The Sherman Tank what an amazing vehicle!!

Oddly enough the Cooper commentary is rather interesting.

https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/01/27/zaloga_interview/

Not a massive fan of Zaloga at times but... his thoughts line up with the general issues that can follow such work (much like how Harry Leslie Smith's material is such a curate's egg.)

 

Aw, don't be so mean I did anticipate something like a Cooper response though for some reason which basically goes - if you are going to criticise the Sherman be prepared for the personal and professional flak but if you want to criticise anything that by comparison makes the Sherman look good then say anything you like.

 

Read again and take in what the tutor who reviewed his thesis said about it. That thesis is becoming a book and having experienced the authors posting style I get a feeling the complaints are spot on. His posting manner certainly is juvenile. A bit like yours..........

 

I took a peek into John Buckley's Monty's Men re the Sherman. Buckley is certainly no great admirer of the M4, but he speaks from greater knowledge than most of us have the time to attain and his book about British armor in Normandy is excellent and well balanced. Anyway, in Monty's Men he notes that the Sherman had to be or was used rather differently in the infantry support role than the Churchill. Both the Sherman and the Churchill had the same 75mm gun with the same good HE but because of its thinner armor the Sherman often hung back a bit or operated from a flank while supporting infantry. The Churchill, which had much heavier frontal plates, could face direct enemy fire with a little more confidence and was thus able to accompany infantry somewhat more closely.

Also, just because people lack knowledge or are new here is not sufficient reason to be impolite to them.

 

I am afraid that you have hit the nail on the head. I don't have the specifics handy, but in one of his books (about II SS Panzer Corps I think) Reynolds wrote about a highly damaging attack by SS panzer units against elements of 50th Div and XXX Corps in Holland. I cross checked the relevant British war diaries and found nothing like what Reynolds describes. I regard Reynolds as a prime example of the 1970s-80s tendency among officers in the Anglo-American armies to regard the German Army of WWII as the ideal of perfection.

 

He is not 'new'. I have been sparring with him or quite some years on another forum.
I also really do believe it is juvenile to take what a reviewing tutor said about a thesis and then assume the tutor only marked it down because he had some inbuilt M4 bias.

 

You are assuming I read what you are referring to when I didn't. Why do that? Because it suits the image you would like to think suits me so it gives you the opportunity to slag me off? Which incidentially is water off a duck's back but what does annoy me is the intellectual dishonesty behind it all.

 

No. Because I always read everything before offering my opinion and I (foolishly) believed you do the same. Obviously you have a entrenched view and contrary opinion is not thought worthy of consideration.
I read widely and make sure I am completely au fait with the latest research of both sides before opining. I do not limit my sources to those I agree with and that is what makes me able to deal with even the most 'expert' panzer fanbois.
The book you trailed (flame bait?) has been widely discussed on at least 4 other forums and I doubt this has escaped your notice. The author has made enough posts (for me)to be able to form an opinion as to both his methods and character. That the comments of his tutor on his thesis are so extreme and the actions of the author in suing everyone in sight (including Carlisle for being anti-veteran!) whilst spouting extreme right-wing rhetoric is troubling. The authors constant posting of phrases like 'lots of new tank photos, Tigers, Panthers and Elephants' is also a red light but hey , it seems he agrees with you so 'he must be right'

 

See the lol MK? That indicates not serious, lighten up.

 

Well if something is obviously rubbish I don't read it, why would you? A long time ago in my profession I developed a bullshit filter, it's so effective that I sometimes have to force myself to read stuff in order to respond to it. One thing it's good at is where people infer that something is so without actually saying so, your mate Moran is a constant offender when it comes to inferring something that directly or indirectly makes the Sherman look better and often such inferences are not based on fact. He did the same with his Sentinel review on YouTube which stirred me up because I'm well informed on that subject and he is far from being a all round expert. Anyway he got sorted out quick smart on that.

Most of your stuff is not too bad, you obviously do your research but you have this typical American centric thing which you may not even be aware of. It's understandable to a degree because much of the published material is American sourced so it's sort of a circular American attitude thing, hard to explain, I'm not a psychologist.

