American Armored Doctrine In World War 2

[Biohazard 0]

For all of you here interested in WWII, and tanks in particular, I finished writing this paper on American tanks and their methods of employment in WWII. You'll learn new stuff about Shermans, Wolverines, Hellcats, Jacksons, and perhaps pick up a few tidbits of info about the German opposition. Learn why the American army didn't put an antitank gun in the Sherman while learning why the tank destroyers saw so little action. Finally, learn new things you wouldn't have expected about how the war played out and the aftermath. All the important assertions are backed up with endnotes for those who want to contemplate my findings for themselves using the sources I did. I recommend all the sources I have listed in my bibliography - every one of them is interesting, informative, and will teach you things you didn't even know you didn't know :P My personal favorite is "Arms of Destruction" by Robert Slayton. The paper is slightly over 13 pages in length, double spaced. I hope you all enjoy it!

AmericanTankDoctrine.zip

[DrShrinker 0]

A good read Bio. Indeed, i did learn alot.

Edited April 18, 2005 by DrShrinker

[NukesforBreakfast 0]

i thought you would be too lazy to write a research paper but i guess ill read it anyways.

[Yamato 0]

a very good read indeed i found the stats most interesting

[FECrtn2 0]

Read it.

Quite interesting...

Dont really say much about battle conditions with tank destroyers though...

Cept maybe the fact taht they were screwed when they were attacking in Europe :P

[MarbleSentinel 0]

Good and true at that its great!

[Neo 0]

Very interesting Bio...Once again we can see that during a war, bad planings occurs on every sides (not only from the little moustache psychopath side ). Whit all those mistakes, chance factor can't be overpass when guessing on the issue of a war.

 

Ask online players how they feel when a massive bombing target 20 lazy tanks ... who decide to move just before the fire rain... :o ...but that's bad planing too to bomb mobile tragets :P

[MarbleSentinel 0]

So in your opinion who had the best tank destroyers? Mine is the Germans

[Killerontheloose 0]

obviously. <_<

[MarbleSentinel 0]

Well its not like the allies didn't have things that are strong take the h.m.s. habicuck for instance.

[Biohazard 0]

Surprisingly, I vote for the Russians. The SU-100 was about equal to the Jagdpanther which was Germany's best tank destroyer by far, but for every Jagdpanther there were more than four SU-100s. I believe that makes the Russian vehicle the best as it made a bigger battlefield difference than the Jagdpanther could ever have hoped to.

[Logan Hartke 0]

Hey Biohazard. I don't know if you remember me, but I used to post a lot but have since been lurking and not posting for a number of reasons. The main reason was that most of the forum members did not care to read what others had posted and regardless of the facts, merely restated the history they had gleaned from playing Medal of Honor or Battlefield 1942 and it wore me out having to restate my original argument 10 times just because some 12 year old wasn't respectful enough to read the first page of a discussion before posting what his friend told him in 6th period History class.

 

I continue, however, to be an active poster on a number of other WWII forums, but this topic drew me back for a number of reasons. Mainly, more than any other main poster on this forum, I respect your knowledge of WWII warfare and technology and your relative respectfulness concerning others and their ideas, namely, a willingness to read their work in addition to posting your own.

T-34 Vs. Sherman, Which tank was better?

 

So, to get on with what I thought of your work. While more insightful than most people's understanding of American tanks and tank destroyers, it suffers from flaws. The most glaring one for me from the start is the mistakes you made on American nomenclature. This mistake is probably more common than the correct way of writing American designations. The mistake is your use of the dash. I noticed it in official Blitzkrieg II renders as well.

 

This is incorrect...

 

 

This is correct...

 

 

There is no dash in WWII US Army vehicle "M" and "T" designations. Period. M4, M2HB, and T15E1 are correct. M-10, M-18, M-36, and M-103 are not.

