Jump to content

Sherman vs Tiger


Recommended Posts

Way back when I was a kid the guy that farmed next door was a Sherman tank driver in WWII      He told just a few stories The one that stuck with me is how rough the ride was.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I agree on the German design opinion.  They need to learn that just because you can doesnt mean you should.  Simplicity is often valuable in itself.   The bad thing is that it seems that European

Dads706        There is/are documentaries on you tube with, interviews by survivors, that might be what you are asking about.   I will see if I can find it and post a link. GT&T

You might want to look up Mark Felton Productions on YouTube   A wide variety of information, lots of it little known, from WWI on thru Vietnam, the Falklands, and even later 'special operations'

Posted Images

21 minutes ago, gonzo 1066 said:

Way back when I was a kid the guy that farmed next door was a Sherman tank driver in WWII      He told just a few stories The one that stuck with me is how rough the ride was.  

The suspension under the M60 series and M1 is awesome. You would not believe how good the ride is!

 

Rick

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, oldtanker said:

AHHH, you sir are to be commended! You understand that whatever you do logistics plays an over riding role! People love to claim that the reason Japan never attacked the US main land was because of that "gun behind every blade of grass". Not true. The planners in Japan knew they didn't possess the means of supporting a major landing in the US. That requires not only men, vehicles, food, ammo, fuel, spare parts and other supplies. It requires enough shipping to move that stuff too.

Rick

Thank's. My uncle was stationed on the USS Turner Joy during the Vietnam war. I still have the coat he gave me. "USS Turner Joy DD-951" He had retired to the Philippines in the early 90's. He came back and lived with my folks for a 1-1/2 while battling cancer. That was 16-17 years ago. He talked about all the ships docked there. He said the activity was mind boggling. 24/7. I wish I remember the figure from my WW2 magazine. But the US soldier had something like 2000# of support material behind him. The Japanese was something like 27# I do remember it was unbelievably lopsided. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, oldtanker said:

AHHH, you sir are to be commended! You understand that whatever you do logistics plays an over riding role! People love to claim that the reason Japan never attacked the US main land was because of that "gun behind every blade of grass". Not true. The planners in Japan knew they didn't possess the means of supporting a major landing in the US. That requires not only men, vehicles, food, ammo, fuel, spare parts and other supplies. It requires enough shipping to move that stuff too.

Rick

But they did attack the mainland twice I believe. Not that great of deal but they launched air raid of one plane off a submarine dropped a couple incendiary bombs in the Pacific Northwest with the idea of starting forest fires to tie up US personnel. If the navy wouldn’t have handed the Japanese a couple setbacks in 1943  japan would have been attacking Australia and the USA 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, cedar farm said:

Thank's. My uncle was stationed on the USS Turner Joy during the Vietnam war. I still have the coat he gave me. "USS Turner Joy DD-951" He had retired to the Philippines in the early 90's. He came back and lived with my folks for a 1-1/2 while battling cancer. That was 16-17 years ago. He talked about all the ships docked there. He said the activity was mind boggling. 24/7. I wish I remember the figure from my WW2 magazine. But the US soldier had something like 2000# of support material behind him. The Japanese was something like 27# I do remember it was unbelievably lopsided. 

Another little know fact was that what the Germans tried to do to England we basically did to the Japanese. We just about starved them out of the war. They were getting little to no fuel and very little in raw materials. Basically the subs and carrier aircraft (mostly the subs) sank so much of the Japanese merchant fleet they war production almost came to a stand still before we dropped those nukes. That's opposed to Germany's war production that didn't really slow down until the factories were captured. The bombings hampered production but the theory that air alone could win a war wasn't proven until we nuked Japan. Much like the bombing of London terror bombing didn't work on either side. The thing wrong with strategic bombing back then was the bombs not only had to destroy the building but it had to destroy the tooling and machines inside. IF not you can dig the tooling and machines out and set them up elsewhere which the Germans became very good at. The Germans reached peak production in 1943 and maintained that until early 45.

