>welded hull Sherman
Not even a little. Cast hull Sherman's had few complaints, but by the time they were welding the hulls they had become quite refined
once in north africa, an M4 sherman took out 3 tigers in as many minutes
https://i.imgur.com/fzwR1FE.jpg
Americans unironically sent these against german tanks and expected them to survive
light tanks were in their own light tank company and were mostly used as flanking, screening, and cavalry units on the attack
they were actually instrumental in overcoming german armored attacks because they often robbed enemy attacks of surprise and allowed medium tank companies to take defensive posture when light tanks reported enemy armor in the area
this is one of the many reasons that the independant panzer brigades failed in the west, despite being highly effective on the east, increased flank security from light tanks made it harder to press more aggressive tactics that the fresher, younger, officers in the brigades tended to use
The first tiger was knocked out by a 6pdr 57mm armed Churchill. They were not invincible, and ultimately they were mostly irrelevant. Outside of a few major showings like Caen heavy German armor was usually simply too few in number to matter on an operational level. Until 1944 the most common German tank the was a Panzer III followed by a Panzer IV. In 1944 Panthers and Panzer IVs were encountered in fairly similar numbers. Panzer IIIs were pulled out of frontline duty where possible after Kursk.
Panzer III is heckin' cute and was actually a great take limited only by its turret ring. A pz3 with a squeeze bore 75mm would have been dope (this was apparently planned but never pursued due to lack of strategic materials)
He is right going off of *hulls*, he conveniently forgets that the reports of hull numbers =/= tank numbers, because the hulls were used to build assault guns/tank destroyers. Most Panzer III hulls went towards building StUGs.
No. The panzer III was the most common tank of any type the Germans had until 1944. It made up a majority of the armor seen in North Africa, Russia from barbs Russia to Kursk, and played a significant part in the early war in general although Germany was mostly fielding Panzer Is and IIs in 1939 and had more IIs than IIIs in 1940. The panzer III was not a bad tank, it’s not a indictment of it, it’s a refutation of the idea the Sherman sucked because tigers existed. Because statistically, they didn’t. A Sherman would encounter ten Panzer IIIs a dozen StuGs and ten panzer IVs before they ever saw a Tiger. This was why the 76mm was as not put into mass production in 1943. They didn’t think they needed it on Shermans, because the only time the 75 wasn’t enough was the extremely rare instance of a tiger brigade showing up which was easy enough to suppress with artillery and outflank. And what made them panic and start mass producing the 76 wasn’t the tiger but the fact the Germans had way more Panthers than they thought. Allied intelligence assumed panthers would be as rare as tigers, and in Italy they were hence the confusion. But half of the armor sent to Normandy was panthers and a significant concentration of tigers and even a few king tigers showed up too, with the panzer IIs and IIIs nowhere to be found and every Panzer IV and StuG a long 75 up armored hull. That’s when the shortcomings of the 75mm was felt. In 1944 in Normandy, five years after it was designed, four years after the Sherman was built and three years after it saw combat.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
Slight nitpick, but there never was such a thing as a Tiger brigade. German heavies operated in independent battalions only, the sole exception being the single organic heavy tank battalion the Grossdeutschland division had for a time.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
Yeah you’re right I used the wrong b word haha. A brigade is made up of multiple battalions, for anyone unsure of the exact reason as to why this matters. Tiger battalions were powerful forces, but because they were just a battalion, made up of a few companies, their ability to affect the battlefield was seriously limited and it was standard doctrine to simply isolate and go around heavy tank concentrations. By 1944 starting strength for a heavy tank battalion was 45 tanks. So yeah, thanks for the correction, and to anyone wondering why the tiger was so good and yet Germany still lost almost every major tank engagement with the US in Normandy, this is why.
>CopyPaste x30
Now here's your tank to take on the 5 Tigers (2 Tigers, 1 has a gearbox failure, the other two have just broken down) 4 Panthers (3 1 got destroyed by USAA) and 12 IVs (8 actually 2 threw a track, 2 were swatted by Hurricanes)
When these were deployed they were going up against mostly Italian light tanks and light assault guns, and Panzer IIs and IIIs with the short 50mm barrel (some still had 37mm guns), and the panzer IV didn’t have an anti tank long 75 it was still a short barreled assault gun. Same with the Sherman actually. The Stuart was analogous to the panzer III in how it was used, and roughly when it was moved away from frontline combat roles and into recon and support, though actually sooner than the III for the simple fact that the Americans were able to make enough M4s that they no longer needed to rely on light tanks for armored formations by 1942.
