I guess I should have worded the question “Is the Sherman under-rated?” I was thinking more of the negative a modern day armchair general comments I’ve heard and read about the thing. I know our enemies and allies had an appreciation for the Sherman. It might not have been the perfect tank but it was the right tank at the right time. Even if it was too tall.
Posts made by 11HP20
-
RE: Was the Sherman Under-rated?
-
RE: Best Toy Ever!
I saw that Tiger before when I was looking for R/C tanks for my boys. They ended up with a set of 1/16 Airsoft Panthers. Very cool. My favorite toys we have right now would have to be our 1/32 slot car track. When we set the whole thing up it’s over 100 feet long. It takes up a lot of floor space to say the least.
-
RE: Paintball or Airsoft
Airsoft all the way. If I’m gonna play army I want my guns to look and feel real. I have a TM M16A2 with an M203 on it.
-
RE: Favorite WW2 Bomber
Although it was a dive bomber I picked the Stuka. That plane simply has that “it” factor. Since I couldn’t narrow it down to 3 I just stuck with 1 vote. My number 2 would be the B-29. I particular I like the Enola Gay and Bach’s Car.
-
RE: Which would have been a better Ally to Germany?
I voted Turkey for the same location reasons already pointed out. I think just having Turkey joining the Axis would have been better then both Turkey and Spain joining. Spain was drained after it’s civil war and could not hope the guard it’s considerable coastline. The drain on Germany to help guard this would have been a detriment. Spain not being known for it’s overabunance of natural resources would not have made this drain very beneficial.
-
RE: Was the Sherman Under-rated?
Americans tend to be a bit harse about being, and having the best. Because the Sherman was outclassed by Hitler and Stalin’s giant metal monsters we beat on the poor thing a little hard. We after all want everything we have to be better than everything everyone else has.
Compare the Sherman to other medium tanks of the era and it doesn’t do badly. Yes the first version got the well deserved nick name “Tommy cooker”. Yes it was too tall. In fact the overall shape needed a little help. This was the result of someone saying they wanted it to be narrow. The short barreled 75mm M2 gun wasn’t the best choice of main armament. Heck I don’t even like the vertical volute spring suspension.
When upguuned with the 76mm M1 gun the Sherman became a more serious threat on the battlefield. She was easy to build on large quantities. Let’s not forget Stalin’s famous quote about quantiity. We have to remember the enormity of US WW2 factories. Shutting one down to retool for a new heavy tank would have had a big effect on the battlefield.
The Sherman’s maxium armor thickness measured favorably against other medium tanks of the day. The front plate was set at a decent angle. (The degree escapes me right now) The mechanical reliability of the Sherman was far superior to that of the larger tanks built by other countries.
Even though I’m no fan of the Sherman I voted yes in my poll.
-
Was the Sherman Under-rated?
I hope this sparks some discussion about the USA’s technological, and industrial capabilities, along with her war aims.
-
RE: Favorite WW2 BOLT-ACTION RIFLE
Dezrtfish I didn’t try shooting the Enfield the way you discribe but I can picture it being done. Two things are going to keep me from trying that for a while. First the SMLE I fired was my ex-brother-in-law’s. Second my torn rotator cuff. No bolt action for a while. Don’t get me wrong though I think the Enfield is a fine bolt action weapon. I just prefer the 03.
-
RE: T-34
I have to ammend my last post. I can’t think too fast. One of my many faults.
The vehicle I was thinking of was not a Studebaker truck. It was a Packard car. In 1938 (I think) Packard sold some tooling to the Soviets. With this Stalin’s crew made copies of one of Packards models. This ended for a while because of some uninvited German guests. After the war production continued until the late '50s. The engine was reliable enough to have suppodedly found it’s way into some trucks. These engines had Packard on the valve covers.
My confusion/stupidity came from the fact the Soviets received a huge amount of Studebaker trucks thanks to lend/lease. These trucks were so popular some Russians started using the word Studebaker as a generic term for truck.