 

The first thing I did after noticing that was scroll down through your list of sources. I very quickly noticed (to my extreme displeasure) that you had no Zaloga sources, no Forty sources, and no Baily sources. The lack of Baily is understandable (his work is very hard to find, like Hunnicutt), the lack of Forty is forgiveable, but the lack of Zaloga is not. I wrote a 10 page paper on purely the Sherman's firepower and these are my sources...

 

Bennett, Richard. Fighting Forces: An Illustrated Anatomy of the World's Great Armies. New York: Barron's Educational Series, 2001.

Boldyrev, Eugene, and Valeriy Potapov. The Russian Battlefield.  22 Oct. 2003 <http://www.battlefield.ru/>.

Chamberlain, Peter, and Hilary Doyle. Encyclopedia Of German Tanks Of World War Two: The Complete Illustrated Dictionary of German Battle Tanks,Armoured Cars, Self-Propelled Guns and Semi-Tracked Vehicles, 1933-1945. London: Arms and Armour, 1999.

Chamberlain, Peter, and Chris Ellis. British and American Tanks of World War Two: The Complete Illustrated History of British, American, and Commonwealth Tanks 1933-1945. London: Arms and Armour, 2000.

Cooper, Belton Y. Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II. Navato: Presidio, 1998.

Crismon, Fred W. U. S. Military Tracked Vehicles. Osceola: Motorbooks International, 1992.

Culver, Bruce. Sherman in Action. Carrolton: Squadron/Signal, 1977.

Ezrets, David. Israeli Weapons. 24 Oct. 2003 <http://www.israeli-weapons.com/index.html>.

Forty, George. M4 Sherman. Poole: Blandford, 1987.

---. Patton's Third Army at War. London: Arms and Armour, 1976.

Geibel, Adam. “Yugoslavia's M36 Tank Destroyers.” Collect.com. 6 Oct. 2003. Krause Publications. 24 Oct. 2003 <http://www.collect.com/interest/article.asp?id=95>.

Halberstadt, Hans. Military Vehicles: From World War I to the Present. New York: Friedman/Fairfax, 1998.

Irwin, John P. Another River, Another Town: A Teenage Tank Gunner Comes of Age in Combat-1945. New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks, 2003.

Kirk, William A. Jr. Tanks! Armored Warfare Prior to 1946. 22 Mar. 1998.  22 Oct. 2003 <http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/>.

Kurowski, Franz. Panzer Aces. New York: Ballantine, 2002.

Mesko, Jim. Pershing/Patton in Action. Carrolton: Squadron/Signal, 2002.

Patton, George S. Jr. War As I Knew It. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1975.

Spoelstra, Hanno. Sherman Register. 30 Aug. 2001. 22 Oct. 2003 <http://web.inter.nl.net/users/spoelstra/g104/index.htm>.

Vannoy, Allyn R., and Jay Karamales. Against the Panzers: United States Infantry Versus German Tanks, 1944-1945. Jefferson: McFarland & Co, 1996.

WaffenHQ. 24 Oct. 2003 <www.waffenhq.de/>.

Webster, Jim. JED Military Equipment Directory. 24 Oct. 2003 <http://www.jed.simonides.org/content/jed1.html>.

Zaloga, Steven J. The Battle of the Bulge. Hong Kong: Concord, 2001.

---. D-Day Tank Warfare: Armored Combat in the Normandy Campaign June-August 1944. Hong Kong: Concord, 1997.

---. Sherman Medium Tank 1942-1945. Oxford: Osprey, 1993.

---. M4 (76mm) Sherman Medium Tank 1943-1965. Oxford: Osprey, 2003.

---. The M4 Sherman at War: The European Theatre 1942-1945. Hong Kong: Concord, 1996.

---. U. S. Tank Destroyers in Combat 1941-1945. Hong Kong: Concord, 1997.

Zuljan, Ralph. Second World War Armour. 12 Jan. 2001. 24 Oct. 2003 <http://www.onwar.com/tanks/index.htm>.

