|
Post by volkssturm on Sept 10, 2019 11:55:02 GMT -5
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Sept 17, 2019 0:51:43 GMT -5
The Book Death Traps by Belton Cooper reallly was seen by most as gospel and really blasted the Sherman. He was a maintenance officer in Armored Branch in WW2 and no doubt saw horrible horrible things. He was befriended by an avid wargamer in the 70s who encouraged him to write a book. I read it and do recommend it. However,I thought of all the technicians I have worked with for dozens of automotive brands. They are always of the opinion that their brand is the worst because they are constantly seeing the ones that are broken down. Imagine if he had the same job for the Germans where they considered it good if only 38% of their Panthers were broken down at a given time since usually over 50% were inoperable. 5% unserviceable was the norm for the Sherman. Inspite of long daily movement during the pursuit phase following the Normandy breakout. There were Shermans entering Germany that landed at Normandy! A Panther seldom travelled 150 miles without breaking down!
The Sherman tank was in reality an amazing tank. In place of TDs they should have had modified Shermans with Jumbo Armor The 76mm with the special silver bullet rounds or/and the British 17 pounders They too would have seen a spike in reliability issues and some mobility challenges but nothing like the Tigers and Panthers.
|
|
stuka
Sergeant
The one and only
Posts: 1,205
|
Post by stuka on Sept 17, 2019 18:49:41 GMT -5
Didn't the 17pounders have horrid HE? While we often think of tanks fighting tanks, tanks were more typically infantry support so better HE is preferred since it's being used more
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Sept 17, 2019 22:45:36 GMT -5
That's always been a problem. For AP you need high velocity. For HE you need a thinner shell casing so you can hold more explosive, but thinner shell casings can't handle higher velocities. The 76mm gun had .86 lbs. explosive to the 75mm's 1.47 lbs. which was why there was resistance to fielding the 76mm. The 17 pounder was actually better, with two HE shells, one carrying 1.08 lbs. and one with 1.28 lbs. But they used the same solution the Germans did with their 75 high velocity gun. The HE shells had reduced propellant charges, meaning lower velocity, which meant the gunners had use the correct sight picture to compensate for the more rapid drop of the HE round. I understand the German sights had two sets of range marks. If the gunner used the wrong one they were going to overshoot or undershoot. Still, it's a matter of training and the US 76mm gun could have done the same.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Sept 18, 2019 0:59:47 GMT -5
85% of the shells fired by US tanks were HE, add in white phospherous and that leaves very few armor piercing shells. US doctrine suggested that tank on tank fighting was bad tactics. Leave the tank fighting to the tank destroyers and AT weapons. The happy hunting ground for tanks were the enemies rear areas and soft targets. Of course theory goes out the window when circumstances dictate otherwise. For the US most of the tank to tank engagements were by the independant tank battalions assigned to the infantry divisions and those units were parcelled out in company and even platoons to the regiments and battalions. Most tank battles in Western Europe other than Mortain, the Voges of alsace Lorraine and the Ardennes involved a small number of tanks. 5 on 5 was considered unusual. The British in Normandy had numerous larger battles but they were fighting in more open areas than the US toward St Lo and the heavy bocage.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Sept 18, 2019 14:54:48 GMT -5
I've been watching a documentary on YouTube about "Operation Crusader" in North Africa in late 1941. This single video is over 9 hours long. Don't know why he didn't break it up. Anyway, he goes into detail on everything, including tanks and guns and tactics. One thing he said was that the British tank tactics of the time, based on General Hobart's thinking, was the opposite of US tactics. Hobart said that only tanks fight tanks. So the British didn't make full use of their other anti-tank weapons, mainly the two pounder AT gun and the 25 pounder artillery piece. The 25 pounder had a good anti-tank capability, but it was a towed gun, which meant it wasn't really mobile enough, and the 75mm in the PZKW IV equaled its range and could take them out with HE. The Germans had a balanced approach, coordinating their tanks with screens of AT guns. One interesting fact, there were relatively few 88mm guns in North Africa, but the German 50mm PAK 38 could punch through the armor of most of the British tanks out to 1,000 meters. Compounding the problem, at the time none of the main British generals had much experience with tanks. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ji7MZYB4dho&t=9550s(Looking at the playlist, I see that he actually does have documentary posted as individual episodes as well)
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Sept 28, 2019 14:48:23 GMT -5
The Arracourt tank battles in September of 1944 were pretty much the only time where large numbers of German tanks battled large numbers of US tanks in meeting engagements of fairly equal numbers. Roughly 1/3rd of the 600 German Armored Fighting vehicles were the latest versions of the Panther Mk5. Only 20 of the 4th Armored Divisions Shermans were 76mm! Also 1 in 4 of the USs 600 tanks were Stuart Light Tanks! The end result was a surprising US dominance where the Germans lost roughly 2.5 tanks and Armored vehicles to every US loss. This certainly dispels the myth of 5 Shermans needed to defeat every German tank! There were several factors that created that outcome not the least of which was US tank crews skill and training vs. the relatively inexperienced German crews, the German lack of attached recon elements and artillery and the fact that Hitler had purged most of his commanders from the west and brought in his trusted commanders from the eastern front where terrain and tactics were quite different.
