Gun Hub Forums banner

1 - 20 of 78 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,940 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Tank movie - being a treadhead (simulated), I'll probably have to see it.

A Sherman vs. a Tiger... well, that's going to be a problem.

For the Sherman.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,499 Posts
Sherman vs. Tiger, not a problem, the "Haunted Tank" in the tales of my youth, blew them away every issue with a 37mm gun.

Geoff
Who mourns a wasted life..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,727 Posts
The U.S. may not have entered WWII with top-notch machinery and equipment, but by the end of the war we had the best of nearly everything: ships, planes, guns. It seems amazing that the "arsenal of democracy" didn't come up with a better tank.

Perhaps it had something to do with the need to move all that steel across the oceans; Panthers, Tigers, and T-34's could practically drive out the front door of the factories and into battle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,543 Posts
Actually, the big issues on upgraded tanks was a late start on the concept and once the pattern was set, the production rates were such that they didn't want to make changes. The Army also had some rather strange ideas, even late in the war.

I had a college prof who was a BAR man from Omaha Beach to VE day. He said that the ratio to handle Tigers was about 5-6 to 1. [ Kinda funny no one mentions the Leopard.]

A friend who worked at APG said that when the tales of the 37mm gun shell bouncing off Tigers reached CONUS, they were regarded as fairy tales. Right up until they got a Tiger and (after testing verified the tales) litterally sawed the frontal glacis lengthways to examine it. The result was total shock and awe......but no changes. I assume they took notes for the next MBT.

My old man developed a suspension for the Sherman that allowed shooting and hitting on the move. He stated that the Army tested it, was suitably impressed but refused to implement the change because the life expectancy of the ring springs was about 800 miles vs ~2500 on the stock springs. When my father asked what the life expectancy of the Sherman was in combat he was told 2-3 weeks, <400 miles.

No doubt the War Department was an early convert to the 'quantity has a quality of it's own' theory.

What I saw of the trailer, it would appear the engagement at the end is borrowed, with artistic license, from Audie Murphy's MOH citation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,940 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Sherman vs. Tiger, not a problem, the "Haunted Tank" in the tales of my youth, blew them away every issue with a 37mm gun.
That brings back some memories.

And there's talk of a movie.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,627 Posts
That brings back some memories.

And there's talk of a movie.
Ahhh, the good ol' General...like Geoff (and apparently you too, Walt) I spent way too much of my free time as a youth reading comic books.

Wouldn't mind a movie version of the Haunted Tank...if they could find a way to keep it as "real" and "dramatic" as the old comic book. I'm afraid they'll camp it up a bit too much.

As for Fury, that is one I'd like to see. Also have plans to go see Denzel Washington's new movie The Equalizer.

"I was a Pip." :D
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,173 Posts
Panthers, Tigers, and T-34's could practically drive out the front door of the factories and into battle.
Practically? In the Battle of Berlin, they literally did.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,173 Posts
Actually, the big issues on upgraded tanks was a late start on the concept and once the pattern was set, the production rates were such that they didn't want to make changes.
Are you kidding? They changed the Sherman continuously through the war, seemingly almost on a daily basis. Keeping up with all the variations is a pretty fair study/hobby in itself. And that's not even counting the variants and offshoots such as the T10/T36 tank destroyers and so forth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,499 Posts
Ahhh, the good ol' General...like Geoff (and apparently you too, Walt) I spent way too much of my free time as a youth reading comic books.

Wouldn't mind a movie version of the Haunted Tank...if they could find a way to keep it as "real" and "dramatic" as the old comic book. I'm afraid they'll camp it up a bit too much.

As for Fury, that is one I'd like to see. Also have plans to go see Denzel Washington's new movie The Equalizer.

"I was a Pip." :D
I wonder how that will compare to the (to me) much beloved 1980s TV series?

I'd like to see FURY too. One of the problems with those HUGE German tanks was they were so big they often had trouble, or couldn't even maneuver, in those narrow european streets which were laid out centuries before the development of the automobile. In the town environment the smaller Sherman actually had an advantage. I'm not sure I agree with thr 5:1 ratio .... seems 2:1 might be more realistic.
The German tanks were also rather over-engineered. In the aftermath of the war we got a hold of one and disassembled it. It had far more parts in it than our Sherman. In fact, our engineers couldn't get the Nazi Beast back together and they had to scrounge up some German engineers from the factory where the tanks were built to help!
In war machines, SIMPLE is a very good idea. The big Tigers took out a lot of our tanks but when we replaced the dead tanks we didn't do it on a one-for-one basis, we did it on a 2:1 or even 3:1. Basically we outproduced the Nazis.
And later improvements to the Sherman & a bigger gun also did help ... a little.:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,991 Posts
The British Firefly version of the Sherman had a much improved76MM high velocity gun that made it much more lethal. I don't know if it would penetrate the front of a tiger, but I know it was much more effective than the old standard 75MM. We used a much improved Sherman in Korea and the Israelis had a super Sherman which I believe was up gunned to105MM with a different turret that had a large counterweight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,543 Posts
One of the problems with those HUGE German tanks was they were so big they often had trouble, or couldn't even maneuver, in those narrow european streets which were laid out centuries before the development of the automobile. In the town environment the smaller Sherman actually had an advantage. I'm not sure I agree with thr 5:1 ratio .... seems 2:1 might be more realistic.
I wasn't there, he was, while he agreed with you on maneuvering in tight spaces, forests included, I'll go with his experience on the ratio in more open ground. The History Channel had a program where they interviewed surviving American, British and German tank crews. They all agreed they'd have preferred to be in a Tiger.

