Or 2 out of 200? The rest were lost over a couple of days after all.
QOTD #8 - Impact of upgunning the M4 Sherman to 76mm?
- Thread starter Bootie
- Start date
Or 2 out of 200? The rest were lost over a couple of days after all.
Well, the M26 Pershing, never become all that great of a tank as I recall, when it went to Korea, it had reliability issues. I think I read that the tankers preferred the up gunned sherman that was used there also in that conflict.
But there was also the fact that there was no tank duels in that conflict except for one event. So nether tank had to prove itself really to enemy armor.
But there was also the fact that there was no tank duels in that conflict except for one event. So nether tank had to prove itself really to enemy armor.
I think it's interesting people always talk about German tank mechanical unreliability and fuel consumption. How about Soviet tanks.. did they just run without a hitch? Didn't a JSII use a lot of fuel?
When the common idea of Russian strategy in WWII is to throw more men at the enemy rather than use a technological solution, they tend not to be held to the same standards as the Germans.
Not to say that this idea is 100% correct, the Russians learned from their mistakes and by wars end they were more or less on technological parity with the Germans.
Here's a couple of good videos by Chieftain on the subjects mentioned in this thread.
C
ChuckDyke
Guest
Very late reply. 105 mm howitzer was in the Sherman during WW 2. The 105 mm in the Israeli Sherman was I think a French gun shooting HEAT. The US 76 mm didn't have HVAP like the 76 mm Hellcats. The 90 mm TD's were based on Sherman's chassis. At least in CM FB the 76 mm Sherman knocked out a K-Tiger in one of my games on the side armour. The truth is the 75 mm Sherman carried a lot of 75 mm HE effective against German infantry.
C
ChuckDyke
Guest
I have been following this guy for years. The armour on a Sherman is a lot thicker than a GI's Jacket.
Yeah, I think that the Sherman is a very maligned vehicle for, at least according to Moran, very illegitimate reasons. Both those videos are well worth watching.
C
ChuckDyke
Guest
In Korea, it was a better tank than the T34/85 according to the museum. Picture from the Seoul Korean War Museum. I stayed there for most of the day, my wife had to drag me away.
Great pics! Thanks for sharing.
I had a chance to get up close and personal to one several years ago when there was a museum nearby.
The one thing I took away from my visit was how much bigger, and dangerous, it looked in person.
The one thing I took away from my visit was how much bigger, and dangerous, it looked in person.
That's interesting. I went to an MLS game in Kansas City years ago on a military night and they had an M1 Abrams and I was struck at how small it looked. Very low vehicle height IMO.I had a chance to get up close and personal to one several years ago when there was a museum nearby.
The one thing I took away from my visit was how much bigger, and dangerous, it looked in person.
Is it just me or does the cupola on the T34/85 make it look taller than the Sherman in the pic?
Well, the cupola certain sticks up there, but if you look at the hulls of each it would be doubtful the T-34 is the taller.
C
ChuckDyke
Guest
There is some lens distortion due to the keyhole effect of the wide-angle lens here because of the height of the M4.
Last edited by a moderator:
C
ChuckDyke
Guest
Side by side in profile the T34/85 is definitely lower. SU 100, Jacksons and another M4 easy 8 on the back. It was not a small tank.
Here is a photo I have of one here locally. I think the truck in the background helps one understand the size of these things.
Of course, the distance to the truck was a streets width plus a little
Of course, the distance to the truck was a streets width plus a little
This is a pretty good pic for comparing height, I'd put the top of the hull at around six feet from the ground.
By my understanding the Sherman is relatively tall due to the need to fit an upright radial engine in the original models, as other engines became available it would have been too much trouble to modify the hull purely for that reason but I'm sure the lads inside appreciated the extra room compared to their British and (especially!) Russian counterparts.
By my understanding the Sherman is relatively tall due to the need to fit an upright radial engine in the original models, as other engines became available it would have been too much trouble to modify the hull purely for that reason but I'm sure the lads inside appreciated the extra room compared to their British and (especially!) Russian counterparts.
C
ChuckDyke
Guest
Very nice photos, I like the 'Easy Eight' as the best all-round tank of WW2. If some people knock the Sherman, the question is which one. The Easy Eight is a completely new vehicle.