Mohamed2001
HATE NEWSPAPERS
Not to mention the T-44. The Panther would've been useless if that was deployed. Aside from the turret, it's effectively invulnerable to the KwK 42 L/70.
Fallout: The Reality
- Thread starter Cistern Logic
- Start date
Not to mention the T-44. The Panther would've been useless if that was deployed. Aside from the turret, it's effectively invulnerable to the KwK 42 L/70.
LordAshur
Banned
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns6l7sCoWX4
And to remind you that when discussing whether or not some WWII tank was shitty or not, there really is no reason to sound so butthurt.
Way I see it, its only advantage was that it was cheap.
DarkCorp
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
I would like to remind folks that tanks were not ONLY useful against other tanks.
They were the very definition of mobile firepower.
They took out APCs/IFVs just fine.
They were often critical in breaking through fortified lines, a job that would have been a nightmare for lone infantry.
Tanks also often drew enemy fire or forced machine gun crews to re-position/retreat, gaining valuable time for infantry to capture objectives.
As others have pointed out, although outclassed by HEAVY tanks, it was amazing when there were no heavies around, which was often.
They were the very definition of mobile firepower.
They took out APCs/IFVs just fine.
They were often critical in breaking through fortified lines, a job that would have been a nightmare for lone infantry.
Tanks also often drew enemy fire or forced machine gun crews to re-position/retreat, gaining valuable time for infantry to capture objectives.
As others have pointed out, although outclassed by HEAVY tanks, it was amazing when there were no heavies around, which was often.
Last edited:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns6l7sCoWX4
And to remind you that when discussing whether or not some WWII tank was shitty or not, there really is no reason to sound so butthurt.
Way I see it, its only advantage was that it was cheap.
It's not about beeing butthurt, its about historical accuracy. There is enough literature about the Sherman and enough historical evidence which shows that it was an excellent medium tank for its time, comparable with all its peers like the Panzer IV and T34, and in some cases even superior.
WW2 was not just a war between soldiers it was also a propaganda war. And the Germans have been very good at it. They glorified their weapons, like the Tiger or the Sturmgewehr and they created many myths around it. A propanda machine that works even today. But not every tanker was a Wittman or Carius. And the Tiger like every tank had pros and cons. Yet there are even today many people that throw around myths that have been proven wrong by several historians like the 5 Shermans for 1 Tiger, you sometimes hear that also with the Panther. Some myths have become so common that they get repeated over and over again. Up to a point where it even pops up on the so called history chanell, which should never ever be taken for serious. I'am really curious where they get their experts from.
There are no clear informations to get 100% acurate informations about the Sherman vs Tiger or vs Panther ratio combat was way to chaotic for that. Most of the Allied tanks have been lost due to mines, antitank guns and the enemy infantry according to post war studies by the Allies. But if anything it was eventually a lot closer to 2:1 in the normandy champaign. And a lot of the loses can be explained with the position of the Allies as beeing the attackers in most cases. They usually always suffer the higher loses. Particularly as we have to think about the German army as a military which has spend a lot of resources in anti tank weapons like the Panzerfaust and anti tank guns.
*Edit
What is really pissing me off though is this selective view points and that is also shown by some of the idiots talking on the history chanel comparing the Shermans with Tigers. But I am not looking at anyone here. Just in General. You know when people talk about Panzer IIIs and Panzer IVs with inadequate weapons swarming a KV1 or KV2 loosing most of their tanks in the process but destroying the KV heavy tank, it is German bravery and tactic that won the day. If a group of Shermans is doing the same with a Tiger it is suddenly the Germans with their uber-tanks beeing only beaten by supperior numbers.
Last edited:
LordAshur
Banned
I don't usually trust History either, the only reason I found the video credible was the veteran who was in a Sherman maintenance unit.
All of history is nothing but propaganda, and every historian is a propagandist. Some of them would have us believe that the German tanks were perfect, some would have us believe that the Sherman was good, some would have us believe that it sucked, and we usually agree with the conclusion we find most logical or simply like the best. As Bonaparte quaintly put it - History is a set of lies agreed upon. And each time I end up in a discussion about some historical subject, I end up remembering that quote and being reminded not to care.
