Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/15 11:33:31
Subject: Why didn't the Allies build more M26 Pershings and Centurions in WW2?
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
Anime High School
|
I can't believe how they actually got people to crew the Sherman without them dying from heat exhaustion within the first twenty minutes of operation. It's like being inside of a large box with a massive diesel engine running right next to you, a massive cannon that needs to be manually traversed, a massive supply of bulky ammunition, and other inconveniences. I have no idea how they did it.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/15 12:07:29
Subject: Re:Why didn't the Allies build more M26 Pershings and Centurions in WW2?
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
Bishop F Gantry wrote: Totalwar1402 wrote: MWHistorian wrote:One word. Logistics. It was far easier to produce a whole bunch of the same crappy tanks than making few better tanks of different designs. (That theory didn't work out for the Germans.) If they had several plants all making the same part, there would be less problems and make for a quicker production. As a German tanker said "Our Tigers could destroy ten American tanks...but there always seemed to be eleven." That was the theory behind the American tank theory. Was it good? Debatable. (I'm not a fan myself.) Also, this whole 'super industrialized gear up for war" thing was still new to us. At the beginning of WWII we didn't even have a real tank corp. So "mistakes were made." It just feels very different to the developments in aircraft for instance. Both fighters and bombers got progressively better as the war went on. aircraft didnt use up as much material as tanks and could be made out of diffrent materials than iron and they could fly to where they where needed, as for tanks usually had to be transported long distances over railroads and by ship. due to the size of train tunnels aswell theres a limit to the size of a tank Its also an economics notation. The Allies had massive air resources. Even a crappy fighter can take out a heavy tank. How many fighter bombers could you make for one new heavy tank? We also have to remember that the Sherman itself evolved over time with improvements in armor and other protection, better weaponry, and even more armor. Mind you, they should have developed and begun utilizing the 76mm in heavy numbers much earlier, or begin mass production on the US side of the British 17 lber. Its an easy adaption that they could deploy in huge numbers, just like the T34/85.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/01/15 12:11:31
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/15 14:54:00
Subject: Why didn't the Allies build more M26 Pershings and Centurions in WW2?
|
 |
Pragmatic Primus Commanding Cult Forces
|
The Sherman was not a good tank. Not at all. It's armour was paper thin and it's gun was laughable. It also had a very high profile which made it easy to hit and caused it to have a dangerously high center of gravity. It was extremely vulnerable to even light German anti-tank weapons and could not even scratch the Panther medium tank. It could hold it's own against old Panzer-IV models, but was absolutely outclassed by the newer ones. But it was cheap. And that enabled the Sherman to be made in enormous numbers. And in a fight of quality versus quantity, quantity usually wins, as the Germans learned. The Allies did not produce heavier tanks because they were much more expensive and oftentimes unreliable. Also, later versions and variants of the Sherman were a lot better. Especially the Firefly. The allies won the war by virtue of their huge numbers. (and because Hitler was stupid enough to attack his most powerful ally and fight a war on two fronts including an invasion of Russia which as history tells us, is impossible to win.) So in the end, the Allies won WW2 because Hitler was too stupid to read a history book
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/15 15:00:24
Error 404: Interesting signature not found
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/15 14:58:28
Subject: Why didn't the Allies build more M26 Pershings and Centurions in WW2?
|
 |
Wrathful Warlord Titan Commander
|
Captain Fantastic wrote:I can't believe how they actually got people to crew the Sherman without them dying from heat exhaustion within the first twenty minutes of operation. It's like being inside of a large box with a massive diesel engine running right next to you, a massive cannon that needs to be manually traversed, a massive supply of bulky ammunition, and other inconveniences. I have no idea how they did it.
Needs must when duty calls. The Sargeant Major tells you to get in the tank, you get in the tank!
Also Gramps was made of tough stuff back in the day not like the softcock hipsters that seem to populate the modern world.
|
How do you promote your Hobby? - Legoburner "I run some crappy wargaming website " |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/15 15:06:30
Subject: Why didn't the Allies build more M26 Pershings and Centurions in WW2?
|
 |
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau
USA
|
It's armor was sufficient against small arms fire, and given the radity of German armor the majority of which was inferior to the Sherman (see my numbers in an earlier post) needing more armor was never a high priority for anyone until the political fallout of the Battle of the Buldge when the American public got it in their heads Germany had thousands of tigers instead of several dozen. Even German anti-tank weapons were in short supply, and most often merely disabled the vehicle which would be retreived after taking the field and repaired.
and it's gun was laughable.
The 75mm gets a bad rap. The only things it couldn't kill were Tigers and Panthers, but both those vehicles had a habit of being blasted by Allied air power or not having any gas to do anything. Given that the Sherman most often found itself in an anti-infantry roll, the 75mm was better than the 76mm in a lot of ways.
