Реклама | Adv
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
Сообщения форума
Реклама | Adv

Ronsons

Дата: 02.06.2014 20:44:23
View PostCombatCommandD, on May 31 2014 - 11:20, said: Yo Chieftain! I had a sudden start not too long ago. It's about the M4 Sherman.   What if the Sherman's high vulnerability was because it wasn't a Medium Tank?   Think about it for a moment. Everyone that is. The M4 Sherman was designated a Medium tank based on Weight and Firepower, right? Or something close to it, correct? What if they didn't have a term back then for what the M4 Sherman design really was? A term we now have.   Multirole.   Think about it further. The M4 Sherman was very simplistic and basic when it entered into service. So simple and basic it was, it was easily adapted and upgraded into numerous different vehicles and types for the next 20 plus years by a variety of nations.   You had a Sherman outfitted with a basic 75mm gun. The first tank with a truly effective turret mounted 75mm gun. Up to that point, things weren't looking that way for many tanks being equipped with the 75mm gun. Yet, as the M4's production run went on, the guns became larger and heavier, but the turret wasn't all that different initially. Additionally, the suspension, drive train, and more was also improved. Added to that, Shermans were rolling off production lines with 105mm Howitzers in fully traversing turrets. And that was BEFORE the 76mm was considered, before the 17-pdr. was added by the British. Why else would the British decide to add the 17-pdr. straight onto the Sherman rather than just build a whole new tank or work out a full production line? Most of the British Fireflies were done in Britain as opposed to being shipped straight to them from America.   Frankly, it's late and this is bouncing in my head so hard, I can't sleep. So if I sound disjointed, forgive me. But hopefully you can see where I'm coming from. The M4 Sherman was a Multirole Tank. Not a Medium Tank. Given the sheer number of variants, upgrades, basis for other vehicles, and more, that when you compare the M4 Sherman to German Panzers, especially Tigers and Panthers, you have to realize that variation almost didn't exist among the German vehicles. They were built for one mission and one mission only and that was to be kings of the battlefield. The Sherman by contrast was to be a Multirole platform able to answer what ever was tossed at. Can't forget the DD Tanks too. If used in more calmer waters, they would be a force to be reckoned with. As it was, there are quite a few people that now agree it was the DD Tanks that managed to get ashore at Omaha Beach that eventually turned the tide, despite being bad conditions and heavy losses.   German Panthers and Tigers would have sunk like rocks in any attempt.

The_Chieftain:   I'm not sure I see any significant difference in role between a Pz IV and an M4. Both were medium tanks designed for general combat on the battlefield, although, yes, the early PzIVs were actually closer to armored support guns. M4's vulnerability was simply a matter of the amount of armour it could have whilst still being mobile, both tactically and strategically.   A correction on your timeline, though. M4 was to have a high-velocity cannon dating back to late 1941, the exact same date they decided to try sticking a 105mm howitzer into it. It just took a long time to get a variant acceptable to the US Army into service.

Реклама | Adv