 

This lack of Zaloga clearly showed in your work. You are far too concentrated on the vehicles as it left the factory, not as it was in combat. For example, you quote the M36's top speed as being 30 mph. That, my friend, is what it was...governed. The ungoverned speed of an M4A3 was about 45 mph. The M36 was greater than that of the Sherman. I don't know if a governed example of an American tank existed in Europe, at least not in American service. They were usually ungoverned before issue to combat units. Also, you misuse some figures. This was, for me, the most glaring example of this was the following...

 

For example, 87% of ammunition fired by tank destroyers of the VIII Corps in and around Normandy was not against tanks, but in indirect fire artillery missions!

 

You are far from telling the whole story behind this. The reason why so much HE was fired was due to a number of reasons. Firstly, there was an extreme shortage of 105 mm HE shells in the area due to a clerical error in the CONUS. Due to this, there was an extreme need for other forms of artillery. The guns on the M10 and M18 were very well suited to this role. Their high velocity gave them an excellent range, and unlike most tank crews, the TD crews were well-instructed in indirect fire missions. They also had longer-ranged guns than Shermans. Their open tops made them easier to reload and utilize in longer fire missions. Their mobility and turret allowed them to move quickly to a position then change fire missions faster than normal artillery. True, tank destroyer doctrine was flawed, but the US would have been much worse had tank destroyers not been produced. The tank destroyers also contributed to the adoption of turreted SP guns by all sides following WWII.

 

While doctrine was flawed by a considerable margin, actual performance was significantly superior to comparable forces in WWII.

 

You might be interested in this article that I've yet to finish, but was written in response to this link...

 

Why didn't America build better tanks in WWII?

 

There are a handful of intelligent responses to this question, but most don't have a clue what they are talking about, so here is the first part of my intended response...

 

This question really needs to be addressed in three parts since there are apparently some underlying misconceptions evident in the fact that it was asked in the first place.  First of all, the issue of the Sherman’s true value as a tank needs to be evaluated.  After that, the relative value of the T-34 in comparison to the Sherman needs to be examined.  Finally, the question in and of itself needs to be answered.

 

To begin, the Sherman was a very valuable combat vehicle and a war winner in every sense of the word.  It brought the Allies through WWII, fighting on every front where tanks existed.  A tank is largely the sum of three elements – mobility, protection, and firepower.  Unfortunately, too many historians believe that those translate directly into speed, armor thickness, and penetrative power.  This is entirely untrue.

 

Firstly, mobility is more a factor of reliability than speed.  The Sherman’s reliability was unparalleled.  The Panther, the best the Germans had, was, in actuality their most unreliable tank – worse than even the King Tiger according to a number of sources.  The T-34’s reliability issues will be addressed later.  Also, although the Sherman’s top speed is listed as 28mph, a number of first-hand accounts say that, in many cases, before new Shermans were even issued to units, their governors had already been removed, and in the case of the M4A3s, this allowed for a top speed of somewhere around 45mph.  No other tank in WWII could come anywhere near this number (excepting a few Cromwells which could barely attain 40mph).  As for the rare criticism of either high ground pressure or the rubber track pads, Russian sources that employed both the Sherman and the wide, steel tracked T-34s say that there was little difference in ground pressure and the advantages of the rubber tracks made up for any deficiencies.  The Sherman’s tracks made the tank much quieter (about as loud as a large truck) than other tanks.  Also, its track life was over double that of German and Russian tanks.  The Sherman’s suspension was very adequate, but more importantly, it was incredibly simple.  Replacing all of the bogie assemblies and even both front drive sprockets required the removal and installation of only eight major assemblies.  Each assembly could be replaced in as little as an hour by a maintenance team of about three people with no major heavy machinery.  The same can not be said of the Panther or Tiger.  If a Sherman hit a mine, one bogie assembly would need to be replaced.  If a Tiger hit a mine, as many as 14 roadwheels might have to be removed simply to get at the damaged roadwheel.  That roadwheel must be replaced, and then the 14 roadwheels must be put back on.  Also, the Sherman was able to scale tough mountain roads in Italy and Korea where many tanks (such as the Pershing, for example) were unable to make it up some steep mountain roads.  Another factor of mobility that is often forgotten is the element of transportability.  The Sherman was made for American railroads, LSTs, LCTs, and tank transporters.  There is a very real space issue involved in the deployment of tanks, especially in the amphibious landing role that the Sherman so often undertook.  The weight and width of such vehicles as the Tiger I, the Panther, the King Tiger, and even the Pershing would, in many cases be very prohibitive in transporting those vehicles.  Shermans could also go across the majority of bridges in the world at the time.  The Tiger and Panther could not say the same.

