Worst Pices of Crap 3: Tanks

As the originator of this thread, I have a thought that I would like to share with you. The tank that I despise above all others is the Sherman. It was reliable and easy to build and repair, but it was underarmoured, undergunned and remained that way until the end of the war. The armour was so weak that the Germans called it the Tommy Cooker, and it was vulnerable to every single anti-armour weapon that the Germans possessed. When they tried to give some to the Russians, they were actually rejected. The Russians diplomatically said that the silhouette of the tank was too high for the Russian steppe battlefields, but the truth was that they hated it. Then again, they had T-34s!
I think that the Western Allies should have abandoned the Sherman design and adopted the T-34 instead. It was just as easy (if not easier) to produce, and the Sherman engine could have been substituted for the Russian one... although it was not that bad to begin with. We would have suffered far fewer casualties that way.

Dean.
 
Dean said:
As the originator of this thread, I have a thought that I would like to share with you. The tank that I despise above all others is the Sherman. It was reliable and easy to build and repair, but it was underarmoured, undergunned and remained that way until the end of the war. The armour was so weak that the Germans called it the Tommy Cooker, and it was vulnerable to every single anti-armour weapon that the Germans possessed. When they tried to give some to the Russians, they were actually rejected. The Russians diplomatically said that the silhouette of the tank was too high for the Russian steppe battlefields, but the truth was that they hated it. Then again, they had T-34s!
I think that the Western Allies should have abandoned the Sherman design and adopted the T-34 instead. It was just as easy (if not easier) to produce, and the Sherman engine could have been substituted for the Russian one... although it was not that bad to begin with. We would have suffered far fewer casualties that way.

Dean.
Click to expand...

As well as the faults you mentioned the Sherman used a 76mm gun that was chosen by the Artillery branch of the Army (i.e. not a proper tank gun) and many Shermans were fitted with radial engines designed for aircraft. These engines made a loud backfire upon starting, instantly giving away their positions to the enemy. Also, the ammunition stowage was such that if the turret was struck it would explode, which is where the 'Ronson' and 'Tommy Cooker' nicknames came from.

Certainly for such an important tank the Sherman was one of the worst.
 
Dean said:
As the originator of this thread, I have a thought that I would like to share with you. The tank that I despise above all others is the Sherman. It was reliable and easy to build and repair, but it was underarmoured, undergunned and remained that way until the end of the war. The armour was so weak that the Germans called it the Tommy Cooker, and it was vulnerable to every single anti-armour weapon that the Germans possessed. When they tried to give some to the Russians, they were actually rejected. The Russians diplomatically said that the silhouette of the tank was too high for the Russian steppe battlefields, but the truth was that they hated it. Then again, they had T-34s!
I think that the Western Allies should have abandoned the Sherman design and adopted the T-34 instead. It was just as easy (if not easier) to produce, and the Sherman engine could have been substituted for the Russian one... although it was not that bad to begin with. We would have suffered far fewer casualties that way.

Dean.
Click to expand...

Surely you are joking when you call the Sherman the "worst piece of crap tank." Here is what the Russians had to say about the Sherman:

http://http://www.iremember.ru/tankers/loza/loza1.html

When you call the Sherman the "worst piece of crap tank" you are saying that the allies would have been better off with M3 tanks
m3.jpg



The Sherman was a huge improvement upon the British and American tanks that preceded it. Hardly the worst piece of crap tank.
 
The M3 worked very well in Burma during WW2, as the Japanese had nothing to touch them. Where the M3 faced the Germans then it was a different story as they been for more used to tank warfare and used the 88 mm flak gun with great effect on every battle front. Now the Sherman was a good tank when it first came out but the failure to upgrade the known faults in case it slowed production even for a day so caused me an allied soldier their life
 
2dold4this said:
Surely you are joking when you call the Sherman the "worst piece of crap tank." Here is what the Russians had to say about the Sherman:

http://http://www.iremember.ru/tankers/loza/loza1.html

When you call the Sherman the "worst piece of crap tank" you are saying that the allies would have been better off with M3 tanks
m3.jpg



The Sherman was a huge improvement upon the British and American tanks that preceded it. Hardly the worst piece of crap tank.
Click to expand...

I think he was saying that the M26-Pershing should have been introduced as soon as possible. If you read the link that I posted in a previous thread, you'll see that the Sherman was built to a cheap budget, using an artillery piece for a main gun and often an aircraft engine for its powerplant. Thousands of UK and US servicemen died needlessly in a tank that was hopelessly outclassed by the enemies it faced.