All of history is nothing but propaganda, and every historian is a propagandist. Some of them would have us believe that the German tanks were perfect, some would have us believe that the Sherman was good, some would have us believe that it sucked, and we usually agree with the conclusion we find most logical or simply like the best. As Bonaparte quaintly put it - History is a set of lies agreed upon. And each time I end up in a discussion about some historical subject, I end up remembering that quote and being reminded not to care.
Historians like in actuall Scientists, people that do their work seriously like Steven Zaloga who has studied military history are whole different story though. Most historians with an respectable academic degree take their work very serious. I would never get the idea to compare their work to those of the fucked up history chanel who are just repeating most of the time myths and nonsense as long its dramatic and popular. I don't know any historian who doesn't hate it.
Beaushizzle
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns6l7sCoWX4
And to remind you that when discussing whether or not some WWII tank was shitty or not, there really is no reason to sound so butthurt.
Way I see it, its only advantage was that it was cheap.
Lol. Referencing History Channel. Way you see it is wrong. HC's "facts" or from Shelton Cooper's book Death Traps, and both he and his book are considered, at best, misguided and misinformed, at worst lies made up to propagate the idea of insurmountable courage in the face of overwhelming, nearly magical German technology.
And I could go deeper into the doctrine of the time about the U.S. method of dealing with enemy tanks, but I won't. Unless you make me. In short, Shermans weren't even meant to be tank killers, they were infantry support tanks.
Last edited:
Mohamed2001
HATE NEWSPAPERS
However Zaloga was wrong in several points. The Pacific book, for example. The T-62 book also says that the 115mm was made by boring out the rifling from the 100mm, but this is false. Also, the IS tank book mentions a bad welding issue related to the Pike, however this is a very fatal case of mis translation. The actual book this what translated from says that the IS-3 was strongest at the pike, but the rear was faulty.
Last edited:
Still better than the history chanel. I mean those are details, but we are not talking about rifling of guns or welding on tanks but actually informations that you can even get from google these days. Like the 5 shermans for 1 Tiger myth - and many more. I see quite often Death Traps, by Belton Y. Cooper cited as the only source for the Sherman. But he was neither a scientist nor a historian.
Point is, that there is clear difference between research and the work done by historians with academic degrees and historical reports. Because academic work can be actually discussed on a different level. Zaloga was just an example, where I see books by Death Traps by Cooper or Tigers in the mudd by Carius as memoirs of veterans.
The work of a historian has not to be always right of course. So I am not defending Zaloga. My opinion on the Sherman is based on many sources, and I am sure that no one of us always getting everything right. I mean hey it is not the best tank on the face of earth, but it is definitely not a death trap and above its reputation. In my opinion it is one of the best medium tanks of its time and superior to the T34. And I would say it can even hold its weight against a Panther. On a clear day with 2000 meters difference in plane open fields? Sure I would chose the Panther for combat, but the Sherman if I wanted to win a war. Because wars are not won by tank duels. At least if I was in the same position like the US where you had to drag every bolt and piece of equipment across the whole atlanatic ocean to get it to Europe.
Point is, that there is clear difference between research and the work done by historians with academic degrees and historical reports. Because academic work can be actually discussed on a different level. Zaloga was just an example, where I see books by Death Traps by Cooper or Tigers in the mudd by Carius as memoirs of veterans.
The work of a historian has not to be always right of course. So I am not defending Zaloga. My opinion on the Sherman is based on many sources, and I am sure that no one of us always getting everything right. I mean hey it is not the best tank on the face of earth, but it is definitely not a death trap and above its reputation. In my opinion it is one of the best medium tanks of its time and superior to the T34. And I would say it can even hold its weight against a Panther. On a clear day with 2000 meters difference in plane open fields? Sure I would chose the Panther for combat, but the Sherman if I wanted to win a war. Because wars are not won by tank duels. At least if I was in the same position like the US where you had to drag every bolt and piece of equipment across the whole atlanatic ocean to get it to Europe.
Last edited:
Mohamed2001
HATE NEWSPAPERS
Yes, and Death Traps also has many things wrong. Like the Panther using a diesel engine.
