Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 64

Thread: question regarding Sherman variant

  1. #46
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,003
    Quote Originally Posted by USSWisconsin View Post
    Walther P38?
    produced after WWII

  2. #47
    Senior Contributor Triple C's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Apr 06
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    2,407
    P-38 was the service pistol of the Wehrmacht but I think Zraver has a bigger weapon rather than a pistol in mind. How about Bf-109? I think Israel acquired a number of captured Messerschmidts from Great Britain and used them for the War of Independence. Some Pz-IVs were used by Syria, too.
    All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
    -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

  3. #48
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,003
    There are surprisingly still a number of pieces of WWII and even earlier kit still in service. From Sherman tank recovery vehicles to Soviet M30 howitzers. There are even reports of a German WWI era maxim with sled captured by NATO forces in Afghanistan (although that might be a Soviet weapon as well I haven't seen pics of it).

    Constellations (very few) and goony Birds (many) still fly through the clouds, as do a number of Catalinas.

    There actually seems to be a race to the finish between two particular WWII era AFV's as to which will see combat last. Although neither is technically a WWII AFV one being modified and one being made post war. I think the M8 Greyhound will outlast the T-34-85 but they both might outlast me. I thought the M3 Stuart was going to win the race but Brazil's improving economic situation likely doom the M3. The M24 is still in service but fading fast, Iran might have some, and Uruguay uses it but its days are numbered.

    Soviet small arms will likely see yet another century of service before they fade away. Hell WWII era hand thrown AT grenades are still in service in a number of locations.

    In the US and NATO the M2 heavy machine gun and specialized versions of the 1911 fight on, as does the M1917 in a couple of locations. British weapons are not uncommon the Enfeild, Sten and Lewis are still poised to take likes. But what about German small arms- not pre war or post war copies but weapons made under the direction of Todt or Speer only...

    Yes, one weapon in particular and unconfirmed reports of a second type. The first is confirmed, which really surprised me.

  4. #49
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Triple C View Post
    P-38 was the service pistol of the Wehrmacht but I think Zraver has a bigger weapon rather than a pistol in mind. How about Bf-109? I think Israel acquired a number of captured Messerschmidts from Great Britain and used them for the War of Independence. Some Pz-IVs were used by Syria, too.
    Israel never used the BF-109 they used a post war Czech copy. Nor are any BF-109's still in service. Spain used the Ju-88 post war, in fact I think the last flying Ju-88 is Franco's former private plane.

    Other WWII trivia- the only surviving WWII Type XXI U-boat is a zombie, the first US president to travel by submarine did so in a U-boat, lend lease locomotives were confirmed to still be in service in the 1990's and still might be plying the Russian rail lines.

    The US mined so much bauxite for its strategic reserves in WWII it has never needed another mine.

    The US military is a high tech fighting force, fed largely with food cooked in pots made in WWII- something unlikely to change while any of us draw breath.

  5. #50
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,003
    The answer is...

  6. #51
    Senior Contributor 1979's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Jul 09
    Location
    Romānia
    Posts
    1,700
    Quote Originally Posted by Stitch View Post
    Sort of like the ersatz M-10's the Germans constructed for Operation Greif in 1944?
    "painting" your tank in enemy colors never looked like a good idea to me, there is equal probability of being hit by your own side.
    J'ai en marre.

  7. #52
    Senior Contributor Triple C's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Apr 06
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    2,407
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    The answer is...
    Damn! Now I remember seeing StG-44s in photos from Iraq.
    This Marine has a fun toy, too.
    Attachment 28976
    Last edited by Triple C; 19 Apr 12, at 21:00.
    All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
    -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

  8. #53
    A Self Important Senior Contributor troung's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    8,131
    I get the cupcake.
    To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

  9. #54
    Senior Contributor Stitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Nov 06
    Location
    Patterson, CA
    Posts
    3,080
    Quote Originally Posted by 1979 View Post
    "painting" your tank in enemy colors never looked like a good idea to me, there is equal probability of being hit by your own side.
    Actually, the Germans went a little farther than that; they made sheet metal plates that mocked-up the M-10's distinctive rhomboidal turret, and even fabbed different glacis plates for the ersatz M10's. The giveaway (I think) was the gun barrel that was about twice as long as a normal M10 barrel, and sported a muzzle brake at the end.
    "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

  10. #55
    Senior Contributor Stitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Nov 06
    Location
    Patterson, CA
    Posts
    3,080
    Quote Originally Posted by Triple C View Post
    Damn! Now I remember seeing StG-44s in photos from Iraq.
    This Marine has a fun toy, too.
    Attachment 28976
    Isn't that a PPSh-41?
    "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

  11. #56
    Senior Contributor clackers's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Nov 07
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    810
    Quote Originally Posted by Triple C View Post
    The consensus was that they were willing to bleed for victory, but found inadequate firepower demoralizing. This implied M-26s was not the solution.
    The 90mm wasn't a great weapon, but its firepower was definitely better than the 76 on the Easy 8, TripleC.

    Here's a Panther that shot up a Sherman outside Cologne cathedral before an M-26 got it:



    Quote Originally Posted by Triple C View Post
    The 3d AD's official history later remarked that M-26s were great tanks but they were too slow and rarely where they were needed.
    Extra armour and weight on top of the same Sherman engine will do that. Belton Cooper notes that overheating was a problem, especially the Super Pershing assigned to his unit.