Legion 3 the tank I mentioned was near the top of the hill. The ground leveled off at one point before continuing upward towards the crest. Going up the hill the T54/55 would have been on your left. Not a scratch on it. Unfortunately some a$$hole stole the pictures the pictures I took there or I would have scanned a couple a posted them.
To anyone interested in how whacked out a T34 can look check this out.
http://www.jedsite.info/tanks-tango/tango-numbers-su/t-34_series/t34-series.html
Look at the T34 HU Firefighting, and the Syrian T34/122. Thinking about the Egypian 122 SPG reminded me of the Syrian version. So I googled and found this site.
-
RE: Favorite WW2 BOLT-ACTION RIFLE
I agree with dezrtfish. The '03 is just edged out by the Kar 98. I wonder if the three people who voted for the Enfield have fired it and the ‘03 seein’ as how the '03 only has one vote right now.
-
RE: T-34
I’m sorry the “Highway of Death” had destroyed equipment mostly, not much runs when its been blasted. Once on operations with the Egyptians I saw several of their T-34’s running around, they were using them as enemy forces. This was of course back in the 80’s but they were running then.
So you don’t like Russian heavy equipment, well I guess they had enough of it to route the Germans. And even though I spent most of the 80’s preparing to fight them, I wonder if they would have had enough to route us to?
If you want to question my integrity that’s fine. I know what we found, where we found it, and the shape it was in. I’m sure you’d imply I don’t have any of the Iraqi letters and the dairy I found there. That’s fine.
I’m going to follow your logic for a minute. The Russians made tanks in so great a quanity the Germans could never hope to come close to keeping up. That makes those Soviet tanks awesome. Therefore I guess the Sherman was one of the all time greatest tanks. Same logic, different country.
A quote from Andrew Cockburn’s The Threat:Inside the Soviet Military Machine refering to the T34 “The transmissions were so delicate that tanks would be sent into battle with spare sets roped to the decks. When American analysts had the opportunity to make a close examination of T34s captured in the Korean War, they found that some components had a working life of about 14 hours.” This book was written in 1983. In it Cockburn tried to tell the world the most modern of Soviet armor did not come close to matching the West’s armor. I’m guessing he knew a thing or two.
The most reliable Soviet truck built immediately after the war were direct copies of the Studebakers they received from lend-lease. Down to Studebaker printed on the valve covers. Their best long range bomber shortly after the war. A copy of the B-29. American jets were known to have 3-1/2 times the operational readiness of their Soviet counterparts. I could do this all day.
So you saw modernized Egyptian T34s running around. Thanks for making my point for me. Even the Egyptians had the good sense to replace the motors and transmissions. Just like the Soviet armor I supposedly trained with in Germany. All had Western engines and transmissions. Were these T34s you saw left with there original turrets, were they T34/100s with the BS-3 100 mm AT gun, or were they T34/122 SPGs. I’m sure they weren’t the oil well fire fighting versions. Those had two Mig 21 engines strapped to the top sans turret. You would have noticed that.
Soviet tankers who used both Western and Soviet armor say Soviet armor was unreliable. Military analyasts, historians, servicemembers hwho worked with Soviet heavy equipment, authors who study such equipment, the Russians themselves (try to read a44bigdog’s post), and so on say the Soviet big toys don’t work well. Then there is you.
Say what you want past this point. I will not be replying to your posts. It’s just not worth the effort.
-
RE: What do You think?
“great britian was very mean in ww1”
I’ve always found it ironic how barbaric the Brits were in their colonies and how they portrayed the Germans in WW1. Lord Kitchener caused thousands of women and children to die in concentration camps during the Boer War. Yet he was held up as a person of high morale character even in the U.S. Remember the “Uncle Sam Wants You” posters were inspired by the “Lord Kitchener Wants You” posters that were all over G.B. It’s sad what horrors man can ignore of it suits his own interests.
-
RE: Favorite WW2 BOLT-ACTION RIFLE
I’ve fired the bottom four in the poll. I to have a VZ-24 and love it. So the Mauser got my vote. My grandfather had a Jap rifle he got to keep from WW2. I was a child when I saw it and can’t tell you what it was. I do remember him and another WW2 vet telling me they had fired the weapon and were not impressed. They both said they preferred the Springfield to my grandfather’s war trophy by far. I think it was a late war production rifle. I struck me as crude even in my pre teen years.