>. The Stuart was analogous to the panzer III in how it was used, and roughly when it was moved away from frontline combat roles and into recon and support
panzer III was always meant to be a frontline tank, the stuart was closer to how the panzer II was deployed after 1942
each tank company had 3 panzer III platoons and a panzer II platoon for recon
which corresponds to how an armored company in the US works, with 3 medium tank platoons of M4s and a light tank platoon with stuarts
and the stuart was mostly used for recon and flank security, also like the II, whereas the III was a maneuver weapon, like the M4
In North Africa before they M4 and better British upgrades of their cruiser tanks light tanks like the Stuarts were the maneuver element as much as any other tank. Though yes you are right that it’s perhaps a bit closer to the II overall. My point was that when the Stuart was first used it wasn’t that much different from a panzer III, and quite superior to a panzer II in many respects. It performed a stopgap role in many of the early war tank battles as being a frontline tank, and its failures in them was typically more a problem with British strategy and tactical failings as they learned how to do that whole “desert maneuver warfare” thing especially when your enemy has heavy 88mm field guns that can punch a hole through any tank in the world at 3 miles and has the visibility to let it do exactly that.
There were even a few instances of them being sent out ironically
"Humor is a morale booster. It can replace an entire meal of the week. And a scene of a 'Little Tank that could' storming out was quite funny, so that was decided upon", an officer remarked in a post-war autobiography.
Thanks man. I'd love to drive the most reliable tank with the best crew comfort of the entire war. Since we got a shitton of Air Force and arty it'll be nice to have them deal with most enemy tanks.
>air force and arty
This in and of itself is always the killer. The Americans had more tanks, food, ammunition, airplanes, artillery prices, and experienced personnel than them Germans all the way from D-Day toV-Day.
American planes would strafe a German “tank” and it would catch fire, Germans towed extra fuel in a trailer and that’s what could of burned or the vehicle wasn’t a tank and burned
Even more bro: >Constantly high build quality thanks to being made in THE automobile industry nation of the world >Small and light enough to be shipped over the oceans in vast numbers. No matter which theater of war you cannot walk a mile without seeing a sherman >Tons of upgrade potential as seen with the M-51 Super Sherman. >Lots of variants but huge parts commonality which makes repair and maintenance easy.
The Sherman wasn't a cutting edge tank but it sure was the highest quality, most comortable and available tank of the war.
Plus the western allies always had enough arty and air power at hand to deal with everything that was too hard a target for a sherman unit.
>roughly half of all german AFVs in normandy were panthers >still got routinely btfo because a long pencil dick barrel and shitty HE is not good for hedgerow country and tank on tank combat was a fluke eastern front meme >gets BTFO the few times it ran up against american TDs being used as they were intended and the one time it fought a pershing >French analysis of the panther after the war (they inherited thousands for their military) had some good things to say but was ultimately a scathing condemnation for both the major issues everyone knows about and lots of smaller flaws that added up
Vgh… Perfect German engineering…
>infantry support model
That's the 105mm. Base 75mm Sherman is a workhorse medium tank meant to do all workhorse medium tank jobs. Infantry support, exploitation and fighting enemy armor.
Because the Sherman needed to operate away from any major repair facility or factory that would literally be an entire ocean away. So on Shermans anything that couldn't be easily repaired in the field was made nearly indestructible. If it could be repaired was made comically easy to repair. For example, the transmission on a Sherman was held onto the front of the tank with ~20 bolts and was treated as a module or pack. As such an experienced mechanic and assistant with no major tools or provisions needed could replace a transmission on a Sherman in less than 30 minutes. Compare this to lets say a Pz IV or Panther where the transmission was buried inside the tank which necessitated the removal of the turret, most of the interior of the tank and required several mechanics and the tank crew itself, plus a crane and other significant tools to replace the transmission in a period that took ~a day.
The tl;dr is Germans brought a paper Tiger if you will. The Americans brought the best tank that could actually make it to the fight.
