Akschually there was this one obscure baltic tank that they only made like, 4 of, that had specs that would blow the sherman out of the water, take that ameriboo
Well that and the idea is a myth in multiple ways. Shermans basically never fought Tigers. WW2 tank crews thought every German tank was a Tiger, and nobody wants to correct grandpa while he is telling his war story.
Shermans deployed in 5 tank platoons at a minimum. It was never like “oh we got a report of a weak little Panzer 2, let’s just send one Sherman to take it out.”
People think war is supposed to be some fair dual and that sending five Shermans to kill one German tank is a sign of weakness of the Shermans. In reality it’s a sign the Germans couldn’t muster up proper tank units because their production pipeline sucked, their crews kept getting killed, and of the crewed tanks they had a lot of them broke down before making it to a fight.
>because their production pipeline sucked,
This is a myth, it wasn't particularly bad by any degree compared to any nation that wasn't America (better than basically any other country, really) and it's an even dumber myth than the >they kept releasing new fighter versions which was bad!
Nonsense while Lockheed released literal monthly updates for their machines.
The guy you're talking to is mostly right. German tank production changed so often that it was much more common to run into German tanks where it was difficult to find spare parts for. Variants would change too much over the course of production.
The reason you don't see this having much effect is because Germans didn't have enough oil to commit their tanks fully to battle unless it was a life or death battle. Germany would keep most of their tanks in reserve to limit oil consumption, meaning there was doctrinally more time to get a tank fixed if it was damaged.
But Germany was absolutely not at all good at maximizing serial production, even during the brief window between when Speer was put in charge but allied bombers hadn't destroyed a lot of German industry.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>German tank production changed so often that it was much more common to run into German tanks where it was difficult to find spare parts for.
Wrong. Spare parts shortage had fuck all to do with that and changes from the ground up that kept parts from being interchangeable were extremely rare and were usually limited to suspension changes (which the Pz. IV was spared from as basically the only pre-war tank throughout the conflict).
Any nation tended to end up with tanks that were Frankenstein creations of different versions by the end of the war, it's quite common to see that on photos of the time. The whole "Germans changed so much that they couldn't find spare parts for their tanks" bit is simply and unequivocally wrong. Stop perpetuating that stupid myth. The actual issue was the lack of dedicated spare parts production because for along time they underestimated the need for that and shipped too many finished tanks instead of just parts.
I fucking hate youtubers so goddamn much.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>I fucking hate youtubers so goddamn much
the internet was a mistake, man
1 month ago
Anonymous
>The actual issue was the lack of dedicated spare parts production because for along time they underestimated the need for that and shipped too many finished tanks instead of just parts.
The underestimation of that by post war analysts is basically the source of that combined with some retard speculating and others just taking it as fact.
It fits the stereotype well so people have been repeating it for like half a century, but it's still wrong and no serious complains about that can be found in the reports of the time in any meaningful number except for the grumbling that was part of every army and tended to be fixed by just nigerrigging the parts.
1 month ago
Anonymous
He is confusing two problems. The perpetual design changes affected their production efficiency and its extremely well documented.
The spare parts problem was related to the way they managed their field depo's. Plenty accounts of different units having to compete for spares and all kinds of skulduggery happening to swindle parts. It also related to how they defined their operational v non-operational vehicles. >one of the reasons Arnhem was a disaster was the local German armored unit didn't want to give up their vehicles despite being assigned for refit so they removed the barrels to have them qualify as "non-operational"
Which resulted in inefficient resource allocations.
Their production was bad because it wasn’t assembly line. It was the same group of guys working on a tank for multiple sessions. America and the Soviet Union both figured out mass scale production.
This isn’t anything to do with your rant about different versions of tanks, it has to do with the in efficiency of production.
Hate YouTube all you want, but unless you can disprove the WW2 tank museum, just sit and seethe.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N6xLMUifbxQ&pp=ygUTdGFuayBwcm9kdWN0aW9uIHd3Mg%3D%3D
which is funny because it was the best tank they had, lend lease was a mistake, the entente should have recognized and enforced the treaty of brest litovsk
Soviet Sherman tankers loved them. Somehow the Shermans could get parts fast and reliably even if they had to fucking cross Siberia by rail. >Dmitry Fedorovich Loza (Russian: Дмитpий Фёдopoвич Лoзa; 14 April 1922 – 22 May 2001) was a Ukrainian Red Army Colonel and Hero of the Soviet Union. >By 1945, he was a captain commanding the 1st Tank Battalion of the 46th Guards Tank Brigade, equipped with the M4 Sherman.[3] His tank battalion was reported to have captured trains loaded with ammunition, two warehouses and an artillery workshop with 14 guns, as well as 4 Panther tanks on railway platforms on 23 March on the way to Veszprém. On the same day, the battalion fought an action against a German tank column, reportedly knocking out 29 tanks and self-propelled guns, capturing 20 and destroying 10 vehicles. It also reportedly killed 250 German soldiers.
Soviet Sherman tankers loved them. Somehow the Shermans could get parts fast and reliably even if they had to fucking cross Siberia by rail. >Dmitry Fedorovich Loza (Russian: Дмитpий Фёдopoвич Лoзa; 14 April 1922 – 22 May 2001) was a Ukrainian Red Army Colonel and Hero of the Soviet Union. >By 1945, he was a captain commanding the 1st Tank Battalion of the 46th Guards Tank Brigade, equipped with the M4 Sherman.[3] His tank battalion was reported to have captured trains loaded with ammunition, two warehouses and an artillery workshop with 14 guns, as well as 4 Panther tanks on railway platforms on 23 March on the way to Veszprém. On the same day, the battalion fought an action against a German tank column, reportedly knocking out 29 tanks and self-propelled guns, capturing 20 and destroying 10 vehicles. It also reportedly killed 250 German soldiers.
