Keep in mind that the war has barely been on for a few months. Upgrades take time.
World War III in May 1946
- Thread starter Hairog
- Start date
Vjacheslav Malyshev
Banned
But there's need to upgrade when the Sherman is sufficient for dealing with the masses of T-34's and T-34-85's.
The comments on increased food production is a good one.
Maybe Stalin can do a campaign based around the Socialist Maxim of Each According to their Ability, Each according to their needs.
Endorsing home Garden Plots/Allottments & Community Gardens in the Cities could be considered to ease imports from the Countryside & move the potential surplus to the newly occupied Nations? If He cooperation & sharing is emphasised with State oversight to keep things above board it may help. Maybe not massively but it would reduce strain on the system & ease tensions.
Maybe widespread planting of Fruit & Nut Trees in Streets throughout Cities could help too long term with get togethers to divy up the food & make Jams/Preserves etc as a unifying event/party every year. This is obviously not a quick return project but a kick in the rear could be arranged to start the new tradition via transplantation of some Mature Trees perhaps. Also a Policy of Food producing Trees in every City & near Factories etc not only might clean the air but also Abundant Plants have been proven in studies to reduce Depression which would be a bonus too. Maybe an early enviromental movementl or at least a balanced approach to industry & naturetaking root culturally could occur?
Community Projects for Vegetables & Fruit could also assist in education for kids & reduce the town & country divide which should assist social cohesion.
Maybe Widespread construction of Greenhouses etc in colder climates may prove advantageous too?
Not only does food production increase along with more distributed food production but the Sand/Silica production & research industry can increase & advance which could lend itself well to computer component production & research.
I know this little list of ideas isn't fantastic but they popped into my head so I thought I'd mention them.
Maybe Stalin can do a campaign based around the Socialist Maxim of Each According to their Ability, Each according to their needs.
Endorsing home Garden Plots/Allottments & Community Gardens in the Cities could be considered to ease imports from the Countryside & move the potential surplus to the newly occupied Nations? If He cooperation & sharing is emphasised with State oversight to keep things above board it may help. Maybe not massively but it would reduce strain on the system & ease tensions.
Maybe widespread planting of Fruit & Nut Trees in Streets throughout Cities could help too long term with get togethers to divy up the food & make Jams/Preserves etc as a unifying event/party every year. This is obviously not a quick return project but a kick in the rear could be arranged to start the new tradition via transplantation of some Mature Trees perhaps. Also a Policy of Food producing Trees in every City & near Factories etc not only might clean the air but also Abundant Plants have been proven in studies to reduce Depression which would be a bonus too. Maybe an early enviromental movementl or at least a balanced approach to industry & naturetaking root culturally could occur?
Community Projects for Vegetables & Fruit could also assist in education for kids & reduce the town & country divide which should assist social cohesion.
Maybe Widespread construction of Greenhouses etc in colder climates may prove advantageous too?
Not only does food production increase along with more distributed food production but the Sand/Silica production & research industry can increase & advance which could lend itself well to computer component production & research.
I know this little list of ideas isn't fantastic but they popped into my head so I thought I'd mention them.
The comments on increased food production is a good one.
Maybe Stalin can do a campaign based around the Socialist Maxim of Each According to their Ability, Each according to their needs.
Endorsing home Garden Plots/Allottments & Community Gardens in the Cities could be considered to ease imports from the Countryside & move the potential surplus to the newly occupied Nations? If He cooperation & sharing is emphasised with State oversight to keep things above board it may help. Maybe not massively but it would reduce strain on the system & ease tensions.
Maybe widespread planting of Fruit & Nut Trees in Streets throughout Cities could help too long term with get togethers to divy up the food & make Jams/Preserves etc as a unifying event/party every year. This is obviously not a quick return project but a kick in the rear could be arranged to start the new tradition via transplantation of some Mature Trees perhaps. Also a Policy of Food producing Trees in every City & near Factories etc not only might clean the air but also Abundant Plants have been proven in studies to reduce Depression which would be a bonus too. Maybe an early enviromental movementl or at least a balanced approach to industry & naturetaking root culturally could occur?
