Re: Sherman's was something else

My view is that the MBT is the result of the evolution of AFV design. 
The
Tank/Tank destroyer doctrine was fatally flawed IMO and it was only
natural
that it be abandoned.

It's true that in a "stand up fight" Shermans were not the equal of some
of
the German tanks but it depends on what year of the war, and what tanks
you're comparing it to.  The M4A1 (76mm) was superior to the Pz IV in
that
it had a comparable gun and armor and was much more reliable.  The
problem
with both the Pz IV and the M4A1 was that neither one of them had armor
that would stop the other's gun.  To reference a naval term they were
"eggshells armed with hammers".    The thing is, there's almost never a
"stand up fight" in a war.  If things don't look advantageous you call
in
bigger guns (artillery or air) and pound things until it looks better.

>This further supports what I'd heard but felt unqualified to support,
that
>the Allies outlogisticsed (my own word... like it?) the Nazis when it
came
>to armor.

Well you can't really just look at armor.  The Western front was a very
complex campaign and it could have very easily failed.

While the Allies certainly had access to more supplies than the Germans,
it's not the whole story.  The Allies had the intel war won handily. 
The
Ultra intercepts gave the Allies incredibly detailed information on what
the Germans were doing, plus the Germans bought into the Fortitude
deceptions, more or less lock, stock, and barrel.  A further advantage
that
the Allies had,  was their command structure and training.  The Allied
forces trained their units to show initiative and to get the job done
without directives "from the top".  The command structure also was very
"clean" in that the field commanders didn't have to get permission from
higher HQ's to use available assets.  The German command structure was
quite frankly a mess, with the Panzer divisions being under Hitler's
personal control and he was several hundred miles from the front, and
prone
to sleeping till noon.	On top of that the troops were trained to "Obey
orders", and they didn't do anything without an order.

The Western Front in WWII basically hinged on whether or not the US and
the
UK could successfully invade France.  If the invasions succeeded then
there
was no way that Germany could win.  Runsted, and Rommel both knew this. 
It
was fortunate that Rommel was in Germany when we invaded and Runstedt
couldn't command the Panzer divisions that could have put the invasion
beaches in peril.  In my personal opinion it's unlikely that Germany
would
have won even if all they were fighting was Russia.  The Soviets had
such
an overwhelming number of men, tanks, and artillery it is incredible. 
What
the consequences would have been if the Soviets would have rolled over
Germany without the US and Britian coming from the other direction are
hard
to say, but I'm guessing they would have been bad(tm).

Looking at the D-day invasions today I don't see how anything analgous
will
ever happen again (at least not on Earth).  Today any country that
needed
to amphibiously invade another country would first neutralize the enemy
air
force, use precision munitions to annihilate any defensive works, the
airborne would secure the area immediately in front of the invasion area
and the hovercraft would come up on the beach and off would come the
troops.

I'm not sure where all this came from, once I started typing it just
sort
of happened.  :-)

Bill

									
				       
		    "Brian Bilderback"					
				       
		    <bbilderback@hotmail.com>	    To:    
gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu 			    
		    Sent by:			    cc: 		
				       
		    owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Be	    Subject:	 Re:
Sherman's was something else		   
		    rkeley.EDU						
				       
									
				       
									
				       
		    01/09/02 03:55 PM					
				       
		    Please respond to gzg-l				 

bbrush Wrote:

*Snip*

>The M4 was designed as a "breakthrough exploitation" vehicle.	It's
>(intended) job was not to fight other tanks, or even entreched
infantry.
>It was supposed to go through holes in the enemy's line, and cause
havoc
in
>the rear areas.  Tank destroyers and artillery were supposed to take
care
>of enemy tanks.  In practice things didn't work this way, which caused
an
>adjustment in doctrine.  If you'll notice there aren't any tank
destroyer
>units in the U.S. armed forces now (that I'm aware of).

Although I've heard the arguement that most modern MBT's, especially
western
ones, fit more closely the concept of a Tank Destroyer than they do the
traditional definition of a tank.

>German tanks on the other hand were designed to kill other tanks, and
>survive close-in "knife fights".

That's what I meant in my original post, I was wondering about the
claims
that Shermans were outmatched in stand-up fights with German tanks.

>From a logistics standpoint the Sherman was far superior to the German
>tanks in that it was easily maintained, reliable, and easily
transported.
>The US also won the production war because the available technology to
>produce vehicles was more effectively applied by the US industry.  The
US
>had it's auto industry produce it's AFV's and they did it just like
they
>did cars, assembly line, they cranked them out like they were making
>cookies.  The Germans on the other hand had their heavy machinery
industry
>produce their AFV's and while that industry was certainly suited to
>producing huge behemoth machines, they were not equipped mentally or
>physically to produce large volumes of vehicles.  Look at the disparity
in
>production numbers some time, it's mind boggling.

This further supports what I'd heard but felt unqualified to support,
that
the Allies outlogisticsed (my own word... like it?) the Nazis when it
came
to armor.

>As someone else mentioned, probably the best tank from WWII was the
T-34.
>It was fast, rugged, easy to produce, and had an excellent weapon
system.

Harry Turtledove touches on this in his World War books.

Brian B2

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com