tank against a heavy/super heavy. How about Panzer 4 against a Sherman.

frozensnow

Recruit
 

frozensnow

Recruit

Re: The Sherman Tank of WW2 - An Engineering Disaster

03 Jun 2013, 03:59

drive circles?

Sherman M4 and its variants 34,5kph to 48kph speed on road, Off road 24kph.
Alot of conflicting numbers, depending where you go look. Most sources don't even bother to mention what version does what, despite that both suspension and weight varied from model to model.

Pz.3 about 40kph on road, 18kph to 20kph off road.
Pz.4 about 42kph on road, 16kph off road.
Panther, 55kph or 46kph depending on model, on road. 24kph off road. When they uparmored the Panther, speeds dropped from 55kph to 46kph, off road speeds seem to have stayed about the same.

Tiger about 40kph on road, 20kph off road.

These are as close as I could get the numbers, from several sources, and as you can see, at no point, a Sherman would drive circles around tanks it would encounter in the western theatre.

HOWEVER, this "myth" may come from the slow turret rotation of the Tiger, wich if not used in cooperation with turning the hull, could allow a sherman at very close ranges to "outcircle" the turret rotation.
---***--- Intel i7 2600k @3,40Ghz 4 Cores ---***---
---***--- 16GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600MHz ---***---
---***--- Gainward GeForce GTX 780 3GB ---***---
User avatar

ralpgalland

Oberst
Oberst
 
User avatar

ralpgalland

Oberst
Oberst

Re: The Sherman Tank of WW2 - An Engineering Disaster

03 Jun 2013, 09:51

What ralpgalland said - the slow speeds of German tanks are myth.
In fact heavy butt Tiger beats Sherman hands down in cross country and is able to cross soft muddy terrain where Shermans would simply bog down.

Yeah, and remove the loving pivot turn from American tanks already!
You can't give them ahistorical speed buffs without reducing their other properties (to realistical level, that is).
Image
If you agree feel free to use the image as your signature.
User avatar

Jinppa

Generalmajor
Generalmajor
 
User avatar

Jinppa

Generalmajor
Generalmajor

Re: The Sherman Tank of WW2 - An Engineering Disaster

03 Jun 2013, 12:56

Nice topic, I haven't known alot of the stuff you say here. Thank you :) very intresting for me!
Image
BEWARE THE M1 RAINICORN
DANCE WITH ME!
User avatar

Mastrdisastr

Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
 
User avatar

Mastrdisastr

Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant

Re: The Sherman Tank of WW2 - An Engineering Disaster

02 Jul 2013, 06:41

Unorthadox, i wouldnt believe a word of any Soviet information unless some other non-Soviet, non-Soviet tied country, and non-communist information source confirmed it. The Soviets lied about everything that made them look bad or about things that didn't stand up to another country's standards. If you've played COH2 you'd see in the short little story an example of how the Soviets constantly lied to their own people during and after the war. Also, if i remember correctly, the numbers for the Soviets dead by Stalin's purges, the number dead from WW2, and the number dead from everything else is still being risen because they are finding new documents and information from the old Soviet government, course i could be wrong about that, i haven't kept up much with Soviet era stuff
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMTLMPcyprg we are the super men, the super duper super men!
User avatar

heng06

Sergeant
Sergeant
 
User avatar

heng06

Sergeant
Sergeant

Re: The Sherman Tank of WW2 - An Engineering Disaster

09 Jul 2013, 22:50

The problem here is that you're under the belief that EVERYTHING the Soviets wrote was propaganda. All these test reports, engineering documents, etc. came from the Soviet Archives that were opened in the late 90's. These are things meant for engineers, not the public. The Soviets aren't going to lie on documents not for the public just to love with people 70 years later.

The Soviets had some equipment better than everyone else, and the Russian Feds still do. I get they're the bad guys, I'm an American, I still grew up around it even though I wasn't alive during the Cold War, but that doesn't mean they lied about everything.

It'd be one thing if the documents were marked with an Agitprop seal, but they're not.
User avatar

Unorthadox

2nd Lieutenant
2nd Lieutenant
 
User avatar

Unorthadox

2nd Lieutenant
2nd Lieutenant

Re: The Sherman Tank of WW2 - An Engineering Disaster

11 Jul 2013, 04:05

Well everything the Soviets wrote to/told their population and the outside world was almost always propaganda, which is why i didn't believe you, but now that you said it was a document only for engineers and not for the public makes it more believable. Unfortunately i still won't fully believe it unless an outside source says it's true. i still put my bets on it as propaganda, cause what better way to bring up morale than to tell a select group of people your armors better, show them documents that look official and say top secret, and then letting those guys go so they can spread the word. If you can find a non-Soviet source that says its true than i'll be more than happy to take a look at the source.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMTLMPcyprg we are the super men, the super duper super men!
User avatar

heng06

Sergeant
Sergeant
 
User avatar

heng06

Sergeant
Sergeant

Re: The Sherman Tank of WW2 - An Engineering Disaster

11 Jul 2013, 07:18

Check the Battle of Prohorovka, which was portrayed by soviet propaganda as an epic struggle, where both sides suffered about the same casualties, and Russians ramming into the German tanks in epic courage bid.
In reality the Germans had under 10 completely destroyed tanks and 30-40 damaged tanks, meanwhile the Russians had 200-300 destroyed tanks and 300-400 damaged tanks
Actually now it is known that operation Citadel(Battle of Kurk) was an almost German success, the Germans were extremely close to achieving their goals but a couple of OKW mistakes stopped that.

Another example of soviet propaganda.
In before <Allied Crying Armada> nukes the thread.

Who won Tour de France in 1940 ??? --- Die 7. Panzer Division der Wehrmacht
User avatar

cocolat1x

2nd Lieutenant
2nd Lieutenant
 
User avatar

cocolat1x

2nd Lieutenant
2nd Lieutenant