Probably funniest thing about Sherman and other lend lease vehicles in Soviet service is why Soviet crews mostly loved 'em. Those were all well made, that made 'em reliable, and those all got radios and good optics. One funny anecdote from memoirs of some Soviet tank ace about Shermans is that they had to leave guards for damaged and destroyed vehicles, so that any Soviet infantry units passing by wouldn't loot 'em. Particular equipment of interest being radios and faux leather seats, infantry would steal the seats so they could fix their boots.
One lend lease tank that had rotten reputation was M3 Lees with riveted hulls, even non penetrating hit could send rivet heads bouncing inside crew compartment. Hence the nickname a grave for seven brothers.
dmitri loza published his own memoirs of commanding an M4A2
he speaks rather glowingly about it
he doesnt directly call it better than the T-34, he says it has its own pluses and minuses
but he specifically mentions that his emchas didnt burn out easily, often taking hits that would render a T-34 a flaming wreck
he attributes it to safer propellant in the ammo
as a minus, the only thing he mentions is that its tall height makes it easier to tip over on a slope and earlier all-steel tracks were prone to skidding on ice
it was also furnished like a palace, with them having to guard the M4s waiting repairs because the other tankers kept stealing the seat cushions to turn into boots
notably, he doesnt have an issue with the 76mm it was armed with which was something that belton cooper said was absolutely useless
though unlike belton cooper, he at least recognizes when his memory is failing him, since when asked how many 75s and 76s he had he just shrugs and says he doesnt remember
he also said that while in a matilda, he got spall in his leg and it got so incredibly infected they considered amputation
but when he got the same wound in him while in an M4, the splinter stayed in his body for years without problem until they discovered it while checking for an unrelated medical issue
he attributes this to the high quality of american steel
he really hated the matilda
1 month ago
Anonymous
>he also said that while in a matilda, he got spall in his leg and it got so incredibly infected they considered amputation >but when he got the same wound in him while in an M4, the splinter stayed in his body for years without problem until they discovered it while checking for an unrelated medical issue >he attributes this to the high quality of american steel
Maybe I'm a retard / not underatanding, but what does the quality of steel have to do with infection from spalling?
1 month ago
Anonymous
>but what does the quality of steel have to do with infection from spalling?
he was making a joke to his doctor
There is a difference between historical Soviets and modern slavaboos. Modern slavaboos are just middle class Americans who think “America bad” about everything.
I mean something something frog and bird pov. Guy got one fundamentally thing right - tanks are death traps and stuff is often not pretty, but he only served for the USA so he can’t know that they were all ugly death traps.
Why do the Americans suck so much at building armor? Their jets are great but anything land based (Bradley, Abrams, Sherman, Patton) is complete shit that gets obliterated in anything approaching real combat
Sorry mate, Abrams isn't the F-35 of tanks, it is rather average at best and works as advertised when deployed by a capable military that can establish air supremacy. Abrams is just a collection of "what works" from partner states, a gun from Germany, armour from England, engine from helicopters, torsion bar suspension because it works for everyone else, granted, optics are American so unleast there is that.
>they can't even build railways
what a bizarre thing to claim. America has the largest freight rail network in the world and the only reason public rail transport doesnt exist in greater quantity is that we didnt get our rail network blown to bejesus by the RAF and USAAF. Europe had the opportunity because of the war and the funds from america to rebuild
>they can't even build railways
what a bizarre thing to claim. America has the largest freight rail network in the world and the only reason public rail transport doesnt exist in greater quantity is that we didnt get our rail network blown to bejesus by the RAF and USAAF. Europe had the opportunity because of the war and the funds from america to rebuild
It's funny how US equipment performs better than in the books and dumbass documentaries while russian shit consistently turns out to be absolutely awful and underperforms based on the parameters. I means look at t34, based on the armor and gun it should be a good tank, but it's completely ass because it was made by retarded russians and crew comfort wasn't a priority so the crew was always underperforming and tired.
You missed the real flaws in the T-34 - a commander in a T-34 was sitting in a chair looking down a gunsight at a tiny viewpoint, with the sound of the tank to listen to and often no radio. His german rival was standing out a hatch with open visibilty all round and the ability to hear approaching vehicles, and a radio. It was a tank intended to look good on statistics for approval, not for usability.
And Then There Was The Driver's Hatch. Honestly, you could make up excuses about everything else and claim the /85 fixed everything else but that One Fucking Hatch? INEXCUSABLE.
It was expensive to install, difficult to use, essential for the basic function of the tank, extremely vulnerable to enemy fire, a risk to crew health under the best of circumstances, and potentially deadly if the tank caught fire. No Redeeming Features Whatsoever.
It’s literally just an aesthetics thing. Shermans look wimpy. They have a lot of round shapes, and we almost always a single color paintjob. Very boring.
German tanks had hard angles, weird details like side armor and anti-magnetic coating, and they often had awesome paintjobs. They looked mean and aggressive.
T-34s, to Americans, look exotic with their turrets so far forward, and combined with the mythology of them driving out of factories and into combat (myth I know) it has this desperate last stand vibe.