Either only refers to the earliest generations (specially the infamous Porsche Tiger), or you are just spouting the most tired War Thunder community and YT historytuber memes.
Ehh, kinda sorta. The Panther was dogshit at first, but they more or less fixed it, though too late for it to really matter.
Tiger was fine on the reliability front, there just wasn’t enough of them to make a difference. It was the Tiger II and the various stupid tank destroyers that had constantly grenadine gearboxes
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
The main issue with tigers wasn’t their reliability but their spare parts. The Germans only machined one set of spare parts per tank hull. The Americans made eight sets of spare parts per tank hull and basically everything shared parts commonality so those extra spares could also go to assault guns and mobile artillery and tank destroyers and even supply vehicles and vice versa. The Sherman didn’t break down that much less than most other tanks, but it was much faster to repair and there were always parts to repair it with. Most German tanks in good times had a readiness rate of 60-80% once combat started. In the worst cases like panthers at Kursk and Ferdinands that would drop to 40% territory and also in 45 readiness rates tanked for obvious reasons. Meanwhile Shermans legitimately had readiness rates above 95%, even regularly achieving 100% because if it broke it could be fixed in minutes to hours in the field with parts everyone had and if a tiger broke it would have to be towed into a specialist shop with heavy cranes and they would have to find or in some cases, actually steal parts to get the tiger working again. It might take three days to get a tiger back to the frontlines under optimal circumstances after a breakdown. It would take a Sherman three hours.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
To clarify the spare parts thing. That’s from the production factories themselves. The Germans did have some plants making extra spares, obviously, they had to, and even eight sets of spares isn’t enough for a Sherman if you’re fighting with it for four years. That’s what would be sent along with the Sherman or tiger as it was sent to the frontline motor pool. It wasn’t unheard of for allied mechanics to steal parts, not all spares are going to be needed at an equal rate and some were produced less often because the part would in theory last longer and need replacing less often so a sight would be made less often than something like a tread or floodlight would. So yeah sometimes mechanics would have to borrow something from inventory or another crew to get a tank fighting capable again even if it’s just to avoid some paperwork or waiting around for some pog to check off. For the Germans stealing parts was endemic. Motor pools would steal from each other so much, one memoir I read claimed the same transmission was stolen three times after they managed to get it back twice. Had the Germans simply made more spares Herman readiness rates would have been much better. But it all just comes down to the fact that German industry was not sufficient in raw materials or capacity to win ww2. They could choose between more hulls or more spare parts. They chose more hulls and making more spares might have cut down on hulls in a much bigger way than one might guess. Would it probably have been smarter to at least do two sets of spares if not three? Sure. But they were desperate and they didn’t. The German economy as much as their strategy relied on short fast wars before the lack of spares became a problem. That worked in Yugoslavia Belgium Denmark Norway Poland France Greece and at first it was even working in Russia and North Africa. But then suddenly it was 1942 and the war still wasn’t over as it turned into 1943. And by then it was too late.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
To clarify the spare parts thing. That’s from the production factories themselves. The Germans did have some plants making extra spares, obviously, they had to, and even eight sets of spares isn’t enough for a Sherman if you’re fighting with it for four years. That’s what would be sent along with the Sherman or tiger as it was sent to the frontline motor pool. It wasn’t unheard of for allied mechanics to steal parts, not all spares are going to be needed at an equal rate and some were produced less often because the part would in theory last longer and need replacing less often so a sight would be made less often than something like a tread or floodlight would. So yeah sometimes mechanics would have to borrow something from inventory or another crew to get a tank fighting capable again even if it’s just to avoid some paperwork or waiting around for some pog to check off. For the Germans stealing parts was endemic. Motor pools would steal from each other so much, one memoir I read claimed the same transmission was stolen three times after they managed to get it back twice. Had the Germans simply made more spares Herman readiness rates would have been much better. But it all just comes down to the fact that German industry was not sufficient in raw materials or capacity to win ww2. They could choose between more hulls or more spare parts. They chose more hulls and making more spares might have cut down on hulls in a much bigger way than one might guess. Would it probably have been smarter to at least do two sets of spares if not three? Sure. But they were desperate and they didn’t. The German economy as much as their strategy relied on short fast wars before the lack of spares became a problem. That worked in Yugoslavia Belgium Denmark Norway Poland France Greece and at first it was even working in Russia and North Africa. But then suddenly it was 1942 and the war still wasn’t over as it turned into 1943. And by then it was too late.
