WW II Armor ????

[22WRF]

I was going thru some old pics my Dad took in Germany.
Unfortuantely he didn't write on the back of many of them or talk much about the war.
I do know he was with the 3rd Armored, 48th Inf Mech and the pic was taken right after they crossed the Rhine.
Does any one reconize this piece of armor.


After a web search it might be a German 88 Elephant self propelled gun

[swiftman]

Don't think it is an elephant. I thought they were built on a tiger chassi. It may be a design from one of the countrys they over ran and produced. I could tell you what it is but will have to wait till Thursday when I get when I get out to the farm. My brother has books with all the german tanks and self propelled guns in them.

[IBFrank]

That's a lot bigger than an 88. It's a self propelled Howitzer type cannon, maybe 106mm. or bigger. It wasn't a very good model because you had to turn the tank to aim it. Due to it's size, it wouldn't fit in a turret. Could have been a "last ditch" effort. 88s were med sized rapid fire cannons used for assaults and anti-aircraft work. They were mounted on carriages which could drop them on the ground for stability for firing. I'm no expert but know a few things. And accept corrections when needed.

[22WRF]

Maybe a Hummel??????

Hummel

[JohnK3]

More likely than the Elephant. Here's the same site's link to the Elephant:

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/...s/elefant.html

[22WRF]

The Elephant was built on a Tiger running gear and the Hummel on a Panzer III.
My pic is not Tiger

[polishshooter]

I believe that is what they called a "Nashorn" (or Nashorne?) 88mm SPG with an open turret with a more flexible mount than the Elefant, that I believe was mounted on a lengthened PZKW IV chassis, I'll have to look back at the picture, or look it up. I have a book around here somewhere with all the oddball SPGs and AFVs the Germans produced or converted. Plus I remember it from Panzerblitz. The Nashorn was a later production, I think late 43 to 45.

Ther Germans had many different SPG designs mounting the 88.

They never junked any usable chassis, they just converted them into some other SP mounting when the original tank or SPG became outdated.

The Hummel was actually an SPG mounting I believe a 150mm howitzer, I always get it confused with the Wespe...both of them were SP artillery pieces.

The Elefant was actually just a VERY heavily armoured box with a very limited traverse 88mm mounted on a Porsche Tiger II chassis, after they had produced a few, and then decided to go with the Henschel chassis for the tank instead. It made it into service before the Tiger II, saw action at Kursk, and was pretty much a failure, mainly because it was slow, underpowered, unreliable, with limited visibility to the sides and rear for the crew, and had no secondary armament, not even a flexible external mg, so it was a sitting duck for any infantry, with even just a Molotov, if unsupported. Mosty of them got pulled from the east and sent to the west after DDay if I remember right. At decent ranges, dug in and supported it was a decent pillbox, but then again most late war German heavy stuff was too. For mobile warfare it was a bust.

[polishshooter]

Well, I looked it up, and the Nashorn and the Hummel were IDENTICAL except the Nashorn had an 88 Pak 43 and the Hummel had the 15cm heavy howitzer. I DON'T have a picture in my one AFV book of the Nashorn (I know I have one in SOME book I have, but it had the picture of the Hummel...and 22s picture shows a longer barrel than the Hummel, a smaller muzzle brake, and no actuator on TOP of the barrel like the picture I have of the howitzer, so I have to go with my original thought, that it is a Nashorn (Rhino.)

[Pistolenschutze]

Probably considered just another effective M-4 killer, Polish, but after all, the Germans had so MANY of those.

[polishshooter]

You know, if I remember right from reading about it, that task force Patton sent to rescue his son-in-law that ALMOST made it ran into 6 Elephants (I think)...they actually made it to the camp and freed the prisoners, but then fought their way back out through an actual Werhmacht armor training range, and all the new cadets had realistic training!

I also remember reading that the task force took M7 105 SPGs for their anti armor protection, with HEAT, and they actually did FINE on the way IN....on the way out was another story...

Maybe instead of HEAT they should have brought along some Molotov cocktails...

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by polishshooter

You know, if I remember right from reading about it, that task force Patton sent to rescue his son-in-law that ALMOST made it ran into 6 Elephants (I think)...they actually made it to the camp and freed the prisoners, but then fought their way back out through an actual Werhmacht armor training range, and all the new cadets had realistic training!