A million times over. Belton Cooper was an REMF and his only "data" was his personal experience of restoring shot-up Shermans twenty miles behind the lines.
>long and unrelated tangents about the M26 pershing, that are also incredibly inaccurate and speculation >gets basic times and dates wrong often >gets facts about the M4 sherman, the vehicle he is supposed to be servicing, wrong >cant tell the difference between the various A sub-models of M4, even though someone in logistics should be able to tell the differences between them >relies on "and this guy said X" and hyperbole when talking about the experience of a sherman crew >very conveniently leaves out major tank battles like arracourt out entirely >his claims 5 shermans to 1 tiger is based just on hunch and with no sources, the only real-world data about tank engagements is that an average battle involved 7 shermans and 4 panthers, with whoever firing first inflicting more losses than whoever fires second
>5 Shermans to 1 Tiger
Chieftan explained this one pretty well; 5 tanks is a tank platoon, the smallest organizational unit of armor. You never sent less than 5 Shermans to do fucking anything, the same way you never tell half a squad or platoon to stay innafob when it's time to push out.
Zaloga mentioned him in an interview https://tankandafvnews.com/2016/09/22/patton-versus-the-panzers-an-interview-with-steven-zaloga/
>I actually had that happen to a lesser extent with Belton Cooper, the author of Death Traps, I called him on the phone, I never met him personally. But I would call him on the phone on a few occasions and talked to him about various things. There were a lot of events that he really didn’t recall at all that sort of surprised me, especially considering his role as an ordnance officer. I was particularly interested in some technical issues about some things 3rd Armored Division had done with some of their tanks and I figured he would recall these particular things, but he had no recollection about it. He also seemed to have a lot of these, I don’t want to say implanted memories, but memories that I think emerged over time from interaction from both other veterans of 3rd Armored Division but also other interested parties, including people who were interested in tank warfare during WWII. Cooper would talk about stuff where he had no personal knowledge and couldn’t have any personal knowledge given what his rank was. But he had absolute certainty about certain events. I think that’s a problem with oral history.
Fairly relevant to these threads where it tends to be a lot of oral history vs studies.
A million times over. Belton Cooper was an REMF and his only "data" was his personal experience of restoring shot-up Shermans twenty miles behind the lines.
>long and unrelated tangents about the M26 pershing, that are also incredibly inaccurate and speculation >gets basic times and dates wrong often >gets facts about the M4 sherman, the vehicle he is supposed to be servicing, wrong >cant tell the difference between the various A sub-models of M4, even though someone in logistics should be able to tell the differences between them >relies on "and this guy said X" and hyperbole when talking about the experience of a sherman crew >very conveniently leaves out major tank battles like arracourt out entirely >his claims 5 shermans to 1 tiger is based just on hunch and with no sources, the only real-world data about tank engagements is that an average battle involved 7 shermans and 4 panthers, with whoever firing first inflicting more losses than whoever fires second
Imagine if you were a mechanic who worked on nothing but Toyotas. After seeing thousands of broken Toyota you may develop an intimate knowledge of each model's shortcomings and the most likely source of malfunction for each one. You may start thinking that cars from other manufacturers don't have the kinds of problems Toyotas have, and you may even start thinking other car brands are better. If you decided to write a book about how Toyotas are complete shitboxes and that BMW/VW/Audi makes better more reliable cars, people who are familiar with the auto industry would laugh at you and call you a dumbass (and rightly so). That's basically what Belton Y. Cooper did, and a people were willing to humor his delusions because they made for a marketable story.
Don't bother OP, K gets its opinions from army shill youtubers that are still defending the army ordnance board a century later instead of historians like Cooper.
those were just used for testing and were never widely issued because they knew they didnt work
sandbags were actually used in the field, but against orders as patton had banned the use of sandbags under his command since he thought they increased mechanical breakdownsxtyw2
Good book.
The T26E4 'Super Pershing' is one of my all time fav tanks [that never really made it to the battlefield, like the WT auf Pz. IV.
I don't know how effective it would have been for the role envisioned, the biggest complaint iv seen is that the engine was under-powered after all the boilerplate etc.
>work as pog in tank repair depot >pretty much all tanks that you deal with during your career come in are damaged and destroyed >wow, our tanks suck so bad, they are getting destroyed all the time, they are weak and useless
by the same logic: >work as pog in field hospital >pretty much every soldier that you deal with during your career arrive either heavily wounded or dead >wow, our soldiers suck so bad, they are getting kiled all the time, they are weak and useless
Honestly feels like a weird inversion of survivorship bias. Where you draw dumb conclusions based on what you saw destroyed, versus what you saw survived.
Fun edgelord fictional pulp novel. Retarded from any minimally realistic or factual perspective. Surprised authors like this don't get sued or in legal trouble for false advertising more often.
Absolute bullshit from start to finish. The average age of a legionnaire in Indo-Chine was 20 years old.
How could the Legion be full of SS Uber Nazis that would be in their mid to late 30s by the time the war began if the legionnaires were young 20 somethings? That alone should make anyone who reads that trash book discard it. Nevermind the even dumber sequel where these super-aryans are now a American battalion that fought in Vietnam.
Broke PrepHole? More like broke historians for 30 years. It nice that people finally see it for the shit it was. Something similar is happening to the T-34 right now, I hope it recovers quicker than the poor sherman did.
Not just that but the methods the soviets used to produce the hulls made the metal extremely brittle and prone to cracking when taking hits. This cracking would cause metal fragments to break off into the crew compartments effectively acting like a shotgun being fired into it. Hence you find so many t-34 wrecks with massive cracks in them and also what caused them to have such insane casualty rates.