>They fight for land, power, because a king leads them, or just because they like killing. But we are here for something new, this has not happened much, in the history of the world. We are an army out to set other men free. With tanks.
I really hope some day yall get to see tanks in person. I've been privileged enough to sit in and sometimes operate dozens of tanks and armored vehicles from ww1 and ww2 and it's life changing. Maybe there would be less bait threads if there was more access to these vehicles for the common people.
Germany pretty much stopped with the self-flagellation around 2013-2014ish. I just haven't noticed it particularly anymore (though I am just a German-speaker, not German himself).
There wasn't as special cause, besides maybe a lot of 68er intelligentsia retiring during the 2010s
(68er = something like woke hippies).
Yeah; Germany really just feels like everyone no longer hates themselves; it's incredible
I met this German train autist/wehraboo in at Bovington and he was completely unapologetic about his love of kraut shit
>IV Hs
That Sherman would be perfectly capable of defeating one of those 1v1, depends on which tank crew notices their opponent and at what range. Against a Sherman with the 76mm gun such as the Easy 8, pretty much any Pz IV variant would be outmatched, at least to some degree.
Here are three of these for every enemy tank you encounter; good luck! >it's just a numbers game >all three tanks rush >one tank gets hit >hope it's not yours >this time >cheaper to replace entire tank >than repair damaged tank >so build tank cheap >build tank not for tactics >build tank not for strategies >build tank solely for logistics >build tank that can fit inside plane >fly entire army across the ocean >factories at home churn out more tanks >tanks tanks tanks tanks tanks >spam tanks >spam min-maxxed tanks >spam cost-effective tanks >spam optimally cheap tanks
M4 Sherman truly is a marvel of the Military Industrial Complex.
I heard that the U.S. Ordnance Department was aware of the Sherman being a 'Tommy Cooker', and attempted to implement various measures to address this issue. The design team was led by Sheldon Rosenstein, a convicted child-beater, arsonist, and avid necrophiliac. Sheldon was reportedly pen-pals with Shiro Ishii, and Oskar Dirlewanger. When questioned about these letters outgoing to hostile countries, Sheldon replied that he was merely exchanging 'tips and tricks'. Sheldon's team designed a mechanism that would lock the crew hatches shut, thus trapping the crew, when smoke was detected inside the sherman after being penetrated and set alight. Not only that, but apparently there was also a following feature that was a re-take on the Brazen Bull. When the crew was burning to death, their screams would be amplified by speakers that projected outside the tank. The U.S. Ordnance Department justified these features by proclaiming that the Germans would be frightened by the hellish screams of the sherman crews being incinerated, and allied soldiers would be more motivated to fight hard, lest the same fate befall them. Sheldon also later devised a system that had a 1 in 59 chance of setting off an explosive charge in the ammunition storage every time the Sherman's engine was turned on. Supposedly, this was to 'test the crew's luck before battle'. This innovation was well-received by the U.S. Army, but was rejected for budgetary reasons. Upon receiving news of the Army's rejection, Sheldon bludgeoned his manservant to death with a fire iron in a fit of unstoppable rage. Years after the war, Sheldon tragically died in a fire, which he had started in a New York orphanage.
heck'n cute and valid
You need more gun
>tank crews hated this POS
it is pretty though
>>tank crews hated this POS
Literally wehrdick sucker fanfiction.
>welded hull Sherman
Not even a little. Cast hull Sherman's had few complaints, but by the time they were welding the hulls they had become quite refined
Wasn't there a 75mm Sherman that took out a tiger?
once in north africa, an M4 sherman took out 3 tigers in as many minutes
light tanks were in their own light tank company and were mostly used as flanking, screening, and cavalry units on the attack
they were actually instrumental in overcoming german armored attacks because they often robbed enemy attacks of surprise and allowed medium tank companies to take defensive posture when light tanks reported enemy armor in the area
this is one of the many reasons that the independant panzer brigades failed in the west, despite being highly effective on the east, increased flank security from light tanks made it harder to press more aggressive tactics that the fresher, younger, officers in the brigades tended to use
The first tiger was knocked out by a 6pdr 57mm armed Churchill. They were not invincible, and ultimately they were mostly irrelevant. Outside of a few major showings like Caen heavy German armor was usually simply too few in number to matter on an operational level. Until 1944 the most common German tank the was a Panzer III followed by a Panzer IV. In 1944 Panthers and Panzer IVs were encountered in fairly similar numbers. Panzer IIIs were pulled out of frontline duty where possible after Kursk.
