Well the Sherman did help win the war coz we made so many of them however the Germans werent far off by calling them “Tommy Cooker’s”
Or Ronsons a canadian lighter, there was a lot pretty black humour :roll:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Yes the Sherman was a lighter. They burned fast in battle.
Henk
I must say the the T-34/85 as well, it was fast, well armoured, could operate in the cold, manuverable with a powerful gun.
It did have some problems like lack of radio, the turret was tight and cramped, the commander spent most of the time in combat aiming the main gun so he had to many tasks to do ( he was supposed to coordinate the tanks actions with the unit with flag signalling and search for targets.)
Vision was poor, to many dead zones which the germans learned to exploit with good effect.
There was no shock absorbers so it was a rough ride and and the engine was mounted directly into the hull, no muffler and all steel tracks. The shaking and noise was very fatiguing.
One of the most successful T-34/85s was commanded by Lt. Aleksander P.Oskin of the 53rd Guards Fastov Tank Brigade, he attacked and destroyed 3 King Tigers near the Polish village of Ogledow on the 12th of August 1944
Wow, now then I never knew the T-34 had so many problems. Then if it is all true how can they say it was the best tank of WW2?
Henk
Because as i said first, it was fast, well armoured, well armed, manuverable, capable of operating in cold weather, easy to maintain, easy to build and produced in large numbers.
Yes mate, but look at all the bad things against it then I would not say it was a great tank.
Henk
I agree the T-34-85 was well armed to face the Panther , but the impact of the T-34-85 was minimal compared with the T-34-76 wich gave quiet a shock to the german infantry and Tankers.
This is that some general said:
“Very worrying”, Colonel-General Heinz Guderian, Commander of Second Panzer Army.
“We had nothing comparable”, Major-General F.W. Mellenthin, Chief of Staff of XLVIII Panzer Corps.
“The finest tank in the world”, Field-Marshal Ewald von Kleist, First Panzer Army.
“This tank (T-34) adversely affected the morale of the German infantry”, General G. Blumentritt.
There is no doubt, to me at least that the T-34/76 was the best tank in the world in 1941. The germans was shocked and envious when they encountered it, but they made their own tanks to counter the threat like the Panther and the Tiger and the T-34/76 was outclassed by 1943, and the T-34/85 was introduced to counter these new threats.
In some cases the germans had to take desperate measures against the T-34 in 1941…check this, Stug III rammed a T-34 because the short barrelled 75mm german gun did not penetrate at all the russian armor. :shock:
The pictures were taken at kalinin, october 1941.
Great pics mate. Yes, I also have heard of German tanks ramming Russian tanks to be able to take them over or not to get shot into peaces.
That is the same thing I would do the same thing not to be killed or lose.
Henk
I like the Sherman, provided it was the Firefly or “Easy-Eight” variant, for it won the war on the Western Front.
You guys obsessing over the gigundus Freudian Nightmare™ super tanks of the Wehrmacht tend to forget that the Germans fielded very few of those “super-tanks,” and really never had all that many Tigers or Panthers. And the King Tiger was useless when advancing over more than a few kilometers.
It’s like looking at pictures of Ferraris or Porsche 911s. Very sexy in photographs, but very rare and temperamental in real life…
Here is my favorite:
M26-01
M26-02
M26-03
M26-03A-SPECS-01
From: “British and American Tanks of World War II”, by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, Arco Publishing Company, 1975, (p 158 )
M26-03A-SPECS-02
From: “British and American Tanks of World War II”, by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, Arco Publishing Company, 1975, (p 159)
M26-03A-SPECS-03
From: “British and American Tanks of World War II”, by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, Arco Publishing Company, 1975, (p 160)
M26-03A-SPECS-04
From: “World War II Tanks”, by George Forty, Osprey, 1995, (p 153)
M26-03A-SPECS-05-gun-vs-armor
From “Tank Versus Tank”, by Kenneth Macksey, Salem House, 1988, (p 147)
Notice in the Gun versus Armor comparison that the Pershing 90mm 53 caliber gun could defeat the Panther D armor out to 2000 meters, while the Panther D 75mm 70 caliber gun failed to penetrate the Pershing armor beyond 600 meters. The Pershing 90mm 53 caliber gun could defeat the Tiger II (King Tiger) armor out to 1300 meters, while the Tiger II (King Tiger) 88mm 71 caliber gun could penetrate the Pershing armor out to 1800 meters - a pretty close match, with the Pershing having the edge in mobility.
