The only really serious flaw the Sherman had IMO, was its almost cartoonishly tall and chubby profile.
#4520762 - 05/13/2005:26 PMRe: Two Panthers take on 21 Shermans
[Re: Nixer]
Joined: Apr 2001 Posts: 121,483PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
King Crimson - SimHQ's Top Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,483
Miami, FL USA
At least the Sherman was much roomier and comfortable for the crew compared to the T-34!
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
The only really serious flaw the Sherman had IMO, was its almost cartoonishly tall and chubby profile.
While you are correct I also suspect that in the overwhelming majority (75%+) of tactical situations the Sherman would be at no disadvantage to the only slightly lower T-34 pictured.
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
While you are correct I also suspect that in the overwhelming majority (75%+) of tactical situations the Sherman would be at no disadvantage to the only slightly lower T-34 pictured.
A smaller silhouette made a big difference in AT gun hit probability at the time.
Yeah, the T-34 is not vastly smaller, but you're still going to have shells missing or grazing it that would have struck a Sherman squarely.
Its not for nothing that the Soviets, with all their armored warfare experience, made a low profile such a high priority through their next 3 generations of tank designs.
Its not for nothing that the Soviets, with all their armored warfare experience, made a low profile such a high priority through their next 3 generations of tank designs.
All of which (T-54, T-62, T-72) were, IMO, inferior to taller western tanks (M48/M60, M1, Centurion, Chieftain)
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
#4520801 - 05/13/2010:35 PMRe: Two Panthers take on 21 Shermans
[Re: Nixer]
Joined: Nov 2001 Posts: 24,074oldgrognard Administrator
The Sherman was a bit tall and slabsided. But what surprised me when I was at Aberdeen Maryland, was the size of the Panther. I expected the Tiger, but the size of the Panther surprised me.
Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
Someday your life will flash in front of your eyes. Make sure it is worth watching.
#4520806 - 05/13/2011:48 PMRe: Two Panthers take on 21 Shermans
[Re: Nixer]
Joined: Mar 2001 Posts: 17,301Nixer
Scaliwag and Survivor
ANYONE who has trained/lived to fight a tank knows that hull down is king.
Sherman vs anything hull down...
Yeah, dig a deeper hole, but in combat, in the maneuver battle, it's a 30% bigger target. Just a fact.
I am really skeptical/wondering about the stories of Sherman crews surviving catastrophic hits. Gasoline blows up REAL Good.
Censored
Look for me on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook or Tic Toc...or anywhere you may frequent, besides SimHq, on the Global Scam Net. Aka, the internet. I am not there, never have been or ever will be, but the fruitless search may be more gratifying then the "content" you might otherwise be exposed to.
"There's a sucker born every minute." Phineas Taylor Barnum
#4520811 - 05/14/2001:34 AMRe: Two Panthers take on 21 Shermans
[Re: Nixer]
Yeah, dig a deeper hole, but in combat, in the maneuver battle, it's a 30% bigger target. Just a fact.
30% bigger would be very significant, but it's just not so:
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
#4520812 - 05/14/2001:48 AMRe: Two Panthers take on 21 Shermans
[Re: Nixer]
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
#4520813 - 05/14/2002:17 AMRe: Two Panthers take on 21 Shermans
[Re: Nixer]
It seems that the Sherman appears to be so much higher because it's narrower.
"From our orbital vantage point, we observe an earth without borders, full of peace, beauty and magnificence, and we pray that humanity as a whole can imagine a borderless world as we see it, and strive to live as one in peace." Astronaut William C. McCool RIP, January 29, 2003 - Space Shuttle Columbia
#4520815 - 05/14/2002:52 AMRe: Two Panthers take on 21 Shermans
[Re: Pooch]
It seems that the Sherman appears to be so much higher because it's narrower.
Making its overall silhouette smaller than if it both were taller and wider. It's also a bit shorter in length. In terms of square feet of area viewed from the front or side I suspect, but have not done the math to confirm, that the Sherman is less than 10% larger than the T-34.
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
All of which (T-54, T-62, T-72) were, IMO, inferior to taller western tanks (M48/M60, M1, Centurion, Chieftain)
NATO tanks didn't really become qualitatively superior until the '80s.
Originally Posted by F4UDash4
Originally Posted by Pooch
It seems that the Sherman appears to be so much higher because it's narrower.
Making its overall silhouette smaller than if it both were taller and wider. It's also a bit shorter in length. In terms of square feet of area viewed from the front or side I suspect, but have not done the math to confirm, that the Sherman is less than 10% larger than the T-34.
Every little bit helps, especially height wise, when you're dealing with low powered WW2 tank optics with crude range finding capabilities and AP ammo that has very poor external ballistics by modern standards.
All of which (T-54, T-62, T-72) were, IMO, inferior to taller western tanks (M48/M60, M1, Centurion, Chieftain)
NATO tanks didn't really become qualitatively superior until the '80s.
Wherever the opposing sides respective sides tanks met in the 50's, 60's and 70's whether in the middle east or elsewhere the western tanks came out on top. Of course crew quality plays a big role but still the results were telling IMO.
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
All of which (T-54, T-62, T-72) were, IMO, inferior to taller western tanks (M48/M60, M1, Centurion, Chieftain)
NATO tanks didn't really become qualitatively superior until the '80s.
Wherever the opposing sides respective sides tanks met in the 50's, 60's and 70's whether in the middle east or elsewhere the western tanks came out on top. Of course crew quality plays a big role but still the results were telling IMO.
bolded, that is the rub, and tactics. Soviet tanks also had a problem with depression of the gun barrel which hurt then in hull down position.
There was only 16 squadrons of RAF fighters that used 100 octane during the BoB. The Fw190A could not fly with the outer cannon removed. There was no Fw190A-8s flying with the JGs in 1945.
Wherever the opposing sides respective sides tanks met in the 50's, 60's and 70's whether in the middle east or elsewhere the western tanks came out on top. Of course crew quality plays a big role but still the results were telling IMO.
Mostly because Arabs, although India seemed to do well with its T-55s against Pakistani M48s in their 1971 war.
And the North Vietnamese ultimately did OK with their T-55s.
Regardless, none of these conflicts involved anyone with the resources and armored warfare experience of the Soviets.
Let's not forget, no matter how 'good' a tank is supposed to be, there is also the matter of it's crew, and how proficient they are coupled with morale...
sorry for the thread ressurection but I just rewatched this-
Look for me on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook or Tic Toc...or anywhere you may frequent, besides SimHq, on the Global Scam Net. Aka, the internet. I am not there, never have been or ever will be, but the fruitless search may be more gratifying then the "content" you might otherwise be exposed to.
"There's a sucker born every minute." Phineas Taylor Barnum
Wherever the opposing sides respective sides tanks met in the 50's, 60's and 70's whether in the middle east or elsewhere the western tanks came out on top. Of course crew quality plays a big role but still the results were telling IMO.
Mostly because Arabs, although India seemed to do well with its T-55s against Pakistani M48s in their 1971 war.
Another videos at Felton production, you gotta wonder what the US and its allies did with all those recovered gold, platinum, silver, jewelry, precious stones they found that were hidden by Japan and Germany.
Today there are still ton of treasures hidden by Japan and Germany waiting to be found. Is it finders keepers?