>Until 1944 the most common German tank the was a Panzer III followed by a Panzer IV.
Lying cunt.
He's entirely right, though.
By the end of 1943 Panzer III manufacturing ended, with a total of 5774 hulls finished. (This only counts Panzer IIIs, not StuGs.)
At the same time, 5009 Panzer IV hulls had finished production. Another ~3500-3600 would be built before the war ended.
Panzer III is heckin' cute and was actually a great take limited only by its turret ring. A pz3 with a squeeze bore 75mm would have been dope (this was apparently planned but never pursued due to lack of strategic materials)
He is right going off of *hulls*, he conveniently forgets that the reports of hull numbers =/= tank numbers, because the hulls were used to build assault guns/tank destroyers. Most Panzer III hulls went towards building StUGs.
The figure of 5774 Panzer IIIs built EXPLICITLY doesn't count StuGs. Only Panzer III A-N models (including command tanks) and Flammpanzer III.
No. The panzer III was the most common tank of any type the Germans had until 1944. It made up a majority of the armor seen in North Africa, Russia from barbs Russia to Kursk, and played a significant part in the early war in general although Germany was mostly fielding Panzer Is and IIs in 1939 and had more IIs than IIIs in 1940. The panzer III was not a bad tank, it’s not a indictment of it, it’s a refutation of the idea the Sherman sucked because tigers existed. Because statistically, they didn’t. A Sherman would encounter ten Panzer IIIs a dozen StuGs and ten panzer IVs before they ever saw a Tiger. This was why the 76mm was as not put into mass production in 1943. They didn’t think they needed it on Shermans, because the only time the 75 wasn’t enough was the extremely rare instance of a tiger brigade showing up which was easy enough to suppress with artillery and outflank. And what made them panic and start mass producing the 76 wasn’t the tiger but the fact the Germans had way more Panthers than they thought. Allied intelligence assumed panthers would be as rare as tigers, and in Italy they were hence the confusion. But half of the armor sent to Normandy was panthers and a significant concentration of tigers and even a few king tigers showed up too, with the panzer IIs and IIIs nowhere to be found and every Panzer IV and StuG a long 75 up armored hull. That’s when the shortcomings of the 75mm was felt. In 1944 in Normandy, five years after it was designed, four years after the Sherman was built and three years after it saw combat.
Slight nitpick, but there never was such a thing as a Tiger brigade. German heavies operated in independent battalions only, the sole exception being the single organic heavy tank battalion the Grossdeutschland division had for a time.
Yeah you’re right I used the wrong b word haha. A brigade is made up of multiple battalions, for anyone unsure of the exact reason as to why this matters. Tiger battalions were powerful forces, but because they were just a battalion, made up of a few companies, their ability to affect the battlefield was seriously limited and it was standard doctrine to simply isolate and go around heavy tank concentrations. By 1944 starting strength for a heavy tank battalion was 45 tanks. So yeah, thanks for the correction, and to anyone wondering why the tiger was so good and yet Germany still lost almost every major tank engagement with the US in Normandy, this is why.
>reading comprehension
>CopyPaste x30
Now here's your tank to take on the 5 Tigers (2 Tigers, 1 has a gearbox failure, the other two have just broken down) 4 Panthers (3 1 got destroyed by USAA) and 12 IVs (8 actually 2 threw a track, 2 were swatted by Hurricanes)
>wins war
gg ez no re
The Sherman beat that army.
na breh that's a job for the air force rt or tds
>retarded low quality tank bait thread
My we sure needed more brain dead posts didn't we?
Wilfred Harris wuz here, all turd worlders, germans and panther tanks can suck a dick lmao
Now post the other hundred per Tiger you'll have to face and we'll see who's outgunned
Americans unironically sent these against german tanks and expected them to survive
That right there would defeat a Panzer 1 and Panzer 2 easily
Also
>British Army
How do I know you're a tourist?
