Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/01/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Tragically--the Shermans had the nickname of "Ronson lighters" due to their tanks full of gasoline fuel. Douglas Sharp <douglas.sharp@gmx.de> wrote: 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 > _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information --------------------------------- Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.