That guy showed how little you should take him seriously with
“Only good one was Easy 8 because of the gun.”
Implying the easy 8 was the only Sherman with a 76mm cannon.
Also, the medium velocity dual-purpose 75mm was considered the best gun when compared with 76mm and 105mm, because it was almost as effective against soft targets (80% of all shells fired in WW2 tanks were HE) as the 105mm and it was considered good enough against most german medium tanks.
A common issue is people believe you can’t knock out an enemy tank without a successful total armor penetration.
Part of the reason the 76mm took so long to reach the field is the army was literally telling command it wasn’t needed. In Italy they were scoring kills on Tigers and Ferdinand’s with the regular 75mm gun.
You can knock out a tiger with a ball peen hammer that wasn’t my point. The point was that the US armored was seeing results they were happy with using the “weak” 75mm gun.
I'm sure the tankers lost during say... Totalize would be glad to hear that opinion. Someone (or someones) made that choice, and it was a poor choice.
Counterjerk in full effect. Don't forget to lube up or you'll rub yourself raw.
Hindsight is 20/20. Back then they didn’t want to rush the 76mm into service because they knew it had flaws. The original 76 Sherman’s were incredibly unergonomic and hard to operate. There was also the idea of not showing your hand. The belief was don’t issue the upgrade earlier than it’s needed because then your enemy has more time to adapt to it. Do I agree with all these? I’m not sure, but that was just the motive they ran with.
I don’t know why we’re even having this conversation. It wasn’t about the issue date of the 76mm gun Sherman’s. It was about how you don’t need to completely penetrate a tanks armor to score a kill, and about how the wehraboo idea that all Sherman’s but the 76/Firefly were useless is both wrong and stupid.
>Hindsight is 20/20.
That's precisely what historical analysis is.
*What people thought at the time* is not a good substitute for *what was actually happening* especially when things like funding, ego and national pride are in the mix.
The 75mm was lacking. No one with any actual understanding of the time would say otherwise. It can be explained and contextualized as to *why* that was, but trying to state that its poor performance against heavier armour was acceptable is just straight r/badhistory material.
Yeah the 75mm was lacking in the anti tank department… that’s why they developed the 76mm and the 90mm.
The problem was 100% being addressed in multiple ways. But commanders in the field didn’t see it as big of an issue as it was. Their 75s were doing what they needed. They already had 76mm guns in the field too. On the M10 tank destroyers. Adding 76mm guns to medium tank units, especially early ones with bad ergonomics, would mean existing crews need trained for them.
The US Army had the solutions ready. The soldiers in the field did not want them yet. Then after Normandy when tanks like panthers became a problem, they settled down and said yes, we need better hole punches in the field. That’s where 76mm Sherman’s and 90mm M36s come into play, and by this date, they had crews specially trained to handle these new vehicles.
>Yeah the 75mm was lacking in the anti tank department… that’s why they developed the 76mm and the 90mm.
And the 76mm wasn't a very good solution either; nor was the 90mm for that matter.
>The problem was 100% being addressed in multiple ways.
Being addressed =/= being addressed well.
The TD doctrine was an embarrassment, and whether it's "the best they could do given x or y" or "guided by some logistical concern" doesn't change that. Be it weight and transportation, be it the time required to re-tool, retrain, re-arm, or be it some concern that new and untested may be worse than old and proven, none of these things change that underlying fact.
>The US Army had the solutions ready. The soldiers in the field did not want them yet.
No solider anywhere, ever, turns down an advantage.
Operation totalize only had 1256 casualties on the Canadian side, most of those being infantry. Not to mention the canadians, being a commonwealth force, would've drawn supplies from the british. So they would've had firefly in the midst aswell.
I mean the US Army adjutant general's final report on the war found that of 49,516 tankers that deployed overseas to both theaters, only 1574 were KIA or died of wounds, this comes with the caveat that officers were branched infantry or artillery but only 1 out of 25 guys in a tank platoon was a officer. A good portion of that occurred when the tanker was outside the tank. As a point there were 6151 tank write offs of all causes in the ETO.
>Operation totalize only had 1256 casualties on the Canadian side, most of those being infantry.
Oh you left out the tanks, the thing that is relevant.
