The Whale has Wings

Status
Not open for further replies.
Late war Sherman's like the E8 were pretty decent though. I'd probably want 3 E8's rather than a single Pershing. Especially when you read just how many bridges etc were off limits to the Pershings compared to the Sherman's.

It's not just landing craft that would be an issue, bridges, support infrastructure, training, the whole kebab...
 
Mine's bigger than yours dear!

Late war Sherman's like the E8 were pretty decent though. I'd probably want 3 E8's rather than a single Pershing. Especially when you read just how many bridges etc were off limits to the Pershings compared to the Sherman's.

It's not just landing craft that would be an issue, bridges, support infrastructure, training, the whole kebab...

Yet somehow, the Germans managed to make do.:( It's easy to say I'd probably want 3 E8's rather than a single Pershing. But what if you are one of the tank crew INSIDE those E8's? And the survivability of the Pershing versus panzers compared to that of the E8's means a lot more buildup of surviving tanks, and more living veteran tank crews. Perhaps to the point where American tankers actually live long enough to learn their jobs better compared to the Germans.

I for one will never forget the classic Movietone newsreel filmed during the fighting in Bonn. It showed a Panther slaughtering three lined abreast Shermans 1-2-3 while their own shells did nothing. Then a Pershing came around their burning hulks to attack the Panther. The Panther tank took one look at the Pershing and slammed into reverse, scooting around a street corner before the Pershing's mighty high-velocity 90mm could be brought to bear.:mad:

We will have to just agree to disagree...:(
 
But the German's didn't make do. The Battle of the Buldge was full of examples of King Tigers breaking bridges and forcing diversions of critical forces.
 
But the German's didn't make do. The Battle of the Bulge was full of examples of King Tigers breaking bridges and forcing diversions of critical forces.

They made do enough I'm afraid. Enough to get plenty of Panthers, Tiger I's, and King Tigers into the battlefield to maul their opposition. Whenever the heavy armor of the Germans showed up in the Bulge, American resistance was literally overrun.:( The only real disadvantage for the Germans in that battle was lack of fuel and heavy snow. If the weather hadn't cleared, those Pershings sitting on the Meuse River bridges would have seen action after all.
 
Last edited:
Not.A.Chance.

McNair and his friendly ghouls in the Detroit Division of the American Military-Industrial Complex would start taking German language lessons before allowing the retooling of their plants to start manufacturing the Pershing tank. Detroit could make THREE TIMES the $$$ making Shermans that they could making Pershings. Hence, this is why the infrastructure was never built up to allow easier logistics for the Pershing.
Sorry, where did I mention the Pershing? I was actually referring to either the M18, the M36, Firefly, or all three.
 
They didn't OTL, and they've little more opportunity her to face the kind of tank-on-tank action that would lead to the development of such vehicles.

What has changed is that they have had the opportunity to retool the production lines for more modern tanks rather being stuck producing older models to feed the insatiable maw that was the Western desert campaign, and that the tank generals, like O'Coonor, who understood what you needed in a modern armoured force have much more influence.
 
Once the mighty 17 pounder arrives and it (or it's 77mm derivate) is mated to a modern tank, the Americans will point at the Brits and say "I want that." :cool:
 
What has changed is that they have had the opportunity to retool the production lines for more modern tanks rather being stuck producing older models to feed the insatiable maw that was the Western desert campaign, and that the tank generals, like O'Coonor, who understood what you needed in a modern armoured force have much more influence.
Actually the M4 with the 76mm gun was a reasonable tank, and required only a limited number of changes to the design, yet wasn't available until after D-Day.
 
Yet somehow, the Germans managed to make do.:( It's easy to say I'd probably want 3 E8's rather than a single Pershing. But what if you are one of the tank crew INSIDE those E8's? And the survivability of the Pershing versus panzers compared to that of the E8's means a lot more buildup of surviving tanks, and more living veteran tank crews. Perhaps to the point where American tankers actually live long enough to learn their jobs better compared to the Germans.

Also there is the factor that while a single Pershing in itself will require more support than a single Sherman 3 of the latter have a significantly heavier manpower and logistical burden. Especially when you have such heavy losses.