 

As for protection, again, the issue is often over-simplified with merely a comparison of standard armor thicknesses (which is often understated).  For instance, Sherman crews typically customized their protection with sandbags (the least effective), track links, inches of poured concrete, and, by 1945, almost double the amount of standard armor.  This was done by cannibalizing knocked-out German and American tanks and welding very large pieces of tank-quality armor plating to the glacis plate and transmission housing.  By the end of the war, many Shermans were capable of absorbing a hit from a 75mm PaK 40 or a PzKpfw IV.  Also, some Shermans took as many as five hits from Panzerfausts without any crew injuries or deaths.  A Panzerfaust warhead was capable of penetrating a King Tiger’s mantlet, so that has to say something for the increased armor on late-model Shermans.  Although, what really matters is that in the end, the armor was penetrable from almost any angle by many German anti-tank weapons.  So, truth be known, the Sherman was highly vulnerable and relatively easily knocked out once a hit could be achieved (the hard part).  The protection story does not end there, however.  There are many factors that play in when a tank is hit.  The Sherman earned a reputation for always burning with the M4 and M4A1 versions.  This arose due to the troublesome tendency of the Wright Whirlwind (like all radials) to throw oil and gas all over the engine compartment.  This was not the case with the (later) more common M4A3 and all of the diesel variants, but the reputation was tough to shake.

 

The main cause of fire in the tank, though, was the ammunition which was only as vulnerable to fire as the rest of the world’s tanks (less vulnerable than many Soviet tanks).  Even this was rectified in February 1944 with the “wet” stowage system which put water in the ammunition bins, snuffing out most ammunition fires before they started.  This reduced the chance of fire down to about 10-15% in those M4A3s so equipped.  Another issue which is never mentioned is the quality of the Sherman’s armor.  Although thin, it was very good armor which oftentimes didn’t chip off and fragment when hit (unlike Soviet vehicles).  These factors all led to a relatively low casualty rate among American tank crewmen when their Shermans were knocked out.  Only one of the five crewmen would, on average, perish when a Sherman was knocked out.  Soviet crews commented very favorably about the Sherman’s propensity to burn and/or explode.  Crew accounts admit that it would catch fire (although no more readily than the T-34), but more importantly, there are a number of incidents where tankers owe their lives to their Sherman not exploding whereas a T-34 under the same conditions killed its entire crew.  Most ammunition fires, however, were due to the practice of cramming extra ammunition wherever there was room.  The ammunition bins offered no protection to ammunition not stored within them.  When ammunition improperly stored caught fire, the designers of the Sherman could not be blamed.  This was not necessarily anyone’s fault; the crews oftentimes had very good reasons for bringing extra ammunition along, but nobody should have been very surprised when the powder kegs blew up.  Oftentimes, however, many Shermans neither burned, nor did they blow up.  This difference is rarely noted by many critics of the Sherman.  Shermans were frequently knocked-out only to be put back into action a few days later.  This was another advantage of the Sherman.  Shermans could be relatively easily recovered due to their lighter weight.  It required only a wheeled tank transporter or another Sherman to pull it out of most situations.  The German heavies with which it is compared, however, either required at least three huge, expensive, and rare heavy half-tracked prime movers (Famos) or an equally rare Bergepanther, which were not built until after a number of Panthers had been produced.  Recovering King Tigers was an effort in futility and one which was rarely undertaken.  For the most part, if the vehicle could not be repaired where it was, it would not be recovered at all.  This wasn’t that important of an issue for the Germans during the first half of the war or for the Allies during the second half of the war when battlefields were being taken, but when the Germans were on the defensive, it was the difference between a temporary loss and a permanent loss.  The majority of knocked-out Shermans were recovered only to be repaired and see service once more.  This attribute is not often considered when the Sherman is being evaluated.  Although it is an aspect that is far from glamorous, it is a quality that translates into more tanks on the battlefield, which is very important in war.