When these were deployed they were going up against mostly Italian light tanks and light assault guns, and Panzer IIs and IIIs with the short 50mm barrel (some still had 37mm guns), and the panzer IV didn’t have an anti tank long 75 it was still a short barreled assault gun. Same with the Sherman actually. The Stuart was analogous to the panzer III in how it was used, and roughly when it was moved away from frontline combat roles and into recon and support, though actually sooner than the III for the simple fact that the Americans were able to make enough M4s that they no longer needed to rely on light tanks for armored formations by 1942.
>. The Stuart was analogous to the panzer III in how it was used, and roughly when it was moved away from frontline combat roles and into recon and support
panzer III was always meant to be a frontline tank, the stuart was closer to how the panzer II was deployed after 1942
each tank company had 3 panzer III platoons and a panzer II platoon for recon
which corresponds to how an armored company in the US works, with 3 medium tank platoons of M4s and a light tank platoon with stuarts
and the stuart was mostly used for recon and flank security, also like the II, whereas the III was a maneuver weapon, like the M4
In North Africa before they M4 and better British upgrades of their cruiser tanks light tanks like the Stuarts were the maneuver element as much as any other tank. Though yes you are right that it’s perhaps a bit closer to the II overall. My point was that when the Stuart was first used it wasn’t that much different from a panzer III, and quite superior to a panzer II in many respects. It performed a stopgap role in many of the early war tank battles as being a frontline tank, and its failures in them was typically more a problem with British strategy and tactical failings as they learned how to do that whole “desert maneuver warfare” thing especially when your enemy has heavy 88mm field guns that can punch a hole through any tank in the world at 3 miles and has the visibility to let it do exactly that.
There were even a few instances of them being sent out ironically
"Humor is a morale booster. It can replace an entire meal of the week. And a scene of a 'Little Tank that could' storming out was quite funny, so that was decided upon", an officer remarked in a post-war autobiography.
Thanks man. I'd love to drive the most reliable tank with the best crew comfort of the entire war. Since we got a shitton of Air Force and arty it'll be nice to have them deal with most enemy tanks.
>air force and arty
This in and of itself is always the killer. The Americans had more tanks, food, ammunition, airplanes, artillery prices, and experienced personnel than them Germans all the way from D-Day toV-Day.
Go back to making dragon dildos chang, your break is over
Let me guess, you need more to kill German tanks that have broken down and have no fuel?
>spots a kraut halftrack
AAAAAAAH TIGERS IN THE TREELINE!!!!!
AIEEE THUNDERBOLT SAVE ME
>bounces 50 cals off the ground into the tigers belly, destroying it
Heh......nothing presonell.....kid
>one of 350 or so Curtiss-Wright built thunderbolts
Cool pic
Wtf kinda fuddlore is this?
Exactly that, fuddlore.
American planes would strafe a German “tank” and it would catch fire, Germans towed extra fuel in a trailer and that’s what could of burned or the vehicle wasn’t a tank and burned
Pilots made shit up
Everything was potentially a 'tiger tank' to the allies fighting in europe. No fighting arm was immune.
*dies*
>drives for ages without proper maintenance, still works after Panthers have caught fire and Tigers have broken every bridge they've tried to cross
Even more bro:
>Constantly high build quality thanks to being made in THE automobile industry nation of the world
>Small and light enough to be shipped over the oceans in vast numbers. No matter which theater of war you cannot walk a mile without seeing a sherman
>Tons of upgrade potential as seen with the M-51 Super Sherman.
>Lots of variants but huge parts commonality which makes repair and maintenance easy.
The Sherman wasn't a cutting edge tank but it sure was the highest quality, most comortable and available tank of the war.
Plus the western allies always had enough arty and air power at hand to deal with everything that was too hard a target for a sherman unit.
>roughly half of all german AFVs in normandy were panthers
>still got routinely btfo because a long pencil dick barrel and shitty HE is not good for hedgerow country and tank on tank combat was a fluke eastern front meme
>gets BTFO the few times it ran up against american TDs being used as they were intended and the one time it fought a pershing
>French analysis of the panther after the war (they inherited thousands for their military) had some good things to say but was ultimately a scathing condemnation for both the major issues everyone knows about and lots of smaller flaws that added up
Vgh… Perfect German engineering…
Thanks bro, perfect for combined arms.
