PDA

View Full Version : The Sherman Tank on the History channel tonight.



XyZspineZyX
10-22-2002, 04:49 PM
Tonight at 10pm (EST) on 10/22/02, the history channel will be airing the series "Modern Marvels". This episode is about the Sherman tank. I can't wait to see what they say about its design. Odly enough, the book i'm currently reading, "Citizen Soldiers" by Stephen Ambrose does delve into the Sherman. He mentioned that alot of people were miffed as to why the army allowed such a weaker (compared to some aspects of German tanks) tank to me made. One reason that was mentioned that I really never thought about was that they logistic planners had to consider the maximum weight and sizes that cargo vessels and ports could handle. Should be a good show neverless.

"Control... My engine is overheating and so am I. It's either go up or blow up. Which is it?" Michael Caine BOB

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2002, 04:49 PM
Tonight at 10pm (EST) on 10/22/02, the history channel will be airing the series "Modern Marvels". This episode is about the Sherman tank. I can't wait to see what they say about its design. Odly enough, the book i'm currently reading, "Citizen Soldiers" by Stephen Ambrose does delve into the Sherman. He mentioned that alot of people were miffed as to why the army allowed such a weaker (compared to some aspects of German tanks) tank to me made. One reason that was mentioned that I really never thought about was that they logistic planners had to consider the maximum weight and sizes that cargo vessels and ports could handle. Should be a good show neverless.

"Control... My engine is overheating and so am I. It's either go up or blow up. Which is it?" Michael Caine BOB

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2002, 07:50 PM
yo blackdog. The Sherman show should be pretty sweet. I'm never disapointed with anything the history channel does on WWII. Personally i think the History Channel should branch off with another Channel devoted to WWII, kind of like what ESPN does with classic sports. That way all of us WWII junkies can get our fix 24-7. I know your with me on this one Blackdog. Have you seen the show about Fighter Aces? It was pretty cool, especially for only having 1 hour to put so much info into it.

Blackdog- IM me later, i have some interesting skins for you. later, Wilkes

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2002, 08:11 PM
Yep .. my Uncle was a Gunner in a Sherman Tank for the Canadian Forces in Italy and Northen Europe.. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<center>http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/content/collections/cmdp/images/cv-m.gif

&lt;script language='Javascript' src='http://server3002.freeyellow.com/spectre-usa/spectre.js'></script>

&lt;script>newIcon('single','http://www.eaw-db.de/jzg-training/images/kanada.gif');</script>

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2002, 11:03 PM
Im with you guys on the history channel ww2 info.I saw a show on discovery wings about the sturmovik and just thought,I need more than this.I had never realized how limited in discussion and historical film the eastern front isnt covered.Planes of the luftwaffe dont seem to come on anymore(i guess).I noticed at my friends home where he has satellite,6 discoverychannels and 2 history channels and info on the eastern front and luftwaffe are pretty darn limited(they have discovery wings for cryin out loud and it is still not enough).Im gonna miss the show tonight im afraid(somebody tape it for me lol). Im going to there websites and raise hell with these ppl who insist on showing me wings at work and the same u2 spy plane shows over and over. happy hunting

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2002, 11:19 PM
My grandad was a sherman driver throughout the war, with the 40th Royal tank regiment- "Montys foxhounds" , He fought in the desert (he was at el alamein ) italy and greece - ill post some pics when i upload them to my webspace..


<center> Blitzpig_hilts</cemter>
<Center>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gingernuts/blitz_anim.gif </CENTER>

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2002, 05:05 AM
I bet these relatives who were tankers have quite the cache of stories.

This Sherman show has been on before. It is good but I was a bit let down being an armor nut. They do pretty well until after the retaking of France where they take a side road that has much less to do with tanks and more to do with general WW2 knowledge. They could have easily continued on with the Sherman through the BOB and taking of Berlin.

Everyone asks why the Sherman and how could we have sent such a weiner tank into battle, etc. There is no one factor to how the US arrived in Europe still using the M4. Here are the key ones:

Tank and Tank Destroyer Doctrine - Early on the heads of the Army and War Department adopted the notion that to destroy enemy tanks you needed to have special Tank Destroyer units who were specifically trained to take out enemy tanks. I guess they thought when a troup of shermies encountered some panzers they would just buzz up the tank destroyer guys who would be right there to deal with them. This theory has so many obvious flaws. The Sherman was designed as an infantry support weapon that would be called in by the infantry to deal with larger enemy forces, bunkers, etc. So we ended up with the Sherman along with tank destroyers such as the M10, M36, M18 Hellcat.

Mass production: The Sherman design was arrived at early on in the war and when you want to do mass production on this kind of scale you tend to get stuck with the early choices you make. There were factories all over the US cranking out Sherman parts - road wheels, engines, drive trains, and a smaller number of large factories took on the big items such as the turrets and hull.


