About Jacksons

USF doesn't have nondoc dive tanks capable of brawling it out with other tanks. Therefore the jackson has to fill two roles while most other factions have 2 tanks for the given role.

Either way if the jackson isnt good then USF wont be good.

I couldn't have said better myself, USF lategame AT rests solely on the Jackson, it is the "Final Solution" to Tanks that USF has and it only makes sense it's good at it's one job.

USF doesn't have nondoc dive tanks capable of brawling it out with other tanks. Therefore the jackson has to fill two roles while most other factions have 2 tanks for the given role.

Either way if the jackson isnt good then USF wont be good.

it's not like the sherman wasn't there to be the meat shield for the Jackon's nimble glass cannon. You're going to add 160 hp to something.

late 1944-1945 sherman is different from the "tommy cooker" used in the african compaign. The US did improved on the model in the two years.

Even without going into the E8 model the US added wet storage, improved frontal armor, cupola, gun shield.

The US was also the only nation in ww2 whose tanker worn protective helmet as standard. Beret might look nicer but helmet save life.

Doctrinal EZ8 is a design issue. Should have been or an upgrade for basic M4 or an individual stock unit available after unlocking all Tiers for example.

Doctrinal EZ8 is a design issue. Should have been or an upgrade for basic M4 or an individual stock unit available after unlocking all Tiers for example.

Doesn't sherman have now a stock upgrade to the gun?

Doesn't sherman have now a stock upgrade to the gun?

Doctrinal, Mechanized regiment or I'm mistaken, I haven't build a lot of sherman recently, and mostly when having this doctrine picked-up.

it's not like the sherman wasn't there to be the meat shield for the Jackon's nimble glass cannon. You're going to add 160 hp to something.

late 1944-1945 sherman is different from the "tommy cooker" used in the african compaign. The US did improved on the model in the two years.

Even without going into the E8 model the US added wet storage, improved frontal armor, cupola, gun shield.

The US was also the only nation in ww2 whose tanker worn protective helmet as standard. Beret might look nicer but helmet save life.

I mean if we are talking historically the Sherman was, unlike common thought, not a bad tank. It was a serviceable cheap tank that could hold its own into the late war. Ya, of course, we know the early designs were known to burn up but the US definitely took strides to solve that issue. If I'm not mistaken the Sherman was also relatively comfortable to be a crew member in due to a less cluttered interior.

I mean if we are talking historically the Sherman was, unlike common thought, not a bad tank. It was a serviceable cheap tank that could hold its own into the late war. Ya, of course, we know the early designs were known to burn up but the US definitely took strides to solve that issue. If I'm not mistaken the Sherman was also relatively comfortable to be a crew member in due to a less cluttered interior.

Also it was much easier to escape with each crew member having a hatch. Trained crews are expensive. The only problem with the Sherman was the USFs failed tank destroyer doctrine that stalled Sherman and medium tank development.

In real life Sherman was a Tank that 2 generation behind the Panther.

Wow wow i have seen a lot of myths but this thread lol

1) Sherman wasn't "cheap".
It actually costed (basic old hull 75mm gun) slighly more than panzer 4 ausf H, the most expensive panzer 4 with skirts, high velocity gun, improved hull armored, rounded turret skirts.
The Easy 8 costed roughly 2k US dollar less than Panther ausf G equivalent from reichmarks.

2) The extra hatch was introduced as stopgap solution for the burning issues.
It has never been used in Europe (post Italy where early shermans served of course), but hey, it was there, so ok.
It actually took some time before a knocked out tank will catch fire with proper upgrades.

3) The USF doctrine was NOT what held Sherman back. As much flawed as usf tank doctrine looked, it was immidiatly abandoned from Normandy, where Tigers and Panthers gave 75mm Shermans quite a beating. The issued was that the m1 76mm gun implemented in 1944 was way behind the german kwk40 l/48 implemented in 1942.
It had roughly same caliber and longer barrel. It was much more restrictive and reduced of a lpt the turret traverse. AND STILL the kwk40 had far higher muzzle velocity.

In real life Sherman was a Tank that 2 generation behind the Panther.

Total hogwash.

