military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (04/07/90)
From: digi!rvannost%digi.lonestar.org (Richard M. Van Nostrand)
In response to L.J. Sparvero's post about the M4 Sherman,
First I personally don't believe that the basic M4 was an MBT.
It was a medium tank that was all to often thrust into the role
of an MBT. I believe it only had a 76 mm gun, which, as the war
progressed, proved inadaquate for medium-long range frontal engagements
with the heavier german tanks. There were a number of revamped versions
of the Sherman however. For example, the Super Sherman and the Sherm V.C.
Firefly (a british tank) in both cases the armor was upgraded, the powerplant
improved, and a larger gun installed. The Firefly had a 17 pounder!
Granted, the primary asset of the Sherman was the fact that they could
be produced in greater numbers than they could be killed in. Another of
its strongpoints was its versatility. We used the Sherman for everything
imaginable. A version with 70 some odd 4.5 inch free flight rockets, a flame
thower version, and even a version used for the invasion of Normandy that
was supposed to float ashore (with a dismal success rate however.)
Nonetheless, if there ever was something that could be done to a tank,
it probably was done to the Sherman.
(I will agree that I find it rather odd that a country that obviously won
WWII based on the number of weapons that it could produce rather than the
quality of the weapons. Overall, the Germans had some of the highest
quality weapons of the entire war. (I have seen reports that claim the
MG-34 is superior to our M-60.) And yet, only 40 years later we have gone
to a stategy of producing higher quality in smaller numbers; I do happen
to believe in this practice however. Perhaps, it is the advancement of
technology that has made this the best strategy.)
Rick Van Nostrand
SMU Crew, Rowing's Finest!!!
___________
___________________/ SMU |
\___________|
There is no life without crew.military-request@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) (04/07/90)
From: military-request@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) digi!rvannost%digi.lonestar.org (Richard M. Van Nostrand) writes: >First I personally don't believe that the basic M4 was an MBT. >It was a medium tank that was all to often thrust into the role >of an MBT. This is correct. US Army doctrine was for our Tank Destroyers (M6, M10, M36, and M18) to engage enemy armor. They were equipped with high-velocity guns for this job. The Shermans were for breaching enemy lines en masse and subsequent breakthrough operations. Their 75mm gun was a relatively low-velocity piece, better suited for HE and smoke. > I believe it only had a 76 mm gun, which, as the war >progressed, proved inadaquate for medium-long range frontal engagements >with the heavier german tanks. The 76mm came later in the war ('44), and never completely replaced the 75's. Even when it was carried, the best antitank ammo, HVAP (Hyper- Velocity Armor Piercing) was generally reserved for the Tank Destroyers, though Sherman crews got them by hook or crook. The 76 wasn't at all a bad gun, though, as good as the German 75 l/48 carried by the Panzer IV (though not as good as the Panther's 75 l/70 or the 88). It could deal well with Tigers, but not Panthers, except from the side. > There were a number of revamped versions >of the Sherman however. For example, the Super Sherman and the Sherm V.C. >Firefly (a british tank) in both cases the armor was upgraded, the powerplant >improved, and a larger gun installed. The Super Sherman was a post-war Israeli improvement. The Firefly simply mounted a 17-pounder in the turret, with extensive internal layout changes (the hull gunner's position being deleted in favor of ammo storage); I find no record that armor or powerplant was changed. The M4A3E2 "Jumbo" was extensively up-armored, but retained the original powerplant. This was a limited-conversion vehicle, though, intended for use as the "point" tank in a column. Actually, the frontal armor on a Sherman was about equivalent to that of a Tiger I; 100-120mm, accounting for slope. This says as much about the Tiger as the Sherman, I suppose. BTW, the T-34 was in the same ballpark for effective frontal armor. >Granted, the primary asset of the Sherman was the fact that they could >be produced in greater numbers than they could be killed in. Also, reliability was a major feature. The Sherman was easily maintained and stoutly reliable; the tracks, especially, were better than those of most tanks, including the Germans. Armor and guns win battles; drive trains win campaigns. Guderian himself stated that a tank's engine is just as much a weapon as is its gun. >(I will agree that I find it rather odd that a country that obviously won >WWII based on the number of weapons that it could produce rather than the >quality of the weapons. Overall, the Germans had some of the highest >quality weapons of the entire war. True. However, they were, for the most part, more expensive and time- consuming to produce. Also, they tended to require more maintenance and break down more frequently. (Germany lost nearly half her tank force during the Polish campaign, and again in the French campaign, mostly due to breakdowns; of course, they were repaired afterwards, but even during Barbarossa, units typically had about 25% of their tank strength in the repair depots because of failures) From the reliability standpoint, I'd rate the Sherman qualitatively superior to most German tanks. >And yet, only 40 years later we have gone >to a stategy of producing higher quality in smaller numbers; I do