It also had a very high profile which made it easy to hit and caused it to have a dangerously high center of gravity.
While true, there's alost an advantage to a high profile, namely the ability to shoot over objects.
.
It could hold it's own against old Panzer-IV models, but was absolutely outclassed by the newer ones.
Newer and more upgraded PzIV's were little more common than Tigers and Panthers in later stages of the war, and even then the Sherman existed in rough parity with them.
And in a fight of quality versus quantity, quantity usually wins, as the Germans learned.
Only if you have a very narrow idea of quality. The efficency of the Sherman's design gets overlooked in favr of an overblow negative repution from bad combat parity between it and its German counter parts that mostly existed only in the end stages of the war. American commanders felt the death kneel and until they got hit with political backlash, felt that replacing the Sherman was a waste of time and some of that wasn't backlash that the Germans were better but the realization that the Russians were better.
The Allies did not produce heavier tanks because they were much more expensive and oftentimes unreliable.
They also just didn't have one. A functioning prototype of the T26 wasn't even produced until 1944 and design problems slowed it even more. Its not even like the T26 was the first heavy tank proposed we had model designs all the way to 1939/40 but they were all terrible (and the Sherman largely was superior to its rivals in German until late 1943).
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/15 15:37:45
Subject: Why didn't the Allies build more M26 Pershings and Centurions in WW2?
|
 |
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba
The Great State of New Jersey
|
Totalwar1402 wrote:It seems to be an incredible irony that the Allies had so much industrial power and developed two tanks that were at least as good as the German Tiger or Panther. Especially the Centurion which the Israelis were still using in the 1970s to blow up Arab T-72s. Was it just not a priority or was there some misguided logic behind not getting the better tanks out of production? I mean if they had gotten these tanks out earlier then hundreds of tank crew members wouldn't have died.
Well, in the case of the Centurion, it didn't enter production until January 1945 and the war ended before the crews could be fully trained and sent to combat (in fact, the first 6 tanks didn't arrive on the continent until almost a month after the war ended... and the Pershing didn't enter production until November 1944. A better question to ask would be why didn't the allies begin production of the Pershing sooner (its a very controversial topic). In the case of the Centurion I think it basically entered production as soon as its development process would allow.
The Russians were the Orks of that period; they glued blocks of metal to tracks and duct-taped turrets on the top, and created effective tanks. Also helps that Russian armour production was crazy efficient.
While not entirely incorrect, give the Russians some credit, they produced better armored vehicles than the Germans did (overall).
The Panther was, in a sense, an extraordinary piece of design. To produce a medium tank with the performance of the Panther in such a short period of development was an incredible achievement. It's impressive that it had so few mechanical issues to be honest.
Well, they DID reverse engineer it from the T-34...
Not sure if anyone else has touched on this but think about how far a tank made in America had to go once it was built to reach the front line in Europe.
Good post, but you skipped over the most important element: Training, add another 6 months (at least) onto the journey from initial production to battlefield deployment, hence why only 20 Pershings made it to the front line in Europe by wars end.
With the Japanese, it was more a matter of tactics than anything. Once we stopped trying to turn with them and developed engagement methods around diving through and running, we started faring a lot better. We were also far better at training up good enough aviators quickly, which is ultimately what I'd attribute the late war massacres to; the Japanese just didn't have a good replenishment system, and were throwing gakky, half-trained pilots into the fray, because that's pretty much all they had left.
Truth here, the Navy to its credit (I guess they're good for something after all ;P) was extremely efficient at cranking out quality pilots in an extremely short timeframe during the war, it really is pretty amazing, and not something they've been able to repeat since (not that they've really had to).
The Sherman was not a good tank. Not at all. It's armour was paper thin and it's gun was laughable. It also had a very high profile which made it easy to hit and caused it to have a dangerously high center of gravity.
Your post is entirely incorrect.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/15 15:38:20
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/15 16:00:30
Subject: Why didn't the Allies build more M26 Pershings and Centurions in WW2?
