Myth buster threads: comments

Look ilija, don't go saying things like this. No one has said anything anyhting about some American soldier lying, if you are referring to Belton Cooper and "Deathtraps", well the point is he is not right about everything he writes in his book. The US 2nd Armored Division (Cooper served with the 3rd AD) story, "Hell on Wheels" gives a much different view of the Sherman. The US 3rd AD suffered much heavier tank losses than any othe rUS Armored Divsion, this may have had a major ipat on cooper's opinions. You can't base everthing on one source and then ignore everything else. Yes, many US generals (and many other allied soldiers of all ranks) were not happy with the Sherman (especially the gun for anti-tank work, but also the armor) and felt US technology and industry was capable of producing better tanks, which they were. But the point is that the Sherman was not a bad tank, and there are quotes from Montgomery, Patton, Bradley and many others saying just that. Some allied tankers valued the HE power pf the 75mm over the anti-tank value of the 76mm. The fact that the US could have (and probably should have) produced a better tank than the Sherman is not proof that the Sherman was a bad tank. The Soviets could have produced a better tank than the T-34 (liek the T-43), but the fact that they didn't doesn't mean the T-34 is a bad tank. Maybe it's just possible that there are people on this forum who have looked more deeply into the Sherman than you have and after sorting through the facts and contradictions have come to different conclusions than you. Maybe you are not smartest one here, or you could even be the one that's not listening.

 

I don't think it's even sure it was a Firefly that made the kill...

 

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink :roll:

 

post subject

If you are refering to Wittmann look at last but one post on 'tank Aces'.
in 'Tank warfare in WW2'.

 

The name of the guy who fired the killing shot is known - I'd say that's pretty close to knowing for certain. There is absolutely no evidence to substantiate the Typhoon story.

 

Oh boy, lots of posts since I was last on - and lots of circular arguments...

I will go over a few of them... After all, I am the chap responsible for the Sherman Myth-Buster, so I should be here to answer the criticisms...

Trouble is, I've kinda got a bit lost about where some of the arguments ended up. :roll:


First thing I will say is this: Belton Y Cooper wrote a book in which he put down everything that was wrong with the M4 Sherman, both from his specialised viewpoint as their field mechanic, and from what serving crewmen told him.
Nobody has ever accused him of lying, however we (and especially I) have accused him of writing a very biased account, with comparisons deliberately stacked against the Sherman. Take a look at my review of the book in the Library section.

Most importantly to this debate, Nowhere in this book does Belton ever mention that Shermans were especially prone to catch fire, nowhere in his book does he mention that they were ever called 'Ronsons' (or similar), and several times he notes that common German practice was to continue firing on knocked-out Shermans until they caught fire.

Belton also never mentions the '5 vs 1' tactic, something that surely would make it into a book written to criticise the tank?


The Myth of the Sherman was based upon the early versions, the M4 and M4A1, which had an inadequate AT gun, relatively weak armour, and vulnerable ammunition and fuel storage. Later models of the Sherman had all these faults rectified.

When the Pz.IV first appeared it had very weak armour and a gun with even poorer AT performance than the Sherman's. These faults too were rectified, yet nobody judges the Pz.IV on the Ausf.B varient.


When the M4 first arrived in service (North Africa) it was the best tank in service on either side. It was only matched (in theatre) by the arrival of the Pz.IV Special (yes, that isn't the German designation) with the L/48 gun, which arrived initially in the grand total of three machines, and which were sent into battle without ammunition...

But I digess...


Wet Stowage.

Was it installed purely because the tank caught fire easily, or was it to help save the crew in case it did? Well, one thing to consider is why all post-WW2 tanks have wet stowage? Are they are tinder-boxes?


Nicknames.