I bet the ports on the east and west coast were something to see during WWII. Plus the Navy yards!

 

Rick 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, dale560 said:

But they did attack the mainland twice I believe. Not that great of deal but they launched air raid of one plane off a submarine dropped a couple incendiary bombs in the Pacific Northwest with the idea of starting forest fires to tie up US personnel. If the navy wouldn’t have handed the Japanese a couple setbacks in 1943  japan would have been attacking Australia and the USA 

They also invaded and occupied some of the Aleutian Islands in Alaska. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, dale560 said:

But they did attack the mainland twice I believe. Not that great of deal but they launched air raid of one plane off a submarine dropped a couple incendiary bombs in the Pacific Northwest with the idea of starting forest fires to tie up US personnel. If the navy wouldn’t have handed the Japanese a couple setbacks in 1943  japan would have been attacking Australia and the USA 

I don't know Dale. I think eventually they would have but really? You have to garrison captured territory. And Japan only had so many troops. And those troops were in China and Burma and all those islands. They say in 1940 Japan had about 73.1 million people. Cut out essential workers, the sick lame and lazy. The old and the young? The Japanese considered folks between 17 and 40, men only to be of military age. That means about 20% of the population could serve. That's what? About 15 million? And every island requires troops. I have no idea how many troops the fighters in the Philippians tied down but it was a bunch. The French resistance kept about 19 divisions tied down when Germany really needed them on the eastern front. Japan was trying to subdue all of China, most of South East Asia, Burma and were attacking into India when they were stopped. They had almost 1/2 a million men just in the Philippians by 1944. How many of the 15 million would have been in all those other countries? Now we had about 132 million people in 1940 which would have given us 26.4 million to fight whatever they would have had left to invade with. Now we allowed women to serve. So we can extend that 26.4 million. Plus every male old enough to carry a gun would have either taken the Japanese on or become resistance fighters. Now who would even think about invading someplace that would be hard to support against overwhelming odds. The Japanese in general were not stupid.

Those little raids by the Japanese were less effective than the Doolittle raid. And that was a mere pin prick. Dropping a few bombs in a forest was really nothing.

It's kinda like Germany attacking Russia. If Russia refused to fold then the fight was on and that was a fight that Germany could not sustain in the long run. I read somewhere that conservative estimates put Soviet losses from the purges and WWII combined at about 55 million dead. Think about that. 55 million. And the day Japan surrendered the only thing that made us the #1 world power was nuclear weapons. #2 was Russia. And even after those losses the Russian military was stronger than ours without nukes. Hows that for a wake up?

Rick

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, AKwelder said:

They also invaded and occupied some of the Aleutian Islands in Alaska. 

LOL yea, defenseless islands in the hopes of diverting the US Fleet. Sometimes tactically a diversion is a great idea. But if the enemy has broken your codes and knows your real intent it will fail to accomplish the goals.

 

Rick 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The sheer arrogance of those regimes. They never would have believed that we knew almost every major move they were making. Those poor German sub commanders had to think something was wrong to go from the "happy time" to staggering losses.. The Japs figured their language was to complicated for us to break their code. Some have estimated that our code breaking shortened the war by 2-3 years. 

Seems I read somewhere once Patton wanted to turn around and whip the ruskies. Funny he was mowed down by an unknown driver. A guy has to wonder.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, oldtanker said:

Another little know fact was that what the Germans tried to do to England we basically did to the Japanese. We just about starved them out of the war. They were getting little to no fuel and very little in raw materials. Basically the subs and carrier aircraft (mostly the subs) sank so much of the Japanese merchant fleet they war production almost came to a stand still before we dropped those nukes. That's opposed to Germany's war production that didn't really slow down until the factories were captured. The bombings hampered production but the theory that air alone could win a war wasn't proven until we nuked Japan. Much like the bombing of London terror bombing didn't work on either side. The thing wrong with strategic bombing back then was the bombs not only had to destroy the building but it had to destroy the tooling and machines inside. IF not you can dig the tooling and machines out and set them up elsewhere which the Germans became very good at. The Germans reached peak production in 1943 and maintained that until early 45.

