Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

New Member, History Fan!

Discussion in '☆☆ New Recruits ☆☆' started by Sudwind44, Oct 24, 2014.

  1. Sudwind44

    Sudwind44 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2014
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello everyone,

    I started reading military history when I was 8 years old and never stopped! WW2 is my favorite topic and my library is extensive. As I get older, I hope to switch careers and become a teacher. I also look forward to writing some books and articles, all the while immersed in research of my favorite subject matter.

    I posted an article about the Sherman tank and the new movie, "Fury," here:

    https://medium.com/@klausewitzian/strategic-decisions-fury-and-the-sherman-tank-c8b969b508bf

    Please let me know what you think. Thanks for adding me to this forum.

    Robert
     
  2. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,617
    Likes Received:
    1,658
    Location:
    God's Country
    I'd disagree with a number of your points regarding the Sherman and their German opponents, but there are a ton of discussions here as to their relative merits.

    You wrote:

    "The Sherman chassis was also used as the platform for two tank destroyer designs, the M-10 gun motor carriage with a 76mm weapon and the British Achilles mounting a 17lb gun. These vehicles were somewhat more vulnerable to infantry and artillery with their open-topped designs, but their mobility and powerful guns made them useful against German armor."

    What about the M36 "Jackson", 90mm GMC? It too was based upon an M4 chassis.
     
  3. CAC

    CAC Ace of Spades

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    7,649
    Likes Received:
    1,925
    G'day and welcome...one cannot hope to visualise ones trajectory through time without learning your past...to learn history is to learn about one self. That's one of my quotes : )
     
  4. GRW

    GRW Pillboxologist WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2003
    Messages:
    20,170
    Likes Received:
    2,682
    Location:
    Stirling, Scotland
    Welcome to the forums!
     
  5. Buten42

    Buten42 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2009
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    208
    Location:
    Washington State
    Robert, glad to have you aboard. Like UCMCPrice points out, the armor VS armor debate on this forum is extensive and brings up a lot of interesting points, but the fact that the Shermans were superior in number did to level the field-- so your article holds a lot of water.
     
  6. 4jonboy

    4jonboy Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    469
    Likes Received:
    47
    Location:
    South Yorkshire, England
    Hello and welcome to the forum Robert

    Lesley
     
  7. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,617
    Likes Received:
    1,658
    Location:
    God's Country
    Well not just numbers, but mechanical reliability and ease of maintenance and repair. The Germans might have been more effective even with lower production numbers, if they had a higher operational rate. It doesn't do much good to have a tank on paper if it's not available when you need it.
    Another factor that needs to be considered is what type of operations the tank was most likely to be used for, whether offensive or defensive. The allies understood that they would primarily be engaged in offensive operations, this puts a premium on reliability and mobility. it is also a common rule of thumb in the military, that because the defender has certain inherent advantages, that you need to have a 3 to 1 superiority in numbers, if possible, when planning for offensive operations, so it was important to have superior raw numbers. While certain features made the big cats impressive on the defense, their weaknesses would have presented great liabilities for offensive operations.

    Another thing that should be noted are the causes of losses. Tank vs tank losses are quite low proportionally, mines, AT guns and SP guns each account for a much greater percentage of tank kills than enemy tanks. Hand held anti-tank weapons have a virtually identical rate of kills to that of tanks vs other tanks. So even if Germany's tanks were as powerful, superior and effective as Belton Cooper wrote that they were, they only inflicted 14.5% of allied (British/American) tank losses.
     
  8. Buten42

    Buten42 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2009
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    208
    Location:
    Washington State
    All good information-thanks.
     
  9. KJ Jr

    KJ Jr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2014
    Messages:
    3,148
    Likes Received:
    359
    Location:
    New England
    Welcome
     
  10. TD-Tommy776

    TD-Tommy776 Man of Constant Sorrow

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2011
    Messages:
    7,217
    Likes Received:
    1,264
    Location:
    The Land of 10,000 Loons
    Welcome to the Forum, Robert.
     

Share This Page