>be german
>drive slow cumbersome tiger through the forest
>20 of these show up and attack you from all sides
Nothing personal
>have enough spare industry to build turreted armor
>call it "tank destroyer"
Goddamn yanks
What's wrong with that
nope: this is base infantry support model - firefly was designated AT
>infantry support model
That's the 105mm. Base 75mm Sherman is a workhorse medium tank meant to do all workhorse medium tank jobs. Infantry support, exploitation and fighting enemy armor.
Germany lost.
Because the Sherman needed to operate away from any major repair facility or factory that would literally be an entire ocean away. So on Shermans anything that couldn't be easily repaired in the field was made nearly indestructible. If it could be repaired was made comically easy to repair. For example, the transmission on a Sherman was held onto the front of the tank with ~20 bolts and was treated as a module or pack. As such an experienced mechanic and assistant with no major tools or provisions needed could replace a transmission on a Sherman in less than 30 minutes. Compare this to lets say a Pz IV or Panther where the transmission was buried inside the tank which necessitated the removal of the turret, most of the interior of the tank and required several mechanics and the tank crew itself, plus a crane and other significant tools to replace the transmission in a period that took ~a day.
The tl;dr is Germans brought a paper Tiger if you will. The Americans brought the best tank that could actually make it to the fight.
Doesnt really matter how easy its transmission is to repair if it gets blown up without being able to fight back.
Good thing it doesn't then
You are apparently unaware of how much the Tiger and Panther tanks were unreliable pieces of shit.
Either only refers to the earliest generations (specially the infamous Porsche Tiger), or you are just spouting the most tired War Thunder community and YT historytuber memes.
Last I checked we aren't all speaking German. So I have a feeling I am right.
Ehh, kinda sorta. The Panther was dogshit at first, but they more or less fixed it, though too late for it to really matter.
Tiger was fine on the reliability front, there just wasn’t enough of them to make a difference. It was the Tiger II and the various stupid tank destroyers that had constantly grenadine gearboxes
The main issue with tigers wasn’t their reliability but their spare parts. The Germans only machined one set of spare parts per tank hull. The Americans made eight sets of spare parts per tank hull and basically everything shared parts commonality so those extra spares could also go to assault guns and mobile artillery and tank destroyers and even supply vehicles and vice versa. The Sherman didn’t break down that much less than most other tanks, but it was much faster to repair and there were always parts to repair it with. Most German tanks in good times had a readiness rate of 60-80% once combat started. In the worst cases like panthers at Kursk and Ferdinands that would drop to 40% territory and also in 45 readiness rates tanked for obvious reasons. Meanwhile Shermans legitimately had readiness rates above 95%, even regularly achieving 100% because if it broke it could be fixed in minutes to hours in the field with parts everyone had and if a tiger broke it would have to be towed into a specialist shop with heavy cranes and they would have to find or in some cases, actually steal parts to get the tiger working again. It might take three days to get a tiger back to the frontlines under optimal circumstances after a breakdown. It would take a Sherman three hours.
To clarify the spare parts thing. That’s from the production factories themselves. The Germans did have some plants making extra spares, obviously, they had to, and even eight sets of spares isn’t enough for a Sherman if you’re fighting with it for four years. That’s what would be sent along with the Sherman or tiger as it was sent to the frontline motor pool. It wasn’t unheard of for allied mechanics to steal parts, not all spares are going to be needed at an equal rate and some were produced less often because the part would in theory last longer and need replacing less often so a sight would be made less often than something like a tread or floodlight would. So yeah sometimes mechanics would have to borrow something from inventory or another crew to get a tank fighting capable again even if it’s just to avoid some paperwork or waiting around for some pog to check off. For the Germans stealing parts was endemic. Motor pools would steal from each other so much, one memoir I read claimed the same transmission was stolen three times after they managed to get it back twice. Had the Germans simply made more spares Herman readiness rates would have been much better. But it all just comes down to the fact that German industry was not sufficient in raw materials or capacity to win ww2. They could choose between more hulls or more spare parts. They chose more hulls and making more spares might have cut down on hulls in a much bigger way than one might guess. Would it probably have been smarter to at least do two sets of spares if not three? Sure. But they were desperate and they didn’t. The German economy as much as their strategy relied on short fast wars before the lack of spares became a problem. That worked in Yugoslavia Belgium Denmark Norway Poland France Greece and at first it was even working in Russia and North Africa. But then suddenly it was 1942 and the war still wasn’t over as it turned into 1943. And by then it was too late.