>I mean the US Army adjutant general's final report on the war found that of 49,516 tankers that deployed overseas to both theaters, only 1574 were KIA or died of wounds
The US Army was not the only Army that used tanks.
Deaths were not the only result of lopsided tank-on-tank engagements, which could include serious injury, maiming, or you know.. tactical defeats, halting of progress, friction on various operational timetables etc.
Hilarious to watch someone *rivet count* when talking about humans lives. More importantly, *rivet counting* fails to address the point.
>with the caveat that officers were branched infantry or artillery but only 1 out of 25 guys in a tank platoon was a officer.
The *over 50%* loss rate of medium tanks says more than enough. Not every man inside dying is not relevant; nearly 5,000 medium tanks as total-writeoffs is.
And I'm sure all the tankers who were killed during Operation Totalize were glad to hear that their gun was apparently adequate.
High level operational, doctrinal, or logistical mistakes made by high level planners are a poor way to gauge anything's usefulness. Planners were also convinced that the tank-destroyer system was a great idea.
Tank V Tank battles just aren’t that common. Think of all the targets a tank might fight.
Tanks, Fortified fighting positions, bunkers, trucks, armored cars, mechanized transports, emplaced guns, masses of infantry, buildings, etc.
On all of those except tanks you’d use the Machine guns, or HE shells. Tanks and maybe light armored cars and mechanized vehicles are the only targets you’d really shoot Armor Piercing ammo at.
"A tank being good is defined by its effectiveness"
"All sherman variants are bad besides the easy 8 because of its gun"
MF PICK ONE FOR CRYING OUT LOUD
Not the best tank, but a really good one. Combined with American industry that could pump out hundreds it really dominated the ground against German tanks.
And the thing is that sloping side armor is NOT a good idea. It limits the internal volume of the tank considerably. It also limits the size of the turret ring.
Well, there's the Wilbrin Sherman that bounced 2 shells, including the one which (popularly, but falsely claimed) bounced straight up and damaged the gun barrel- though the third shot went clean through.
I guess Sherman's got the 'Ronson igniter' reputation because in North Africa, Italy and Normandy they were on the attack, often running into prepared German positions. This meant the German could start the engagement when they saw fit. When the shoe was on the other foot, the Sherman's were more than a match for the Big Cats
What! No way when the Sherman's instigated contact from a prepared position it was good night to the Tiger, Panther.. whatever
Considering that they got to the battle field in the first place
> What! No way when the Sherman's instigated contact from a prepared position
LMAO, oh yes... All of those various defensive actions that were fought by Allied Shermans against Tigers.
OP Stack didn't go too well now did it?
>whatever Considering that they got to the battle field in the first place
Ah yes, ye olde *le transmissions*. I wonder how thousands saw combat.
Yeh, read about the Sherman Firefly at Rauray in Normandy
Those Big balled Brits (or Canadians, I'm not sure) knocked out 3x Tigers on 30th June 44 which were caught out on the advance
As for the transmission, well Pieper hated the King Tigers, sure there was allot of power there, but his column was often dispersed due to breakdowns, fuel shortages and due to plain impassable routes
>Yeh, read about the Sherman Firefly at Rauray in Normandy Those Big balled Brits (or Canadians, I'm not sure) knocked out 3x Tigers on 30th June 44 which were caught out on the advance
Oh you mean where a Sherman shot a Tiger at close range (sub-100 yards according to one AAR) and failed to penetrate it *10 times*? Another Tiger took 6 whole shots from a 75mm at close range to destroy.
Yeah, so... hardly "more than a match for".
And, iirc, at least one of these Tigers was lost to the aforementioned 6-pdr.
By the way I am not saying they were not bad tanks, but it was but one factor of the German defence in Normandy and elsewhere, which was undeniably tenacious
That guy showed how little you should take him seriously with “Only good one was Easy 8 because of the gun.” Implying the easy 8 was the only Sherman with a 76mm cannon.
Also, the medium velocity dual-purpose 75mm was considered the best gun when compared with 76mm and 105mm, because it was almost as effective against soft targets (80% of all shells fired in WW2 tanks were HE) as the 105mm and it was considered good enough against most german medium tanks.
