Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/01/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]That should of course be HVSS not HVVS Douglas Sharp 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 >