I think you are referring to Patton's infamous raid on Hammelburg, Polish, a prison camp where his son-in-law was supposedly being held. Patton later admitted--arrogant SOB that he was--that this raid was the only decision he regretted making during the war, not because he decided to authorize the raid, but because he sent an insufficient and unsupported force too far behind German lines. Now, if the raiders had been equipped with Tigers . . .

[wolfgang2000]

Polish, I understand that you like the Sherman because of it's logistical superiority. But watching the History channal they stated that in flat land tank fighting they would lose 3 of 4 sherman to 1 tiger. That 15 casualties to 5. The spread was even higher in hedge row country. Maybe to the higher ups that trade-off made sense, but I bet the 15 dead or wounded didn't care for that logic!

That must be where the logic "of it is better to wound the enemy than to kill them", came from.

I'm willing to bet the neither logic was popular with troop on the bleeding end of the stick.

[polishshooter]

Actually, the average rate of tankers KIA per M4 knocked out for the entire war was one...which was actually among the LOWEST loss rate of tank types on all sides...MOST US tankers bailed out from MANY tanks during the course of the war and then went right back into battle in a repaired one...and YES, I know many whole crews were lost with a KO'd M4, but then that would mean 4 or 5 lost with NOBODY killed to hit that average...in fact, ONE of the reasons we gave most of our Shermans to Montgomery before Cobra BESIDES the fact the bocage was a lousy place for tanks, and the open country the Brits were in was better for tanks, WAS the fact the British were getting short of INFANTRY, and they wanted to "reduce losses..."and it worked.

I argue for the M4 not ONLY logistically, but dependability, speed, repairability, ease of maintenance, ease of operation, crew comfort, accuracy on the move, track life, etc., for a lot of the OTHER things that you have to consider in a successful tank BESIDES gun and armor thickness... But also having a "simple" design easy to mass produce by YOUR industrial base is no sin for a tank design EITHER...

The OTHER thing you have to consider is for MOST of the war the Americans were ATTACKING...and actual battle loss rate for the attacker is usually always higher than the defender...

....Which is ANOTHER reason that many people mistakenly give the edge to the late war German tanks...they were MOSTLY used as immobile pillboxes, and well sited, hull down, and camoflaged were TOUGH to knock out and COULD command the ground that any attacker would HAVE to cross...

But contrast THAT with the crew of the 3" Wheeled AT gun that Patton "dressed down" for being set up in the exposed poition in the middle of the crossroads, contrary to his orders for concealment, until the Sgt. in command pointed to the FIVE dead Panthers down the road the gun got the day before, and he just said, "Carry on," and walked away!


MOST Shermans, along with MOST Tanks on either side were NOT knocked out by other TANKS, but by dug in AT guns and Infantry with hollow charged weapons...

[wolfgang2000]

Polish, I understand what you are saying. He!! the (super) sherman is still being used in Israel. But what did the tankers say? Then there is the psych factor. I've stood in front of a Sherman, Tiger and a King Tiger. The Tiger and the King Tiger awe inspiring.

I know we made 50,000 sherman compared to under 3000 of the other 2. For an infantry support vehicle it was good. But when the $h!t hit the fan I want the thickest armor and the bigest gun.

[polishshooter]

I dunno, ....a COLUMN of M4s with the dust trailing behind it at speed racing around the Tigers flank on the road to Hammelburg or Berlin is a pretty awe inspiring thought itself, ESPECIALLY when you consider that BESIDES the fuel issue, and if it moved it got clobbered by a Typhoon, jug or P-38, you would never see a COLUMN of Tigers "at speed" EVER, without a COUPLE of them breaking down or throwing a track, or stopped at a class 3 bridge wondering if it would hold...

