Sabrejet Posted February 6, 2012 Share #1 Posted February 6, 2012 This is an interesting and thought provoking clip. As is so often the case with these documentaries, the pictures often don't match the words (or vice-versa)...the wrong tank...even the wrong General :w00t: ...but good newsreel footage nevertheless coupled with some sobering statistics! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEeQPUp5VTY...feature=related Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack's Son Posted February 6, 2012 Share #2 Posted February 6, 2012 SO....What was the alternative ? I've heard it said, "you fight with what you've got"! We made advancements in many other weapon systems, why didn't we vastly improve the Sherman Tank? There has to be a reason......maybe the tank wasn't as bad as this film would have us believe. Anyone help here?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Baker Posted February 6, 2012 Share #3 Posted February 6, 2012 Well, this has been beat to death. They did what they were built to do. It's hard to yell Kings X in the middle of a war and go back and redesign a new tank. The Germans developed their heavy tanks based on combat experiences with the Russians and visa versa. They did not have to ship them across the ocean, or even across the channel for that matter. And remember what all the different tank designs did to the Germans. Supply was a mess and what a waste of time and resources. Had the Germans done what the US did with say the Panther design, we would have had it a little rougher than we did. I do wish the US would have considered rearming the Sherman with the Brit 17 pounder. That would have been a very effective "quick fix". And with all due respect to Mr. Cooper, lets present the German tank loses as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrejet Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share #4 Posted February 6, 2012 The Sherman's "strength"...if that's the right word...was its ability to undergo more or less continuous upgrades and to provide the basic chassis for a whole range of specialized variants...plus its overall numerical superiority of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Baker Posted February 6, 2012 Share #5 Posted February 6, 2012 And....... MANY, if not most, interchangable parts. Mr. Cooper would even attest to the fact that recovery and our ability to put tanks back into action was second to none. And that is saying something when you consider the logistics issues. While we did work on developing a better tank (Pershing), we did not waste resourses the way the Germans did. We continued to improve the Sherman which with the final M4A3E8 76mm model was able to soldier on into Korea and take on the T34's there. All in all, smarter and better production methods won the war. Along with the Russians killing a hell of a lot of Germans for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack's Son Posted February 6, 2012 Share #6 Posted February 6, 2012 Jim, This is the kind of information I want to get out to newer members who may not have known of past discussions. I have also seen and heard accounts of German Tankers and repair crews singing the praises of the reliability and ease of maintaining the Shermen vs. their bigger yet "less reliable" machines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrejet Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share #7 Posted February 6, 2012 Hindsight is an exact science. I agree with your comment re the 17 pounder Fireflies. If the US Army had the foresight to re-arm their Shermans with the British gun (which was pretty much the equal of the feared 88mm) then maybe the Normandy tank battles wouldn't have been quite as one-sided ie, the 5:1 ratio to knock out a Tiger or Panther. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeper704 Posted February 6, 2012 Share #8 Posted February 6, 2012 Why wasn't a tank commander interviewed? Or a gunner? Or a loader? Working with a tank repair unit, yeah I do get that you see the "dark side" of these tanks (cleaning up, removing body parts, etc). But he doesn't give the view of a tank crew, does he? They also don't get their facts straight ... for ambushing and knocking out, the US Army had the Tank Destroyer Forces. The Sherman was NEVER intended to go against enemy armor head on! Apart of taking Lee/Grants and TDs for Shermans, and showing Gen. Bradley for Gen. Patton, there was some pretty interesting footage to see. But I expect more from the History Channel. Erwin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrejet Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share #9 Posted February 6, 2012 Sherman vs Tiger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Baker Posted February 6, 2012 Share #10 Posted February 6, 2012 Sherman vs Tiger. What is the point? Good for entertainment I suppose. Let's do the Tiger vs Abrams. No wait, the Tiger wasn't built to fight the Abrams, was it? This is just the same ol' same ol'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack's Son Posted February 6, 2012 Share #11 Posted February 6, 2012 Okay Jim, but please be a good sport for us "young'ns".......Please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeper704 Posted February 6, 2012 Share #12 Posted February 6, 2012 Jim's correct, no need to compare oranges with apples (or insert any other fruit of your liking). Erwin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluehawk Posted February 6, 2012 Share #13 Posted February 6, 2012 What the heck, we won that war - "crappy equipment" or not. (dunno who owns this image) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrejet Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share #14 Posted February 6, 2012 Lighten up fellers! Not everyone on the forum is steeped in the history of the US Armored Corps. No reason for them not to learn something from viewing the tv video clips and to form their own opinions and perhaps prompt a discussion or two. That's what this forum is all about...isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uplandmod Posted February 6, 2012 Share #15 Posted February 6, 2012 My opinion on the Sherman is that although it wasn't the greatest tank ever, we could replace them faster than the German's could destroy them. More of a testament to American Manufacturing than the tank itself. Leonardo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack's Son Posted February 6, 2012 Share #16 Posted February 6, 2012 My opinion on the Sherman is that although it wasn't the greatest tank ever, we could replace them faster than the German's could destroy them.Leonardo And this is what I have been told! The simplicity of the design, the reliability and ease of repair, and the shear numbers, made the take a success. No one EVER said it was the BEST tank of WWII, but it was a big piece of the victory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uplandmod Posted February 6, 2012 Share #17 Posted February 6, 2012 And this is what I have been told! The simplicity of the design, the reliability and ease of repair, and the shear numbers, made the take a success. No one EVER said it was the BEST tank of WWII, but it was a big piece of the victory. Much Agreed! :thumbsup: Leonardo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwb123 Posted February 