M26-03-X
From: “German Tanks of World War II in Action”, by George Forty, Blandford Press, 1988, (p 130)
SEE ALSO:
DUEL AT DESSAU
3AD’s “Super Pershing” vs. Germany’s “King Tiger”
WWII’s two most powerful tanks meet in a historic encounter
http://www.3ad.com/history/news/super.pershing.1.htm
http://www.3ad.com/
Only three days before the 3rd Armored Division’s final combat action of WWII, a Super Pershing of the 33rd Armored Regiment met and defeated the most powerful and most heavily armored German tank of the war - the legendary 77-ton King Tiger, also known as the Tiger II or Tiger Royal. It would be the first and only meeting between a King Tiger and the Super Pershing, a modified standard M26 Pershing weighing 53 tons - an almost “secret” tank that, to this day, remains largely an enigma to military historians… (story continues).
M26-03-drawing-1
M26-03-drawing-2
From: “British and American Tanks of World War II”, by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, Arco Publishing Company, 1975, (pp 214-215)
M26-03-drawing-3
M26-03-drawing-4
M26-03-drawing-5
M26-04
M26-05
M26-06
M26-07
From: “World War II Tanks”, by George Forty, Osprey, 1995, (p 153)
M26-08
M26-09
From: “World War II Tanks”, by George Forty, Osprey, 1995, (p 154)
M26-10
From: “The U.S. Army in World War II”, by Mark R. Henry, Osprey, (p 118 )
M26-11
M26-12
M26-13
From: “World War II Tanks”, by George Forty, Osprey, 1995, (p 153)
M26-14
M26-15
M26-16
From: “World War II Tanks”, by George Forty, Osprey, 1995, (p 155)
M26-17
M26-18
From: “World War II Tanks”, by George Forty, Osprey, 1995, (p 155)
M26-19
M26-20
M26-21
M26-22
M26-23
M26-24
Earlier Prototypes:
T25-SPECS-01
From: “British and American Tanks of World War II”, by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, Arco Publishing Company, 1975, (p 152)
1942-1943
T25-SPECS-02
From: “British and American Tanks of World War II”, by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, Arco Publishing Company, 1975, (p 153)
1942-1943
T25-SPECS-03
From: “British and American Tanks of World War II”, by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, Arco Publishing Company, 1975, (p 154)
1944
Bigger Heavy Prototypes:
T32-T29-SPECS-01
T32: Longer 90mm gun, 200mm armour max.
T29: 105mm gun T5 High-velocity gun
T30-T34-SPECS-01
T30: 155mm gun
T34: 120mm gun
T28-SPECS-01
T28: 105mm T5E1 High-velocity gun, 300mm armour max.
Mine too. It’s been in my sig. Unfortunately, they were deployed too little, too late to have a real impact on the war…
Very good pictures Nick thanks 8)
Unfortunately, they were deployed too little, too late to have a real impact on the war…
You stole my words.
Well, you ought to thank GEORGE ELLER, he’s the one that did all of the scanning of the great books and posted it here…
That was one of the worst W. Allied blunders of the War not deploying better tanks sooner, in my opinion… The irony is that Gen George Patton was dead set against any tanks bigger than the M-4 because he valued speed and lowest possible fuel consumption. Yet the tank he rejected, the M26, would eventually be upgraded and named after him when it became the M47/M48 series…
Well, you ought to thank GEORGE ELLER, he’s the one that did all of the scanning of the great books and posted it here…
That was one of the worst W. Allied blunders of the War not depolying better tanks sooner, in my opinion…[/quote]
Yes you are right, I get confused, Thank you very much George. 
( I have to put less marijuana in my mate 
)
Ha ha! I might need more. :lol:
Hey Guys,
Nick and Panzerknacker,
You are most welcome. It took me a few evenings of my spare time to compile the information - a combination from books that I have and the Internet.
Nickdfresh:
That was one of the worst W. Allied blunders of the War not deploying better tanks sooner, in my opinion… The irony is that Gen George Patton was dead set against any tanks bigger than the M-4 because he valued speed and lowest possible fuel consumption. Yet the tank he rejected, the M26, would eventually be upgraded and named after him when it became the M47/M48 series…
Ironic too, as you say about Patton. I read somewhere that Creighton Abrams (one of Patton’s subordinate commanders in Third Army) once said that Patton knew as little about tanks as any man he had ever known.
Panzerknacker:
Thank you very much George.
You are most welcome.
I am glad to share information like this to so many people on the Internet.
Enjoy.
Aniway, going back to the original issue, honestly I don believe that the Sherman was a good tank, too tall for ambush too narrow tracks for bad terrain, too underpowered gun ( solved in the 76 mm even but not entirely), not particulary good armor.
The point in favor were the good reliabilily of his mechanical components, a releative good internal espace ( ruined in the british 17 pounder) and a very good speed in solid terrain.
Is not about santificate the german tanks they had their flaws also but with the amazing industrial capabilities of USA is quiet shocking to me that they fought with this inferior desing that late in the war and this fact allowed to the nazis to cause a high number of casualties between the american tankers.