And it wasn't much different on the OTHER front either...only the Column of racing tanks driving around them THERE, (which is after all what Tanks are MEANT to do, race around in your REAR...not slug it out toe to toe...) would be T-34s, maybe even KVs, and probably not even the 34/85s....which I reluctantly actually consider the best all around tank of the war...(except for maybe the M4A3E8 HVSS 76mm (wet) which kicked it's @ss (well, OK, maybe "did fairly well against it" is more truthful)(would you believe "held it's own? ) in Korea!) )

The King Tigers WERE impressive size wise, but worthless to the Germans, really. If they could have perfected the Panther, they would have been MUCH better off NEVER having made ANY Tigers....and I'm STILL not sure they wouldn't have been better off just concentrating on the PZKW IVs with the long 75, and trying to make ENOUGH of the proven design, instead of tons of good tanks ON PAPER that never got the bugs worked out, and could never be produced ENOUGH to make a difference...But the Panther was another story, if they could have EVER made them reliable, that MIGHT have been the best overall Tank of the war on either side....

And actually one of the BEST ideas they had was the Hetzer, it killed a lot of Shermans wiht just the "puny" 75, and was tough to knock out because it was so SMALL and hard to spot, but it could scoot too, for an old 1930s chassis....

I really equate the Tigers IIs as just the next gen Char-B...well armored and gunned, but relatively immobile pillboxes...


And don't forget the Tiger I was outfought by the M4s and M4A1s in Africa, Sicily and Italy...anywhere where they WEREN'T dug in as pillboxes...(of course naval gunfire helped too!) maybe it was the "shot trap" vertical glacis, (where did they get THAT great design, the Brits???) but that was one of the reasons Patton and other armored officers did NOT want to replace the 75 M3 gun with the 76mm before Normandy...we thought the Tiger was the best tank the Germans had and the 75 handled it adequately before....and what surprised us in France was the Panther, which we had dismissed as a "novelty" that they would never produce in quantity.

[wolfgang2000]

I understand and agree that the Tiger and (especially) the King Tiger had some problems. Hitler was his own worst enemy. He wanted his wonder weapons.

But you can't tell me the German armor corps. didn't worry the US commanders gray. They went throught the trouble of making up a fictitious army just to tie up the german armor on D day. They chewed up Montie's market garden operation. And as you state it took a column of M4's to take on a tiger. Even if it was broke down.

If Africa did the M4 out fight them, or out supply them?

I guess my point is why did it take the US until the 70's to come up with a GOOD main battle tank. (Abrams)

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by wolfgang2000

I guess my point is why did it take the US until the 70's to come up with a GOOD main battle tank. (Abrams)

Simply put, MONEY and bureaucracy, Wolf. We had some "good" tanks (M48 and M60) but never a truly world class tank until the Abrams made its debut. To be honest, I'm surprised we even built the M1A considering the wrangling in Washington over its cost and the "brilliant" input by such "pro military" people as Proxmire and Kennedy.

[wolfgang2000]

I think the bean counters have killed more US Soliders that the enemy has. It has also been said that a moose is nothing more than a horse designed by committee!

I wonder what would have happed if the US had not been able to produce so many? Can you say "Seig Heil".

[let's trade]

The SPG (technically not a tank) is indeed a NASHORN Look at the roadwheels. Intended more for the very flat Russian Steppes, it was great at shooting at something a long way away, but lakced side armor. Even the pitiful Sherman could knock one out, at the closer range of the West-Europe/hedgerows. It was one more design of a great field gun on an older tank chassis with armor plating 'round it.


Though I know it may cause controversy, if you really read on an in-depth level, the germans were always frantically trying to get enough tanks into the systems, so the many types of Stugs were pressed into service for which they were never designed. You also see that the German war machine was never enough when needed, and that the tanks, while very-very good, weren;t the best. The RUSSIANS, with the Amercian (Christie) inspired T34's, especially the T34/85, had arguably the best tank for general purpose. next up for heavy assault was the IS-2 (the British called it the PIKE), and the SU100 was perhaps one of the best designed SPGS of the time, and this stayed so for some years after the war (Read TASK FORCE SMITH in Korea). All of these were Russian, and were great tanks for the time. The country with the worst arguably was the US and it's Sherman, or the "Tommy Cooker" as the brits called it. History is written by the victors though, so a of late revisionists have beguns saying that the Sherman ("Brew-box" was another name) was not intended as an MBT of the time.

Oh well, that is all the truth if ever I told it, but it should sure stir some up.

