Re: Sherman's was something else
From: "Brian Bilderback" <bbilderback@h...>
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 13:55:34 -0800
Subject: Re: Sherman's was something else
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