The Sherman in WWII

Lol I haven't seen someone as butt hurt as blvckdream in a long time. He throws out a bunch of unsupported statements in response to some well researched answers, and then blames "Americans" for being stupid and ignorant. Oh the irony.

You were the one who made a point of German tank "Aces". I was responding by showing that tank aces, while talented and experienced combatants, probably had their total inflated, had higher totals due to multiple other factors than their tanks, and were an example of poor doctrine (using experienced troops in the field instead of having them use their experience to improve the training of new troops).

Yes I did and the argument was that one can not achieve so many kills (even if some where inflated) depending on an unreliable machine. A Tank that achieve so many kills is reliable.


Things that have nothing to with the Sherman.
Show Spoiler

Show Spoiler

Lol I haven't seen someone as butt hurt as blvckdream in a long time. He throws out a bunch of unsupported statements in response to some well researched answers, and then blames "Americans" for being stupid and ignorant. Oh the irony.

Well researched answers? So saying: "Allied tank crews were better than German tank crews" is a well researched statement now? HAHAHAHA.....you gotta be fucking kidding

And yes Americans are brainwashed regarding WW2. In that regard they are indeed ignorant and stupid.

The USF is and always will be a laughing stock of an army. Beating some Wehrmacht reserves in 1944 by endlessly shelling and bombing every enemy position doesn´t change that. The real war went on and was decided on the eastern front by German and Russian soldiers that sacrificed so much in this terrible war. They are the heroes that we need to remember. Not some USF soldiers that could rely on total air superiority and unlimited supply and replacements to beat some wounded old men and kids.

Who hurt you man? You sound like Göbbels grandson or something ... keeping the dream live.

I am beginning to think less a Wehraboo and more that he is Russian. I get that they have issues with the partisan outlooks of other participants, particularly the US and Britain. But there are also some major confidence issues under the surface, methinks.

OK

So we're in the Library, and in theory, we should be able to discuss things is a less impassioned way than on the main forums, because we are not talking Balance, Gameplay etc

It is therefore disappointing for me to have to record that I have invised blvckdream's image (which was not reported), as well as a follow-up re-exhibiting the silly image.


Please discuss nicely.

Well researched answers? So saying: "Allied tank crews were better than German tank crews" is a well researched statement now? HAHAHAHA.....you gotta be fucking kidding

And yes Americans are brainwashed regarding WW2. In that regard they are indeed ignorant and stupid.

You went from possibly misinterpreting what I said to purposely lying about it. I never said all the German tank crews sucked, I never said all the allied tank crews were better. All I've said is that there's been some exaggeration about some of the panzer legends, and that their new recruits were undertrained. Neither of those things is controversial outside of the small circles of online Wehraboos that heil hitler when they wake up in the morning.

The USF is and always will be a laughing stock of an army.

Bahhahahahahahaha, now its starting to make sense. The "USF." That's the name of a videogame faction, nobody outside of the COH2 community refers to the US Army in WW2 as the "USF." Everything I've said in this thread comes from university military history class, Story of the Bulge (John Toland), and an article I stumbled across online a while back (can't find it now) talking about blunders made by "expert" German tank crews. Your entire context for understanding WW2 and German tank crews seems to be confined to the COH1 campaign and the P2W Tiger Ace.

I have to agree with some of the remarks here, that the quality of tank crews in themselves are something of a red herring.

It is a given that by D-Day, the Axis tankers had more experience of tank fighting from the Eastern Front. Some of the Allied tankers had experience of tank fighting from North Africa or Italy, but the majority did not.

All crews were however human beings, and therefore, what likely separated them in their conduct was war weariness, or lack of experience.

For instance, you could be in an Allied tank and be mostly assured that air attack was not a major problem (provided it was not Blue on Blue). On the other hand, you could be in an Axis battletank, when air attack was a tremendous problem, weather conditions permitting.

Everything I've said in this thread comes from university military history class, Story of the Bulge (John Toland), and an article I stumbled across online a while back (can't find it now) talking about blunders made by "expert" German tank crews.

From a military history class from an US university. Winners write the history books.

From a military history class from an US university. Winners write the history books.

Are you trolling or are you actually that ignorant?

From a military history class from an US university. Winners write the history books.

You literally said "USF" in a historical context, your WW2 history is limited to PC games made by Relic and Goebbels propaganda reels. Also liberal arts departments at US universities are notorious for anti-patriotism, that's 100x less controversial than all the other uncontroversial things I've said.

Are you trolling or are you actually that ignorant?

Couldn't be a Russian troll though. We know know how rare those are.

You literally said "USF" in a historical context, your WW2 history is limited to PC games made by Relic and Goebbels propaganda reels. Also liberal arts departments at US universities are notorious for anti-patriotism, that's 100x less controversial than all the other uncontroversial things I've said.

Why can I not usf USF instead of US forces? You seem to be even less intelligent than I thought. But yes, of course everything some US university teaches you about your countries history is true and completly objective.