I posted a thread somewhere asking if anybody could find any actual evidence that Shermans were ever given the nicknames 'Ronson' and 'Tommy Cooker'. Nothing came up. And so far, nothing still has, except the fact that 'everyone says so'. Lots of 'facts' about WW2 - nicknames in particular - have been distorted or invented since. For example, I read a very interesting article, written by a respected aviation historian working from original documents and interviews with ex-servicement, dealing with the nickname of the P-47 'Thunderbolt'. The majority of books you read will state that it was nicknamed 'Jug' during WW2. Which is poppycock. It was nicknamed 'Juggernaught' - the contraction did not appear until later. I do not trust nicknames for which there is no evidence. Find me a diary of a serviceman from WW2 with the words "We got issued with Shermans today. The lads call them Ronsons because they catch fire if you sneeze. Sorry about the burnt page, only I have a cold..."

Ok, so I've been a little silly with that, but hey


In short "Everyone says so" is no reason to believe something. Evidence is a much better reason.


Which is the very princile of the Myth Buster topic. We had seemingly endless numbers of topics that basically consisted of people coming onto the forum, stating something as though it were fact, and then having to be argued down to reality by actual facts. The 4 biggest offenders were

"The T-34 was the best tank ever, bar none"

"The Tiger was the best / worst tank in history"

"The Sherman was a crummy piece of poo"

"The Me262 could have won Germany the war"

The intention was that the Myth-Busters would remove the more need to bother replying to the dumber members, and that they would spark a better level of debate with the smart ones, like ilija.

The Myth-Busters would deal with the 'widely known facts' about these vehicles, and apply actual facts to them. Which they have done, and they appear to be fairly successful They are not a re-write of history, they are not following any agenda (at least not intentionally) and if you look at the various comments threads for them all, anything in them which can be disproved is taken out or re-written.

 

I'm currently transscribing the after-action reports of the 38th Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron (Mecz), 'Ronson' hasn't been mentioned so far. The class is the most commonly used designation (medium tanks, light tanks, assault guns, tanks destroyers, armoured cars) for the US equipment (for those wondering, the 'assault guns' appears to refer to the Medium Tank, M4 (150 mm Howitzer)). 'Sherman' has been mentioned in passing, and since some of the pages used is captured German paper, we can therefore with certainty say that 'Sherman' was used as a nickname by the US forces. Pseudo-proper designations, such as 'M10' and 'M-8' are also used, so these designations were also employed.

 

I'm not sure if you're being serious or not, so:
The T72 is known for it's carousel being extremely vulnerable if the tank is penetrated, the Leopard and Centurion both are dry and can go up if hit in the right location, the M1 and Leopard 2 both use bulkheads and blow out panels to protect the crew (to varying degrees) from ammunition fires instead of wet-stowage, and the Chieftain and Challenger do in fact have a pressurised water jacket around the charge bins.

So there are tanks that are definitely tinderboxes, there are methods other than wet stowage to deal with ammunition fires, and wet stowage is still used today.

 

Ok, ok, all is a silly statement. However, you have supported my argument quite well - without some form of countermeasure in place, even modern tanks are highly vulnerable to ammunition-based fire.

 

Well, in response to the initial post by Roel, I will only say that the T-34, in whatever version you wish to consider, was arguably the best tank of the war.

No German tank of similar design year could stand up to it, and yes, it continued in service throughout the war, just as many obsolete German tanks did.

To compare a T-34 to later German designs is ridiculous in nature, and like comparing a PZ II to a JS-2.

The design superiority of the T-34 for its time is no myth. It is reality.

- Greg

 

Hey Greg! Lovely to see you back!

Long time no see...

 

Thanks Ricky,

Been quite busy working on gaming rules for ancient miniatures, and about a year ago had a computer crash and lost a bunch of web "favorites".

Received an email from this group yesterday on PM's and managed to find the site again.

- Greg

:smok:

 

Good to have you back

Quite interesting too, in that since the PM was most likely from a recently banned spammer, this is actually a case of a spammer doing something good. Go figure... :-?