I bet the ports on the east and west coast were something to see during WWII. Plus the Navy yards!

 

Rick 

James D. Hornfischer "America at total war in the Pacific 1944-45"goes into why that part of the war was run as it was due to the appreciation of the "mass suicide" aspect  that wasn't encountered in Europe.

It also mentions some of the production figures that happened during that time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ian Beale said:

James D. Hornfischer "America at total war in the Pacific 1944-45"goes into why that part of the war was run as it was due to the appreciation of the "mass suicide" aspect  that wasn't encountered in Europe.

It also mentions some of the production figures that happened during that time.

Ian a lot of people miss that. Germany hit peak production in 1943, not because of the bombing but because even with slave labor that was the best they could do. They never mobilized women for the workforce. They lacked the manpower for both the workforce and to meet military needs. On the other side of the world the Japanese had to import almost everything including some food. When the US Navy finally got the torpedo problems sorted out the merchant fleet took a pounding. No way that Japan could replace losses. On the Atlantic side the Germans lost the Uboat war the first month that we built and launched more ships than they could sink. At the start of WWII we (the US) had 7 Aircraft Carried and one "Jeep" carrier. In 1945 we had 27. We lost 12 carriers in the war. So the US could not only make good our losses, we could actually do better and build far more than we lost. Same thing with all of the Naval ships and the merchant fleet. Did the allied Navies kill a lot of subs? Sure they did. But that's not when Germany lost the battle to starve England out of the war. Now that production started to make a huge difference right about the time that we had also produced enough escorts to really punish the Uboats. So the increase in sinkings of Uboat more or less, being more spectacular, more of less hid from view the production of merchant vessels.

 

Rick 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, oldtanker said:

I you check the 90MMthat we went to? Started out life as a high velocity anti aircraft gun just like the German 88 did. Both guns were designed to loft shells high up. The 88 to almost 50,000 feet and the 90 to over 58,000 feet. Firing horizontally both guns were very fast. Add that to solid shot? It would punch through a lot of armor at extended ranges for those days.

Your assessment of the terrain is spot on IMO too. Back in the good old cold war days we would do terrain walks in the areas we were supposed to defend if the reed horde attacked. All of the areas from the Fulda Gap west average engage ranges would have been 500 to about 1800 meters. That's why when you really research large tank battles almost all of them occurred on the eastern front.

On another point someone pointed out that the T34's were sometimes driven out of the factory and into battle. There are reports with pictures of K1 tanks in the early part of the war that were firing at the Germans from the factories that were not even complete yet. I don't think most people realize just how close Hitler was to defeating the Russians. Had he listened to his generals it's very possible Russia would have fallen.

Rick

 

What a feeling that must have been, staring down the Ruskies, as out numbered as you guys were! And, it's not like they were lacking in equipment and capabilities.

 

In the book "Reagan's War" it says that after the wall came down, warehouses in East Germany were found with new street signs for Western Europe and a new preprinted currency. I don't know if this is true or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, oldtanker said:

Ian a lot of people miss that. Germany hit peak production in 1943, not because of the bombing but because even with slave labor that was the best they could do. They never mobilized women for the workforce. They lacked the manpower for both the workforce and to meet military needs. On the other side of the world the Japanese had to import almost everything including some food. When the US Navy finally got the torpedo problems sorted out the merchant fleet took a pounding. No way that Japan could replace losses. On the Atlantic side the Germans lost the Uboat war the first month that we built and launched more ships than they could sink. At the start of WWII we (the US) had 7 Aircraft Carried and one "Jeep" carrier. In 1945 we had 27. We lost 12 carriers in the war. So the US could not only make good our losses, we could actually do better and build far more than we lost. Same thing with all of the Naval ships and the merchant fleet. Did the allied Navies kill a lot of subs? Sure they did. But that's not when Germany lost the battle to starve England out of the war. Now that production started to make a huge difference right about the time that we had also produced enough escorts to really punish the Uboats. So the increase in sinkings of Uboat more or less, being more spectacular, more of less hid from view the production of merchant vessels.