Personally I find the T-34-85 superior, but the Sherman was upgraded more and received more support post war. The USSR abandoned the T-34-85 post war, only giving it minor modifications or just rebuilding it using T-55 parts. While the US made the M4A3E4 which was for export clients. And Egypt attached the AMX-13 turret on it. Israel too. And Israel managed to mount a French 105mm Smoothbore on it. Yugoslavia managed to mount the 122mm D-25 on it, etc.
But if you're in the same position like the USSR, you wouldn't need to choose. You get M4A2s w/ 76mms and the T-34-85. And the IS-2 and.. you get the idea.
The Yugoslavian army did some testing between the latest T34-85 and Sherman, it seems that in most tests both vehicles have been very comparable in their performance. But looking at the layout of the tanks the Sherman was definitely a lot more comfortable for the crew, it had a slightly better protected hull - albeit that really doesn't matter much at that point. And what might be more important, it had higher survivabilty with improvements to the engine and the wet-ammo rack which lowered the chance of a totall destruction a lot. I think from 80% to less than 20% after penetration and hits to critical components like the amunion. I guess in a real confrontation it comes down to who its first. Both vehicles could penetrate each other from more than 1500 meters anyway, and their guns had similar accuracy and the optics similar quality. I still would prefer the Sherman for my army if I had to chose between the two.
Mohamed2001
HATE NEWSPAPERS
Yeah, see Korea. It eventually ended up going to who's the better trained between M4A3E8 vs T-34-85. (kinda funny how the M26 resurrected the M4A3 from the grave, though)
Oddly enough, I read a declassified CIA report talking about the cold war and Soviet armor, it was in 1980 (but declassified in 2014), it mentioned Korea and mentioned how the M9 Bazooka was found to be uneffective vs the UFP of the T-34-85 and that it was a huge morale hit, since everyone thought that Soviet armor was invulnerable.. I wonder how did they feel about the T-64/T-64A or the T-72... those tanks pretty much made ATGMs and HEAT shells useless lol.
Here's the report:
http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/DOC_0000624298.pdf
The_WitchDoctor
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Japan was far from defeated. Japan would have, just like Germany, fought us to the last inch of ground, to the last man, to the last bullet. They would have not given up without some sort of drastic measure that proved that continuation of the war was absolutely, in every conceivable universe, hopeless. The Japanese military was fully prepared to sacrifice every one of their soldiers and civilians in a glorious last stand against the Allied Powers. The Bushido warrior culture that they resurrected became a huge part of their military doctrine. And like the Soviets, and the Germans before them, one of the biggest principles of that doctrine clearly stated that death was preferable to surrender. If Operation Downfall had indeed commenced and Harry Truman decided NOT to drop the bomb, I - along with several historians and WWII veterans can tell you that they would have fought us down to the last man. If they weren't above strapping bomb vests on soldiers and making them run into tanks, or telling pilots to jump in a Zero and shoot until he was out of bullets and his bomb was dropped, and then once he was, to drive in his plane directly into that battleship if it was still standing, what makes people think that they wouldn't have armed every last man and child with a weapon and whatever ammo they had left (and they had a-plenty) to fight us with? Hitler did it. Stalin did it. And neither of those cultures took the warrior code nearly as serious as the Japanese...
Thirteen (possibly even twelve) year old kids would have been given a rifle and a clip or bayonet/sword if bullets were scarce. Fifteen to maybe even fourteen year old kids would be taught how to fly planes in only a few weeks time so that they could sacrifice their life, so that in turn Japan could have one glorious last stand. It is unfortunate that they were the first to have their pride seared away by nuclear fire, but even though people think they were done for, I'm pretty sure the Japanese at the time thought different.
Did you know that even AFTER the war was over, several Japanese bastions and deployments continued to hold out on whatever middle-of-nowhere island they were stationed on and continue to fight Allied troops. Even AFTER the war was over, a lot of them that weren't on the mainland and hadn't been captured yet still continued to fight. Most of this reason was due to the fact that they didn't have a working radio so they couldn't receive orders, but a lot of them continued to fight just out of sheer honor and pride because they didn't want to surrender. I won't go as far as to say they were brainwashed, but the Japanese Empire convinced an entire nation that it was better to die than surrender, they convinced them of this so far to the point that nearly every Japanese citizen believed it, and not only were they willing to die for the Emperor (who was perceived as a man-god), but they were happy to do it, too.