For the importance it played in history it was amongst one of the 'worse pieces of crap' tanks.
 
Zander....Yes it did help win the war but would you have liked to be a crew member in the Sherman during the invasion of Europe. Why do you think that it got it's name from the Germans "Tommy Cooker" or "Ronson" because the dam always burst into flames every time it was hit.
 
Doppleganger said:
I think he was saying that the M26-Pershing should have been introduced as soon as possible. If you read the link that I posted in a previous thread, you'll see that the Sherman was built to a cheap budget, using an artillery piece for a main gun and often an aircraft engine for its powerplant. Thousands of UK and US servicemen died needlessly in a tank that was hopelessly outclassed by the enemies it faced.

For the importance it played in history it was amongst one of the 'worse pieces of crap' tanks.
Click to expand...


The M26 was a great tank for its times. The question is was it worth three Shermans and delaying D-Day a year? Was the casualty rate higher for those in M4 Shermans or infantry?

Thousands of Russians died in T34's that might have lived had they been in IS2s. Does that make the T34 a crappy tank? I think not.

The M4 was better than the Matilda, Valentine and M3. That alone should keep it from being labeled the crappiest tank. Was it perfect? Of course not, no weapon is.
 
2dold4this said:
The M26 was a great tank for its times. The question is was it worth three Shermans and delaying D-Day a year? Was the casualty rate higher for those in M4 Shermans or infantry?

Thousands of Russians died in T34's that might have lived had they been in IS2s. Does that make the T34 a crappy tank? I think not.

The M4 was better than the Matilda, Valentine and M3. That alone should keep it from being labeled the crappiest tank. Was it perfect? Of course not, no weapon is.
Click to expand...

What evidence do you have that D-Day would have been delayed for a year if the Pershing had been introduced? If you're asking whether it was worth 3 Shermans then I guess it depends on your perspective. At the end of the day it wouldn't have made any difference to the result of WW2 itself but certainly many more UK/US tankers would have survived than historically. What if it had been your grandfather that died in a Sherman when you know he might have lived had he been in a Pershing? The argument becomes a little different then.

Your T-34 comparision doesn't really hold water. The T-34 was a great tank when it appeared and remained competitive throughout the war. This is not something you could say about the M4.

I don't agree that the Sherman was the crappiest tank, but given how important it was it was one of the crappiest tanks to have such a large influence in war.
 
The logic: The Sherman cannot be a lousy tank because the Allies won the war.

The problematical hypothesis: If you use this logic, then every Allied tank was superior to their German counterparts. (And every weapon system in general).

The issue: This argument sounds like that of Tito and the view that the Serbs defeated Germany. Or maybe the Dutch underground? Or maybe even the Albanian resistance? Maybe Luxemburg defeated Germany?

My Argument: The Germans could have produced thousands more PZKW IVs or "Panthers" and not just huge contraptions like the "King Tiger" or "Maus". Speer could easily have expanded the facilities at Alkett-Berlin, restricted the production of other weapons systems, and diverted resources to tank production. I do not want to push this point too much, but the Nazis only mobilized about 40% of the economy (some say 60% or higher, but this only reflects GNP in 1945 when the bombing of transport nodes stopped civilian output). The American and German industrial systems (in terms of output potential and overall capacities) were far more similar than many people like to believe. That is: Germany could have produced more and the western Allies could have produced better tanks.

The decision to experiment with other types or control tank output relates to views developed by the military procurement agencies and the industrialists. Why did German manufacturers build so few fighters in 1940 or 1941? Why not concentrate on anti-tank artillery in 1944? Why not build 100,000 tanks in 1942? These questions are meaningless. The real questions relate to (1) what type of war did the German high command envision or (2) how did their studies of battlefield conditions and realities condition weapons development. The Germans wanted to use heavy tank firepower and defensive capabilities to offset numbers.

The Allies went through a similar process. It was the other way around, however. The documents at the PRO in England demonstrate that the high command entertained a particular fear. British and American tank crews screamed out for better tanks in 1944 because they feared certain death against their German opposition. SHAEF decided that it was impossible to introduce better systems in time. The high command continued to press the only tactical doctrine available -- they swamped the Germans with what they acknowledged as inferior equipment.

The "tank scare" of 1944 did not doom the Allied offensive. The Allies kicked the Germans out of France and won the war. The crews of the "Shermans" and "Cromwells" however suffered horribly. The attrition rate was high and their morale was really low.