Despite this, the Sherman evolved into quite a good tank even though it could never overcome that massive profile. By the end of WW2 it sported much wider tracks, improved suspension and a larger turret mounting a higer velocity 76mm gun. The dangerous ammo stowage problem was improved as well. Above all, it always remained reliable. So reliable in fact that when called upon roughly 6 years later to fight in Korea it kicked the crap out of the T34/85, although I have no knowledge of the quality of the T34 crews. Perhaps that was a problem.

Anyway, add this to the History Channel show and enjoy. One final thing about the show is that they have tons of great footage of the British version FireFly but make not one mention of it. Shameful. Probably the best variant of the M4 that was ever produced. A very simple conversion of mounting the excellent 17pdr anti-tank gun right into the original smaller M4 turret. This gun packed one heck of a punch. This is the variant of sherman that supposedly ended Herr Michael Wittmann's career as a Tiger I commander. German panzer crews tended to take on the Fireflies first in a given scenario in hopes of keeping them from being a factor. Many photos of Fireflies show where the crews attached a fake muzzle brake about halfway up the gun tube and/or an aircraft style camo job from there on in an attempt to disguise the true identity of the gun.

http://www.kithobbyist.com/AMPSNewZealand/KiwisInArmour/images/firefly.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2002, 05:52 AM
I agree completly with waht Ruil2 had to post. The show was good, but could have used a lot more substance. The absence of the Firefly was a real let-down. The color re-inactments were great, however. this episofde was good, but wasn't on par with other WWII tank episodes like the T-34 and especially the Tiger Tank Show. I wish they would invest enough time and money in these shows to maybe put out a two-hour episode, although i don't think that will happen, damn! But watching footage of the Sherman in action sure was more interesting to me than watching the World series.

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2002, 07:46 AM
My grandfather was a Sherman driver in the 741st Tank Batallion. They were among the first on the beach, using canvas filled with air around the tank to float from the LCT to the beach. He went from the hedgerows thru St. Lo, through the Ardennes and into Germany. I never did talk to him much about it, but I'm reading a book by one of the men in his batallion on the 741st. Interesting reading how they used the iron traps on the beach, welded them to the front of tanks to bust through the hedgerows. Also gruesome detail on how the "dozers" would dispatch German pillboxes by pushing dirt around them and leave them. Salute to all the men-all sides-who died in that war.
Hehe, if my grandfather knew I was flying for the Germans in this sim, he would probably punch me right in the lips!

http://www.fowlmood.com/files/jaeger.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2002, 09:08 AM
Seen it before myself. Ruil points out a lot of the doctrine behind the Sherman's useage.

The Sherman's medium velocity gun wasn't designed to take on German Armor, even the upgunned 76mm versions at times didn't have enough anti-tank rounds due to the Army's doctrine of saving the anti-tank rounds for the M-10 and 18 units. The M-36, having a 90mm gun was different of course.

What is it, a five to one loss to kill ratio for the Sherman against the Panther? The Panther and the Tiger were designed to fight the T-34 from long ranges, the Sherman didn't stand a chance in a slugfest, even with the upgunned 76mm.

They did have some advantages, they could fire quicker than the Tiger and the Panther, they were faster and accelerated better and were much more reliable. Most of all they were easy to build and that probably more than anything else secured their success. The German's over engineered the Panther and Tiger and as a result they entered service too complicated and too hard to work on when you consider the difficulties of a long drawn out conflict.



Tom 'Wklink' Cofield
Feature Editor, SimHq.com
www.simhq.com (http://www.simhq.com)

cofster1@simhq.com

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2002, 11:51 AM
Discussing tanks, yeah?

Sometimes interesting to see people who seriously speak about thing that beyond their understending. Do you know what meaning the term 'tank' has? From military sciense point of view?
But you already make decisions.
As for sherman - soviet tankers called it 'the best tank for service during peaceful times'. In their opinion not best fighting machine but very nice to drive and live in it. Independent point of view http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

And someone was speaking about Korea... I will disappoint you - there were no tank battels at all. Only little engagements. Because more than half of t-34 tanks were lost during assault on south. I havn't now exect numbers but about 20 tanks were lost in combat - manly to infantry, and about 50 were broken on marsches. Lack of spare parts.
Americans in that time had only chaffees. Later arrived shermans and t90s (?) - heavy ones - but north koreans already began to retreat. Again dozen were lost to fighter-bombers, dozen to infantry and abot 7-10 to american tanks. That's all. When koreans assauted - americans hadn't tanks, when americans assaulted - koreans hadn' tanks.

coming soon

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2002, 02:30 PM
recently read a book by ken tout who served with the third royal tank regiment. they were equipped with shermans and honeys. between normandy and the rhine they lost around three hundred tanks. in return they knocked out one panther and no tigers.almost unbelievable statistics that prove that tank v tank encounters were few and most were taken out by anti-tank guns, hand held devices or mines.
the sherman was a dependable piece of kit but not a lot of help when confronted by panthers and tigers.
was it patton who said that if the germans had shermans and him in command they would have taken antwerp in the battle of the bulge ?
general"whos fighting here soldier ?"
soldier" the two thirds sir"
general"the two thirds.........explain yourself man !"
soldier"the third RTR and the third reich sir."

