Page 4 of 33 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 493

Thread: What if: Western Allies vs Russia- 1945

  1. #46
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    I was thinking about the maintenance issue. A backyard mechanic could take both tanks apart and put it back together. The T-34's only advantage is its slant armour design and gun. Otherwise, they're just cheap bastards to produce.

  2. #47
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    16,343
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
    I was thinking about the maintenance issue. A backyard mechanic could take both tanks apart and put it back together.
    Ahhh, I see now Very true in both cases, which for the Soviets was almost an iron-clad requirement of all their weapons and equipment.

    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
    The T-34's only advantage is its slant armour design and gun. Otherwise, they're just cheap bastards to produce.
    I would say those advantages are almost all you need for a good tank! Speed being the other one of course
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, than to take rank with those poor, timid spirits who know neither victory nor defeat ~ Theodore Roosevelt

  3. #48
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    I think the Sherman got a bad rap. More Soviet tank crews died in T-34s than Allied crews in Shermans albeit due to Zukhov's ability to burn men and equipment to get what he wants. Then again, the same could be said about Patton.

  4. #49
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    16,343
    I'm going to do some research on the Sherman, relative to other tanks. Everything that I can recall said that it's 2 advantages were it's numbers and mechanical reliabilty. Here is a link to a book review. The book was written by a guy who served in the ETO. I'd like to buy it because I saw the guy on some of the History Channels shows and I wanted to hear more from the guy than just their 15 seconds clips http://www.strategypage.com/bookreviews/184.asp
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, than to take rank with those poor, timid spirits who know neither victory nor defeat ~ Theodore Roosevelt

  5. #50
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    The later sherman, the M4A3E8 was about a dead equal to the T-34/85.

    The early shermans sucked, but so did the early T-34. The early Nazi tanks(that the original sherman was meant to counter), equally sucked.

    It was only going into Europe and facing Tigers, P IV's, etc, that made the sherman a death trap.

    Against the PI/II, and most of the PIII's, the Sherman was adequate.

  6. #51
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    16,343
    Oh I have no beef with the Sherman taking on a Panzer III. I was thinking of them going up against the T-34's and the IS-x series. The only Sherman out there that had a decent gun was the Firefly and the US Army for whatever dumb reason wouldn't adopt it.
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, than to take rank with those poor, timid spirits who know neither victory nor defeat ~ Theodore Roosevelt

  7. #52
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    The M4A3E8 had a high velocity 76mm gun that was actually pretty deadly against most tanks(even the best tanks on flank shots).

    There were other Sherman's with the 76mm Hv, but the A3E8 was the only one with improved protection and the good gun.

    The T-34 was pretty much an evolved copy of a US design anyway, lol. They flat out stole the torsion bar suspension of the T-34 from a US tank design, though i can't remember which one. Saw it on the history channel, but it was a while ago.

  8. #53
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    BTW, by 1945, only the M4A3E8 was still being made, along with the M26 Pershing.

    Most of the earlier models were either blown up(we lost a godawful amount of tanks subsequent to Overlord and Cobra in the bocage), or transferred to allies via lend lease.

  9. #54
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    16,343
    I think you are refering to the Christie suspension, invented by American Ralph Christie. Many Soviet tanks had this and I could be wrong, but I think Christie sold it to them after the US turned it down. (Your mileage may vary...)
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, than to take rank with those poor, timid spirits who know neither victory nor defeat ~ Theodore Roosevelt

  10. #55
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    Yup, if memory serves correctly, that's how i heard it too.

  11. #56
    Former Staff Senior Contributor Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Aug 03
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    11,822
    Originally posted by M21Sniper
    The M4A3E8 had a high velocity 76mm gun that was actually pretty deadly against most tanks(even the best tanks on flank shots).

    There were other Sherman's with the 76mm Hv, but the A3E8 was the only one with improved protection and the good gun.

    The T-34 was pretty much an evolved copy of a US design anyway, lol. They flat out stole the torsion bar suspension of the T-34 from a US tank design, though i can't remember which one. Saw it on the history channel, but it was a while ago.
    I heard the suspension was rejected by the US military, so the guy who invented it sold it to the Soviets. My grandpa told me that yesterday.

  12. #57
    Regular
    Join Date
    10 Sep 03
    Location
    Western Mass
    Posts
    113
    I dont believe that America would have ever used the nuclear weapon during WW II on Russia. Just like I dont believe that we would have ever dropped it on Germany. Why ? Because I believe that all Western European civillizations have a base level amount of respect and realization that we are all sprung from the same families. Call me stupid, but I believe that all Western Europeans still retain what before Verdun was known as chivallry and that we excercise it amongst each other. We used nukes against Japan but there is a different essence to Asia historically than there is to Western Civillization.
    Having really stirred the pot because I am sure you all think I am a lunatic, I will say this. I think China would have been a huge factor in a post WWII western invasion of Russia. Sino / Soviet relations have always been poor on an ideological level between the two communist states. I think China should have been factored into the discussion. I also would think twice about what the post WW II Middle East would have ended up like without a Soviet Union / Eastern European buffer zone.
    There are so many variables it drives me nuts, but it is an interesting discussion.:brick
    Last edited by Hawg166; 23 Sep 03, at 22:37.
    "Now we shall have ourselves a pell mell battle!" ......The Immortal Memory, Admiral Nelson

  13. #58
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    So it was a racial thing?

    Interesting...

    I don't agree, but you get points for originality of thinking.

  14. #59
    Regular
    Join Date
    10 Sep 03
    Location
    Western Mass
    Posts
    113
    Oh no Snipe please dont misunderstand me. I dont beieve it was racial in that sense. I just believe that as Americans, we still have a basic Monroe Doctrine thing going on here. We are much less apt to use extreme force against peoples that are "like us" than those that are not. I guess you could call it racism. Maybe your right. But think about it, it would be much easier to think about nuking Japan or Cjina or Vietnam than it would to nuke Germany or England or even...............God forbid I have to say it...............I dont want to....................ok ok ok.................than to nuke France ! There ok I said it.
    "Now we shall have ourselves a pell mell battle!" ......The Immortal Memory, Admiral Nelson

  15. #60
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    I see your point.

    I still don't agree though.

    To me, nuking is nuking is nuking.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Israel works on Iran N-strike
    By Ray in forum The Iranian Question
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 27 Sep 08,, 13:20
  2. Afghanistan and the Future of Warfare
    By troung in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 23 Feb 08,, 01:59
  3. Do G4 have a case.
    By crooks in forum International Politics
    Replies: 165
    Last Post: 31 Dec 06,, 11:58
  4. America's Pathetic Putin-Envy
    By VovaLee in forum International Politics
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 19 Dec 06,, 22:34
  5. Rivalry Brews in Russia's Backyard
    By Gio in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05 Dec 04,, 04:20

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •