Before seeing the first video I didn't know that the cannon on a Sherman could be fired from the outside with the use of a lanyard.
Printable View
Before seeing the first video I didn't know that the cannon on a Sherman could be fired from the outside with the use of a lanyard.
We were so far behind the power curve when it came to developing tanks, we didn't know which end was up for WWII.Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly
Look at the history of it, the hull was developed to move throughout Europe, cross bridges and mover through built up area's, the turret and main gun were a bit of an afterthought. They used a bit of data available from the Navy, then did the math and decided a 75 mm gun should do the trick. For the most part, that was all correct until the krauts started up arming heavier tanks with 88 mm guns.
The difference between German and American Tanks at that point became Mass Production versus Custom builds. The German Tanks were very finicky in some area's, especially transmissions, while the American Tanks were built in a assembly line in Henry Ford's model "T" like mindset. They were adequate, did 75% of the job, but they churned out quickly.
The bad part was actually being a crewman on one of those Sherman's because once the Tiger, Panther and King Tiger hit the battle field it took three to five Sherman's to take one out in tank on tank fights.
Rather than up gun the Sherman at that point and yes the technology was available, they decided the war would end before that was feasible.
I've spoken to a few German Tankers from WWII, they explained to me that they had better training and more experience than their allied counterparts.
Correct. We went into the war with the concept of the tank being an infantry support vehicle. The Germans utilized them as fast attack assault vehicles. I remember reading that General Rommel studied Nathan Bedford Forrest's calvary tactics and applied them to his armor units.Quote:
Originally Posted by Averageman
Yeah. I actually read Heinz Guderians book years ago in college. They really were in point with armor.
I thought they did upgun the M4 like the Easy Eight or was that in limited numbers?
The one in the video is the upgunned M4 with the 76mm. The standard Sherman had a lower velocity 75mm gun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly
Pretty cool videos. I agave always been introgued by shape charges and what tbey can and do ‘do’.
FYI the military has been posting this stuff for years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U61Hrn1JZWQ
That's a cool video, but the Sherman tank video stands out to me because it shows on a larger scale what happens when a bullet leaves a barrel. It doesn't come out straight and true, but rather goes through a short period of instability before truing itself up.Quote:
Originally Posted by vicious_cb
The long barreled 76mm hit the scene for the normandy breakout in August 44. It had better AP abilities over the shorter 75mm. However the explosive payload of the 76mm was far less effective than that of the 75mm for infantry support. The "Easy 8" or M4A3E8 had the M4A3s 500hp ford V8, "wet" ammunition storage, larger 76mm gun and turret, and HVSS suspension with its wider tracks. It showed up in ever increasing numbers from Nov 44 on, eventually becoming the standard Sherman used through the Korean war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly
The real sweetheart would be the British ...(wait for it)..."Firefly" variants with their 17 pounder (also 76mm) that was a better tiger killer. Oddly no HE/frag shell was available at the time for it, so it was mixed in with regular 75mm shermans and camouflaged with neat counter shaded barrels to blend better with the herd.
Forget the anecdotes of old, the Sherman was the best all around tank of the war. So many were lost because we were just about always on the offensive and the Germans were rather adept at defense.
Our 90mm, like the 76mm was a bit overrated in their actual abilities. A later improved 90mm was introduced but only small numbers were tested in combat including on the T26E4 "super" Pershing(1 or 2 produced)https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...af2df8b79d.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...5732eb99c0.jpg
Sent from my SM-J727T using Tapatalk
One of the best books on the Sherman's performance (or lack thereof) is Death Traps by Belton Cooper. The author was there and part of his job was battle damage assessment. He is adamant that the U.S. unnecessarily sent a lot of young men to their deaths because of lack of development and acceptance of superior designs in offensive armor.