5 ms·

The tank crews would probably disagree; Allied tank crews sustained terrible casualties during the invasion of Europe. And it did little good for morale to kno

by marvin 8y ago

The tank crews would probably disagree; Allied tank crews sustained terrible casualties during the invasion of Europe. And it did little good for morale to know that a German tank would knock out yours and probably kill your crew in the time it would take to fire tree rounds. (Twice to find the correct angle and the third to score a hit). Strategically, this worked out nicely in WWII due to massive manpower advantage and the Germans’ severe weakening on the Eastern front, but the poor performance of Allied tanks was still a serious strategic blunder.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
>The tank crews would probably disagree; Allied tank crews sustained terrible casualties during the invasion of Europe. Sarting on page 72ish TFA handles this common criticism. While the crews probably would have preferred something that could go toe to toe with the Tiger in a 1:1 engagement the strategic and tactical reality of invading Europe with such a tank meant that was basically out of the question. The article also mentions the differences between a tank that's optimized for offensive use and one optimized for defensive use. If you read up on German armor you'll see them actually making this transition as they refined their tanks throughout the war. With such a superior numerical advantage your average allied tanker never engaged more than one or two enemy tanks and had a pretty good chance of surviving the war all things considered. American tanks in France spend more time blowing up fortifications and hosing down enemy infantry than engaging enemy tanks because when you have such a massive numbers advantage your tanks do not need to spend all their time engaging other tanks. Your average German tanker was not so lucky. He would have a nearly endless supply of allied tanks to shoot at. >but the poor performance of Allied tanks was still a serious strategic blunder. How was it a strategic blunder if it worked exactly as intended? It's really easy to sit in an air conditioned office and hand wring about people in 1940 not caring enough about the value of human lives but the simple fact is that times were very different and a lot of lives were going to be lost regardless so they may as well be lost winning quickly.
AmVess 8y ago
EVERYBODY suffered terrible casualties during the war. Statistically speaking, tank crews had one of the lowest mortality rates of anything else in the war that also was in battle. Also, all tank crews were not happy to see any other tank. Germans hated seeing Allied tanks just as must as we hated seeing Axis tanks. 70% of ALL engagements were won solely on who got the first shot off. The Germans had Tiger I and Tiger II tanks, but the reality is that they didn't make very many of them. The vast majority of the tanks the USA went up against were Panzer III's and Stugs...of which any variant of the M4 was more than a match for. The so called poor performance of the Allied tanks was a complete myth. The M4 was a giant success and more than filled its mission. Further, the M4 was so good that it remained in production for more than 40 years after WWII and was used very effectively by Israel during the 6-day war which occurred 22 years after WWII.
jcranmer 8y ago
The M4 tank is an underrated tank. It does have one major flaw: its main gun is undersized--but the tank crews themselves were saying "we don't want a bigger gun" when the tank was being designed, and no one realized the mistake until late 1944. It also excels in other areas, most notably reliability and survivability (it's incredibly easy to exit the tank in a jiffy if it's on fire, especially compared to German tanks). German tanks notably had a deficiency in reliability--they may look powerful on paper, but if a tank is spending half its time awaiting repairs, it's not contributing to your actual war effort.
- arethuza 8y ago
  The British Sherman Firefly fixed that particular problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Firefly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Firefly
- mcv 8y ago
  It wasn't a mistake. US tank doctrine was to use specialised tank destroyers against Tigers; the Shermans were there to support the main army. And a few Shermans had the more powerful 76mm guns which were better against Tigers. But the 75mm guns were fine against the vast majority of targets they were likely to encounter. Tigers were incredibly rare. The Brits did put a 17 pounder gun on the Sherman to create the Firefly, which was much more powerful, but also too large for the small turret of the Sherman, making it a cramped, uncomfortable and impractical tank. The basic Sherman was fine. Arguably the best tank of the war.

by marvin 8y ago

dsfyu404ed 8y ago

>The tank crews would probably disagree; Allied tank crews sustained terrible casualties during the invasion of Europe. Sarting on page 72ish TFA handles this common criticism. While the crews probably would have preferred something that could go toe to toe with the Tiger in a 1:1 engagement the strategic and tactical reality of invading Europe with such a tank meant that was basically out of the question. The article also mentions the differences between a tank that's optimized for offensive use and one optimized for defensive use. If you read up on German armor you'll see them actually making this transition as they refined their tanks throughout the war. With such a superior numerical advantage your average allied tanker never engaged more than one or two enemy tanks and had a pretty good chance of surviving the war all things considered. American tanks in France spend more time blowing up fortifications and hosing down enemy infantry than engaging enemy tanks because when you have such a massive numbers advantage your tanks do not need to spend all their time engaging other tanks. Your average German tanker was not so lucky. He would have a nearly endless supply of allied tanks to shoot at. >but the poor performance of Allied tanks was still a serious strategic blunder. How was it a strategic blunder if it worked exactly as intended? It's really easy to sit in an air conditioned office and hand wring about people in 1940 not caring enough about the value of human lives but the simple fact is that times were very different and a lot of lives were going to be lost regardless so they may as well be lost winning quickly.

AmVess 8y ago

EVERYBODY suffered terrible casualties during the war. Statistically speaking, tank crews had one of the lowest mortality rates of anything else in the war that also was in battle. Also, all tank crews were not happy to see any other tank. Germans hated seeing Allied tanks just as must as we hated seeing Axis tanks. 70% of ALL engagements were won solely on who got the first shot off. The Germans had Tiger I and Tiger II tanks, but the reality is that they didn't make very many of them. The vast majority of the tanks the USA went up against were Panzer III's and Stugs...of which any variant of the M4 was more than a match for. The so called poor performance of the Allied tanks was a complete myth. The M4 was a giant success and more than filled its mission. Further, the M4 was so good that it remained in production for more than 40 years after WWII and was used very effectively by Israel during the 6-day war which occurred 22 years after WWII.

jcranmer 8y ago

The M4 tank is an underrated tank. It does have one major flaw: its main gun is undersized--but the tank crews themselves were saying "we don't want a bigger gun" when the tank was being designed, and no one realized the mistake until late 1944. It also excels in other areas, most notably reliability and survivability (it's incredibly easy to exit the tank in a jiffy if it's on fire, especially compared to German tanks). German tanks notably had a deficiency in reliability--they may look powerful on paper, but if a tank is spending half its time awaiting repairs, it's not contributing to your actual war effort.

arethuza 8y ago
The British Sherman Firefly fixed that particular problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Firefly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Firefly
mcv 8y ago
It wasn't a mistake. US tank doctrine was to use specialised tank destroyers against Tigers; the Shermans were there to support the main army. And a few Shermans had the more powerful 76mm guns which were better against Tigers. But the 75mm guns were fine against the vast majority of targets they were likely to encounter. Tigers were incredibly rare. The Brits did put a 17 pounder gun on the Sherman to create the Firefly, which was much more powerful, but also too large for the small turret of the Sherman, making it a cramped, uncomfortable and impractical tank. The basic Sherman was fine. Arguably the best tank of the war.