 

The firepower of the Sherman is yet one more area where the Sherman is never given enough credit.  The Sherman is typically said to be incapable of knocking out German tanks.  It is true that all of the 75mm-armed Shermans could not penetrate, frontally, German Tiger, Panther, and King Tiger tanks at any range firing standard APC ammunition.  Also, firing standard APC ammunition, the 76mm-armed Shermans were incapable of penetrating Panthers, and King Tigers frontally at typical combat ranges with the exception of a Panther’s turret front.  Obviously, there were other exceptions such as lower hull, bow MG34 mount, optics mountings, view ports, tracks, and a small number of other vulnerable areas on the frontal arc that were hit only on the rarest occasions.  These facts seem to be the only part of the Sherman’s firepower that is ever remembered.  There is more than one way to skin a cat, and although Panthers and Tigers were big cats, Sherman crews on both fronts found ways to deal with them.  One way that Soviet crews dealt with Tigers when the Tigers were advancing on them was to fire one round at one of the tracks which would turn the Tiger to its side.  At that point, another Sherman would quickly fire another round at the exposed side armor.

 

Another method used by Sherman 75 tank commanders and gunners was the WP (White Phosphorus) round.  The round was primarily and incendiary round used for setting buildings on fire, burning brush away from a defensive position, marking enemy positions, and creating smoke screens.  American tankers, however, developed another use for this round.  They would fire it at German tanks as soon as one was engaged.  Now this round had a number of effects which were almost entirely bad for the German tank.  At best, all that would happen is the round would go long and explode behind the tank, making them stand out better as a target.  This was unlikely, however.  The round was far more likely to hit or fall short.  If it fell short, it would immediately obscure any field of vision the German tank had, effectively blinding it for over a minute or forcing the German tank to reposition itself, making it very vulnerable in the process.  More likely, however, the round would impact the German tank, where it would have it most serious effects.  Firstly, the crew would be instantly blinded, the smoke obscuring all of their vision devices.  Assuming the crew had all of the hatches closed (thereby sealing the vehicle from the flames), the fighting compartment would still be filled with smoke very shortly.  This is only a minor problem, however.  If the vehicle were not buttoned up, flames would enter the fighting compartment and that would lead to seats and clothes catching on fire.  Even worse, the crew might suffer burns or the ammunition might catch fire.  If fire was in the fighting compartment, the crew would most likely bail, effectively knocking that tank out of the battle.  Again, though, assuming the crew had all of the hatches closed, the burning phosphorus would begin to raise the air temperature very quickly, making life unbearable inside the tank.  Before that would happen, however, an even worse effect would happen; all of the oxygen inside of the tank (not much since it is buttoned up) would be burned away, forcing the crew to do one of two things: bail or suffocate.  Either way, the tank is effectively neutralized.  Also, if the WP round had either hit near the tank or hit it outright, phosphorus would get on the tank itself, which means that the tank would not be able to just back away from the smoke, since the phosphorus would be on the tank itself.  Accounts record this technique being used against enemy tanks all of the way up until 1965 when Indian Shermans engaged Pakistani Pattons knocking out at least three of them using this method without taking any losses.  One account in late WWII describes an immobilized Sherman 75 single-handedly knocking out three King Tigers this way.

 

Here are a couple of other links to topics regarding the Sherman in WWII that I participate in...

 

T34/85 vs the M4A3E8 "Easy Eight"

 

Which country produced the best tankers in WW2?

 

...and the bad boys live on...