[polishshooter]

No way the WORST, that HAS to go to the Brits! Until VERY late in the war MOST of the British tanks were really crap, which is ironic since it was on Salisbury Plain that the Brits actually INVENTED mobile armored warfare...and it was the "lousy" Serman that saved their bacon in the Desert, and was their main tank throughout the war...you KNOW your stuff is bad when you reequip an entire "cruiser" regiment with captured Italian M/13s and the troops considered it an UPGRADE....

No the Sherman was NOT the worst tank by any means in the war, in fact, it really was ONE of the better designs in the whole war, if you TRULY look at more than 'Gun size/armour"...but I do have to give the edge to the Russian stuff...

Incidentally, the Russian "Tankists" referred to the T-34 as the 'Lighter" for the same reason, it "flamed" too easily in their view...and it was even a DIESEL. It didn't really, it was MOST of the earlier Russian stuff, BTs, KVs, and all their light tanks and A/Cs that flamed easily, but PERCEPTIONS are tough to fight...

Most of the "bad press" on the M4 came from inexperienced US tankers in Africa, and from the hedgerows, where ANY tank would have had trouble ATTACKING....after the "wet" storage and applique armor became standard in late '44 they flamed about as much as any other gas powered tank in the war...but "reputations" and nicknames are tough to forget, easy to remember....

I'm sure the Germans had equally "ear catching" nicknames for THEIR flamers too...and they DID flame, probably as much or worse. While I have yet to read any such names, I HAVE read many times of German panzertruppen complaining about fuel leakages in MOST of their designs, so they PROBABLY would have had "flamer" stories too..

Plus, it's ironic about the 'Tommy Cooker..." One of the common causes of M4s "Brewing up" in British service was "Brewing up!"

The Brits issued a little GASOLINE powered stove to their tankers, and the BOG's job was to brew up tea for the crew whenever possible, and MANY times did it ON THE MOVE with the stove between his legs!

I read a book where MANY Brit Sherman's had to be abandoned quickly in flames on road marches when that darn lit stove FELL over....THOSE "flamers" don't COUNT!

[IBFrank]

The Sherman wasn't a great, or even good tank. It's just that we made so many of them that the Germans couldn't kill all of them. They were like swarms of ants sent into the jaws of hell. Some were bound to get through despite hell.

[polishshooter]

I disagree wholeheartedly! It WAS a 'Great" Tank! I have argued for a LONG time it was the BEST tank of the war, even though I usually will concede the T-34/85 was the ACTUAL best, even though relatively FEW saw action as compared to the T-34A through C models with the 76mm that the Russians ACTUALLY used to win the war...the M4 was EQUAL to those models....

Mechanically, and reliability wise, hands-down the BEST tank of the war! It started, just about every time, and just didn't break down anywhere NEAR what the German or Russian tanks did! And when it DID, OR was "Knocked out," it was easily repaired and "up," usually in less than 24 hours! It could AVERAGE 2500 road miles on it's treads, NO other WWII tank would do 500....even the vaunted GERMANS designed their "Great" Panthers and Tigers to be moved any distance by RAIL, which pretty much means you'd better HAVE rails, AND air superiority to protect the ones you HAVE (not very smart!) the M4 could make it there and THEN still fight.

The VVSS suspension system WAS too narrow, I WILL give you that...BUT it WAS reliable, easily repaired, and did NOT freeze up with mud or ice like the "interleaved" German crap, and the HVSS system after mid-44 was probably the best of BOTH worlds...good reliability and MUCH better on soft ground or snow...

Granted, the various Gasoline powerplants WERE a handicap, but the M4a2 Diesel WAS available, and used pretty well by the Marines, who always had diesel available because of the Landing craft, and the Free French and Polish, IF they could find fuel. It was NOT a design "flaw," but a decision to keep from having to ship TWO types of fuel across the Atlantic, and then across France. YES it cost lives, but it probably WAS the right choice logistically... And what OTHER tank design of WWII could run reliably on SO MANY different powerplants? From aircraft radials to diesels, to paired bus engines to 4 or 5 coupled Dodge 6 cylinders? And no matter WHAT, STILL be able to have a complete powerplant change in HOURS, not days like the German stuff...(although after seeing the coupled Dodges, THAT would have been a nightmare! )

It was more accurate with it's main gun ON THE MOVE than any other tank of the war...and the 75mm M3 gun was MORE powerful than the 76mm T-34 gun which with the Russians won the war in the east, so it was NOT undergunned no matter what the "experts" say...and the 76mm with hypershot COULD defeat any German tank frontally, granted, at 600m or less, but it COULD. The CRIME is we didn't have ENOUGH of it, and the TDs got first crack at it...but considering the MAIN use of any taqnk gun is HE, fired at infantry, Bunkers, gun emplacements, the 75 WAS "good enough" for most fights...REMEMBER, tank vs tank fights were RARE in WWII, especially in Western Europe....