|
 |
Heroic Senior Officer
|
Iron_Captain wrote:The Sherman was not a good tank. Not at all. It's armour was paper thin and it's gun was laughable. It also had a very high profile which made it easy to hit and caused it to have a dangerously high center of gravity. It was extremely vulnerable to even light German anti-tank weapons and could not even scratch the Panther medium tank. It could hold it's own against old Panzer-IV models, but was absolutely outclassed by the newer ones. But it was cheap. And that enabled the Sherman to be made in enormous numbers. And in a fight of quality versus quantity, quantity usually wins, as the Germans learned. The Allies did not produce heavier tanks because they were much more expensive and oftentimes unreliable. Also, later versions and variants of the Sherman were a lot better. Especially the Firefly. The allies won the war by virtue of their huge numbers. (and because Hitler was stupid enough to attack his most powerful ally and fight a war on two fronts including an invasion of Russia which as history tells us, is impossible to win.) So in the end, the Allies won WW2 because Hitler was too stupid to read a history book 
The Sherman was not nearly as tall as people make it out to be. Here it is side by side with the "low profile" T34 The T34 had some horrible flaws though. I've read many accounts that the engines could barely make it 200km without completely breaking down, due to the fact that the Soviets expected them to be destroyed long before it would be an issue. The tanks also had some horrible problems with visibility (no cupola, bad bulletproof glass from what they could see out of, etc.), the Christie suspension beat the crap out of the crew on uneven terrain, lack of radios, etc. etc. Some tanks were built so poorly that rain water would leak in on even a light rain. The only saving grace for the tank was that there were just so, so many of them. Later models improved certain weakpoints, but the T34 was never the "wonder tank" people make it out to be. Dmitriy Loza for example far preferred using the American made Sherman over the T34 http://english.iremember.ru/tankers/17-dmitriy-loza.html?q=%2Ftankers%2F17-dmitriy-loza.html&start=1 One of my favorite quotes is where he mentions that the crew of a Sherman had a much better chance of surviving than a T34 if hit. Why? Because Shermans "just" burned. T34's tended to explode. The Panther wasn't so much copied from it so much as the Germans looked at it, said "huh, sloped armor might be a good way to go" and then made a completely different tank. The Panther and the T34 have very little in common. There was another prototype that competed with the Panther that copied a lot of its features, but it lost out to the Panther because Hitler thought it didn't have enough armor or firepower and wasn't "German enough" in its design. Another fun fact, the only reason the Panther has as thick armor at the front as it does was that Hitler kept demanding more in the design process. It was supposed to have less at the front so it could be more maneuverable. That's why the side armor is so much thinner, because the designers were desperate to save weight. EDITS are because I can't type today and kept noticing errors and accidentally quoted the wrong guy.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/01/15 16:14:55
'I've played Guard for years, and the best piece of advice is to always utilize the Guard's best special rule: "we roll more dice than you" ' - stormleader
"Sector Imperialis: 25mm and 40mm Round Bases (40+20) 26€ (Including 32 skulls for basing) " GW design philosophy in a nutshell |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/15 16:04:03
Subject: Re:Why didn't the Allies build more M26 Pershings and Centurions in WW2?
|
 |
Courageous Grand Master
-
|
Frazzled wrote:Bishop F Gantry wrote: Totalwar1402 wrote: MWHistorian wrote:One word. Logistics. It was far easier to produce a whole bunch of the same crappy tanks than making few better tanks of different designs. (That theory didn't work out for the Germans.) If they had several plants all making the same part, there would be less problems and make for a quicker production. As a German tanker said "Our Tigers could destroy ten American tanks...but there always seemed to be eleven." That was the theory behind the American tank theory. Was it good? Debatable. (I'm not a fan myself.)
Also, this whole 'super industrialized gear up for war" thing was still new to us. At the beginning of WWII we didn't even have a real tank corp. So "mistakes were made."
It just feels very different to the developments in aircraft for instance. Both fighters and bombers got progressively better as the war went on.
aircraft didnt use up as much material as tanks and could be made out of diffrent materials than iron and they could fly to where they where needed, as for tanks usually had to be transported long distances over railroads and by ship.
due to the size of train tunnels aswell theres a limit to the size of a tank
Its also an economics notation. The Allies had massive air resources. Even a crappy fighter can take out a heavy tank. How many fighter bombers could you make for one new heavy tank?
We also have to remember that the Sherman itself evolved over time with improvements in armor and other protection, better weaponry, and even more armor.
Mind you, they should have developed and begun utilizing the 76mm in heavy numbers much earlier, or begin mass production on the US side of the British 17 lber. Its an easy adaption that they could deploy in huge numbers, just like the T34/85.
Beat me to the punch, there, Frazz.
Everybody talks about superior German tanks, but very few mention Allied air dominance. You look at how great the Typoon, the Thunderbolt, and the Mosquito were, and you can see that the allies were worried about German tanks, but not that worried.
If you read the memoirs of former Panzer commanders/crewmen one theme keeps coming up: Russian Front = what the hell are air raids? Western Front = We'd better not move in daylight or we're fethed and we'd better be careful moving at night!
|
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/15 16:51:53
Subject: Why didn't the Allies build more M26 Pershings and Centurions in WW2?
|
 |
Oberstleutnant
Back in the English morass
|
Iron_Captain wrote:The Sherman was not a good tank. Not at all. It's armour was paper thin and it's gun was laughable. It also had a very high profile which made it easy to hit and caused it to have a dangerously high center of gravity.
