|
|
Forums - Research / WW2 |
This WW2 forum is intended for asking and discussing reference or historical related issues pertaining to WW2 (1939-1945) subjects. |
| Topics | 3356 |
| Messages | 14979 |
|
|
| Subject: | Shermanaholic - Historical Perspective |  |
| Date: | Mar 24, 2008 |
| From: | James Wechsler | |
Here's a few points from an historical perspective:
1. Designed from the start to be massed produced. This point alone simply can not be emphasised enough. WW2 was a production war. Nearly impossible to comprehend in this day and age. The sheer numbers of all types of equipment and soldiers were 10 - 100 times greater than anything going on in the last 30 years.
2. Reliable. A tank is not a tank if its broken. It's a burden. In a numbers war, it's the number of operational tanks that really matters.
3. Easy to transport. This is so often overlooked. Remember, WW2 was not fought in North America. The Sherman was easy to move using standard dock cranes and could be readily shipped by Libery ship. Got to get them there to use them! Once there, the Sherman's weight had real advantages in the types of bridges it could cross. The German heavies were a real nightmare to move around because so many bridges couldn't carry the weight. Many people don't realize this but NATO paid big $$$ to make sure many civilian bridges were built to higher weight carrying capability so that the heavy NATO tank could move over them.
4. Excellent capabilities for infantry support. Sure tank vs. tank is the most commonly viewed aspect of a tank but most of the combat was infantry support. The 75mm Sherman had an excellent HE round and the bow and commander's .50 cal were outstanding infantry support weapons.
5. Easily upgraded both in the factory and in the field. The 76mm gun and turret were a straight forward change to meet combat needs. The lack of this feature was what really hurt many of the British tanks and the Panzer III. In the field the tank readily took on added armor and even added machine guns.
These might not seem like 'keys' to a great tank but in fact it's things like this that win wars.
Jim |
| |
|
|
 | Whats so good about the Sherman? - Paul Ramsden - Mar 21, 2008 |
| . . . Re: Whats so good about the Sherman? - Gazza Hollett - Mar 21, 2008 |
| . . . Re: Whats so good about the Sherman? - Otto Huuskonen - Mar 21, 2008 |
| . . . Re: Whats so good about the Sherman? - Georg Eyerman - Mar 21, 2008 |
| . . . . . . Re: Whats so good about the Sherman? - Fred Schwarz - Mar 21, 2008 |
| . . . "Pssst! Paul,...come closer.... - mike foncannon - Mar 21, 2008 |
| . . . Re: Whats so good about the Sherman? - Dan - Mar 21, 2008 |
| . . . It all depends on how you look at it. - Hans Haase - Mar 21, 2008 |
| . . . Re: Whats so good about the Sherman? - tom deimling - Mar 21, 2008 |
| . . . Re: Whats so good about the Sherman? - Gary Cooper - Mar 21, 2008 |
| . . . "fairly rubbish" - Roy Chow - Mar 21, 2008 |
| . . . I read an article several years back where a Panzer General was interviewed - Steve Kubik - Mar 21, 2008 |
| . . . Sheer Numbers. n/t - Jim Johnson - Mar 21, 2008 |
| . . . "Death Traps" - J.Giglio - Mar 21, 2008 |
| . . . . . . Re: "Death Traps" - Fred Schwarz - Mar 22, 2008 |
| . . . Re: Whats so good about the Sherman? - Rob Feehan - Mar 21, 2008 |
| . . . . . . Re: Whats so good about the Sherman? - Johannes Allert - Mar 22, 2008 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: Whats so good about the Sherman? - Roy Chow - Mar 22, 2008 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: Whats so good about the Sherman? - Fred Schwarz - Mar 22, 2008 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Whats so good about the Sherman? - Brian Hanley - Mar 22, 2008 |
| . . . Relatively silly topic of discussion - Glenn Gerson - Mar 22, 2008 |
| . . . . . . Re: Relatively silly topic of discussion - Brian Hanley - Mar 23, 2008 |
| . . . Re: Whats so good about the Sherman? - Mike Spivey - Mar 23, 2008 |
| . . . Discussed before - Martin Dogger - Mar 23, 2008 |
| . . . . . . Re: Discussed before - Rob Feehan - Mar 23, 2008 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: Discussed before - Dan - Mar 23, 2008 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: Discussed before - Mike Spivey - Mar 23, 2008 |
| . . . Re: Whats so good about the Sherman? - rob galassi - Mar 24, 2008 |
| . . . Shermanaholic - Historical Perspective - James Wechsler - Mar 24, 2008 |
| . . . Shermanaholic - Modeler's Perspective - James Wechsler - Mar 24, 2008 |
| . . . . . . Re: Shermanaholic - Modeler's Perspective - Edward Hall - Mar 24, 2008 |
| . . . . . . . . . Soooooo....... was it any good then? - Dave Williams - Mar 24, 2008 |
| . . . . . . Centurion - Paul A. Owen - Mar 24, 2008 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: Centurion - James Wechsler - Mar 24, 2008 |
| . . . As you said... - Paul A. Owen - Mar 24, 2008 |
|
|
