(OT) Well i was most intrigued about some guy saying the Sherman Tank was a "vastly superior" tank as opposed to German and Soviet varieties. And of course doubly intrigued that he should, in typical brash USA style, say that the USA WW2 forces could have pushed on and defeated USSR after the end of WW2 because the USSR forces were "burned out". Also remarking (with a fine touch) that they didn't even need the Allies to do it. Of course I know my American friends a little, and know it could also be an ambush of sorts.
Two seperate Russian armies racing one another, taking massive casualties, to plonk a flag on the Reichstag does not sound "burned out" to me. Loony perhaps yes.
So I have done some reconnoitre of the internet and the many websites on this very subject. Listened to many points of view "sounding off". However the technical details and the "field testing" is the strongest evidence on the matter.
I'm an Engineer by trade and know how even engineers can argue bitterly on technical matters. I have this flattering view of myself that I can maybe resolve some of these technical conflicts in many circumstances. So here goes. -g-
First a detailed evaluation by USA experts of sample USSR (The T34 was primarily of Ukraine design, so I won't say "Russian") tanks delivered in 1942. A really good read.
battlefield.ru
I expect the review was cordial. Both the Russians and the American technical experts wanted badly for both their respective armed forces to improve quickly. It was a real tough time generally. The most professional USA experts (The original SPC experts who trained the fledgling Japanese industries after WW2) were able to quickly identify many straight forward problems. I hope the Soviet guy got taken out for a few beers and a good USA style steak dinner at the end of the review. He probably deserved it. But there is also a very clear indication that the USA experts were having big problems with the Sherman tank design regarding armor penetration, and nobody was listening. USA WW2 torpedoes type problem (imho.. see prev links), someones golf game was more important then the war. This is where Japanese management improved upon the USA variety after WW2 (imho). The situation has balanced a bit since then.
Anyway over to the "field testing" stage.
At Normandy, the highly reliable Shermans did suffer from a lack of armor, worse the "hedge groves" made the problem much worse where the unamored underbelly could be easily blasted. (thanks for that note jlallen btw). As reviewed with solution here..
pbs.org
Fact is though those big guns from heavily armored German tanks could also just clear the field of Shermans with gasoline engines and inadaquate armor.
civilization.ca
The desert and El Amain battles saw the Shermans (like all the British Armor too) very suceptable to superior German guns, Armor and tatics. Even the German 50 cm anti tank guns swept the field of Shermans and everything else there too. The British had the 6 pounder anti tank gun and was able to replicate the anti tank role. There was a lot of killing and the Allies carried the day for once in a typical WW1 static lines scenareo. Exit Rommel from the Desert. Minor play.
One English guy captured after his Valitine Tank got smashed, watched a German 88 in action (which threw a 9 kg AP round at very high velocity) said... "It's not fair, such a big gun against such a little tank".
Fact is (imho) when it came to the big showdowns in the Soviet vs German battles in the Eastern Front tank reliability probably killed lots of crews... but it was the guys with the mostest, the biggest guns, biggest armor would win the day. Once that tank got off the start line for a few miles, and killed at least one other tank it did its job. Brutal but that was the reality. The Russians also learned tatics in real big battles that would win. Also very brutal how they would do that.
So how many of these guys used Shermans?
wio.boom.ru
Lets get back to the USA invading the USSR again. Lets say the burned out USSR forces got knocked back to the the 1943 lines where the Soviets had defences in depth of 20 miles or more. What is the anticipated USA losses in wiping out Soviet resistance in that area knowing they would play the spring or winter weather card that would reduce the whole battle to just a brutal kill and be killed scenario?
wio.boom.ru
What about a 100 km wide counter attack on a different part of the several thousand km line front with 50 divisions shooting from T34's in the snow or mud? Estimated USA casualties??
How would the democratic USA civilian population deal with that??
Synopsis. I remain skeptical that the USA could have knocked out the Soviets straight after WW2. It could have gone wrong big time. Millions of casualties no problem at all. (imho) |