 

Rick 

 Very true,  we had a topic on the D-day invasion earlier this month, but on almost the same time the US also fielded a force to invade Saipan, just the amount of ammunition that was needed to support these two offensives was staggering. Then to cloth, equip, and feed them?  Then the US would turn around and build one of the largest Areo domes to support the B-29 (a project whose cost was only eclipsed by the Manhattan project).

after fielding the B-29 we them in such large numbers we could fire bomb japan in ways that few realize,  by 1945 they were launching sorties (I think some were several hundred planes and some may have reached 1000) and wiping entire cities off the map, 

And the air war over Germany, the US army air Corp lost more men over Germany than the Marines lost in the pacific, and everyone of them rode in a plane, and those plans took a huge logistics effort to keep flying, and when they shoot them down they were replaced.  They did what everyone knew could not be done, they bombed Germany in broad daylight and kept it up, but at a cost of so many men, and planes. Everyone knew it could not be done because there were not enough planes in the world to do it

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, neukm said:

 

What a feeling that must have been, staring down the Ruskies, as out numbered as you guys were! And, it's not like they were lacking in equipment and capabilities.

 

In the book "Reagan's War" it says that after the wall came down, warehouses in East Germany were found with new street signs for Western Europe and a new preprinted currency. I don't know if this is true or not.

At first starting down the Russian was a bit unnerving. But back then they lied to us about strengths. We were told that the Warsaw pact forces outnumbered us about 10 to 1. Well that wasn't the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Actual numbers NATO VS Warsaw Pact? About 1 to 1. In fact the Soviets has about 300 more tanks total than NATO. The 10 to 1 figure was US Army troops in Europe. Not even total US Army. Just those assigned there.

I've seen the same rumors. I would not be surprised if they didn't at least have the street signs. 

Rick

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, AKwelder said:

 Very true,  we had a topic on the D-day invasion earlier this month, but on almost the same time the US also fielded a force to invade Saipan, just the amount of ammunition that was needed to support these two offensives was staggering. Then to cloth, equip, and feed them?  Then the US would turn around and build one of the largest Areo domes to support the B-29 (a project whose cost was only eclipsed by the Manhattan project).

after fielding the B-29 we them in such large numbers we could fire bomb japan in ways that few realize,  by 1945 they were launching sorties (I think some were several hundred planes and some may have reached 1000) and wiping entire cities off the map, 

And the air war over Germany, the US army air Corp lost more men over Germany than the Marines lost in the pacific, and everyone of them rode in a plane, and those plans took a huge logistics effort to keep flying, and when they shoot them down they were replaced.  They did what everyone knew could not be done, they bombed Germany in broad daylight and kept it up, but at a cost of so many men, and planes. Everyone knew it could not be done because there were not enough planes in the world to do it

AK, what's really amazing is that both Germany and Japan were at total war production. In the US? Only about 45% of our total capacity was devoted to the war effort. Not withstanding the many acts of courage and personal sacrifice, WWII was won on the factory floor and in offices dedicated to engineering new weapons. Think about it. Japan invaded China in 1937. Most air forces still had bi-wing aircraft in the inventory. 8 years later Germany, England and the US had operational jet fighters. Between engineers and factory workers they gave the men at the front the weapons needed to fight and win. The farmers too did more than their fair share. US farmers fed the US military, England and it's military, and the free forces in England. Truly astounding accomplishments in production and productivity!

Rick

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/19/2020 at 9:36 AM, KWRB said:

The ingenuity in engineering is the creativity required to manufacture something well, at scale, and cost efficiently. In my experience in product design, working with manufacturers globally, Americans are the best in the world at this.

Not attempting to be argumentative just a question.  Better than the Japanese and Gemrmans?  As a partisan purchaser of "Made in the USA" I hope your answer is yes but practically speaking, from my automotive experiences with the Japanese Honda and Toyota and German experience with BMW and Mercedes versus  Ford and GM.