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.
Obviously your post is satire, but in real life the ordnance board conspired about against any attempt to improve the Sherman like the 76mm gun, the Sherman Jumbo, getting the Pershing to Europe where it was desperately needed, etc, etc.
>the ordnance board conspired about against any attempt to improve the Sherman like the 76mm gun
nobody wanted the 76mms
the british didnt want it because it didnt have an HE shell
the field commanders didnt want it because they had already trained their forces on the 75mm and didnt want a complication in training new tanks
so there were 2000 76mm armed shermans in britian not doing anything in particular because nobody asked for them
1000 were sent to the british solely to complete their lend-lease order and were sent to italy
and the other 1000 were finally sent to normandy because they expected to fight heavier armored resistance inland
>getting the Pershing to Europe where it was desperately needed
nobody wanted the pershing because it was heavy and unreliable
>nobody wanted the 76mms
And? That doesn't mean the bongs or commanders were right. >Pershing was unreliable
We don't know that because it was never allowed to be trialed
>And?
it wasnt the ordnance board who forestalled the 76mm, they pushed for it to happen in the first place
it was the people actually fighting who didnt want it, which is why they were available in january of 1944 with no takers
there was no immediate battle need for one until they intended to break out of the bocage, which did actually necessitate a hole-puncher
Not my fault you're still retarded (as evidenced by being a shermanfag) and apparently have no self confidence like a liberal cvck so you deprecate yourself
either exquisite bait otherwise >election tourist
https://i.imgur.com/6mjEMrg.png
>Been here since 2016
Uh... that makes you a newfag...
>2016
That's cute cancer
Imagine hating when this website was its peak in power influence and FUN
1 month ago
Anonymous
>a liberal cvck so you deprecate yourself
newfren, the era of new anons I came in with are known as newfags. youre frantic flailing of trying to be as "in the know" as possible makes you all the more insufferable
>the ordnance board conspired about against any attempt to improve the Sherman like the 76mm gun
nobody wanted the 76mms
the british didnt want it because it didnt have an HE shell
the field commanders didnt want it because they had already trained their forces on the 75mm and didnt want a complication in training new tanks
so there were 2000 76mm armed shermans in britian not doing anything in particular because nobody asked for them
1000 were sent to the british solely to complete their lend-lease order and were sent to italy
and the other 1000 were finally sent to normandy because they expected to fight heavier armored resistance inland
>getting the Pershing to Europe where it was desperately needed
nobody wanted the pershing because it was heavy and unreliable
>be Hans >drive the biggest baddest tank in Europe >the Poopenfahrten on your engine gives out >no idea how to fix the overcomplicated mess of a tank >you need a specific part from a factory that no longer exists due to a bad case of B-17 >tank is now somewhere between a paperweight to a bunker depending on your devotion to the reich
Meanwhile 20 miles away, Jeb the illiterate farm boy performed maintenance and got his sherman running again because it's "jus like mah traktor on thuh family farm"
Let's pin the points on a wall here. The Sherman > Built to be easily modular for gun upgrades > Uses cast molding in order to reduce weak structural points > Is made to be incredibly convenient for field maintenance, as it has to bear the additional burden of being overseas and not easily returned to a depot > Was fighting an offensive war, in which the rule of 3-to-1 casualty ratio holds true, yet the Sherman BEAT that metric > Was designed to have quick escape, resulting in a very high survivability compared to enemy tanks > 'Muh 75mm' was a universal gun, able to be anti-tank and anti-personnel, and they had firepower to replace it with would they want it pure anti-tank (76mm)
But yea, the reason we're 'broken' is not because the book is retarded
this is not the most appropriate thread but this one at least is book related and i don't want to make a new one for something so dumb, does anyone have the splinter cell books on pdf or similar? my physical copies are in deep storage right now.
When My grandfather died, I found-out the old man drove a half track in the US Army 2nd Armor Division. Never heard 1 word from the old man about his time in the service.
Why do wehraboo pussies always want to talk about the war?
Why do wehraboo pussies always want to talk shit about American equipment?
Are you mad your nazi friends lost the war, because they were arrogant retards?
Are you mad that the Germans were not the superhumans?
In fact, the Germans were just cowardly retards with shit equipment. All of the German gains were gotten due to them lying and surprise attacking peaceful countries. Absolute nation of cowards and retards, just like their modern day fanboys!
Behold, the German wonder weapons: horses!!
Really some super humans! Germans used millions of horses during the war. Horses were such an important weapon to the Germans, so they stole almost every horse from occupied lands!
the rag that was the source for the sherman Fuddlore that was held as Gospel by wehraboos and Vatniks alike. Fuck Belton Cooper, he was a fag and I Spit on his grave >S
Terrible bait.
>Sherman was best tank of the war
End of thread
it was one of the worst but ok
explain
Source: His historical revisionist fanfiction.
Akschually there was this one obscure baltic tank that they only made like, 4 of, that had specs that would blow the sherman out of the water, take that ameriboo
Malding
Ah yes I will also post pictures of inevitable war time losses
statistically 80% of that crew survived
>statistically 80% of that crew survived
Technically it's more than that. 20% includes both killed and wounded.
>One Tiger is worth 5 Sherm- ACK
>#
>>One Tiger is worth 5 Sherm- ACK
There's always a sixth Sherman.
American logistics are practically a superpower.