As has already been said, your very wrong. It was more heavily armoured than all German tanks when it was introduced and its gun was designed primarily to engage soft targets (which it was very good at), even so it was still a prefectly adequate anti tank weapon.
The real reason why the western allies had no heavy tanks (although the British Churchills arguably played a very similar role) is that they didn't really need one. Air superiority, superier artillery and sheer numbers was more than enough. In fact it could be argued that Germany's development of heavy tanks was counter productive due to their significantly increased cost and complexity over the Pz IV.
The effectiveness of allied ground attack airpower against tanks is often significantly overstated, the Typhoon's rockets for example had a very low hit rate of only around 4% (in ideal conditions) so their kill rate would have been even lower. The psychological effect would have been much greater of course but still its not that impressive.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/15 16:57:16
The prefect example of someone missing the point.
Do not underestimate the Squats. They survived for millenia cut off from the Imperium and assailed on all sides. Their determination and resilience is an example to us all.
-Leman Russ, Meditations on Imperial Command book XVI (AKA the RT era White Dwarf Commpendium).
Its just a shame that they couldn't fight off Andy Chambers.
Warzone Plog |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/15 17:00:07
Subject: Why didn't the Allies build more M26 Pershings and Centurions in WW2?
|
 |
Fate-Controlling Farseer
|
M4 Sherman 9'
T-34 8'
Panzer IV 8' 10"
Panzer V (Panther) 9' 10"
So all in all, for medium tanks, the Sherman, was right smack in the middle of the height profile.
|
Full Frontal Nerdity |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/15 17:51:48
Subject: Why didn't the Allies build more M26 Pershings and Centurions in WW2?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Not exactly an expert, but didn't Allied tactics basically boiled down to "blast a hole in them with artillery, then rush through into the rear echelons with your Shermans"? The Sherman was primarily designed to rapidly secure terrain and exploit breaches in enemy lines. It's a great tank for an army designed to go on the offensive. Easily repaired (so it can keep moving), easily produced (attackers almost always take more casualties than defenders), and good enough at a variety of roles (useful when you are leading a charge and you could run into anything).
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/15 18:01:09
Subject: Why didn't the Allies build more M26 Pershings and Centurions in WW2?
|
 |
Fate-Controlling Farseer
|
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Not exactly an expert, but didn't Allied tactics basically boiled down to "blast a hole in them with artillery, then rush through into the rear echelons with your Shermans"? The Sherman was primarily designed to rapidly secure terrain and exploit breaches in enemy lines. It's a great tank for an army designed to go on the offensive. Easily repaired (so it can keep moving), easily produced (attackers almost always take more casualties than defenders), and good enough at a variety of roles (useful when you are leading a charge and you could run into anything).
The Sherman's main use was as an infantry support weapon. When it came to fighting other armor (in the late war at least), they relied primarily on artillery, air support, or Tank Destroyers who mounted the 76mm guns. Shermans used their 75mm guns to blow up pill boxes, provide moving armor for infantry, and psychological effects of 33 tons of steel about to crush your head.
|
Full Frontal Nerdity |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/15 18:06:33
Subject: Why didn't the Allies build more M26 Pershings and Centurions in WW2?
|
 |
Infiltrating Broodlord
|
There's a story in, IIRC, Beevor's D-Day book about a Tiger that shot up about 15 Shermans, then surrendered.
THe irate Americans questioned him along the lines of "You and your Tiger, you're so great, how come you surrendered?"
"I ran out of shells," the panzer officer replied, "but you didn't run out of Shermans."
Incidentally, Beevor lambasts the inferiority of the Sherman, and reckons there should have been far more Fireflys. He blames Monty, who enthused over the Sherman during the N Africa campaign, then didn't realise the state of the art had moved on.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/15 18:25:40
Subject: Why didn't the Allies build more M26 Pershings and Centurions in WW2?
|
 |
Oberstleutnant
Back in the English morass
|
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
Incidentally, Beevor lambasts the inferiority of the Sherman, and reckons there should have been far more Fireflys. He blames Monty, who enthused over the Sherman during the N Africa campaign, then didn't realise the state of the art had moved on.
Meh, I don't think that Monty had that much pull. The reason why the Sherman was so ubiquitous in Commonwealth armies is that British manufacturing couldn't keep up with the demand and British medium tank designs were quite flawed (at least until the Cromwell). The Firefly was a poor infantry support tank and by late 1944 Armoured Troops had a 50/50 mix of Shermans and Fireflies which I would say was about optimal.
|
The prefect example of someone missing the point.