 

I thought there was evidence that supported the claims made by The Sherbrooke Fusiliers and the clamims made by the 1st Northamptonshire Yeomanry (Joe Ekins) but that it wasn't certain who made the kill...and we know how reliable witness acounts are (but it's still very likely he (Joe) was the one who made the kill)

Here is the interview posted:
http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopi ... 3&start=60

Redcoat... why the insult :-?
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink
(have you been there with camera so that you can tell and proove us precisly what happened)

 

Its not an insult, its an old British proverb.

It means you can give a person the facts, but that doesn't mean they will take any notice of them.

It wasn't meant as an insult.
I apologize if I offended you

 

I knew it was a proverb (but still comparing someone with a horse... :-? )
Apology accepted ofcourse as i see it wasn't intended as an insult

I think the problem with these "facts" is that unfortunatly no-one knows completly certain what happened (altough one is most likely...the other can't be rejected completly).
But does it really matter who made the kill?

 

Whell,if the firefly made the kill,then sherman is not so crapy tank,i think that they try to proowe :lol: But T-34/85 scored first kills on King tiger,so does that proowe that he was betther tank?

One otther thing about sherman,fact that u all try to avoid.His armor (slopes).He was a bit sloped by front armor,but side armor had no slopes at all.

 

And the Churchill was the first Western Allied tank to kill Tiger I. It is fairly meaningless who was the first to kill what. The example concerning Wittman was to disprove the notion that Allied tanks were soooo crappy that it took overwhelming aerial superiority to knock out a Tiger I with an expert crew.

What it does prove is that, to use the 3 examples above:

T-34/85 can penetrate the side armour of a Tiger II at reasonable ranges

Sherman Firefly can kill the Tiger I at reasonable ranges

The Churchill (and therefore any tank with the 6pdr gun) can kill the Tiger I (sadly I don't know the circumstances of the kill)

Nobody has tried to avoid it. In fact, the Sherman has been attacked fairly constantly for not having enough slope (a tad unfair).

How many other tanks had effectivly-sloped side armour?

The Pz.IV? Nope - it didn't even have sloped front armour.

The Panther? Well, it was sloped, but just. The Panther side armour was a known weakness of the design.

The Tiger I? Nope - it didn't even have sloped front armour.

The Tiger II? Well, it was sloped, but just.

Any British/Italian/Japanese/French/Hungarian/Czechoslovakian/Polish tank? Nope - they didn't even have sloped front armour.

T-34? Yes.

KV-1? Nope - it didn't even have sloped front armour.

JS-1 & 2? Nope.

So, in reality, the only tank produced during WW2 to have side armour with a worthwhile slope was the T-34. And you single out the Sherman for special criticism?

 

Take a look at these scale drawings:

M4: http://www.onwar.com/tanks/usa/profiles/pm4.htm

Panther: http://www.onwar.com/tanks/germany/prof ... ntherd.htm

T-34: http://www.onwar.com/tanks/ussr/profiles/pt347640.htm

They are in roughly ascending order of degree of slope. However, you will notice that the Sherman has *roughly* 45 degrees of slope - hardly 'a bit'

Take a look around onwar.com, look at the other tanks and their frontal slopes.

 

Imagine tiger I with good sloped armor.What will be his armor protection? Hardly any german WWII armor had good sloped design,tiger II and panther was just first begginings of that,but tiger I was no sloped at all,but he got really good armor protection and powerful gun,so it denie his "slope flaw" a bit.Panzer IV ,what is same class as T-34 r sherman was ,i think the worst tank of that 3 by design.But german had alot betther tanks from Pz.IV,and US sherman was one of best western allys tank and there is diference. Soviet T-34 and IS-2 was fairly best designed tanks for their class (IS-2 weightet roughly as panther).Again i dont say that sherman was completly crap from the tank,he done his job,he was good,but far from excelent.His engline was underpowered when he match T-34,power to weight ratio was betther on T-34,combat range was betther on T-34,speed was betther on T-34,gun was aproximatly the same,armor protection allso,but T-34 got betther sloped armor,sherman was taller then T-34,etc.