Community Projects for Vegetables & Fruit could also assist in education for kids & reduce the town & country divide which should assist social cohesion.
Maybe Widespread construction of Greenhouses etc in colder climates may prove advantageous too?
Not only does food production increase along with more distributed food production but the Sand/Silica production & research industry can increase & advance which could lend itself well to computer component production & research.
I know this little list of ideas isn't fantastic but they popped into my head so I thought I'd mention them.
Good ideas.
The big food potential is grain Russia and the Ukraine.
Stalin needs provide a market for the grain farmer.
The area should be able to grow enough grain to export to occupied area of Europe.
The US in 1947 will require a tank that can get to where it is needed quickly, dig in and defend against a counter attack against all takers including the new T44 and T55. The M26 is perfect for a static defense like the Pyrenees or even when it was first used in Korea but it is a failure when it has to move. The "automotive deficiencies" of the M26 made it imperative that NATO find another vehicle quickly. Hence the M50 Patton based on the Centurion design. Maneuver is one of the key components needed for what the US has planned. The M26 is a failure at maneuver and that is an absolute must for future NATO operations.
Here is Claymore's excellent model..
Ingesting?
Don't worry it will continue with many more twists and turns to come for both sides.
Look, one on one the Sherman may be sufficient to take on a T-34/85 and win.
I say may because there is no guarantee in war. The Sherman can one shot kill a T-34/85 at a greater range than a T-34/85 can one shot kill a Sherman but that assumes a lot of things, and in the end is fairly meaningless.
Tank battles aren't just a matter of max range and armour thickness. That's a big part of it, but it isn't the sum total of it.
Remember also, that the Soviets won (with the T-34 (and friends, I admit) the Eastern Front vs the Pz IV, Pather and Tiger... all of which were superior to the T-34/85 in the 'one shot kill at range' category.
It's a lot more complex than just saying 'the Western Allies have the Sherman which is a better tank than the T-34, so they will win the battle'. This is what I meant by my earlier post that said they were effectively the same tank. There is a lot in it. Vertical side armour, overall height, abilities to depress guns in hull down, mechanical failure, metal quality, all of these things come into it (IMO) a great deal more than how far x or 6 gun can penetrate.
I'd also like to say that the Russians (meaning that historically as well as what became the Soviets) have never had the best army. It was always a second rate army, but they always seem to win. Napoleon found that out. Hitler found that out. A 1946 WWIII would have been 'interesting' (not the right word, but the best I can come up with at short notice). Don't be saying it's the weather either. Kursk was an example where the weather didn't affect anyone in particular. From one perspective the Soviets lost (they had more vehicles and personel killed) but it broke the back of the Germans.
I don't have any figures near at hand, but exactly how many T-34/85's were available to the Soviets vs the number of Sherman Jumbo & Easy Eight's available to the Western Allies? Just a quick search shows that there were more T-34/85's made (of course a lot of these were probably post 1946 productions) than ALL variants of the Sherman.
Ingesting?
Don't worry it will continue with many more twists and turns to come for both sides.
Well, to cover all bases you could supply the book with salt and pepper, then if your readers agree with the nay-sayers here, they can have a meal
Vjacheslav Malyshev
Banned
The west allies are on the defensive which means the allies will the advantage. To quote Robert Forzcyk during the 1944 campaign:
This was when the Allies were on the offensive, these figures would be much higher if the allies would be on the defensive which they are. This coupled with the fact that the allies would have total air superiority(over 70% of the Soviet airplane fuel was from lend lease) means the soviets will suffer horrendous causalities which I don't think they could keep up with for long.
Well, I just asked my wife:
"So, which do you think was the best tank of WWII? The Sherman or the T-34?? (She knows NOTHING about tanks).
Her answer: "The one that killed more people babe... it's simple"
Out of the mouths of babes
And my wife is a babe
Sherman's V's Panthers was not very good for the allies. There are stories that a Panther could and did take out upto 12 Shermans, before they were put out of action. This best idea would be to make more Centurions.
UrbanRedneck
Banned
Problem for the Soviets is they have to actually get the tanks to where they need to be. If its Spain thats a big distance and thru some narrow mountain passes. If its the UK they have to ferry them across the channel.