    In Korea, army operational research determined that the M26 had 3.6 times the combat effectiveness of the M4.

    But as soon as the T34s in the theatre were eliminated, the M4 became the preferred AFV because of its better mobility in the difficult terrain.


    Quote Originally Posted by Triple C View Post
    But more importantly, in my opinion, McNair should be judged by the standard of what he achieved, converting an army more used to border skirmishes with Latin American states and colonial police action to a war machine capable of taking on an enemy in the major league of warfare. The United States had industrial potential, but it had no military industrial complex. His job was to tap that potential and translate it into reality and it was unenviable, hard work.

    The failure of designing and fielding a first rate tank need to be balanced with the strategic and economic challenges involved in overcoming the lack of a tradition in military-industrial cooperation. In WWI, the US Army went to battle without modern doctrine, organization, or domestically produced supporting arms, the result of the army's failure to exert firm control over the R&D and the production of armament. The potential for a disastrous repetition was far from academic. McNair's overriding goal was to give his army a complete package of adequate weapons in overwhelming numbers, not pursuing perfection. It was the right choice.
    McNair was right to fight the 'mad scientist' syndrome of Ordnance, however his battle need requirement backfired.

    Other nations like Britain kept upgrading aircraft and tanks to try to match the Germans' developments in advance, however McNair's strategy had a deadly built-in time lag.

    The Sherman combat quality issue became big enough to be a scandal that the public read about in the New York Times in 1945.

    McNair was also an artilleryman who decided that tanks shouldn't fight other tanks ... leave it to the AT guns!

    I think the attitude of the rest of the Army is made clearer by the fact that his tank destroyer doctrine didn't survive much longer than he did, after he was killed by friendly fire during Normandy.
    Last edited by clackers; 20 Apr 12, at 07:59.

  12. #57
    Senior Contributor clackers's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Nov 07
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    810
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    As I read on another forum, a post by an officer in the ACR, "show me a field manual in which it states that a tank should not engage an enemy tank but to let dedicated anti-tank units engage it."

    There wasn't one. No army field manual has ever stated that tanks shoudln't fight tanks.
    'Blitzkrieg' wasn't in the German manual either in 1940, Gunnut. Written procedure is one thing, the orders and directions of commanders is another.

    Under Leslie McNair, a whole doctrine of fighting tanks with artillery arose.

    The problem is, the Germans didn't always cooperate.

    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post

    Panthers and other advanced German tanks were great on paper. The problem was they broke down too often due to their complexity. Most advanced German tanks were lost due to mechanical break down than anything else.
    The Tiger I was pretty reliable, but none of those German heavies were robust enough to move long distances by themselves, as required by the Allies and the Soviets from 1942-45.

    Great tactical vehicles, but failures as strategic weapon systems, they needed to be shifted by railroad to a junction very near the front, then disembarked for a short final drive to the combat, so this really limited their deployment, and would have been unacceptable to Hodges, Patton and Dempsey, or Konev, Vatutin and Rokossovsky.

    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    I'd rather have a mediocre tank that moved than an advanced paper weight.
    Absolutely.

    The Germans couldn't afford to make many of them, couldn't afford to lose them, and this really limited what a general could do with them.

    By contrast, the terrific 75mm PaK40/KwK40 was made in large numbers, easy to use, and whether towed or on tracks quite possibly destroyed more Allied tanks than any other kind of gun after its introduction.

    Last edited by clackers; 20 Apr 12, at 07:00.

  13. #58
    Senior Contributor clackers's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Nov 07
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    810
    Quote Originally Posted by Triple C View Post

    On a different note, my Armored Thunderbolt by Steven Zaloga had just arrived.
    It's a great read, Triple C, I'm sure you're enjoying it!

  14. #59
    In Memoriam/Battleship Enthusiast Defense Professional USSWisconsin's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Dec 08
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    5,434
    Its interesting to speculate about the effect that concentrating on Pak40 armed tanks, and not building the super tanks like Panther and Tiger, might have had. I agree, the Pak40 was a great gun, and could address almost any allied tank from most angles. How many more Pak40 Pzkw IV's might have been built if the had followed the US example of standardizing on one medium tank?
    "If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
    If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

  15. #60
    Senior Contributor 1979's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Jul 09
    Location
    Romānia
    Posts
    1,700
    Even assuming 3 panzer IV for 1 tiger or panther it works out to 16.000 extra tanks, it is not enough to swing the balance in axis favor plus it would put German tank crew more often in harms way.

    If the germans were facing just one opponent it might be a solution but against the combined numbers the US, UK, SU produced , no.
    J'ai en marre.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Sherman Tank Sight Reticle
    By shadow01 in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 20 Jun 10,, 22:23
  2. Sherman's March
    By Shek in forum American Civil War
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 23 Nov 09,, 22:08
  3. p51 variant
    By watnee in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12 Jun 09,, 07:40
  4. NLOS-M (FCS' mortar variant) ... question
    By JRT in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 15 May 09,, 04:05
  5. Sherman tank in the IDF
    By totach7 in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 14 May 09,, 19:17

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
  •