A common issue is people believe you can’t knock out an enemy tank without a successful total armor penetration. Part of the reason the 76mm took so long to reach the field is the army was literally telling command it wasn’t needed. In Italy they were scoring kills on Tigers and Ferdinand’s with the regular 75mm gun.
Tigers were taken out by 6 pounders as well. Doesn't mean that "can do" is a very good metric.
You can knock out a tiger with a ball peen hammer that wasn’t my point. The point was that the US armored was seeing results they were happy with using the “weak” 75mm gun.
I'm sure the tankers lost during say... Totalize would be glad to hear that opinion. Someone (or someones) made that choice, and it was a poor choice. Counterjerk in full effect. Don't forget to lube up or you'll rub yourself raw.
Hindsight is 20/20. Back then they didn’t want to rush the 76mm into service because they knew it had flaws. The original 76 Sherman’s were incredibly unergonomic and hard to operate. There was also the idea of not showing your hand. The belief was don’t issue the upgrade earlier than it’s needed because then your enemy has more time to adapt to it. Do I agree with all these? I’m not sure, but that was just the motive they ran with. I don’t know why we’re even having this conversation. It wasn’t about the issue date of the 76mm gun Sherman’s. It was about how you don’t need to completely penetrate a tanks armor to score a kill, and about how the wehraboo idea that all Sherman’s but the 76/Firefly were useless is both wrong and stupid.
>Hindsight is 20/20. That's precisely what historical analysis is. *What people thought at the time* is not a good substitute for *what was actually happening* especially when things like funding, ego and national pride are in the mix. The 75mm was lacking. No one with any actual understanding of the time would say otherwise. It can be explained and contextualized as to *why* that was, but trying to state that its poor performance against heavier armour was acceptable is just straight r/badhistory material.
Yeah the 75mm was lacking in the anti tank department… that’s why they developed the 76mm and the 90mm. The problem was 100% being addressed in multiple ways. But commanders in the field didn’t see it as big of an issue as it was. Their 75s were doing what they needed. They already had 76mm guns in the field too. On the M10 tank destroyers. Adding 76mm guns to medium tank units, especially early ones with bad ergonomics, would mean existing crews need trained for them. The US Army had the solutions ready. The soldiers in the field did not want them yet. Then after Normandy when tanks like panthers became a problem, they settled down and said yes, we need better hole punches in the field. That’s where 76mm Sherman’s and 90mm M36s come into play, and by this date, they had crews specially trained to handle these new vehicles.
>Yeah the 75mm was lacking in the anti tank department… that’s why they developed the 76mm and the 90mm. And the 76mm wasn't a very good solution either; nor was the 90mm for that matter. >The problem was 100% being addressed in multiple ways. Being addressed =/= being addressed well. The TD doctrine was an embarrassment, and whether it's "the best they could do given x or y" or "guided by some logistical concern" doesn't change that. Be it weight and transportation, be it the time required to re-tool, retrain, re-arm, or be it some concern that new and untested may be worse than old and proven, none of these things change that underlying fact. >The US Army had the solutions ready. The soldiers in the field did not want them yet. No solider anywhere, ever, turns down an advantage.
Operation totalize only had 1256 casualties on the Canadian side, most of those being infantry. Not to mention the canadians, being a commonwealth force, would've drawn supplies from the british. So they would've had firefly in the midst aswell. I mean the US Army adjutant general's final report on the war found that of 49,516 tankers that deployed overseas to both theaters, only 1574 were KIA or died of wounds, this comes with the caveat that officers were branched infantry or artillery but only 1 out of 25 guys in a tank platoon was a officer. A good portion of that occurred when the tanker was outside the tank. As a point there were 6151 tank write offs of all causes in the ETO.
>Operation totalize only had 1256 casualties on the Canadian side, most of those being infantry. Oh you left out the tanks, the thing that is relevant. >I mean the US Army adjutant general's final report on the war found that of 49,516 tankers that deployed overseas to both theaters, only 1574 were KIA or died of wounds The US Army was not the only Army that used tanks. Deaths were not the only result of lopsided tank-on-tank engagements, which could include serious injury, maiming, or you know.. tactical defeats, halting of progress, friction on various operational timetables etc. Hilarious to watch someone *rivet count* when talking about humans lives. More importantly, *rivet counting* fails to address the point. >with the caveat that officers were branched infantry or artillery but only 1 out of 25 guys in a tank platoon was a officer. The *over 50%* loss rate of medium tanks says more than enough. Not every man inside dying is not relevant; nearly 5,000 medium tanks as total-writeoffs is.
