Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military From: military-request@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: RE: M4 Tank Info Message-ID: <15340@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 7 Apr 90 05:13:55 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Lines: 117 Approved: military@att.att.com From: military-request@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) digi!rvannost%digi.lonestar.org (Richard M. Van Nostrand) writes: >First I personally don't believe that the basic M4 was an MBT. >It was a medium tank that was all to often thrust into the role >of an MBT. This is correct. US Army doctrine was for our Tank Destroyers (M6, M10, M36, and M18) to engage enemy armor. They were equipped with high-velocity guns for this job. The Shermans were for breaching enemy lines en masse and subsequent breakthrough operations. Their 75mm gun was a relatively low-velocity piece, better suited for HE and smoke. > I believe it only had a 76 mm gun, which, as the war >progressed, proved inadaquate for medium-long range frontal engagements >with the heavier german tanks. The 76mm came later in the war ('44), and never completely replaced the 75's. Even when it was carried, the best antitank ammo, HVAP (Hyper- Velocity Armor Piercing) was generally reserved for the Tank Destroyers, though Sherman crews got them by hook or crook. The 76 wasn't at all a bad gun, though, as good as the German 75 l/48 carried by the Panzer IV (though not as good as the Panther's 75 l/70 or the 88). It could deal well with Tigers, but not Panthers, except from the side. > There were a number of revamped versions >of the Sherman however. For example, the Super Sherman and the Sherm V.C. >Firefly (a british tank) in both cases the armor was upgraded, the powerplant >improved, and a larger gun installed. The Super Sherman was a post-war Israeli improvement. The Firefly simply mounted a 17-pounder in the turret, with extensive internal layout changes (the hull gunner's position being deleted in favor of ammo storage); I find no record that armor or powerplant was changed. The M4A3E2 "Jumbo" was extensively up-armored, but retained the original powerplant. This was a limited-conversion vehicle, though, intended for use as the "point" tank in a column. Actually, the frontal armor on a Sherman was about equivalent to that of a Tiger I; 100-120mm, accounting for slope. This says as much about the Tiger as the Sherman, I suppose. BTW, the T-34 was in the same ballpark for effective frontal armor. >Granted, the primary asset of the Sherman was the fact that they could >be produced in greater numbers than they could be killed in. Also, reliability was a major feature. The Sherman was easily maintained and stoutly reliable; the tracks, especially, were better than those of most tanks, including the Germans. Armor and guns win battles; drive trains win campaigns. Guderian himself stated that a tank's engine is just as much a weapon as is its gun. >(I will agree that I find it rather odd that a country that obviously won >WWII based on the number of weapons that it could produce rather than the >quality of the weapons. Overall, the Germans had some of the highest >quality weapons of the entire war. True. However, they were, for the most part, more expensive and time- consuming to produce. Also, they tended to require more maintenance and break down more frequently. (Germany lost nearly half her tank force during the Polish campaign, and again in the French campaign, mostly due to breakdowns; of course, they were repaired afterwards, but even during Barbarossa, units typically had about 25% of their tank strength in the repair depots because of failures) From the reliability standpoint, I'd rate the Sherman qualitatively superior to most German tanks. >And yet, only 40 years later we have gone >to a stategy of producing higher quality in smaller numbers; I do happen >to believe in this practice however. Perhaps, it is the advancement of >technology that has made this the best strategy.) I don't think so. Rather, I'd say it's still the same story. You can build small numbers of high-tech weapons (Panthers, Abrams, F-15's) and gain an edge in any given battle because of it; however, you have to accept low production rates and high maintenance costs and failure rates. Or you can use lower tech, and build more weapons (M4's, T-72's, F-5's), and counter with more serviceable vehicles on the battlefield. You'll lose some battles, but your numerical edge might win the war. This has been covered here before, in fact. A large part of the decision is personnel; one high-tech weapon might have equal combat strength to two low-tech weapons, but the high-tech option requires only half the personnel. For the US Army, maintaining lots of soldiers in the field is politically and economically unacceptable, while for the USSR (with mandatory service for its people, low wages, and few benefits) manpower is relatively cheap. Further, it's a lot easier to transport one tank to Europe than two; so high-tech weapons are more effective when long-range redeployment is an issue, as it is for the US. The USSR, on the other hand, doesn't face this problem to nearly the same degree. Finally, you must choose the right tool for the job, based on the abilities of the tool's wielder. The USSR has historically been forced to adopt something of a brute force approach, as its junior officers are not (for mostly political reasons) able to achieve the flexibility and efficiency of those in Western armies. Soviet units (based on past performance, esp. WWII) tend to be clumsier, so that they experience high casualty rates. Giving them high-tech weapons would not reduce that rate appreciably, so the extra cost would be wasted. The West hopes that its units will fight more effectively and flexibly (as was done by Germany in WWII). By way of analogy, we intend our officers to be surgeons, so we give them expensive scalpels for precise, effective work. The Soviets expect their officers to be more crude, so the scalpel would be wasted; they give them an inexpensive hatchet, instead. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Bill Thacker Moderator, sci.military military-request@att.att.com (614) 860-5294 Send submissions to military@att.att.com