I am done discussing history stuff with ignorant brainwashed Americans.

I'm not sure the quality of the tank crews has to do with MajorBloodnok's actual question (how good was the Sherman?)

The answer to that? It was good enough.

The 75mm gun couldn't penetrate Panthers or Tigers without getting dangerously close to them but Panthers and Tigers only made up about 30% of the German tank forces as of D-Day. The rest was StuGs, Panzer IVs and various older designs. The 75mm gun could handle those just fine.

A good tank is an adequate tank you can build a lot of. The US could build a lot of Shermans and they were good enough against anything that wasn't a Panther or Tiger.

The Firefly carried a 76.22mm gun (which was the equivalent of the UK 17lber)

The Firefly's gun was a British 17 pounder. It was a British tank.

The British wanted to mount the 17 pounder on a tank and their attempts to mount it on a Cromwell weren't going well. So they used the Sherman.

It was a very awkward vehicle. Outside of a battle they had to point the turret backwards so the gun barrel didn't stick in the mud when the tank drove over a bump. The gun was so big that they had to weld a box to the back to the turret to fit the radio equipment in. The main gun's muzzle flash (for which the tank was nicknamed) was so bright that the crew had to close their eyes when they fired or be temporarily blinded.

But it could reliably knock out anything the Germans had and for that it was invaluable.

Why can I not usf USF instead of US forces? You seem to be even less intelligent than I thought. But yes, of course everything some US university teaches you about your countries history is true and completly objective.

I am done discussing history stuff with ignorant brainwashed Americans.

Probably because "USF" is not a designation of the United States Armed Forces.

Heres a nice video about Myths of American Armor in WW2. Its more than just the Sherman but is still a good video for the subject overall.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY

All of you didn't mention one thing while comparing the Sherman to Panthers/Tigers and other German tanks.
Those tanks had different roles. At the beginning, the first Shermans were supposed to support infantry. It wasn't called a tank. It was called "Infantry Support Vehicle". It is easy to understand why it couldn't challenge the enemy's armor.
On the production rate, as i have read, Americans were producing 4 Shermans for each Tiger tank the Germans made.
Sherman's armor was probably its speed (like the M10 and the Jackson). All these tanks (although different roles in battle) had sacrificed their protection for speed.

A small source about the Tiger, regarding the battle of Villers-Bocage :

Επί αρκετές ημέρες μετά τη μάχη, ακόμη και η θέα γερμανικού άρματος προκαλούσε πανικό στους Βρετανούς, οι οποίοι κατέληξαν σε έναν γενικό, εμπειρικό κανόνα: "Εάν υπάρχει αναφορά για την παρουσία ενός Tiger, πρέπει να στείλεις πέντε Sherman, υπολογίζοντας να χάσεις τα τέσσερα."

Translation (since it's in Greek) : Many days after this battle, even seeing this german tank, British were panicked. This made them create a general, empirical rule : "If there is a report for a Tiger nearby, you need to send 5 Shermans, and expect losing 4 of them"

On the production rate, as i have read, Americans were producing 4 Shermans for each Tiger tank the Germans made.
Sherman's armor was probably its speed (like the M10 and the Jackson). All these tanks (although different roles in battle) had sacrificed their protection for speed.

A small source about the Tiger, regarding the battle of Villers-Bocage :

Επί αρκετές ημέρες μετά τη μάχη, ακόμη και η θέα γερμανικού άρματος προκαλούσε πανικό στους Βρετανούς, οι οποίοι κατέληξαν σε έναν γενικό, εμπειρικό κανόνα: "Εάν υπάρχει αναφορά για την παρουσία ενός Tiger, πρέπει να στείλεις πέντε Sherman, υπολογίζοντας να χάσεις τα τέσσερα."

Translation (since it's in Greek) : Many days after this battle, even seeing this german tank, British were panicked. This made them create a general, empirical rule : "If there is a report for a Tiger nearby, you need to send 5 Shermans, and expect losing 4 of them"

I haven’t the figures but I the ratio of Sherman’s to tigers produced was a lot more than that (maybe on a like for like time basis when tigers were being made) RE Villers-Bocage, it is never mentioned that the following day the British tank divisions inflicted significant losses in turn on the Germans and held the salient. However their supporting infantry division was unable to reach them to provide support and protection from infiltrating axis infantry so their commanders ordered them to withdraw.

I haven’t the figures but I the ratio of Sherman’s to tigers produced was a lot more than that (maybe on a like for like time basis when tigers were being made) RE Villers-Bocage, it is never mentioned that the following day the British tank divisions inflicted significant losses in turn on the Germans and held the salient. However their supporting infantry division was unable to reach them to provide support and protection from infiltrating axis infantry so their commanders ordered them to withdraw.

I hope that somebody has an answer on the production rate.
As for the battle of Villers-Bocage, every side has its own biased point of view. And indeed, i never heard of a British force going to help in this battle