Steve
 
Also there is the factor that while a single Pershing in itself will require more support than a single Sherman 3 of the latter have a significantly heavier manpower and logistical burden. Especially when you have such heavy losses.

Steve
The main task wasn't fighting other German tanks, but supporting Infantry when they attacked German Infantry. If you cut the number of tanks available by a factor of 3, your infantry losses will be a very great deal higher - swamping the manpower savings you get from a less vulnerable tank.
 
the sherman and the pershing are simply not comparable, they are made for different tasks. so you are not going to have just one kind of tank. the sherman is good for infantry support (its armour still sucks though), but the pershing does much better against other tanks.

Just looking at shermans, i think the british suggestion of at least 1 in 4 shermans getting the firefly mod (17 pounder) was a sound one. It would have given the much need long distance punch.
 
The main task wasn't fighting other German tanks, but supporting Infantry when they attacked German Infantry. If you cut the number of tanks available by a factor of 3, your infantry losses will be a very great deal higher - swamping the manpower savings you get from a less vulnerable tank.


Yes, US Army doctrine in World War II was that tanks supported Infantry, and the Tank Destroyers would handle the enemy tanks.

Of course most US tank destroyers were well armed, but open topped...

I like ragtops, but not in a tank battle.:mad:
 
Once the mighty 17 pounder arrives and it (or it's 77mm derivate) is mated to a modern tank, the Americans will point at the Brits and say "I want that." :cool:

Yeah that's what I was thinking as well. :)

As to Sherman versus Pershing, it's not about replacing the Sherman it's about creating a backbone of heavy armour that could cope with the German heavy tanks while the Shermans focused on the infantry support role.
 
Once the mighty 17 pounder arrives and it (or it's 77mm derivate) is mated to a modern tank, the Americans will point at the Brits and say "I want that." :cool:
The troops might say that but the brass probably wont, after all as mentioned US doctrine was tanks support infantry, TDs kill tanks.

Now as I understand it the 17 pounder HE shell was never that special so from the US perspective it is a downgrade from the Sherman's 75mm (in the infantry support role at least) so they're not going to like it. To get it accepted the US will have to change doctrine significantly and start expecting it's tanks to actually kill other tanks.

Now maybe the US in TTL will take some ideas from the desert war experience and completely change doctrine, but I wouldn't bet on it. I just can't see what differences from OTL there are to drive the change.
 
Why would the US use the 17 pdr? Sure it was powerful, but they had to pretty much redesign the turret to fit it in, and it was difficult for the crew to use at that power. The 76mm M1 was a good enough weapon en masse (and by en masse I mean 1:2, so one 76mm Sherman for every 75mm one). As for Tank Destroyers, weren't the American ones a bit think-skinned?
 
The main task wasn't fighting other German tanks, but supporting Infantry when they attacked German Infantry. If you cut the number of tanks available by a factor of 3, your infantry losses will be a very great deal higher - swamping the manpower savings you get from a less vulnerable tank.

No one, I think, is talking about a changeover en masse to the Pershing. WWII would have ended before that was possible. Just a decent ratio of true tank-killers that can engage enemy armor head on while lighter armor supports the infantry. Tactical circumstances on the ground simply DON'T always allow tank-destroyers to operate against enemy heavy armor. This simple fact just went right over the heads of senior command.

When infantry finds itself facing enemy heavy armor alone because all of their "infantry support" armor has been blown to smithereens, THEN you really get heavy infantry losses.:(
 
The troops might say that but the brass probably wont, after all as mentioned US doctrine was tanks support infantry, TDs kill tanks.

Now as I understand it the 17 pounder HE shell was never that special so from the US perspective it is a downgrade from the Sherman's 75mm (in the infantry support role at least) so they're not going to like it. To get it accepted the US will have to change doctrine significantly and start expecting it's tanks to actually kill other tanks.

Now maybe the US in TTL will take some ideas from the desert war experience and completely change doctrine, but I wouldn't bet on it. I just can't see what differences from OTL there are to drive the change.


Alas, true.


MattII: I wasn't speaking of the Sherman Firefly per-say, or even the 17 pounder, more "a tank made to fight other tanks with a kick-ass gun in it."
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top