Do not underestimate the Squats. They survived for millenia cut off from the Imperium and assailed on all sides. Their determination and resilience is an example to us all.
-Leman Russ, Meditations on Imperial Command book XVI (AKA the RT era White Dwarf Commpendium).
Its just a shame that they couldn't fight off Andy Chambers.
Warzone Plog |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/16 03:12:56
Subject: Why didn't the Allies build more M26 Pershings and Centurions in WW2?
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
LordofHats wrote:Really one of the things that made the Panther notable was that it was as fast as a Sherman or PzIV while weighing 15 tons more (50% increase in tonnage). That's no small amount. Very true. Judged by performance on paper, and specifically in hunting other tanks, it was magnificent. I think that's why it and so much other German gear is so loved in the nerd community, because we typically ignore all the non-glamorous stuff like maintenance, logistics and quantities produced, and just look at speed, armour and the gun. Frazzled wrote:We also have to remember that the Sherman itself evolved over time with improvements in armor and other protection, better weaponry, and even more armor. Mind you, they should have developed and begun utilizing the 76mm in heavy numbers much earlier, or begin mass production on the US side of the British 17 lber. Its an easy adaption that they could deploy in huge numbers, just like the T34/85. Mounting the 17pdr on the Sherman was actually a lot more complex than the mounting of the Soviet 85mm on the T-34. The turret ring in the T-34, like all things Russian, was much bigger than it needed to be and so could fairly easily accept a bigger gun, whereas the Sherman had a turret ring that was the right size for the gun it was intended to have. As a result the 17pdr needed to be heavily modified, particularly the recoil system. Honestly, the bigger problem with the armament of Shermans was the shameful number that reached Normandy still armed with the woefully out of date 50mm gun. Notionally by Normany the Sherman was supposed to have a 75mm, but many simply weren't upgraded as they ought to have been. I think that, more than anything, has led to the poor reputation of the Sherman. Iron_Captain wrote:The Sherman was not a good tank. Not at all. It's armour was paper thin and it's gun was laughable. It also had a very high profile which made it easy to hit and caused it to have a dangerously high center of gravity. The Sherman had armour that was not significantly lighter to the Panzer IV. It was extremely vulnerable to even light German anti-tank weapons and could not even scratch the Panther medium tank. The Panzer IV was just as vulnerable to light AT guns and infantry AT weapons of the Allies. It could hold it's own against old Panzer-IV models, but was absolutely outclassed by the newer ones. The Panzer IV was the standard tank of the German army at the end of the war. The 'newer' ones were significantly heavier tanks. You're comparing the Sherman to the Panther, perhaps because they're both classified as medium tanks, but the Panther was 15 tons heavier and never made up the bulk of the German tanks. Automatically Appended Next Post: LordofHats wrote:The 75mm gets a bad rap. The only things it couldn't kill were Tigers and Panthers, but both those vehicles had a habit of being blasted by Allied air power or not having any gas to do anything. Given that the Sherman most often found itself in an anti-infantry roll, the 75mm was better than the 76mm in a lot of ways. As I mentioned above, I think the problem is largely the number of Shermans that hadn't been upgraded by the time the Normandy campaign started. The 50mm gun was woefully inadequate but once most Shermans had the gun they were supposed to mount, their performance was much improved. While true, there's alost an advantage to a high profile, namely the ability to shoot over objects. Yeah, it also had a really excellent maximum depression, meaning it maintained a full field of fire from a hull down position. Something that lower profile designs of other tanks, such as the Russian tanks, couldn't do. Automatically Appended Next Post: MrMoustaffa wrote:The T34 had some horrible flaws though. I've read many accounts that the engines could barely make it 200km without completely breaking down, due to the fact that the Soviets expected them to be destroyed long before it would be an issue. The tanks also had some horrible problems with visibility (no cupola, bad bulletproof glass from what they could see out of, etc.), the Christie suspension beat the crap out of the crew on uneven terrain, lack of radios, etc. etc. Some tanks were built so poorly that rain water would leak in on even a light rain. The T34 was by no means the wunder tank (no such thing existed), but it was, simply, a well armoured tank with good speed and excellent operational range. Exactly what you need out of a medium tank - something that contribute to achieveing breakthrough, and then rush through the gap and start playing havoc in the rear lines of the enemy. So not a wunder weapon, but when you add in all the other factors (ease of production, ease of maintenance, reliability in all kinds of weather, and ability to upgraded over the course of the war, you have the best tank of the war. The Panther wasn't so much copied from it so much as the Germans looked at it, said "huh, sloped armor might be a good way to go" and then made a completely different tank. The Panther and the T34 have very little in common. There was another prototype that competed with the Panther that copied a lot of its features, but it lost out to the Panther because Hitler thought it didn't have enough armor or firepower and wasn't "German enough" in its design. True, basically there were two competing designs - the first was a copy of the