I thought I'd share with you all...For instance -one question asked was "Why didn't America build better tanks in World War 2?". The sort of What-if question we've all seen before. But I bet you've NEVER EVER seen THIS answer before...
Looks like a degree-level education there!!!America did build better tanks, but nearly all of the better ones were in Pearl Harbour, and they obviously couldn't use them because they wetre destroyed by the Japanise,and diddn't heve alot of time or alot of equiptment to use so because they had to build alot of tanks in very little time i'd say compaired to the time Hitler built his tanks the American tanks were brilliant.
Spot who's dad drives a Japanese SUV!!!sort of mentioned was the factor of fuel. American tank builders were limited to using gasoline powered engines for logistical reasons. this limited engine power, and therefore armor weight. i *beleive* the germans had diesel engines, but i can't remember.
The only reason the Germans were able to build the Tiger so big, was because it was designed to able to ford rivers up to 18-20 feet deep .. rather than cross bridges .. as very few bridges in pre WW2 Europe, could support the weight of a Tiger .. whereas they could support a Sherman.
There's logic in there somewhere - "but not as we know it, Jim!"
Paging Mister Cleraty! Is Mr. Cleraty in the house???Again I find myself reading some of the posts and thinking well some things need cleraty.
After a while the original poster revisited the subject...
I guess my real question is how much sooner would the US have won the war if Sherman tank production had never been started?
Think about the extra steel and personnel that would have been available for the production of something that worked like P-47 fighter aircraft and pilots!
Think about the reduction in tank driver casualties!
O I am!...now, if our putative B-47 made of STEEL ever got off the ground, would Rosie the Rivetter-turned-Pilot actually have been able to fly it? Watch this space...from a very safe distance!
Okay....who's going to tell him???"Shermans played a big role in WWII" OK, if you say so, but I don't know how or when. The day that an M-4 was important I have not heard about. I know that they were there and they took a lot of hits and people got hurt, but the P-47 was our tank killer, not the M-4. Can you imagine the radio call that went like "Hey, we are in trouble, the Gerries have us in the corner, SEND IN THE M-4 SHERMANS!"
To quote David Tennant...."whaaaaAAT???"The Navy made lots of expensive blimps, none of which ever sank a submarine, but at tremendous cost. If the Sherman was good, maybe the Navy blimps were too. "If it feels good, build it!"
...typed on the Internet - 'cos they don't let him have sharp pencils where he is...I have reduced the whole tank vs tank question down to one simple fact: the allies enjoyed total air superiority from D-Day to the end of the war. Tanks didn't matter.
With total air cover, anything is possible in a war against conventional forces like the Wehrmacht.
Air cover allowed the US Army to move forward in spite of the distraction of burning and exploding Sherman tanks along the way.
I think we should have sent all the Shermans to Russia, and let the Russians try their luck with all of that "tank and infantry stuff" against the Germans. (Which is kind of they way it went and explains why the Russians lost two million casualities during the last year of the war.)
If we never made the Sherman, we would have had more assets to manufacture and man fighter (not bomber)aircraft as well as have more troops to march along under the air cover.
And woul they be marching in column of fours in red jackets and shakos?
What? Will somebody PLEASE tell me why the fu....If you need to drive to Florida in a tank, take the Sherman, if you are in a war, take the Panther.
Hmm. Live brain in transit...I know "air power does not win wars". You always need a "ground pounder" to finish off the job. For example, after the US dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, you needed a guy like MacArthur to go to Tokyo bay and accept the surrender. This was before Fedex and things had to be done "in person" by ground pounders. Today, you could probably get the surrender by SECURE Datalink. (You would still need ground pounders to ackowledge receipt of the surrender.)
..'cos it say so on the jigsaw when I put all six pieces together, Mommy...By the time of the Normandy invasion, all Allied armies (except the Soviets) had adopted the Sherman, to the exclusion of almost all other tanks (excepting some Churchill and Cromwell tanks in units such as the British 79th Armoured Regiment, and some special-purpose types, such as ARVs)
Obviously his PC is his only link with civilisation...The first B-29 cost $3,392,396.60. Those coming off the production lines today cost approximately $600,000. A total of 157,000 man-hours were required to produce the first B-29's to roll off the line; those produced today require only 57,000 man-hours.
A novel twist on the story of Walter Christie...secret agent!The T34 was a much better mass produced tank than the american sherman. Surprisingly the plans where sold to the russians by a america who opted for the sherman instead
