Sherman Best Tank of WWII?

[Derren]

Whats your thoughts on the Sherman Firefly? Do you think the Germans would have been better off with a gun like that on the Panzer IV?

For what end? Sure if they had produced the PzIV with that gun from the beginning or retrofit PzIV with them sure. But if the question is either a PzIV firefly or a Panther then of course the Panther. Both tanks did cost more or less the same and the Panther basically is what a PzIv Firefly would look like anyway with a better gun and frontal armor.

That the US thought of the Panther as a heavy tank is one reason why they underestimated the numbers and then struggled to field more Fireflies after D-Day. For the Germans the Panther was a medium tank and produced as such.

And you still fail to see that Panthers weren't the pillboxes on tracks you make them out to be. Yes, the early models had reliability problems as much as Shermans easily caught fires. Both flaws corrected in later designs. On wet terrain the Panther was actually better than Shermans because of lower ground pressure. And the HE round of Panthers was equal to the Shermans 75mm HE round, so its not really worse than M4s for infantry support.

Yes, the Sherman could be upgraded to match the Panther in one aspect. But its always was just one aspect while others were left untouched. Panthers on the other hand were simply a all around balanced and powerful package.

By the way I put the bad in "" on purpose in my last post on purpose because you talked about the Soviets giving their guard a bad tank. The Sherman wasn't bad. But it certainly was not the best tank. To be the best it would have also needed to have superior battlefield qualities the Sherman did not have. Most of its successes relied on numbers and combined arms. And while the ease of production certainly is part of the quality of a tank, imo the Sherman does not have much besides it. And that is simply not enough for the label "best tank".

 

[Hussar]

Heh, the comment about trucks and there isn't a "World of Trucks" video is pretty apropos, although, to be honest, if you really want to drill down, WWII would be "World of donkeys and horses" far more than anything with an engine. Far, FAR more men and material were moved by grass fed horsepower than anything with a spark plug.

 

[Zardnaar]

Heh, the comment about trucks and there isn't a "World of Trucks" video is pretty apropos, although, to be honest, if you really want to drill down, WWII would be "World of donkeys and horses" far more than anything with an engine. Far, FAR more men and material were moved by grass fed horsepower than anything with a spark plug.

World of Horsies. WoT was fun for a bit early on it's cancer now.

Adam Toozes Wages of Destruction basically explains the decisions they made and how reliant they were of horses.

Tigers and Panthers get the glory Panzer IV was the workhorse but the German light tanks enabled the blitzkrieg.

If they had Panthers in 1940 they would have performed worse in France.

 

[dragoner]

Heh, the comment about trucks and there isn't a "World of Trucks" video is pretty apropos, although, to be honest, if you really want to drill down, WWII would be "World of donkeys and horses" far more than anything with an engine. Far, FAR more men and material were moved by grass fed horsepower than anything with a spark plug.

Sure, Germany was something like 76% horse transport, and really whats more incredible is thinking that most infantry were on foot. Hard to imagine taking 3 million Germans today and telling them: "You are walking into Russia, go beat them!" Even the North Africa battles, doing a low crawl across kilometers of burning sand. I have a relative that fought up above the Arctic Circle, where in the winter, they couldn't have fires, because the enemy could see them. Miserable stuff, sort of amazing that people went through it all.

 

[Hussar]

Another point to remember is that if tanks are fighting tanks, somebody done screwed up. Tanks are for taking ground. If you are defending with tanks, you’re not really getting the most out of armoured units.

 

[Zardnaar]

Sure, Germany was something like 76% horse transport, and really whats more incredible is thinking that most infantry were on foot. Hard to imagine taking 3 million Germans today and telling them: "You are walking into Russia, go beat them!" Even the North Africa battles, doing a low crawl across kilometers of burning sand. I have a relative that fought up above the Arctic Circle, where in the winter, they couldn't have fires, because the enemy could see them. Miserable stuff, sort of amazing that people went through it all.

From memory (Adam Tooze Wages of Destruction+ other sources).

Germany's entire wartime fuel production was similar to the UKs annual imports.

Car ownership in the USA per capita to the Third Reich was 50-1.

Modern New Zealand (pop 4.5 million) uses per annum around 4 times Nazi Germany's wartime production.

All the oil the Axis ever needed was actually in Libya but not available in the 1930's/40's.

Synthetic gas was around 6 times (in terms of resources used) more expensive than refined petrol. Better than no gas.

The Nazi production miracle late war was actually set in place in 41 or so. They just added more (slave) workers and drove down civilian needs late war (and Europe started to starve) .

The Germans were not idiots, their industry was fully engaged in wartime production by 1941. It took a few more years to build new factories then get the labour for them and German production peaked 1944.

The Germans were more agricultural than the UK, mostly women's work in the war years even if they wanted to put women in factories like the west they couldn't.

The UK outproduced them solo in the early war years.

Even if Rommel won in North Africa they had no way to refine the ME oil, transport it to the ports, or ship it to Italy or wherever. ME oil was mostly a postwar development anyway, in the war years the USA and Venezuela were the largest sources of oil.

Postwar Marshall plan is over rated for German economic recovery. Not having to produce weapons under the Kaiser or Hitler had more to do with it.

Fuel use in France dropped over 90% in the war years. The Germans drafted 500 000 horses which further reduced European food production.

Nazi expansion made the food problem worse as some countries like Norway now had to be fed from occupied countries that produced surpluses in effect reducing resources for the German population.

The Germans were correct in there build better/bigger tanks thing, building more tanks would not have helped as they struggled to fuel the existing ones they had. They kinda botched the implementation of it. Still it was the English who struggled to design a decent tank in WW2, they made entire production runs larger than the German Tiger run of fail tanks (example Coventar tank). They actually liked the Grant briefly. The English got there at the end though.

As the Soviet Guardsman I linked to earlier about the Sherman being a bad tank his reaction was "Compared to what". The Lend lease British tanks were basically bad, the T-34 was a death trap, KV series was a mess, German tanks early war tanks were under gunned even in 1940, late war mechanical problems (except the basic models based on early war tanks).

 

[smbakeresq]

World of Horsies. WoT was fun for a bit early on it's cancer now.

Adam Toozes Wages of Destruction basically explains the decisions they made and how reliant they were of horses.

Tigers and Panthers get the glory Panzer IV was the workhorse but the German light tanks enabled the blitzkrieg.

If they had Panthers in 1940 they would have performed worse in France.

It is cancer. Ships is actually better. WoT just went to pot, they really drove it into the ground. Shame too, I have a pretty good account I wish I could sell.

 

[smbakeresq]

Look for books by Thomas L. Jentz for definitive accounts of Panther and Tiger Tanks and other German AFVs. Of particular note is the opinions in official after action reports of those who fought against those vehicles.

 

[smbakeresq]

I will have to find it but I read a quote from a German PZIV crewman who thought the Sherman “isn’t so bad.” IIRC he liked:

Height/visibility from tank, room in fighting compartment, gun did not extend to far so ease of use, ease and speed of turret traverse, ease of driving, performance on road. Good tank in tight quarters.

Will try to find quote in one of my books.

 

[Derren]

It is cancer. Ships is actually better. WoT just went to pot, they really drove it into the ground. Shame too, I have a pretty good account I wish I could sell.

War Thunder is better anyway.
No silly Hitpoints and peek-a-boo gameplay.