Intredasting and mathematical insight
THE SHERMAN IS THE REASON YOU ARE FREE TO POST IN NON-GERMAN
use 'em as mobile artillery with 75mm HE and one hidden observer to call shots.
you don't need to KILL the panzer, just disable a tread or something.
your indirect is longer range than his direct, and you got all the fuel and ammo in the world.
plus, you got reliability and mobility.
Death Traps and it’s consequences has been a disaster for WW2 tank discourse
IT'S A FUCKING JUMBO SHERMAN RUUUUUUUUNNNNN
>HOLY SHIT I THOUGHT WE WERE DEAD
>war winning tank vs war losing tank
cool story bro
>They fight for land, power, because a king leads them, or just because they like killing. But we are here for something new, this has not happened much, in the history of the world. We are an army out to set other men free. With tanks.
I really hope some day yall get to see tanks in person. I've been privileged enough to sit in and sometimes operate dozens of tanks and armored vehicles from ww1 and ww2 and it's life changing. Maybe there would be less bait threads if there was more access to these vehicles for the common people.
>wins the war so hard that it cucks your nation of "ubermensch" into self-loathing for 80 years
Nichts Persönliches, Junge
Germany pretty much stopped with the self-flagellation around 2013-2014ish. I just haven't noticed it particularly anymore (though I am just a German-speaker, not German himself).
There wasn't as special cause, besides maybe a lot of 68er intelligentsia retiring during the 2010s
(68er = something like woke hippies).
Yeah; Germany really just feels like everyone no longer hates themselves; it's incredible
I met this German train autist/wehraboo in at Bovington and he was completely unapologetic about his love of kraut shit
>IV Hs
That Sherman would be perfectly capable of defeating one of those 1v1, depends on which tank crew notices their opponent and at what range. Against a Sherman with the 76mm gun such as the Easy 8, pretty much any Pz IV variant would be outmatched, at least to some degree.
and??
Here are three of these for every enemy tank you encounter; good luck!
>it's just a numbers game
>all three tanks rush
>one tank gets hit
>hope it's not yours
>this time
>cheaper to replace entire tank
>than repair damaged tank
>so build tank cheap
>build tank not for tactics
>build tank not for strategies
>build tank solely for logistics
>build tank that can fit inside plane
>fly entire army across the ocean
>factories at home churn out more tanks
>tanks tanks tanks tanks tanks
>spam tanks
>spam min-maxxed tanks
>spam cost-effective tanks
>spam optimally cheap tanks
M4 Sherman truly is a marvel of the Military Industrial Complex.
Mid wit take
>>it's just a numbers game
yes
I heard that the U.S. Ordnance Department was aware of the Sherman being a 'Tommy Cooker', and attempted to implement various measures to address this issue. The design team was led by Sheldon Rosenstein, a convicted child-beater, arsonist, and avid necrophiliac. Sheldon was reportedly pen-pals with Shiro Ishii, and Oskar Dirlewanger. When questioned about these letters outgoing to hostile countries, Sheldon replied that he was merely exchanging 'tips and tricks'. Sheldon's team designed a mechanism that would lock the crew hatches shut, thus trapping the crew, when smoke was detected inside the sherman after being penetrated and set alight. Not only that, but apparently there was also a following feature that was a re-take on the Brazen Bull. When the crew was burning to death, their screams would be amplified by speakers that projected outside the tank. The U.S. Ordnance Department justified these features by proclaiming that the Germans would be frightened by the hellish screams of the sherman crews being incinerated, and allied soldiers would be more motivated to fight hard, lest the same fate befall them. Sheldon also later devised a system that had a 1 in 59 chance of setting off an explosive charge in the ammunition storage every time the Sherman's engine was turned on. Supposedly, this was to 'test the crew's luck before battle'. This innovation was well-received by the U.S. Army, but was rejected for budgetary reasons. Upon receiving news of the Army's rejection, Sheldon bludgeoned his manservant to death with a fire iron in a fit of unstoppable rage. Years after the war, Sheldon tragically died in a fire, which he had started in a New York orphanage.