2008 FOV Image Collection

[uksubs]

[quote="demonclaw"]



The Grant was just a small modification to the Lee and didn't really improve it that much . And back in 1942 when UK received their first Shermans for the Africa campaign it was the best tanks they had , so the stuff USA sent then was some of the best equipment at the time . You should also remember that the later modified Sherman tanks was only used by UK which only had 1 army in France (compared to the 3 US ones) , so they didn't play any big part in the final outcome .

So are you saying the British army didn't play any big part in the war from1944 /45

[MG-42]

* I've enjoyed with interest , reading all these comments to subjects raised here.

.......... and you know something else , you're ( all ) right about it too. * +

* Good stuff ! * +

Mitch _ v MG

[demonclaw]

So are you saying the British army didn't play any big part in the war from1944 /45

No that was just a clumsy written sentence , I was referring to the modified Shermans (like the Firefly) that UK used .

[jrs.]

All I would say is quantity has a quality all its own, heard numbers many times but usually its about 50,000 Shermans? VS, 5,000 Panthers and 14,000 variants of the PIV? Toss in another 50,000 plus T34s and you can see the Germans didnt have much of a chance. It was like ants on a grasshopper!


IMHO!

[tmanthegreat]

I'll stay out of this as much as possible, but when going on with these sort of rants, please all of you stop acting like real historians when many of you clearly are not! As someone who has devoted the past seven years in school to becoming a professional historian, it sometimes gets laughable on these internet forums. The Military Channel, History Channel, and even many of the popular books found at Barnes & Nobel or Borders should never be cited as hard evidence for any historical issue one way or the other. Archival sources, primary documents, and well cited secondary sources should be used to back up one's claims. Can someone be a historian without the formal academic schooling? Yes and no. You all can, however, read books and other sources more critically and make yourselves aware of other opinions on a subject matter as there is no one particular historical truth...

Now, in regards to armor, most of the claims made above, at one point or another, are accurate. One must remember that in 1939-40, the British and French armor was for the most part up to date (and in some cases better than the Germans) but what victory came down to was how that armor was used. The same can be said in the ETO after Normandy, though the Allies had the advantage of superior supply on their side and could keep throwing in tanks, whereas when the Germans lost a Tiger, it was practically irreplacable.

I also just have one qualm about Guderian. Although his books Achtung Panzer and Panzer Leader are quite famous, and Guderian was an important figure, they are nevertheless primary documents and not serious analyses on strategy and military theory. Further, Guderian did not invent the ideas behind Blitzkrieg, it was actually founded by General von Seeckt and the Reichswher army during the 1920s. Any reading of Guderian in the actual German, as well as the number of other German sources not translated into English will reveal that his theories were only one among many and that it was actually a meshing of these that produced the doctrine of mobile armored warfare that came to be known as Blitzkrieg.

I know this is off topic regarding the FOV images or even the Sherman vs German armor debate, but I had to add my two cents

[aferguson]

before this thread starts to erupt......remember......i'm watching. Keep it civil.

[Col.Pickle]

my 2 cents: Lock this topic. Getting too off topic and heated.

[ostketten]

I'm not a professional historian.... but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express.

[Tshintl]

Hmmm, wonder which university you must go to in order to be a professional Sherman or Tiger historian.

[Tshintl]

I'm not a professional historian.... but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express.

LOL, excellent!

[VMF115]

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is a good debate, both sides have merits to their pros and cons.

like our master said keep it civil

[VMF115]

Now I do agree a basic Sherman vs. Tiger 1 one on one would have been a disaster and ended up being so many of times.
Now a firefly vs. a tiger 1 would have been some what winnable if you where in the firefly, that’s if you hade the open country side to maneuver, in a small European town, the tiger 1 would win, in most engagements. Now on the flip side if the tiger 1 was alone and did not have support the firefly could maneuver with other Sherman to take out a tiger 1 tank in small confides ’s …so this can go on and on .
But one thing is still true to this day , the survivability of the tiger I tank crews against the Sherman is true to this day.

Now if you had more then one Sherman working together to assault a lone tiger, the tiger would probably lose. And the same is wit ha firefly, in open or in the small confides of a European town.
So it comes down to tactics and who can churn out more reliable tanks. And solders to man them. that’s
And in many cases I have read that when our forces where to come in contact with a tiger 1 the would chose to deploy airpower against it, that’s if they knew ahead of time about the tiger threat.

So is the Sherman better, yup
Is the tiger one better then the Sherman yup.
In the end tactics, logistic, manpower, resources and the US economy beat the tiger 1. But to compare the Sherman to a tiger on the battle feild one on one, the Sherman will always be junk.

The America army was on the offensive and did not need a heavy slow moving tank to slow it down that is why the Sherman was developed , now the brits added a bigger gun to give the Sherman a bit more of an advantage on the battle field. tie for the firefly and tiger 1 on firepower.

