Jeeper704 Posted January 6, 2015 Share #51 Posted January 6, 2015 True, as they tried to combine existing models and convert them in order to make a more effective fighting vehicle. As for the tank destroyer branch, they even wanted to put a 90mm TD gun on an M18 chassis, the so-called "Super Hellcat". If I remember correctly, only one was built at the end of the war in Europe. It might have been a successful type of TD though. Erwin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garandomatic Posted January 6, 2015 Share #52 Posted January 6, 2015 Definitely. The M18, from what I have read, did pretty well against German armor and really did live up to the "shoot and scoot" idea. With a 90mm, man, SHOOT and scoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeper704 Posted January 6, 2015 Share #53 Posted January 6, 2015 My friend Harry, who was an M18 driver, was in a crew who had 17 kills. There are several reports of a handful M18s knocking off German armor with minimal (or no) losses of themselves. Erwin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garandomatic Posted January 6, 2015 Share #54 Posted January 6, 2015 Man, that is UNIMAGINABLE! 17 kills... I bet those were tense moments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatz50228 Posted January 7, 2015 Share #55 Posted January 7, 2015 I think the most important contribution of the M4 is its legacy that can still be seen today. The newest M1A2 SEPs have quick change power packs, and transmissions as well as improved ammunition storage. These design elements first came about with the Sherman and or its later variants. While the Sherman itself may not have been the most formidable tank, it possessed many important elements that are still used today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38Driver Posted January 7, 2015 Share #56 Posted January 7, 2015 Keep the Sherman in perspective. We'd hardly call the P-51 a failure, yet compared to the Me262 it was totally outclassed. But I'd take 1000 P-51s vs 100 262s any day of the week. In a war of numbers and attrition and for the type of on the move war the Allies wanted to fight, the Sherman did the job. It was be never meant to go one on one with Panthers and Tigers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeper704 Posted January 7, 2015 Share #57 Posted January 7, 2015 True. That is why the US Army had the Tank Destroyer branch and even they were not supposed to go one on one with enemy armor. Garandomatic; unfortunately, his M18 got destroyed by two Panthers in February 1945, killing most of the crew (one being his best friend) and badly wounding Harry. He was picked up by German medics. After recuperating from his wounds, he managed to escape and was found by American troops of another armored division. He wanted to rejoin the fight, but he was too badly beaten up to do so. Erwin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garandomatic Posted January 7, 2015 Share #58 Posted January 7, 2015 What a guy. Is he still around, or has he gone like so many of his generation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianS Posted January 7, 2015 Share #59 Posted January 7, 2015 "Late to this thread" as I just joined the forum. When the AAF separated into the Army and the Air Force, my Dad stayed with the Army and trained tank crews for Korea. The "stat" that I remember was the MTBF for the Sherman treads being 500miles and the Tiger being 50 miles. With the ME-262, "I've read" (but would have to go through a number of books to find) the MTBF was about 4 hours (I can find online 10hr MBTF) on the Jumo 004. A lot of them shot down by Mustangs trying to get home on one engine. I think in general, The Germans pushed the envelope for performance- maybe too far for the materials available, the American equipment was more reliable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeper704 Posted January 7, 2015 Share #60 Posted January 7, 2015 What a guy. Is he still around, or has he gone like so many of his generation? No, sadly enough he passed away in 2003. I did have contact with him in the 1980s and 1990s. He sort of became my "American grandfather" and good friend. Erwin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebissky Posted January 27, 2015 Share #61 Posted January 27, 2015 True, as they tried to combine existing models and convert them in order to make a more effective fighting vehicle. As for the tank destroyer branch, they even wanted to put a 90mm TD gun on an M18 chassis, the so-called "Super Hellcat". If I remember correctly, only one was built at the end of the war in Europe. It might have been a successful type of TD though. Erwin I just recently saw a photo of that. They took an M18 chassis and put a turret from an M36 Jackson on top, just to see what it would do. The war ended before they even finished testing it. Then they basically did away with TD's, and I have no idea if the thing still exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebissky Posted January 27, 2015 Share #62 Posted January 27, 2015 Keep the Sherman in perspective. We'd hardly call the P-51 a failure, yet compared to the Me262 it was totally outclassed. But I'd take 1000 P-51s vs 100 262s any day of the week. In a war of numbers and attrition and for the type of on the move war the Allies wanted to fight, the Sherman did the job. It was be never meant to go one on one with Panthers and Tigers. Not to put too fine a point on it, but several Tuskegee Airmen shot down ME262's in their "outclassed" P-51 Redtails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Baker Posted January 27, 2015 Share #63 Posted January 27, 2015 True, as they tried to combine existing models and convert them in order to make a more effective fighting vehicle. As for the tank destroyer branch, they even wanted to put a 90mm TD gun on an M18 chassis, the so-called "Super Hellcat". If I remember correctly, only one was built at the end of the war in Europe. It might have been a successful type of TD though. Erwin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Baker Posted January 27, 2015 Share #64 Posted January 27, 2015 Overhead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeper704 Posted January 28, 2015 Share #65 Posted January 28, 2015 Yep, that's the one! Imagine that going into battle. Erwin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebissky Posted January 28, 2015 Share #66 Posted January 28, 2015 I can't help but think it might have had the same "problem" as the Sheridan... too big a gun on too light a chassis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38Driver Posted January 29, 2015 Share #67 Posted January 29, 2015 Not to put too fine a point on it, but several Tuskegee Airmen shot down ME262's in their "outclassed" P-51 Redtails. That they did. And more than one Sherman killed Tigers and Panthers too. Just ask Michael Wittmann. The point of it all was the quantity outclassed the quality. In a war of attrition more is better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wharfmaster Posted January 29, 2015 Share #68 Posted January 29, 2015 Don't forget, Shermans were use effectively in the Pacific War. W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebissky Posted January 29, 2015 Share #69 Posted January 29, 2015 Also true. But the Japs didn't have Panthers or Tigers. I may be mistaken, but I think their best tanks were about equal to Pzkw IV's. And, they couldn't field them by the hundreds or thousands on small Pacific islands, and neither could we, so the odds were a lot more even. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeper704 Posted January 29, 2015 Share #70 Posted January 29, 2015 Please keep in mind that originally the Sherman was developed as an answer to Germany's Panzer III and IV. Not as an answer to the Panther and - later - the Tiger. Most people tend to forget this. Wittman's Tiger was knocked out by British Fireflies. And contrary to what most believe - or want to believe - Wittman was NOT alone. There were at least two other Tigers present. He might have been an excellent tank commander, but he was not superman ..... Erwin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebissky Posted January 30, 2015 Share #71 Posted January 30, 2015 He might have been an excellent tank commander, but he was not superman ..... And the Tiger 1 was not a supertank. But until the Brits fielded the Firefly, and the Russians brought out the T34/85, and WE finally got those first 20 Pershings, it was close enough for government work. And even most other Tiger crews didn't run up a count of almost 200 kills each, on two different fronts. If they all could've done, we might have been in deeper doodoo than we were. Besides, technically it could be argued that his GUNNER was the one who racked up those kills... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soggy Posted March 17, 2015 Share #72 Posted March 17, 2015 And the Tiger 1 was not a supertank. But until the Brits fielded the Firefly, and the Russians brought out the T34/85, and WE finally got those first 20 Pershings, it was close enough for government work. The 76mm M1A1's anti-armor performance was superior to that of the Soviet 85mm, even with the regular APC ammunition. With T4 HVAP ammunition, it rivalled the 17-pounder, and was more accurate as well. The 90mm M3 gun was field well before the Pershing, with the Sherman-based M36 tank destroyer. 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