The mistakes the Germans made in the Lorraine Battles helped them be more effective in some ways in the early phases of the Ardennes Offensive where they had greater respect for the US fighting ability and spent greater time on planning and preparation. Another revelation in recent research is that the Air Corp was not nearly as effective in destroying armor during WW2 as had been believed. The US military was trying to create a seperate branch so it exaggerated its effectiveness tactically and the German commanders used the Allied air dominance as something of a scapegoat for their ineffectiveness. the main effect of the tactical air was screening flanks, providing early warning and attacking logistics. They also impacted the Germans ability to use main roads, travel in the open and mass as well as the psychological impact.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Oct 6, 2019 21:29:53 GMT -5
I went back and revisited some of the reference material I had initially read 20 to 30 + years ago about the Sherman from seemingly authoritarian sources. These books universally create a picture of almost criminal decision making within the higher echelons of the U.S. military. They make the M4 out to be a horrible design that got thousands of men unnecessarily killed and were successful only due to huge numbers and Banzai like bravery on the part of our tankers and the overwhelming power of our airforces. I certainly don't question the bravery of our tankers and our air dominance was extreme through much of the war but in reading these accounts, books and periodicals it sure shows how false reporting can quickly fall into the category of "known facts".
Reliability seemed to be the Sherman's only virtue as recently as 10 years ago. It's funny in an effort to make a tabletop wargame more playable I disregarded the common wisdom of the time and created effectiveness tables that made U.S. And German tanks much closer to one another in effectiveness especially from side shots. these created percentages are now looking quite credible. My biggest error in the probabilities gaps is I made u.S TDs only slightly less effective than medium tanks against Infantry. I did not realize at the time that they lacked coaxial and bow mounted machine guns. I will change them to an effectiveness closer to halftracks.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Oct 8, 2019 11:47:48 GMT -5
The Sherman got a bit of an unfair rep for catching fire because of the stored ammunition catching fire in the early models. Wet stowage and applique armor plates over vulnerable points seems to have largely resolved that issue. But ammunition fires weren't unique to the Sherman. All tanks were vulnerable to it. When they worked out the statistics after the war, they figured out that on average one crew member died per destroyed tank. Obviously, some tanks lost entire crews, while other crews successfully bailed out, and other lost several members while the rest escaped. But a 20 percent fatality rate isn't that bad compared to the groundpounders.
One thing to keep in mind, the Sherman had to balance a lot of factors. If they gave it more armor the weight would have gone up. The Sherman had to be shipped to Europe by sea. There were no RORO's (roll on, roll off) ships at the time, unless you count LST's. So everything heavy had to be loaded and unloaded by cranes. The heavier the tanks, the fewer port facilities that could handle them. And there's a practical limit to how much armor could be added and still have a tank that could move. And building a practical tank that could stand up to the 88mm gun would probably require a supply of "unobtainium." The Sherman could have been upgraded more quickly. By the end of the war they were adding armor plates to the glacis and fielding more 76mm tanks. But Army Ground Forces started the war with some erroneous concepts of armored warfare and were slow to recognize the reality.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Oct 9, 2019 1:15:25 GMT -5
The expectation that tank vs tank would be rare and that the tanks best role was penetrating enemy infantry defenses followed by exploitation and support was actually pretty accurate. The Tank Destroyer concept was in my opinion their biggest miss but hindsight is 20/20. The British experienced far more tank to tank encounters and faced the German big cats way more than the US. So their concept of having one 17 pounder in each four tank troop was I think pretty sound. We probably should have had 1 76mm in each 5 tank platoon and a better supply of the "silver bullet" armor piercing rounds on hand. At least for the separate battalions assigned to each Infantry division. They were most often the ones caught in an unfair fight. The Sherman vision scopes provided better situational awareness their turret was faster and target acquisition allowing them to get off a shot quicker at a short half were also factors. The Sherman was equipped with a system that technically allowed them to fire accurately while moving although only the 4th Armored division trained on it enough to consistently use it. Most other units didn't like it hence disabled it.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Oct 13, 2019 12:35:08 GMT -5
Interesting stuff you learn from YouTube videos. Just watched one on "Operation Battleaxe." This was the first battle where the Crusader tank was used in combat. Two things came out right away. They tended to break down a lot. They had faulty water pumps, which is bad in the desert. They also tended to catch fire when hit. Shermans got a reputation for that, but I've never heard anyone mention it about Crusaders before. The truth is, of course, that all tanks a prone to catching fire. The problem, it seems, is not fuel but ammunition. Tanks are literally rolling powder kegs when you consider how much gunpowder is in the shell casings.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Nov 30, 2019 15:08:09 GMT -5
Hatches are the key to survivability for the crews. Russian tanks had horrible ingress and stress hence fewer crew members survived an enemy hit. US tanks were the best and later war Sherman's added a batch for the loader and redesigned commanders hatch. The Sherman and our tank destroyers were armed with a .50 Cal Ma Deuce. This was intended primarily as an anti aircraft weapon but was EXTREMELY effective against ground targets. I always thought it's mounting and location was bizarre as when used against ground targets the firer was almost totally exposed. Maintenance, late in the war often redid these mounts so they could be more effective against ground targets. (Air attack by the Luftwaffe being almost non existent). Audie Murphey was awarded his CMO when he faced a sizeable enemy armored and infantry attack, ordered his platoon to withdraw. He called in Artillery and jumped onto the engine deck of a burning U.S. Tank Destroyer and covered their retreat with the TDs .50 Cal. He was completely exposed but somehow was not hit. His fire eliminated so many German Infantry that the German tank withdrew and the attack was halted. I believe this action took place in the Lorraine or Vosges plain?