7, 2012 Share #18 Posted February 7, 2012 My opinion on the Sherman is that although it wasn't the greatest tank ever, we could replace them faster than the German's could destroy them. Perhaps... but at a high cost to the crews who manned them. This is an interesting discussion though. Later it would be the Americans and their NATO allies who would argue quality versus quantity in both tank and aircraft design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Baker Posted February 7, 2012 Share #19 Posted February 7, 2012 OK, for funs sake... Ian, so you understand my being a little short, this subject really has been beat to death. One thing that really gripes me is this constant comparison to the Tiger. The Sherman really wasn't built to fight other tanks. Was this short sighted? Yes, but that's the way it was. This war was the beginning of the era of modern tank warfare and the Americans were very poorly prepared for war. And you must remember, the Sherman really was our first modern medium tank. And for it's most common, or most likely adversaries at the beginning of our involvement, the Panzer III and IV's, it was a pretty good match. Some numbers for perspective: Tiger I's produced during the war = approximately 1,368 Panthers produced during the war = approximately 6,557 TOTAL German tank production of all models to include prewar = 50,439 Now bear in mind those surviving Tigers and Panthers were spread out to three theaters of war by 1944. Most on the eastern front. As for the Sherman, during World War II, approximately 19,247 Shermans were issued to the US Army and about 1,114 to the US Marine Corps. The U.S. also supplied 17,184 to Great Britain, Canada, and the Free Poles, while the Soviet Union received 4,102 and an estimated 812 were transferred to China. This is only the Sherman. As a German tank commander once noted, it may have taken 10 Shermans to knock out a Tiger, but the Americans always had 11. For those interested in the Sherman, please read Zaloga's new book, "Armored Thunderbolt". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrejet Posted February 7, 2012 Author Share #20 Posted February 7, 2012 I entirely concur with what you say Jim...I'm just the messenger...the views expressed in those video clips are those of the programme makers! The Sherman in all of its guises unquestionably contributed hugely to the ultimate allied victory. As has been already stated, it might have been technically "inferior" to the best German machines but it was reliable, available in large quantities and when used well tactically (with air support) cut a swathe through the German defences (eg Operation Cobra) I was reading an account of the British armoured advances on Caen quite recently. The German defenders were dug in and had their 88s zeroed in on the largely flat plain which the British tanks (mostly Shermans) had to cross. It was like shooting ducks in a barrel. Within hours the battlefield was littered with smouldering Shermans and overall losses were in the hundreds...but Monty wasn't too worried. Why? Because the British losses could be made good within a few days, whereas the German losses could not. In a war of attrition the Sherman was going to win hands down every time...much as the T34 did on the Eastern Front....but that's another story! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeper704 Posted February 7, 2012 Share #21 Posted February 7, 2012 Ian, with the example you just mentioned, it didn't matter what type of tank it was they knocked out. You said it yourself ... zeroed in, hidden, 88mm, ... no matter what tank was used there, this will always result in extreme high losses. Not to mention a lot of armor was knocked out by concealed AT guns, soldiers armed with panzerschreck/panzerfaust. The Battle of Normandy is a good example of that type of warfare. What I am just saying is that this documentary could have been better made and didn't have to be so one-sided. I just watched it for the good footage (the second and third time I watched it). I just expected a better work from History Channel, that's all. As it has been said here; I find the human losses a lot more saddening and important than statistics mde 60+ years after the facts. Despite its shortcomings, a lot of tank crews found their Sherman good enough ... and it helped win the war for us! Erwin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrejet Posted February 7, 2012 Author Share #22 Posted February 7, 2012 "What I am just saying is that this documentary could have been better made and didn't have to be so one-sided. I just watched it for the good footage (the second and third time I watched it). I just expected a better work from History Channel, that's all." I agree with you Erwin. That's why I said in my opening post that the pictures and words frequently didn't match up...not to mention mistaking Gen Bradley for Gen Patton... unforgivable! :pinch: Unfortunately, the makers of these low-budget documentaries use standard newsreel library film stock. If they want to show panzers advancing they just dial up a clip and edit it in. Now...as you and I both now...even though the documentary may be about the campaign in North-Western Europe, the clip, as often as not, will show snow camouflaged Pz IVs advancing on Moscow!! :w00t: It's just sloppy research by film editors who know nothing about the material they're editing...and which ultimately de-values the programme! :thumbdown: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Baker Posted February 7, 2012 Share #23 Posted February 7, 2012 I entirely concur with what you say Jim...I'm just the messenger...the views expressed in those video clips are those of the programme makers! The Sherman in all of its guises unquestionably contributed hugely to the ultimate allied victory. As has been already stated, it might have been technically "inferior" to the best German machines but it was reliable, available in large quantities and when used well tactically (with air support) cut a swathe through the German defences (eg Operation Cobra) I was reading an account of the British armoured advances on Caen quite recently. The German defenders were dug in and had their 88s zeroed in on the largely flat plain which the British tanks (mostly Shermans) had to cross. It was like shooting ducks in a barrel. Within hours the battlefield was littered with smouldering Shermans and overall losses were in the hundreds...but Monty wasn't too worried. Why? Because the British losses could be made good within a few days, whereas the German losses could not. In a war of attrition the Sherman was going to win hands down every time...much as the T34 did on the Eastern Front....but that's another story! Yes, good point. Many poor generals contributed to the unnecessary deaths of soldiers as much as the equipment. Maybe more so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrejet Posted February 7, 2012 Author Share #24 Posted February 7, 2012 As iconic a symbol of America's military as the P-51 and M-1 helmet! :salute: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrejet Posted February 7, 2012 Author Share #25 Posted February 7, 2012 This clip illustrates conditions inside a Sherman. (I think it's actually a Canadian-made Grizzly!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now