Actually the M4 was an excellent tank well-suited to the criteria for
which it was designed. The problem was that it wasn't used for the application
for which it was designed. There were also some (major) problems with the
doctrine that established it's design criteria.
The M4 was designed as a "breakthrough exploitation" vehicle. It's (intended)
job was not to fight other tanks, or even entreched infantry. It was supposed
to go through holes in the enemy's line, and cause havoc in the rear areas.
Tank destroyers and artillery were supposed to take care of enemy tanks. In
practice things didn't work this way, which caused an adjustment in doctrine.
If you'll notice there aren't any tank destroyer units in the U.S. armed
forces now (that I'm aware of).
German tanks on the other hand were designed to kill other tanks, and
survive close-in "knife fights".
> From a logistics standpoint the Sherman was far superior to the German
The US also won the production war because the available technology to produce
vehicles was more effectively applied by the US industry. The US had it's auto
industry produce it's AFV's and they did it just like they did cars, assembly
line, they cranked them out like they were making cookies. The Germans on the
other hand had their heavy machinery industry produce their AFV's and while
that industry was certainly suited to producing huge behemoth machines, they
were not equipped mentally or physically to produce large volumes of vehicles.
Look at the disparity in production numbers some time, it's mind boggling.
As someone else mentioned, probably the best tank from WWII was the
T-34.
It was fast, rugged, easy to produce, and had an excellent weapon system. The
measure of it (and the Sherman's) success is the fact that they are
both still in use in some places of the world today, 50+ years after
they were designed.
Bill
(All that WWII micro armor research just came in handy)
"Brian Bilderback"
<bbilderback@hotmail.com> To:
gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Sent by: cc:
owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Be Subject: RE:
Merc Guild rkeley.EDU
01/08/02 06:36 PM
Please respond to gzg-l
> Eli Arndt Wrote:
> Keep in mind, those same Shermans fought in armies that beat back
Wow,a debate about the relative quality of WW2 Armor.... thanks, Eli, just
what we needed to get this moving in another direction....
What does everyone think of the "Shermans weren't as good as Tigers, just more
numerous" arguement, especially prior to the upgrade to the 76mm gun? I refuse
to believe I even come CLOSE to having a right to speak on THAT
issue....
> bbrush Wrote:
*Snip*
> The M4 was designed as a "breakthrough exploitation" vehicle. It's
Although I've heard the arguement that most modern MBT's, especially western
ones, fit more closely the concept of a Tank Destroyer than they do the
traditional definition of a tank.
> German tanks on the other hand were designed to kill other tanks, and
That's what I meant in my original post, I was wondering about the claims
that Shermans were outmatched in stand-up fights with German tanks.
> From a logistics standpoint the Sherman was far superior to the German
This further supports what I'd heard but felt unqualified to support, that the
Allies outlogisticsed (my own word... like it?) the Nazis when it came to
armor.
> As someone else mentioned, probably the best tank from WWII was the
Harry Turtledove touches on this in his World War books.
My view is that the MBT is the result of the evolution of AFV design. The
Tank/Tank destroyer doctrine was fatally flawed IMO and it was only
natural that it be abandoned.
It's true that in a "stand up fight" Shermans were not the equal of some of
the German tanks but it depends on what year of the war, and what tanks you're
comparing it to. The M4A1 (76mm) was superior to the Pz IV in that it had a
comparable gun and armor and was much more reliable. The problem with both the
Pz IV and the M4A1 was that neither one of them had armor that would stop the
other's gun. To reference a naval term they were
"eggshells armed with hammers". The thing is, there's almost never a
"stand up fight" in a war. If things don't look advantageous you call in
bigger guns (artillery or air) and pound things until it looks better.
> This further supports what I'd heard but felt unqualified to support,
Well you can't really just look at armor. The Western front was a very complex
campaign and it could have very easily failed.
While the Allies certainly had access to more supplies than the Germans, it's
not the whole story. The Allies had the intel war won handily. The Ultra
intercepts gave the Allies incredibly detailed information on what the Germans
were doing, plus the Germans bought into the Fortitude deceptions, more or
less lock, stock, and barrel. A further advantage that the Allies had, was
their command structure and training. The Allied forces trained their units to
show initiative and to get the job done without directives "from the top". The
command structure also was very "clean" in that the field commanders didn't
have to get permission from higher HQ's to use available assets. The German
command structure was quite frankly a mess, with the Panzer divisions being
under Hitler's personal control and he was several hundred miles from the
front, and prone to sleeping till noon. On top of that the troops were trained
to "Obey orders", and they didn't do anything without an order.
The Western Front in WWII basically hinged on whether or not the US and the UK
could successfully invade France. If the invasions succeeded then there was no
way that Germany could win. Runsted, and Rommel both knew this. It was
fortunate that Rommel was in Germany when we invaded and Runstedt couldn't
command the Panzer divisions that could have put the invasion beaches in
peril. In my personal opinion it's unlikely that Germany would have won even
if all they were fighting was Russia. The Soviets had such an overwhelming
number of men, tanks, and artillery it is incredible. What the consequences
would have been if the Soviets would have rolled over Germany without the US
and Britian coming from the other direction are hard to say, but I'm guessing
they would have been bad(tm).
Looking at the D-day invasions today I don't see how anything analgous
will ever happen again (at least not on Earth). Today any country that needed
to amphibiously invade another country would first neutralize the enemy air
force, use precision munitions to annihilate any defensive works, the airborne
would secure the area immediately in front of the invasion area and the
hovercraft would come up on the beach and off would come the troops.
I'm not sure where all this came from, once I started typing it just sort
of happened. :-)
Bill
"Brian Bilderback"
<bbilderback@hotmail.com> To:
gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Sent by: cc:
owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Be Subject: Re:
Sherman's was something else rkeley.EDU
01/09/02 03:55 PM
Please respond to gzg-l
> bbrush Wrote:
*Snip*
> The M4 was designed as a "breakthrough exploitation" vehicle. It's
Although I've heard the arguement that most modern MBT's, especially western
ones, fit more closely the concept of a Tank Destroyer than they do the
traditional definition of a tank.
> German tanks on the other hand were designed to kill other tanks, and
That's what I meant in my original post, I was wondering about the claims
that Shermans were outmatched in stand-up fights with German tanks.
> From a logistics standpoint the Sherman was far superior to the German
This further supports what I'd heard but felt unqualified to support, that the
Allies outlogisticsed (my own word... like it?) the Nazis when it came to
armor.
> As someone else mentioned, probably the best tank from WWII was the
Harry Turtledove touches on this in his World War books.
Brian B2
> On top of that the [German] troops were trained to "Obey
I've never heard this before. German troops were trained to follow doctrine
("Tante Friede", I think? was what the called the infantry "bible") if they
didn't know what else to do, but if they were experienced and had a better
idea, they were free to go with it. On a tactical level, Germans were more
effective than Americans or Brits (in
general--the best Allied units were as good), and much more effective
(x2.5) than Russians. If you read Trevor Dupuy, you can find lots more detail
on this subject