Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 6th, 2018, 09:45 AM   #501

SSDD's Avatar
Aryaputra
 
Joined: Aug 2014
From: India
Posts: 3,744

Did not Germans use Stug III in offensive mode also?
SSDD is offline  
Remove Ads
Old March 6th, 2018, 09:56 AM   #502
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2015
From: Bye, bye
Posts: 1,550
Blog Entries: 1

I'm adding another video related to article #491

The Shermans were not mighty enough to fight the Tiger tanks..
phil1904 is offline  
Old March 6th, 2018, 09:58 AM   #503
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: england
Posts: 285


Did it not register that the author of the above is the same man who wrote the rubbish Sherman book. That is circular reference!
mkenny is offline  
Old March 6th, 2018, 10:07 AM   #504
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: USA
Posts: 4,668

Quote:
Originally Posted by SSDD View Post
Did not Germans use Stug III in offensive mode also?
Yes, because they couldn't produce enough tanks for their panzer regiments and brigades, they augmented dwindling numbers with tank destroyers. But they weren't designed for that, anymore than the Hellcat was designed for offensive operations.
aggienation is offline  
Old March 6th, 2018, 10:08 AM   #505
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: USA
Posts: 4,668

Quote:
Originally Posted by phil1904 View Post
I'm adding another video related to article #491

The Shermans were not mighty enough to fight the Tiger tanks..
Wow, History Channel. Great source. I know when I'm looking for quality info on armored warfare in WW2 I go straight to the people who also make Ancient Aliens.
aggienation is offline  
Old March 6th, 2018, 10:18 AM   #506
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2015
From: Bye, bye
Posts: 1,550
Blog Entries: 1

I do not understand why all this extremely violent and aggressive criticism, since the previous page.
I have the right to express an opinion and provide sources that support it.

Since several articles the discussion is about whether Tigers tanks were really effective tactically against enemy tanks.
Some believe the Shermans were effective, but I don't think so.
I consider that the Shermans' weakness against the Tigers cost them a lot of losses.
I provide sources that say the Sherman were too weak.
There are testimonies from historians and allied tankists
kind regards,

Last edited by phil1904; March 6th, 2018 at 10:23 AM.
phil1904 is offline  
Old March 6th, 2018, 10:53 AM   #507
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: USA
Posts: 4,668

Quote:
Originally Posted by phil1904 View Post
I do not understand why all this extremely violent and aggressive criticism, since the previous page.
I have the right to express an opinion and provide sources that support it.

Since several articles the discussion is about whether Tigers tanks were really effective tactically against enemy tanks.
Some believe the Shermans were effective, but I don't think so.
I consider that the Shermans' weakness against the Tigers cost them a lot of losses.
I provide sources that say the Sherman were too weak.
There are testimonies from historians and allied tankists
kind regards,
Violence means physical force, tone down the hyperbolic rhetoric yourself.

The Sherman was a medium tank, its counterpart wasn't a Tiger I, which it would almost NEWER encounter on a battlefield, by Summer '44, it was the Panzer MkIV, by late '44 the Panther was added but still not in significant numbers to be a threat (since in actual large scale tank battles, like Arracourt, the Sherman armored divisions still handed the Panzer divisions their butts), and even then the Panthers commonly only made up half of tanks or less in a panzer regiment. So in reality, the German armor threat equivalent in proportion of armored vehicles to infantry was the StuG, because only they remotely matched the number of Shermans. Meanwhile, you comparing the Sherman to a Tiger is like comparing an M1 Garand to a MG42. Or comparing how a cruiser is outclassed by a battleship. Made especially worse because by and large, German heavy tank battalions faired horrifically against US and British armored forces, thanks to better planning, leadership, combined arms support, logistics, air support.
aggienation is offline  
Old March 6th, 2018, 10:53 AM   #508

zincwarrior's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Texas
Posts: 5,428

Quote:
Originally Posted by SSDD View Post
One thing sure, Americans learnt a lot from WW2 on tank. US doctrine was to use tanks for infantry support and let tank destroyers engage tanks. But it resulted in heavy tank losses. That is why after WW2 Americans redefined their tank ideology and began to make Patton series tanks which were almost on per with Soviet tanks.

But it does not say highly about Sherman tanks.
What's wrong with Sherman's? They were equal to all but big cats, which were rare. They played havoc with Panthers. They were reliable, effective, and easy to manufacture. Plus only the Valentine was in every theater of war besides the Sherman.

In Korea they we're quite effective against both infantry and T34/85s.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old March 6th, 2018, 10:56 AM   #509
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: USA
Posts: 4,668

Quote:
Originally Posted by zincwarrior View Post
What's wrong with Sherman's? They were equal to all but big cats, which were rare. They played havoc with Panthers. They were reliable, effective, and easy to manufacture. Plus only the Valentine was in every theater of war besides the Sherman.

In Korea they we're quite effective against both infantry and T34/85s.
Because pop culture tank history of WW2 is based largely on post war German propaganda accounts and historical references to death traps, etc. When they do consider tanks they nearly only consider how they do fighting one another in one on one, head to head, fair fights. They don't talk combined arms, they don't talk strength, support, logistics, simplicity, reliability, nor do they discuss the uncomfortable fact that by and large tank vs tank, even in small unit, was exceedingly rare. That there was a reason barely any AP rounds were carried in tanks, in lieu of HE, because that's what they used. Why more MGs were added to tanks. That there was a greater fear from American tankers from getting hit with shoulder fired AT weapons then a Tiger.
aggienation is offline  
Old March 6th, 2018, 10:56 AM   #510

zincwarrior's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Texas
Posts: 5,428

Quote:
Originally Posted by phil1904 View Post
I do not understand why all this extremely violent and aggressive criticism, since the previous page.
I have the right to express an opinion and provide sources that support it.

Since several articles the discussion is about whether Tigers tanks were really effective tactically against enemy tanks.
Some believe the Shermans were effective, but I don't think so.
I consider that the Shermans' weakness against the Tigers cost them a lot of losses.
I provide sources that say the Sherman were too weak.
There are testimonies from historians and allied tankists
kind regards,
Zaloga (bad spelling I am sure) is a very authoritative source on WW2 tanks and tank guns.
zincwarrior is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
overrated, tank, tiger



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Tortuga Tank: A Rather Strange tank (armored vehicle) Bernard Montgomery War and Military History 8 April 26th, 2013 08:58 PM
Repair of a Tiger Tank 1944 world-x War and Military History 1 September 8th, 2009 01:32 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.