As a former NASCAR fan I was dismayed at the success of Toyota products versus their American counterparts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I highly recommend "Spearhead " by Adam Makos.......story of the 3rd armored in Germany and addresses Sherman vs Pershing vs Panther 

Excellent book based on real accounts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are answers to be found within:

I have read, that given the fearsome reputation that the Tiger 1, and much less common Tiger II (King Tiger) had established, that the American tankers, (and probably the infantrymen along with them), would classify ANY German tank they saw, or encountered as a Tiger, or either variety, and, as one can see from the above picture, the profile of the Panther's turrent, and the turrent of the Panzer IV, which was even more squared off, are very similarly shaped to that of the Tiger I.  Also contributing to the misidentification would be that the Panther, Tiger I and Tiger II all had the same layout of the overlapping road wheels.  Even the Panzer IV, when it had the skirts covering its tracks, with its squarish turrent could, and probably was mistaken for a Tiger I.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, RichardDSalyer said:

And had the US command listened to Patton??

While Patton was an effective leader he wasn't a god. Maybe they should have listened to Patton. Then again, maybe they were right.

 

Rick

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, RichardDSalyer said:

Not attempting to be argumentative just a question.  Better than the Japanese and Gemrmans?  As a partisan purchaser of "Made in the USA" I hope your answer is yes but practically speaking, from my automotive experiences with the Japanese Honda and Toyota and German experience with BMW and Mercedes versus  Ford and GM.

As a former NASCAR fan I was dismayed at the success of Toyota products versus their American counterparts.

In my experience, far better than the Germans at making something that's viable, robust , efficient and cost effective to manufacture especially. Anybody can make anything with a dump truck of cash. The Germans are good at making things the way they know how and however much work is needed, or expensive precision processing is needed to do the one and only way they know, they will do. And that cost will then be baked into the price.

One product I worked on comes to mind as a great example. Our German colleagues had attempted to make a machine and when tolerance stackup because an issue, they just machined everything. If that didn't work, they'd grind it, and so on and so on. I call this "buying precision"; there's nothing novel about it, it's just very work intensive and thus expensive. What we were left with was a compressor that looked like it was built by clock makers. It was so expensive it wouldn't sell.

We in the US group got our hands on it eventually when the Germans had their fill of it. We endeavored to make it less expensive but maintain quality. We really had to think creatively and worked like dogs for two years and worked through of lot of failed novel ideas, but we did it. Some parts were press fit together where our colleagues has machined and bolted them, parts our German colleagues insisted on machining were stamped but with a highly sophisticated (and subsequently patented) process we developed in house for achieving the tight position tolerances on a stamped part without post-machining. It's that kind of creativity ("how can we do it differently, to make it better?") that the Americans excel at. The Germans will always be able to make the thing, and it will work well. It'll just be done with the tried and true methods they know and trust, and they buy all the precision they need by adding as many of these steps as they need to.

You hear about German engineering and American ingenuity. In my experiences at multiple companies, the Germans will buy their precision by adding all the tried and true manufacturing processes where they need to, to achieve it. I think that a lot of this is cultural, in that Americans are professionally courageous (or foolhardy) enough to ask a million times "why can't we try this", because of the one time in a million that it will work.

I also am borderline snobbish about buying American. I'm sensitive to it, because my whole career was in designing and making things, in the USA. As for NASCAR, I'm not an expert but I think the "manufacturers" are not much more than a sticker and a bank account. Aren't all the actual machine components (engine, transmission, suspension, brakes) custom built?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, KWRB said:

In my experience, far better than the Germans at making something that's viable, robust , efficient and cost effective to manufacture especially. Anybody can make anything with a dump truck of cash. The Germans are good at making things the way they know how and however much work is needed, or expensive precision processing is needed to do the one and only way they know, they will do. And that cost will then be baked into the price.

