Never buy a used BMW

Detroitgator

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Jul 15, 2014
28,240
46,752
Had a 10-1 kill ratio, but too complicated to maintain in a deteriorating war effort.
I read a GREAT cost/benefit comparison between the Sherman, Panther, and T-34 a few years ago and wish i could find an online version of it. It laid out the design considerations given life expectancy on the battlefield, compared everything, and laid out costs, especially in man hours for production and maintenance in the field, and wasn't meant to choose "best" (too subjective), but rather just so one could see the MASSIVE disparities. Essentially, every single German tank was a unique, one off, hand made tank, let alone the over engineering.

If you've never crewed on a tracked vehicle before, while it looks cool and is phenomenal for reducing ground pressure, you have no earthly idea what a nightmare the suspension/road wheel array is like to deal with on those German tanks... on ours, if you have to change in inward road wheel, you only have to remove ONE road wheel to get to it... on the Tiger, you had to remove EIGHT to get to it. That's death. In 1944 and 1945, the number of mechanically disabled (not destroyed by fire) German tanks that were just abandoned is staggering.

Something you'll appreciate... on the Panther, the final drives had to be serviced every..... 150 kilometers. That means that due to the intricacies, the final drives had to be serviced BEFORE it ran out of a tank of gas! This hamstrung the Germans more than you think... it's means they couldn't conduct road marches at all... everything had to go by rail for long moves. Worse? There were special tracks for the Tigers (and Ferdinand/Elephant) JUST for rail loading as the regular tracks extended too far out (super wide for decreased ground pressure) from the rail cars... before rail loading, they had to break track, put on the special narrow tracks, load/travel/unload, then break track again and put regular tracks back on... think of all that time and expense and it also means that you could never roll of the train straight into battle. Cool looking tanks, but actually pieces of shyte...
 
Last edited:

78

Founding Member
Dazed and Confused
Lifetime Member
Jun 9, 2014
19,745
27,635
Founding Member
I read a GREAT cost/benefit comparison between the Sherman, Panther, and T-34 a few years ago and wish i could find an online version of it. It laid out the design considerations given life expectancy on the battlefield, compared everything, and laid out costs, especially in man hours for production and maintenance in the field, and wasn't meant to choose "best" (too subjective), but rather just so one could see the MASSIVE disparities. Essentially, every single German tank was a unique, one off, hand made tank, let alone the over engineering.

If you've never crewed on a tracked vehicle before, while it looks cool and is phenomenal for reducing ground pressure, you have no earthly idea what a nightmare the suspension/road wheel array is like to deal with on those German tanks... on ours, if you have to change in inward road wheel, you only have to remove ONE road wheel to get to it... on the Tiger, you had to remove EIGHT to get to it. That's death. In 1944 and 1945, the number of mechanically disabled (not destroyed by fire) German tanks that were just abandoned is staggering.

Something you'll appreciate... on the Panther, the final drives had to be serviced every..... 150 kilometers. That means that due to the intricacies, the final drives had to be serviced BEFORE it ran out of a tank of gas! This hamstrung the Germans more than you think... it's means they couldn't conduct road marches at all... everything had to go by rail for long moves. Worse? There were special tracks for the Tigers (and Ferdinand/Elephant) JUST for rail loading as the regular tracks extended too far out (super wide for decreased ground pressure) from the rail cars... before rail loading, they had to break track, put on the special narrow tracks, load/travel/unload, then break track again and put regular tracks back on... think of all that time and expense and it also means that you could never roll of the train straight into battle. Cool looking tanks, but actually pieces of shyte...

Crazy when you think that Dr. Porsche was the creator, at the behest of der Fuhrer, of the People’s Car — the Volkswagen. There wasn’t much unreliable about that machine.
 
Last edited:

AlexDaGator

Founding Member
The Hammer of Thor
Lifetime Member
Jun 19, 2014
12,702
31,648
Founding Member
I read a GREAT cost/benefit comparison between the Sherman, Panther, and T-34 a few years ago and wish i could find an online version of it. It laid out the design considerations given life expectancy on the battlefield, compared everything, and laid out costs, especially in man hours for production and maintenance in the field, and wasn't meant to choose "best" (too subjective), but rather just so one could see the MASSIVE disparities. Essentially, every single German tank was a unique, one off, hand made tank, let alone the over engineering.

If you've never crewed on a tracked vehicle before, while it looks cool and is phenomenal for reducing ground pressure, you have no earthly idea what a nightmare the suspension/road wheel array is like to deal with on those German tanks... on ours, if you have to change in inward road wheel, you only have to remove ONE road wheel to get to it... on the Tiger, you had to remove EIGHT to get to it. That's death. In 1944 and 1945, the number of mechanically disabled (not destroyed by fire) German tanks that were just abandoned is staggering.

Something you'll appreciate... on the Panther, the final drives had to be serviced every..... 150 kilometers. That means that due to the intricacies, the final drives had to be serviced BEFORE it ran out of a tank of gas! This hamstrung the Germans more than you think... it's means they couldn't conduct road marches at all... everything had to go by rail for long moves. Worse? There were special tracks for the Tigers (and Ferdinand/Elephant) JUST for rail loading as the regular tracks extended too far out (super wide for decreased ground pressure) from the rail cars... before rail loading, they had to break track, put on the special narrow tracks, load/travel/unload, then break track again and put regular tracks back on... think of all that time and expense and it also means that you could never roll of the train straight into battle. Cool looking tanks, but actually pieces of shyte...


So...

