Com-Central.net

Where to start!!!, It's good to be back on here, FINALLY! I'm the acting CSM for the rear-D of my unit here at Ft Hood so I've been very busy as of late with all the depolyments. Not to mention my move from Ft Irwin and the re-build of my computer. But now I'm ready to start posting again. These pictures are from the 1st Cav museum vehicles. The museum itself will be closed from 1 Aug through 14 September for a total rebuild and modification. The only exhibits open will be the OIF and out-door displays. I still have to get to the 4th ID museum before they move. They are being replaced by the 3rd ACR, which "un-cased" its colors last week. The 1st Cav museum was very impressive as far as its vehicles being clean and very "presentable". I have yet to go inside so it will be mid-September before I can do that. I hope to get to the future "range targets" this week behind range control and document their numbers and get some pictures as well. They look to be all M60's from the road way. I also found a very odd varient of an M113 in a "training" motorpool that I hope to sneak some pictures of.
To those of you who are able to get Ft Hood way, let me know so I can meet you and show you around. I have been extremely busy with CSM duties and other jobs I dont care to mention here so I haven't been able to get with the museum director. But I do know the post and can get you on. Just let me know if you're in the AO, you all are welcome in my home.

When is the 4TH ID museum supposed to move and where is it going? I might have to try and make a trip up that way before they go if I can make it.

cn

- SFC_Jeff_Button

To those of you who are able to get Ft Hood way, let me know so I can meet you and show you around. I have been extremely busy with CSM duties and other jobs I dont care to mention here so I haven't been able to get with the museum director. But I do know the post and can get you on. Just let me know if you're in the AO, you all are welcome in my home.

Jeff - if you have any 'minor miscreants' sentence them to doing a thorough image walkaround of one of the exhibits for me will you There are a couple there that I would like to add to the web site..

Hi JC! Hi Folks!

- jcneel

When is the 4TH ID museum supposed to move and where is it going?

I don't know the when part, but the where part under BRAC, has the 4th ID elements at Ft Hood moving to Ft. Carson Colorado and joining up with the one brigade that is already there.

If Carson is closer, just wait for them to arrive and set up.

The 3rd ACR which was at Carson before it when to Iraq is standing up at Ft. Hood as one of the new type 'Unit of Action' Heavy Brigades.

Spot Report!
Sgt, Scouts Out!

Jim, which exhibits are you looking for? I'll see what I can do.

Thanks for the nice photos Jeff. I hope as duties allow we can get occasional "walk arounds" of the goodies there.

Gary Binder

Jeff, many thanks for the pictures! I still need some help with sorting out my 1st Cav Museum & 4th ID Museum inventory lists. I think I have some erroneous duplicates on my lists (the M10 Achilles for example). Here's the 1st Cav list:

2S1 SOV out
AMX-10P FRA/IRQ? out
BMP-1 SOV/IRQ? out
BTR-50PB SOV out Captured by Israel in 1967
EE-11 Urutu BRA out
M1E1 Abrams USA out
M3 Stuart USA/JPN? out Captured by IJA
M3A1 Stuart USA out RN 30851
M3A1 Half-Track USA out
M4(105) Sherman USA out
M4A1(75) Sherman USA out Painted RN 3015305
M4A3E8 Sherman Easy Eight USA out
M5A1 Stuart USA out
M7 Priest USA out
M8 Greyhound USA out
M10 GMC USA out
M10 Achilles USA out
M20 USA out
M24 Chaffee USA out
M26 Pershing USA out
M36B1 USA/YUG/HRV out Post-war assembly?
M40 USA out?
M41 Walker Bulldog USA out
M44 USA out
M48A5 Patton USA out Painted RN 0718842
M59 USA out
M60 USA out SN 504
M60A1 RISE USA out SN 8800
M60A3 USA out SN 3079A; has reactive armor
M74 USA out
M113A2 USA out
M114 USA out
M163 USA out
M728 CEV USA out
PT-76 SOV out
T43 Heavy Tank USA out
T-54/55 SOV out
T-55 ARV SOV out
T-62 SOV out
T-72M SOV/IRQ out
Type 69 CHN out

Many thanks,

Neil

Nice picture of the Sherman, the British much to the disgust of the yanks stuch a 17pounder cann on in many of there Shermans, thinking the american gun was not good enough, they called this tank a Firefly. The Germans knicknamed them "Tommy Cookers", as when they were hit the brewed up (burst into flames, and the crews were usualy cooked. They were not at all as good as the german Arour, no way near, but there advantage was numbers. As one german tank commander said" As they came over the hill we destoyed them, all day, by the night the burning wrecks were all over the place and we congradulated our selves, next morning they came swarming over the hill again, we could not stop them and had to with draw."

Be gentle with him, Guys....

- Doug_Kibbey

Be gentle with him, Guys....

Where to start, where to start? There is so much wrong with that post that I wonder if it is intentionally intended to create a controversy. New guy, one post, and he starts with that...