T-34, and the second was a T-34 killer. In the end the Germans did what they pretty much always ended up doing, picking the over-engineered super weapon. Another fun fact, the only reason the Panther has as thick armor at the front as it does was that Hitler kept demanding more in the design process. It was supposed to have less at the front so it could be more maneuverable. That's why the side armor is so much thinner, because the designers were desperate to save weight. The Panther actually increased its armour massively over the course of the war, as its relatively weak side armour proved very vulnerable to ambush attacks, especially from rocket armed infantry. Automatically Appended Next Post: Palindrome wrote:The real reason why the western allies had no heavy tanks (although the British Churchills arguably played a very similar role) is that they didn't really need one. Air superiority, superier artillery and sheer numbers was more than enough. In fact it could be argued that Germany's development of heavy tanks was counter productive due to their significantly increased cost and complexity over the Pz IV. If they hadn't needed one, they wouldn't have set about designing one in 1943. Same as the US. Basically the reason they only got heavy tanks very late in the war is because they only realised they needed them in 1943. The Germans had been lucky enough to have a heavy tank already designed from before the start of the war, and the Russians already had a (fairly average) heavy tank in their forces, so both had much shorter development times for their heavy tanks... and both began that development much sooner, having learned from combat the importance of such weapons. Automatically Appended Next Post: Palindrome wrote:Meh, I don't think that Monty had that much pull. The reason why the Sherman was so ubiquitous in Commonwealth armies is that British manufacturing couldn't keep up with the demand and British medium tank designs were quite flawed (at least until the Cromwell). The Firefly was a poor infantry support tank and by late 1944 Armoured Troops had a 50/50 mix of Shermans and Fireflies which I would say was about optimal. I've not read Beevor making a comment like that, and in reading about the development of the Firefly and the resistance it encountered I don't think I've ever heard Monty's name. The real reason for resistance was the belief that the Cromwell and Challenger would soon be ready and armed with guns capable of taking out Germany's heavier tanks. When the Challenger was delayed and the Cromwell had to be downgraded to a lower velocity 75mm gun then they switched to the Sherman. Was there ever a 50/50 split between Fireflies and Shermans. I've only ever heard of a 1:3 ratio, and given the reasonably small number of Fireflies produced...
|
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2014/01/16 03:43:23
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/16 11:41:04
Subject: Why didn't the Allies build more M26 Pershings and Centurions in WW2?
|
 |
Fate-Controlling Farseer
|
sebster wrote:
Honestly, the bigger problem with the armament of Shermans was the shameful number that reached Normandy still armed with the woefully out of date 50mm gun. Notionally by Normany the Sherman was supposed to have a 75mm, but many simply weren't upgraded as they ought to have been. I think that, more than anything, has led to the poor reputation of the Sherman.
The Sherman never mounted a 50mm gun, I don't know where you are getting that from.
http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/vehiclesarmor/p/M4Sherman.htm
http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=40
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman#U.S._production_history
It was designed from the very beginning to have the 75mm gun. It's issue was that projectile it fired moved at about 620m/s. The 75mm gun that the Panther had fired rounds at 925m/s. That is why the Panther made the Shermans armor look like paper. When the Shermans main gun was designed, it was designed to combat Panzer III's and IV's that hadn't been uparmored yet, so it's ammunition was great for 1942-43 war, but not for 44-45 war.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/16 11:47:57
Full Frontal Nerdity |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/16 11:55:53
Subject: Why didn't the Allies build more M26 Pershings and Centurions in WW2?
|
 |
[MOD]
Not as Good as a Minion
|
Woooooooooooooooops
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/16 12:07:21
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own... |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/16 11:59:58
Subject: Why didn't the Allies build more M26 Pershings and Centurions in WW2?
|
 |
Fate-Controlling Farseer
|
Where? The only mention of a 50mm gun is when it says it was superior to the Panzer III's 50mm Gun. The Sherman never had a 50mm gun.
|
Full Frontal Nerdity |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/16 12:07:07
Subject: Why didn't the Allies build more M26 Pershings and Centurions in WW2?
|
 |
[MOD]
Not as Good as a Minion
|
Well that'll learn me for reading things quickly
|
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own... |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/16 12:48:32
Subject: Why didn't the Allies build more M26 Pershings and Centurions in WW2?
|
 |
Oberstleutnant
Back in the English morass
|
sebster wrote:
I've not read Beevor making a comment like that, and in reading about the development of the Firefly and the resistance it encountered I don't think I've ever heard Monty's name. The real reason for resistance was the belief that the Cromwell and Challenger would soon be ready and armed with guns capable of taking out Germany's heavier tanks. When the Challenger was delayed and the Cromwell had to be downgraded to a lower velocity 75mm gun then they switched to the Sherman.