One product I worked on comes to mind as a great example. Our German colleagues had attempted to make a machine and when tolerance stackup because an issue, they just machined everything. If that didn't work, they'd grind it, and so on and so on. I call this "buying precision"; there's nothing novel about it, it's just very work intensive and thus expensive. What we were left with was a compressor that looked like it was built by clock makers. It was so expensive it wouldn't sell.

We in the US group got our hands on it eventually when the Germans had their fill of it. We endeavored to make it less expensive but maintain quality. We really had to think creatively and worked like dogs for two years and worked through of lot of failed novel ideas, but we did it. Some parts were press fit together where our colleagues has machined and bolted them, parts our German colleagues insisted on machining were stamped but with a highly sophisticated (and subsequently patented) process we developed in house for achieving the tight position tolerances on a stamped part without post-machining. It's that kind of creativity ("how can we do it differently, to make it better?") that the Americans excel at. The Germans will always be able to make the thing, and it will work well. It'll just be done with the tried and true methods they know and trust, and they buy all the precision they need by adding as many of these steps as they need to.

You hear about German engineering and American ingenuity. In my experiences at multiple companies, the Germans will buy their precision by adding all the tried and true manufacturing processes where they need to, to achieve it. I think that a lot of this is cultural, in that Americans are professionally courageous (or foolhardy) enough to ask a million times "why can't we try this", because of the one time in a million that it will work.

I also am borderline snobbish about buying American. I'm sensitive to it, because my whole career was in designing and making things, in the USA. As for NASCAR, I'm not an expert but I think the "manufacturers" are not much more than a sticker and a bank account. Aren't all the actual machine components (engine, transmission, suspension, brakes) custom built?

 

There was a few articles written by notable people about German and at a faster pace the Japanese factory production. Due to society and birth rates both countries aren’t maintaining qualified replacements to their mfg work force. The immigrants to the countries have no interest and don’t want to be trained for these precision jobs. They say the German precision mfg is at the end of its life cycle. Ten years ago read an article that USA had maybe 50 years left as a democracy and the last few weeks I would say it was a true prediction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sherman tanks were out classed by German tanks but we're good aginst jap tanks. We were expecting to use them in Japan and or china. Another thing to consider is we won the energy battle in WW2. The japs and krauts didn't have enough fuel to operate their equipment to capacity.

Dad was in WW2 and Korea. He joined the Navy and drove landing craft in the Pacific, among other things. After the war he stayed on for an extra six months to take surrender of the jap forces in china. Then he went to college on the gi bill. While there he joined ROTC for beer money, what's the risk, we just won the war to end all wars! As soon as he graduated his reserve unit was called up for Korea, 7th cav.

Dad loved the navy. Most of his time was spent painting boats (hated to paint anything after that), running landing craft with a smoke machine for smoke screens to disorient kamakazis and practicing for invasions. He said they had enough men and materials that not everyone was involved in most landings. The Philippines was a big one then the smaller ones came. He was was in the invasion of Okinawa but not Iwo jima. They were preparing to invade the Japanese homeland and die when they dropped the bomb. He thought A bombs saved untold millions of lives on all sides.

At the end of the war he signed up for an extra 6 months to help take surrender of jap forces in china. The jap soldiers in china were not loosing and not undersupplied and did not like how it ended. However they mostly surrendered. Dad said they would look down when americans were near and never look them in the eye, they were ashamed. He told stories of terrible things the japs did to the Chinese people. He was mostly in Shanghai and some northern chinese port with lots of white russian refugees.  as a boat driver he took some high ranking military personnel way up a river and picked up some high ranking Russians. Similar to the trip in the movie Apocalypse Now but without all the craziness. He was quite impressed with china.

Dad was an infantry officer in Korea, serving in the 7th cav. He didn't talk much about Korea. The Chinese came at them in such numbers. So many good men were lost. They folded units together and other terrible things. Then they were rotated out to the northern Japanese island, Hokkaido. They were expecting the Russians to enter the war and invade Japan. He was taught in OCS that nukes would be used in future wars to prevent the loss of life. He was bitter they didn't use them in Korea.

Thx-Ace

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...