It was a different tank. And in many ways a superior and much more fleshed out weapon system than the Panther.

ALL the Sherman variants, with the possible exception to the Jumbo, were remarkably reliable. Also they were useable from the desserts of North Africa to the jungles of the Pacific, and easily transportable and reparable in all those locations, which was important considering the sources of parts, etc were always an ocean plus at least another several hundred miles.

It was more produce-able as well. With 50,000 variants made, coupled with much higher reliability, means it was eminently available to the troops. A tank that shows up is always superior to the one that doesn't. And by late '44, with the 76mm gun it was equal to or superior to anything it would face up to and including late model PIVs (the ones that were working, not the ones that broke), and, in the hands of a trained crew, likely to take out a Panther, because what matters more is the quality of the crew, not the tank. At this stage the Panthers, assuming they had fuel, might still break down in a prolonged engagement (Germany was short of the specified alloys for the drive wheel, and the ones they could produce did not last more than a couple of hundred kilometers.)

See the battle of Arracourt: 75 Mark IVs and 107 Mark Vs vs 190 m4s (almost all 75mm), 38 m18s (76mm) and 77 Stuarts. The results were a lopsided smacking of the Panthers.

After war analysis showed that by far the deciding factor in a tank engagement were NOT armor and gun, but who got off the first shot. The 75mm was capable of punching through the side armor of a Panther and its turret. More to the point, the Sherman was more likely to actually show up!

I strongly recommend a thorough reading of this article by The Chieftan:

https://worldoftanks.com/en/news/chieftain/chieftains-hatch-us-guns-vs-german-armour-part-1/?page=1

There is a LOT there including a lot of testing results of various allied rounds used against various parts of the Panther. The sum of it is that while there wasn't a lot that could penetrate the front of the Panther, there was a whole heck of a lot (down to 37mm APC rounds at 500m and 57mm and 75mm m4s at 1500m) that would penetrate the sides and rear of the Panther.

There is also a bunch of discussion about the effects of hardened steel. The Germans made it much harder to penetrate, but spalling was a huge issue. On the other hand the US steel was much softer, making a penetration easier but less lethal. Considering the US was able to replace tanks, but that trained (and particularly trained and experienced) crews are harder to replace this actually works out quite well, as can be seen in the results of the more experienced US m4/75mm crews at Arracourt.

As to cost? Pretty much useless information, probably from the parts of both allies and Germans but in particular on the German side. When there is rationing, shortages that have to be resolved with allocations, and slave labor involved, and a complete lack of open exchange rates, it is probably impossible to evaluate the cost of military materiale in Nazi Germany. That affects the US as well, but without as many factors since there was no slave labor and much fewer shortages.

Wow wow i have seen a lot of myths but this thread lol

1) Sherman wasn't "cheap".
It actually costed (basic old hull 75mm gun) slighly more than panzer 4 ausf H, the most expensive panzer 4 with skirts, high velocity gun, improved hull armored, rounded turret skirts.
The Easy 8 costed roughly 2k US dollar less than Panther ausf G equivalent from reichmarks.

2) The extra hatch was introduced as stopgap solution for the burning issues.
It has never been used in Europe (post Italy where early shermans served of course), but hey, it was there, so ok.
It actually took some time before a knocked out tank will catch fire with proper upgrades.

3) The USF doctrine was NOT what held Sherman back. As much flawed as usf tank doctrine looked, it was immidiatly abandoned from Normandy, where Tigers and Panthers gave 75mm Shermans quite a beating. The issued was that the m1 76mm gun implemented in 1944 was way behind the german kwk40 l/48 implemented in 1942.
It had roughly same caliber and longer barrel. It was much more restrictive and reduced of a lpt the turret traverse. AND STILL the kwk40 had far higher muzzle velocity.

Total hogwash.

That actually applies to your description of the Sherman.

The Sherman's chassis was based on the Lee/Grand Chassis a tank that had an obsolete design. That of an infantry support tank with a high silhouette to be able to carry its main gun in offset sponson like they did in WWI.

The reliability of the Panther had nothing to do with the Tank itself but with the fact that German factories where being bombed, only low quality materiel was available, low quality fuel where used, the same Tanks and crews had to be used allot more due to being outnumbered.