If Operation: Downfall commenced, we would have had a helluva fight on our hands... the U.S. thought taking Okinawa was bad...
And I'm fairly sure Truman knew this.
Last edited:
Mohamed2001
HATE NEWSPAPERS
There was a Japanese soldier found in the 70s in an island. He still thought WW2 was running at that time.
Doubtfull. Both Germany and Japan have been at the brink of colapse in early 1945, as seen with the Ruhrpocket where several 100 000 of German soldiers got captured.
Don't confuse propaganda with the reality. Okinawa was one of the blodiest battles the US have fought up to that point, but it was also one of the first battles in the Pacific in which thousands of Japanese soldiers surrendered or were captured, the whole curse of the war started to demand its toll on the Japanese. I believe an invasion of Japan would have followed only after a very extensive air campaign with increased fire bombing, Mc Namara and other analysists worked on new data which lead to new strategies followed by Le May with very high efficiency. As far as the killing and destruction goes. I guess, just like in Germany, you would see the common civilians surrendering whith smaller pockets of huge fanatism. Most probably it would have been worse in Japan considering the difference between the Japanese and German ideology of that time. But there is no doubt that with the invasion the Japanese society would have completely colapsed.
The Fire bombing of Japan was far more effective than the atomic bombs. And with the Soviets entering the war Japan they had to eventually deal with a Soviet and US occupation. There is no doubt that Japan would have eventually surrendered even without the nuclear bombs. Albeit, it was something that no one could really know with certainty on the US side at that time.
Last edited:
DarkCorp
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
But would it have been an unconditional surrender?
IMO, firebombing on a much larger scale would have killed much much more civilians. If you add a continuation of blockade, suffering is extended even more over the entirety of the nation instead of two cities.
Also, depending on extent of insurgency expected, the japanese might very well face atrocities by the occupational authorities.
IMO, firebombing on a much larger scale would have killed much much more civilians. If you add a continuation of blockade, suffering is extended even more over the entirety of the nation instead of two cities.
Also, depending on extent of insurgency expected, the japanese might very well face atrocities by the occupational authorities.
Last edited:
Did they had a choice really?
DarkCorp
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
I was under the impression that the Japanese, even with Soviet entry into the war, wanted to negotiate a lenient/conditional surrender, something which was unacceptable by the allies.
Going on the terror weapon route, would the government have surrendered unconditionally without nukes/massive firebombing/starvation afflicted on every single Japanese citizen?
Going on the terror weapon route, would the government have surrendered unconditionally without nukes/massive firebombing/starvation afflicted on every single Japanese citizen?
Last edited:
SnapSlav
NMA's local DotA fanatic
Absolutely false. You're right that this ATTITUDE existed amongst the Japanese, but this doesn't mean it was actually the case. The soldiers who were isolated and found many years later exhibited this fervor and tendency to never give up. But what you're missing is the greater picture of what the Japanese Emperor meant to its role in the war. It may seem odd and hard to understand, from a Westerner perspective, but the Emperor WAS believed by his subjects to be divine, and his word was absolute. As such, due to this culture of reverence, there was such a gargantuan divide between the Emperor and his intentions versus his subjects and their intentions. The Japanese did indeed feel like fighting to the end was their duty, and they did indeed feel like they could not possibly lose the war. But these were simply delusions. This was one of the major reasons for the Ningen-sengen (Declaration of Humanity) stipulation that was required of the Emperor upon Japan's defeat; it revoked his status as a divine being and dropped him down to the level of any other mortal in the eyes of his subjects. This was a hard pill for the Japanese to swallow, just like giving up was hard for them to accept. But it WAS accepted.
The administration of Japan and its military/citizens were not the same entity. What the leadership was going to decide was the final answer, no matter what, and the final answer WAS tipping inevitably towards defeat, long before Truman's idiocy set foot on the stage. The people having been raised in such a zealous state didn't have any impact on the decisions of the Emperor, the Japanese government, or the course of the war at all. After all, those hermits who still believed that the war was going on decades later and swore to defend their Empire to the bitter end didn't stop the war from ending at all, did they?