 

Finally, I'd like to recommend Charles M. Baily's book Faint Praise: The Development of American Tanks and Tank Destroyers During World War II. This was his dissertation thesis which was later turned into a book that was almost exactly the same, word for word. The book is almost impossible to acquire, so here is the only reliable way I know of to acquire a copy (and the way in which I acquired mine).

 

Faint Praise: The Development of American Tanks and Tank Destroyers During World War II

 

Here's an article by him that might wet your whistle...

 

Tank Myths

 

Logan Hartke

[FECrtn2 0]

OMG, Logan, where were you? :D

Nice to see you :D

[Logan Hartke 0]

Ah, someone remembers me! How are you doing? As for me, like I said in the post, I've moved on to more history-related forums.

 

Logan Hartke

[MarbleSentinel 0]

So then what is you opinion on the sherman throughout histroy. MY is that even thought they are still used by some third world countries up until recently correct me if im wrong, they have never had the armour or guns to take on other tanks efficetinly.

[Logan Hartke 0]

I disagree entirely. I think that a number of variants in WWII had superior armor than the majority of its peers. Firstly, by the end of the war, there were more uparmored Shermans than not. Secondly, compared to say the T-34, its armor didn't break into chunks once hit and fly around the tank. That's why the T-34 had 60-75% casualties and the Sherman only had 20% casualties for knocked out tanks. Third Army added large sheets of armor to late war Shermans, allowing them to withstand frontal hits from a PaK 40 or (from accounts I've read) up to six Panzerfaust rounds without a single casualty (although the tank was destroyed). As for firepower, on that matter, I really disagree. If you would read my above post (grrr, it's happening all over again) you would find out that the Sherman's firepower in WWII was adequate and could knock out any German tank. Knock out and penetrate are two different things. As I said, there is more than one way to skin a cat. Even today, modern Shermans are capable of acheiving a knock out blow on any modern MBT with a bit of luck and skill. The 60 mm HVMS poses a threat to any modern MBT. The 105 mm CN 105 F1 is also not a gun to laugh at, no matter what vehicle you are in, Abrams or otherwise.

 

As for "third world countries", I don't know of any using the Sherman, but some others like Chile are. Last I checked, Chile wasn't third world.

 

Logan Hartke

[Logan Hartke 0]

Another thing, you refer to the M36 as the Jackson. This is incorrect. The M36 never received the name Jackson. Some sources say that the M36B2 received the name after WWII, but still others say that it was only given to the M36 in the 1960s by the modelling companies. The M36 is often incorrectly referred to as the "Jackson". You make that mistake as well. There are a number of similar mistakes being made constantly in this forum and sometimes in the game.

 

Logan Hartke

Edited April 20, 2005 by Logan Hartke

[Biohazard 0]

Hot damn, was hoping you'd show back up for this.

 

I'll have to get back to you on most of this stuff as I've got class to go to, but I think most of your arguments about the Sherman tend to use the crew's creativity as the proof that the tank itself was good. Can you tell me more about Zalgoa?

[FECrtn2 0]

Heh, how could I forget you?

You totally dominated much of WWII.... and the 'Guess that tank' thread :P

And you still have your title of Endangered Specie :P

[Neo 0]

Hey Logan! Good stuff! This forum always need big hits like that! We never have too much of that big caliber of knowledges you seem to bring with you. If you were a tank my only concern about you would be about your ''durability'' on the field (on this forum). :P

 

I hope that your armor against ennemy fire (soldiers who post without caring about what had been said before) will be at the level of the firepower of your knowledges! ;)

 

Welcomeback!

[Ass 0]

A very comprehensive report on the American Armor doctrine in WWII

 

But a few points could also be mentioned:

 

1) you mentioned M4 Shermans, how about it's upgunned counsins? Like M4A1E8 or M4A3E8. I suppose they have heavier armor and upgunned. At least they would perform a little better than contemporary M4s.

