Comments on: Tanks in Luxembourg

By: M4A3E8sherman

M4A3E8sherman — Sat, 27 Sep 2014 22:30:18 +0000

Let’s see:
-Observability
-Crew safety
-Safe ammunition stowage
-Ergonomics
-Upgradability
-Gyrostabilization

By: M4A3E8sherman

M4A3E8sherman — Sat, 27 Sep 2014 22:27:50 +0000

“yeah Xplato, im sure the post war usage of those tanks has nothing 2 do with the total number of produced tanks…”
Do you really think the Tiger would have been successful in Israel or Korea?
“And the Sherman wasnt a MBT, it was just a Mediumtank, designt 2 figth against infantry…”
It was designed to engage everything it encountered. The official Armored Force Field Manual makes no mention of the Sherman being exclusively an anti-infantry vehicle.
“Need modern american tanks still range finding shots to guess the distance 2 the target?”
Right, I’m sure the Tiger I had modern rangefinders.

By: M4A3E8sherman

M4A3E8sherman — Sat, 27 Sep 2014 22:20:32 +0000

Tigers did not account for a particularly high percentage of Germany’s tank kills. Heck, many of the tanks crews thought were Tigers were probably misidentified; it’s difficult for the untrained eye to tell the difference between a Pz. IV fitted with schurzen and a Tiger I from the side. Neither the T-34′s 85mm nor the Sherman’s 76mm were influenced by the introduction of German heavy tanks.

The E8 designation only denotes tanks with HVSS suspension, and a resign is hardly suffering.

The turret ring on the Sherman made it easier to upgrade than the Panther,. They were able to fit a 90mm on that thing, while the 88 L/71 for the Tiger stayed on the drawing board.

By: M4A3E8sherman

M4A3E8sherman — Sat, 27 Sep 2014 22:06:52 +0000

What sources are they, History Channel documentaries? Sherman crews are not going to sacrifice their lives to zerg rush at Tigers.

“what would be your estimate of shermans to take out a Tiger, on average of course”
I never postulated my own ratio, I said the 5:1 thing is unproven. If you want an idea of Sherman vs Panther performance, there’s the book Data on World War II Tank Engagements: Involving the U.S. Third and Fourth Armored Divisions. In short, the party that spotted and engaged first usually won, and the M4 with its observational periscope, vertical stabilizer, and faster turret traverse tended to be better at that.

And in the real world, a single penetrating hit would knock out a Tiger, so HP and damage are largely out of the question.

By: mondog

mondog — Sat, 27 Sep 2014 21:45:13 +0000

The Sherman didn’t contribute anything. Nothing on that tank was either revolutionary or unique. It was, like the T34, just very easy to produce and use.

If you’re not aware of why the Tiger is so important, you probably shouldn’t even be sperging away like you are.

By: aqqe

aqqe — Sat, 27 Sep 2014 18:38:38 +0000

Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t that a Canadian Sherman Grizzly?

By: Ludo787

Ludo787 — Sat, 27 Sep 2014 16:19:10 +0000

Eastern France, there are quite a lot AMX’s in junkyards, maybe even tanks in the dirt in our forrests… I live in a region that knew heavy fights during WW2 including Jagdtigers apparently!

By: Lotha

Lotha — Sat, 27 Sep 2014 14:15:13 +0000

yeah Xplato, im sure the post war usage of those tanks has nothing 2 do with the total number of produced tanks…
And srsly, who had a bigger gun than the tiger on a tank in 1942? the 105mm howitzer of the Sherman perhaps?
And the Sherman wasnt a MBT, it was just a Mediumtank, designt 2 figth against infantry…
Need modern american tanks still range finding shots to guess the distance 2 the target?

By: jontheblack

jontheblack — Sat, 27 Sep 2014 13:54:25 +0000

Its funny because I see it like this. The Abrams seems exactly just like the Tiger, its heavily armored, set up with great battlefield communications, excellent targeting, and dominating firepower. It also takes massive support, has short range, and is a very specific and valuable asset. Ive read, were the only country, US, that can support an Abrams in Effective Battlefield numbers. Which is why the Leo is considered a better buy interestingly enough.

What I see is that the Tiger concept brought or showed tactically, the first use of the modern MBT tactics. A Dominating Weapons platform to control a battlefield. Usually part of the Main Military Goal.

I think everyone I’ve read agrees, when the Tiger came out in late 1942, it changed the heavy tank concept from that point. Their is nothing before the Tiger I, it changed the standards. Just as the T-34 had in its own way, in 1941. As far using the Tigers after the war, its just a question of economics. The US is the only country that could have afforded to re design and support a Tiger. They weren’t cheap tanks for Germany to build…..! Let alone someone like Spain or Greece.

One thing the M4, and the T-34 initially actually showed, is what a reliable, fast, easy to produce medium tank unit can do for a battle field army.

By: jontheblack

jontheblack — Sat, 27 Sep 2014 13:24:16 +0000

One more ? I wonder if you asked a Good Veteran Tiger Commander how many shermans would he engage if saw them 1000m out? 3, 5, or maybe 7 shermans?

What does that do to your ratios, lol.