-
RE: T-34
Below I have a list of heavy equipment produced by the Russians that is well known for mechanical reliability.
As you can see from the list it’s not hard to imagine the T-34 might break down a lot just like everything else the Russians have ever built without stealing the plans from someone else first.
Hmmm…
Cute…not accurate but cute.
Having faced Russian made stuff I can tell you it does work and works quite well.
The AK47 and the Makarov pistols are reliable in any conditions, any where and at any time. If the T-34’s broke down at Aberdeen its more likely the Americans had no idea what they were doing with them. Apparently enough of them worked on the battlefield.
Whom did the Russians steal the plans to the T-34? What Russian stuff have you seen break down? :wink:
I didn’t word my second sentence well at all. I was refering to heavy equipment. So you got me. You are correct about Soviet small arma being reliable. My AK is a fine close combat weapon. I just wouldn’t want to rely on it in wide open spaces against an enemy armed with Western long arms. As far as side arms I’ll keep my 1911 thank you. The Soviets did not steal the plans for the T-34 and it was unreliable. So were all their other tanks, planes, trucks, missles, etc. Unless they stole the plans for them. Even then they were not as reliable as the originals. What Soviet equipment have I seen broken down. Lot’s of vehicles. Including the T54-55 my buddies and I tried to take at the “Highway of Death”. What T-34 have you seen that was running so well?
-
RE: AA Guns in America
@LT04:
Sure there were AA guns on the West coast did you ever see that comedy 1941? You may not remember the name but I bet you remember the faris-wheel. :lol:
The part I remember best is the Jap submariner in love with Hollywood. Horrywooood!!! Too funny.
-
RE: T-34
Below I have a list of heavy equipment produced by the Russians that is well known for mechanical reliability.
As you can see from the list it’s not hard to imagine the T-34 might break down a lot just like everything else the Russians have ever built without stealing the plans from someone else first.
-
RE: How to fix board warping problem
@Cmdr:
I guess I should have read this before I nailed my board to the dining room table. I haven’t been able to feel my woman so much since then.
I cannot see how this should be a problem for her. Does she not play? Are you a wife abuser??? How dare you keep her from experiencing this game!!! After all, if she played this game, she would have no problem permanently airbrushing the board on her kitchen table!!!
Jen I like your style. One thing though. Why would I airbrush the board on my little kitchen table when my dining room table is over 8 feet long?
-
RE: Favorite WWII Ship
Italiansarecoming the word you’re looking for is Musashi. As far as Axis ships I like the Shinano. She was a carrier built on a Yamato hull. She put to sea loaded with Shinyo suicide boats and Ohka rocket bombs. Now comes my favorite part of this story. The next day the US sank her.
28 NOV 44 1330 Shinano departs Yokosuka for Kure.
29 NOV 44 0309 four torpedoes from USS Archerfish slam into the Shinano.
29 NOV 44 1057 Captain Abe (Shinano’s captain) goes down with his ship.
She was at sea for 21 hours and 27 minutes. This is one of my favorite night night stories. -
RE: German Navy and France
Possibly the Italians could have used the French ships to help keep Rommel better supplied. Had those convoys had better protection who knows what might have happened. This would have been a short term fix because the Brits would have filled the Mediteranean floor with those ships in due time.
Still maybe that fleet helps Rommel get more tanks, he reachs Alexandria, makes a German presence in a supportive Jewish loathing Middle East, then moves to make contact with supportive Iraqi forces. Now established in Iraq the Germans and Mid Eastern allies push east and invade India. This coincides with a Japanese attack on the other side of India. Now linked the Axis powers surge northward capturing all of Europe and Asia. Russia is removed.
As Japan builds forces and focuses solely on the US, Germany finally launches Operation Sealion. Facing Hitler without the help of Europian allies Britain falls. Japan hits Alaska with a diversionary force then over runs Central America. At the same time Germany invades eastern Canada. Facing a two front assault America falls. The Axis claims victory on G34.