happen >to believe in this practice however. Perhaps, it is the advancement of >technology that has made this the best strategy.) I don't think so. Rather, I'd say it's still the same story. You can build small numbers of high-tech weapons (Panthers, Abrams, F-15's) and gain an edge in any given battle because of it; however, you have to accept low production rates and high maintenance costs and failure rates. Or you can use lower tech, and build more weapons (M4's, T-72's, F-5's), and counter with more serviceable vehicles on the battlefield. You'll lose some battles, but your numerical edge might win the war. This has been covered here before, in fact. A large part of the decision is personnel; one high-tech weapon might have equal combat strength to two low-tech weapons, but the high-tech option requires only half the personnel. For the US Army, maintaining lots of soldiers in the field is politically and economically unacceptable, while for the USSR (with mandatory service for its people, low wages, and few benefits) manpower is relatively cheap. Further, it's a lot easier to transport one tank to Europe than two; so high-tech weapons are more effective when long-range redeployment is an issue, as it is for the US. The USSR, on the other hand, doesn't face this problem to nearly the same degree. Finally, you must choose the right tool for the job, based on the abilities of the tool's wielder. The USSR has historically been forced to adopt something of a brute force approach, as its junior officers are not (for mostly political reasons) able to achieve the flexibility and efficiency of those in Western armies. Soviet units (based on past performance, esp. WWII) tend to be clumsier, so that they experience high casualty rates. Giving them high-tech weapons would not reduce that rate appreciably, so the extra cost would be wasted. The West hopes that its units will fight more effectively and flexibly (as was done by Germany in WWII). By way of analogy, we intend our officers to be surgeons, so we give them expensive scalpels for precise, effective work. The Soviets expect their officers to be more crude, so the scalpel would be wasted; they give them an inexpensive hatchet, instead. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Bill Thacker Moderator, sci.military military-request@att.att.com (614) 860-5294 Send submissions to military@att.att.com
msmiller@glass.Eng.Sun.COM (Mark Miller) (04/10/90)
From: msmiller@glass.Eng.Sun.COM (Mark Miller) Status: R > From: digi!rvannost%digi.lonestar.org (Richard M. Van Nostrand) > > In response to L.J. Sparvero's post about the M4 Sherman, > > First I personally don't believe that the basic M4 was an MBT. > It was a medium tank that was all to often thrust into the role > of an MBT. I believe it only had a 76 mm gun, which, as the war > progressed, proved inadaquate for medium-long range frontal engagements > with the heavier german tanks. The main gun was like a 75/L40 for most of the war. The 76mm version M4A3E8 (the "Easy-Eight") came later in the war and many were field upgrades. One must also bear in mind that the US was fighting on just about every continent - from the Sahara to the Solomons to the Ardennes. The ruggedness and reliability of the Sherman was a vital concern when supporting an army in so many climates. The British had reliability problems pretty much throughout the war with their own designs - especially in the desert campaigns. The Germans had problems in Russia as well. The old Sherman served everywhere and just kept going. > (I will agree that I find it rather odd that a country that obviously won > WWII based on the number of weapons that it could produce rather than the > quality of the weapons. Well, another example of this is the German invasion of France in '40. The French had more tanks with better guns and armor on a per-vehicle basis that the Germans had. Most French equipment had sloped armor while the German tanks were pretty much slab-sided. The Germans used what they had to better effectiveness, just as the US did later in the war. Oh, and total air superiority helps too. > Overall, the Germans had some of the highest > quality weapons of the entire war. (I have seen reports that claim the > MG-34 is superior to our M-60.) Compare pictures of the German MG-42 and the M-60. Also, compare the MP-44 and the AK-47. Amazing similarity. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mark S. Miller UUCP: msmiller@Sun.COM "In a nation ruled by swine, ################## GEnie: MSMILLER all pigs are upward mobile." ###################################################### - Hunter S. Thompson
jaa@cs.su.oz.au (James Ashton) (04/12/90)
From: jaa@cs.su.oz.au (James Ashton) In article <15420@cbnews.ATT.COM> msmiller@glass.Eng.Sun.COM (Mark Miller) writes: >One must also bear in mind that the US was fighting on just about every >continent - from the Sahara to the Solomons to the Ardennes. The ruggedness >and reliability of the Sherman was a vital concern when supporting an army >in so many climates. The British had reliability problems pretty much >throughout the war with their own designs - especially in the desert >campaigns. The Germans had problems in Russia as well. The old Sherman >served everywhere and just kept going. I have heard that the Sherman was designed with considerable British assistance or at least consultation, and that this fact was not revealed during the war for propaganda reasons. Admittedly I recall that I heard this from a British source and so it could be a biased report. Can anyone give a more detailed or definitive discussion on this subject? James Ashton.