 

2) You also mentioned other forms of Shermans, like M10 Wolverine or M36 Jackson. How about other forms of Sherman in Artillery role? Like the M4A1 Gallope (not sure if it's this spelling) rocket launcher or M7 Priest 105 mm Artillery or M4 105 mm Howitzer. I am sure they could be used to deal with some German Tanks.

 

I hope you could include some sort of information on that as well.

[Logan Hartke 0]

I've read a lot of old material and a lot of new stuff. There are some names I think you should read up on, though. As far as new stuff Yeide and Zaloga are the two must-reads. I'm now reading a bit of old and a bit of new, concentrating on some work that Charles M. Baily wrote. I've read most of Forty's work and most of Zaloga's work. There are also a few other books written by lesser known names. I gained a lot of insight from Belton Y. Cooper's Death Traps and Karamales and Vannoy's Against the Panzers. One thing I like about Baily and Zaloga is that they don't believe what they hear or read without verifying it themselves. Anything that you see that they've written has been thoroughly researched by them. They oftentimes overturn previous notions built on unsubstantiated claims.

 

Hot damn, was hoping you'd show back up for this.

 

I'll have to get back to you on most of this stuff as I've got class to go to, but I think most of your arguments about the Sherman tend to use the crew's creativity as the proof that the tank itself was good.

Not at all. No other tank to see service in WWII was as adaptable. You couldn't upgun a Panther; the turret was too small. Also, you couldn't uparmor it because torsion bars were already breaking due to too much armor in the front. The ones in Italy had this problem all the time. The first torsion bar would break from the mountain travel and the weight of the armor and the rest would go like dominoes. It only took about 3 torsion bars before the tank was useless. Also, look at the adaptability of the tank's suspension. I point this out in one of the links I posted. Here's a quote...

 

...many HVSS units were produced independently of the hulls, many Shermans being converted after the war. Most of Israel's Shermans were bought as VVSS units, yet by the time they stopped using Shermans, one would be hard-pressed to find a VVSS version of the Sherman in Isreali use. That was one of the great things about the Sherman. It could be modified and upgraded with little or no trouble.

I can continue on this, as well. The Sherman was highly adaptable and that was an inherit part of its design which was something that the German tanks lacked.

 

Can you tell me more about Zalgoa?

Sure. Steve J. Zaloga is regarded by Osprey Publishing as their most knowledgeable author on German versus American combat (especially tank combat) during WWII. He is an expert on both sides of the conflict, unlike most authors, being considered the foremost author on American tanks in existence, but also an expert on the German Army in other engagements, authoring such books as Poland 1939: The Birth of Blitzkrieg, and dozens of books on the fighting on the Eastern Front (originally Zaloga gained his fame as being the most knowledgeable author on Soviet versus German tank combat, moving on to American versus German tank combat later on). He is incredibly knowledgeable and willing to shatter misconceptions. He researches everything very heavily and from every source. His conclusions are insightful and logical. I like many others, but he is certainly my favorite.

 

Here are some of his books.

 

Steve J. Zaloga

 

Heh, how could I forget you?

You totally dominated much of WWII.... and the 'Guess that tank' thread :P

You should see me on these forums...

 

What's that Armoured Vehicle? (WWII)

 

What's that military vehicle? (Cold War and Modern)

 

And you still have your title of Endangered Specie :P

I noticed. I earned that name; I intend to keep it. I was surprised it wasn't changed to "extinct" after a few months, however. I'm like a Coelacanth-back from extinction.

 

Hey Logan! Good stuff! This forum always need big hits like that! We never have too much of that big caliber of knowledges you seem to bring with you. If you were a tank my only concern about you would be about your ''durability'' on the field (on this forum).  :P

 

I hope that your armor against ennemy fire (soldiers who post without caring about what had been said before) will be at the level of the firepower of your knowledges!    ;)

 

Welcomeback!

Thank you kindly, but ignorance makes me catch fire faster than an 88 mm round to the engine compartment.