For MOBILE armored warfare, which is what it is ALL about, NOT "Tank vs. Tank" at "high noon," I and many others would argue the M4 series was the BEST tank and AFV SYSTEM of the war, PERIOD. WHAT chassis during the war was that VERSATILE? SPGs, TDs, APCs, DDs, Crabs, Flails, 105 CS, flamethrowers, Dumbos, Recovery Vehicles, all from the same type, of "lousy" tank???

And NO tank NOT great would last THAT long! The longevity of the design, right up to the "Super Shermans" in the Golan Heights and the Sinai taking on some of the BEST Soviet stuff in the 80s???

You want pillboxes? Take ANY German tank....you want to break through, rampage through the rear, and advance 100 miles TODAY????


The ONLY one that could do that was an M4...


WHEN was Germany successfull with the Blitzkrieg? When they had "INFERIOR" tanks in both quantity and quality from 39 through late 41, that could road march...

I LOVE this argument...

[polishshooter]

And IBFrank, you got me fired up again! (I SAID I LOVE this argument...)

That OTHER "Myth," that we only won because we "outproduced" them in tanks, also fires me up! It was first advanced by GERMAN Generals after the war as an "excuse" to cover up their poor performance in Europe against American armor, that was bought hook line and sinker by their "new" allies, the AMERICANS, who were now facing off against our "Old" Allies, the Soviets...MUCH crap was bought by our military, who fell into a "lovefest" relationship with the former "honorable" German officer corp...

We produced a TOTAL of 46,732 M4 Tanks from 42 to 45, Yes, the Germans only produced 18, 870 tanks during the same period...


BUT 22,098 of them went directly to OUR Allies with Lend-Lease...yes, a LOT of them fought against the Germans too, BUT many of them went to Free French, Dutch, Polish etc, units that did NOT see action, or were in MANY different theaters, and THOUSANDS of them went to the CBI, South Pacific, and Central Pacific to fight against the JAPS. NOT counting the ones used stateside for TRAINING.

Of the ACTUAL number of M4s in American service actually IN Europe after June 44, the numbers were NOT overwhelmingly one sided!


MUCH of the "one sided" in numbers comes from the fact that so MANY knocked out M4s were so easily repaired, and sent back into service with a different crew within 24 HOURS, while many German tanks even if they HAD fuel broke down with relatively MINOR mechanical difficulties and were ABANDONED. FEW German tanks "knocked out" were EVER returned to service. MAINLY because they WERE so complicated mechanically and were almost IMPOSSIBLE to repair without a machine shop.

What REALLY frosts my cookies is why doesn't anybody use that as a slam against the "superior" T-34????? The Russians produced over 65,000 of them, and virtually ALL of them were used against just the Germans in ONE big theater! If ANY country "overwhelmed" Germany with production quantity instead of quality it was the SOVIETS. (Who ALSO used a large quantity of M4s that we sent them through lend-lease!)

Secondly, this "myth" that American Tanks were knocked out in droves by German tanks...it JUST didn't happen! MOST German victories in tank v. tank "battles" were scored by SMALL units of German armor lying in AMBUSH who would shoot up COLUMNS of M4s before they knew what hit them, and scoot away. WHENEVER the M4s maneuvered, AFTER the initial ambush, they WON. Smoke smoke smoke, get in close, nail them in the side. High losses by ATTACKING units against DEFENDING units is NORMAL......and the M-4s more often than NOT were the ones attacking, because they COULD.