 

There might be a few grains of wheat in the chaff. Besides getting inside the mindset of those with polarized views is always a help when you intend to shatter their illusions. If you know the minutiae of the German Army/tank force in NW Europe 1944-45 you are less likely to be out-referenced when the mud starts flying. If I am taking apart some fable about Panzer Ace X knocking out 10 Shermans with the blunt end of his bayonet it is a great help if you know the movements, composition, claims and casualties of his whole unit for the time period. Combine that with the same understanding of the Allied units in the area and it pretty much guarantees the only defence left against you research is the Victor Meldrew 'I don't believe it'.
I take great exception to mindless Monty-Bashing and am always on the look-out for ways to correct the record. For that reason I got a copy of this:

http://www.amazon.com/EISENHOWER-MONTGOMERY-At-Falaise-Gap/dp/1441597972/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1464049515&sr=1-1&keywords=eisenhower+and+montgomery+at+Falaise+Gap

and the author is plain crazy. He states that Ike ordered Bradley to take the blame for Monty deliberately letting the Germans escape from Normandy because of a conspiracy by the UK to prolong the war. By getting to understand the mans claims I am better able to deal with them when someone else (less unbalanced) uses them in a thread. I pre-empt any follow ups because I am ready for them. Only by understanding your(internet) enemy can you defeat him

 

Having a bit of a browse of Zaloga's Armored Thunderbolt and thought this bit was worth quoting. "Ordnance tried to develop a better gun on the cheap and US tankers would pay for this short-sightedness on the battlefield in 1944-45."

Goddamn traitor, pity he's not on the internet, I'd have a mate.

 

He is:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/47208/message/1463088093/Plenty+of+US+aluminum+in+T-34+engines

You can message him any time he always replies. Please contact him and ask him to confirm your opinion on the M4. I could do with a good laugh................

 

In reference to the comment about the US Field Manual - FM -17-67 Crew Drill and Service of the piece, Medium Tank M4"... and whether the British had a similar manual...

This British Manual probably does the job...

Sherman Tanks Armament Pamphlet - AFVP/GI/5 - January 1945 (This covers 75mm Gun and 0.30 Coax MG)

Section 13 - Handling of Weapons - Page 125 - Sections 8 "Misfire" and 9 "Jammed Cartridges" and 10 "Removal of Jammed Projectiles" probably cover what you need.

Tim

 

M kenny a Uhmerican? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL ad infinitum.

 

Facts are facts, it's relatively easy to objectively compare tanks, problem is something like an objective comparison is apparently impossible for some. Something that I have usually not bothered with is to consider what tanks faced what threats and how well they were able to counter those threats. All this stuff is objectively comparable, who puts it into words is irrelevant.

 

Damn West Point fellow saying that the T34 was best, shame on him, it's unAmerican , jump to 31.43

 

When I put "tank" into the BBC search engine...

BBC World Service - Witness, The First Tanks

September 15th, 1916 was the date that tanks were first used in warfare. They were driven by British soldiers fighting against German troops during the Battle of the Somme in World War One. Alex Last presents interviews with some of those soldiers from the BBC archive.

I guess at the time this 1916 tank was the "best" tank.... and again for its time "what an amazing vehicle"....

But had its faults and its tactical use left much to be desired...

When you listen to the program (9 mins long) - and maybe only available to those in the UK ?? (Dunnoh?) sorry if it is ... - its like a microcosm (I mean... a situation regarded as encapsulating in miniature the characteristics of something much larger.)

Ps... Additionally:
Horace Leslie Birks, The Great War Interviews - BBC

Horace Leslie Birks
The Great War Interviews
Horace Leslie Birks sailed for France in 1915 as a Private with the 5th Batallion of the London Rifle Brigade. Having been wounded at Gommecourt in July 1916, he was transferred to the Machine Gun Crops heavy branch and became a Second Lieutenant in February 1917.

He recalls his nervousness when first ordered to command a tank in action at Passchendaele, and what it was like to operate inside those hot, steamy and altogether claustrophobic cockpits while machine gun fire and shells rained down. Next came Cambrai, the first battle to use tanks en masse.

 

Sherman at a tractor pull.

I wonder what engine this one has. Sounds like a gasoline powered one, at least.

Edit:

Just watched it again and at the very end the announcer says, "nine cylinder radial", so it's a Continental R-975