Was there ever a 50/50 split between Fireflies and Shermans. I've only ever heard of a 1:3 ratio, and given the reasonably small number of Fireflies produced...
The Cromwell was originally designed to mount a 6 pounder so it was never really downgraded. British tank production capacitiy simply couldn't supply sufficent Cromwells to equip all British armoured formations that is why the majority of Armoured formations were equipped with Shermans from 1943 onward.
By late '44/early '45 it was fairly common for British formations at least to have approximately a 1:1 ratio of Fireflies to Shermans. Commonwealth and Polish formations seem to have kept the 3:1 ratio.
|
The prefect example of someone missing the point.
Do not underestimate the Squats. They survived for millenia cut off from the Imperium and assailed on all sides. Their determination and resilience is an example to us all.
-Leman Russ, Meditations on Imperial Command book XVI (AKA the RT era White Dwarf Commpendium).
Its just a shame that they couldn't fight off Andy Chambers.
Warzone Plog |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/16 13:04:12
Subject: Why didn't the Allies build more M26 Pershings and Centurions in WW2?
|
 |
Infiltrating Broodlord
|
[quote=Palindrome 573527 6444502 f3dd8c18f92d31740356660b751331e2.jpg
By late '44/early '45 it was fairly common for British formations at least to have approximately a 1:1 ratio of Fireflies to Shermans. Commonwealth and Polish formations seem to have kept the 3:1 ratio.
THe reference to the shortage of Fireflies that you "corrected" was about the Normandy campaign. I don't believe there was a 50/50 distribution of 75mm Shermans and Fireflies in France.
There are many references to Monty rejecting his troops complaints about inferior weapons - mainly tanks, machine guns and the pretty rubbish PIAT; Beevor asserts that Churchill might well have prioritised better tanks, had Montgomery made more of an effort.
The point made earlier, that underarmed, underpowered tanks have to be seen in a bigger context, that Cromwells and Shermans were mainly facing Panzer IVs, and not Tigers, is correct. But books like Robert Kershaw's Tank Men make a strong case that many British tankers were maimed or died because of poor (and slow) procurement processes.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/16 14:31:57
Subject: Why didn't the Allies build more M26 Pershings and Centurions in WW2?
|
 |
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau
USA
|
Not even Pziv's. There were almost twice as many STuG's as there were Panzers. EDIT: And the STuG had a higher kill rate too, at least on the eastern front than the Tiger, Panther, or the PzIV.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/16 14:32:45
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/16 14:34:04
Subject: Why didn't the Allies build more M26 Pershings and Centurions in WW2?
|
 |
Fate-Controlling Farseer
|
LordofHats wrote:Not even Pziv's. There were almost twice as many STuG's as there were Panzers. EDIT: And the STuG had a higher kill rate too, at least on the eastern front than the Tiger, Panther, or the PzIV.
Stug III's where nasty pieces of work. Germans certainly got their bang for their buck with those.
|
Full Frontal Nerdity |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/16 14:46:24
Subject: Why didn't the Allies build more M26 Pershings and Centurions in WW2?
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
Indeed. I converted my Basilisks slightly with a view that they were the IG equivalents of assault tanks like them (else why would you have artillery on the front line...).
One could argue Shermans were the US equivalent. infantry support, bunker busting, and antitank when enemy armor appeared over the hill.
interestingly the titanic Jagd panthers seem like a Hitlerian dream version of them for ambushing enemy incoming armor.
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/16 14:53:29
Subject: Why didn't the Allies build more M26 Pershings and Centurions in WW2?
|
 |
Fate-Controlling Farseer
|
Frazzled wrote:Indeed. I converted my Basilisks slightly with a view that they were the IG equivalents of assault tanks like them (else why would you have artillery on the front line...).
One could argue Shermans were the US equivalent. infantry support, bunker busting, and antitank when enemy armor appeared over the hill.
interestingly the titanic Jagd panthers seem like a Hitlerian dream version of them for ambushing enemy incoming armor.
Ehh... the Shermans with 105mm would be more like it, but honestly our Basilisk equivalent would probably have been the M12 Gun Motor Carriage.
|
Full Frontal Nerdity |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/16 15:05:06
Subject: Why didn't the Allies build more M26 Pershings and Centurions in WW2?
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
djones520 wrote: Frazzled wrote:Indeed. I converted my Basilisks slightly with a view that they were the IG equivalents of assault tanks like them (else why would you have artillery on the front line...).