I'll leave it to the others to set him straight. We've done this too many times now!

C

I have tried to reply and had my reply lost 3 times now ( I think we are having network problems here, or I am just having a severe case of fat fingers). I will attempt to reply this evening if no one else has

Okay - I'm home now so lets lay out the defense of the Sherman

the 17pdr was a very good antitank gun, but it had poor HE performance. The 75mm had excellent HE performance but by 1944 mediocre armor piercing capability. The 75mm was being replaced by the 76mm gun (That is what the pictured tank is equipped with) The 76mm had moderate AP capability combined with good HE capability. Since most Shermans in American units spent their time dealing with antitank guns, buildings, machine gun emplacements, etc. HE performance was very important. The Sherman had one big advantage over the German tanks. It's powered turret was excellent. The Sherman used a hydraulic power system that was fast and smooth. The power drive for the panther ran off a power takeoff from the drivetrain. If the engine had a heavy load and the power traverse was used it could stall the engine. Consequently many units had policies that the power traverse was not to be used. I've seen some reports that it was sometimes diconnected completly. I've seen reports where Panthers and Shermans had meeting engagements where the Sherman was able to slew the turret around and get killing shots off before the Panther could swing it's gun around. There are also cases where in narrow streets the Pnather could not swing it's gun around due to hitting buildings or trees

'Tommy Cooker' or 'Ronson' - Yes early Shermans tended to burn when hit by German AP rounds. This was not due to the gasoline fuel. The ammo stowage in early Shermans was high and in the side sponsons. This combined with a very effective HE filler used by the Germans in their AP rounds led to a large number of secondary explosions. An interim solution was applique armor that was applied to Shermans to put heavier protection over these areas (and a few others that were found). The British did not use an explosive filler in their AP rounds. They used either solid shot or American AP that had the explosive filler removed (I assume they were delivered with the cavity empty and that they did notactually remove the explosive charge that the Americans designed the rounds for). So even if a British tank penetrated a German tank all it did was punch a hole in the tank. There would be some secondary damage (There are very few places inside a tank you wouldn't hit some other equipment) but nothing like the explosive charge in the German round would cause.

'The German Tanks were better armored than the Sherman' - Yes. The Panther was about 45 tons compared to the Shermans 35 tons. Ten tons of weight is a lot of armor. The U.S. had to design the Sherman to be shipped half way around the world to be used. The Germans had to send a Panther 500-1000 miles from the factory, generally via rail or road shipment. The Americans had to plan un unloading Shermans in ports where the heavy lifting equipment was out of commision or across beaches where ther was no heavy cargo handling equipment at all. So they had to be able to unload using ships cargo gear. This limited the size of the vehicle.

The German tanks may have been better armored but the Sherman was much more reliable. The U.S. demanded much higher reliability from it's vehicles than other armies did. I believe this was due to two factors. Again the U.S. knew it would be operating at the end of a very long supply line. They would not be able to send tanks back to stateside depots for major maintenance. The Germans assumed that the tank would be returned to the factory for major overhauls. Also the American automotive industry was probably the most advanced in the world at the time they could mass produce heavy equipment to good tolerances better than anyone else in the world.

When the Sherman entered production there was supposed to be a heavy tank to compliment the Sherman. In 1941-42 the Sherman was as good as any other medium tank in the world. The M-6 Heavy tank was being tested but was given a lower priority than the Sherman and the Stuart.

The M-6 had problems with the transmission (it was probably at least as reliable as any other countries heavy tank but did not meat American reliability standards) and given the extreme shipping constraints of the 1942-early 44 period when they were attempting to build up an army in the U.K. in the face of the Uboat campaign it was decided to not give the very heavy M-6 (50-60 tons) a high priority.

When a heavy tank did become available logistics again reared its demanding head. The Pershing was wider than the Sherman. This meant that every Bailey Bridge would have to be modified or risk being damaged by the wider tracks of the Pershing. So they were held back until after most of the major rivers were crossed (and the port of Antwerp with it's heavy cargo gear was operational)

There was a very good article titled "Tank Myths" comparing the Sherman to it's chief rival for fame (not The Panther, the T-34) in the September/October 2001 issue of Armor by Charles M. Bailey the author of "Faint Praise" a book I have been looking for for a long time since it is considered to be one of the definitive books on US WWII tank development

I think only one other tank in WWII could even compare to the Sherman. The T-34 and the Sherman both started life at about the same time and continued to be built and improved throughout the war. The M4A3E8 was a far different tank from the M4A1 'Michael' that was originally delivered to the British in early '42

Bob, I'll play devil's advocate for the sake of discussion...

