RC Tank Warfare community hobby forum

The problems with the Sherman could be compared with the Panzer 4. both of them were the backbone of the respective armoured forces in WW2 the success of one is based on a procurement programme that concentrated on building proven designs en- masse for example, Sherman, B17, Spitfire, Lancaster then just develop these on a rolling programme of updates BUT not at the expence of production numbers,
There was an element of flexibility built into this as witness the private venture aircraft that became the Mosquito which owed its success to using non strategic materials and non strategic personell and so could be built in large numbers without competing for material and man/women power in short supply and a small Aircraft company at the right time at the right place (North American) whose Mustang was, once the Alison engine was replaced with a Merlin able to steal air superiority from the Luftwaffe ,
Whereas the German governments procurement programme was based on political lobbying, example Heinkels inability to get a jet fighter in production in 1942 whereas the ardent supporter of the German government Willie Messershmitt got the ME 262 programme going almost overnight, If the Panzer 4 had been given priority in production and upgrades in the same fashion as the Sherman without having to compete against the extraordinary demands of high tech and highly demanding skilled tradesman to make the Tiger and Panther which for all their advanced abilities could have been dispenced with or at least not given the priorities they got, then the armoured war at least could have been very different. 50,000 Panzer 4s against 50,000 Sherman's I think would have been close but I would put my money on the Panzer 4. Although without a Strategic Air Force Germany had no hope of winning.
Shaun.

I'll just leave this and bow out...
http://the.shadock.free.fr//sherman_min ... index.html

frankie wrote:I'll just leave this and bow out...
http://the.shadock.free.fr//sherman_min ... index.html

..and that's one of the sources I look at for detail, along with crisp images; but also I quite like:
http://henk.fox3000.com/Sher.htm
and,
http://www.theshermantank.com

Glad to see you've edited your post regarding cast hulls being used

frankie wrote:Just to point out, you keep mentioning the hybrid/composite and the extended M4a4, but there was also a std length M4 welded hull version, the IC...

I thought I did mention it ...it's somewhere unless admin edited out

Nope they didn't
It's the post to Corp 43...Has this image on it

Seems a lot of these were issued to the Polish Tanker Group

ALPHA

frankie wrote:I'll just leave this and bow out...
http://the.shadock.free.fr//sherman_min ... index.html

OMG!!!!!!!!!....Shades of Deja Vu..... .... I remember going through that site doing my other M4
Great site...but man...you could go Sherman Crazy there


Thanks Frankie


ALPHA

jarndice wrote:The problems with the Sherman could be compared with the Panzer 4. both of them were the backbone of the respective armoured forces in WW2 the success of one is based on a procurement programme that concentrated on building proven designs en- masse for example, Sherman, B17, Spitfire, Lancaster then just develop these on a rolling programme of updates BUT not at the expence of production numbers,
There was an element of flexibility built into this as witness the private venture aircraft that became the Mosquito which owed its success to using non strategic materials and non strategic personell and so could be built in large numbers without competing for material and man/women power in short supply and a small Aircraft company at the right time at the right place (North American) whose Mustang was, once the Alison engine was replaced with a Merlin able to steal air superiority from the Luftwaffe ,
Whereas the German governments procurement programme was based on political lobbying, example Heinkels inability to get a jet fighter in production in 1942 whereas the ardent supporter of the German government Willie Messersmitte got the ME 262 programme going almost overnight, If the Panzer 4 had been given priority in production and upgrades in the same fashion as the Sherman without having to compete against the extraordinary demands of high tech and highly demanding skilled tradesman to make the Tiger and Panther which for all their advanced abilities could have been dispenced with or at least not given the priorities they got, then the armoured war at least could have been very different. 50,000 Panzer 4s against 50,000 Sherman's I think would have been close but I would put my money on the Panzer 4. Although without a Strategic Air Force Germany had no hope of winning.
Shaun.

OH BOY LEFTENTANT....This is a whole different can of worms ....But I think you have summarized very well....Especially since I feel if the Germans (not that I would have wanted them to have the upper hand) would have fared better sticking with the Panzer IV ....It's fortunate Hitler got caught up in his own weakness...ignoring his Generals and moving forward with Heavier Armor Tech as well as Aviation Tech....and it was fortunate for us that the Allies stuck to their guns ...putting faith in the over matched M4....which just by sheer number was able to support and spearhead many a strategic maneuver the Germans could think of


ALPHA

43rdRecceReg wrote: Personally, I'm not keen on the Sherman. It had a high centre of gravity, affecting stability, and a high profile relative to overall size in the Landscape (like its predecessor, the M3 Lee), making aiming an almost leisurely pursuit for german 88s, whether from an anti-tank position, or from tiger turret. I can already hear the howls of protest and rage from Sherman fans...but it's also a fairly ugly tank! Pity the War office couldn't get more Comets out there earlier!
However, since my Dad and my Uncle were both in armoured units during the war, they would have been familiar with the Firefly...and the bog standard Sherman. If I had a model, though, it would have to be the to Vc Firefly to reflect their experience

Thing is..........The Sherman was easily deployed...Fast Fast Fast...Reliable ...with Parts a plenty...IMO and I don't care what is said about it being a firebox....for the time...It was the perfect solution to other concepts that were being produced by other countries

Oh....I'm gonna overlook that Ugly Statement


cause a Tank really shouldn't be Pretty....the Sherman is what it is intended to be...a "Work Horse" of a vehicle...it still looks good...but not as sexy as a
Chaffee

ALPHA

ALPHA wrote:

frankie wrote:Just to point out, you keep mentioning the hybrid/composite and the extended M4a4, but there was also a std length M4 welded hull version, the IC...

I thought I did mention it ...it's somewhere unless admin edited out

Nope they didn't
It's the post to Corp 43...Has this image on it

Seems a lot of these were issued to the Polish Tanker Group

ALPHA

...but you refer to it as a hybrid with a stock hull?????

frankie wrote:

ALPHA wrote:

frankie wrote:Just to point out, you keep mentioning the hybrid/composite and the extended M4a4, but there was also a std length M4 welded hull version, the IC...

I thought I did mention it ...it's somewhere unless admin edited out

Nope they didn't
It's the post to Corp 43...Has this image on it

Seems a lot of these were issued to the Polish Tanker Group

ALPHA

...but you refer to it as a hybrid with a stock hull?????

In it's own way...wasn't it a Hybrid?....Initially it was Experimental wasn't it? Hybrid is a relatively broad term...but I would think it would cover the combining of the Stock M4 hull with the 17 pounder turret

I know it might be confusing as the term Hybrid is also used to describe the composite hulled M4s....but I'm referring to the Turret to Hull match up
Also ..not sure if you noticed...there are normal cast hull M4 / Firefly turreted tanks in that photo


ALPHA