About the king tiger it was manly designed as a offensive weapon but was used in the defensive role many times, when the king tiger hit the battle field it no longer had to be fast, the reason why is most of the logistic of the German army could not keep up with a fast offensive , they could not even keep up with a fast retreat back in to Germany, besides Hitler like really big things with bigger guns on them. I did read some where the German staff officer where opposed to the king tiger it did poorly on trials in the maneuverability, they wanted some thing that could move like the Sherman but with the protection and firepower of a tiger 1

[Rowsdower]

Once my time machine is finished I shall decimate the puny Tigers with my HWR-00-Mk.II Monster.

Now if you will excuse me It's time for my meds.

[MG-42]

Very funny !

v MG

[Panzer_M]

geez this went to the crapfest fast.

One comparing the Tiger I to the M4 is like comparing a Ford to a Mercedes. Too very different classes of AFVs,

to compare say for summer' 44...the M4 Sherman 75L38 or 40, vs The PzKpfw. IV ausf H/Js would be a more fitting example. Workhorse vs Workhouse...even then techanical features would give the Panzer the edge over the M4...also the Panzer was smaller in height and thicker in armour with 80mm vs 76mm(3") of armour on the Sherman.

then it comes down to other factors as well, crews, logistics, overall conditions.


IMO, the M4 was a poor design* in the start, but mass production could mean alot of poorly designed AFVs could be built, and lost, without stressing the overall army. But the one thing that forgave the M4, was it's adaptablity to upgrade as needed.

* As the US Army failed to design a Tank with a Christie Suspension..until the M18 TD for deployment. Which would have been much better IMO than the complex and weaker systems that made it on to our AFVs during the war.

BUT,

M4 with the 76mm were rare even up to the Lorraine Panzer Offensives, As Patton didn't seem them as needed when you have purpose built TDs for the job of fighting tanks, plus Patton deemed the M3 75mm GP gun more useful. (Taken from Osprey: Patton vs Manteuffel, Lorraine 1944) and this was Sept. 44 Post Normandy when upgunned Shermans were rare.

The Firefly was also a rare AFV in Commonwealth Service, not every Sherman had a 17lb gun, IIRC it was the Troop/Squardron commander with the Firefly then the rest were Sherman V with M3 75mm guns. even, the 17lb AT gun never fully phased out the 6lb AT gun in service.

Even late in the War, the Firefly was not the common sherman variant, even if production was increased, and the Firefly still suffered from same problems as the 75mm Sherman, armour that could be penetrated by the 7.5cmL48 and up calibers and Infantrie carried AT weapons, Panzerfaust and Racketenbushe 54s.

not to say German armour was stronger, if suffered too. Tanks are anything but impervious. All Machines have weaknesses.

[Rowsdower]

"You have twenty seconds to comply!"

[DomiUK]

quoted above is a number less than 100 operational tigers across the whole of the western front, My understainding is that sort of number was common through the whole war on both eastern and western fronts.

IE a very small number over a huge area, just to show the differance in numbers of those big 88s in the last year of the war Britain put in to theatre nearly 4000 17 pdr armed vehicles.

This can be argued but in all truth there is very little between the German 88 and the british 17pdr , put simply regardless of the vehicle you do not want to be hit with either of these guns.

This sort of thing seems to get missed in these discussions, the heavier guns mounted by the allies probably still outnumbered the axis 2-1.

3 x 75mm Shermans and 2 fireflys or Achilles is more than a match for a single Panther or Tiger any day of the week.

[ostketten]

One comparing the Tiger I to the M4 is like comparing a Ford to a Mercedes.

I agree, it's an "apples versus oranges" type comparison... both have good points and bad. The Sherman in basically any of it's forms was never really designed or intended to slug it out one on one with the German heavies. That being said, the Sherman was adequately armed and armored for it's intended role which was infantry support, and generally well liked by it's crews in spite of anecdotal commentary (ie. the "Rolling Ronson" etc.) to the contrary.

[Panzer_M]

quoted above is a number less than 100 operational tigers across the whole of the western front, My understainding is that sort of number was common through the whole war on both eastern and western fronts.

IE a very small number over a huge area, just to show the differance in numbers of those big 88s in the last year of the war Britain put in to theatre nearly 4000 17 pdr armed vehicles.

This can be argued but in all truth there is very little between the German 88 and the british 17pdr , put simply regardless of the vehicle you do not want to be hit with either of these guns.

This sort of thing seems to get missed in these discussions, the heavier guns mounted by the allies probably still outnumbered the axis 2-1.

3 x 75mm Shermans and 2 fireflys or Achilles is more than a match for a single Panther or Tiger any day of the week.

Can someone pull up a To&E for a Brit/Common armoured division Summer '44, and then maybe for the time of the Wesel/Crossing the Rhine operations...just want to see the breakdown of tanks issued to a division.