My guess is the Soviets would need a light tank instead. One that requires less fuel and is easier to transport.
My guess is the Soviets would need a light tank instead. One that requires less fuel and is easier to transport.
Ingesting?
Don't worry it will continue with many more twists and turns to come for both sides.
ingesting. Yes I have been eating the story.
A Good Meal...?
I, too, have been over-filling on the story. It's so good, that you sometimes can't stop
I, too, have been over-filling on the story. It's so good, that you sometimes can't stop
Just to say that, whilst I remain uncertain about some parts of accuracy in this timeline (commando raids on the Manhattan Project, for example), I admire your dedication in maintaining it for so long in the face of some pretty heated criticism and continuing to press on. Long may it endure.
Vjacheslav Malyshev
Banned
That's a myth,
So on most WW2 Tank discussion the supposed fact that it takes 5 M4s to kill 1 Panther(sometimes it is the Tiger, Tiger II, or every Panzer, but I will focus on the Panther) or a Panther is 5 times as effective as the M4 always seems to pop up. I believe I have tracked down the source of this claim which didn’t surprise me at all. In Belton Cooper’s Death Traps on page 175 he claims “The German tanks had a qualitative superiority of as much as five to one over our M4 Sherman.” This has been repeated everywhere from internet forums to the “History” Channel. Well I must say that even though Cooper’s war experience detailed in Death Traps is a good read, his claims go well beyond his understanding and have little, if any, supporting evidence.
One of my favorite quotes in Death Traps which shows Cooper’s ignorance is the following: “To make matters worse, the committee was apparently dominated by Yankees, who decided to name this tank(M3) the ‘Grant’ , after the Union general and later president. The Southerners were aggravated further by the later naming of the M4, known as the ‘Sherman’, after the Union general who burned a path through Georgia.” This tid-bit is disgustingly stupid and I can’t help feeling slightly angry at Cooper, by the way I am a Georgian. Also It was the British who named the M3 and M4, not “Yankees” for those who don’t know.
Now for some evidence provided by the US Army’s Ballistic Research Lab which studied WW2 ETO tank vs tank engagements(98 of them if you were wondering) and concluded the following: The most deciding factor of who wins a tank engagement is who engages first. Crew training and other factors also played a large role. The average distance at which a US tank kills a Panzer(late IV, V, & VI) was 893 yards(816 m). Comparatively the average distance Panzers killed US vehicles as 943 yards(862 m). During Panther v. M4 engagements the Panther had a 1.1:1 advantage while on the defensive, however the M4 had an 8.4:1 advantage while on the offensive. Overall the M4 was 3.6 times as effective in combat versus the Panther.
Col. Abram’s M4, called the Thunderbolt VI. Abrams was one of America’s finest tank commanders. He took part in the Tank Battle of Arracourt, a victory over the Pz V by outnumbered M4s.
The data above is not complete but surely shatters the 5:1 nonsense. A British study concluded, during the Normandy campaign, that if the allies outnumbered the Germans 2.2 to 1 then victory was practically ensured. On the flip side, the Germans needed a 1.5 to 1 numerical superiority to ensure victory. In between these figures it came down to tactics. Again this data isn’t a complete representation but it debunks the 5:1 claim which has no evidence to support it.
Panther near Mortain, France. It looks so sad.
To sum it up I will quote author and historian Robert Forzcyk: ”Overall, US armor destroyed more German tanks than German tanks destroyed US tanks, by a factor of about 3:2.”
Sources:
Steven Zaloga’s Panther vs Sherman, Battle of the Bulge 1944
http://www.amazon.com/review/R3VJRI...292X&nodeID=283155&store=books#wasThisHelpful
http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/91572-us-guns-german-armor-pt-2/
That's an impressive amount of research, and you make a strong argument in favor of the Sherman tank, but you also have to understand it's qualitative deficiencies as well. As far as I'm concerned, it's a wash, because, in the end, it was the tactics that were employed that prevailed. Simply put, the Allies had better armored warfare tactics, even after a slow start in the war, because they had more flexibility than most of their Axis counterparts.