BUT, what guys who "buy" the "myths" about the M4 NEVER talk about is the fact that in EVERY "real" Tank vs Tank UNIT mobile fight in the West, the M4 WON going away! ESPECIALLY when the Germans were ATTACKING. The ONLY close fight was the Bulge, in MOSERABLE conditions, and even WITHOUT air interference and WITH total surprise the "vaunted" Panzers were STOPPED. When the weather CLEARED they were ROUTED. Mainly with M4s and M10s! And Patton's disengagement from a MAJOR battle across the Moselle, a 90 degree turn, and high speed run of THAT distance in 48 hours to slam into the flank of the Germans in a SNOWSTORM could NOT have been done with any other contemporary tank, SORRY. That ALONE makes it a contender for "best." THAT is what won the Bulge, and was the ONE thing we did tactically that caught the GERMANS by surprise. (Besides the fact the American Infantry fought even surrounded so much harder than they thought the "soft" Americans could fight...) WHY???? BECAUSE they KNEW "tanks" just couldn't DO that....(Their's and anyone ELSE's anyway!)

Arracourt? September 44? First day score, Germans attacking, 107 German Tanks, 30 assault guns destroyed, American losses were 14 M4s and 7 M5s! After ythe last day of the battle, the final tally was 285 German AFVs of all types destroyed for a loss of 25 US tanks of all types, and 7 M10s. In fact this action, along with the French 2e Division (incidentally with M4s) smashing another counterattacking Panzer Brigade a few days later, was the LAST "large" German armored action in the West until the Bulge, and AFTER the bulge there were NONE.

It is PURELY a MYTH of WWII that the M4 was "bad," in "tank vs tank," the FACTS do not bear that up. It did WELL.


MOST M4s lost and brewed up, and granted, there were a LOT knocked out, were NOT knocked out by "superior" German tanks! They were knocked out MAINLY in Africa, SIcily, Italy and most of 44 in Western Europe by the GREAT German AT guns, usually NOT the "dreaded 88,"" although plenty were lost to it, but MOSTLY their great long 75mm wheeled AT gun....and AFTER late 44 MOST that were lost were lost to INFANTRY with Panzerfausts....

[Pistolenschutze]

I must beg to differ with my learned Polish friend . . .

Originally Posted by polishshooter

The ONLY close fight was the Bulge, in MOSERABLE conditions, and even WITHOUT air interference and WITH total surprise the "vaunted" Panzers were STOPPED.

The Panzers and Tigers were stopped, Polish, mostly because they ran out of bloody petrol and because the weather finally cleared enough for Allied air cover to become effective again.

Originally Posted by polishshooter

MUCH of the "one sided" in numbers comes from the fact that so MANY knocked out M4s were so easily repaired, and sent back into service with a different crew within 24 HOURS . . .

That is true, Polish; they were returned to combat and it damn sure was with a different crew . . . the previous crew having been scraped off the inside of the tank, or their burned and dessicated carcuses having been discretely removed and the inside of the tank repainted. And, of course, the neat 88mm hold in the tank's turret carefully repaired.

Polish, to assert, as you seem to be, that the 75mm gun on the Sherman was effective against Tiger armor is simply absurd. The fact remains that it rarely penetrated the German armor unless it was at close range and from behind where the armor was thinest.

Face it, Polish, the M4 was a lousy tank compared the the German armor, and a slam to the brave men who crewed those tanks. What makes it such a slam is that the U.S. was perfectly capable of building a FAR better tank with a gun (a 90mm) that would have actually gotten the job done at far less cost to American personnel. Yes, the M4 ultimately did the job, history records that. But I still say the cost was much, much higher than it should have been.

[polishshooter]

WRONG, again, PS, most US crews were NOT scraped off the inside....US tank crews on AVERAGE suffered ONE KIA per knocked out tank....the four REMAINING crewmen with ONE replacement, usually put in to start as a BOG, would return to battle TODAY in an M4 repaired YESTERDAY. I BELIEVE that was one of the LOWEST per tank lost casualty rate of the war for any combatant,,,,ANOTHER "myth..." SORRY to shake your core beliefs!