- bsmart

'The German Tanks were better armored than the Sherman' - Yes. The Panther was about 45 tons compared to the Shermans 35 tons. Ten tons of weight is a lot of armor. The U.S. had to design the Sherman to be shipped half way around the world to be used. The Germans had to send a Panther 500-1000 miles from the factory, generally via rail or road shipment. The Americans had to plan un unloading Shermans in ports where the heavy lifting equipment was out of commision or across beaches where ther was no heavy cargo handling equipment at all. So they had to be able to unload using ships cargo gear. This limited the size of the vehicle.

Hindsight being 20-20 and primary role of the Sherman as infantry support granted, but if the traditional wisdom holds true that it took 3-4 Shermans to take out 1 Panther or Tiger - doesnt that mean the US ended up shipping 105-140 tons per kill? Seems like a smaller number of heavy tanks, even in the Panther weight class, would have been more efficient - shipping-wise - than all those Shermans... In fact, it would seem like there was a lot of wasted tonnage shipped...

Even if you grant that the primary role of the Sherman was infantry support, seems like a high-low mix might have been appropriate. The heavier Panther-class tanks could have been offloaded using LSTs no? Even M6s and T23s, with heavier armor than the Sherman, might have been a good stop-gap measure until the Pershing arrived...

The M-6 had problems with the transmission (it was probably at least as reliable as any other countries heavy tank but did not meat American reliability standards) and given the extreme shipping constraints of the 1942-early 44 period when they were attempting to build up an army in the U.K. in the face of the Uboat campaign it was decided to not give the very heavy M-6 (50-60 tons) a high priority.

Again, hindsight 20-20, seems like M6s or T23s would have been a better use of shipping constraints than some of those Shermans...

When a heavy tank did become available logistics again reared its demanding head. The Pershing was wider than the Sherman. This meant that every Bailey Bridge would have to be modified or risk being damaged by the wider tracks of the Pershing. So they were held back until after most of the major rivers were crossed (and the port of Antwerp with it's heavy cargo gear was operational)

How come this was only a concern for the Americans? Sure, there are lots of stories of Tigers, etc not being able to cross bridges, but it doesnt seem like this was a big concern for the Germany army... Point being, if the Germans can get around the same rivers & bridges (admittedly in retreat), seems like Pershings could have done the same...

The M4A3E8 was a far different tank from the M4A1 'Michael' that was originally delivered to the British in early '42

Granted, but it has to seem that the Armor folks were a little too obsessive over the "tank" being an infantry support weapon. Even a mix of US Sherman Fireflies - not taking up more more weight at all, but with some additional ammo supply headaches - would have been a good decision. What would have been the impact of US mass-produced Fireflies been on the battlefield in 1944?

Neil

I'm having trouble with the multiple level quotes so

Did we actually need more shipping because it took multiple Shermans to handel a 'Cat' That assumes that if you had brought over a limited number of 'anti-Cat' tanks you would be able to have one where you needed it when you needed it. Isn't that similar to the Tank destroyer doctrine of having some unist who were supposed to hunt enemy tanks? Problem is you can't know where they would show up so everyone has to be ready to handle the enemy tanks.

Why was the logistics only a US problem (actually an allied problem) Well The defender has some options on when to drop bridges (unless the zoomies get them first :-)) And there were times when German tanks were trapped because bridges had been destroyed. And one of the factors that slowed down the German ardennes spearheads in December of 44 were the tenacious defense of bridges by American Engineer units.

I don't think the U.S. obscessed on 'infantry support' If anything I think they obcessed on 'Tanks shouldn't fight tanks' and the use of tanks as a breakthrough weapon to run rampant in the enemies backfield once a hole had been made in the line. In that role the reliable Sherman excelled.

The big problem would have been building enough 17pdrs. It would have taken too long to 'americanize' it to be built in American factories (The British weapons that were adapted for U.S. production had been decided on early in the war when they had the 12 months or so needed to ramp up production lines. I've always thought there should have been a 90mm Sherman. The M36 showed it would fit. It was already in U.S. production. so could have been incorporated much faster than a new British gun.

There was an offer by Ordnance to supply 100+ M6s (with 105mm guns, not howitzers but long guns) to Europe but the command didn't want the logistics issues.

Hi Folks!

Good post Bob! Good counter post Neil!

A number of other factors that also impacted the Sherman, but then there is so much to the Sheman story, are:

the effect of General McNair on just about everything,
the mistaken belief that the 76mm and it's round could deal with Panther and Tiger tanks prior to June 6, 1944,
the mistaken doctrine that the tank destroyers could take care of all German armor,
the fact that combat engineer bridge units didn't have a pontoon bridge system in the ETO, until late 1944, that could safely support a vehicle as heavy as the Sherman on German rivers,

I am starting to get the feeling that we all need to get together and write a book about all the points and couter points of the Sherman. That way we can just link new guys like 'HF Evolution' over to it.

Bottom, line, it and the T34 won the war and that is the only thing that counts in the end. To 'HF Evolution' that comes from a CIA that once though much like your post.

Sgt, Scouts Out!