The easy to produce, ultra dependable, easy to maintain Sherman (with a great anti personnel gun and machine gun) despite its armor and anti tank deficiencies OR the ultra easy to produce T-34 with better armor and anti tank gun and cross-country performance but not as dependable or easy to repair (and uncomfortable/no radio)?

Alex.
 

Detroitgator

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Jul 15, 2014
28,240
46,752
So...

The easy to produce, ultra dependable, easy to maintain Sherman (with a great anti personnel gun and machine gun) despite its armor and anti tank deficiencies OR the ultra easy to produce T-34 with better armor and anti tank gun and cross-country performance but not as dependable or easy to repair (and uncomfortable/no radio)?

Alex.
I’d take the Sherman, especially due to optics, fire controls, and especially stabilization, especially while moving, then everything else you mentioned.
 

oxrageous

Founding Member
It's Good to be King
Administrator
Jun 5, 2014
36,935
97,630
Founding Member
I’d take the Sherman, especially due to optics, fire controls, and especially stabilization, especially while moving, then everything else you mentioned.
You don’t mention that they were death traps that had a tendency to burn the men alive inside. Hard to do the easy maintenance if you’re dead.
 

AlexDaGator

Founding Member
The Hammer of Thor
Lifetime Member
Jun 19, 2014
12,702
31,648
Founding Member
You don’t mention that they were death traps that had a tendency to burn the men alive inside. Hard to do the easy maintenance if you’re dead.

They weren't designed to fight other tanks (though obviously they did). They were designed to support infantry. The low velocity 75mm main gun fired an excellent high explosive round and combined with its machine guns, durability, and range, it really was very good at what it was designed to do (take out fixed defenses, create and exploit breakthroughs). The Sherman could maneuver through narrow European cities and cross small European bridges that would have collapsed under the weight of a Tiger. Shermans could be transported by railroad through tunnels and shipped across the Atlantic (an American version of the Tiger would be useless if we couldn't get it from the factory to France). Even after the up-gunned Shermans with a higher velocity 76mm main gun were introduced, some commanders still preferred the old gun because its high explosive round was superior to the one fired by the new gun (though that philosophy didn't last very long).

US armored doctrine back then called for tank destroyers to take out opposing tanks. Tank destroyers were thin-skinned fast vehicles with powerful main guns. The idea was to use speed to avoid bad situations and to out maneuver enemy tanks and then take them out with big guns. Doctrine called for tank destroyers to be kept in reserve, then dispatched wherever enemy armor was concentrating to oppose an enemy breakthrough.

The Sherman was so sound that it was easily upgradeable and during the war it was up armored, up gunned, parts were added to widen the tracks for better cross country performance, they even made Shermans that could swim. They were good enough that decades after WWII ended, up-armored and up-gunned versions were still seeing combat.


Alex.
 

oxrageous

Founding Member
It's Good to be King
Administrator
Jun 5, 2014
36,935
97,630
Founding Member
Alex, every time I’ve read or seen interviews with men that actually used those tanks in combat, they are spoken about with disdain.
 

Detroitgator

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Jul 15, 2014
28,240
46,752
Alex, every time I’ve read or seen interviews with men that actually used those tanks in combat, they are spoken about with disdain.
There are too many explanations, and I don’t do long responses anymore.
 

Gator By Marriage

A convert to Gatorism
Lifetime Member
Dec 31, 2018
14,784
27,962
I read a GREAT cost/benefit comparison between the Sherman, Panther, and T-34 a few years ago and wish i could find an online version of it. It laid out the design considerations given life expectancy on the battlefield, compared everything, and laid out costs, especially in man hours for production and maintenance in the field, and wasn't meant to choose "best" (too subjective), but rather just so one could see the MASSIVE disparities. Essentially, every single German tank was a unique, one off, hand made tank, let alone the over engineering.

If you've never crewed on a tracked vehicle before, while it looks cool and is phenomenal for reducing ground pressure, you have no earthly idea what a nightmare the suspension/road wheel array is like to deal with on those German tanks... on ours, if you have to change in inward road wheel, you only have to remove ONE road wheel to get to it... on the Tiger, you had to remove EIGHT to get to it. That's death. In 1944 and 1945, the number of mechanically disabled (not destroyed by fire) German tanks that were just abandoned is staggering.

Something you'll appreciate... on the Panther, the final drives had to be serviced every..... 150 kilometers. That means that due to the intricacies, the final drives had to be serviced BEFORE it ran out of a tank of gas! This hamstrung the Germans more than you think... it's means they couldn't conduct road marches at all... everything had to go by rail for long moves. Worse? There were special tracks for the Tigers (and Ferdinand/Elephant) JUST for rail loading as the regular tracks extended too far out (super wide for decreased ground pressure) from the rail cars... before rail loading, they had to break track, put on the special narrow tracks, load/travel/unload, then break track again and put regular tracks back on... think of all that time and expense and it also means that you could never roll of the train straight into battle. Cool looking tanks, but actually pieces of shyte...
It may have been apocryphal, but I seem to remember reading something about the Russians rolling unpainted T-34s straight from the factory to the battlefield. Amazing to think of in this day.
 

Detroitgator

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Jul 15, 2014
28,240
46,752
It may have been apocryphal, but I seem to remember reading something about the Russians rolling unpainted T-34s straight from the factory to the battlefield. Amazing to think of in this day.
That is correct, early in the war. The Germans did the same in 1945, had tanks go out in red oxide primer.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Help Users

You haven't joined any rooms.