Second, relatively FEW M4s (except in Africa, MAYBE) were knocked out by an "88." SORRY! (ANOTHER myth!) Most with a hole in the side would be from a 75, or a burn mark from a Panzerfaust. The Germans did NOT use the Flakpanzer 88 as an AT gun that often, another myth, and they didn't develop a dedicated 88 wheeled AT gun until 1943, and again, weren't able to produce enough of them, and MOST of them went to the EAST as quickly as they were produced! And similarly, the numbers of tanks and TDs with 88s was relatively low in number compared to other AFVs in production, in only the low THOUSANDS, and AGAIN, most of THEM went East...not ONLY because the Russians had more armor, BUT most AFVs with 88s were just too darn HEAVY for available bridges in Western Europe! ANY campaoign in Western Europe has to cross TONS of N-S rivers the whole way. so "heavy" tanks were worthless....

And YES PS, the 75 mm M3 Knocked out quite a few Tigers, Hell, the 1917 75mm HOWITZER on the M3 GMCs knocked out many Tigers in AFRICA. THAT'S the reason we CHOSE not to upgun the M4 before Normandy! The 75 was adequate against the Tigers, and we didn't want to complicate the supply chain. And the M2 gun on the EARLY M4s was based on that gun ballistically, the M3 DP gun had a higher velocity. GRANTED, it could NOT penetrate it frontally, but it didn't HAVE to. It was a moribund beast with a SLOW turret and an even SLOWER reloading rate, so if it MISSED with the first shot on the slow moving or stopped M4, it sure as HECK would miss one suddenly moving FAST to the flank, all the time RAPIDLY smothering the Tiger with WP smoke (the 75 was a "DP" gun, designed for relatively RAPID fire and the turret revolved QUICKLY) while it easily moved to the flank and nailed it with an AP shot to the side or rear. It happened a LOT, whether you want to hear it or not. Even IF the accompanying M4A1(76)(w) or the M10 or M36 didn't take it out frontally already. It was only after we met PANTHERS, that we quickly rethought the 76mm. We blew that one, we thought the few Panthers we saw in Sicily were just an experiment and it would never go into production. We HAD seen and faced Tigers by then too, and CORRECTLY recognized that they would not be a problem, too few, too slow to produce, too big, too slow, too unreliable, a nuisance at best...and again, the 75mm M3 HANDLED it...you KEEP ignoring that fact, why???? THe Tiger II when it finally appeared was no secret, and it was even MORE merely a "curiosa" to the war effort...insignificant to the outcome and a drain on German resources.

Granted, the Tiger II was harder to handle, even from the side, good thing they broke down even more than the Tiger, had an even SLOWER turret speed and the gun took LONGER to reload, so you could get to the rear of it pretty fast...and since they NEVER had large formation of them EXCEPT for in the Ardennes, but since they were so BIG no bridges in the Ardennes could handle them so all they did was waste fuel running around to the south and MISSED the main fighting, and since you WOULD probably only face one or two at a time the rest of the war they were, again, insignificant at best....SORRY to burst your bubble!

You Germanophiles are all alike, Tiger Tiger Tiger, while the ONLY late war German tank that gave the M4 fits was the PANTHER....THAT was the best German Tank by far, no question, it's a good thing they never got IT reliable....and it had nicely SLOPED armor, which DID make most 75 hits bounce off, so it didn't NEED 8 Inches/20 tons of extra weight on the turret and running gear. And it's long 75mm WAS a much better tank gun than the 88, almost as high velocity, and quicker reloading times, less weight so quicker turret speed too....


And as far as a "slam to the brave men who crewed those tanks" you could NOT be farther from the truth. In fact so much so I am disappointed in you... The M4 COMPLIMENTED those very same brave AND resourceful men who used them to their FULL advantage in the way tanks are MEANT to be used, MOBILE, AGILE, HOSTILE, not like the poor Germans waiting to die behind their 8 inches of immobile Krupp steel under some wilted cut brush camoflage hoping to get one or two killing shots off before that happened, knowing full well as soon as your tank MOVES, (if it even STARTS, and doesn't strip a gear in the fragile transmission, or throw a track) it's going to get NAILED by an M4 or M10, "from the rear" (YES, PS, the Germans complained LOUDLY and OFTEN about US tanks "suddenly shooting at them from the REAR...") but even if they DO get hull down and run away before that happens, a Jabo will plaster them 2 minutes later....THAT was the "slam to brave men....)