That is why German crews got number of kills that no allied crew ever come close to.

Actually Panther where produced even after the war and where used by the French.

When it come to reliability, easy production and generally cost efficiency the T-34
was far superior to Sherman.

If you think that a Sherman facing a Panther had a better chance of coming out victorious you are gravely mistaken.

I strongly recommend a thorough reading of this article by The Chieftan:

https://worldoftanks.com/en/news/chieftain/chieftains-hatch-us-guns-vs-german-armour-part-1/?page=1

There is a LOT there including a lot of testing results of various allied rounds used against various parts of the Panther. The sum of it is that while there wasn't a lot that could penetrate the front of the Panther, there was a whole heck of a lot (down to 37mm APC rounds at 500m and 57mm and 75mm m4s at 1500m) that would penetrate the sides and rear of the Panther.

There is also a bunch of discussion about the effects of hardened steel. The Germans made it much harder to penetrate, but spalling was a huge issue. On the other hand the US steel was much softer, making a penetration easier but less lethal. Considering the US was able to replace tanks, but that trained (and particularly trained and experienced) crews are harder to replace this actually works out quite well, as can be seen in the results of the more experienced US m4/75mm crews at Arracourt.

As to cost? Pretty much useless information, probably from the parts of both allies and Germans but in particular on the German side. When there is rationing, shortages that have to be resolved with allocations, and slave labor involved, and a complete lack of open exchange rates, it is probably impossible to evaluate the cost of military materiale in Nazi Germany. That affects the US as well, but without as many factors since there was no slave labor and much fewer shortages.

No sorry, neither the chieftain nor WOT are reliable sources.
If you want to come out with Hunnicutt, Zalonga, Schneider or whatever ok, but the chieftain has said a lot of factually untrue trash (kwk42 75mm having worse penetration than 88 kwk36 is one of the worst).

And what you said is nonsense.
Cost is cost, it is based on manpower, hours and amount of resources and converted into relative cost.
Cost can be converted in any currency.

Panthers production was in Nuremberg, so hardly slave labour has something to do.
To be fair, almost whole military production has always been located in Germany in ww2, if we exclude wool, basic infantry tools, gas, fuel and uniforms.

That actually applies to your description of the Sherman.

The Sherman's chassis was based on the Lee/Grand Chassis a tank that had an obsolete design. That of an infantry support tank with a high silhouette to be to carry its main gun in offset sponson like they did in WWI.

The reliability of the Panther had nothing to do with the Tank itself but with the fact that German factories where being bombed, only low quality materiel was available, low quality fuel where used, Tank had to be used allot more action.

Ok, wow. SO the Panther was designed better but as built it didn't meet spec? that is EXACTLY the kind of issue a weapons "system" is supposed to avoid. If the Panther chassis was a superior design, but reversing the tracks to achieve a shorter turn radius breaks the chassis, or the proper alloys are not available so adjustments are made that reduce performance and reliability, then it is not a superior design!

One of the reasons they didn't change the chassis (and used it on so many other vehicles) is that it was GOOD! After all they changed everything else.

That is why German crews got number of kills that no allied crew ever come close to.

It is far far more likely that they got more kills for two other reasons. First, they were on the defensive. The attacker is always at a disadvantage to the defender as the defender can choose their sight lines, camouflage is effective when you aren't moving, etc. Second, and by nature of the limited capacity of German industry, there had way way more opponents to shoot than the axis. Many US tankers never encountered enemy tanks and some didn't even encounter Stugs. (Ask the Wehrmacht infantry how happy they were about that!)

Actually Panther where produced even after the war and where used by the French.

This one is so easy to research that I wonder about your sources in general. A total of 9 panthers were assembled after the war from available components. The French were able to field a brigade of about 100 Panthers by gathering all the Panthers that broke down or ran out of fuel (there were several hundred used to make this brigade). They did an analysis of their experience with these tanks and that is often a primary source of just how mechanically unreliable they were.

If you think that a Sherman facing a Panther had a better chance of coming out victorious you are gravely mistaken.

