Russian Arms philosophy

Originally posted by Raideur
The Sherman also went above and beyond its requirements. However, it is bashed because it was not able to deal with enemy armor, something it was not designed to do, and not just any armor, but Germany's wondar waffen Panthers and Tigers. However, with infantry, it was excellent in giving support.

Hmmm, it doesn't matter what it was designed for, it was how it was used. The Sherman was used by the allies to slug it out with other tanks, which as has been said many times, it wasn't designed for.
All tanks had a main gun and a few machineguns, they were all good at infantry support.

The Matilda and the BT-5 are not the same thing. One is a obvious infantry tank, and one is obviously a exploitation (of breakthrough) tank.

Also, the Sherman did well against most German tanks, and was on par with late Pz IV's. It simply could not deal with anything heavier, and neither could the T-34/76.

However, the Russians suceeded in mounting a bigger tank gun in a bigger turret on the chassis, the Americans tried, but failed to mount the 90mm, which was an excellent tank gun, on par with the German 88mm and superior to the Russian 85mm.

Originally posted by rogue1
Well the Shermans 75mm gun was crap, it couldn't penetrate a Tiger or Panther at over 100 meters, whereas a Tiger or Panther could penetrate the Shermans frontal armour at over 2.5 km. That may explain the massive losses the allies suffered.

It was "crap" when it was used to engage the tanks you mention frontally but not "crap" when it was used against intended targets such as infantry....

The 100 meters was full frontal shots and i am not sure they could not penetrate them at longer distance. As you say 100 meter, or even 300, does not matter much when you can be engaged and destroyed at comparably massive long range. The average combat distances in ETO was however around 600- 800 meters at wich range Panthers and even tigers could be engaged from the side with some success given good gunnery.

The only gun cpab;e of taking on a Tiger/Panther was the Brit 17 pdr, used in Firefly Shermans and other allied tanks. These guns were small in number though and only a few tanks had them.

Actually most ( half by the end of the war) of the Shermans were upgraded or built to carry the 76 mm M1 gun wich could be be used with favourable results, and good gunnery, at normal engagement ranges.

The Sherman was not supposed to be facing with German tanks at all wich was supposed to be done by the M-10 wolverine and other tank hunters.

Anyways!

Stellar

[edit on 5-12-2005 by StellarX]

Since for some reason we are still on the topic of Sherman tank, instead of posting useless numbers, here’s some background on the man after whom the tank was named. This way it will be clear what was the intended purpose of the M4.

Union general William Sherman, or how his troops called him “Uncle Billy”, was a man responsible for the brutal terror campaign against civilian population of the south during the Civil War.

“Foraging”, which in reality was looting, pillaging, burning, killing, raping, basically a terror campaign against the south.

His “bummers”, or “freelance looting” soldiers were especially ruthless, because they went on their own private looting campaigns and spread lawlessness and terror through Georgia, by basically going AWAL in order to make that extra buck.

Sherman is the one who coined the fraise “war is cruelty”, which the press turned into “war is hell.” The only “battle” they ever got in to was with desperate confederate boys and old men.

That is why I can’t stand all those sorry ignorant fools that have no clue about nothing but always scream “War is Hell” when we break our own laws.

After emancipation proclamation freed slaves followed Sherman’s army. Sherman personally hated blacks, and ordered to pull up the pontoons after a river crossing, thus leaving the blacks to the mercy of the confederates which were following his army.

Since Sherman, to this day our troops are encouraged to loot. Iraq is a perfect example.

Hmmm, that's about as far off topic as you can get. I think you infused more emotion than fact into your rant as well

So lets get back on topic by stating that the Russian doctrines and strategic aims differ greatly from most nations, due to their unique position, history, etc.

Right on Raideur.

I was just making an example of how NOT to drift from a topic.