[Leica] There's something about German design ...

[douglas.sharp at gmx.de (Douglas Sharp)]

The Germans had plenty of time to develop their tanks before WWII 
started - if you look at what the allies had when it started, there were 
only light tanks such as the US M2 and medium tanks such as the British 
Valentine, and the Poles met the first German tank incursions with 
cavalry and tin-pot Vickers light tanks. The French had machines like 
the Renault FT-17 and the Char B1 bis that were still straight out of WWI.

The Sherman was indeed an excellent development, even better when 
up-armoured and with HVVS suspension, although the US turret guns left 
quite a bit to be desired, hence the Australian Firefly version and the 
British development of the M7 HMC (Priest) as the Sexton using the 
superb 25-pounder. The later US 105mm gun was a definite improvement 
over the 75mm.
The British stayed in this WW I design rut for a long time, and carried 
on building complex (and slow) machines like the A22 Churchill and 
various Cruiser (e.g. Covenanter) and so-called infantry tanks (e.g. 
Churchill), before building the  successful cruisers, Cromwells and 
Crusaders, culminating in the  A34 Comet which was considered to be on a 
par with the Panther, ,but saw little service. It was at least stationed 
in post-war Berlin before the Centurions (probably the first true MBT) 
were introduced.

The Sherman variants were very good throughout WWII and later they even 
became a mainstay of Israeli forces until the decision was taken to 
replace them with   British Centurion (later locally modified as the Ben 
Gurion) and US Patton tanks - before they started building their tanks 
from scratch - and very successfully too (Merkava). 
Even the German post-war Bundeswehr was equipped with a number of M7 
HMCs (Sherman based self-propelled guns) as a part of their first 
armoured division equipment.

Heavy tanks, in the same class as the Tiger  I and K?nigstiger (Tiger 
II) were not introduced in the allies until the very last days of WWII, 
e.g. the Centurion. Motorised allied heavy artillery in the form of the 
M-40 on an HVVS suspension (very late, if at all used in combat - 
reports differ ) and the M12, mounting 155mm or an 8-inch naval gun on a 
M4 chassis, played only a very limited role towards the end of the war - 
e.g. the attack on Cologne.

The Black Prince heavy tank (A43 Super-Churchill) and the A39 Tortoise 
heavy assault tank more or less died on the drawing boards of the 
British army.
The US Army started to develop tanks to follow the Sherman (M4) under 
the name of T20 to T23 and actually built two prototypes of the T28/T95, 
a strange double tracked 85 or 95-ton beast with a low slung turretless 
gun (assault tank or tank destroyer). These projects were all 
discontinued before entering production.

On the basis of the number of variants, the German Panzer III and Panzer 
IV could possibly be seen as  equivalents to the Sherman, fast to 
produce, reasonably simple to service and quite reliable. The true 
masters of the heavy tanks and SPGs  were the Soviets, the simplicity of 
their suspension (only a few were built with Christie type chassis - 
which the British loved) was built on years of success with tracked 
agricultural tractors for the worst terrains and weather conditions 
imaginable. The Russians were also quite well up on German tank 
developments - during the Hitler-Stalin Pact years they had more than 
enough opportunity to see what the Germans were doing right - and wrong.

Douglas

Marc James Small wrote:
> At 12:33 AM 1/15/2007, Bill Smith wrote:
> >Marc:
> >
> >  Obviously you are more informed about this subject than me--thanks
> >for your comments. About all I know is what I see on The Discovery
> >Channel. They've pointed out the complexities of the Tiger tank and as
> >I recall the 88mm howitzer as opposed to the simple (but deadly to the
> >crew) Sherman and 105mm field howitzer.
> >
> >  Their parts supply/ maintenace problems they had remind me of the 9
> >miserable years I owned a 1971 BMW 2002.
>
>
> The M4 Sherman has received a lot of hostility
>> from the Disdain and Hysteria Channels in recent 
> years but this is undeserved.  It was a solid vehicle capable of solid 
> work.  Sure, it had limitations but one part of doctrine is to teach 
> soldiers how to make the best of their gear and, in the end, the 
> Sherman turned into a real workhorse which effectively crushed German 
> armor by early 1945.
>
>
>
> Marc
>
>
> msmall@aya.yale.edu
> Cha robh b?s fir gun ghr?s fir!
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>