Well that and the idea is a myth in multiple ways. Shermans basically never fought Tigers. WW2 tank crews thought every German tank was a Tiger, and nobody wants to correct grandpa while he is telling his war story.
Shermans deployed in 5 tank platoons at a minimum. It was never like “oh we got a report of a weak little Panzer 2, let’s just send one Sherman to take it out.”
People think war is supposed to be some fair dual and that sending five Shermans to kill one German tank is a sign of weakness of the Shermans. In reality it’s a sign the Germans couldn’t muster up proper tank units because their production pipeline sucked, their crews kept getting killed, and of the crewed tanks they had a lot of them broke down before making it to a fight.
>because their production pipeline sucked,
This is a myth, it wasn't particularly bad by any degree compared to any nation that wasn't America (better than basically any other country, really) and it's an even dumber myth than the
>they kept releasing new fighter versions which was bad!
Nonsense while Lockheed released literal monthly updates for their machines.
I hate youtubers.
>I hate youtubers.
its from wages of destruction, which is the big book of "how germany was bad at economics and industry"
The guy you're talking to is mostly right. German tank production changed so often that it was much more common to run into German tanks where it was difficult to find spare parts for. Variants would change too much over the course of production.
The reason you don't see this having much effect is because Germans didn't have enough oil to commit their tanks fully to battle unless it was a life or death battle. Germany would keep most of their tanks in reserve to limit oil consumption, meaning there was doctrinally more time to get a tank fixed if it was damaged.
But Germany was absolutely not at all good at maximizing serial production, even during the brief window between when Speer was put in charge but allied bombers hadn't destroyed a lot of German industry.
>German tank production changed so often that it was much more common to run into German tanks where it was difficult to find spare parts for.
Wrong. Spare parts shortage had fuck all to do with that and changes from the ground up that kept parts from being interchangeable were extremely rare and were usually limited to suspension changes (which the Pz. IV was spared from as basically the only pre-war tank throughout the conflict).
Any nation tended to end up with tanks that were Frankenstein creations of different versions by the end of the war, it's quite common to see that on photos of the time. The whole "Germans changed so much that they couldn't find spare parts for their tanks" bit is simply and unequivocally wrong. Stop perpetuating that stupid myth. The actual issue was the lack of dedicated spare parts production because for along time they underestimated the need for that and shipped too many finished tanks instead of just parts.
I fucking hate youtubers so goddamn much.
>I fucking hate youtubers so goddamn much
the internet was a mistake, man
>The actual issue was the lack of dedicated spare parts production because for along time they underestimated the need for that and shipped too many finished tanks instead of just parts.
The underestimation of that by post war analysts is basically the source of that combined with some retard speculating and others just taking it as fact.
It fits the stereotype well so people have been repeating it for like half a century, but it's still wrong and no serious complains about that can be found in the reports of the time in any meaningful number except for the grumbling that was part of every army and tended to be fixed by just nigerrigging the parts.
He is confusing two problems. The perpetual design changes affected their production efficiency and its extremely well documented.
The spare parts problem was related to the way they managed their field depo's. Plenty accounts of different units having to compete for spares and all kinds of skulduggery happening to swindle parts. It also related to how they defined their operational v non-operational vehicles.
>one of the reasons Arnhem was a disaster was the local German armored unit didn't want to give up their vehicles despite being assigned for refit so they removed the barrels to have them qualify as "non-operational"
Which resulted in inefficient resource allocations.
Their production was bad because it wasn’t assembly line. It was the same group of guys working on a tank for multiple sessions. America and the Soviet Union both figured out mass scale production.
This isn’t anything to do with your rant about different versions of tanks, it has to do with the in efficiency of production.
Hate YouTube all you want, but unless you can disprove the WW2 tank museum, just sit and seethe.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N6xLMUifbxQ&pp=ygUTdGFuayBwcm9kdWN0aW9uIHd3Mg%3D%3D
Shermans truely were the ugliest dutch ovens around.
this post convinced me that werhboos aren't actually pathetic, but actually very strong
Claiming the Sherman is shit is more of a slavaboo thing these days
which is funny because it was the best tank they had, lend lease was a mistake, the entente should have recognized and enforced the treaty of brest litovsk
Soviet Sherman tankers loved them. Somehow the Shermans could get parts fast and reliably even if they had to fucking cross Siberia by rail.
>Dmitry Fedorovich Loza (Russian: Дмитpий Фёдopoвич Лoзa; 14 April 1922 – 22 May 2001) was a Ukrainian Red Army Colonel and Hero of the Soviet Union.
>By 1945, he was a captain commanding the 1st Tank Battalion of the 46th Guards Tank Brigade, equipped with the M4 Sherman.[3] His tank battalion was reported to have captured trains loaded with ammunition, two warehouses and an artillery workshop with 14 guns, as well as 4 Panther tanks on railway platforms on 23 March on the way to Veszprém. On the same day, the battalion fought an action against a German tank column, reportedly knocking out 29 tanks and self-propelled guns, capturing 20 and destroying 10 vehicles. It also reportedly killed 250 German soldiers.
>Ukrainian
Well, that's why.
Probably funniest thing about Sherman and other lend lease vehicles in Soviet service is why Soviet crews mostly loved 'em. Those were all well made, that made 'em reliable, and those all got radios and good optics. One funny anecdote from memoirs of some Soviet tank ace about Shermans is that they had to leave guards for damaged and destroyed vehicles, so that any Soviet infantry units passing by wouldn't loot 'em. Particular equipment of interest being radios and faux leather seats, infantry would steal the seats so they could fix their boots.
