Timeline for How was the United States able to produce excellent tanks in 1942?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 6, 2020 at 12:24 | comment | added | Amorphous Blob | They were not death traps, they were very survivable and repairable. Any tank would have been knocked out by a panzerfaust on the side or rear armor. Shermans always had 75mm guns. Shermans were roughly equivalent to a Panzer IV with regard to guns and armor... it would usually depend on who got the first shot off. Shermans advancing in the open against a prepared defense were of course at a disadvantage to hidden tanks and guns - that's why offensives usually need a 3-1 advantage. | |
| Apr 6, 2020 at 10:25 | comment | added | jwenting | @AmorphousBlob Shermans as they came off the production line were often death traps when confronted with the anti-tank weapons the Germans had available by 1944. Their frontal armour wasn't too bad, but the side and rear was paper thin. And no, by 1944 Tigers and Panthers were available in decent numbers, especially on the western front where some of the most elite German divisions were situated, awaiting the invasion that was fully expected to come sooner rather than later. But even against upgunned PzKfz.IVs they were often inferior, especially before they were fitted with 75 and 76mm guns. | |
| Apr 3, 2020 at 21:07 | comment | added | Amorphous Blob | More to @TomAu, the Americans produced excellent tanks according to the latter two of your criteria. It was hidebound brass and mistaken "tanks are for breakthroughs, tank destroyers are for fighting tanks" policy that kept the Sherman from progressing fast enough. And in addition to your criteria, the US had the factors of having to ship tens of thousands of tanks, and their parts and fuel, 4000 miles to Europe, so they basically had to be a lighter tank. | |
| Apr 3, 2020 at 19:18 | comment | added | Amorphous Blob | Sherman vs Tiger and esp. vs Panther battles were rare - see my other comments. Even tor the heavy German tanks, you're focusing on the 3% of the war that was tank-vs-tank. The Sherman's qualities were just what the US needed to overwhelm the usual opponent - a German infantry squad and keep on traveling for hundreds of miles, and be repairable if hit. | |
| Apr 3, 2020 at 19:16 | comment | added | Amorphous Blob | When tanks were destroyed, 4 of 5 US & British tankers survived, compared to the too-cramped T-34's 1 of 4 or 5. Its later (and admittedly too rare) 76.2 mm gun was superiod to the Soviet 85mm gun. In a fight, it would just depend on who got the first accurate shot off, about which, advantage Sherman. | |
| Apr 3, 2020 at 19:16 | comment | added | Amorphous Blob | @TomAu, the Shermans were superior to the T-34 in every aspect except track width (for muddy ground), height (which has some advantages too) and perhaps a bit of armor slopage. They could travel hundreds of miles compared to a good portion of T-34s breaking down going 20 miles. Their metallurgy, optics, ammo quality, survivability if hit, ergonomics (a great assist to having your tankers not too exhausted to fight) were all immeasurably superior to the T34. | |
| Apr 3, 2020 at 18:26 | comment | added | Amorphous Blob | Rather than compare to a rare fight against a Tiger or Panther, compare to Panzer IVs, to which they were roughly equivalent in a fight, and superior in every other facet. Or compare to the much more frequent Sherman vs German infantry squad fight - 50X more commonplace. The myth of the lousy Sherman was sensationalized and has been debunked. | |
| Apr 3, 2020 at 18:22 | comment | added | Amorphous Blob | @jwenting, Shermans were at least adequate, and in many aspects excellent, for the real on-the-ground war in Europe, for 98% of their tasks. Fights against Tigers were rare, and against Panthers very rare. Of course a fight against a much more heavily armored, better-armed tank would end badly, but Shermans were very reliable, light enough to ship lots of them 4000 miles to Europe and have good gas mileage, easily repaired... exactly what the US needed. | |
| Feb 23, 2020 at 4:35 | comment | added | Agent Orange | The Matilda was not a bad tank. They were slower than the Grant or Sherman, difficult and expensive to produce, relatively undergunned, all as you say, but before the Germans arrived in the desert with their 88mm guns the Matilda proved invincible and invaluable against the Italians. They had their time. | |
| Feb 12, 2015 at 23:06 | comment | added | Oldcat | The other problem with the French Chars was their limited operation range. They had to quickly retire to be refueled at rear depots. Germans could run longer, and fill up at normal French gas stations too. | |
| Feb 9, 2015 at 13:19 | comment | added | Rohit | Yes, we heard that so many times, that if Germans were not crazily obsessed with engineering, they could have won the war . One cannot help but pity the poor fools | |
| Feb 9, 2015 at 1:24 | comment | added | Schwern | The T-34 was not heavier, they were about the same weight with similar amounts of armor. What made the T-34 so much better than the M4 was its 76mm (later 85mm) high velocity gun compared to the M4's 75mm low velocity gun (later 76mm high velocity), sloped armor, and that it existed in 1941. In many ways the T-34 was an inferior tank with a bad transmission, poor ergonomics and bad optics (mostly fixed in the T-34-85). | |
| Mar 27, 2013 at 22:06 | history | edited | Tom Au | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 247 characters in body
|
| Mar 27, 2013 at 12:01 | comment | added | jwenting | @RISwampYankee the Char could take out 5-8 Panzer I or II, yet when up against the few Panzer III and IV that were available they quickly fell. The Germans never initially intended to use the Is and IIs for combat operations, but had no choice in the matter when Hitler started the war before sufficient numbers of IIIs were available (the I and II were designed mainly to train crews and familiarise units in combined arms operations). | |
| Mar 27, 2013 at 11:51 | comment | added | RI Swamp Yankee | @jwenting - Interesting to note that the French Char B2 could take out 5-8 Panzers, it was a real monster tank, but the mobility, reliability and sheer numbers of German armor overwhelmed them. The Nazis then went ahead and made the same mistake - slow, expensive vs. quick and cheap. | |
| Mar 27, 2013 at 7:02 | comment | added | Anixx | "inferior to the better, heavier, German Tiger and Panther tanks, (not to mention the Russian T-34)" - possibly this sentence should have opposite order "inferior to T-34 not to mention Panther and Tiger". T-34 was a medium tank. Panther and Tiger were heavy tanks. T-34 was much inferior to Panther and Tiger (although also much cheaper). | |
| Mar 27, 2013 at 6:47 | comment | added | jwenting | well said. American tanks were individually terrible as weapons, but won out due to sheer pressure of numbers. A Tiger in France could take out 5-8 Shermans in a typical engagement before being rendered combat ineffective, but would typically encounter them in groups of 10 or more per Tiger. Same situation existed between T-34s and Tigers on the east front (and the T-34 was in some ways superior to the Sherman, especially armour protection). Shermans were only superior to many British tanks, and then mostly in armour and reliability, not firepower. | |
| Mar 27, 2013 at 2:05 | history | answered | Tom Au | CC BY-SA 3.0 |