----------
Conclusion
----------

SHAEF itself acknowledged that their tanks were not sufficiently armoured and undergunned. SHAEF itself realized that western tanks were far inferior to those of their enemy. The high command countered German "Tigers" and "Panthers" with propaganda leaflets designed to fortify the resolve of the tank crews.

Yes, the Germans could have built more tanks. Yes, the Allies could have built better tanks. Yes, the Allies won the war. The Allied choice proved to be the correct one. But, SHAEF itself understood that the "Sherman" was inferior. Some people might argue that the "Sherman" was a good tank owing to the electrical turret, or the relatively high speed, or whatever they want. The fact that SHAEF studies underlined the superiority of German designs or that Allied crews suffered severe demoralization will not impact these people.

Tito would add that Normandy or Kursk only assisted the great Serbian victory! "I did it", he would add, "without tanks"!

Ollie Garchy
 
Man-to-man fight M26 vs T-34/85

You are talking about Tank battle in flat land as France.
But Tank battle in mountain land is as important as those battles.

M26 vs T-34/85 Man-to-man fight
It was diverted to the morning mist and one T34 tank of North
Korea attacked the M26 Pershing tank of sergeant Doluri who was
watching it on the main road on this day. It rushes with fearless
daring, and T34 has added hurling fiercely while the discharge
successively of the main armament though both launchings of the
sergeant of the first bullet by 50m, the second by 20m bounce is
launched, and it hit the vicinity of the turret. It has stuck to
shoot it with the main armament each other both though it was not a
wonderful impact because it is time when the Pershing tank tried to
back fortunately. Then, to shoot the main armament while backing if
Pershing started turning behind T34, and T34 was not going to make it
do so, the distance of both became empty. Then, the bullet exploded
jumping into 85mm main armament of T34 when Pershing launched the
third bounce.
T34 has fiercely put hurling again though a fire happened to the
barrel splitting, and continuously. Pershing fell on upsetting
a little and launched the fourth bounce. The match attached to this
man-to-man fight by this. The steel board drove back all bullets of 85
mm though Pershing received several bounces to the vicinity of the
turret the other day.
It is said that there was little damage of Pershing though such a
close game happens several times, and T34 on the North Korea side
defeated only in this day reached eight cars. It is one sample that
becomes definite victory or defeat to combat the superiority or
inferiority of the performance of the tank and appears.
 
Last edited:
You might as well talk about tank battles in the Jungles of Malaysia in WWII! Those Japanese tanks just thear the British to pieces!
 
Battle of ti-ha is not interesting,but history of this tank is very interesting for me.

As for Malaysia, the one with the best arms and general materials was given to the army in the main strategy place of a Japanese army.
227 tank of the third tank group (4 piece regiment) were turned on as for the tank regiment, and the main force was type (By the way, it iｓ　type 89 that sent to the Philippines)
However, British army of Malaysia had only Brengan careers.

83 tanks made a sortie.
13 destroyed with the antitank cannons of Australian&Britain army, and 11 were damaged seriously.
Afterwards Tiha fights hard against m3 tank.
It was necessary to approach up to 300m to penetrate through side of m4 tank.

type 97 tanks that Chinese national party seized from Japanese army in
China and a lot of arms are used in the civil war.
However,The most forces betrayed Chiang Kai-shek(because He was a cruel man, and his subordinate& his people were painfully treated. )in the civil war and theysurrendered to the Chinese Communist Party army.
main arms of the communism army seemed to have been used arms of a Japanese army before Korean War.

By the way, a lot of Japanese soldirers have employed to chi-com army.
Especially, soldiers who had special skill(tank-man, pilot, artilleryman, and officer were welcomed. )
They became teachers of some military academy.
Wang Hai ,he sprashed 15 US aircrafts in korean war.
He is a graduate at this Pilot academy.
9701.jpg

ti-ha tank in beijing war museum
"tank of merit”
This tank greatly took an active part in the civil war!・・・・・I heared so・・・
 
Last edited:
Well, so you are ssaying the Communist China got most of there weapons from those that they won! Nice tacti! SAve lots of $$$
 
Doppleganger said:
I don't agree that the Sherman was the crappiest tank, but given how important it was it was one of the crappiest tanks to have such a large influence in war.
Click to expand...

I'll agree with that statement.
 
Ollie Garchy said:
The logic: The Sherman cannot be a lousy tank because the Allies won the war.

The problematical hypothesis: If you use this logic, then every Allied tank was superior to their German counterparts. (And every weapon system in general).
Click to expand...

That is a straw man argument, Ollie. No one has claimed that the M4 was not inferior to other tanks, only that it was superior to some. That would exclude it from being the "worst piece of crap tank."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top