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Dec 9, 2019 14:30:33 GMT -5
Here's an interesting video with Ian from "Forgotten Weapons" and Nicholas "The Chieftain" Moran from World of Tanks discussing the guns on the M4 Sherman. And interesting point was made that the primary weapons on the Sherman were actually the bow and coaxial machineguns, rather than the cannon, since in reality tanks spent a lot of their time shooting up soft targets rather than other tanks. www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmMynoZxVKA&t=1400s
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Dec 31, 2019 17:38:38 GMT -5
Great video. I am a fan of both hosts. I have heard Chieftain lecture first hand and he is both informative AND highly entertaining. A combination of British witt and a warriors gallows humor.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Jan 7, 2020 23:04:35 GMT -5
Throughout the war most countries took steps to upgrade or supplement the existing armor on their tanks. Some were formalized and standardized while others were simple experiments. The Germans attached outer skirts or hung spare tracks in vulnerable location. On Stug assault vehicles they poured concrete in places. American tankers suspended lots of added sandbags. Where possible they installed additional layers of armor removed from derelict tanks. Apparently the concrete, sandbags and logs had minimal positive effect but I always wanted to see verification of that fact.
One would think that they would disrupt the plasma effect of shaped charges but perhaps not. It would be cool to see the results of the research or for Myth busters to test it.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Jan 20, 2020 15:26:57 GMT -5
The plane truth in tank vs tank is that the side that got off the first shot usually won the engagement. Since a defender in a stationary position typically fired first they enjoyed a huge advantage. In movement to contact type battles (very rare) the German advantage in armored thickness and more powerful main guns was generally only significant if the meeting engagement was greater than 1200 meters. In Western Europe it averaged 800 yards and was often way way closer than that due to terrain and weather.
My appreciation for the expression "built like a Sherman tank". Has gone up considerably in the last 3 years.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Jan 21, 2020 15:30:29 GMT -5
I've read that Patton had fits when he encountered tanks that had sand bags or other non-standard armor enhancement. He had a point in some respects. The extra weight put strain on the suspension and final drives. But towards the end of the war he authorized a practice of taking the glacis plates from wrecked Shermans and welding them on other Shermans, effectively doubling the armor thickness. Of course, the problem is there's basically no armor at the time that could stand up to the 88mm gun or its equivalents, and not be too heavy for the tank to move.
I remember seeing pictures back in the late '80's of M113's with boxy structures on the sides that were (I think) called "welded spaced aluminum armor." They were specifically, I understood, intended to defeat shaped charge warheads.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Jan 21, 2020 17:02:25 GMT -5
The Israelis suspend what look like vertical blinds from their M113s to accomplish the same thing. In Vietnam we loosely hung Sheep fencing (4" patterned squares) above and around our bunkers which either diverted the flight of RPGs, caused early detonation of more commonly snagged the long rear fine leaving them hanging unexploded.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Feb 3, 2020 19:56:56 GMT -5
We had a chickenapplesauce Colonel visit our forward operation base (Camp Eagle) near Phu Bai and complain about the sloppy looking sheep fencing which he thought looked "unmilitary". He demanded it be removed. When we explained why it was there he reluctantly allowed it to remain but insisted it be cinched tight and be made to look more "strack". Naturally it was quantumly more effective when loose. We obliged his stupid request to appease him them promptly loosened it all when he left.
I am sure the tankers who added sandbags, logs, spare treads and assorted expedient means to further protect themselves did not appreciate Pattons insistence that they remove it all. In the case of the sheep fencing it absolutely snagged RPG rounds about 2/3res of the time when they were lobbed in from range which was a common tactic.
|
|