One lend lease tank that had rotten reputation was M3 Lees with riveted hulls, even non penetrating hit could send rivet heads bouncing inside crew compartment. Hence the nickname a grave for seven brothers.
What book? I was under the impression the Soviets for whatever reason didn’t like US tanks, either Lees or Shermans
They liked them more than most British tanks apparently. But I think they had much more pride in their indigenous designs.
Bad Bait. It was one of the better tanks.
dmitri loza published his own memoirs of commanding an M4A2
he speaks rather glowingly about it
he doesnt directly call it better than the T-34, he says it has its own pluses and minuses
but he specifically mentions that his emchas didnt burn out easily, often taking hits that would render a T-34 a flaming wreck
he attributes it to safer propellant in the ammo
as a minus, the only thing he mentions is that its tall height makes it easier to tip over on a slope and earlier all-steel tracks were prone to skidding on ice
it was also furnished like a palace, with them having to guard the M4s waiting repairs because the other tankers kept stealing the seat cushions to turn into boots
notably, he doesnt have an issue with the 76mm it was armed with which was something that belton cooper said was absolutely useless
though unlike belton cooper, he at least recognizes when his memory is failing him, since when asked how many 75s and 76s he had he just shrugs and says he doesnt remember
he also said that while in a matilda, he got spall in his leg and it got so incredibly infected they considered amputation
but when he got the same wound in him while in an M4, the splinter stayed in his body for years without problem until they discovered it while checking for an unrelated medical issue
he attributes this to the high quality of american steel
he really hated the matilda
>he also said that while in a matilda, he got spall in his leg and it got so incredibly infected they considered amputation
>but when he got the same wound in him while in an M4, the splinter stayed in his body for years without problem until they discovered it while checking for an unrelated medical issue
>he attributes this to the high quality of american steel
Maybe I'm a retard / not underatanding, but what does the quality of steel have to do with infection from spalling?
>but what does the quality of steel have to do with infection from spalling?
he was making a joke to his doctor
All slavaboos are also wehraboos - they need the myth of the German warmachine to make their shit feel special.
The fuck? Soviets talked shit about the M3, but loved the Shermans.
There is a difference between historical Soviets and modern slavaboos. Modern slavaboos are just middle class Americans who think “America bad” about everything.
I mean something something frog and bird pov. Guy got one fundamentally thing right - tanks are death traps and stuff is often not pretty, but he only served for the USA so he can’t know that they were all ugly death traps.
Why do the Americans suck so much at building armor? Their jets are great but anything land based (Bradley, Abrams, Sherman, Patton) is complete shit that gets obliterated in anything approaching real combat
The Abrams is great though? An exception to the rule of them building shit armor
>another euro crying that their countries shitty "mbt" isnt the abrams
Why are you guys like this
Sorry mate, Abrams isn't the F-35 of tanks, it is rather average at best and works as advertised when deployed by a capable military that can establish air supremacy. Abrams is just a collection of "what works" from partner states, a gun from Germany, armour from England, engine from helicopters, torsion bar suspension because it works for everyone else, granted, optics are American so unleast there is that.
>The Abrams only works if you're competent
Oh well I can see how that doesn't appeal to your 1980s military dystopian shithole.
Fairly solid bait
>Bradley sucks
I bet you think that one movie with Fraiser in it was a documentary.
Bradleys in Desert Storm managed to obliterate T-72s.
Please tell us tanks that were in real combat that has done better, post-WWII.
And no, it doesn’t count if the tank went up against it’s own variants.
He smells like a centurionfag that's salty about his 'best tank of WWII' being too late to fight in WWII
>muh first MBT!!!1!!1
3 out of your 4 examples listed were better than their contemporaries.
Incompetency permeates every aspect of American society (they can't even build railways or other basic infrastructure anymore)
>they can't even build railways
what a bizarre thing to claim. America has the largest freight rail network in the world and the only reason public rail transport doesnt exist in greater quantity is that we didnt get our rail network blown to bejesus by the RAF and USAAF. Europe had the opportunity because of the war and the funds from america to rebuild
You literally took the b8 m8 come on.
The more I hear about Americans the more I feel sorry for them
It's funny how US equipment performs better than in the books and dumbass documentaries while russian shit consistently turns out to be absolutely awful and underperforms based on the parameters. I means look at t34, based on the armor and gun it should be a good tank, but it's completely ass because it was made by retarded russians and crew comfort wasn't a priority so the crew was always underperforming and tired.
You missed the real flaws in the T-34 - a commander in a T-34 was sitting in a chair looking down a gunsight at a tiny viewpoint, with the sound of the tank to listen to and often no radio. His german rival was standing out a hatch with open visibilty all round and the ability to hear approaching vehicles, and a radio. It was a tank intended to look good on statistics for approval, not for usability.
And Then There Was The Driver's Hatch. Honestly, you could make up excuses about everything else and claim the /85 fixed everything else but that One Fucking Hatch? INEXCUSABLE.
It was expensive to install, difficult to use, essential for the basic function of the tank, extremely vulnerable to enemy fire, a risk to crew health under the best of circumstances, and potentially deadly if the tank caught fire. No Redeeming Features Whatsoever.
It’s literally just an aesthetics thing. Shermans look wimpy. They have a lot of round shapes, and we almost always a single color paintjob. Very boring.
German tanks had hard angles, weird details like side armor and anti-magnetic coating, and they often had awesome paintjobs. They looked mean and aggressive.
