WW2 Tanks.... A question....

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It seems I have stumbled into the Big Bang Theory of warfare. Is this where I bring up the Roommate Agreement and ask someone to sing me Soft Kitty? I feel like Penny reading this thread.

Meh, one researcher being hyper-focused and vague on history doesn't make a casus belli.

[Minimalist]

I'm not sure why they left the German 75mm shells off of this but #7 is the item in question and a lot of the others are field artillery shells.  If you look at #11, the Russian 57mm is more or less the same size as the 57mm A/T guns that US units were using on D-Day.  Not effective against German tanks although they would take out armored cars and half tracks.

[Angrboda]

The business end of a baseball bat is only 67mm across.  Tiger shells were 88mm across.

There was an account of a king tiger shell going through a sherman’s Gun mantlet, lower part of the gun breach, the engine compartment bulkhead, the engine block, exit through the back of the Sherman, going through an earthen berm, and penetrating the transmission case and the transmission of another Sherman behind it.

That is so hot.

[The Valkyrie]

One of my profs. rode Stuart tanks from Cairo to the Alps in WWII. He was fighting Tiger tanks in those bitty tin cans. I explained it to a class like this:

"Imagine a baseball bat. Prof. Rothenburg was firing shells about the size of the handle. The Tigers were firing shells the size of the business end."

The business end of a baseball bat is only 67mm across.  Tiger shells were 88mm across.

There was an account of a king tiger shell going through a sherman’s Gun mantlet, lower part of the gun breach, the engine compartment bulkhead, the engine block, exit through the back of the Sherman, going through an earthen berm, and penetrating the transmission case and the transmission of another Sherman behind it.

I've heard Sherman tanks were called "Tommy Cookers" by the Germans for their habit of catching fire.

[Brian37]

The business end of a baseball bat is only 67mm across.  Tiger shells were 88mm across.

There was an account of a king tiger shell going through a sherman’s Gun mantlet, lower part of the gun breach, the engine compartment bulkhead, the engine block, exit through the back of the Sherman, going through an earthen berm, and penetrating the transmission case and the transmission of another Sherman behind it.

I've heard Sherman tanks were called "Tommy Cookers" by the Germans for their habit of catching fire.

Like I said, someone needs to read the Roommate Agreement and sing Soft Kitty to me. Maybe I'll hang out with Stewart at his comic book store.

[Peebothuhlu]

At sork.

While there's often a kernel of truth to most tales (It took X amount of Sherman's to kill 1 Tiger/Panther etc) I do believe the truth is not quite as dire.

Pretty sure the actual statistics for Shermans was not that bad. Probably one of the nastier problems would have been the long barreled 'Stugs' shooting their 75mm's at advancing Shermans and then 'Scooting', like most defensive TD's are want to do.

[Minimalist]

The business end of a baseball bat is only 67mm across.  Tiger shells were 88mm across.

There was an account of a king tiger shell going through a sherman’s Gun mantlet, lower part of the gun breach, the engine compartment bulkhead, the engine block, exit through the back of the Sherman, going through an earthen berm, and penetrating the transmission case and the transmission of another Sherman behind it.

I've heard Sherman tanks were called "Tommy Cookers" by the Germans for their habit of catching fire.

American tankers called them Ronsons because the Germans were right.  

[The Grand Nudger]

At sork.

While there's often a kernel of truth to most tales (It took X amount of Sherman's to kill 1 Tiger/Panther etc) I do believe the truth is not quite as dire.

Pretty sure the actual statistics for Shermans was not that bad. Probably one of the nastier problems would have been the long barreled 'Stugs' shooting their 75mm's at advancing Shermans and then 'Scooting', like most defensive TD's are want to do.

Most losses were to 88 43/41 pak and 75 mm (in various mounts).  They started out bad for burns, but wet racks brought the numbers down in europe compared to africa by the end of the war. The german tanks were just as bad on that count, though.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

*Nods* And 75's tended to out number 88's too boot.

Pretty sure one of the 'Tiger Aces' (Witman?) started his career in a Stug. It was their agressive handling of his innitial mount that saw him 'Promoted' into bigger and heavier machines.

[The Grand Nudger]

Just adding that, contrary to what alot of folks believe, the shermans did have an engagement profile that they were flatly superior in than the tanks they commonly faced...and in those engagements that didn't favor them, their superior numbers and (commonly) greater expertise in cqc made all the diff.  

More nazi mismanagement....the best tanks weren't going where they needed to go.  Green nazi crews were getting lighter tanks that the us forces could just roll with their combined tactical superiority. It's one thing to imagine a duel in an open field at 50 tank-paces...but american tankers weren't exactly interested in that bullshit. Didn't start out that way, we were getting our asses handed to us for quite some time. It was air superiority and maintenance/supply issues that eventually ended any hope that the german tanks could fullfill their mission. The shermans acted like common fucking raiders...lol, picking off the weak and wounded and slow.