 

2) You also mentioned other forms of Shermans, like M10 Wolverine or M36 Jackson. How about other forms of Sherman in Artillery role? Like the M4A1 Gallope (not sure if it's this spelling) rocket launcher or M7 Priest 105 mm Artillery or M4 105 mm Howitzer. I am sure they could be used to deal with some German Tanks.

 

I can answer this question to a certain extent. The 105 mm howitzer-armed Sherman variants can and did knock out many tanks in many ways. The HE round could knock out many panzers, especially from the side. The WP round was a one hit kill on all panzers at any distance, and the HEAT round was a one hit kill on all but the King Tiger frontally (also at any distance).

 

In at least two cases in Operation Cobra, batteries of M7 Priests demolished German panzer attacks with direct fire. In one incident, four M10s and no more than eight M7s (possibly fewer) held off an attack by 15 PzKpfw IVs and over 200 Fallschirmjäger, destroying almost the entire force. Not long afterward, a lone M10 and some M7s did the same thing against 11 StuGs and supporting infantry, accounting for 90 dead and 200 prisoners. Similar stories come from the Battle of the Bulge.

 

Logan Hartke

[Biohazard 0]

So, to get on with what I thought of your work. While more insightful than most people's understanding of American tanks and tank destroyers, it suffers from flaws. The most glaring one for me from the start is the mistakes you made on American nomenclature. This mistake is probably more common than the correct way of writing American designations. The mistake is your use of the dash. I noticed it in official Blitzkrieg II renders as well.

 

... oops

 

You are far from telling the whole story behind this.

 

This may be true, but it still illustrates the fact that the tank destroyer doctrine was flawed, which was the point I intended to make and I believe I proved. My paper was designed to describe the doctrine and how it related to the vehicles, rather than praise/condemn the vehicles themselves for their own merits. Sure, the Hellcat could be used as a highly mobile field gun, but that's not how it was supposed to be used. Indeed, creativity on the part of American tankers and commanders contributed to success, but the overriding fact is that the tank destroyers were somewhat of an unneeded breed. I believe the US would have done much better to have simply made Shermans with more powerful weapons, like the British did with the Firefly. Imagine if every Sherman was a firefly? The Germans wouldn't have stood half a chance on the ground.

 

Heh, Death Traps was full of historical inaccuracies, such as Cooper claiming that Patton delayed the Pershing when it was really McNair tha did all that. It's good for personal ideas etc, but I'd take his technical and historical 'facts' with a grain of salt and a few more grains of personal research to confirm his assertions.

 

No other tank to see service in WWII was as adaptable. You couldn't upgun a Panther; the turret was too small. Also, you couldn't uparmor it because torsion bars were already breaking due to too much armor in the front.

 

I feel your comparison of the Panther and Sherman is a bit unfair and also fails to take some facts into consideration, such as the fact that the Panther already had superb armor and a devastating gun - it didn't *need* to be upgraded. If you have a gun that can reliably take out a Sherman kilometers away when its own armor piercing shot (not everyone knew to use the phosphorous) couldn't penetrate your own frontal armor from literally point blank range, who cares if you can't add more armor or a bigger gun? As for saying the Panther wasn't adaptable, how then do you explain the Jagdpanther, Bergepanther, Coelian, and Sturmpanther? The Panther was designed to win WWII, and, had it been produced more, I believe it might have been able to do so. Postwar service of the Sherman has nothing to do with how good a combat tank it was at that period in history. If you were a struggling nation in constant conflict with armed and armored neighbors, you'd take everything you could lay hands on too.

 

You list several examples of when the American tanks utterly raped the German ones, but how about all the times a few roving German tanks would take out entire colums of armed and fully-crewed Shermans? Certainly those instances also count?

[Neo 0]

Bio and Logan are giving us a very great debate at a very high level. Very interesting guys, we learn a lot . Its like sweet candy! :P

[MarbleSentinel 0]

Hell ya im learning more than i normally find out on my own. :D

 

but then agian im more of a plane guy.

Edited April 21, 2005 by General Falcon