T-34s, to Americans, look exotic with their turrets so far forward, and combined with the mythology of them driving out of factories and into combat (myth I know) it has this desperate last stand vibe.
>They have a lot of round shapes
Shouldn't this increase the odds of deflecting shots?
Our skulls and helmets are rounded for a reason.
Re-read the comment without being ESL. It was about why the average normie person perceives Shermans as wimpy.
The bradley 50% loss rate is starting to make more sense...
Has the book been debunked yet?
A million times over. Belton Cooper was an REMF and his only "data" was his personal experience of restoring shot-up Shermans twenty miles behind the lines.
>long and unrelated tangents about the M26 pershing, that are also incredibly inaccurate and speculation
>gets basic times and dates wrong often
>gets facts about the M4 sherman, the vehicle he is supposed to be servicing, wrong
>cant tell the difference between the various A sub-models of M4, even though someone in logistics should be able to tell the differences between them
>relies on "and this guy said X" and hyperbole when talking about the experience of a sherman crew
>very conveniently leaves out major tank battles like arracourt out entirely
>his claims 5 shermans to 1 tiger is based just on hunch and with no sources, the only real-world data about tank engagements is that an average battle involved 7 shermans and 4 panthers, with whoever firing first inflicting more losses than whoever fires second
>5 Shermans to 1 Tiger
Chieftan explained this one pretty well; 5 tanks is a tank platoon, the smallest organizational unit of armor. You never sent less than 5 Shermans to do fucking anything, the same way you never tell half a squad or platoon to stay innafob when it's time to push out.
Zaloga mentioned him in an interview https://tankandafvnews.com/2016/09/22/patton-versus-the-panzers-an-interview-with-steven-zaloga/
>I actually had that happen to a lesser extent with Belton Cooper, the author of Death Traps, I called him on the phone, I never met him personally. But I would call him on the phone on a few occasions and talked to him about various things. There were a lot of events that he really didn’t recall at all that sort of surprised me, especially considering his role as an ordnance officer. I was particularly interested in some technical issues about some things 3rd Armored Division had done with some of their tanks and I figured he would recall these particular things, but he had no recollection about it. He also seemed to have a lot of these, I don’t want to say implanted memories, but memories that I think emerged over time from interaction from both other veterans of 3rd Armored Division but also other interested parties, including people who were interested in tank warfare during WWII. Cooper would talk about stuff where he had no personal knowledge and couldn’t have any personal knowledge given what his rank was. But he had absolute certainty about certain events. I think that’s a problem with oral history.
Fairly relevant to these threads where it tends to be a lot of oral history vs studies.
Didn’t he write it several decades after the war?
He published it in 1998.
And it's literally his personal memoirs. Like, shit doesn't even cite any sources or make any attempt at a bibliography.
its believed to have had extensive parts of it ghost written
Imagine if you were a mechanic who worked on nothing but Toyotas. After seeing thousands of broken Toyota you may develop an intimate knowledge of each model's shortcomings and the most likely source of malfunction for each one. You may start thinking that cars from other manufacturers don't have the kinds of problems Toyotas have, and you may even start thinking other car brands are better. If you decided to write a book about how Toyotas are complete shitboxes and that BMW/VW/Audi makes better more reliable cars, people who are familiar with the auto industry would laugh at you and call you a dumbass (and rightly so). That's basically what Belton Y. Cooper did, and a people were willing to humor his delusions because they made for a marketable story.
>write complete bullshit
>gets parroted by boomers as gospel for decades
damn writing back then must have been really easy
Don't bother OP, K gets its opinions from army shill youtubers that are still defending the army ordnance board a century later instead of historians like Cooper.
Shermans had the original chicken wire cope cages too
those were just used for testing and were never widely issued because they knew they didnt work
sandbags were actually used in the field, but against orders as patton had banned the use of sandbags under his command since he thought they increased mechanical breakdownsxtyw2
Good book.
The T26E4 'Super Pershing' is one of my all time fav tanks [that never really made it to the battlefield, like the WT auf Pz. IV.
I don't know how effective it would have been for the role envisioned, the biggest complaint iv seen is that the engine was under-powered after all the boilerplate etc.
Fuck you NWO shill. Go blow Putin or Biden's dick
>work as pog in tank repair depot
>pretty much all tanks that you deal with during your career come in are damaged and destroyed
>wow, our tanks suck so bad, they are getting destroyed all the time, they are weak and useless
by the same logic:
>work as pog in field hospital
>pretty much every soldier that you deal with during your career arrive either heavily wounded or dead
>wow, our soldiers suck so bad, they are getting kiled all the time, they are weak and useless
Honestly feels like a weird inversion of survivorship bias. Where you draw dumb conclusions based on what you saw destroyed, versus what you saw survived.
>haha look ur tanks died in this peer vs. peer war
My understanding is that this guy never served in a tank and was a REMF who wrote this based on second-hand accounts
Speaking of books, what do you guys think about this one?
Fun edgelord fictional pulp novel. Retarded from any minimally realistic or factual perspective. Surprised authors like this don't get sued or in legal trouble for false advertising more often.
Absolute bullshit from start to finish. The average age of a legionnaire in Indo-Chine was 20 years old.
How could the Legion be full of SS Uber Nazis that would be in their mid to late 30s by the time the war began if the legionnaires were young 20 somethings? That alone should make anyone who reads that trash book discard it. Nevermind the even dumber sequel where these super-aryans are now a American battalion that fought in Vietnam.