No, the M4 was not in any WAY a "lousy" tank.

YES it MIGHT have been better with a lower silhouette...but today "crew comfort" is a big design feature for fighting efficiency in a tank, and the fact is that a cramped, tired crew makes fatal mistakes TOO, so that MIGHT be a wash....Maybe....


YES it should have had better sloped armor, but that WAS addressed with the new 47 degree glacis introduced in most M4s produced after mid 44, which helped somewhat.

It SHOULD have been designed with thicker armor...and the Dumbo assault tanks were. There are quite a few tales of German rounds bouncing off the Dumbos. Unfortunately, the extra weight didn't help the speed, or track life, due to the limitations VVSS, so not many were issued, and just to "spearhead" units. However the applique armor first added as "field expedients" WERE made into "kits," so many M4s were upgraded before the end of the war.

The VVSS system while reliable, easy to maintain, and having great road speed, track life, and stability to help accuracy of fire on the move, only allowed relatively narrow tracks. This gave the M4 better road speed than MANY tanks, but gave it worse cross country/soft ground performance than most German tanks. Grousers helped, but tended to throw off at speed, so negated some advantage of the narrow tracks. However, AGAIN, detractors ALWAYS ignore the HVSS system developed in 44, that MOST late war M$s had, or got retrofitted, which MAY have been the BEST suspension on a tank in the WAR! High road speed, with wider tracks, so MUCH better off road speed and traction as well! Why do you ignore THAT? Plus could carry more WEIGHT, so now we see MORE applique kits, better armor, and the 105mm Howitzer tanks, which could incidently defeat Tiger IIs with HEAT rounds pretty decently, as WELL as shoot BIGGER WP shells to smother them for the rest of the M4s to go 'round!


And you STILL don't face the fact that there were FEW Tank vs. Tank battles in the west at ALL. So arguing that the Tiger or Panther was better is hypothetical at best, irrelevant at worse! Since MOST M4s were used to rout out INFANTRY, the 75mm HE round, firing fast, was GREAT for that! Which is WHY ALL M4s were NOT converted to the 76mm!!! In fact, it is generally conceded the BEST US units had MIXED platoons, 3 M4a1 (or3)(75w) and two M4a1 (or 3) (76w). Again BY THE WAY, that 76mm is the SAME 76mm by the way that killed more German Tanks in the west than ANY other gun , and again you ignore the "hypershot." which COULD penetrate Tigers AND Panthers Frontally. The only CRIME is that we didn't have MORE of those rounds, most tanks were lucky to have TWO of them in the racks....(but the Hellcats and M10s were making good use of THEIRS on the Tigers and Panthers, so I guess it's a wash too....)


You REALLY have to open your mind, PS, and quit being blinded by the "happy Horse hockey" of "Conventional wisdom!"

Your MAIN mistake is not recognizing the BRILLIANCE of the design as a WHOLE! Not ONLY was it so easy to mass produce, it was reliable, "just the right size" to SHIP thousands quickly from Detroit and Lima, Ohio ALL OVER THE WORLD where it would make a telling contribution NOW, not 5 YEARS from now, but it was ALSO reliable, probably the best tank MECHANICALLY in the world, with MANY "innovations," like the gyro sight which allowed it to HIT on the move...but also was so easily ADAPTED to changing conditions and requirements! What OTHER tank in the world went through SO many CHANGES during the war???? Uparmored, upgunned, up engined (sic) (don't forget even to the 105 NATO gun with thermal sights making it VIABLE in the 1980s and 90s!) BESIDES making TDs, SPGs, Flails, flamethrowers, etc, etc, from the SAME chassis! MAYBE the Panzer IV came CLOSE, but it was too small and underpowered to add MUCH more gun or armor....HHHmmm...the Syrians DID use a Panzer IV as a Pillbox in the Golan in the 80s, fitting for a GERMAN tank, even MORE fitting that a MOVING Super Sherman knocked it OUT...


Sorry, PS, you lose. The M4 WAS "arguably" one of MAYBE the top 5 BEST tank design of the war...and the only "argument" would be where in the 5 it would rank....In my book no less than second, to the T-34...and ONLY because of the better sloped armor and production numbers....everything else is a wash.