Sherman Tank Inferiority Plus Video Of A Showdown, Panther

[FC]

 

Really interesting, especially the end.

 

[karlunity]

They were still lying to the troops about tanks and AT weapons in the 70s.

I was in the USMCR and in an army class they told us that the TOW would take out any Russian MBT.

I found out, from reading the NYT that that was NOT true.

I happened to tell the Hippy that at a July 4th Armor display and an Army Officer, came over and told me that the fact that the TOW would not take out a Russian MBT unless you hit it just right, was TS and wanted to know who I was and were I learned that!

I told him that it was a report in the Sunday NYT. He just walked off.

Wonder how many guys got zapped trying to take out Russian tanks with a TOW?

karl

[FC]

I would have thought it would take them out.

[karlunity]

I would have thought it would take them out.\

FC.

The new ones do I understand, but the system has been upgraded over 30 years.

I understand that the guys in the Shermans were told that they had the best tank as well.

What I found annoying is not the limits of the weapons system but the fact they were lying to the troops and KNEW that they were lying. It is not even logical...it would be better to say. Men this is the way this weapon has to be used and this is what you don't do.

It seems to run all the way up. An SF friend retired col said that he often felt like a mushroom. Kept in the dark and feed on sh8t.

karl

[AzRednek]

The interview with the veteran does mention the only advantage the US tanks had and that was numbers. The Germans had superior tanks but couldn't come close to matching the numbers produced and put on the battlefield. The Soviet tanks from what I've previously read were a surprise to the Nazis and Allies both. Not just by the large number produced after Stalin moved the factories east. The Russian tanks were also better than the Sherman. Larger guns, better armor and the ability to out maneuver anything the Germans had.

 

Jump forward to modern times. The first war in the sandbox clearly showed the Russian tank and the Russian trained Iraqi crews were no match for either the US or British. If I recall the facts correctly the only tank our side lost was due to friendly fire.

[pacrat]

Watched an entire series of documentaries on NETFLIX. Produced by the Military Channel. Titled "WEAPONOLOGY". Last several of the series dealt with hand held stand off weapons such as the TOW and Tanks.

 

Panthers kicked ass on Shermans. One Sherman crew vet said " if you saw a Panther or Tiger and it was swinging it's gun at you, you better get out of there or you're dead". As stated the only advantage the Sherm had was numbers and mobility. 50,000 Shermans saw duty in WW11. Germans fielded only 8,800 of the Panthers. Sherms could be off loaded on beaches and carried on rail cars. They were cannon fodder.

 

Sherm gun was short barreled and slow @ 2,000 fps firing HE projectiles for infntry support. Panther had longer barrel bigger 75 and later 88mm bore @ 3,485 fps and carried AP ammo. Opened up Sherms like tuna cans.

 

The three big innovations that made the T34 an awesome weapon that could take out anything else on the field at the time were big road wheels with easily removable trax, so they could pull off the trax and do 60 mph down the road. Then retrack in minutes for off road battle. Independent Suspension for faster, safer broken ground travel with a smoother ride so they could shoot on the run. And SLOPED ARMOR that deflected the majority of hits they took. And of course the big fast gun idea they got from the Germans.

 

SURPRISE.... All of these innovations were developed by an American Civilian Engineer [don't remember his name just now]. He offered his stuff to the DOD to help the War effort. Since he was a lowly civilian he was PooPooed and laughed out of the War Dept. He showed his stuff to our allies the Russians and they snapped it up and put it into production ASAP and had the best battle tanks of the era.

 

The key ingediant of any standoff weapon for anti armor is the [shaped charge] which used a piece of soft copper in the shape of a cone to become an instantaneous "PLASMA TORCH" to cut through steel. Armor of the Abrahms battle tank is still TOP SECRET. But is known to consist of "LAYERED REACTIVE ARMOR" to defeat the penetration of shaped charges. It is armor that has layers which are backed by impact activated explosive charges that fight an incoming weapon with an outgoing explosion. And steel gridwork around perimeter like iron bars protecting your house windows that force shaped charges hitting it to detonate early and not be able to bridge the gap and penetrate.

 

Amazing stuff............You watch this series of shows and wonder how anyone survives a modern battlefield confrontation with the US Military.

 

 

[FC]

I read that the Russian tanks were very low tech, but effective.

[karlunity]

I think that the American was Chrysler.

The T-34 was crude but the sloped armor and the tanks 76.5mmgun and it's ability to run in the winter and sheer numbers 50 thousand made it effective.

Still at least 55,000 Shermans and 50,000 T-34s and perhaps 20 thousand British tanks against perhaps 22,383 panzers is a battle record that no-one need be ashamed of.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_tanks_in_World_War_II

[AzRednek]

I read that the Russian tanks were very low tech, but effective.

Almost a word for word quote, "low tech but very effective" I heard on a History Channel show after the US acquired its first intact Russian Mig in the post Vietnam era.

[karlunity]

Know what you mean AZ.

When I was young and dumb I figured that the "silly long russian old mosin" was a joke.

Sure glad now that I was never hit by a round coming out of one.

 

karl

[Sailormilan2]

While the American 90mm gun was slightly bigger than the German 88mm, it was not as effective as it used inferior steel as compared to the steel used in German ammunition. Our AP ammo was not as effective as their AP ammo.

 

The US General in charge of Tank R&D was not a "Tanker" but rather an Artillery man. His phylosphy was that Tanks were be used to break through lines and not fight other tanks. He resisted all attempts to come up with a tank better than the Sherman. He was killed in the dissasterous bombing during the Normandy breakout.

 

There was also a very predominant NIH(Not Invented Here) syndrome in the US Military. When the Brits managed to shoehorn in their 17 Pound gun into a Sherman turret, they offered it to the US and it was turned down. Our Tank R&D felt a new tank design would be better, and our 76mm would work. Our 76mm was not as effective as their 17 Pounder. Down side of their 17 Pounder conversion, it was so distinctive looking that it was easily identified and thus targeted first to get it's "bigger" threat neutralised.