This is probably the greatest reasoning that leads to the misunderstanding of the capability of Nazi kit without dealing with them as weapons "systems". If you were a well trained tanker and being shot at, would you rather be in a mechanically functional and fueled Tiger or Panther surrounded by other working and fueled Tigers/panthers with properly trained crews or in a similar number of functional, fueled, trained M4s? The answer is easy.

Change the equation. You similar # of m4s will be fueled (and are sure to be refueled), will function, and are sure to be surrounded by more Shermans, m10s, m18s and Stuarts. The crews will be well trained. In the German tanks you already know some will break down, if you haven't yet run out of fuel you probably are in a constant state of "range anxiety" (thanks to electric vehicles we now have a term for it), and the guys in the brand spanking new Panthers around you might be green with deficiencies in use of both their vehicle and their gun because of shortages in fuel and ammunition.

More to the point, would you rather be a general in charge of an Army Group with 10,000 vehicles, all of which work and where losses can be replaced, or 2,000 of which at any given moment half might not be functioning and half of the remainder will break down, run out of fuel, or have untrained crews?

I think even rocks know that at Arrancourt allied cas won the battle.
Whenever the Luftwaffe had limited air superiority (Market Garden), air support couldn't be avaiable for both sides (early Hurtgen forest, early Ardennes,..) and allies worked without coordinating with air support (Villers-Bocage) Western allies took an hell of a beating.

Exactly, all myths of unreliability comes from a report from French forces using barely repaired ausf D Panthers collected in Normandy.

There's way more than one source going against it.
Taking the operational rate from 1944 to 1945, the Panther operational rate is of 70% (Sherman is 80%) all despite the early 1944 bombing of Panther Nuremberg factory, fuel and spare parts shortages and much more hours of activity on the field as frontline tanks to supplement numerical inferiority.
It was actually far more reliable.

No sorry, neither the chieftain nor WOT are reliable sources.
If you want to come out with Hunnicutt, Zalonga, Schneider or whatever ok, but the chieftain has said a lot of factually untrue trash (kwk42 75mm having worse penetration than 88 kwk36 is one of the worst).

That is an ad hominem response to the assertions "this person made a mistake with something else, therefore we cannot accept anything they say as valid." The proper way to rebut is to counter an assertion with another assertion and provide the sources. I didn't relate The Chieftan as the source. I relayed an article in which he reproduces primary sources (primary sources are in away superior to quoting Hunnicut or Zalonga.)

And what you said is nonsense.
Cost is cost, it is based on manpower, hours and amount of resources and converted into relative cost.
Cost can be converted in any currency.

That is in fact not the case. Cost is not cost. Never was and never will be PARTICULARLY in command economies like wartime Germany. Pick your choice of accounting and economics classes and that becomes clear since whole semesters can be spent on cost. Germany did not have free markets to "clear" the price of scarce material. Nor was there a way to compare the free exchange of reichsmarks to dollars to see what the equivalence might be.

Panthers production was in Nuremberg, so hardly slave labour has something to do.
To be fair, almost whole military production has always been located in Germany in ww2, if we exclude wool, basic infantry tools, gas, fuel and uniforms.

Here is a map of only major slave labor camps (there were too many minor ones to include). There is nary a part of Germany that did not have and did not use slave labor. This includes top secret weapons programs far more advanced and sensitive than the Panther including the V2 and the Me-262.

https://www.ushmm.org/outreach/en/media_nm.php?MediaId=380

Guys: these last few posts are really interesting for a discussion, but they do not belong under the thread topic of 'About Jacksons'! And one thing I hope we can all agree upon: the Sherman (in whatever variant) is not a Jackson.

If I could split this thread, I would - and I could then transfer the last few answers to the Library, so you could carry on your discussion.

As it is, I regret the board does not permit this: accordingly, I invite one of you restart the debate in the Library.

As it is, if you attempt to carry on the Sherman discussion here from now on, it will be off topic and liable to invising. This would be a shame, as the topic about the Sherman debate is in itself an interesting to discuss.

Back to the Jackson topic!

@ Vipper: please read - and digest - my previous post.

You are more than welcome to start a thread about the effectiveness of the Sherman tank - in the Library!

Off topic post invised.

Back to the Jackson.