One could argue Shermans were the US equivalent. infantry support, bunker busting, and antitank when enemy armor appeared over the hill.
interestingly the titanic Jagd panthers seem like a Hitlerian dream version of them for ambushing enemy incoming armor.
Ehh... the Shermans with 105mm would be more like it, but honestly our Basilisk equivalent would probably have been the M12 Gun Motor Carriage.
I was just thinking the uses, of it (STG and Sherman).
Basilisk and 105 yes fluffwise those are directly on point. Gamewise ( 40K vs. Epic) however its pretty much an assault tank.
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/16 17:32:49
Subject: Why didn't the Allies build more M26 Pershings and Centurions in WW2?
|
 |
Oberstleutnant
Back in the English morass
|
I "corrected" nothing of the sort.
|
The prefect example of someone missing the point.
Do not underestimate the Squats. They survived for millenia cut off from the Imperium and assailed on all sides. Their determination and resilience is an example to us all.
-Leman Russ, Meditations on Imperial Command book XVI (AKA the RT era White Dwarf Commpendium).
Its just a shame that they couldn't fight off Andy Chambers.
Warzone Plog |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/17 02:55:23
Subject: Why didn't the Allies build more M26 Pershings and Centurions in WW2?
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
djones520 wrote:The Sherman never mounted a 50mm gun, I don't know where you are getting that from. Apologies. I was running off memory from an essay I read a fair while ago. I should have checked my details. Replace '50mm' with 'medium velocity 75mm'. Anyhow, the essay was about research in to the tanks actually fielded in Normandy, and pointed out that while there were upgunned Shermans (M4A1 with the 76mm) many of the tanks deployed in service in Normandy were still M4 tanks with the older guns that were ineffective against even the Panzer IV. Automatically Appended Next Post: Palindrome wrote:The Cromwell was originally designed to mount a 6 pounder so it was never really downgraded. British tank production capacitiy simply couldn't supply sufficent Cromwells to equip all British armoured formations that is why the majority of Armoured formations were equipped with Shermans from 1943 onward. It was originally meant to mount a high velocity 75mm gun, but was downgraded during production. This meant the tank the British expected to be their answer to the Panther wasn't capable of engaging at the ranges they wanted, which led to looking to an alternative... and that alternative was upgunning a number of Shermans to carry the 17pdr. By late '44/early '45 it was fairly common for British formations at least to have approximately a 1:1 ratio of Fireflies to Shermans. Commonwealth and Polish formations seem to have kept the 3:1 ratio. Interesting, I had no idea there were that many Fireflies produced. I thought it was only around 2,000.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/01/17 03:05:18
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/17 11:36:53
Subject: Why didn't the Allies build more M26 Pershings and Centurions in WW2?
|
 |
Fate-Controlling Farseer
|
sebster wrote:
By late '44/early '45 it was fairly common for British formations at least to have approximately a 1:1 ratio of Fireflies to Shermans. Commonwealth and Polish formations seem to have kept the 3:1 ratio.
Interesting, I had no idea there were that many Fireflies produced. I thought it was only around 2,000.
It was only around 2,000. That was all they needed to make British and Commonwealth Sherman units a 1:1 ratio.
|
Full Frontal Nerdity |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/17 14:04:55
Subject: Why didn't the Allies build more M26 Pershings and Centurions in WW2?
|
 |
Oberstleutnant
Back in the English morass
|
sebster wrote:
It was originally meant to mount a high velocity 75mm gun, but was downgraded during production. This meant the tank the British expected to be their answer to the Panther wasn't capable of engaging at the ranges they wanted, which led to looking to an alternative... and that alternative was upgunning a number of Shermans to carry the 17pdr.
You may be confused with the Comet which was designed to mount the 77mm HV gun. The Original design brief for the Cromwell was for a tank that would would replace the Crusader in 1942 and the 6 pounder was the most effective weapon available.
Apparently the 77mmHV was designed with the intention of mounting it on the Cromwell but it was very quickly realised that it was too large for the Cromwell's turret so the it was earmarked for the Comet instead. Automatically Appended Next Post: djones520 wrote: That was all they needed to make British and Commonwealth Sherman units a 1:1 ratio.
It wasn't even that, the Poles, who were equipped with British equipment, were issued 76mm Shermans in late 1944 although they may have kept a few fireflies and 75mm Shermans as well.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/01/17 14:19:53
The prefect example of someone missing the point.
Do not underestimate the Squats. They survived for millenia cut off from the Imperium and assailed on all sides. Their determination and resilience is an example to us all.
-Leman Russ, Meditations on Imperial Command book XVI (AKA the RT era White Dwarf Commpendium).
Its just a shame that they couldn't fight off Andy Chambers.
Warzone Plog |
|
 |
 |
|