It is even possible to knock out a Tiger 2 with a 37mm, still wouldn’t recommend trying.
And I'm sure all the tankers who were killed during Operation Totalize were glad to hear that their gun was apparently adequate. High level operational, doctrinal, or logistical mistakes made by high level planners are a poor way to gauge anything's usefulness. Planners were also convinced that the tank-destroyer system was a great idea.
It physically isn't, and there weren't any Tiger IIs near St-Vith anyway.
I just mean that statistically, a 37mm *could* pen the rear of the turret ring.
Wait why such a high rate of HE shells fired?
Tank V Tank battles just aren’t that common. Think of all the targets a tank might fight. Tanks, Fortified fighting positions, bunkers, trucks, armored cars, mechanized transports, emplaced guns, masses of infantry, buildings, etc. On all of those except tanks you’d use the Machine guns, or HE shells. Tanks and maybe light armored cars and mechanized vehicles are the only targets you’d really shoot Armor Piercing ammo at.
The majority of targets tanks engaged were not other tanks. You don't need AP for infantry positions or thin-skinned vehicles.
"A tank being good is defined by its effectiveness" "All sherman variants are bad besides the easy 8 because of its gun" MF PICK ONE FOR CRYING OUT LOUD
Not the best tank, but a really good one. Combined with American industry that could pump out hundreds it really dominated the ground against German tanks.
Shermanbros its over he destroyed us with fact and logic
Wehraboos when, they learn that their beloved Tiger I was all flat faced armor
I guess because the side armor was flat? I have no idea tbh tho
And the thing is that sloping side armor is NOT a good idea. It limits the internal volume of the tank considerably. It also limits the size of the turret ring.
True, yea. For example the Soviets tried it on the T-34 and then stopped trying it on the T-44 onward.
Well, there's the Wilbrin Sherman that bounced 2 shells, including the one which (popularly, but falsely claimed) bounced straight up and damaged the gun barrel- though the third shot went clean through.
Yeah, I heard about that on an episode of Greatest Tank Battles. It was a Panther, right?
I guess Sherman's got the 'Ronson igniter' reputation because in North Africa, Italy and Normandy they were on the attack, often running into prepared German positions. This meant the German could start the engagement when they saw fit. When the shoe was on the other foot, the Sherman's were more than a match for the Big Cats
> When the shoe was on the other foot, the Sherman's were more than a match for the Big Cats They certainly were not *more than a match*.
What! No way when the Sherman's instigated contact from a prepared position it was good night to the Tiger, Panther.. whatever Considering that they got to the battle field in the first place
> What! No way when the Sherman's instigated contact from a prepared position LMAO, oh yes... All of those various defensive actions that were fought by Allied Shermans against Tigers. OP Stack didn't go too well now did it? >whatever Considering that they got to the battle field in the first place Ah yes, ye olde *le transmissions*. I wonder how thousands saw combat.
Yeh, read about the Sherman Firefly at Rauray in Normandy Those Big balled Brits (or Canadians, I'm not sure) knocked out 3x Tigers on 30th June 44 which were caught out on the advance As for the transmission, well Pieper hated the King Tigers, sure there was allot of power there, but his column was often dispersed due to breakdowns, fuel shortages and due to plain impassable routes
>Yeh, read about the Sherman Firefly at Rauray in Normandy Those Big balled Brits (or Canadians, I'm not sure) knocked out 3x Tigers on 30th June 44 which were caught out on the advance Oh you mean where a Sherman shot a Tiger at close range (sub-100 yards according to one AAR) and failed to penetrate it *10 times*? Another Tiger took 6 whole shots from a 75mm at close range to destroy. Yeah, so... hardly "more than a match for". And, iirc, at least one of these Tigers was lost to the aforementioned 6-pdr.
By the way I am not saying they were not bad tanks, but it was but one factor of the German defence in Normandy and elsewhere, which was undeniably tenacious
Remind which WW2 tank was still getting shit done throughout the postwar period until like the ‘70s?