There was one segment where they managed to find Allied & Axis combat footage of the same engagement. Bunch of Shermans exiting a village on a road, wooded knoll about 1000 yard/meters to one side with a Tiger in it. Wasn't pretty for the Allies.

. Basically we outproduced the Nazis.
And later improvements to the Sherman & a bigger gun also did help ... a little.:)
Yep,Yep,, but the hull didn't change significantly...which was why so many war photos showed the Shermans covered with sandbags. In some cases with track segments welded to the hull for additional metal.

Snake, they did a lot of changes to fighters too, but unless you were an engineer, didn't make all that much difference. IIRC, by VJ Day, the P38 was up to the "J" version. Some of the changes to the Lightening were to simplify production, the USAAC having been thoughtless enough to crash the prototype/first production version after a cross country speed record, which slowed development. The bombers were about as bad, the B-17 going through the G series, the B-15 at least to H. The basic characteristics of the item didn't change all that much.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,117 Posts
I wonder how that will compare to the (to me) much beloved 1980s TV series?
As another old-time fan, NOT. A Walk Among the Tombstones feels more "Equalizer" than this new pretender "Equalizer."

Don't get me wrong--Denzel Washington is a good actor, and would have made a fine "Equalizer: The Next Generation" as one of McCall's proteges. But he will NEVER be "Robert McCall, THE Equalizer" like Edward Woodward.

The production design and script seems to have kept only the name, and thrown away ALL the style and substance that made McCall such a great character as the Cultured and Reluctant But Lethally Effective Badass he was. Like so many other reboots... well, as with A-Team, Knight Rider and next the new Jurassic Park movie next year I've decided it's better to say goodbye to my childhood memories and let them die a relatively peaceful and painless death than let the turd-sucking arse-clown [string of epithets here] in Hollyweird ruin any more of them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,117 Posts
The bombers were about as bad, the B-17 going through the G series, the B-15 at least to H. The basic characteristics of the item didn't change all that much.
B-25 went to J, some of those being in both Army B-25 and Navy PBJ flavors, while the B-15 was a one-off superheavy prototype that predated the Fortress. Also, it's worth noting that on the B-17, from E-on the back half was essentially an entirely new design mated to the original wing and forward fuse.

Prewar and early war, some birds got a different suffix just for being off a different LINE--you could tear a B-25C and D apart side by side, scramble all the pieces and not know which came off what, and stillput 'em back together into two ready-to-rumble warbirds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,499 Posts
(...)The bombers were about as bad, the B-17 going through the G series, the B-15 at least to H. (...)
:confused: I never looked on American WW2 military vehicles as "bad." :shock:
I am very cognizant that the Sherman tanks were not armored that well and suffered in matches with the ginormous Kraut Tigers and King Tigers and such.
I recall General Patton complaining about it and that our tanks burned too easily. I remain surprised that any Kraut could actually hit any of Patton's tanks -- he tore through territory so fast I'm surprised he wasn't credited with creating the world's first sonic booms. :rolleyes: :D :cool: :neer: :eek:mg:
The Japanese Zero was faster and more agile than many American fighters, but usually ours were better armored. We also adopted tactics to help neutralize the Zero's abilities.
German fighters employed fuel-injected engines giving them the ability to pull negative Gs which our fighters couldn't do unless adapted with specialized carburators that could handle it.
IIRC we outproduced the enemies in that field too.
Production production production -- there's the key.
A key that we've seemed to have forgotten; quantity has a quality of its own.
And thus we now have about half the number of F-22s we originally wanted.
:(

Anyway, we won WW2. We couldn't have been THAT bad!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,882 Posts
SpecialEd,

You are correct BUT General Forrest was SMARTER than Sherman and Forrest was NOT a war criminal, who deserved hanging for his crimes against civilians.

yours, sw
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
7,758 Posts
SpecialEd,

You are correct BUT General Forrest was SMARTER than Sherman and Forrest was NOT a war criminal, who deserved hanging for his crimes against civilians.

yours, sw
Check your history, Forrest was directly responsible for the murder of black Union soldiers who were trying to surrender.

War Criminal? Not by todays standards.
 
1 - 20 of 78 Posts
Top