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2002, 11:23 PM
Not So Fast, notsoeasy.

I respectfully disagree with your post, and fully stand by mine. Re-read and see that I never depicted large Kursk-style tank battles of M4A3E8's vs T34/85s.

I was referring to the documented evidence that in that particular time and place, the Shermans proved their worth against the T34's. Perhaps you took offense to the way I originally worded my phrase and I apologize for that. Again, perhaps the T34 crews were undertrained.

Finally, armored warfare is not beyond my understanding and I will be proud to message you offline to any degree you wish.

regards.....

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2002, 05:06 PM
ruil2 wrote:
- Not So Fast, notsoeasy.
-
- I respectfully disagree with your post, and fully
- stand by mine. Re-read and see that I never depicted
- large Kursk-style tank battles of M4A3E8's vs
- T34/85s.
-
- I was referring to the documented evidence that in
- that particular time and place, the Shermans proved
- their worth against the T34's. Perhaps you took
- offense to the way I originally worded my phrase and
- I apologize for that. Again, perhaps the T34 crews
- were undertrained.
-
- Finally, armored warfare is not beyond my
- understanding and I will be proud to message you
- offline to any degree you wish.
-
- regards.....
-
Offense?! No way!

Sorry for my english http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I didn't say that sherman crews didn't score t-34s. I just said (or wanted to say) that in few tank vs tank engagements impossible to compare overall battle capabilities of different tanks. Shermans just proved that they are the best tanks US has.

As for koreans... At the beginning of the war they had two regiments of t-34 tanks (i mean COMBAT units). Commander was former soviet tank officer (korean). In general their combat skill was low (in terms of assaulting at-defenced positions and combat with enemy tanks). Their initial success was based on absence of adecvate opponent.

And all here are armor warfare profis http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I see. But being korean war history "researcher" i'm interested with any information. Please, email me: blindfire@mail.ru




coming soon

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2002, 10:23 PM
Fellas,fellas! Its o.k..Ruil,you really seem to know what your talking about(very good for a 60 year old subject).Notsoeasy seems to as well.My grandpa was in the pacific, so I dont have alot of passed down knowledge of tank warfare,strategies or comparison notes(I do know German armor was superior to ours at the time)..However,the germans had been in secret,preparing for quite some time the strategies and weaponry for Europeon conquest.They had pioneered Blitzkrieg, incorporating the use of using infantry in tandem with mechanised units for the swift anhihilation of their foes,and tanks were very much a part of that strategy(second only to air superiority).America was more concerned about its own wellfare(the depression) and the future of its already established borders at the time more than the latest weapons of mass destruction.To me the Sherman was a good attempt considering its design was hastily thrown together unlike the time and testing of the German tanks that were already battle tested,improved,tested some more and so on.Was it really our best tank? In my opinion, the Sherman was a solid effort on our part to compete in Europe(espacially in cases of intended use:infanrty support and town busting).Flame me if you must.Teach me if you will.

XyZspineZyX
10-25-2002, 08:22 AM
No biggie, I thing we had a language fubar.

I find the whole T34 vs M4 and "Who had the best tank" discussions really don't ever go anywhere and get a bit tiresome.

What I do find interesting, is that 3 tanks usually boil down as the crowd favorites:

T34 - Panther - M4


Personally, I think the Panther could have had so much more of an impact if it had been produced in numbers and if someone at MAN or Henschel had done something to improve those delicate final drives. Can you imagine if the Germans would have focused like the Soviets and Americans and cranked out even 10,000 Panthers/Jagdpanthers instead of wasting precious time and materials on:

King Tiger, E100, E25, Maus, Jagdtiger, Sturmtiger....the list could go on.


Anyway, back to the Sherman. The show is well worth viewing.



http://home.earthlink.net/~kinetic3/images/Lloyd&Harry.gif

Message Edited on 10/25/0207:25AM by ruil2

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 08:03 PM
2 cents -

Tigers/panthers broke down much more. The medium tank could cross the bridges required for the quick run across france and I think the US put more effort into tank busting airpower... maybe not such a bad idea. The sherman had great suspension and targetting. Patton modified his M4 with extra frontal armour before Cobra. Why didn't we put Firefly turrets on Jumbos? And the 76(W) was much better than the old 75. The brits and americans always seemed to do better when they worked together.

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 08:17 PM
Big_Jim2000 wrote:
- 2 cents -
-
- Tigers/panthers broke down much more. The medium
- tank could cross the bridges required for the quick
- run across france and I think the US put more effort
- into tank busting airpower... maybe not such a bad
- idea. The sherman had great suspension and
- targetting. Patton modified his M4 with extra
- frontal armour before Cobra. Why didn't we put
- Firefly turrets on Jumbos? And the 76(W) was much
- better than the old 75. The brits and americans
- always seemed to do better when they worked
- together.


Shermans had great targetting? I beg to differ... the Carl Zeiss Jena optics used in german tanks were of far much better quality than anyone else had at the time. Not to mention they weren't as prone to fogging up as the Sherman's were.

http://members.shaw.ca/cuski4678/sig.jpg