Book? All I see is toilet paper.
The feds that run nuPrepHole are not PrepHole.
Broke PrepHole? More like broke historians for 30 years. It nice that people finally see it for the shit it was. Something similar is happening to the T-34 right now, I hope it recovers quicker than the poor sherman did.
Soon every single WWII tank will have been popularly known as "the worst tank ever and completely unusable" at one point.
All except for the Type 97. It's our time japbros
Type 97 remains undefeated
The only problem with T-34s is how cramped it was to tanks of similar size and the build quality at certain factories because of the war.
Not just that but the methods the soviets used to produce the hulls made the metal extremely brittle and prone to cracking when taking hits. This cracking would cause metal fragments to break off into the crew compartments effectively acting like a shotgun being fired into it. Hence you find so many t-34 wrecks with massive cracks in them and also what caused them to have such insane casualty rates.
Every sirs is broke, said the scammer pajeet.
Reminder that wet storage helped a lot.
Additional reminder that a lot of shermans burned out without ever getting wet storage.
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.
Obviously your post is satire, but in real life the ordnance board conspired about against any attempt to improve the Sherman like the 76mm gun, the Sherman Jumbo, getting the Pershing to Europe where it was desperately needed, etc, etc.
you havent been here long have you
Been here since 2016 newfag
>nobody wanted the 76mms
And? That doesn't mean the bongs or commanders were right.
>Pershing was unreliable
We don't know that because it was never allowed to be trialed
>2016
That's cute cancer
>And?
it wasnt the ordnance board who forestalled the 76mm, they pushed for it to happen in the first place
it was the people actually fighting who didnt want it, which is why they were available in january of 1944 with no takers
there was no immediate battle need for one until they intended to break out of the bocage, which did actually necessitate a hole-puncher
>Been here since 2016
Uh... that makes you a newfag...
>Been here since 2016 newfag
ive been here since 2012 and im a newfag retard-kun
Not my fault you're still retarded (as evidenced by being a shermanfag) and apparently have no self confidence like a liberal cvck so you deprecate yourself
Imagine hating when this website was its peak in power influence and FUN
>a liberal cvck so you deprecate yourself
newfren, the era of new anons I came in with are known as newfags. youre frantic flailing of trying to be as "in the know" as possible makes you all the more insufferable
either exquisite bait otherwise
>election tourist
>the ordnance board conspired about against any attempt to improve the Sherman like the 76mm gun
nobody wanted the 76mms
the british didnt want it because it didnt have an HE shell
the field commanders didnt want it because they had already trained their forces on the 75mm and didnt want a complication in training new tanks
so there were 2000 76mm armed shermans in britian not doing anything in particular because nobody asked for them
1000 were sent to the british solely to complete their lend-lease order and were sent to italy
and the other 1000 were finally sent to normandy because they expected to fight heavier armored resistance inland
>getting the Pershing to Europe where it was desperately needed
nobody wanted the pershing because it was heavy and unreliable
Not enough blatant anti-semitism 0/10
þe boke þat broc PrepHole
>be Hans
>drive the biggest baddest tank in Europe
>the Poopenfahrten on your engine gives out
>no idea how to fix the overcomplicated mess of a tank
>you need a specific part from a factory that no longer exists due to a bad case of B-17
>tank is now somewhere between a paperweight to a bunker depending on your devotion to the reich
Meanwhile 20 miles away, Jeb the illiterate farm boy performed maintenance and got his sherman running again because it's "jus like mah traktor on thuh family farm"
Obvious bait, but I'm bored.
Let's pin the points on a wall here. The Sherman
> Built to be easily modular for gun upgrades
> Uses cast molding in order to reduce weak structural points
> Is made to be incredibly convenient for field maintenance, as it has to bear the additional burden of being overseas and not easily returned to a depot
> Was fighting an offensive war, in which the rule of 3-to-1 casualty ratio holds true, yet the Sherman BEAT that metric
> Was designed to have quick escape, resulting in a very high survivability compared to enemy tanks
> 'Muh 75mm' was a universal gun, able to be anti-tank and anti-personnel, and they had firepower to replace it with would they want it pure anti-tank (76mm)
But yea, the reason we're 'broken' is not because the book is retarded
this is not the most appropriate thread but this one at least is book related and i don't want to make a new one for something so dumb, does anyone have the splinter cell books on pdf or similar? my physical copies are in deep storage right now.
When My grandfather died, I found-out the old man drove a half track in the US Army 2nd Armor Division. Never heard 1 word from the old man about his time in the service.
Why do wehraboo pussies always want to talk about the war?
Why do wehraboo pussies always want to talk shit about American equipment?
Are you mad your nazi friends lost the war, because they were arrogant retards?
Are you mad that the Germans were not the superhumans?
In fact, the Germans were just cowardly retards with shit equipment. All of the German gains were gotten due to them lying and surprise attacking peaceful countries. Absolute nation of cowards and retards, just like their modern day fanboys!
>these things were death traps!
>most crews survive to write a book or be interviewed
Behold, the German wonder weapons: horses!!
Really some super humans! Germans used millions of horses during the war. Horses were such an important weapon to the Germans, so they stole almost every horse from occupied lands!
>death traps
>relevant
>mfw I time travelled back to the late 90s again
the rag that was the source for the sherman Fuddlore that was held as Gospel by wehraboos and Vatniks alike. Fuck Belton Cooper, he was a fag and I Spit on his grave
>S