msmiller@glass.Eng.Sun.COM (Mark Miller) (04/14/90)
From: msmiller@glass.Eng.Sun.COM (Mark Miller) |>From: jaa@cs.su.oz.au (James Ashton) |>I have heard that the Sherman was designed with considerable British |>assistance or at least consultation, and that this fact was not |>revealed during the war for propaganda reasons. Admittedly I recall |>that I heard this from a British source and so it could be a biased |>report. Can anyone give a more detailed or definitive discussion on |>this subject? That's a new one on me. The British used a lot of US equipment, certainly, but I don't recall ever reading how they influenced the development of the M4. British tanks of the day were generally either the heavy infantry tank types (like the Matilda and Valentine) or "cruiser" class tanks such as the Crusader and later Cromwell. These designs rarely had a crew more than 4 and usually had a Christie style suspension. The US designs generally had crews of 5 and non-Christie suspension. The use of aircraft engines was also fairly common in the early US designs - I'm fairly sure the M3 Stuart and M3 Lee/Grant used these (but, again, I don't have my reference material in front of me). If you look at the M3 Lee and the M4 Sherman side by side, you can't help but see the similarities and the lineage. The British may have indeed advised the US on certain points, but I don't think they player a very heavy role in the development of the M4. In fact, I've always felt that the US designs more closely matched the early German designs (crew placement, suspension, general layout) while the British stuff seems to go along with much of what the Soviet Union produced. Anyway, I'd also be interested in hearing info to the contrary. [mod.note: The British were involved from the early stages of the M-3. A commission under Michael Dewar was sent to the US in July, 1940, to investigate the purchase of tanks here. At first, Britain wanted US firms to produce tanks of their design, but this request was refused; instead, they were told to purchase M-3 mediums as is. The British didn't like its layout, so a compromise was reached; the M-3 Lee was produced as designed for the US, and the M-3 Grant was produced for the British; it had a larger turret (with room for a radio) and deleted the cupola machinegun. Note that the names "Grant" and "Lee" were given by the British; they thought their version was the winner. In his _M4 Sherman_, George Forty states, "It is interesting to speculate on just how much influence the British had on the design of the T6 [the predecessor to the M4]." He states that a US ordnance expert was invited to view the Ram mockup in Canada, and two months later, the British commission was shown a new American design which closely resembled the Ram. "It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the early appearance of the improved Americfan tank is directly attributable to the efforts made by the British to demonstrate their ideas through the medium of the Ram tank." Forty also mentions an anecdote from a US correspondent during WWII. Apparently, a common joke among captured German tankers was "Von off our tanks iss better than ten off yours... but you always haff eleven." I recommend the book for further reading. _M4 Sherman_ by George Forty, (Blanford Press, London, 1987) ISBN 0 7137 1678 9 - Bill ] -MSM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mark S. Miller UUCP: msmiller@Sun.COM "In a nation ruled by swine, ################## GEnie: MSMILLER all pigs are upward mobile." ###################################################### - Hunter S. Thompson
fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (06/05/90)
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) > From: msmiller@gonzoville.East.Sun.COM (Mark Miller - Sun BOS Contractor) > |>From: cash%convex@uunet.UU.NET (Peter Cash) > |> > |>Accordingly, German propaganda (orchestrated by Goebbels and Speer) began > |>to stress "quality over quantity". The secret "Vergeltungswaffen" (weapons > |>of retribution) would win the war by dint of technical superiority. All > |>available technical and manufacturing resources were devoted to getting > |>these weapons functional and into the field. > > Not entirely correct. By '45 they started building the He162 "People's Fighter" > in staggering quantity. This was an amazing little jet fighter with (I think) 2 > pnuematic 30mm cannons. The war ended before these really saw service, but the > Allies uncovered scores of them in underground assembly plants. This wasn't a > weapon of retibution, it was an attempt to compete in the production war. It may have been a good thing that the He-162 never saw service in any quantity. According to most sources I've encountered, the flying qualities of the "Volksjaeger" (I think it was also called "Salamander") could most charitably described as "user-hostile". Not as bad as the Natter...but not much better for poorly-trained pilots. ------------ The only drawback with morning is that it comes at such an inconvenient time of day. ------------